Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Kazakhstan on its Constitution Day. Kazakhstan celebrates Constitution Day on August 30.

Constitution Day is one of the most important state holidays in the country. On August 30, 1995, as a result of a nationwide referendum, Kazakhstan's Constitution--the supreme national law--was adopted establishing the rules and principles of building Kazakhstan as an independent, sovereign, and economically liberal, democracy.

All internationally recognized rights and freedoms are enshrined in the Constitution, thus making it a modern and progressive basis for a sustainable movement towards a full-fledged democratic system. Democracy is a gradual process and so I commend President Nursultan Nazarbayev for his extraordinary leadership in bringing about equality and unity, and in guaranteeing the growth and well-being of every citizen of the country.

Constitutional amendments approved in May 2007 will cede the powers of the President to the Parliament in a thoughtful way that protects the country's sovereignty and the rights of its citizens. The Constitution allows for accelerated economic reform while maintaining political and social stability and the Constitution consolidates the values the people of Kazakhstan have held for many centuries. It also consolidates unity among more than 120 nationalities of Kazakhstan.

In tribute to President Nazarbayev and all that he has accomplished for and on behalf of the people of Kazakhstan, I enter this statement for the historical record. President Nazarbayev has spared no effort in securing the rights to life and liberty for all Kazakhstanis. Because of his vision, Kazakhstan is also Central Asia's leader and a global leader on issues of importance, including nuclear non-proliferation.

So, once more, I congratulate the people of Kazakhstan on Constitution Day, and I send them my very best wishes for a peaceful and prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Prime Minister Mohd Najib Bin Tun Haji Abdul Razak of Malaysia on his re- election in May 2013.

Dato' Sri Najib is the eldest son of the second Prime Minister, Tun Abdul Razak Hussein. He received his primary and secondary education at St. John's Institution. For secondary education, he attended the Malvern Boys' College in Worcestershire, England. In 1974, he graduated from the University of Nottingham with a degree in Industrial Economics.

At the very young age of 23, Dato' Sri Najib was elected a Member of Parliament following the sudden passing of his father in 1976. Dato' Sri Najib later served as Deputy Minister of Energy, Telecommunication and Post, Deputy Minister of Education, Deputy Minister of Finance, Minister of Culture, Minister of Defense, Minister of Education, and Minister of Finance.

In service to his country, Prime Minister Najib has built a world- class education system in Malaysia and modernized the armed forces, making it a leaner fighting force capable of handling any conventional threats. He has also improved the quality of public services, introduced a new cabinet position in charge of unity and performance management, and implemented a New Economic Model with reforms to create a business environment conducive to economic growth, development and investment.

Due to his extraordinary leadership, Prime Minister Najib is driving the nation forward. I commend Prime Minister Najib for rolling back race-based policies and obligating $2.6 billion in spending programs benefitting poor families. I also commend him for bringing about peace, prosperity and stability in a country that others seek to undermine for their own political purposes and gain.

Because Malaysia is a significant regional and global partner of the United States, I pay special tribute to Prime Minister Najib for winning the people's mandate. Malaysians turned out in record numbers to vote and the will of the Malaysian people is reflected in the results. Consequently, U.S.-Malaysia relations will remain strong. In fact, to reaffirm the strong bonds of friendship between the United States and Malaysia, President Obama made a surprise phone call to Prime Minister Najib to congratulate him on his victory. President Obama is also expected to participate in the two-day Global Entrepreneurship Summit to be held in Kuala Lumpur in October of this year.

I acknowledge Malaysian Parliament Member and Special Envoy to the United States, Dr. Jamaluddin Jarjis, for the exemplary service he continues to render in bolstering the U.S.-Malaysia partnership for and on behalf of Prime Minister Najib and the people of Malaysia. Prime Minister Najib has earned the respect of many at home and abroad, and I am pleased that he has the full and unwavering support of the United States as he enters his second term as Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to wish Carson Williams a Happy Birthday.

Carson was born on July 30, 1999 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He is the son of Carlton Williams and Gretchen Richards.

Carson attends Signal Mountain Middle High School--home of the Eagles--located in Signal Mountain, Tennessee. From the time he could swing a bat, Carson played t-ball and Dixie Youth baseball. Today, Carson plays baseball for the Signal Mountain Middle High School varsity team. He is one on the best ball players on Signal Mountain.

As well as baseball, Carson loves to wake board, snow board, and play basketball. He kayaks, fishes and camps with his dad. Sometimes they go to the Nantahala River. They are best friends forever.

Carson and his mom are best friends forever, too. Carson and his mom do school projects together and cook. Carson also spends time on the lake with his mom and stepdad Mike. At 13 years old, Carson earned his boating license. He now drives a pontoon. Carson and Mike also like to hunt together. They hunt in Alabama, and anywhere else with lots of woods.

Carson loves Funyuns, Dr. Pepper, sea food, rare prime rib, and his family. He is proud to be from Tennessee.

Carson's sister is Margot Clark, married happily ever after to Justin.

