Floor Statements

Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3865, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 (ENDA), as well as in support of the amendment to the bill offered by Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin.

I would like to thank the chief sponsor .of the bill, Congressman Barney Frank, and George Miller, Chairman of the Education and Labor Committee, for their leadership. This is truly a historic moment, which was largely made possible by their commitment to the democratic ideals of equality and fairness.

As an original cosponsor of the original ENDA, H.R. 2015, I am glad to be able to have this opportunity to debate the Baldwin amendment to include anti-discrimination protections for transgender individuals. It is unfortunate that political realities made it difficult to bring an inclusive ENDA to the floor today in the first place.

However, I stand with Congresswoman Baldwin in her courageous fight to provide for the inclusion of a group that is probably the most in need of workplace protections. I look forward to continuing to work with her and our

likeminded colleagues in any effort to build upon the momentum of H.R. 3865 and provide employment protections for gender identity through future educational and legislative initiatives.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on race and gender. The scope of protections has expanded since then to also bar employment discrimination based on religion, color, and national origin. And while versions of H.R. 3865 have been introduced in each Congress since 1975, this is the first time it will be voted on by the U.S. House of Representatives.

H.R. 3865 provides us with a historic opportunity to be able to respond to the prejudice and discrimination that face millions of Americans in our workforce. It is at moments like these, this ability to provide for civil rights progress, that I am truly proud to be a member of the Democratic majority making freshmen class.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 3865 and working toward the inclusion of gender identity in future legislation. Mahalo (thank you).

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 3867, the Small Business Contracting Program Improvements Act.

This bill expands procurement opportunities for small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans, women entrepreneurs, and socially disadvantaged business owners. These firms remain under-represented in the Federal contracting marketplace and have yet to receive their fair share of Federal Government contracts.

H.R. 3867 assists small businesses owned by service-disabled veterans by requiring agencies to award sole-source contracts to these firms if they are identified as being capable of performing the contracts. These businesses currently receive less than one percent of Federal Government contracting dollars. Authorizing agencies to enter into sole-source contracts with service-disabled veteran-owned firms will raise the likelihood of these firms obtaining Federal contracts. Moreover, H.R. 3867 provides an inflationary adjustment to the limitation on contracts by increasing the size of available contracts awarded without competition to $5.1 million.

This bill directs the Small Business Administration, SBA, to comply with an Executive

Order requiring the SBA to provide service-disabled veteran-owned companies with information and assistance on Federal contracting as well as assist other agencies in their strategies to expand contracting opportunities for them.

Passage of this bill is also important for our women-owned businesses. In 2000, Congress enacted the Women's Procurement Program to expand opportunities for Federal contracts to women business owners within industries in which they have been significantly under- represented. On behalf of women-owned businesses, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce sued the SBA over the delay in implementing the program and won their lawsuit in 2005. Seven years after the Women's Procurement Program was enacted into law, however, the SBA has yet to establish regulations that would implement this vital program. I share Chairwoman Velazquez's frustration with this delay and her admonishment to the SBA to remedy the situation.

H.R. 3867 requires the SBA to implement the Women's Procurement Program immediately. The bill makes economically disadvantaged women entrepreneurs eligible for restricted competition contracts and gives the SBA the authority to waive this requirement in industries that are substantially under-represented by women-owned businesses. Today, women-owned small businesses capture only about 3 percent of Federal small-business contracting dollars. We need this legislation to encourage women entrepreneurs to participate in the Federal contract marketplace.

H.R. 3867 expands and modernizes the 8(a) Business Development Program, which has not been amended since 1988. The 8(a) program currently assists over 9,000 small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including about 200 firms in my State of Hawaii. H.R. 3867 makes two main improvements to this program: it provides for an inflationary increase in net worth limitations to a maximum of $550,000 for program participants and extends the duration of program participation from 9 to 10 years. Increasing the net worth ceiling will bring stronger firms into the 8(a) program.

Finally, I support this bill because it addresses contracting problems and increases oversight over unqualified businesses by setting standards that protect the integrity and consistency in application of contract assistance programs. H.R. 3867 mandates government-wide goals for procurement contracts awarded to small businesses. In addition, it requires the SBA to perform the necessary checks on program applicants and participants to confirm their business integrity and qualifications. This is important given recent findings by the SBA Inspector General of fraud and abuse in the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program.

Chairwoman Velazquez has noted that the Federal Government failed to meet its small and minority business goals for a 6th year in a row, costing entrepreneurs $4.5 billion in lost opportunities. H.R. 3867 is another step in the right direction to help our small businesses, and I thank Chairwoman Velazquez for her commitment and strong leadership in sponsoring this important legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to thank the 261 Members who supported H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. I also want to encourage my colleagues who did not support the bill to talk to me and Congressman Abercrombie to learn more about the merits of the legislation. The passage of the bill has been celebrated by the people of Hawaii--Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiian alike. I thank all the members of this body for the respectful and deliberate manner in which the debate was conducted.

During the course of my remarks on the bill, I was privileged to place into the record several recent letters of support for H.R. 505, including letters from the Governor of the State of Hawaii, as well as the National Congress of American Indians and the American Bar Association, two of more than 50 national and state organizations that worked hard on behalf of the bill.

After the vote on the bill, I received another letter of support from the Japanese American Citizens League, one of many civil rights organizations championing the efforts of Native Hawaiians to regain their right of self-governance and self-determination.

