Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the gentlewoman whether she would yield an additional minute.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, we have got a new grand jury in the House, the Office of Congressional Ethics, and we have the House Ethics Committee. We have two identical, competing committees by design. Now, I defy anybody in this House to go to your next Rotary Club meeting and try to explain what that is all about.

Any referral to the Office of Congressional Ethics will be seen as tantamount to a guilty verdict. Any other conclusion by the House Ethics Committee will be seen as a coverup. Mark my words, that is exactly what is going to happen.

This is about ethics, not criminal prosecution. I have heard words like ``corruption'' used around here as if we are some sinkhole of depravity. If a criminal matter is at issue, it should be in the hands of the Federal Attorney, not appointees of the Speaker or the majority leader.

I can't figure out where the ethics complaints come from. Are they dropped off at the door? What criteria will be applied by the OCE? This is about the House, and its membership should decide whether any Member has failed to meet its standards, not appointees who have not served or are not currently Members of the House.

An ethics investigation is by definition peer review. Any appointee to the Office of Congressional Ethics who has not served in the House has no credibility in terms of judging Members or the conduct of House standards.

And does anybody believe that complaints won't be in the media immediately, regardless of validity? The press irritation with the House Ethics Committee is because it has actually practiced confidentiality.

This is an invitation to ideological mischief and character assassination. We say this is about our ability to police ourselves. The effect will be just the opposite. The House Ethics Committee no longer has any discernable function other than to affirm whatever has been referred to it.

All this makes me sad, and it makes me angry. I have devoted every bit of energy in my life for nine terms to this House. I revere the opportunity for service in the people's House. With this proposal we are indicting ourselves. We are retreating before those who would tear this House down.

We are retreating before those who would tear this House down, who denigrate our commitment and make us out to be little more than crooks and knaves and hustlers.

We are the guardians of the Nation's liberty. We are the defenders of its constitutional imperatives. We are the people's House. We should be proud to stand up for this House, its institution and its legacy. Instead, we cringe before our critics and turn over our obligation to govern ourselves to others.

If we have no respect for ourselves, how can we expect it from anybody else? I have faith and trust in my constituents. I have faith and trust in you, my colleagues of the House. We need to have faith and trust in each other.

The regard and affection I have for every Member of this House is deep and abiding, the affection I started when I was the last man to be sworn in by Tip O'Neill before he retired when Bob Michel was here. In that spirit, I love the House of Representatives. It defines my life. It should define yours.

This proposal is not worthy of the House and our responsibility to it. Turn it down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 3332, the Kalaupapa Memorial Act of 2007. This measure would authorize Ka Ohana O Kalaupapa to establish a memorial to honor those who were forcibly relocated to Kalaupapa.

Kalaupapa is a National Historical Park located on a remote peninsula of northern Molokai. From 1866 through 1969, about 8,000 people afflicted with Hansen's disease, previously known as leprosy, were relocated to the area now known as Kalaupapa National Historical Park.

Many of the first settlers faced a harsh and difficult life. But the patients who were sent to Kalaupapa eventually built a community that allowed them to endure a life cut off from parents, children, brothers, sisters and friends. Even after medication was developed to control Hansen's disease, many patient residents chose to continue living in Kalaupapa.

The site became a national park in 1980 and is dedicated to preserving the memories and lessons of the past. Kalaupapa is a living memorial to a community that once lived in extreme isolation. It now serves as a place of education, contemplation and quiet beauty. Unfortunately, many of the residents who finished their life in Kalaupapa do not have recognizable graves or grave markers. The memorial established by this bill would serve as a permanent marker and reminder of all 8,000 residents who lived on Kalaupapa.

A little more than 20 patients remain in Kalaupapa. As time passes, the number of former residents of Kalaupapa gets smaller, as do the number of people who remember this part of Hawaii's history. With each passing, the sense of urgency for erecting a memorial becomes more and more heightened. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible so that this memorial becomes a reality before the passing of the next Kalaupapa resident.

My colleague Representative Mazie Hirono has worked tremendously hard to bring this bill to the floor today. I commend her efforts and would also like to express my gratitude to Representative Nick Rahall, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, and Representative Raul Grijalva, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. We would not be here today were it not for their support and enthusiasm. I wholeheartedly support this bill, am proud to be an original cosponsor and ask my colleagues for their support of

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to record my vote on rollcall No. 1155. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unable to record my vote on rollcall No. 1141. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained yesterday attending a funeral. I missed rollcall vote Nos. 1082 through 1085. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all four votes.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I don't think anybody is going to argue with you, Mr. Majority Leader, but that means that you have got to do something about the elevators. I mean it. I'm not kidding. If you are going to make it work, if you are going to make the 15 minutes work, we have to have people in the elevators or the doorkeepers or somebody keeping everybody out of the elevators.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep support for H.R. 760, the ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007.''

The treatment of Filipinos who fought with the United States Armed Forces in World War II is a dark chapter in American history. The Philippines became a United States possession after Spain ceded it as part of the treaty ending the Spanish-American War in 1898. In 1934, Congress created a 10-year time frame for independence through the ``Philippine Independence Act.'' However, since the Philippines remained a colonial possession until 1946 the United States retained the right to call upon military forces organized by the Philippine Government into the United States Armed Forces.

On July 26, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a military order that brought the Philippine Commonwealth Forces under the control of the United States Armed Forces during World War II. These men bravely fought with our own troops during the war, and many perished or suffered severe wounds from the battles in the Western Pacific Theater. After the surrender of Japan, Congress required the Philippine Forces to continue their service. Many helped occupy lands, many oversaw military operations, and many made the ultimate sacrifice to secure our victory in World War II. Yet, when wartime service ended formally in 1946 they did not receive the same benefits and the same treatment as other American soldiers.

Yet, for all their heroic and courageous actions, Congress passed the ``Recession Act'' in February 1946, to the objection of many, including General Macarthur. This essentially denied Filipino Veterans any of the benefits that their American comrades in arms received; including full access to veterans' health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits. No other group of veterans has been systematically denied these benefits.

Congress has the opportunity to right this wrong. H.R. 760 restores the benefits these brave warriors were denied. This legislation has been introduced since 1992. However, time is running out. In September 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimated that the number of surviving Filipino Veterans is 59,889. However, by 2010, VA estimates that their population will dwindle to just 20,000, because of their advanced age.

Many argue that paying for Filipino veterans is not something Congress should undertake, because they are not U.S. citizens, and that the PAYGO offsets takes money away from Americans. However, such a statement fails to recognize that Filipino veterans served not merely as allies, but as U.S. forces. It fails to recognize that the United States made the same promise to provide for these veterans' needs as it does to any other person who serves in uniform; a promise that we have, up to now, failed to uphold.