Carson's grandparents on his paternal side are the late Thomas ``Papa'' Williams, a graduate of Texas A&M (Class of '60), and Mildred ``Mimi'' Williams, a retired school teacher who graduated from the University of South Carolina Aiken where she was a Who's Who Among Students in American Colleges and Universities. Carson says no one makes chicken and dumplings better than his Mimi. Carson misses his Papa.

On his maternal side, Carson's grandparents are Albert and Betty Jones, and Mike and Sue Richards. Albert is a graduate of Sewanee: The University of the South. Betty graduated from the University of Tennessee and was a tennis coach at Chattanooga State. She is teaching Carson to play tennis. Mike is a graduate of Auburn University, and Sue graduated from Troy State and earned a Master's degree from the University of Alabama. Grandma Sue is one of the best cooks Carson knows.

Carson's aunts are Lisa Williams, Cindy Jones, and Lynn Civitts.

Carson wants a truck one day soon. For now, he has to make do with happy birthday wishes from his family.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Uzbekistan on 22 years of independence. The United States has supported Uzbekistan's sovereignty following its independence from the Soviet Union in 1991.

Uzbekistan is a key partner in supporting international efforts in Afghanistan. Uzbekistan has supported North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) troops in Afghanistan through provision of electricity, development of rail infrastructures and the Northern Distribution Network. Uzbekistan was the United States' main regional partner in the war on terrorism.

But our relationship with Uzbekistan has developed beyond Afghanistan. I commend President Islam Karimov for strengthening U.S.- Uzbekistan relations and for providing stability in one of the world's tougher neighborhoods. Under his leadership, the United States and Uzbekistan are cooperating on security, economic relations, political and civil society issues, agricultural development, transnational crime, and the threat of infectious disease.

As a result of strong bilateral relations between our countries, Uzbekistan is becoming an attractive investment location for United States companies including Coca-Cola, Case New Holland, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Caterpillar, and others. Just last year, 50 executives from top United States companies took part in the annual Uzbekistan- U.S. Business Forum.

With the largest population in Central Asia and a fast-growing economy, Uzbekistan is also a major producer of energy and minerals. Uranium is one of Uzbekistan's largest exports to the United States.

Uzbekistan's history spans more than 2,500 years. Samarkand is the second largest city in Uzbekistan and is as old as Rome, Athens and Babylon. Samarkand is one of the most important cities in Central Asia. It is the city of legends. Registan Square is considered an architectural gem representing the finest in Islamic art. The Mausoleum of Tamerlane houses a massive slab of green jade under which Tamerlane the conqueror is buried, and is thought to be the largest such stone in the world. Today, Samarkand is included in the UNESCO World Heritage List.

Once an important trading center at the crossroads of the Great Silk Road connecting Asia and Europe, Uzbekistan is, again, emerging as a regional and global leader. And so, it is my honor to congratulate President Karimov and the people of Uzbekistan on their Independence Day and to extend to them my best wishes for a bright and prosperous future.

Mr. Speaker, it's me again. I rise today on behalf of our Native American community to speak on a subject of great concern--the use of the term ``redskins'' by the National Football League's Washington franchise.

Recently, our nationally recognized commentator, Mr. Rush Limbaugh, attempted to wash away years of pain, suffering, and humiliation endured by our Nation's first inhabitants by questioning their motives in seeking to rid the NFL of this most racist, disparaging, and patently offensive word.

As with most of the non-Native American general public, Mr. Limbaugh does not appear to know the violent and abusive history behind this racial epithet. I would like to take this opportunity to provide Mr. Limbaugh and the American people some much-needed clarity on the subject.

You see, Mr. Speaker, much of the outcry over the name of the NFL's football franchise is due, in large part, to the Federal Government's protection of disparaging trademarks granted to the franchise for the Redskins. Governing Federal law established since 1946 requires that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office deny registration for any such words.

The origin of the term ``redskins,'' Mr. Speaker, is commonly attributed to the historical act of not only killing Native Americans, but also cutting off certain body parts and scalping the heads of even women and children as evidence and are then paid by the colonial officials. These scalps, Mr. Speaker, were described as redskins.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are human beings; they are not animals. Despite this most despicable act of genocide against the Native American people, the U.S. Patent Office in 1967 granted the NFL's Washington football franchise a federally registered trademark for the same word. Mr. Speaker, this should never have happened. Native American nations have treaty and trust relations with the Federal Government as is clearly recognized by the Supreme Court of the U.S. Constitution.

Sixty-six years after the law was established, the word ``redskins'' continues to enjoy such protections. In fact, the NFL's Washington football franchise has six federally registered trademarks for the same word. This was not the work of the Native American community, which Mr. Limbaugh calls ``a bunch of PC jerks.'' It was the work of a Federal agency that ignored the law and its duty to shield our Native peoples from degrading trademark registration.

Mr. Limbaugh asks: ``Why does the Federal Government have to get involved?'' With due respect, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is part of the problem. After years of pleading with the NFL, with the Washington franchise owner Mr. Dan Snyder, with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with the D.C. District Court, and with the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Native American community is left right where they started--with a $1.6 billion football franchise freely exploiting the shameful memory of the ethnic cleansing that was forced upon the Native American people.