Americans of Japanese ancestry fought their own battles against discrimination and subjugation, although for a shorter duration, when they were sent to relocation camps during World War II. They understand all too well the deprivation suffered by the Native Hawaiians, since their sovereign government was overthrown, and have lent their full support to the Native Hawaiian cause, which I deeply appreciate.

It is therefore important that this letter from the Japanese American Citizens League be inserted into the Congressional Record to reflect the support of the JACL for this historic vote to recognize the inherent sovereignty of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii. I thank the members of JACL for their valuable support.

Japanese American

Citizens League,

Washington, DC, Oct. 23, 2007.

Hon. Mazie K. Hirono,

1229 Longworth House Office Building, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Hirono: The Japanese American Citizens

League (JACL), the nation's oldest and largest Asian American

civil rights organization, fully supports the passage of H.R.

505, The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of

2007 (NHGRA), introduced by the Members of the Hawai`i

Congressional Delegation. The bill is scheduled for a vote

before the House on Wednesday, October 24th and I ask that

you vote in favor of the bill and against any motion to

recommit H.R. 505.

A process of U.S. recognition is already available to

American Indians and Alaska Natives, and enactment of NHGRA

extends a similar process to Native Hawaiians. There are over

560 federally recognized Native governing entities

functioning in the U.S, along side local, state and federal

governing entities. Native Hawaiians are the indigenous

people of Hawai`i, whose ancestors practiced sovereignty in

their ancestral lands that later became part of the United

States. The establishment of a process of federal recognition

for Native Hawaiians moves us toward fairness in federal

policy toward American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native

Hawaiians.

Protection of Native Hawaiian culture, as well as existing

Native Hawaiian programs is critical for future generations.

Perpetuation of distinct, living cultures requires self-

determination, and that is necessary for the Native Hawaiian

culture as well. Enactment of NHGRA protects this greater

self-determination, and thus the distinct culture. It

protects existing programs because it establishes a single

U.S. policy reaffirming that as the indigenous people of

Hawai`i, Native Hawaiian people have a special political and

legal relationship with the U.S., consistent with the Hawai`i

Constitution, over 150 existing Federal laws addressing

Native Hawaiians and the U.S. Constitution regarding Native

people of the lands of the 50 states.

Sincerely,

Floyd Mori,

National Director.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to join my colleague, Mr. Abercrombie, in introducing a bill to reinstate certain Federal benefits to citizens of the Freely Associated States, FAS.

This bill is a companion measure to S. 1676, introduced earlier this year by Senators Akaka and Inouye, which provides eligibility for non- emergency Medicaid, Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, and Supplemental Security Income, SSI, to FAS citizens residing in the United States.

Citizens from the FAS are from the Republic of the Marshall Islands RMI, Federated States of Micronesia, FSM, and the Republic of Palau, which are jurisdictions that have a unique political relationship with the United States. The Compact of Free Association established these nations as sovereign States responsible for their own foreign policies. However, the FAS remain dependent upon the United States for military protection and economic assistance.

Under the Compact, the United States has the right to reject the strategic use of, or military access to, the FAS by other countries. This right is often referred to as the ``right of strategic denial.'' In addition, the U.S. may block FAS Government policies that it deems inconsistent with its duty to defend the FAS, which is referred to as the ``defense veto.'' The Compact also states that the United States has exclusive military base rights in the FAS.

In exchange for these prerogatives, the U.S. is required to support the FAS economically, with the goal of producing self-sufficiency, and FAS citizens are allowed free entry into the United States as non- immigrants for the purposes of education, medical treatment, and employment. Because of this ability to travel within the United States as a non-immigrant, many FAS citizens have since migrated to the State of Hawaii.

According to Governor Linda Lingle, in 2006 the State of Hawaii spent an estimated $91 million in State funds to provide health and social services to migrants from the FAS. This amount is almost double the cost of $48 million reported to the U.S. Department of the Interior by the State of Hawaii for health and social services provided to Compact migrants in 2003, which was the last year such figures were compiled. Clearly, the cost to the state is growing and will continue to grow.

No State can expect its taxpayers to bear such an increasingly costly burden for an agreement that is in the interest of our entire Nation. The Federal Government should do more to help address the unintended social services consequences of the Compact.

I know that Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands face the same challenges in the provision of health and social services to FAS citizens as the State of Hawaii. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Early Education Workforce Act.

Our youngest children are our most precious resources. Research shows that a child surrounded by a safe, stimulating and caring environment will literally develop a stronger brain. That child enters kindergarten ready to succeed and is more likely to graduate from high school, hold a steady job, and avoid prison.

Early education not only benefits the child and the adult he or she will become; it also helps to ensure that America has the educated workforce we will need to address challenges as a Nation in the future.

I believe in research-based policy. If we don't know something is going to work, I hesitate to invest Federal dollars. Unfortunately, in many cases research is ambiguous at best, but high-quality early education is a great exception.

We know it works. The research continues to mount as experts from all fields, economists, neurologists, police officers and teachers, come to a consensus that it pays to invest early in our children.

Our States are making great progress in ensuring that every family has the option of sending their children to high-quality child care and preschool. However, in Hawaii and around the country, we are facing a major roadblock. We simply do not have a stable, adequate supply of qualified early education childhood professionals. If we

don't have the teachers, we don't have quality programs; and this is a major problem because quality is a key ingredient in early education.

A poorly designed program or an understaffed one is not going to produce the results we owe our kids, so we must address this problem. We must recruit and retain early educators. And how do we do that? We can start by passing this authorization bill to streamline professional development opportunities, open doors to early education degree programs, and begin to address the woefully inadequate compensation our preschool teachers and child care workers receive.

