Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to show further support for H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and would like to submit for the Record a letter of support from the Honorable Calvin Say, Speaker for the House of Representatives in the Hawaii State Legislature.

State of Hawaii,

House of Representatives,

Honolulu, HI, February 19, 2010.

Aloha,

I write to express my support for you, the Hawaii

Congressional Delegation, in your efforts to pass the Native

Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act.

The Native Hawaiian people have sought passage of this bill

for ten years. The Hawaii State Legislature, which serves as

the representative voice of Hawaii's people, has demonstrated

continued commitment to Native Hawaiian self-governance and

self-determination by unanimously affirming three separate

resolutions supporting federal recognition of Native

Hawaiians.

Thank you for creating an atmosphere of dialogue with the

various stakeholders. I appreciate your diligence and

openness in working with the state administration and

community constituencies to address the best approaches

offered. I trust your judgment in this matter, and am

confident that through your careful and thoughtful

deliberations, we will have a measure that is worthy of the

goals to which we have all aspired over the last ten years.

I believe that the people of Hawaii recognize it is time to

deliver a fair process for Native Hawaiians to resolve

longstanding concerns in their community as other Native

peoples have done. Federal recognition is an essential

component in advancing the social and economic condition of

Native peoples. To deny Native Hawaiians the rights of self-

determination and self-governance as accorded to other Native

peoples goes against the very principles of justice and

fairness on which our country was founded.

The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act provides

an empowering and stable structure on which Native Hawaiians

can build a prosperous future for themselves and for our

state. Both our identity and the economic well-being of our

state are very much intertwined with the well-being of the

indigenous peoples of our island home. Effectuating a

balanced process that will bring clarity to this issue is the

right thing to do for our state, Native Hawaiians and all of

the citizens of Hawaii.

Sincerely,

Calvin K.Y. Say,

Speaker of the House.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the Hawaii Festival of Religious Freedom.

This festival, which shared with the community many presentations on religious liberty by experts from various faiths, aimed to build public awareness and support for religious liberty; bring civic, political, and faith leaders together to foster greater mutual understanding, respect, and cooperation; and promote the aloha spirit of religious freedom internationally.

In anticipation of the festival, the Hawaii State Legislature proposed legislation including H.R. No. 74 and H.C.R. No. 92 to recognize July as Religious Freedom Month in Hawaii.

Organized by Alan Reinach, held by the Hawaii Conference of Seventh- Day Adventists, and cosponsored by Liberty Magazine, North American Religious Liberty Association, and the International Religious Liberty Association, I would like to commend Earl Stuckey, Jr., Hawaii Conference President of the Hawaii Festival of Religious Freedom, for his great work to coordinate the festival's musical program. In ``orchestrating'' this festival, I am pleased to know that people of all religious faiths gathered in Hawaii to share their inspiration and music, individually and collectively. It reflects the Aloha State's reputation as the ``melting pot of the Pacific.''

Will the gentleman yield?

I am deeply touched by your remarks. Your friendship is something I treasure and value. I am so taken by it, as a matter of fact, that I wonder if you would allow me to present you with a token of my esteem and my regard for you. These chocolate-covered macadamia nuts from Hawaii, I think, are just what you need right now. If you would allow me to come over and present them to you, that will give you an opportunity to contemplate as to whether or not, out of regard for our friendship and affection for each other, you will actually support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that the Ethics Committee, the Parliamentarian and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have assured me that, if you can consume it on the premises, it's okay.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Doc. My regard for you and for all of the Members is, of course, something that, I trust, is understood by all. I see my good friend Don Young there as well.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an enabling bill. It establishes a process. The core of this bill assures that a Native Hawaiian Government has the same powers and sovereign immunity as other native governments, and this is consistent with the history of the legal discussions and court cases that have taken place over such a long period of time.

Since the passage of the bill in the Resources Committee, we have had 2 months of discussions with the Hawaii State Attorney General. As a result, we have made numerous changes in the substitute amendment, and have added several pages of new text to make the State more comfortable with how a native government interacts with the State government.

This is, in fact, my amendment, and I wanted to assure the minority on the floor--I don't think there is a minority here. Doc is quite right. It's not a question of Republican versus Democrat or majority versus minority. It is a question of perspective as to what is appropriate with regard to Native Hawaiians and other native people and how they establish relationships both with local governments and State governments in the United States of America.

So this has not been something behind closed doors. Quite the opposite. It has been a full and complete discussion with the Governor and with the Attorney General, and I think that is reflected in the Governor's statement.