Mr. Limbaugh also states: ``So the Redskins may not be a popular name with some people.'' Mr. Speaker, I submit this is not a popularity contest. It is not even about sports. This is a moral issue that reaches far back to the time when Native Americans were not only considered outcasts, but deemed ``enemies, rebels, and traitors'' by the colonial government. The only sporting involved was the game of hunting and killing Indians like animals for money.

To Mr. Limbaugh, to Mr. Snyder, to Mr. Goodell, and all NFL club owners, I ask: Haven't American Indians suffered enough? Have they not paid the price placed on their heads, their scalps, their skins? Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is clear. Enough is enough.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5 and to support the substitute to this bill, offered by my colleague, the Gentleman from California, Congressman George Miller.

We can all agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Elementary and Secondary Education Act is in dire need of reauthorization. But this bill is not the best effort we can offer our children. This bill offers less support and less accountability for students, educators, and parents throughout the nation. It cuts critical funding and fails to give our students a well-rounded education.

But what makes H.R. 5 even worse is that it works against the initial purpose of the Act--it offers our students less equity and it leaves behind those children who are the most in need. It fails to give our lowest performing and lowest income schools the support systems they need to succeed in the classroom.

Mr. Chair, several amendments were introduced yesterday to correct some of the severe flaws in this bill. For example, I commend the passage of the amendment offered by my colleagues Congressman Young and Congresswoman Gabbard to protect Native education programs. But it is a grave disappointment to me that this amendment was even necessary--that critical programs for our Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students were threatened under H.R. 5.

I stand in opposition to the underlying bipartisan bill which still fails as a whole to provide a quality education for all America's students. We must give our students better. H.R. 5 is not our best effort. This bill is a huge setback for our children and for our nation. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 5 and to vote ``yes'' to the Miller substitute.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Rajnath Singh to Washington, D.C. Mr. Singh is the current president of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the main opposition party in India.

At age 24, Rajnath Singh was appointed District President of the Jana Sangh. In 1977, he was elected a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Mirzapur constituency. In 1984, he became state president of the youth wing.

In 1986, he was appointed national general secretary of the youth wing. In 1988, he rose to the position of National President in the BJP youth and was also elected into the Uttar Pradesh legislative council.

In 1991, Mr. Singh became Education Minister in the first BJP government in the state of Uttar Pradesh. In April 1994, he was elected into the Rajya Sabha and he became involved with the Advisory committee on Industry, Consultative Committee for the Ministry of Agriculture, Business Advisory Committee, House Committee and the Committee on Human Resource Development. Mr. Singh was twice elected as National President of BJP and his political accomplishments also include his service as Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, his home state.

Mr. Singh oversaw BJP victories in the states of Uttarakhand and Punjab, as well as municipal elections in Delhi, Chandigarh and across Maharashtra. In 2007, assembly elections in Gujarat added a new dimension to the string of successful electoral victories by the BJP.

In 2008, the BJP formed its first ever Government in south India when it rose to power in Karnataka. In 2008, BJP also registered victories in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. The most successful phase in the BJP's history was when it managed to win 5 Assembly elections in a row in Uttranchal, Punjab, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.

I am honored to welcome Mr. Singh to our nation's Capital. I thank him for his service to India and for his work in strengthening U.S.- India relations. I also commend the BJP party for naming Chief Minister Narendra Modi as BJP's campaign committee chief.

As former Chairman and current Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, I have and will continue to fully support Chief Minister Modi in his work to lift millions out of poverty by making development a mass movement. Making development a mass movement cuts across the barriers of caste, community, region, religion, race, gender, and status, and guarantees that the benefits of development reach all of us.

This extraordinary idea put forward by Chief Minister Modi has the potential to make the world a better place to live and, consequently, it is time for the U.S. to reverse its course and dialogue now with Chief Minister Modi, who may very well be India's next Prime Minister.

Once more, I welcome the President of the BJP party to Washington, D.C., and I thank Mr. Sanjay Puri, founder and CEO of the Alliance for U.S.-India Business (AUSIB), for bringing us together.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that the National Football League and the NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell face the reality that the continued use of the word ``redskin'' is unacceptable. It is a racist, derogatory term and patently offensive to Native Americans.

The Native American community has spent millions of dollars over the past two decades trying earnestly to fight the racism that is perpetuated by this slur.

The fact that the NFL and Commissioner Goodell continue to deny this is a shameful testament of the mistreatment of Native Americans for so many years. It is quite obvious that once the American public understands why the word ``redskins'' is so offensive, they'll know that the word should never be used again.

The origin of the term ``redskins'' is commonly attributed to the historical practice of trading Native American Indian scalps and body parts as bounties and trophies. For example, in 1749, the British bounty on the Mi'kmaq Nation of what is now Maine and Nova Scotia was a straightforward ``10 Guineas for every Indian Mi'kmaq taken or killed, to be paid upon producing such savage taken or his scalp.''

Just as devastating was the Phips Proclamation, issued in 1755 by Spencer Phips, lieutenant governor and commander in chief of the Massachusetts Bay Province, who called for the wholesale extermination of the Penobscot Indian Nation. By vote of the General Court of the Province, settlers were paid out of the public treasury for killing and scalping the Penobscot people. The bounty for a male Penobscot Indian above the age of 12 years was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for the males under the age of 12 was 25 pounds, while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. These scalps, Mr. Speaker, were called ``redskins.''