I urge my colleagues to support this bill on behalf of our children and to honor and encourage the people who dedicate their lives to preparing our youngest children for success.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I thank Chairman Slaughter and Vice Chair McGovern for the rule which fairly gives the only amendment to be filed due consideration pursuant to House rules. I disagree with the amendment because it, if adopted, unnecessarily creates confusion where none exists.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill is a good one, the result of over 6 years of fine-tuning and negotiations, including significant compromises with the Department of Justice, Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget to conceive a law that should be approved by all persons concerned with the welfare of Native Hawaiians.

This bill is supported by the Republican Governor of the State of Hawaii, the Hawaii State legislature, the American Bar Association, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Education Association, the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, and dozens of other civil rights, professional associations and unions.

I will enter into the Record a list of all supporters of this measure, as well as letters of support from the Governor of the State of Hawaii, Linda Lingle; the American Bar Association; National Congress of American Indians; and the Japanese American Citizens League, and thank them for their wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by quoting a sentence from the letter from the National Congress of American Indians, which is of particular relevance to the proposed amendment to be offered. ``To invoke the equal protection or due process clause of the Constitution in this context, as some of the legislation's critics attempt to do, is a perversion of what those clauses were intended to do. Those submitting this argument are using the very cornerstones of justice and fairness in our democracy to deny equal protection to one group of indigenous people.''

Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to adopt the rule so we may get on to the merits of this important legislation that will at long last afford the Native Hawaiian people self-determination and self-governance long given to other indigenous people of the United States but denied to Native Hawaiians.

S. 310/H.R. 505: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act--To

Express the Policy of the U.S. Regarding the U.S. Relationship With Native Hawaiians and To Provide a Process for the Recognition by the

U.S. of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity

Standing together for justice

The following groups, entities and individuals from around

the islands and across the Nation have pledged their support

for Native Hawaiian self-determination through federal

legislation extending a process of official recognition to

Native Hawaiians as the indigenous people of Hawai`i, similar

to the existing federal policy available to American Indians

and Alaska Natives:

Hawai`i organizations & entities

Alu Like, Inc.; Alan M. Arakawa, Mayor, County of Maui;

Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs; Council for Native

Hawaiian Advancement; Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian

Warriors--Mamakakaua; Hale O Na Ali`i O Hawai`i; Hawaii

Carpenters Union; Hawaii Government Employees Association

(HGEA); Hawaii State AFL-CIO; Hawai`i State Legislature; and

Hawai`i State Teachers' Association.

Hawaiian Homes Commission; Hui Hanai; Hui Kako`o `Aina

Ho`opulapula; I Mua Group; International Longshore and

Warehouse Union (ILWU); Japanese American Citizens League

(Honolulu Chapter); Kamehameha Schools; Kamehameha Schools

Alumni Association (KSAA); Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club;

and Kualoa-Heeia Hawaiian Civic Club.

Linda Lingle, Governor, State of Hawai`i; Nanakuli Housing

Corporation; National Association of Social Workers (Hawaii

Chapter); Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce; Native

Hawaiian Economic Alliance; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Royal

Order of Kamehameha 1; and State Council of Hawaiian

Homestead Associations.

National, regional & international entities

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)--Established

in 1953, ATNI represents and advocates for regional, national

and specific Tribal concerns. It is comprised of 54 Northwest

Tribal governments from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast

Alaska, northern California and western Montana.

Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)--AFN is the largest

statewide Native organization in Alaska. It represents over

200 Alaska Native villages, corporations, and associations.

AFN's mission is to enhance and promote the cultural,

economic, and political voice of the entire Alaska Native

community.

American Bar Association (ABA)--The American Bar

Association is the largest voluntary professional association

in the world. With more than 400,000 members, the ABA

provides law school accreditation, continuing legal

education, information about the law, programs to assist

lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve

the legal system for the public.

Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations

(AAPCHO)--AAPCHO is a national association representing

community health organizations dedicated to promoting

advocacy, collaboration and leadership that improves the

health status and access of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians

and Pacific Islanders within the United States, its

territories and freely associated states, primarily through

member community health clinics.

Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)--Represents 21

state Indian Affairs agencies and organizations.

Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA)--Established in

1952, ITCA is comprised of 19 member tribes and provides a

united voice for tribal governments located in the State of

Arizona.

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL--National)--JACL is

the Nation's oldest and largest Asian Pacific American civil

rights organization, with over 24,000 members in 23 states.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)--LCCR consists

of more than 180 national organizations, representing persons

of color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with

disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays

and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC--

National)--With approximately 115,000 members throughout the

United States and Puerto Rico, LULAC is the largest and

oldest Hispanic organization in the United States.

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC--

California).

Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund

(MALDEF)--MALDEF is the leading nonprofit Latino litigation,

advocacy and educational outreach institution in the U.S.

Asian American Justice Center (AAJC)--AAJC, formerly the

National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, is one of

the Nation's leading experts on issues of importance to the

Asian American community including: affirmative action, anti-

Asian violence prevention/race relations, census, immigrant

rights, language access, and voting rights.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People

(NAACP)--The NAACP is the Nation's oldest and largest civil

rights organization. Its half-million adult and youth members

throughout the United States and the world are the premier

advocates for civil rights in their communities while

conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal

opportunity in the public and private sectors.