In conversation with Governor Lingle today, we concluded that we would agree to disagree. As Representative Hastings has indicated, she continues to support the legislative object of the bill, and I want to assure the House that her administration will not be disadvantaged in any way in any negotiations undertaken upon the passage and signing of this bill.

As a candidate for Governor myself, I am completely comfortable with the language of the substitute, and believe that no Governor, regardless of who it may be, will be disadvantaged. The substitute amendment treats a Native Hawaiian entity as any other native government, and it follows literally centuries of existing Native American law.

Native Hawaiians are not a race. They are a native indigenous people of the United States. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that legislation enacted to address the special concerns and conditions of native people of the United States does not constitute discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. The sovereign status of Indian tribes, recognized by the Constitution, was later extended to Alaska natives as indigenous people, and Representative Young can attest to that in his remarks. On this same basis then, Congress has enacted legislation on multiple occasions for the aboriginal, indigenous people of Hawaii.

Absent the substitute, H.R. 2314 would unduly limit the power of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, upon recognition, to accomplish the ordinary and customary activities of any other native organization, such as providing for the welfare of their children or for the health care of its members. The substitute amendment then will ensure that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will have the same powers and authorities that other tribal governments exercise today.

The Native Hawaiian Government will have sovereign immunity, as I indicated, the same as other native governments--no more, no less. This is not a new provision. Under the bill passed by the House in the last Congress, the Native Hawaiian governing entity would also have had sovereign immunity once it had been federally recognized.

In support of this bill are the Congressional Delegation of Hawaii, the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, et cetera, et cetera. The Native American Caucus, under Representatives Kildee and Cole, as caucus Chairs, are supportive as are the Native Hawaiian organizations, such as the Sovereign Council of Hawaiian Homestead Organizations, the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Local political leaders in both houses of the legislature and numerous resolutions from both of those bodies are in support.

I could not take leave of the floor, Mr. Speaker, without mentioning the following:

It is one thing for Representative Hastings or Young or Rahall or myself and others to take to the floor, but without staff support, it simply couldn't be done.

Our friend, an institutional giant of the Resources Committee, Marie Howard, is retiring from the Natural Resources Committee. I want to commend her, not just for the work on this bill, but for all of the devotion that she has had to the House.

Janet Erickson is taking her place as staff director for Indian Affairs.

In addition to Marie and Janet, Rick Healy and Jim Zoia have been heavily involved in bringing this bill to the floor. Their efforts are deeply appreciated by everyone.

Countless hours of staff time in the administration--both departmental and within the White House--have been put forward.

As has been indicated, Mr. Speaker, this bill has passed out of the House Natural Resources Committee four times already. It has passed from the House floor twice under the leadership of as diverse a group of Chairs as Jim Hansen, Don Young, George Miller, and Nick Rahall. I note as well that the bill has passed under the leadership of Speaker Dennis Hastert and under the leadership of my good friend Tom DeLay. It is not ideological. It is nonpartisan. It is the culmination of a legislative lifetime for me, and it is the last occasion I will have to address the House as I take my leave.

Mr. Speaker, I love this House. I admire and respect every Member. It has been a privilege for me to be first sworn in as the last person to be sworn in by Speaker Tip O'Neill. I take my leave today with profound respect, admiration and affection for every Member of this House of Representatives. This is the people's House. You can only enter it upon the fact of having been elected by your constituents. They have placed their faith and trust in us, and I extend my faith and trust that this House will continue the great tradition of democracy.

I want to say to one and all that I love you, and I love this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2314, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and a substitute amendment that I will offer on the House floor. This is legislation that the Hawaii Congressional delegation has been working on for more than 10 years and it is a privilege to see this progress through the legislative process as my time in Congress comes to an end.

The purpose of the bill is to provide a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-to-government relationship. The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would provide Native Hawaiians the same right of self-governance and self-determination that are afforded to other indigenous peoples.

Since Hawaii was annexed as a territory, the United States has treated Native Hawaiians in a manner similar to that of American Indians and Alaska Natives. This bill would formalize that relationship and establish parity in federal policies towards all of our indigenous peoples.

I would also like to provide supporting documentation on the sections of H.R. 2314 primarily affected by the amendment in the nature of a substitute that I am offering on the House floor today. The following is additional language on Sections 3, 9 and 10.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all my colleagues here today, and I want to thank those especially who have risen in opposition. This is what our democracy is all about. My only regret in extending my aloha to those who may not feel able to vote for the bill today is that you have not had an opportunity, perhaps, to visit with, to understand, and to comprehend what it means to be a Native Hawaiian.