The question is quite simple. Suppose that that redskin scalp that was bought for payment was the scalp of your mother, the scalp of your wife, the scalp of your daughter, the scalp of your father, the scalp of your husband, or of your son. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, Native Americans are human beings, not animals.

The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk Francis, recently declared in a joint statement that ``redskins'' is ``not just a racial slur or derogatory term'' but a painful ``reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of ethnic cleansing ever committed against the Penobscot people.'' The hunting and killing of Penobscot Indians, as stated by Chief Francis, was ``a most despicable and disgraceful act of genocide.''

Recently, myself and nine Members of Congress explained the violent history and disparaging nature of the term ``redskins'' in a letter to Mr. Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington football franchise. Similar letters were sent to Mr. Frederick Smith, president and CEO of FedEx, a key sponsor of the franchise, and Mr. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League. As of today, Mr. Snyder has not yet responded. Mr. Smith ignored our letter as well, opting instead to have a staff member cite contractual obligations as FedEx's reason for its silence on the subject.

Mr. Goodell, however, in a dismissive manner, declared that the team's name ``is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect.'' Give me a break, Mr. Speaker. In other words, the National Football League is telling everyone--Native Americans included--that they cannot be offended because the NFL means no offense. Essentially, Mr. Goodell attempts to wash away the stain from a history of persecution against Native American people by spreading twisted and false information concerning the use of the

word ``redskins'' by one of the NFL's richest franchises. It is absolute absurdity.

Mr. Goodell's response is indicative of the Washington football franchise's own racist and bigoted beginnings. The team's founder, George Preston Marshall, is identified by historians as the driving force behind the effort to prevent African Americans from playing in the NFL. And once African Americans were allowed to play in 1946, Marshall was the last club owner to field an African American player--a move he reluctantly made some 14 years later in 1962. It should be noted that Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy presented Marshall with an ultimatum--unless Marshall signed an African American player, the government would revoke his franchise's 30-year lease on the use of the D.C. Stadium.

Congressman Tom Cole, the Representative from Oklahoma, Co-Chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, and a member of the Chickasaw Nation, states: ``This is the 21st century. This is the capital of political correctness on the planet. It is very, very, very offensive. This isn't like warriors or chiefs. It's not a term of respect, and it's needlessly offensive to a large part of our population. They just don't happen to live around Washington, DC.''

Congresswoman Betty McCollum, the Representative from Minnesota and Co-Chair of the Congressional Native American Caucus, states that Mr. Goodell's letter ``is another attempt to justify a racial slur on behalf of [Mr.] Dan Snyder,'' owner of the Washington franchise, ``and other NFL owners who appear to be only concerned with earning ever larger profits, even if it means exploiting a racist stereotype of Native Americans. For the head of a multi-billion dollar sports league to embrace the twisted logic that `[r]edskin' actually `stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect' is a statement of absurdity.''

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Representative from the District of Columbia, states that Mr. Snyder ``is a man who has shown sensibilities based on his own ethnic identity, [yet] who refuses to recognize the sensibilities of American Indians.''

Recently, in an interview with USA Today Newspaper, Mr. Snyder defiantly stated, ``We'll never change the name. It's that simple. NEVER--you can use caps.'' Mr. Snyder's statement is totally inconsistent with the NFL's diversity policy.

Let me be clear on this--I love and respect Mr. Snyder's people. They gave to mankind the Torah, the Bible, the Koran--the prophets like Adam, Methuselah, Enoch, Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob--and yes, and even our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

But I also want to remind Mr. Snyder that six million of his people were gassed, tortured, murdered, and even skinned by the Nazis to make lamp shades and other forms of horrifying experimentations. Time will not allow me to elaborate further. But let me be clear--I would be among the first to defend Mr. Snyder and his people against racial intolerance. All I ask is for Mr. Snyder to do the same for our Native Americans.

Despite the Native American community's best efforts before administrative agencies and the courts, the term ``redskins'' remains a federally registered trademark. It has been well over twenty years and this matter is still before the courts. This injustice is the result of negligence and a cavalier attitude demonstrated by a federal agency charged with the responsibility of not allowing racist or derogatory terms to be registered as trademarks. Since the Federal Government made the mistake in registering the disparaging trademark, it is now up to Congress to correct it.

Mr. Speaker, in 1995, former Washington Bullets owner Abe Pollin announced that he would be changing the name of the Washington Bullets to the Washington Wizards. The change did not happen overnight, nor was everyone happy about it. But Mr. Pollin knew it was the right thing to do. And he did it successfully. Given the high homicide and crime rate in the early 1990s in Washington, D.C., Mr. Pollin became increasingly concerned about the Bullets' association with violence. Finally, when Mr. Pollin's close friend, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated in November 1995, he made the final decision.