National Association of Social Workers (NASW)--The National

Association of Social Workers represents over 150,000 social

workers in the U.S.

National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA)--

NCAPA is a coalition of the Nation's leading Asian Pacific

American organizations. It represents the interests of the

greater APA community and provides a national voice on APA

issues.

National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community

Development (National CAPACD)--National CAPACD's mission is

to enhance the capacity and ability of community based

organizations to conduct community development activities for

the Asian and Pacific Islander American communities.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)--NCAI is the

Nation's oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native

organization that represents over 250 member tribes.

National Council of La Raza (NCLR)--NCLR is the largest

constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving

all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of the

country. NCLR has over 270 formal affiliates who together

serve 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia--

and a broader network of more than 30,000 groups and

individuals nationwide--reaching more than three and a half

million Hispanics annually.

National Indian Education Association (NIEA)--Established

in 1969, NIEA is the largest national Indian organization of

American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian educators,

administrators, parents and students in the United States,

providing a forum to discuss and act upon issues affecting

the education of indigenous people.

National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America

(NOPIA)--NOPIA is dedicated to ensuring the protection of

rights and fair treatment of all Pacific Islander Americans

through legislative and policy initiatives at all levels of

government.

Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA)--OCA is dedicated

to securing the rights of Chinese American and Asian American

citizens and permanent residents through legislative and

policy initiatives at all levels of the government. OCA aims

to embrace the hopes and aspirations of the nearly 2 million

citizens and residents of Chinese ancestry in the United

States as well as to better the lives of the 10 million Asian

Americans across the country.

Tribal Education Departments National Assembly (TEDNA)--A

membership organization for the Education Departments of

American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes.

United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)--USET is an inter-

tribal organization that collectively represents its 24

federally recognized member Tribes at the regional and

national level. USET is dedicated to promoting Indian

leadership, improving the quality of life for American

Indians, and protecting Indian rights and natural resources

on tribal lands.

Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life (VITAL)--An

independent public organization, established to support

Virginia Indian Initiatives by funding lobbyist and

bipartisan political campaigns which support the needs of

Virginia Indians in education, healthcare and economic

development.

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Public Lands

Authority--Established by the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to manage and

dispose of the public lands for the benefit of the people of

the Commonwealth who are of Northern Marianas descent.

National Federation of Filipino American Associations--

Hawaii Pacific Region 12 (NaFFAA--HPR 12)--NaFFAA was

established in 1997 to promote the welfare and well-being of

all Filipinos and Filipino Americans throughout the U.S., and

Region 12 is Hawai'i, Guam and Commonwealth of Northern

Mariana Islands.

Individual Supporters: Joe Shirley, President, Navajo

Nation.

Introducers of S. 310 on 1/17/07: Senator Daniel K. Akaka

and Senator Daniel K. Inouye.

S. 310 Co-Sponsors: Senator Maria Cantwell on 1/17/07,

Senator Norm Coleman on 1/17/07, Senator Byron L. Dorgan on

1/17/07, Senator Lisa Murkowski on 1/17/07, Senator Gordon H.

Smith on 1/17/07, Senator Ted Stevens on 1/17/07, and Senator

Christopher J. Dodd on 1/17/07.

Introducers of H.R. 505 on 1/17/07: Representative Neil

Abercrombie and Representative Mazie Hirono.

H.R. 505 Co-Sponsors: Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo on 2/

27/07, Delegate Eni Faleomavaega on 2/27/07, and

Representative James P. Moran on 2/27/07.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which begins to provide a measure of justice for the indigenous native people of the Hawaiian Islands. I'd like to take a few moments to share some of the history to show why this bill is so important to all the people of Hawaii.

The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893. Hawaii's last Queen, Lili'uokalani, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar planters who were American by birth or heritage, with the support of U.S. troops. The Queen agreed to relinquish her throne, under protest, to avoid bloodshed. She believed the United States, with which Hawaii had diplomatic relations, would restore her to the throne. As we now know, despite the objections of President Grover Cleveland, the injustice of the overthrow was allowed to stand and the Republic of Hawaii was established.

A few years later, in 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii. Prior to annexation, a petition drive was organized by Native Hawaiians securing signatures of almost two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian population opposing annexation; 29,000 signatures out of an estimated Native Hawaiian population of 40,000 at that time.

These petitions are now in the National Archives.

The Hawaiian culture was under siege. The Republic of Hawaii prohibited the use of the Hawaiian language in Hawaii schools. Everyday use of the Hawaiian language diminished greatly. Hula, which had been suppressed by the missionaries and then restored by King Kalaukaua a few years before the overthrow, survived but did not thrive. Hawaiians were pressured to assimilate and much was lost.

When Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole was elected to serve as Hawaii's Delegate to Congress, he succeeded in passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside some 200,000 acres of land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the landless status of so many Native Hawaiians who were displaced by newcomers and became the most impoverished population in their own land. In recognition of its trust responsibility to our Native Hawaiians, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is still in force.

Hawaii became a State in 1959. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a Native Hawaiian cultural rediscovery began in music, hula, language, and other aspects of the culture. This cultural renaissance was inspired by hula masters, kumu hula, who helped bring back ancient and traditional hula; musicians and vocalists, who brought back traditional music sung in the Hawaiian language; and political leaders, who sought to protect Hawaii's sacred places and natural beauty.

This flowering of Hawaiian culture was not met with fear in Hawaii but with joy and celebration and an increased connection with each other. People of all ethnicities in Hawaii respect and honor the Native Hawaiian culture.