It is, of course, very easy for someone to say well, how can you do that; you came from somewhere else.

I was born and raised just outside Buffalo, New York. I came to Hawaii some 50 years ago, with statehood, given the opportunity to go to the University of Hawaii as a graduate teaching assistant. And the first thing that happened to me as I came that great distance, across the continent and across the ocean, then in a Pan American Clipper, it took 10 hours just to get from the coast to Hawaii. And when I took that first breath of Hawaiian air and saw the gorgeous curves of the island of Oahu, Diamondhead, Waikiki, and the first evening, taken to Manoa Valley, where I now reside, it was as if destiny had called.

And the first contact that I had was with my Chinese Hawaiian friend, Solomon Lu, God rest his soul, whose family took me in and treated me as one of their own. And that's what Hawaii is all about.

Mr. Speaker, this is not about race. This is about the aloha spirit. This is about the rainbow State of Hawaii. This is about Native Hawaiians who give us the host culture and the fundamental sense of who we are as human beings. And the diversity that defines us in Hawaii that does not divide us is the kind of diversity and definition we need in this House of Representatives, that we need in the United States of America.

This is Hawaii's gift to the United States. It is its gift to the world, the spirit of aloha. And in that same spirit of aloha, I ask for a vote favorably on behalf of the Native Hawaiian recognition bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment in the nature of a substitute made in order under the rule.

Mr. Speaker, in support of our substitute amendment, the amendment ensures that the Native Hawaiian governing entity will have the same governmental authorities and sovereign immunity of other native governments.

The Abercrombie amendment, the substitute amendment, follows centuries of well-established Federal law. The amendment is supported by the National Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives and other tribal organizations. President Obama supports the substitute amendment, and I quote, ``as it adds important clarifications to craft a durable pathway forward.''

Mr. Speaker, the amendment in the nature of a substitute further clarifies that pending negotiations and subsequent implementation legislation with that, the following will occur: There will be no Indian Country within Hawaii. The United States will not take land into trust nor restrict alien ability of land owned by the Native Hawaiian governing entity. The governing entity may not exercise certain powers and authorities such as jurisdiction over non-Native Hawaiian individuals without their consent. And the State of Hawaii will retain regulatory and taxation authority over Native Hawaiians and the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Mr. Speaker, the Native Hawaiian government reorganization does as follows: Establishes a process for the recognition of a single Native Hawaiian governing entity; establishes a U.S. office for Native Hawaiian relations in the Department of the Interior to consult with other Federal agencies and the State of Hawaii; establishes a Native Hawaiian interagency coordinating group; authorizes United States-State of Hawaii Native Hawaiian governing entity negotiations based on the following: the transfer of lands, natural resources and other assets; the exercise of governmental authority over any lands or resources; the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction; and grievances regarding assertions of historical wrongs committed against the Native Hawaiians by the United States or the State of Hawaii. It prohibits gaming by Native Hawaiian governing entities and Native Hawaiians. It prohibits the Native Hawaiian governing entity from being eligible for any new Indian programs to which they are not already included.

Let me say then, in conclusion, what the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act does not do. It does not recognize the Native Hawaiian government upon passage of this bill. It does not exempt the Native Hawaiian government from any provision of the U.S. Constitution. It does not exempt the Native Hawaiian government from any provision of Federal law. It does not exempt the Native Hawaiian governing entity from taxation. It does not authorize a Native Hawaiian government entity to secede. It does not alter the civil or criminal jurisdiction of the United States or the State of Hawaii. And finally, it does not allow for the transfer of land or any authority of land to a Native Hawaiian governing entity.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

That is correct.

Yes. Not everyone may have been on the floor or listening at the time that I indicated that I had a conversation with the Governor this afternoon, and I indicated to her that I would say specifically on the

floor that we have agreed to disagree, that she supports the object of the bill--as has been indicated by Representative Hastings quite accurately--but that in this disagreement over how to proceed legislatively, I commented both to her and I've commented on the floor and in conversations private and elsewhere that legislation is a process and that this is not theology. And as a result of it being a legislative process, it may not be perfect in every regard, but I am content and comfortable with the idea that whoever is Governor, including the present Governor for the remainder of her term, that she will not be disadvantaged nor will any other Governor be disadvantaged in any negotiations that take place with the native governing agency.