Congress must act now for the sake of justice and to show that we Americans truly appreciate the sacrifice these men made. Let us remember the heroism of these veterans by honoring their service and fulfilling our commitments to them. I urge the House to consider and pass this important measure.

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is a discussion on the rule and not necessarily on the bill itself, I would like to confine my remarks, at least in this initial phase of dealing with the issue, on some of the points raised by my good friend and colleague Mr. Hastings. I am appreciative of the points that he raised, because I think they are in need of not so much refutation but perhaps clarification.

It is easy to understand why those who are not necessarily familiar, and I am not speaking about Mr. Hastings personally, I am talking about the references that he cited in his commentary, it is easy to understand why people who are not familiar with a little bit of the history of Hawaii could come to some of the conclusions or make some of the observations that they have. Absent the context within which this bill is coming forward, it is understandable. That context then is what I want to establish, so that it becomes clear.

I certainly don't want to get in an argument with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal either, and they are making some quotations there about complete territorial independence.

Well, I think what is being referred to there, and what the likelihood of the reference is, is that there was in fact not territorial in the sense of annexation of territory, like the Philippines or Hawaii or Puerto Rico or that kind of thing that occurred during the kind of ``imperial phase'' of the United States, but there was in fact territorial independence, because Hawaii was a kingdom. It is one of the things that kind of gets lost in the shuffle, and that is one of the reasons we are here today, Mr. Speaker.

The United States of America has in fact had, over a 175-year period leading up to the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893, a series of treaties and conventions; 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, 1887, dealing with commerce, dealing with trade, dealing with various recognitions. The Kingdom of Hawaii had treaties and conventions with other nations, as well as the United States.

So as a result of that history, we have a succession of land claims and assets that have come from the time of the kingdom to the shotgun republic that occurred after the overthrow of the kingdom and the annexation of the United States into the territory, and into finally becoming a State, as was indicated, in 1959. We are in fact the last State to enter the Union, along with Alaska in 1959.

I bring this up simply to point out that far from subdividing the American people, as was cited by my good friend, quite the contrary; it incorporates the politics as well as the historical reality of this land secession and the assets associated with it, because this land generates income.

Basically what this is about, Mr. Speaker, is land and other assets, including money, and who controls it. When this land came in, it wasn't worth anything. The Wall Street Journal did not comment, I am certain, on the ceded lands. They are called ``ceded lands'' because they were ceded from the kingdom to the succeeding governmental entities. They could care less,

the Wall Street Journal, about these lands when they were worth nothing, when they were not seen to be able to be marketed.

But let me explain now, and I ask my good friend as I look at him now with a smile on my face, we are talking about land in Hawaii? You are talking big bucks. You are talking money here. That is what this is about is land and money and who controls it. And this land has, from the time of the kingdom, resided with the Native Hawaiians. That is who is to be the beneficiary.

That takes me to the point, Mr. Speaker, of the entry into the Union. The Admissions Act requires us, requires us, the Admissions Act of 1959 requires us to utilize those lands and assets for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. That is in the Admissions Act.

We are not here on the floor today because we didn't have anything better to do in Hawaii than to try to bring this to the Federal Government. On the contrary, the Admissions Act requires us to make certain that these lands are utilized for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. The reason we have the bill here is that in order to accomplish that, we need to get a governing entity that can come to the Department of the Interior for approval in order to be able to conduct the affairs, similarly to, parallel to what now happens with Native Americans in the so-called lower 48 in the mainland of the United States and with various Alaska Natives and corporations and other entities that have been set up in Alaska.

This is a history of indigenous people. They are different from other indigenous people because they were a kingdom, and we would not have the 2 million acres we are talking about had those acres not been associated with an indigenous people. They are not imaginary, they are real.

Finally, let me say with Rice v. Cayetano, Governor Cayetano, the first Filipino American to be elected Governor, that issue was settled on a question of voting procedures and had nothing whatsoever to do with programs for Native Hawaiians.

Mr. Speaker, I'm very grateful and thank you. I want to thank Mr. Bishop for his kind remarks. It exemplifies, I think, the kind of relationship we have on the Resources Committee. And I want to repeat that for those who are in their offices, maybe are not here on the floor but in their offices and may be tuning in. I want to emphasize that the tenor of his remarks and the courtesy with which he put it forward, including his sense of humor, which is well recognized in the committee and appreciated, reflects that this legislation is not only bipartisan, it's nonpartisan. That is to say, it's not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue and has never been presented on this floor, through all the different sections of the Congress, from its introduction over the past 7 years and as it has moved through the Congress over past sessions, it has never ever been presented as a partisan issue, Republican or Democrat. And I say ``nonpartisan'' because the committee reflects the full spectrum of the left of the Democratic Party and the right of the Republican Party. Whether you are characterized as a progressive or a conservative, this issue transcends that precisely for what Mr. Bishop so rightly pointed out.

This bill directly affects and only affects the ceded lands and the Hawaiian homelands and the assets associated with Native Hawaiians in Hawaii. Everybody who's on the Resources Committee and everybody who has dealt with issues that have come before the body as a whole coming out of the Resources Committee understands that there are particular and peculiar instances associated with each Member's district, whether it's salmon runs in the Northwest or whether it's water issues based on treaty obligations in the Southwest, whether it's indigenous people in Alaska or indigenous people in Hawaii. Each area has particular contexts and situations that need to be addressed legislatively. And so what the committee tries to do in a nonpartisan way is address those issues in a very specific manner so that they can be resolved without impinging on any other aspect of constitutional consideration.

Let me point out practically how that happens. For those of you who have visited Hawaii, when you land at the airport, you're landing on what's called ceded land. That ceded land produces revenue. Now, obviously the airport didn't exist back when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893, and it didn't exist when the United States annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii as a territory of the United States, and that airport as it is configured today did not exist with the advent of statehood. And so what we have now is very, very valuable land producing revenue. And that's what this is all about, 1.8 million acres of ceded land coming in a continuum from the time of the overthrow of the kingdom down to the State of Hawaii today where the ownership of the land, and the benefit's very clearly recognized, including in the Admissions Act of Hawaii to the State of the Union: Public Law 8-3, March 18, 1959, which specifically requires us to address questions of benefiting Native Hawaiians through the lands that have been ceded to them or which were created for them by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. That's what we're dealing with here today.

So we are asking that deference be given to the committee's work, which has been nonpartisan, which has no ideological difficulties associated with it, that deference be given and understanding to what the Admissions Act requires of us.