In 1978, Hawaii convened a constitutional convention that was designed, in part, to right some of the wrongs done to Native Hawaiians. The constitutional convention created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, or OHA, so that Native Hawaiians would have some ability to manage their own affairs.

The constitutional convention also laid the groundwork for the return of some Federal lands to Native Hawaiians, including the island of Kaho'olawe, which currently is held in trust for a future Native Hawaiian governing entity. The convention also designated the Hawaiian language, along with English, as the official State language of Hawaii for the first time since the overthrow in 1893.

We can trace the genesis of this bill, embodying the hope of an indigenous people to control their own fate, all the way back to the overthrow of 1893. It has been a long road. I believe how we treat our native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are. Clearly, there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. But one of the great attributes of America has always been our ability to look objectively at our history, learn from it, and where possible make amends.

Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native people. They desire the right to exercise management over their own affairs and land.

Our State motto, which is the same as that of the Kingdom of Hawaii, is ``Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.'' This is an historic vote and one that helps to perpetuate righteousness by righting an historic wrong.

I ask my colleagues to stand with the people of Hawaii and support this bill.

Mahalo nui loa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which begins to provide a measure of justice for the indigenous, native people of the Hawaiian islands. I could argue the legal and constitutional arguments on why this bill should be passed, but I want to take a few minutes to share some of the history to show why this bill is so important to all the people of Hawai`i.

As many of you know, the Kingdom of Hawai`i was overthrown in 1893. Hawai`i's last Queen, Lili`uokalani, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar planters, who were American by birth or heritage, with the support of U.S. troops. The Queen agreed to relinquish her throne, under protest, to avoid bloodshed. She believed the United States, which with Hawai`i had diplomatic relations, would restore her to the throne. As we now know, despite the objections of President Grover Cleveland, the injustice of the overthrow was allowed to stand, and the Republic of Hawai`i was established.

A few years later, in 1898, the United States annexed Hawai`i. Prior to annexation, a petition drive organized by Native Hawaiians secured signatures of almost two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian population opposing annexation (29,000 signatures out of an estimated Native Hawaiian population of 40,000). These petitions are now in the National Archives.

The Hawaiian culture was under siege. The Republic of Hawai`i prohibited the use of the Hawaiian language in Hawai`i schools. Everyday use of the Hawaiian language diminished greatly and it was in danger of dying out. Hula, which had been suppressed by the missionaries and then restored by King Kalaukaua a few years before the overthrow, survived but did not flourish. Hawaiians were pressured to assimilate and much was lost.

When Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana`ole was elected to serve as Hawai`i's delegate to Congress, he succeeded in passing the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside some 200,000 acres of land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the landless status of so many Native Hawaiians, who were displaced by newcomers and became the most impoverished population in their native land. In recognition of its trust responsibility toward Native Hawaiians, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is still in force.

Hawai`i became a state in 1959. Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a Native Hawaiian cultural rediscovery began in music, hula, language, and other aspects of the culture. This cultural renaissance was inspired by hula masters (kumu hula), who helped bring back ancient and traditional hula; musicians and vocalists, who brought back traditional music and sang in the Hawaiian language; and political leaders, who sought to protect Hawai`i's sacred places and natural beauty.

This flowering of Hawaiian culture was not met with fear in Hawai`i, but with joy and celebration and an increased connection with each other. People of all ethnicities in Hawai`i respect and honor the Native Hawaiian culture. We are not threatened by the idea of self determination by Native Hawaiians.

In 1978, Hawai`i convened a constitutional convention that was designed, in part, to right some of the wrongs done to Native Hawaiians. The constitutional convention created the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or OHA so that Native Hawaiians would have some ability to manage their own matters. The people of Hawai`i ratified the creation of OHA and voted to allow the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs to be elected solely by Native Hawaiians. Although the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano decided that limiting the vote in this manner violated the 15th Amendment, that decision was based on the fact that the State of Hawai`i ran the elections, not whether or not Native Hawaiians are an indigenous, native group with an inherent sovereignty. In fact, the court expressly avoided the issue of whether or not Native Hawaiians are analogous to an Indian tribe.

The Constitutional Convention also laid the ground work for the return of some federal lands to Native Hawaiians, including the island of Kaho`olawe, which is currently held in trust for a future Native Hawaiian governing entity. The ConCon, as it is known in Hawai`i, also designated the Hawaiian language (along with English) as the official state language of Hawai`i for the first time since the overthrow in 1893.

I was in the Hawai`i State Legislature when we approved creation of Hawaiian language immersion schools, recognizing that language is an integral part of a culture and people. The Hawaiian language was in danger of disappearing. Public Hawaiian language preschools, called Punana Leo, were started in 1984. We now have Hawaiian language elementary, middle, and high schools in Hawai`i, and a new generation of fluent Hawaiian language speakers are helping to keep this beautiful and culturally important language alive. Other native peoples are looking to the Hawai`i model as a means of preserving and perpetuating their native languages.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 977, I voted electronically, but for some reason, my vote was not recorded. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to override the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program reauthorization. The bill we sent him earlier this month would provide health

insurance for 10 million low-income children.

This includes continuing insurance for the 20,000 kids in my State of Hawaii already in the program, and reaching out to provide coverage for an additional 12,000 Hawaiian children currently eligible but not yet enrolled in the program.

I am disappointed that the President and many Members on the other side of the aisle have taken what can fairly be characterized as a stand against children. This is how much of the country views their position. Apparently even the President is aware that his veto was a bad decision because he now says that he wants to find a way to compromise with Congress. However, the CHIP reauthorization that the President vetoed was already a bipartisan compromise.