Mr. Dan Snyder, owner of the Washington Redskins, may never come to the realization that is so evident to us all in the 21st century--that the term ``redskins'' is racist, demeaning, derogatory, and offensive to Native Americans. But I stand today, once again, to make this appeal to Mr. Snyder. I am thankful for Mr. Pollin's brave decision to change the Bullets' name, and I urge Mr. Snyder to have the courage to do the same. Change the name of your football franchise.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to welcome Kazakhstan's Foreign Minister Erlan Idrissov back to Washington.

I also want to commend the Government of Kazakhstan for hosting the international talks between Iran and five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, namely the P5+1 group, on Iran's nuclear program. Thanks to the voluntary abandonment of nuclear arms and firm adherence to enhancement of global non-proliferation, Kazakhstan is a perfect location for such talks. I hope that the parties will find constructive solutions in the best interests of the region and the whole world.

I thank the Government of Kazakhstan for its support of international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and the constructive role played by Kazakhstan in developing the Northern Distribution Network, NDN, and its assistance to Afghanistan's security forces. Kazakhstan plays an important role in rebuilding Afghanistan, both in the provision of humanitarian, financial and technical aid to the Afghan government, and through regional initiatives aimed at stabilizing and developing Afghanistan's economy.

Kazakhstan's role in promoting the ``New Silk Road'' initiative and in developing regional confidence-building measures through the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia, CICA, as well as its participation in the Istanbul Process on Afghanistan should be recognized and applauded.

I appreciate the work Foreign Minister Idrissov is doing to promote President Nazarbayev's initiatives and, once more, I welcome him back to Washington on his first official visit as Foreign Minister having previously

served as Kazakhstan's Ambassador to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in recognition of a landmark decision handed down yesterday by the District Court for the District of Columbia in Tuaua v. United States. The decision reaffirms the plenary authority of Congress to grant citizenship to people born in the U.S. territories. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are five non- citizen U.S. nationals born in American Samoa and the Samoan Federation of America, a nonprofit organization serving the Samoan community in Los Angeles. The defendants are the United States, the State Department, the Secretary of State, and the Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. The plaintiffs brought the lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that would assert that the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause extends to American Samoa. I submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendants. The Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on June 26, 2013 after finding that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim.

Mr. Speaker, the plaintiffs in the Citizenship lawsuit sought to reverse years of legal precedent and usurp Congressional authority to bestow citizenship to people living in the U.S. territories. The Court correctly found the plaintiffs' arguments unpersuasive and held, ``To date, Congress has not seen fit to bestow birthright citizenship upon American Samoa, and in accordance with the law, this Court must and will respect that choice.'' When the people of American Samoa vote in favor of citizenship, I will work with Congress to ensure that the people of American Samoa become U.S. citizens. However, the people of American Samoa have yet to vote on whether they want to become U.S. citizens.

Mr. Speaker, in the early 20th century the Supreme Court in a series of cases known as the Insular Cases, firmly established the extent to which the Constitution applies to the territories. In these cases the Court defined ``incorporated'' territories as territories that are expressly made part of the United States by an act of Congress and ``unincorporated territories'' as territories that had not yet become part of the United States and were not on a path toward statehood. The Insular Cases established that only ``fundamental'' constitutional rights are extended to persons born in unincorporated territories.

The plaintiffs argued that citizenship is a ``fundamental'' right that applied to unincorporated territories. Recent federal court cases have not supported this argument. Similarly, Judge Richard Leon in his opinion in Tuaua v. U.S. correctly reasoned that the Insular Cases suggested that citizenship was not a ``fundamental right'' that applied to unincorporated territories. Judge Leon found the plaintiffs' evidence too speculative in the face of contrary overwhelming legal precedent and constitutional authority. The plaintiffs were unable to provide a single federal court case that has recognized birthright citizenship as a guarantee in unincorporated territories.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Michael Williams, Thea Cohen and Michael Fragoso and their law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, LLP for their generous support in working collaboratively with my office in support of the people of American Samoa.

In conclusion Mr. Speaker, I thank the Court for its well reasoned opinion in Tuaua v. U.S. and for reaffirming the authority of Congress to grant citizenship to the people of American Samoa. This decision will allow the people of American Samoa to decide whether they want to become citizens. Once the people make a decision I can work with my colleagues in Congress to grant citizenship to the people of American Samoa.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday on the cover page of The Washington Post newspaper, there was an article written by journalists Jon Cohen and Rick Maese that, according to a recent poll taken among the sports fans of the Washington, D.C. area:

A large majority of area sports fans say the Washington

Redskins should not change the team name, even though most

supporters of the nickname feel the word ``redskin'' is an

inappropriate term for Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, not only is the term ``redskin'' inappropriate, but it is just plain offensive and derogatory towards Native Americans. And I want to share with my colleagues in Congress, and especially the American people, how the word ``redskin'' came about and its history.

In 1749, it was a standard procedure among settlers who lived in what is now known as Maine and Nova Scotia to kill and scalp as many of the Indians as members of the Micmac Tribe. The same policy was also implemented in 1755 by settlers who lived in what is now known as the State of Massachusetts--that their object was to kill and scalp members of the Penobscot Indian Nation.