And I find it ironic that support comes from Mr. Young, Mr. Don Young, as it came from other Republican chairmen. In fact, this was first introduced under Republican chairmen, passed under Republican chairmen. Mr. Hansen of Utah and Mr. Pombo of California and Mr. Young of Alaska, as well as Mr. Miller and Mr. Rahall, all have supported this act, as have the committees. Mr. Young is now in Alaska speaking to the Federation of Natives, of Alaskan Natives, because we recognize that there are indigenous people who were not a party to the Constitution when it was formed and first passed but have activities, and in the contemporary context, their lives' affected by how we deal with them. The Constitution requires us as a Member of Congress to be able to do that.

So what is at stake here very, very simply for the Members is that this is enabling legislation. That's all it is. This creates the opportunity for Native Hawaiians to take responsibility for their own actions with regard to the control and administration of their own assets. That is not in dispute. The land boundaries are there. The amount of money that's coming in is not in dispute. What's in dispute is who's going to control those assets. That's what this is about. This gives the opportunity to Native Hawaiians to organize themselves to come back to the Secretary of the Interior, whoever that may be, and to ask the Secretary of the Interior to recognize that governing entity over these assets. If the Secretary of the Interior disagrees with it, they have to go back to the drawing board. This is enabling legislation, and it's enabling legislation that has been put together responsibly by responsible members of the Resources Committee in consultation with one another and with various administrations, and we would ask for your favorable consideration on the floor today.

I want to thank my friend, Mr. Westmoreland, for his kind compliments that came my way. I knew something would follow on that, and of course it was his reservations about the bill.

But he cited a poll which seemed to indicate, I believe he said, that people were obviously against race-based legislation and so on. I don't blame them; I would think they would be. I'm surprised it wasn't 100 percent. But let me read what the question was. He didn't read us the question. Here's the question: ``If 505 would allow Native Hawaiians to create their own government not subject to all the same laws, regulations and taxes that apply to other citizens of Hawaii, do you want Congress to approve this bill?'' Well, I'm dumbfounded they couldn't get 100 percent against that question. And, of course, 505 doesn't do any of that; quite the opposite. As Mr. Rahall indicated, we specifically address those issues, and taxes, of course, are going to be paid.

Let me give you the Ward Research Poll, done this year, that is a real poll, and I will tell you the question: ``Have you heard of the bill, the Akaka bill?'' Yes, 84 percent. ``Do you think Hawaiians should be recognized by the U.S. as an indigenous group similar to recognition given American Indians and Native Alaskans?'' Yes, 70 percent. ``Do you believe Hawaiians have a right to make these decisions?'' Yes, 87 percent. ``Do you believe programs that have been passed by the Congress for Native Hawaiians should continue?'' Yes, 83 percent. This goes on and on at that kind of level in Hawaii.

So, I appreciate my good friend bringing up the question of polling, but I think it's useful for us to know that when the people of Hawaii are polled on an objective basis, there is overwhelming support, Republican and Democrat and independent, for resolving this issue in the manner in which 505 addresses.

Well, I regret to say that I don't have the revised language in front of me. And I understand the intent of the first amendment. Mr. Flake knows that I supported the opportunity for him to put that forward for discussion before the Rules Committee. But I'm sorry, I can't consent, despite my friendship and respect for Mr. Flake, because I'm not sure that the revised language, even if I had it in front of me, which I don't, would not be subject to the same kind of difficulty, perhaps an interpretation that we can't foresee on first glance. So I reluctantly cannot accede unanimous consent.

Would the gentleman yield?

Could I then yield to the expert on the civil rights matter? Because you did kindly bring it to my attention yesterday and we did have a discussion, so I deferred my inquiry to the expert in the House of Representatives on civil rights and Native Americans; that's Mr. Kildee. Would it be all right if I yielded to him to have a dialogue with you on this?

If the gentleman would continue to yield for a moment.

And I won't take more than a moment or two.

The question, nonetheless, as I indicated when we spoke yesterday and as I indicated to the Rules Committee, is an important one that needs to be addressed. I don't want to run anything by anybody where they might feel even for a moment that they haven't had full consideration of important fundamental issues like civil rights and equality before the law.

If the gentleman would consider the idea of not offering the amendment right now for the reasons that have been stated, we're not quite sure where we're going with it, I can assure the gentleman that, should the bill pass, it has to go to the Senate, it has to come out of the Senate, and we can address those issues, as has been done with other bills with which we are acquainted again and again. You have my word that I will sit down and go over with you in detail and in depth the issues involved here and, should the bill move forward, seek to have those addressed in whatever comes from the other body, if it's able to move forward.

Rather than having a motion to recommit, because I would ask you not to do that for the reasons already enumerated, this deserves our specific attention. And we both know, I think, what happens on a motion to recommit: people come to the floor; they see superficially what's involved. Who can argue about everybody wanting to have civil rights?

And I don't want to have to get into a debate with you about the question of recommittal. Here is what section 7 says of the bill, if you would allow me: ``Prior to conferring Federal recognition on a reorganized governing entity, the Secretary of the Interior must certify that the organic governing documents provide for the protection of the civil rights of the citizens of the entity, as well as all other persons affected by the exercise of the entity's governmental powers and authorities. In addition, the organic governing documents must be consistent with applicable Federal law. If the Secretary finds that the organic governing documents, or any part of these documents, do not meet these requirements, the organic governing documents will not be certified.''

This has to be certified by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting every Federal responsibility. Now, up until this time, and I am sure you agree, if the Speaker will just grant me a little more time and if you will, this bill has never been subject to partisan rhetoric or activity in the committee or elsewhere. From a realistic point of view, motions to recommit really have to do with who is in charge and who is not in charge and that kind of thing. I am not disputing that your question isn't real. But the motion to recommit essentially is repeating, in some fashion, without my quite knowing what the real consequences of that language would be, whereas the language that I am citing to you from section 7 has been vetted again and again and again by minority staff, majority staff, legal staff all over to fit exactly what the gentleman seeks to succeed with.

So I am asking you not to make a motion to recommit on the basis that what I have read to you, in good faith, is language that has been put forward in good faith within the existing bill. And if you conclude that it is not adequate, I pledge to you that I will certainly sit down with you as will Mr. Kildee and anyone else who is interested in it to try and see what we can do to make the language work as the bill moves along. But I don't want to get trapped in a recommital action which may then put language into the bill, the consequences of which I have no idea. Nor, I think, does the gentleman.

Your intentions are good. I have complete faith and say so publicly in your intentions and your desire to make this a better bill. So I ask you on the basis of a collegial respect for each other and on the basis of our friendship to let the bill go without a recommital based on section 7 and my promise to you that we will address any and all issues that may still be on the table once you have had a chance to examine the consequences of the language you might otherwise propose.