I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.

I think the answer from the most practical point of view is the passage of the Hawaiian Homes Act of 1921. The Congress obviously recognized that there was a distinctive entity in the category of Native Hawaiians as a logical extension of the previous constitutional history regarding native people.

Will the gentleman yield?

Perhaps you want to put that in as an amendment, that I should be the negotiator.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to my colleague and good friend from Hawaii, Mazie Hirono.

Mr. Speaker, can you tell us the time remaining on both sides?

And the gentleman from Washington has the privilege of closing, does he not?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Speaker of the House, the Honorable Nancy Pelosi.

No. I want to speak one more time, and I will be the final speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a letter favoring the legislation, the substitute, from the National Congress of American Indians; the Alaska Federation of Natives; the Council for Native Hawaiian Advancement; the Sovereign Councils of the Hawaiian Homelands Assembly; the President of the Hawaii State Senate, the Honorable Colleen Hanabusa; and the Osage Nation from the Office of the Principal Chief.

National Congress of

American Indians,

February 23, 2010.

Hon. Neil Abercrombie,

House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Senator Daniel Akaka,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Mazie Hirono,

House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Daniel Inouye,

U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Honorable Members: The National Congress of American

Indians fully supports the Native Hawaiian people in their

quest for self-determination and self-governance, and has for

many years. (See NCAI Resolution PHX-03-004.) This week, the

Native Hawaiian Reorganization Act of 2009 (H.R. 2314) is

expected to be amended on the floor of the House of

Representatives and subsequently passed through Congress.

NCAI supports the amendment as a way to ensure that

Congress has a strong basis for treating Native Hawaiians as

a distinct native community, and that the Act is

constitutionally sound. Through the deliberative process with

the Department of Justice, the Senate Committee on Indian

Affairs and with legal scholars with expertise in federal

Indian policy, Representative Abercrombie's amendment has

addressed these concerns.

NCAI has demonstrated repeated commitment to Native

Hawaiian self-governance and sovereignty. Over the past ten

years, we have passed resolutions and steadfastly supported

legislation encouraging the formation of a Native Hawaiian

governing entity. NCAI supports Representative Abercrombie's

proposed amendment to grant Native Hawaiians the self-

determination and self-government they justly deserve.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Johnson Pata,

Executive Director.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Hawaii State Attorney General argues that granting the Native Hawaiian governing entity inherent powers could have an adverse impact on Hawaii, and I think that is the thrust, essentially, of the critique that has been made about the legislation this afternoon and this early evening.

In response, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Members, and to yourself, of course, that the current bill language gives the Native Hawaiian governing entity no powers that are currently exercised by other government entities until negotiated. This would prevent the entity from providing general assistance to its members or caring for a needy child, absent the amendment as a substitute.

The substitute amendment resolves this by acknowledging certain inherent powers of the governing entity upon recognition, the same inherent powers that other native governments possess today; no more, no less. This is not, therefore, a radical notion. By definition, this is what Federal recognition does: It acknowledges that an entity is a quasi-sovereign tribal government. The acknowledged inherent powers of the entity are limited by language in the amendment, in the substitute amendment that states, and I quote:

``Nothing in this act shall preempt Federal or State authority over Native Hawaiians or their property under existing law.''

Upon recognition, the entity will have no land akin to Indian country over which it could exercise jurisdiction. Since some inherent powers are tied to having such land, like certain regulatory authorities, the entity will not be able to exercise those powers.

Finally, the negotiations process will further modify the powers and authority of the governing entity by virtue of the negotiation themselves.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I request that those Members who have some trepidation about voting for the amendment in the nature of a substitute reflect that we believe, those of us who support it--and it was certainly my intention in offering the amendment to address those concerns in a positive way and in a legislatively viable way.

I would ask at this time in closing, Mr. Speaker, that those Members who come to the floor to vote tonight consider voting for it, and I earnestly solicit the favorable attention of all members in voting for the amendment in the nature of a substitute.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my good colleague and friend, Mr. Hastings from Washington State, I have to oppose this amendment because it has no precedent--or indeed any place I believe in Federal law that has been in place for well over 150 years as that law relates to Native governments.

Under our Constitution, the citizens of the United States are the only citizens who are authorized and recognized as having a right to have a say in the laws which govern our Nation, be they Federal statutes or amendments to our Constitution. In a similar manner, the citizens of one State in our Union do not get to weigh in on the laws of another State or any proposed amendments to another State's constitution. Put simply, they cannot vote for changes in the law of a State for which they are not citizens. It goes without saying that foreign governments have no role to play in the formulation of the laws of the United States or the U.S. Constitution.