Mr. Speaker, the policy was you get paid for killing and/or scalping Native American Indians. And if you kill an Indian boy, you get paid 50 pounds. If you get a scalp of an Indian, you also get paid 40 pounds. For any female, Mr. Speaker, under 12 years old that you killed or scalped, you also get paid 25 pounds. Mr. Speaker, I submit that these scalps were also called ``redskins.'' Mr. Speaker, this is why this word is so offensive to Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, there's a saying in Indian country: ``Walk in a man's moccasins for 2 weeks before you pass judgment on that person.''

Mr. Speaker, my point is what if that scalp belonged to your mother or to your wife or daughter or your brother or sister or to your son or father? Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that our Washington fans and the American public will come to realize why the usage of the word ``redskin'' has brought nothing but a stark reminder of the horrors of how Native Americans have been treated for centuries.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe in the fairness and decency of the American people. I believe that many of our fellow Americans did not know of the history of the word ``redskin,'' and I sincerely hope many others will come to a better understanding as to why Native Americans feel obviously offended by the use of the word.

I hope Mr. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the National Football League, and all the NFL club owners will seriously raise this matter with Mr. Dan Snyder to try to change the name of his Washington football franchise. The NFL has a moral responsibility to take corrective action on this matter. It is the right thing to do.

Under the mandate of the U.S. Constitution, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress has both a legal and moral responsibility to look after the needs of our Native American nations. It is for this reason that the bill, H.R. 1278, was introduced to not allow or to cancel the registration of the word Redskins as a trademark name simply because it is a derogatory term and a racial slur against Native Americans.

Mr. Speaker, don't get me wrong. I'm a great supporter and fan of the sport of football. In fact, I played 4 years of football in high school. Many of my relatives played both at the college level and in the NFL: the late Junior Seau of the San Diego Chargers; Troy Polamalu of the Pittsburgh Steelers; Jesse Sapolu of the 49ers, just to name a few. There are many others. My point, Mr. Speaker, is we need to correct this inequity. We need to show a little more respect for members of the Native American community.

[From the Washington Post, June 26, 2013]

Washington Redskins Name: Washington Post Poll Finds Most D.C. Area

Fans Support It

(By Jon Cohen and Rick Maese)

A large majority of area sports fans say the Washington

Redskins should not change the team name, even though most

supporters of the nickname feel the word ``redskin'' is an

inappropriate term for Native Americans, according to a new

Washington Post poll.

The debate over the team's name has intensified in recent

months as members of Congress, activists and media

commentators criticized it as offensive to Native Americans

and lobbied for change. But most Washingtonians--61 percent--

say they like the team's name, and two-thirds say the team

should not change it, according to the poll.

Among Redskins fans, about eight in 10 say the team should

keep its name. Also, there's some evidence that changing it

might undermine support from some of the team's most ardent

backers.

``It's been associated with the team for so long, I just

don't see any reason to change it now,'' said retiree Joseph

Braceland, 70. ``It was not meant to be derogatory.''

A quarter of all area adults and slightly more than half of

self-described Redskins fans say they ``love'' the team name,

yet both groups overwhelmingly say that in general a new name

wouldn't make much difference to them.

Among those who want to keep the Redskins' name, most--56

percent--say they feel the word ``redskin'' is inappropriate.

Only half as many--28 percent--consider the term as an

acceptable one to use.

``I think any word that you deal with, it depends on the

context,'' said Stephan Bachenheimer, a District resident who

works for the World Bank and supports the Redskins' name. ``A

lot of people have a hard time separating these issues.''

The name has been subject to much criticism and public

debate this offseason, with both local and national leaders

urging the team to consider a name change, a request the team

has fervently resisted.

In the new poll, 28 percent of all Washingtonians say the

team should change its name, far above the 11 percent

nationally who said so in a recent Associated Press poll.

``I don't believe in being super politically correct--I

have a sense of humor--but I think this name came about at a

time when there was very different awareness about the plight

of the American Indians,'' said Mary Falvey, 60, who works in

communications for the Food and Drug Administration. ``I just

don't think it's appropriate. There's increased sensitivity

about race in this country today--for the good.''

While feelings about the team's nickname were similar

across most demographics, the percentage advocating a shift

in the D.C. area peaks at 39 percent among African Americans

with college degrees. (There weren't enough Native Americans

among the poll's 1,106 respondents for meaningful comparison;

Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of the

population in the region, according to Census data.)

According to poll results, education plays a role more

broadly: 34 percent of all area college graduates say change

the name, compared with 21 percent of those with less formal

education.

``Leave the name alone,'' said Eileen Schilling, 52, who

works in construction sales. ``It's ridiculous. It's getting

completely out of hand. Pretty soon we won't be able to dye

our hair because it might offend someone. I'm Irish. Should

the Notre Dame Fighting Irish change their name because I

don't like it? Hell no. What about the Kansas City Chiefs?

The Cleveland Indians? Should the Eagles change their names

because it's a national symbol? It's ridiculous.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the name of the National Football League's Washington, D.C. franchise, the ``Redskins,'' which I will refer to as the ``R-word.'' In particular, I want to recognize the national media coverage of this very important and sensitive issue. While the media has no doubt contributed to the alleged normalcy of the ``R-word'' among NFL fans, it must be acknowledged that the tide of public opinion--as recently evidenced through well-known media outlets--is changing.