The original bill we passed in the House would have ensured health care for children of legal immigrants and other important provisions that the Senate saw fit to cut. So the version of the legislation that the President vetoed was in fact already a compromise bill.

It is not surprising that we have strong public support for a bill that reflects our American values. Forty-three Governors, Republican and Democratic Governors alike, share our belief that all children deserve access to health care. Senate Republicans who helped shape the legislation agree.

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin summed it up precisely in an editorial this month by declaring that the President's ``veto is indefensible.''

Therefore, I urge my colleagues not to defend the President's indefensible veto, but to instead join together in defense of the most vulnerable among us, our children.

This is not only the right thing to do, it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. The bill is fully paid for, and the cost of this preventive care will save substantial money over time as we keep children out of unnecessary and expensive emergency room visits.

I am also distressed but not surprised by the President's misinformation in defending his veto. He would like people to believe that our bill provides health coverage to families who don't need it, those who are making $83,000 for a family of four. This is simply not true. In fact, our bill does the opposite.

Our bill helps States reach out to enroll the poorest children most in need of health coverage and it decreases Federal contributions to States which cover families over 300 percent of the Federal poverty line.

What this veto comes down to is a question of values: Should every child in this country have health care? Does every child deserve a chance to grow up into a healthy adult? I think so, as do my constituents in Hawaii and indeed the majority of Americans.

Tomorrow's vote will reflect our values, and I urge my colleagues to stand with our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 400, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007. I am a proud cosponsor of this legislation, introduced by my colleague from Hawaii Neil Abercrombie. This bill would prohibit profiteering and fraud relating to contracts executed by the United States Government or a provisional authority for the provision of goods and services in support of U.S. missions overseas. This long overdue legislation will help correct the unconscionable and unpatriotic defrauding of the United States government, our armed services, and American taxpayers. Unfortunately, the problem of contractor fraud has proliferated in the past 4 years.

The United States has spent over $50 billion on contracts thus far in Iraq to provide for support services, security, infrastructure construction, and reconstruction work. Much of this spending has been under no-bid or cost-plus contracts. As a result of inadequate planning, control, enforcement, and prosecution, the free-spending, former Coalition Provisional Authority could not account for $8.8 billion of that money. Allegations about rampant waste, over-billing, and outright fraud have been reported time and time again, but no action has been taken to correct this waste of taxpayer dollars.

Unfortunately, current law does not explicitly extend extraterritorial jurisdiction for contract fraud on contracts executed by the U.S. Government or any provisional authority supporting a U.S. mission abroad. As a result, numerous instances of fraud have been committed and inspectors general have initiated hundreds of investigations of alleged fraudulent practices, including illegal kickbacks, bid-rigging, embezzlement, faulty construction, and fraudulent over-billing.

We need to toughen the laws which apply to individuals and corporations who have placed personal profit and greed over the interests of American taxpayers and our men and women serving in the armed services. While most private contractors are not overcharging the government and are providing good value with their goods and services, others are engaged in fraud and waste, costing the American taxpayers billions of dollars that could be spent on domestic needs, including funds that could have gone to our underfunded schools, health clinics, infrastructure, and environmental programs.

Even when the government does act to enforce fraud statutes on the books, it has been stymied by the inadequacy of current law. The infamous case against Custer Battles, an American contractor in Iraq found to have committed 37 acts of fraud, is a case in point. Custer Battles was one of a few contractors that was actually prosecuted and was ordered to pay $10 million in damages. However, it was allowed to walk away scot-free when a federal judge overturned the verdict on a technicality. The court found that United States fraud law did not apply to this contractor since the contract went through the Coalition Provisional Authority which the court held was not part of the United States government. The incompetence of this administration not only permitted fraud against the U.S. but allowed the perpetrator to escape punishment.

To successfully prosecute these individuals and corporations, H.R. 400 provides clear and unambiguous legal authority to criminalize this unconscionable behavior on the part of greedy, corrupt contractors and provides a mechanism for successful prosecution. We are talking about prosecuting contractors who willfully and intentionally defraud the government, not those who merely make a business mistake. We should have no sympathy or leniency for those who purposely defraud taxpayers.

This is not a partisan issue. As Americans, we should all stand together to put an end to greed and corruption in our government programs, which hurts the troops on the ground, undermines the efforts of our armed forces, enriches the greedy and corrupt, and steals from the American taxpayer. This must end, H.R. 400 is a major step to bring accountability to the contracting process.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 976, the reauthorization of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

I believe our nation must show true compassion for the most vulnerable among us, and CHIP is a program that helps millions of low- income American children to receive health care so they can grow up in good health.

Since its creation in 1997, CHIP has been successful in providing vital health care coverage for children in families who cannot afford private insurance yet earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.

There are now 6.6 million children emolled in the program.

Unless we act now, they are in danger of losing their health coverage, as CHIP expires on September 30th.

Leaders in the House and Senate have worked hard to bring this conference bill to the floor.

In supporting the conference bill, I want to note that the bill passed by the House earlier is a stronger bill in its coverage of more children in need and in eliminating the automatic cuts to Medicare reimbursements set to take effect in 2008 and 2009. Eliminating these automatic cuts was at the top of the list of needed legislation by medical and health care groups.

I am hopeful that we will address their concerns through another bill before the cuts go into effect.