All of these fundamental principles have in their foundation the fact that each government is a separate sovereign, and only the citizens of that sovereign government may determine what governmental powers and authorities that sovereign government may exercise. It is no different for native governments in the United States.

The largest native government in the United States is the Navajo Nation. It is situated in four States. Because they are not citizens of the Navajo Nation, the non-Navajo citizens of the States of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado do not, under our constitutional principles, formulate, amend, or approve the governing documents either of the constitution or the laws of the Navajo Nation.

In like manner, under our Federal statuary and constitutional framework, the non-Indian citizens of Washington State do not have the right to approve the constitution or the laws of the 28 Indian tribal governments in the State of Washington, nor do the citizens of any other State have the right, under our Federal Constitution or Federal laws, to approve the governing documents, the constitutions, of the native governments in their States if they are not citizens of the native government.

I would suggest to my colleagues that they vote down the Hastings amendment on the basis that it is an inherent conflict of interest.

If the gentleman's premise is that without regard to citizenship in a sovereign government, any citizen of the United States should have a right to vote to approve the organic governing documents of another sovereign government, then every American would have a right to determine the laws of every State in the Union. The citizens of Vermont could vote to amend the constitution of the State of California. The citizens of Utah could vote to legalize gaming in another State, even though the laws of Utah criminally prohibit all forms of gaming.

This is counter to our constitutional family of governments in which each sovereign government and its citizens has the right to determine its own laws and be governed by those laws.

I would suggest to my colleagues that to even take a step in this direction would create constitutional chaos in our Federal system as well as in the laws which govern each State and each Native government. This is not one of the fundamental principles on which this country was founded, nor does it have a place in our constitutional system of governments.

I will take the first few seconds of it, Mr. Speaker, because I believe this will be the last discussion of both the amendments and of the bill prior to voting, to thank Mr. Flake for his friendship over these years and to say to him that I admire his independent spirit; I admire his devotion to this House; I admire his steadfast sense of responsibility in the various amendments that he offers. I wish I could support it on the basis of that friendship and in my admiration for him.

Yet I would like to say in that context--and I hope I am stating the purpose of the amendment correctly--that Mr. Flake wants to require any native governing entity to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. If I had to summarize it in a sentence, that's the way I would put it.

In the course of his remarks, he asked, Why not make sure? I think that's a perfectly reasonable request, but my contention would be, in asking that the amendment not be voted favorably upon, that precisely what he seeks to succeed in with his amendment is exactly what is in the bill, itself, which is in the amendment as a substitute. Mr. Flake's amendment then is duplicative of current Federal law.

Only after a thoughtful and deliberate process did Congress impose most of the provisions on the Bill of Rights on tribes through the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. The Equal Protection and Due Process provisions of the Bill of Rights were included verbatim in the Indian Civil Rights Act.

The Indian Civil Rights Act specifically states, ``No Indian tribe in exercising the powers of self-government shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law.''

In section 1302, Constitutional Rights, again quoting, ``No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall:

``No. 8: deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws or deprive any person of liberty or property without due process of law.''

The Flake amendment essentially then ignores the provision of H.R. 2314, as amended, should we pass the substitute.

The bill applies the Indian Civil Rights Act to the entity, the Native Hawaiian entity, and it requires the Secretary of the Interior to certify that the Native Hawaiian governing entity is in compliance with Federal law and that its governing documents provide for the protection of the civil rights of the citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as well.

Thus, the Flake amendment, as I indicated, I believe, is a duplication, and would actually create a double standard for the Native Hawaiian governing entity, not treating them as other federally recognized tribal governments are today.

Finally, I believe the amendment could be subject to broad interpretation, the scope of which is unclear. As a result, litigation would likely flourish in the Federal courts, which might take years to resolve as the courts would have to examine the U.S. Constitution, Federal law and numerous Federal court decisions upholding the current law, which already imposes the same equal protection guarantees on tribes that Mr. Flake's amendment seeks to impose.

Therefore, I ask, in the context of my admiration and respect for Mr. Flake, that his amendment, however, be defeated.