My difficulty is, and I'll conclude with this. Mr. Bishop, I am very appreciative of your indulgence in this and the other Members. Obviously it is very, very important to all of us and important on a fundamental constitutional basis as well. The difficulty for me in doing that is that I am seeing it right now for the first time. The language in the bill has been gone over and over and over again with a legal fine tooth comb so that I have confidence in that.

My problem is that your intention and my intention may not be what the consequences legally would be when somebody reads it as written on the paper. My friend and mentor on the Armed Services Committee, the chairman, Ike Skelton, who usually characterizes himself as a country lawyer, which should put everybody on edge and make them wary when he says it, has a saying that he admonishes us with on the Armed Services Committee all the time: Read it. What he means by that is the words on the paper are what will be referred to when legal recourse is taken. And what my fear is, is that not knowing the consequences of the language, despite the gentleman's intention, if I accepted such a thing, I am doing it on blind faith. Not on blind faith in you. I have faith in your good intentions. But I am doing it on blind faith as to what the safe harbor would be or not be or what the consequences would be. I am sorry I can't accept that and I ask you once again to give us the opportunity to work on this in the quiet and in the contemplative atmosphere outside the volatility of the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this bill before us is the result of years of bipartisan and nonpartisan work, which has been mentioned. I take second to none my regard for Mr. Flake and recitation once again of our personal regard for one another; however, I am afraid that the reason I have to oppose this motion to recommit is for precisely the reasons I mentioned during our previous dialog.

I am pleased that he actually read what the motion to recommit says because the part here, and you may recall in my previous commentary where I said we can't be sure what the consequences might be unless we have had a chance to vet them. The bill itself has been vetted again and again by counsel on both sides of the aisle and by groups that have an interest in the bill. This is the consensus that this meets all relevant legal technicalities.

Here, look what it says: ``The Native Hawaiian governing entity shall be subject to the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights and other protections in the same manner and to the same extent as a State or local government of the United States.'' That is an invitation to an avalanche of litigation. How are you going to define ``same manner'' and ``same extent'' of a State or local government?

The indigenous people, whether they are Native Americans in tribes, whether they are Alaska Natives in corporations, Native Hawaiians trying to put together a government, and they are not a State, they are not a local government, and to say in a motion to recommit that we are going to require them to exactly replicate State and local governments, which is subject to litigation all the time, you would have to have a trust fund set up to handle the litigation, I think, that would result from that.

Mr. Speaker, I don't think that that is Mr. Flake's intent. In fact, I would stipulate that that is not his intent. Our problem is we haven't had a chance to sit down and go over this to see whether we can cover any of these contingencies. I wish he had accepted my plea, my offer, and I wish he would stand up now and say, I have seen the light and I am going to withdraw my motion to recommit. Because if you go to number (i), applicability of Federal civil rights laws, it says the same thing with respect to civil rights and antidiscrimination laws in the same manner and to the same extent as a State or local government of the United States.

My friends, my colleagues, I agree that Mr. Flake has brought this not for political reasons but because of his sincere belief that this needs to be addressed. I can assure you that if anything is political, this is political by default. Far from saying simply that it is a simple explication of his point of view, it is an absolute wellspring of complication to try and figure out what the same extent of State and local government laws are with regard to civil rights, antidiscrimination or Bill of Rights and other protections. ``Other protections,'' what does that mean? That will be litigated to death.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Flake, now that I have analyzed his simple language for him, if he would reconsider withdrawing the motion to recommit. If he does not, I pledge to him now that if we are able to defeat the motion to recommit, which I think should be defeated by anybody who's worked on this bill. I make this final plea in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker. We have worked too hard, come too far on a nonpartisan basis, Republican and Democrat alike, to come to this conclusion and throw ourselves into the briar patch of State and government applicability of laws as recommended in the recommittal. The bill itself deals with all these issues on civil rights.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the motion to recommit be defeated and that we move to a vote, an overwhelming vote on the underlying bill, H.R. 505, which is an exemplary product, a singular stalwart example of what bipartisan work can do in this House of Representatives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a statement from Stuart W. Bowen, Jr., Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction.

Statement of Stuart W. Bowen Jr., Special Inspector General for Iraq

Reconstruction, Before the United States House of Representatives

Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and

Homeland Security

War Profiteering and Other Contractor Crimes Committed Overseas

(Tuesday, June 19, 2007, Washington, DC)

Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Forbes, and members of the

Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to address you

today on the work of the Office of the Special Inspector

General for Iraq Reconstruction.

To ensure accurate context, permit me to outline several

points essential to understanding the challenges of

investigating and prosecuting fraud in Iraq.

First, corruption within the Iraqi government, indeed

within the fabric of Iraqi society, is a serious problem that

inhibits progress on many fronts in Iraq. This is widely

recognized by the Government of Iraq and the international

community. In our quarterly reports, SIGIR has called Iraq's

endemic corruption problem a ``second insurgency.''

I returned last month from my 16th trip to Iraq and, during

my visit, I met with the Commissioner of Public Integrity,

who heads the institution created by the CPA to increase

accountability for public corruption in Iraq--and the

President of the Board of Supreme Audit, the analogue to the

Government Accountability Office, which has existed in Iraq

for many decades. The Iraqi anti-corruption authorities again

emphasized to me the widespread nature of the problem of

corruption, which stretches across the government, afflicting

virtually every ministry. And they outlined for me the

difficulties they face in implementing their respective anti-

corruption mandates.

The CPI Commissioner told me that he currently has 2,000

cases involving $5 billion in alleged corruption. And the

President of the Board of Supreme Audit has hundreds of

audits ongoing. In virtually every case, he is uncovering a

lack of accountability. Let me emphasize that the CPI and the

BSA oversee Iraqi money--not U.S. money--that is missing or

has been stolen from Iraqi programs.

During my visit, I was informed about political

interference with the work of Iraqi investigators and

prosecutors. For example, I learned that Ministers and former

Ministers are exempt from prosecution unless the assent of

the Prime Minister is obtained; and each Minister is

entitled, under an Iraqi criminal code provision, to immunize

selectively ministry employees from being held accountable

for corruption.

Iraq must make progress on rule of law enforcement, in

general, and corruption, in particular; political

interference with fighting corruption remains a problem,

undermining the effectiveness of the developing rule of law

system and consequently eroding the Iraqi people's confidence

in their government.

Iraq is a sovereign state. The role of the United States

thus is to encourage the development of an efficient Iraqi

justice system. We do this for its own sake and for the sake

of maintaining and building upon the efforts made, at great

cost in blood and treasure, by Americans and Iraqis since the

liberation of Iraq.

SIGIR's specific role in this process has been to review

the effectiveness of United States efforts to improve the

rule of law system and to build up the corruption-fighting

capacity of the Iraqi government.

On July 28, 2006, SIGIR released a survey on this subject

and found that American efforts were funded at a very modest

level, given the scope of the problem, receiving about $65

million (about three-tenths of 1 percent of our total

reconstruction spending). My auditors found that American

efforts have not been sufficiently coordinated and focused

and that more adequate leadership and organization was

needed. The U.S. Embassy has responded to some of these

concerns since the review was released. SIGIR will soon

release another review on the issue, updating our previous

report.

SIGIR has a continuing investigative responsibility to

detect and investigate malfeasance in American relief and

reconstruction programs in Iraq. As part of this effort, we

have developed good working-level and leadership-level

relationships with the CPI and the BSA. We coordinate with

these Iraqi agencies whenever we come across evidence of

potential wrongdoing by Iraqis. SIGIR, of course,

concentrates its law enforcement efforts on American targets

and works with the Department of Justice in their effective

prosecution.

My second point is that the incidence of corruption within

the U.S. reconstruction program--judging from those cases

that we have uncovered thus far--appears to constitute a

relatively small component of the overall American

financial contribution to Iraq's reconstruction. Based on

the work of our 18 career investigators on SIGIR staff, I

believe that losses to American taxpayers from fraud

within reconstruction programs will likely amount to a

relatively small component of the overall investment in

Iraq, totaling in the tens of millions (rather than

hundreds of millions or billions, as is sometimes

imagined). However, the fact that the fraud we have

detected is relatively small (to date) does not diminish

the aggressiveness with which SIGIR pursues allegations of

fraud in Iraq. We have found egregious incidents of fraud.

And in partnership with the Department of Justice, SIGIR

has produced clear results in prosecutions and

convictions.

For example, in January, two individuals were sentenced to

prison as a result of SIGIR investigations. In early

February, indictments were announced of five more

individuals, resulting from SIGIR investigations. To date,

SIGIR has opened over 300 cases, and we have over 70 ongoing

investigations. Thirty-two of those cases are under

prosecution at the Department of Justice.

We believe that the publicity our enforcement actions have

received has helped to deter misconduct in the U.S.

reconstruction program. And we also believe that enforcement

will be an increasingly important part of SIGIR's mission

over the next 18 months. Moreover, in the course of this

year, we expect to produce concrete investigative results as

significant current cases come to fruition.

SIGIR remains committed to a robust, deterrent presence in

Iraq as long as our temporary organization exists. Today, I

have five investigators on the ground in Iraq investigating

fraud. Although there are other law enforcement agencies

fighting fraud in Iraq, SIGIR has maintained over the past 3

years the largest contingent of fraud investigators in Iraq.

My investigators travel the country under dangerous

conditions, pursuing leads, interviewing witnesses, and

piecing together evidence on a wide variety of cases. Their

work also takes them to other countries in the region. Of

note, SIGIR is currently reducing its overall personnel

``footprint'' in Baghdad in conjunction with the reduction in

spending of appropriated dollars on Iraq reconstruction.

One of the most important aspects of our investigative

efforts is the development of

task-force relationships with other agencies involved in

oversight in Iraq, including may colleagues from the Office

of Inspector General of the Department of Defense and the

Defense Criminal Investigative Service, as well as the

Federal Bureau of Investigation. SIGIR has 16 investigators

in Arlington, and we are participating in the new Joint

Operations Center located at the FBI to coordinate and

enhance fraud investigations in Iraq.

SIGIR's first task force was the Special Investigative Task

Force for Iraq Reconstruction (SPITFIRE), and it combined the

efforts of the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of

Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs enforcement

office, the FBI and the Department of State Office of

Inspector General. That task force was able to effectively

pursue the Bloom-Stein conspiracy that my auditors

uncovered in Hillah, Iraq--a very egregious kickback and

bribery scheme involving over $10 million in

reconstruction funds that Philip Bloom, the contractor,

and Robert Stein, the Coalition Provisional Authority

comptroller for that region, engineered for their own

criminal ends. SPITFIRE continues its work today; and we

continue to pursue a number of leads that arose from the

Bloom-Stein case.

The other major task-force initiative that SIGIR has

initiated with the FBI is the International Contract

Corruption Task Force (ICCTF). ICCTF prompted the creation of

the Joint Operations Center mentioned above, which is

producing the effective collection and coordination of

investigative leads and source development. Although I am not

at liberty to discuss details of these cases, I am very

pleased with the very significant progress the JOC

investigators have made, news of which I expect to be

forthcoming later this year.

Along with SIGIR, the ICCTF includes the U.S. Army's

Criminal Investigative Division's Major Procurement Fraud

Unit, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, the FBI,

and the inspectors general of the Department of State and the

Agency for International Development.

SIGIR is also part of the DOJ National Procurement Fraud

Task Force. We continue to work closely with DOJ in the

investigation and prosecution of our cases.

Finally, to coordinate efforts in oversight in Iraq, I

formed the Iraq Inspector Generals' Council, IIGC, 3 years

ago, which brings together every agency with oversight

authority in Iraq for a meeting every quarter. The IIGC

exists to deconflict and coordinate the member agencies'

oversight efforts in Iraq.

SIGIR is not limiting its efforts just to addressing

contractor misconduct through the criminal justice system. We

also refer cases to the U.S. government's administrative

debarment and suspension processes. To date, the competent

oversight authorities have, through established rules that

preserve due process, suspended 17 companies and individuals,

debarred ten, and have another nine pending debarments.

To date, SIGIR has produced 13 quarterly reports, 86 audit

reports, and 90 inspection reports. Our auditors and

inspectors regularly refer investigative leads to our

investigators some of which have developed into very

significant cases. The Bloom-Stein case is just one example.

SIGIR's three lessons-learned reports produced to date have

provided recommendations on policies designed to improve

economy, efficiency and effectiveness for the Iraq program

and for future reconstruction and stabilization operations.

The reports have prompted the introduction of reform measures

in the Congress that will improve contracting processes.

SIGIR is at work on a lessons-learned capping report, which

will be produced at the end of this year. It is my hope that

our lessons learned reports will prompt reforms that will

improve the capacity of law enforcement to deter crime.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to H.R. 400, Representative

Abercrombie's bill entitled the ``War Profiteering Prevention

Act of 2007,'' our position is essentially what it was when

we were asked to reflect on its counterpart at a Senate

hearing this past March. SIGIR remains a strong proponent of

legislation that would strengthen efforts to punish fraud or

abuse in contracting programs in Iraq or elsewhere. We look

forward to working with the Department of Justice to enforce

H.R. 400, should it become law. We are, however, unaware of

instances where the Justice Department was unable to

prosecute, under existing law, on the facts we developed in

our investigations.