Mr. Jarrett Bell, an NFL columnist for USA Today, penned an article stating that the Washington franchise ``[has] a history of bigotry.'' In Mr. Bell's words: ``[Dan Snyder] has an opportunity to make a bold statement in the name of social progress by discarding the racially offensive nickname of his team--and he won't budge an inch. Shame on him.'' Mr. Bell continues: ``Changing the franchise's nickname would be the next step after the monumental gesture of implementing the Rooney Rule a decade ago, and another show of corporate leadership that might inspire teams in other sports that trivialize Native Americans with their nicknames to break tradition.''

Mr. Michael Wilbon and Mr. Tony Kornheiser, sports columnists for the Washington Post and co-hosts of ESPN's ``Pardon the Interruption,'' recently ran a segment on the controversy over the ``R-word.'' Mr. Wilbon stated: ``I don't have any faith in the NFL. But

what really disappoints me is [NFL Commissioner] Roger Goodell, because now I don't have any faith in him. I know Roger Goodell, long before he became commissioner. He's a bright man, he's an educated man, he's a man of conviction. And in this instance, he has no courage. What he's done is gutless.''

Mr. Wilbon continues: ``Let's not mince our words here. Roger Goodell sounds like a fool. He sounds like someone who doesn't have the courage to confront one of his own member-institutions and its owner, Dan Snyder. . . . In the NFL you can do what you want, when you want. You're accountable to nobody.''

Mr. Kornheiser states: ``I'm surprised, because I thought he would go to the owner, Daniel Snyder, and force him to change the name, give him cover by saying `I'm making you change the name.' '' Mr. Kornheiser, in calling the ``R-word'' a racial epithet, continues: ``It's not even about being politically correct; it's being fair, it's being equitable. I mean, you cannot go to a reservation and say, `Hi, Redskins.' You cannot do this.''

In a poignant letter directed the owner of the Washington franchise, sports columnist for the ESPN affiliate Grantland, Mr. David Zirin, states: ``You have made it crystal clear that you believe there is nothing wrong with the name of our region's beloved franchise and probably perceive Webster's dictionary to have some politically correct, liberal agenda when it defines redskin as `usually offensive.' You've never commented on its past use in this country as a term of derision, humiliation, and violence.''

``You [] have not commented on the devastating letter from 10 members of Congress [last] month, including Oklahoma Republican Tom Cole of the Chickasaw Nation, who said that the name was similar to having a team called `the Washington N-words' and that it `diminishes feelings of community and worth among the Native American tribes.' ''

``You say the name represents the team's history of great players, but I've never heard you respond to former [Washington] Pro Bowler Tre' Johnson, who said, `It's an ethnically insensitive moniker that offends an entire race of displaced people. That should be reason enough to change it.' ''

``I know you don't think the name is racist and wrong, and therefore I have to assume that you disagree with Suzan Shown Harjo, a woman of Cheyenne and Muscogee descent who is president of the Morning Star Institute, a national indigenous-rights organization in D.C. Harjo said to me, `For most Native Americans, there's no more offensive name in English. That non-Native folks think they get to measure or decide what offends us is adding insult to injury.' ''

``People like Suzan Harjo, Tre' Johnson, and Tom Cole talk and you just hear--pardon the expression--white noise. I know you're dug in. What I don't know is whether you realize that this change is going to happen, and soon.''

Mr. Speaker, it is my hope, the hope of Native American citizens everywhere, and now the hope of the national media, that our fellow colleagues and Members of this Chamber stand up against the disparaging name of Washington's NFL franchise.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1151. I would certainly like to thank personally the chief sponsor of this proposed bill, the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), for his leadership on this issue, and also our senior ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), for his support as well. And I am happy to say that I'm a proud cosponsor of this bill as well.

This legislation directs the Secretary of State to develop a strategy to gain observer status for Taiwan at the triennial assembly of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). Taiwan has made significant progress in its economic and political development. Today, Taiwan is a leading trade partner of the United States and stands as a beacon of democracy throughout Asia. However, Taiwan has been shut out of participating in international organizations like ICAO.

Founded in 1947, ICAO's main goal is to ensure safe and efficient air transportation around the globe. Taiwan deserves to be brought into the ICAO as an observer. It has jurisdiction over an airspace of approximately 180,000 square nautical miles and provides air traffic control services to more than 1.2 million flights a year. In my recent visit to Taiwan as well, it was interesting to learn that there are approximately 600 weekly flights in existence between China and Taiwan alone. Taiwan's international airport is the world's 19th largest in terms of passenger volume, and the number of travelers between Taiwan and the United States is likely to increase with Taiwan's entry into the Visa Waiver Program last year, as mentioned earlier by my distinguished chairman, Mr. Royce.

Taiwan's exclusion from ICAO has impeded Taiwan's efforts to maintain civil aviation practices that keep up with rapidly evolving international standards. It is unable to even contact ICAO for up-to- date information on aviation standards and norms. Nor can it receive ICAO's technical assistance in implementing new regulations or participate in ICAO technical and academic seminars.