With that, Mr. Speaker, if I have time remaining, I would like to take the occasion then to thank Mr. Hastings, Mr. Flake and all of those on the Resources Committee--Republican and Democratic alike--who have been my colleagues and friends all these years. I think the Resources Committee is one of the most unappreciated committees, unappreciated in the sense of comprehension by, perhaps, even Members of Congress and by the public at large. No committee deals with as detailed and as difficult a set of circumstances as the Resources Committee does. My respect and admiration for all its members abides with me as I take leave of the House.

Mr. Speaker, ``aloha'' to you. ``Aloha'' to the House of Representatives. ``Aloha'' to all Members here tonight.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote Nos. 1-5, 9-11, 15-16, and 20-25. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 3-5, 9-10, 15-16, and 20-25. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 2, 11. I would have voted ``present'' on rollcall vote 1.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote No. 902-904 and vote No. 911-913. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all rollcall votes.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall votes Nos. 832-841. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 832-837 and votes 839-841. On rollcall vote No. 838, I would have voted ``nay.''

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote Nos. 790, 798-818, and 823-825. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on votes 790, 798-800, 802-818, and 823-825. I would have voted ``nay'' on vote No. 801.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall votes nos. 772-774. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all rollcall votes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 816 in mourning the loss of life caused by the earthquakes and tsunamis that occurred on September 29, 2009, in American Samoa and Samoa.

I want to express my sincere condolences to those that have lost family, friends and other important people in their lives. Despite this loss, the people of American Samoa and Samoa remain strong and resilient. They are continuing on, picking up the pieces of what can be salvaged, cleaning their homes and cities and helping each other through the struggles of trying to regain the life they once had. As thousands of people continue to struggle with this tragedy, I join my colleagues in our commitment to the relief efforts and offer support for the families of the many victims.

I would like to commend Representative Eni Faleomavaega for his tireless efforts to help relive the suffering and devastation in American Samoa. I will do everything I can to assist my friend and colleague in speeding any additional federal assistance needed to the area.

I am also proud of the rapid response by Major General Bob Lee and the Hawaii National Guard, which is a testament to their training and professionalism. I know FEMA, the Hawaii Red Cross and other relief organizations are on the ground, as well, aiding communities to cope with the devastation.

There are many people in Hawaii with friends or family back in American Samoa and Samoa. They are our brothers and sisters of the Pacific and we will do all we can to help and support them.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and the people of American Samoa and Samoa.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 786 in commemorating the canonization of Father Damien de Veuster to sainthood.

The canonization of Father Damien completes his ascension to sainthood and gives universal veneration to a life of extraordinary commitment, charity, and faith. It has been more than 120 years since his death on the Kalaupapa Peninsula on the island of Molokai, but Father Damien's life continues to illuminate for all humankind the pathway of service to the needy.

Father Damien's mission in life and the journey he took to fulfill it were inspired by a simple yet profound compassion, to recognize the human rights and dignity of every individual, particularly those who were cast aside to Kalaupapa. He challenged the orthodoxies of his own church and the government to provide the needed resources to care for Hansen's disease patients who had been banished to Kalaupapa-- attracting worldwide attention to his demonstration of humanity.

He lived, worked, and died in geographic isolation with the people he cared for, but his timeless teachings and inspiration have reached a vast congregation that reaches around the world without regard to time and place. Father Damien's hope and devotion continue to strengthen all of us today, and his sainthood affirms this for eternity.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and Father Damien's work and legacy, a timeless example of compassion and dedication.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support H. Res. 800 and extend my sympathies for the citizens of the Philippines dealing with Tropical Storm Ketsana and Typhoon Parma.

With a large Filipino community in Hawaii, and the historical and cultural ties that bind our two countries, the impact of these natural disasters hits close to home. I want to express my sincere condolences to those who have experienced losses in their families and to the many thousands more who are displaced and still struggling with this tragedy. I join my colleagues in our commitment to the relief efforts in the Philippines and in our continued support to the families of the many victims.

U.S. military forces and civilian agencies are supporting local Philippine efforts by distributing relief supplies and assisting in rescuing victims from inundated areas of Manila. As part of this effort, the U.S. Agency for International Development has so far allocated $1.8 million to respond to the disaster. Our Hawaiian ohana stands ready to further assist our friends in the Philippines.

I urge my colleagues to rise in support of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote Nos. 740-745. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 740-741 and 743-745. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall vote 742.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote No. 738. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Stated against:

Madam Speaker, I regret that I missed rollcall vote Nos. 710-719 and rollcall vote 730. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall votes 713-716, 718, and 719. I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall votes 710-712, 717, and 730.