One of our responsibilities in Iraq is to encourage

efficiency in the reconstruction effort. In that role, we

have prompted management to seek the widest possible

participation by business enterprises (especially Iraqi

firms) in reconstruction. The security risks in Iraq are

self-evident, and thus the risks to any business enterprise

operating in such an environment are mammoth. International

companies likely will not get into the business of

reconstruction in Iraq without incentives that render the

risk-taking worthwhile. This reality should figure in the

development of legislation that affects contracting in Iraq

or similarly insecure environments.

Whether H.R. 400 becomes law, SIGIR will continue to

aggressively pursue investigations, provide robust oversight

through audits and inspections, and will press for more

efforts to improve contract administration, quality

assurance, and quality control. It is my hope that our

continuing efforts will help promote an aim we all share--a

reconstruction program that is administered and executed

honestly, and is as well-managed and efficient as possible

under very challenging circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank you for your

time and attention to these important matters, and I look

forward to answering your questions.

I want to pay a special thank you, a big mahalo, to Mr. Scott and to the Judiciary Committee for their hard work. I am very grateful to the ranking members, the Republicans and Democrats. We cannot resolve this without seeing to it that we have a bipartisan approach on this.

I am particularly grateful to Senator Pat Leahy, who is the Judiciary Chairman in the Senate, for entrusting this bill to our care here in the House and allowing me to introduce it as a companion bill to the one that has passed in the Senate. I am very hopeful that we can get a vote in the Senate and move this to the President's desk.

When the wrong computer equipment arrived in Iraq, the contractor ordered it dumped into a mammoth burn pit and placed an order for replacements, rather than sending it back. The government paid for both the wrong computers and the replacements. The contractor collected a fee for each, thanks to a cost-plus contract.

Halliburton had drivers driving empty trucks between bases in Iraq, unnecessarily exposing the drivers to danger, because the company was paid by the trip, not by the amount of materiel hauled or a flat fee; $186 million was spent over 2 years to build 142 health care centers, yet only 15 have been completed and only eight are open. According to testimony, the contractor lacked qualified engineers, hired incompetent subcontractors, failed to supervise construction work, and failed to enforce quality control.

A large U.S. construction company was paid tens of millions of dollars to repair Iraq's schools. Many of the schools were never touched, and several that were repaired, and I say that in quotes, were left in shambles, one filled with unflushed sewage.

At least 10 companies with billions of dollars in contracts have already been forced to pay up to $300 million in penalties to resolve allegations of bid-rigging, fraud, gross overcharging, delivery of faulty military parts and environmental damage, $300 million in penalties. Some of these same companies have faced such allegations during past military operations in other countries, but have had no problem receiving new contracts in Iraq.

Despite millions of dollars in payments to U.S. companies, key pieces of Iraq's infrastructure, power plants, telephone exchanges, sewage and sanitation systems, have either not been repaired or have been fixed so poorly that they still don't function.

How has this been allowed to happen? The United States Government directly and through the late Coalition Provisional Authority have outsourced the war in Iraq like no other in our history, spending more than $50 billion on private contractors to provide food, water, gasoline and other supplies, guard bases, drive trucks, and many other activities in support of our troops.

But consistent with the administration's overall attitude toward spending public money with private companies, little or no thought was given to contract oversight or accountability. As a result, some of these contractors have declared the U.S. occupation of Iraq open season on the taxpayer. Cleaning up this mess has been hampered by the fact that while anti-fraud laws protect against the waste or theft of U.S. taxpayers in the United States, there have been no statutes prohibiting sleazy business practices by American companies overseas.

As we have learned in the investigation of the Blackwater USA contract, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued order number 17, which specifically exempted U.S. contractors from Iraqi law.

In fact, one contractor was found guilty of 37 counts of fraud, including false billing, and was ordered to pay more than $10 million in damages, but the decision was overturned because the contracts were let through the Coalition Provisional Authority, and it was found that U.S. laws against fraud did not apply.

Despite the fact that the Coalition Provisional Authority was created by the Bush administration under the Department of Defense; despite the fact

that L. Paul Bremer, the overseer in Iraq, subsequent to the initial attack on Iraq, had an office literally across the hall from Secretary Rumsfeld, the Coalition Provisional Authority was not considered part of the U.S. Government, and, therefore, U.S. laws were unenforceable.

These practices are a flagrant abuse of the public's trust and the public's money during a time of war and cannot be allowed to continue. H.R. 400, the War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007, will, one, criminalize war profiteering defined as contract fraud or overcharging for goods and services in connection with the mission of the United States Government overseas; two, violations of law will be a felony and punishable up to 20 years in prison and fines up to $1 million or twice the illegal profits of the crime; three, jurisdiction for such cases, no matter where the alleged crimes are committed, will be in the United States Federal court.

H.R. 400 was heard and considered by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and ordered reported to the full Judiciary Committee by a voice vote on August 1. Among the many significant consequences of the decision to invade and occupy Iraq marked by a complete dismissal of the need for intelligent planning and stunning incompetence in the conduct of the war, this problem has received too little attention from the news media, the public, and the Congress.

Most of the cases of fraud, questionable business practices and outright corruption have been uncovered and investigated through the efforts of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, Mr. Stuart Bowen, Jr. Mr. Bowen and his super staff both here in the U.S. and on the ground in Iraq have provided oversight and insight under the most difficult conditions imaginable for billions of American taxpayer dollars intended to rebuild Iraq and support our troops in combat. They deserve our gratitude. They deserve the gratitude of the Congress and the Nation for a tough job well done.

Mr. Speaker, this bill, together with H.R. 2740, legislation passed by this House last week to expand the reach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to private civilian security operatives in the region are two important steps this Congress is taking to clean up the mess in Iraq.

H.R. 400, in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the War Profiteering Prevention Act will help end the open season declared on American taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I find it very unfortunate that my good friend from Virginia has taken a position that the bill in any way encourages the whims of prosecutors. As Mr. Scott has pointed out, the standard is very high and applies to any contract, whether it's in the United States or overseas. There is nothing applied to the contracts overseas that is not applied to a contract here in the United States when it comes to the question of fraud or overcharging or deliberate deception with regard to the contract. That standard has to be met in any court and has to come before any judge meeting such a standard. There is no differentiation whatsoever.

The reason the bill is here, and the reason we're bringing the legislation, is the courts have ruled that there is, at best, an ambiguous situation, if not an outright gap between the capacity for prosecution of such a crime, should the standard for the crime be sustained by a prosecutorial investigation, and what is possible in Iraq. It can't be prosecuted in Iraq, and the courts found that it wasn't. We did not have legislation sufficiently clear in the United States in order to prosecute it. Thus, far from arbitrary or capricious prosecution, we have the opportunity for arbitrary defrauding of the United States taxpayer with no consequences. That's why the legislation is here.

Madam Speaker, I would at this point like to thank Mr. Mike Turner for working with us and the committee, right from the get-go, and also Mr. Phil English as well, to demonstrate what we have been saying here that Republicans alone, Democrats alone cannot bring this to an end. It requires us all to work together.

Now, there are some, I am sorry to say, on both ends of the spectrum of the parties who want to diminish what the bill is all about and what its intent is all about. Someone went so far yesterday as to say, well, this bill is like naming post offices.

Well, yesterday, we named two post offices for marines that were killed in Iraq. I don't suppose the author of that kind of commentary would like to speak with the family of the marines who have been killed about why these post offices were named.

I think it's pretty important that we concentrate on those who are bearing the brunt of the policies that we approve of in this body. That's what this is all about. We want to end the party sniping. We want to end the commentary about advantages being taken from one party or another.

Cover has been mentioned, about whether it would be given to one party or another. The only cover that we are interested in is the cover that has to be obtained by our fighting men and women in the field, because they are engaged in battle as a result of the policies that we either approve or disapprove of.

It's time for the Congress to take back its responsibility.

Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a commentary from the Government Accountability Office as of the end of July of this year.

Issues that DOD needs to consider in planning and executing

the draw down and redeployment of forces from Iraq:

Draw Down Scope, Costs, Timetable, and Capacity Issues

What forces will be drawn down, and over what period of

time? (i.e. the process for determining the order in which

specific forces will draw down, the timetable for the draw

down, and planning for the consolidation and relocation of

forces and related force protection issues).

How will DOD estimate, budget, and report costs associated

with the draw down? (i.e. the use of baseline budgets versus

GWOT-specific funding requests for related costs, and the

determination of which cost elements will be directly

associated with draw down and redeployment operations).

What will be DOD's responsibilities for transporting,

protecting, housing, and supporting other government civilian

personnel and contractors during the draw down and for those

forces that will remain behind? (i.e. civilian personnel from

the Department of Defense, State Department, USAID, and

defense contractors).

What forces will stay in theater after the draw down, and

what will the footprint be for forces remaining in Iraq and

Kuwait? (i.e.

stabilization forces in Iraq, forces to protect and maintain

prepositioned equipment sites in Iraq and Kuwait, and forces

to protect the U.S. Embassy in Iraq).

How much equipment and supplies will be redeployed from

Iraq and Kuwait, and over what period of time? (i.e. types of

equipment and supplies, numbers and sizes of the pieces of

equipment and supplies, tonnage, and amounts and types of

shipping vessels that will be needed).

To what extent does DOD have the capacity in Iraq, Kuwait,

and CONUS to support the draw down? (i.e. personnel,

facilities, storage, and transportation).

What equipment will stay in Iraq and Kuwait, and how will

this equipment be protected and maintained after the draw

down? (i.e. equipment transfers to the ISF and Iraqi forces,

prepositioned equipment sites in Iraq and Kuwait, and numbers

of maintenance contractors or service members needed to

maintain equipment in Iraq and Kuwait).

Logistics Issues

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need to

consider in the redeployment of troops and other personnel

from Iraq and Kuwait? (i.e. personnel security, housing and

food, medical support, and airlift requirements).

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need in the

United States to accept and process troops and personnel re-

entering the United States? (i.e. determining where the

troops and personnel will be sent, demobilization

requirements, housing and food, medical and dental support,

and veteran affairs issues).

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need to

consider in the redeployment of equipment and supplies from

Iraq and Kuwait? (i.e. transportation requirements, security

and protection of in-transit assets, storage and handling

requirements, port operations and facilities, and

requirements for shipping containers and vessels).

How will DOD maintain accountability and visibility over

in-transit assets? (i.e. establishing accountability over

assets in theater before redeployment, and maintaining

accountability and visibility throughout the redeployment

process).

What are the logistics elements that DOD will need in the

United States to accept and process equipment and supplies

re-entering the United States? (i.e. port operations and

facilities, transportation requirements, storage and handling

requirements, maintenance requirements, equipment reset

requirements, and depot capability and capacity issues).

Rebuilding Unit Capacity and Maintaining Stability in the Region During

and After the Drawn Down

How will DOD plan for rebuilding unit capacity and

resetting the forces, including establishing goals for

readiness levels and investment priorities? (i.e. personnel

re-training and re-manning).

What will be DOD's and other federal agencies' roles and

responsibilities regarding Iraqi refugees? (i.e. security,

shelter and food, and medical support).

How will DOD coordinate with coalition forces on the draw

down and redeployment processes, and what will be the roles

and responsibilities of the coalition forces during and after

the draw down? (i.e. coalition forces that will remain in

Iraq after the draw down, and force protection issues during

the draw down).

What agreements will DOD need to make with other

neighboring countries in the Middle East to facilitate the

draw down and redeployment? (i.e. airspace rights, logistics

support during redeployment, and roles of other countries in

the region in maintaining regional stability).

What issues will the Department of Defense consider in the planning and executing of the draw-down and redeployment of forces from Iraq? It includes the draw-down, scope, the costs, the timetable, the capacity issues, logistics issues. These are the serious and sober subjects of what will be presented to us by these redeployment plans.

You cannot have a redeployment by wish fulfillment alone. You have to have the practical realities in front of you in order to accomplish it. That's what we are seeking to do. That's what the Armed Services Committee on a bipartisan basis sought to accomplish with this bill. This is serious and sober business.

Section two of the measure states the strategy required ``shall include planning to achieve the following.'' That's what we mean by the status of the planning. Status of the planning will include the transition of combat forces from policing civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq.

It has to include a projection in the number of members the Armed Forces required for the missions described in the redeployment. The details of what these redeployment plans will encompass are included in the bill, and so the preamble that is there that says the original resolution has now been accomplished takes us to this final conclusion that we reach today, the redeployment of our troops in a responsible way and a bipartisan manner.

Permission to Reduce Time for Electronic Voting

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, once again I find myself on the floor wishing that I had an opportunity to perhaps discuss the issue that is raised in the amendment. I wish really honestly that the courtesies would be extended on this to one another, not just on this issue but on any issue where it affects individuals.

Let me explain for a moment if I can to you and some others who may be listening in, Mr. Chairman. Here is a list of votes on Native issues. There are 52 Members, 52 Members who have tribes in their districts, some multiple. Some of them are Republican Members who are sponsors of this bill. Each of them has unique questions and problems that have to be dealt with. It goes to Republicans, it goes to Democratic districts.

I find it distressing that this is becoming more and more a partisan issue for some folks in the Republican Conference. I can't comprehend it exactly.

As I say, here is 52. Here are some of the votes that were taken, Minority-Serving Institutions, Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act, 59 votes against it all from Members of the Republican Conference.

Motion to amend the Small Business Act to expand and improve assistance provided by small business development centers to Indian tribe members, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians, 73 members of the Republican Conference. I am not quite sure why this is happening.

I don't understand why Native issues and issues having to do with indigenous people and minorities find now an increasing number in the Republican Conference who are voting ``no'' on it. I wish we could get a dialogue established in some way to try and understand why Native people are being attacked.

In this particular instance, Mr. Chairman, I bring to your attention and the Members' attention the Admission Act that brought Hawaii into the Union. The Admission Act requires that we address questions such as those in the present bill that is before us.

Now if someone wants to attack the Admission Act, I suggest they go to court and do that. All we are doing here and all that is being requested in this bill that is before us is that which is required of us by law in order to accomplish the task at hand. If someone is opposed, and I invite once again the Members here who have this amendment, why attack us? Why attack our people for trying to implement the law? Attack the law. Change the law if that is what you want to do, if that is what you think is necessary.

We have 200,000 acres set aside for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. That is what the law says we are supposed to do. That is what the Admission Act which brought us into the United States says is required of us.

I can quote: Any such lands income, therefore, shall be held by the said State as a public trust for the support of the public schools and other public educational institutions and for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians for the development of farm and home ownership, as widespread a basis as possible, and for making public improvements and provisions of lands for public use.

That is what the Admission Act says we are supposed to do, for the betterment of Native Hawaiians. That is what this is about.

If one is opposed to that for everybody, for all of the tribes and so on, I guess we can take it up with the other Members and so on. I don't know. But I don't think here on the floor in any bill that is a consequence of trying to fulfill our obligations constitutionally is the way to go about it. Take it to court. Put in a bill to do that, but don't hurt us today.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I have a New Yorker cartoon that I have pasted to the wall of my office to try to remind me of my position in life and sometimes the irony of history.

It pictures some Native Americans in tribal garb standing on a promontory gazing out on a bay in which a ship, strangely akin to the Mayflower, appears to be sitting. And some people in a boat wearing kind of quaint hats and cloaks with breeches seem to be rowing into shore. And the one Native American says to the other, Doesn't look like they have their documentation in order to me.

Now, I don't know if that is anything other than perhaps mildly amusing, but perhaps it does make a point. I'm not sure that we're in any position to say to Native American tribes in this country that everybody ought to have their documentation in order. I wonder if those of us who are proposing that have our documentation in order.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Just a couple of notes. My good friend from Iowa was complimentary to me, and I am appreciative of that. I want to indicate to him, perhaps he misunderstood my intention in citing just a couple of instances where the vote was taken by himself and others with regard to minorities, with regard to Native Alaskans and tribal members and Native Hawaiians.

The reason that I cited it was not because I was trying to look for something for them that they did not deserve or would not prove useful to them, but let me explain why I cited them, because I thought it was undermining the principles that were cited by our friend from Georgia and our friend from Iowa, initiative, working yourself up the economic and social ladder of success.

Take the two bills. First, the Minority Serving Institutional Digital and Wireless Technology Opportunity Act. If you go into the bill itself, what it is is to try to assist in the areas where minorities are at issue, with trying to increase their capacity to do business, to increase their abilities to deal with wireless technology, digital technology today, as the keystone to economic opportunity and economic success. It's to give people the opportunity to increase their ability to pay their taxes to participate in the American foundation of American economic opportunity so that they could actually increase their capacity to succeed economically.

The same with the other bill, which is why I cited it. I thought that these were the kinds of things that we could all get behind, improve and expand the small business development centers. I know, out in Hawaii, for a fact the small business development centers have been crucial to getting small businesses under way to aiding and assist people who need not just a handout but a hand up, and to give them the technical skills not ordinarily available to them, to give them some of the institutional references that they need to make in order to be able to apply for loans to succeed in achieving, getting the loans to get started, particularly microloans and so on.

I can't speak for you, but I am sure you, as well, are familiar with small business development centers. What we are trying to do here, in the area of Indian tribe members, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians is to extend that helping hand so they can participate even further and achieve the very goals my good friend from Iowa and my good friend from Georgia have cited as being worthy of pursuit, not just by way of legislation, but by way of the everyday activities of constituents as they try to partake in the American Dream.

That's all this is about. We want to give people the opportunity legislatively to take advantage of the small business development centers, to take advantage of the new wireless technology in a way that might not have been available to them otherwise.

Will the gentleman yield?

Would the gentleman agree then that part of the issue that we have to face here then is supply?

Are we going to have an adequate supply of energy so that we can come to grips with the question of price, and, in turn, the question of how much production will cost us and whether we will be able to continue as a manufacturing nation?

If the gentleman would further yield on that point, isn't it a fact that there is not a world price, as there ostensibly might be for gasoline, a world price, now, even though the price of a gallon of gasoline may fluctuate because of the factors that the gentleman has indicated, but, nonetheless, at least there is some benchmark against which you can measure that gasoline price.

But when it comes to energy like natural gas, there is, in fact, not a world price. In the context that the gentleman has just outlined, isn't it true that the rest of the world is finding a natural gas foundation as part of the alternative to a petroleum fuel and able to meet the requirements that each of these nations may have, including China, at a price commensurate with production available to them and that the United States, because it does not have that same access, is actually paying a much higher price, and that, in fact, no world price exists for natural gas?

The gentleman has mentioned China. Is it not a fact, then, that as we confront this dilemma of a lack of energy supply at a reasonable price in America, the Chinese are presently going about the world securing oil rights, petroleum rights, natural gas rights, energy rights of one kind and another all over the world to supply the burgeoning manufacturing and development boom that they have going on there?

May I conclude then that I commend him for his leadership on this issue. I am pleased to join with him and want to indicate to you and to those who may be listening to us today, and, more particularly, to the presentation that you are making, that unless and until we have a comprehensive energy independence plan in this Nation, our security, economic, social, military, in fact, our leadership in the world is at stake.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 788 and vote No. 790. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.