I am also deeply disappointed that Senate Republicans insisted on the removal of provisions providing coverage for the children of legal immigrants. Such discrimination based on immigrant status should have no place in a bill providing health care to children.

While work remains to be done, I also want to point out that under this bill we would preserve the coverage of more than 20,000 children in Hawai`i, and in addition 12,000 children in Hawai`i who currently are uninsured would gain coverage.

We would preserve coverage for the 6.6 million children nationwide currently covered by CHIP and extend coverage to an additional 3.8 million children who are eligible for coverage but not enrolled. Thus passing this bill would provide health care coverage for more than 10 million American children.

A new report by Families USA indicates that during a 2-year period almost 35 percent of Americans under age 65 lacked healthcare insurance. Hawai'i is better than average in this regard, but 29 percent of our state's residents under age 65 still lacked insurance at some point during the past 2 years.

I support providing all Americans with high quality, affordable health care, and I hope that Congress will continue to move in that direction. But until we reach that goal, we should take steps that help our most vulnerable populations, including low-income children. This is precisely the group that CHIP will help, if we can get it reauthorized and signed into law.

I support CHIP because it is the compassionate, just, moral and the right thing to do. In fact, it is also highly cost-effective. It costs less than $3.50 a day to cover a child through CHIP. It would be far more expensive for taxpayers to leave these children uninsured and having to pick up the tab for indigent care in emergency rooms.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2881, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. I thank Chairman Oberstar and Chairman Costello for their leadership and hard work to bring this complex legislation to the floor.

While there are disagreements on certain issues, the bill that emerged from the committee will serve the greater interests for the American people for years to come. I am truly proud to have been part of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Subcommittee on Aviation in developing this important legislation.

I will address a few of the numerous positive provisions of the bill that warrant mention and support.

One section extends the coverage of OSHA to flight attendants. For all too long--well over 30 years--flight attendants have fought an unsuccessful fight to win basic occupational and health protections available to nearly all other American workers.

Despite a Memorandum of Understanding in 2000 between FAA and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to rectify this discriminatory application of employment law, flight attendants are still left without any meaningful safety and health protections. Since the FAA has shown no inclination to follow through on the MOU, it is time for Congress to act.

Every day, flight attendants risk exposure to poor air quality, blood-borne viruses including HIV and Hepatitis B, cosmic radiation and noise. They are expected to perform excessive lifting, pushing, pulling and carrying--including carry-on baggage and poorly designed food and beverage carts. Without workplace regulatory protections, flight attendants who are sick and injured have no one to help them. This unacceptable condition threatens not only the health of flight attendants, but the safety of the hundreds of passengers who depend on flight attendants for many in-flight services, not to mention life- saving assistance in times of emergency.

The time has long passed for flight attendants to be denied the same protections that the Federal Government affords millions of other hard- working employees in both the private and public sector, including its own employees. It is time for Congress to extend OSHA protections to 50,000 American workers who have been denied this basic employment right by their federal regulator, the FAA, which should be leading this effort.

Another important provision that will bring fundamental fairness to the industry is the bill's abolition of the arbitrary 60-year age limit on commercial pilots. Only commercial airline pilots in the U.S. are prohibited from flying after age 60. The International Civil Aviation Authority already allows its pilots to fly to age 65. Many advanced countries, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand have no age limit. Only the U.S., Pakistan, France and Colombia still hold on to this arbitrary disqualification of otherwise competent pilots.

While eliminating this totally subjective and discriminatory restriction on the right to work, the bill provides the necessary safeguards to protect the flying public. No pilot over the age of 60 who is not otherwise capable and qualified will be able to work on the flight deck, just like any other qualified pilot of any age.

The FAA itself agrees that the 60-year old limit should be abolished, but it will take the agency two years to promulgate regulations to change this admittedly archaic rule. Meanwhile, an estimated 4,000 pilots will needlessly be forced to retire unless we pass this bill.

Finally, one of the more contentious provisions of the bill relates to collective bargaining for air traffic controllers. I support the air traffic controllers on this issue. It is a matter of simple fairness that the FAA be compelled to deal fairly with this important group of its employees. There is no fair and equal collective bargaining if one side can walk away from the negotiation table and unilaterally impose its position once an impasse is reached. Fundamental fairness requires that the parties resume negotiations until an agreement is reached and, if the parties cannot agree, mediation should be required. Meanwhile, the pre-impasse terms and conditions of employment should be maintained, as it is in all collective bargaining relationships, until a new collective bargaining agreement is ratified.

Collective bargaining not only protects the rights and benefits of the air traffic controllers, but also protects the lives and safety of the traveling public. When they are adequately compensated and allowed sufficient time for training, rest and recuperation, air traffic controllers would able to do their jobs more effectively.

There is no worse a method to destroy morale and loyalty--and hence effectiveness and performance--of employees than to show such disrespect for them. In a job as critical to the safety of millions of travelers, the effectiveness and professionalism of air traffic controllers must be fostered, not undermined by unfair employment practices that treat them with such undeserved disdain. Giving these important employees bargaining rights equal to the employer is not only the right thing to do, it is the safe thing to do for all Americans.

For the reasons I have stated, I support this comprehensive and major improvement to our nation's aviation system. I urge my colleagues to look at the bill in its entirety and vote to pass this important legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act.

I applaud the House Judiciary Committee and the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property for their efforts in putting together this comprehensive bill. However, I cannot in good conscience support the Patent Reform Act in its current form given the concerns that continue to be raised from organizations in my district and at least 100 companies nationwide.