Taiwan has made every effort to comply with ICAO's standards, but their continued exclusion not only hurts Taiwan, but it puts the rest of us in the entire world at risk, especially when you're talking about safety and hazardous conditions when it deals with air travel. With such a heavy volume of flights, Taiwan's exclusion has prevented ICAO from developing a truly global strategy to address security threats based on effective international cooperation.

ICAO's own rules and practices allow for the meaningful participation of noncontracting countries as well as other organizations in its meetings and activities through the granting of observer status.

The United States, in a review of Taiwan policy conducted in 1994, declared its intention to support Taiwan's participation in appropriate international organizations and has consistently reiterated that support.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill today, Congress is calling on the United States Government to take a leading role at ICAO to assist Taiwan in gaining observer status, and we look forward to working with our administration officials to track the development of these efforts.

Again, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself and certainly commend the gentlelady from

Florida for her most eloquent statement and historical outline of what has happened in terms of our special relationship with the people and the leaders of Taiwan. And she could not have said it better.

You know the old saying, If you're not at the table, you're going to be on the menu. I think Taiwan has been on the menu for too long. They need to be at the table and especially playing such a strong and important economic role as a democracy in Asia and as a beacon of light to all the people of Asia as to what it means to live under democratic conditions.

With that, Mr. Speaker, again I thank my good friend, the chairman, for his leadership in bringing this bill. I have no further speakers, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to denounce the disparaging name of the National Football League's Washington, D.C., franchise, the Redskins, which I will refer to as the ``R-word.'' The Native American community has spent millions of dollars over the past two decades to fight the racism that is perpetuated by this slur. Despite their best efforts, our Native American brothers' and sisters' cries have fallen on deaf ears. Such an impasse is largely due to the widespread ignorance regarding the history of this denigrating term. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues the painful and violent past associated with the ``R-word.''

The origin of the ``R-word'' is commonly attributed to the historical practice of trading Native American Indian skins, Mr. Speaker, Native American Indian skins and body parts as bounties and trophies. For example, in 1749, the British bounty on the Mi'kmaq Nation of what is now Maine and Nova Scotia was a straightforward ``10 guineas for every Indian Mi'kmaq taken or killed, to be paid upon producing such savage taken or his scalp.''

Just as devastating was the Phips Proclamation, issued in 1755 by Spencer Phips, lieutenant governor and commander in chief of the Massachusetts Bay Province, who called for the wholesale extermination of the Penobscot Indian Nation. The Phips Proclamation declared the Penobscot to be ``enemies, rebels, and traitors to his Majesty King George, II'' and required those residing in the province to ``embrace all opportunities of pursuing, capturing, killing, and destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.''

By vote of the General Court of the Province, white settlers were paid out of the public treasury for killing and scalping the Penobscot people. The bounty for a male Penobscot Indian above the age of 12 was 50 pounds, and his scalp was worth 40 pounds. The bounty for a female Penobscot Indian of any age and for males under the age of 12 was 25 pounds, while their scalps were worth 20 pounds. Historical accounts show that these scalps were called ``Redskins.''

The current chairman and chief of the Penobscot Nation, Chief Kirk Francis recently declared in a joint statement that the ``R-word'' is ``not just a racial slur or a derogatory term,'' but a painful ``reminder of one of the most gruesome acts of ethnic cleansing ever committed against the Penobscot people.'' The hunting and killing of Penobscot Indians, as stated by Chief Francis, Mr. Speaker, was ``a most despicable and disgraceful act of genocide.''

Mr. Speaker, such disgrace continues to live on through Washington's franchise's name. In a recent letter to 10 of our colleagues, the National Football League's Commissioner Roger Goodell said essentially that the use of the ``R-word'' is meant to honor Native Americans. Baloney. He added, ``For the team's millions of fans and customers, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride, and respect.'' In other words, Mr. Speaker, the National Football League is telling everyone--Native Americans included--that they cannot be offended because the National Football League means no offense.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Goodell's casual and dismissive response is indicative of the racist history beyond the Washington franchise's name. Its founder, George Preston Marshall, is identified by historians as the driving force behind the color barrier that existed for 12 years in the National Football League, a sad chapter from 1934 to 1945 when African Americans were prohibited from the league by a ``gentleman's agreement'' that we're not allowed to play. Mr. Marshall changed the team's name from the Braves in 1933, and after the NFL's color line was crossed in 1946, Marshall's franchise was the last team on the field where African Americans were allowed to play--and not until 1962.

I might also add that Mr. Marshall did not welcome African American players with open arms. It was then that Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, and Attorney General Robert F.

Kennedy presented Marshall with an ultimatum: unless Marshall signed an African American player, the government would revoke his franchise's 30-year lease of the use of the stadium here in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, today, we find ourselves fighting the same racist threads that pervaded the Washington franchise for more than 50 years. We simply cannot continue to carry on hateful traditions that mock, belittle, disparage, and disgrace those of a different race because of the color of their skin. As a Nation, we have come too far to fight for these rights, and I think Native Americans deserve to have a better sense of self-esteem and dignity.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.