Organizations in my district, such as the Hawaii Science & Technology Council and University of Hawaii's Office of Technology Transfer and Economic Development, have raised concerns regarding the provisions on mandatory publication, prior user rights, apportionment of damages, and post-grant review, which may discourage investment in innovative technologies, harm inventors, and reduce publication and collaborative activities among academic scientists. I want to make sure that the final bill that becomes law protects the interests of Hawaii's burgeoning high technology industry and small inventors.

This bill remains a work-in-progress that certainly requires more debate. Our patent system serves as the basis for America's innovation. It is my hope that the concerns and needs of our inventors will be addressed in conference should this bill pass the House as I very much want to be able to support the final conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by Mr. Westmoreland to eliminate section 811 of H.R. 2786 which reauthorizes the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant and Loan Guarantee programs.

This block grant is used to carry out affordable housing activities for Native Hawaiian families who are eligible to reside on Hawaiian homelands which were established in trust by the United States in 1921 under the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act.

Due to a variety of factors, including lack of program funding, only 8,000 individuals currently hold leases and reside on Hawaiian homelands. Approximately 23,650 remain on a waiting list, and many of our elderly, our kupuna, have died waiting to achieve the dream of homeownership.

This block grant supports the dreams of homeownership for Native Hawaiians, not just in Hawaii, but across our Nation, as 2,712 Hawaiian homeland applicants currently reside outside of Hawaii. In fact, 21 Native Hawaiians who live in Georgia, the home State of the author of this amendment, have applied for this very program he has not once, but twice, tried to eliminate.

Many of you may remember that this past July the gentleman from Georgia offered an amendment that would eliminate funding for the Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program in the fiscal year 2008 Transportation-Treasury-Housing appropriations bill. This body rejected that amendment in a bipartisan vote of 116 yeas to 307 nays.

These amendments are really just the latest in a pattern of challenge to programs that focus on benefiting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiian people. An earlier failed challenge to the previously uncontroversial Native American Housing Act, H.R. 835, was the first apparent salvo against Native American programs. Then there was an attempt to strike funds for Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions in the fiscal year 2008 Department of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill.

These actions raise the concern that all programs benefiting indigenous people will be subjected to attack.

Like other indigenous groups, such as American Indians and Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians have a special trust relationship with the United States. It has been well settled that Congress has clear plenary power to fulfill its obligations to indigenous people who once had sovereign governing entities before the establishment of the United States and whose lands are currently within the borders of the United States.

Like American Indians and Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians suffered the loss of their sovereignty and their lands to the United States. Congress has an obligation to Native Hawaiians, whose sovereign government was overthrown with the aid of the United States military under the direction of the U.S. minister.

Congress has demonstrated this special relationship by enacting over 150 laws specifically benefiting Native Hawaiians since 1900. None of the laws Congress has enacted benefiting Native Hawaiians have ever been successfully challenged as unconstitutional.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision of Rice v. Cayetano has been bandied about today by supporters of this amendment. I was a member of the Cayetano administration as Lieutenant Governor in Hawaii and sat in the court when arguments in the Rice case were heard. It may interest some of you to know that one of the lawyers arguing for the State of Hawaii's case was John Roberts, who is now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

Nothing in the Rice decision holds that programs that benefit Native Hawaiians are unconstitutional. The majority decision did not call into question the trust relationship between the United States Government and Native Hawaiian people. It did not strike down the Office of Hawaiian Affairs or any other program benefiting Native Hawaiians as unconstitutional.

America has a moral and legal obligation to support programs that provide housing, education and other important services for Native Hawaiians. Helping Native Hawaiians achieve and advance is in the best interests of all of the people of our Nation.

I would like to add that it is totally inaccurate and an insult to the Native Hawaiians that they are characterized as not having had a sovereign government. They certainly did.

In closing, I ask that my colleagues join me once again in fighting these unconscionable attacks and vote ``no'' on the Westmoreland amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to S. 1927. This bill represents a shocking and grave invasion of long-held constitutional rights of American citizens that--until the abuses of this administration--have been regarded as sacrosanct and inviolable. This bill codifies violating the Fourth amendment ``right of the people to be secure in their person, homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures . . .''

S. 1927 will permit the National Security Agency (NSA) to acquire and analyze all international communications of Americans, without any meaningful judicial oversight. It will allow the NSA to gain warrantless and unchecked access to virtually all international communications of Americans with anyone outside the United States. All the government has to do is to declare that the surveillance was directed at people--which includes foreigners and citizens alike--it ``reasonably believed'' to be located outside the United States. It doesn't have to even target terrorists; all that the government needs to do is to determine that the purpose of the acquisition is to obtain ``foreign intelligence information'' outside the United States. These overly broad definitions covers millions of people--and potentially millions of U.S. citizens--and the purpose need not involve the surveillance of suspected terrorists. We are giving the government, and specifically this administration, entirely too much power.

One of the two people given extraordinary power to authorize these warrantless intrusions into our private communications is the Attorney General of the United States.

Can we be assured that this Attorney General--or any Attorney General for that matter--will have the integrity and sound judgment to faithfully carry out his or her responsibilities in a way which will inflict the least possible harm to the constitutional rights of American citizens?

Can we be assured that each Attorney General who is granted this power will have only the national security in mind, and not any political motivation in exercising his or her extraordinary power?

Mr. Speaker, we Americans don't like governments which spy on their people. This bill allows just that in our own country. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill.