Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 162 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 162 (Wednesday, October 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11974-H11989]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2007

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 764, I call up
the bill (H.R. 505) to express the policy of the United States
regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to
provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the
Native Hawaiian governing entity, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 764, the bill
is considered read.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 505

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Native Hawaiian Government
Reorganization Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--
(1) the Constitution vests Congress with the authority to
address the conditions of the indigenous, native people of
the United States;
(2) Native Hawaiians, the native people of the Hawaiian
archipelago that is now part of the United States, are
indigenous, native people of the United States;
(3) the United States has a special political and legal
relationship to promote the welfare of the native people of
the United States, including Native Hawaiians;
(4) under the treaty making power of the United States,
Congress exercised its constitutional authority to confirm
treaties between the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii,
and from 1826 until 1893, the United States--
(A) recognized the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii;
(B) accorded full diplomatic recognition to the Kingdom of
Hawaii; and
(C) entered into treaties and conventions with the Kingdom
of Hawaii to govern commerce and navigation in 1826, 1842,
1849, 1875, and 1887;
(5) pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42
Stat. 108, chapter 42), the United States set aside
approximately 203,500 acres of land to address the conditions
of Native Hawaiians in the Federal territory that later
became the State of Hawaii;
(6) by setting aside 203,500 acres of land for Native
Hawaiian homesteads and farms, the Hawaiian Homes Commission
Act assists the members of the Native Hawaiian community in
maintaining distinct native settlements throughout the State
of Hawaii;
(7) approximately 6,800 Native Hawaiian families reside on
the Hawaiian Home Lands and approximately 18,000 Native
Hawaiians who are eligible to reside on the Hawaiian Home
Lands are on a waiting list to receive assignments of
Hawaiian Home Lands;
(8)(A) in 1959, as part of the compact with the United
States admitting Hawaii into the Union, Congress established
a public trust (commonly known as the ``ceded lands trust''),
for 5 purposes, 1 of which is the betterment of the
conditions of Native Hawaiians;
(B) the public trust consists of lands, including submerged
lands, natural resources, and the revenues derived from the
lands; and
(C) the assets of this public trust have never been
completely inventoried or segregated;
(9) Native Hawaiians have continuously sought access to the
ceded lands in order to establish and maintain native
settlements and distinct native communities throughout the
State;
(10) the Hawaiian Home Lands and other ceded lands provide
an important foundation for the ability of the Native
Hawaiian community to maintain the practice of Native
Hawaiian culture, language, and traditions, and for the
survival and economic self-sufficiency of the Native Hawaiian
people;
(11) Native Hawaiians continue to maintain other distinctly
native areas in Hawaii;
(12) on November 23, 1993, Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat.
1510) (commonly known as the ``Apology Resolution'') was
enacted into law, extending an apology on behalf of the
United States to the native people of Hawaii for the United
States' role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii;
(13) the Apology Resolution acknowledges that the overthrow
of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active
participation of agents and citizens of the United States and
further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never
directly relinquished to the United States their claims to
their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national
lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a
plebiscite or referendum;
(14) the Apology Resolution expresses the commitment of
Congress and the President--
(A) to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of
the Kingdom of Hawaii;
(B) to support reconciliation efforts between the United
States and Native Hawaiians; and
(C) to consult with Native Hawaiians on the reconciliation
process as called for in the Apology Resolution;
(15) despite the overthrow of the government of the Kingdom
of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians have continued to maintain their
separate identity as a single distinct native community
through cultural, social, and political institutions, and to
give expression to their rights as native people to self-
determination, self-governance, and economic self-
sufficiency;
(16) Native Hawaiians have also given expression to their
rights as native people to self-determination, self-
governance, and economic self-sufficiency--
(A) through the provision of governmental services to
Native Hawaiians, including the provision of--
(i) health care services;
(ii) educational programs;
(iii) employment and training programs;
(iv) economic development assistance programs;
(v) children's services;
(vi) conservation programs;
(vii) fish and wildlife protection;
(viii) agricultural programs;
(ix) native language immersion programs;
(x) native language immersion schools from kindergarten
through high school;
(xi) college and master's degree programs in native
language immersion instruction; and
(xii) traditional justice programs, and
(B) by continuing their efforts to enhance Native Hawaiian
self-determination and local control;
(17) Native Hawaiians are actively engaged in Native
Hawaiian cultural practices, traditional agricultural
methods, fishing and subsistence practices, maintenance of
cultural use areas and sacred sites, protection of burial
sites, and the exercise of their traditional rights to gather
medicinal plants and herbs, and food sources;
(18) the Native Hawaiian people wish to preserve, develop,
and transmit to future generations of Native Hawaiians their
lands and Native Hawaiian political and cultural identity in
accordance with their traditions, beliefs, customs and
practices, language, and social and political institutions,
to control and manage their own lands, including ceded lands,
and to achieve greater self-determination over their own
affairs;
(19) this Act provides a process within the framework of
Federal law for the Native Hawaiian people to exercise their
inherent rights as a distinct, indigenous, native community
to reorganize a single Native Hawaiian governing entity for
the purpose of giving expression to their rights as native
people to self-determination and self-governance;
(20) Congress--
(A) has declared that the United States has a special
political and legal relationship for the welfare of the
native peoples of the United States, including Native
Hawaiians;
(B) has identified Native Hawaiians as a distinct group of
indigenous, native people of the United States within the
scope of its authority under the Constitution, and has
enacted scores of statutes on their behalf; and
(C) has delegated broad authority to the State of Hawaii to
administer some of the United States' responsibilities as
they relate to the Native Hawaiian people and their lands;
(21) the United States has recognized and reaffirmed the
special political and legal relationship with the Native
Hawaiian people through the enactment of the Act entitled,
``An Act to provide for the admission of the State of Hawaii
into the Union'', approved March 18, 1959 (Public Law 86-3;
73 Stat. 4), by--
(A) ceding to the State of Hawaii title to the public lands
formerly held by the United States, and mandating that those
lands be held as a public trust for 5 purposes, 1 of which is
for the betterment of the conditions of Native Hawaiians; and
(B) transferring the United States' responsibility for the
administration of the Hawaiian Home Lands to the State of
Hawaii, but retaining the exclusive right of the United
States to consent to any actions affecting the lands included
in the trust and any amendments to the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108, chapter 42) that are
enacted by the legislature of the State of Hawaii affecting
the beneficiaries under the Act;
(22) the United States has continually recognized and
reaffirmed that--
(A) Native Hawaiians have a cultural, historic, and land-
based link to the aboriginal, indigenous, native people who
exercised sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands;
(B) Native Hawaiians have never relinquished their claims
to sovereignty or their sovereign lands;
(C) the United States extends services to Native Hawaiians
because of their unique status as the indigenous, native
people of a once-sovereign nation with whom the United States
has a special political and legal relationship; and
(D) the special relationship of American Indians, Alaska
Natives, and Native Hawaiians to the United States arises out
of their status as aboriginal, indigenous, native people of
the United States; and
(23) the State of Hawaii supports the reaffirmation of the
special political and legal relationship between the Native
Hawaiian governing entity and the United States as

[[Page H11975]]

evidenced by 2 unanimous resolutions enacted by the Hawaii
State Legislature in the 2000 and 2001 sessions of the
Legislature and by the testimony of the Governor of the State
of Hawaii before the Committee on Indian Affairs of the
Senate on February 25, 2003, and March 1, 2005.

SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:
(1) Aboriginal, indigenous, native people.--The term
``aboriginal, indigenous, native people'' means people whom
Congress has recognized as the original inhabitants of the
lands that later became part of the United States and who
exercised sovereignty in the areas that later became part of
the United States.
(2) Adult member.--The term ``adult member'' means a Native
Hawaiian who has attained the age of 18 and who elects to
participate in the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity.
(3) Apology resolution.--The term ``Apology Resolution''
means Public Law 103-150 (107 Stat. 1510), a Joint Resolution
extending an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the
United States for the participation of agents of the United
States in the January 17, 1893, overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii.
(4) Commission.--The term ``commission'' means the
Commission established under section 7(b) to provide for the
certification that those adult members of the Native Hawaiian
community listed on the roll meet the definition of Native
Hawaiian set forth in paragraph (10).
(5) Council.--The term ``council'' means the Native
Hawaiian Interim Governing Council established under section
7(c)(2).
(6) Indian program or service.--
(A) In general.--The term ``Indian program or service''
means any federally funded or authorized program or service
provided to an Indian tribe (or member of an Indian tribe)
because of the status of the members of the Indian tribe as
Indians.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``Indian program or service''
includes a program or service provided by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the Indian Health Service, or any other
Federal agency.
(7) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given the term in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b).
(8) Indigenous, native people.--The term ``indigenous,
native people'' means the lineal descendants of the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people of the United States.
(9) Interagency coordinating group.--The term ``Interagency
Coordinating Group'' means the Native Hawaiian Interagency
Coordinating Group established under section 6.
(10) Native hawaiian.--
(A) In general.--Subject to subparagraph (B), for the
purpose of establishing the roll authorized under section
7(c)(1) and before the reaffirmation of the special political
and legal relationship between the United States and the
Native Hawaiian governing entity, the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' means--
(i) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native people
of Hawaii and who is a direct lineal descendant of the
aboriginal, indigenous, native people who--

(I) resided in the islands that now comprise the State of
Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893; and
(II) occupied and exercised sovereignty in the Hawaiian
archipelago, including the area that now constitutes the
State of Hawaii; or

(ii) an individual who is 1 of the indigenous, native
people of Hawaii and who was eligible in 1921 for the
programs authorized by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (42
Stat. 108, chapter 42) or a direct lineal descendant of that
individual.
(B) No effect on other definitions.--Nothing in this
paragraph affects the definition of the term ``Native
Hawaiian'' under any other Federal or State law (including a
regulation).
(11) Native hawaiian governing entity.--The term ``Native
Hawaiian Governing Entity'' means the governing entity
organized by the Native Hawaiian people pursuant to this Act.
(12) Native hawaiian program or service.--The term ``Native
Hawaiian program or service'' means any program or service
provided to Native Hawaiians because of their status as
Native Hawaiians.
(13) Office.--The term ``Office'' means the United States
Office for Native Hawaiian Relations established by section
5(a).
(14) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(15) Special political and legal relationship.--The term
``special political and legal relationship'' shall refer,
except where differences are specifically indicated elsewhere
in the Act, to the type of and nature of relationship the
United States has with the several federally recognized
Indian tribes.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES POLICY AND PURPOSE.

(a) Policy.--The United States reaffirms that--
(1) Native Hawaiians are a unique and distinct, indigenous,
native people with whom the United States has a special
political and legal relationship;
(2) the United States has a special political and legal
relationship with the Native Hawaiian people which includes
promoting the welfare of Native Hawaiians;
(3) Congress possesses the authority under the
Constitution, including but not limited to Article I, section
8, clause 3, to enact legislation to address the conditions
of Native Hawaiians and has exercised this authority through
the enactment of--
(A) the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920 (42 Stat. 108,
chapter 42);
(B) the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission
of the State of Hawaii into the Union'', approved March 18,
1959 (Public Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4); and
(C) more than 150 other Federal laws addressing the
conditions of Native Hawaiians;
(4) Native Hawaiians have--
(A) an inherent right to autonomy in their internal
affairs;
(B) an inherent right of self-determination and self-
governance;
(C) the right to reorganize a Native Hawaiian governing
entity; and
(D) the right to become economically self-sufficient; and
(5) the United States shall continue to engage in a process
of reconciliation and political relations with the Native
Hawaiian people.
(b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to provide a
process for the reorganization of the single Native Hawaiian
governing entity and the reaffirmation of the special
political and legal relationship between the United States
and that Native Hawaiian governing entity for purposes of
continuing a government-to-government relationship.

SEC. 5. UNITED STATES OFFICE FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN RELATIONS.

(a) Establishment.--There is established within the Office
of the Secretary, the United States Office for Native
Hawaiian Relations.
(b) Duties.--The Office shall--
(1) continue the process of reconciliation with the Native
Hawaiian people in furtherance of the Apology Resolution;
(2) upon the reaffirmation of the special political and
legal relationship between the single Native Hawaiian
governing entity and the United States, effectuate and
coordinate the special political and legal relationship
between the Native Hawaiian governing entity and the United
States through the Secretary, and with all other Federal
agencies;
(3) fully integrate the principle and practice of
meaningful, regular, and appropriate consultation with the
Native Hawaiian governing entity by providing timely notice
to, and consulting with, the Native Hawaiian people and the
Native Hawaiian governing entity before taking any actions
that may have the potential to significantly affect Native
Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
(4) consult with the Interagency Coordinating Group, other
Federal agencies, and the State of Hawaii on policies,
practices, and proposed actions affecting Native Hawaiian
resources, rights, or lands; and
(5) prepare and submit to the Committee on Indian Affairs
and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the
Senate and the Committee on Resources of the House of
Representatives an annual report detailing the activities of
the Interagency Coordinating Group that are undertaken with
respect to the continuing process of reconciliation and to
effect meaningful consultation with the Native Hawaiian
governing entity and providing recommendations for any
necessary changes to Federal law or regulations promulgated
under the authority of Federal law.
(c) Applicability to Department of Defense.--This section
shall have no applicability to the Department of Defense or
to any agency or component of the Department of Defense, but
the Secretary of Defense may designate 1 or more officials as
liaison to the Office.

SEC. 6. NATIVE HAWAIIAN INTERAGENCY COORDINATING GROUP.

(a) Establishment.--In recognition that Federal programs
authorized to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians are
largely administered by Federal agencies other than the
Department of the Interior, there is established an
interagency coordinating group to be known as the ``Native
Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group''.
(b) Composition.--The Interagency Coordinating Group shall
be composed of officials, to be designated by the President,
from--
(1) each Federal agency that administers Native Hawaiian
programs, establishes or implements policies that affect
Native Hawaiians, or whose actions may significantly or
uniquely impact Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
and
(2) the Office.
(c) Lead Agency.--
(1) In general.--The Department of the Interior shall serve
as the lead agency of the Interagency Coordinating Group.
(2) Meetings.--The Secretary shall convene meetings of the
Interagency Coordinating Group.
(d) Duties.--The Interagency Coordinating Group shall--
(1) coordinate Federal programs and policies that affect
Native Hawaiians or actions by any agency or agencies of the
Federal Government that may significantly or uniquely affect
Native Hawaiian resources, rights, or lands;
(2) consult with the Native Hawaiian governing entity,
through the coordination referred to in section 6(d)(1), but
the consultation obligation established in this provision
shall apply only after the satisfaction of all of the
conditions referred to in section 7(c)(6); and
(3) ensure the participation of each Federal agency in the
development of the report to Congress authorized in section
5(b)(5).
(e) Applicability to Department of Defense.--This section
shall have no applicability to the Department of Defense or
to

[[Page H11976]]

any agency or component of the Department of Defense, but the
Secretary of Defense may designate 1 or more officials as
liaison to the Interagency Coordinating Group.

SEC. 7. PROCESS FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF THE NATIVE HAWAIIAN
GOVERNING ENTITY AND THE REAFFIRMATION OF THE
SPECIAL POLITICAL AND LEGAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE NATIVE
HAWAIIAN GOVERNING ENTITY.

(a) Recognition of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity.--
The right of the Native Hawaiian people to reorganize the
single Native Hawaiian governing entity to provide for their
common welfare and to adopt appropriate organic governing
documents is recognized by the United States.
(b) Commission.--
(1) In general.--There is authorized to be established a
Commission to be composed of 9 members for the purposes of--
(A) preparing and maintaining a roll of the adult members
of the Native Hawaiian community who elect to participate in
the reorganization of the single Native Hawaiian governing
entity; and
(B) certifying that the adult members of the Native
Hawaiian community proposed for inclusion on the roll meet
the definition of Native Hawaiian in section 3(10).
(2) Membership.--
(A) Appointment.--
(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall appoint the
members of the Commission in accordance with subparagraph
(B).
(ii) Consideration.--In making an appointment under clause
(i), the Secretary may take into consideration a
recommendation made by any Native Hawaiian organization.
(B) Requirements.--Each member of the Commission shall
demonstrate, as determined by the Secretary--
(i) not less than 10 years of experience in the study and
determination of Native Hawaiian genealogy; and
(ii) an ability to read and translate into English
documents written in the Hawaiian language.
(C) Vacancies.--A vacancy on the Commission--
(i) shall not affect the powers of the Commission; and
(ii) shall be filled in the same manner as the original
appointment.
(3) Expenses.--Each member of the Commission shall be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of
subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies
under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States
Code, while away from their homes or regular places of
business in the performance of services for the Commission.
(4) Duties.--The Commission shall--
(A) prepare and maintain a roll of the adult members of the
Native Hawaiian community who elect to participate in the
reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity; and
(B) certify that each of the adult members of the Native
Hawaiian community proposed for inclusion on the roll meets
the definition of Native Hawaiian in section 3(10).
(5) Staff.--
(A) In general.--The Commission may, without regard to the
civil service laws (including regulations), appoint and
terminate an executive director and such other additional
personnel as are necessary to enable the Commission to
perform the duties of the Commission.
(B) Compensation.--
(i) In general.--Except as provided in clause (ii), the
Commission may fix the compensation of the executive director
and other personnel without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5,
United States Code, relating to classification of positions
and General Schedule pay rates.
(ii) Maximum rate of pay.--The rate of pay for the
executive director and other personnel shall not exceed the
rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of title 5, United States Code.
(6) Detail of federal government employees.--
(A) In general.--An employee of the Federal Government may
be detailed to the Commission without reimbursement.
(B) Civil service status.--The detail of the employee shall
be without interruption or loss of civil service status or
privilege.
(7) Procurement of temporary and intermittent services.--
The Commission may procure temporary and intermittent
services in accordance with section 3109(b) of title 5,
United States Code, at rates for individuals that do not
exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay
prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under
section 5316 of that title.
(8) Expiration.--The Secretary shall dissolve the
Commission upon the reaffirmation of the special political
and legal relationship between the Native Hawaiian governing
entity and the United States.
(c) Process for the Reorganization of the Native Hawaiian
Governing Entity.--
(1) Roll.--
(A) Contents.--The roll shall include the names of the
adult members of the Native Hawaiian community who elect to
participate in the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity and are certified to be Native Hawaiian as
defined in section 3(10) by the Commission.
(B) Formation of roll.--Each adult member of the Native
Hawaiian community who elects to participate in the
reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity shall
submit to the Commission documentation in the form
established by the Commission that is sufficient to enable
the Commission to determine whether the individual meets the
definition of Native Hawaiian in section 3(10).
(C) Documentation.--The Commission shall--
(i) identify the types of documentation that may be
submitted to the Commission that would enable the Commission
to determine whether an individual meets the definition of
Native Hawaiian in section 3(10);
(ii) establish a standard format for the submission of
documentation; and
(iii) publish information related to clauses (i) and (ii)
in the Federal Register.
(D) Consultation.--In making determinations that each of
the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community proposed
for inclusion on the roll meets the definition of Native
Hawaiian in section 3(10), the Commission may consult with
Native Hawaiian organizations, agencies of the State of
Hawaii including but not limited to the Department of
Hawaiian Home Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the
State Department of Health, and other entities with expertise
and experience in the determination of Native Hawaiian
ancestry and lineal descendancy.
(E) Certification and submittal of roll to secretary.--The
Commission shall--
(i) submit the roll containing the names of the adult
members of the Native Hawaiian community who meet the
definition of Native Hawaiian in section 3(10) to the
Secretary within two years from the date on which the
Commission is fully composed; and
(ii) certify to the Secretary that each of the adult
members of the Native Hawaiian community proposed for
inclusion on the roll meets the definition of Native Hawaiian
in section 3(10).
(F) Publication.--Upon certification by the Commission to
the Secretary that those listed on the roll meet the
definition of Native Hawaiian in section 3(10), the Secretary
shall publish the roll in the Federal Register.
(G) Appeal.--The Secretary may establish a mechanism for an
appeal for any person whose name is excluded from the roll
who claims to meet the definition of Native Hawaiian in
section 3(10) and to be 18 years of age or older.
(H) Publication; update.--The Secretary shall--
(i) publish the roll regardless of whether appeals are
pending;
(ii) update the roll and the publication of the roll on the
final disposition of any appeal; and
(iii) update the roll to include any Native Hawaiian who
has attained the age of 18 and who has been certified by the
Commission as meeting the definition of Native Hawaiian in
section 3(10) after the initial publication of the roll or
after any subsequent publications of the roll.
(I) Failure to act.--If the Secretary fails to publish the
roll, not later than 90 days after the date on which the roll
is submitted to the Secretary, the Commission shall publish
the roll notwithstanding any order or directive issued by the
Secretary or any other official of the Department of the
Interior to the contrary.
(J) Effect of publication.--The publication of the initial
and updated roll shall serve as the basis for the eligibility
of adult members of the Native Hawaiian community whose names
are listed on those rolls to participate in the
reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
(2) Organization of the native hawaiian interim governing
council.--
(A) Organization.--The adult members of the Native Hawaiian
community listed on the roll published under this section
may--
(i) develop criteria for candidates to be elected to serve
on the Native Hawaiian Interim Governing Council;
(ii) determine the structure of the Council; and
(iii) elect members from individuals listed on the roll
published under this subsection to the Council.
(B) Powers.--
(i) In general.--The Council--

(I) may represent those listed on the roll published under
this section in the implementation of this Act; and
(II) shall have no powers other than powers given to the
Council under this Act.

(ii) Funding.--The Council may enter into a contract with,
or obtain a grant from, any Federal or State agency to carry
out clause (iii).
(iii) Activities.--

(I) In general.--The Council may conduct a referendum among
the adult members of the Native Hawaiian community listed on
the roll published under this subsection for the purpose of
determining the proposed elements of the organic governing
documents of the Native Hawaiian governing entity, including
but not limited to--

(aa) the proposed criteria for citizenship of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity;
(bb) the proposed powers and authorities to be exercised by
the Native Hawaiian governing entity, as well as the proposed
privileges and immunities of the Native Hawaiian governing
entity;
(cc) the proposed civil rights and protection of the rights
of the citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and
all persons affected by the exercise of governmental powers
and authorities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity; and

[[Page H11977]]

(dd) other issues determined appropriate by the Council.

(II) Development of organic governing documents.--Based on
the referendum, the Council may develop proposed organic
governing documents for the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
(III) Distribution.--The Council may distribute to all
adult members of the Native Hawaiian community listed on the
roll published under this subsection--

(aa) a copy of the proposed organic governing documents, as
drafted by the Council; and
(bb) a brief impartial description of the proposed organic
governing documents;

(IV) Elections.--The Council may hold elections for the
purpose of ratifying the proposed organic governing
documents, and on certification of the organic governing
documents by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (4),
hold elections of the officers of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity pursuant to paragraph (5).

(3) Submittal of organic governing documents.--Following
the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity
and the adoption of organic governing documents, the Council
shall submit the organic governing documents of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity to the Secretary.
(4) Certifications.--
(A) In general.--Within the context of the future
negotiations to be conducted under the authority of section
8(b)(1), and the subsequent actions by the Congress and the
State of Hawaii to enact legislation to implement the
agreements of the 3 governments, not later than 90 days after
the date on which the Council submits the organic governing
documents to the Secretary, the Secretary shall certify that
the organic governing documents--
(i) establish the criteria for citizenship in the Native
Hawaiian governing entity;
(ii) were adopted by a majority vote of the adult members
of the Native Hawaiian community whose names are listed on
the roll published by the Secretary;
(iii) provide authority for the Native Hawaiian governing
entity to negotiate with Federal, State, and local
governments, and other entities;
(iv) provide for the exercise of governmental authorities
by the Native Hawaiian governing entity, including any
authorities that may be delegated to the Native Hawaiian
governing entity by the United States and the State of Hawaii
following negotiations authorized in section 8(b)(1) and the
enactment of legislation to implement the agreements of the 3
governments;
(v) prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of
lands, interests in lands, or other assets of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity without the consent of the Native
Hawaiian governing entity;
(vi) provide for the protection of the civil rights of the
citizens of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and all
persons affected by the exercise of governmental powers and
authorities by the Native Hawaiian governing entity; and
(vii) are consistent with applicable Federal law and the
special political and legal relationship between the United
States and the indigenous, native people of the United
States; provided that the provisions of Public Law 103-454,
25 U.S.C. 479a, shall not apply.
(B) Resubmission in case of noncompliance with the
requirements of subparagraph (a).--
(i) Resubmission by the secretary.--If the Secretary
determines that the organic governing documents, or any part
of the documents, do not meet all of the requirements set
forth in subparagraph (A), the Secretary shall resubmit the
organic governing documents to the Council, along with a
justification for each of the Secretary's findings as to why
the provisions are not in full compliance.
(ii) Amendment and resubmission of organic governing
documents.--If the organic governing documents are
resubmitted to the Council by the Secretary under clause (i),
the Council shall--

(I) amend the organic governing documents to ensure that
the documents meet all the requirements set forth in
subparagraph (A); and
(II) resubmit the amended organic governing documents to
the Secretary for certification in accordance with this
paragraph.

(C) Certifications deemed made.--The certifications under
paragraph (4) shall be deemed to have been made if the
Secretary has not acted within 90 days after the date on
which the Council has submitted the organic governing
documents of the Native Hawaiian governing entity to the
Secretary.
(5) Elections.--On completion of the certifications by the
Secretary under paragraph (4), the Council may hold elections
of the officers of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
(6) Reaffirmation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, upon the certifications required under paragraph (4) and
the election of the officers of the Native Hawaiian governing
entity, the special political and legal relationship between
the United States and the Native Hawaiian governing entity is
hereby reaffirmed and the United States extends Federal
recognition to the Native Hawaiian governing entity as the
representative governing body of the Native Hawaiian people.

SEC. 8. REAFFIRMATION OF DELEGATION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY;
NEGOTIATIONS; CLAIMS.

(a) Reaffirmation.--The delegation by the United States of
authority to the State of Hawaii to address the conditions of
the indigenous, native people of Hawaii contained in the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for the admission of the State
of Hawaii into the Union'' approved March 18, 1959 (Public
Law 86-3, 73 Stat. 4), is reaffirmed.
(b) Negotiations.--
(1) In general.--Upon the reaffirmation of the special
political and legal relationship between the United States
and the Native Hawaiian governing entity, the United States
and the State of Hawaii may enter into negotiations with the
Native Hawaiian governing entity designed to lead to an
agreement addressing such matters as--
(A) the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other
assets, and the protection of existing rights related to such
lands or resources;
(B) the exercise of governmental authority over any
transferred lands, natural resources, and other assets,
including land use;
(C) the exercise of civil and criminal jurisdiction;
(D) the delegation of governmental powers and authorities
to the Native Hawaiian governing entity by the United States
and the State of Hawaii;
(E) any residual responsibilities of the United States and
the State of Hawaii; and
(F) grievances regarding assertions of historical wrongs
committed against Native Hawaiians by the United States or by
the State of Hawaii.
(2) Amendments to existing laws.--Upon agreement on any
matter or matters negotiated with the United States, the
State of Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian governing entity,
the parties are authorized to submit--
(A) to the Committee on Indian Affairs of the Senate, the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, and
the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives,
recommendations for proposed amendments to Federal law that
will enable the implementation of agreements reached between
the 3 governments; and
(B) to the Governor and the legislature of the State of
Hawaii, recommendations for proposed amendments to State law
that will enable the implementation of agreements reached
between the 3 governments.
(3) Governmental authority and power.--Any governmental
authority or power to be exercised by the Native Hawaiian
governing entity which is currently exercised by the State or
Federal Governments shall be exercised by the Native Hawaiian
governing entity only as agreed to in negotiations pursuant
to section 8(b)(1) of this Act and beginning on the date on
which legislation to implement such agreement has been
enacted by the United States Congress, when applicable, and
by the State of Hawaii, when applicable. This includes any
required modifications to the Hawaii State Constitution in
accordance with the Hawaii Revised Statutes.
(c) Claims.--
(1) Disclaimers.--Nothing in this Act--
(A) creates a cause of action against the United States or
any other entity or person;
(B) alters existing law, including existing case law,
regarding obligations on the part of the United States or the
State of Hawaii with regard to Native Hawaiians or any Native
Hawaiian entity;
(C) creates obligations that did not exist in any source of
Federal law prior to the date of enactment of this Act; or
(D) establishes authority for the recognition of Native
Hawaiian groups other than the single Native Hawaiian
Governing Entity.
(2) Federal sovereign immunity.--
(A) Specific purpose.--Nothing in this Act is intended to
create or allow to be maintained in any court any potential
breach-of-trust actions, land claims, resource-protection or
resource-management claims, or similar types of claims
brought by or on behalf of Native Hawaiians or the Native
Hawaiian governing entity for equitable, monetary, or
Administrative Procedure Act-based relief against the United
States or the State of Hawaii, whether or not such claims
specifically assert an alleged breach of trust, call for an
accounting, seek declaratory relief, or seek the recovery of
or compensation for lands once held by Native Hawaiians.
(B) Establishment and retention of sovereign immunity.--To
effectuate the ends expressed in section 8(c)(1) and
8(c)(2)(A), and notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal law, the United States retains its sovereign immunity
to any claim that existed prior to the enactment of this Act
(including, but not limited to, any claim based in whole or
in part on past events), and which could be brought by Native
Hawaiians or any Native Hawaiian governing entity. Nor shall
any preexisting waiver of sovereign immunity (including, but
not limited to, waivers set forth in chapter 7 of part I of
title 5, United States Code, and sections 1505 and 2409a of
title 28, United States Code) be applicable to any such
claims. This complete retention or reclaiming of sovereign
immunity also applies to every claim that might attempt to
rely on this Act for support, without regard to the source of
law under which any such claim might be asserted.
(C) Effect.--It is the general effect of section 8(c)(2)(B)
that any claims that may already have accrued and might be
brought against the United States, including any claims of
the types specifically referred to in section 8(c)(2)(A),
along with both claims of a similar nature and claims arising
out of the same nucleus of operative facts as could

[[Page H11978]]

give rise to claims of the specific types referred to in
section 8(c)(2)(A), be rendered nonjusticiable in suits
brought by plaintiffs other than the Federal Government.
(3) State sovereignty immunity.--
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, the
State retains its sovereign immunity, unless waived in accord
with State law, to any claim, established under any source of
law, regarding Native Hawaiians, that existed prior to the
enactment of this Act.
(B) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to constitute an
override pursuant to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of
State sovereign immunity held under the Eleventh Amendment.

SEC. 9. APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAWS.

(a) Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.--
(1) The Native Hawaiian governing entity and Native
Hawaiians may not conduct gaming activities as a matter of
claimed inherent authority or under the authority of any
Federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25
U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) or under any regulations thereunder
promulgated by the Secretary or the National Indian Gaming
Commission.
(2) The foregoing prohibition in section 9(a)(1) on the use
of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and inherent authority to
game apply regardless of whether gaming by Native Hawaiians
or the Native Hawaiian governing entity would be located on
land within the State of Hawaii or within any other State or
Territory of the United States.
(b) Taking Land Into Trust.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, including but not limited to part 151 of
title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary shall
not take land into trust on behalf of individuals or groups
claiming to be Native Hawaiian or on behalf of the native
Hawaiian governing entity.
(c) Real Property Transfers.--The Indian Trade and
Intercourse Act (25 U.S.C. 177), does not, has never, and
will not apply after enactment to lands or lands transfers
present, past, or future, in the State of Hawaii. If despite
the expression of this intent herein, a court were to
construe the Trade and Intercourse Act to apply to lands or
land transfers in Hawaii before the date of enactment of this
Act, then any transfer of land or natural resources located
within the State of Hawaii prior to the date of enactment of
this Act, by or on behalf of the Native Hawaiian people, or
individual Native Hawaiians, shall be deemed to have been
made in accordance with the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act
and any other provision of Federal law that specifically
applies to transfers of land or natural resources from, by,
or on behalf of an Indian tribe, Native Hawaiians, or Native
Hawaiian entities.
(d) Single Governing Entity.--This Act will result in the
recognition of the single Native Hawaiian governing entity.
Additional Native Hawaiian groups shall not be eligible for
acknowledgment pursuant to the Federal Acknowledgment Process
set forth in part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal
Regulations or any other administrative acknowledgment or
recognition process.
(e) Jurisdiction.--Nothing in this Act alters the civil or
criminal jurisdiction of the United States or the State of
Hawaii over lands and persons within the State of Hawaii. The
status quo of Federal and State jurisdiction can change only
as a result of further legislation, if any, enacted after the
conclusion, in relevant part, of the negotiation process
established in section 8(b).
(f) Indian Programs and Services.--Notwithstanding section
7(c)(6), because of the eligibility of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity and its citizens for Native Hawaiian
programs and services in accordance with subsection (g),
nothing in this Act provides an authorization for eligibility
to participate in any Indian program or service to any
individual or entity not otherwise eligible for the program
or service under applicable Federal law.
(g) Native Hawaiian Programs and Services.--The Native
Hawaiian governing entity and its citizens shall be eligible
for Native Hawaiian programs and services to the extent and
in the manner provided by other applicable laws.

SEC. 10. SEVERABILITY.

If any section or provision of this Act is held invalid, it
is the intent of Congress that the remaining sections or
provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

SEC. 11. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the bill, it shall
be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 110-404
if offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) or his designee,
which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or
demand for division of the question, shall be considered read, and
shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by
the proponent and an opponent.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

General Leave

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on H.R. 505.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505, the Native
Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. Without the hard work,
dogged determination, persistence and leadership of our colleagues from
Hawaii, we would not be where we are today on this legislation. Indeed,
Mr. Neil Abercrombie has been at this for many years, and it is because
of his dedication to his people that I have also agreed to strongly
support this bill. I also want to commend Mazie Hirono for her work,
and the entire delegation deserves words of praise for their
leadership.
This bill has been years in the making and Mr. Abercrombie, in
particular, never failed to take every opportunity to educate and
encourage the rest of us on the need for this important legislation.
H.R. 505 would establish a process by which the Native Hawaiian
governing body would be reorganized and the political and legal
relationship with the United States would once again be reaffirmed.
Starting in 1920, Congress began passing legislation specifically for
the benefit of Native Hawaiians. To date, over 160 laws have been
enacted authorizing Native Hawaiian participation in government
programs ranging from housing to the repatriation of Hawaiian bones
from our Nation's museums.
Recent court challenges have necessitated the need for this
legislation to codify a government-to-government relationship with the
indigenous peoples of Hawaii. Simply put, this legislation will finally
bring parity to the way the United States relates to Indian tribes,
Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians.
I will tell you a bit about what H.R. 505 does not do:
It does not allow for gaming of any kind. It does not provide for
additional land to be transferred to Native Hawaiians. It does not
change any current civil or criminal jurisdiction by the State or
Federal Government.

{time} 1315

It does not provide for any new eligibility for Native Hawaiians into
Indian programs.
Mr. Speaker, Congress's authority to address the conditions of the
aboriginal indigenous people, regardless of how organized, stems from
our United States Constitution. In recognition of this authority, we
passed similar legislation in the House under the suspension of the
rules during the 106th Congress. My committee, the Committee on Natural
Resources, has passed similar legislation three times, each time with
overwhelming bipartisan support.
We need to make a clear statement. We need to pass H.R. 505
overwhelmingly, and I would urge all my colleagues to vote ``yea'' on
this important bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr.
Young) very much wanted to manage H.R. 505 today, but he is on his way
to an annual convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives, something
that's very important to him as well as to that particular group. So I
have consented to manage this issue, though there are few Members in
this House who feel as strongly in favor of H.R. 505 as Mr. Young.
The sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie)
has done something that is very unique in this body. He's written a
bill that only affects his own State. Recognizing the Native Hawaiian
governing entity does not affect Native American tribes in my State,
does not affect the lands or resources in my district. That is
something that's becoming very unusual around here. Mr. Abercrombie,
you need to be careful, you're almost becoming a Republican.
Congress has already enacted dozens of authorizing laws and
appropriations bills for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. This bill
does not create a new source of funds, nor does it let Native Hawaiians
seek funds through the BIA.

[[Page H11979]]

This bill has the support of the Hawaiian delegation, Governor Lingle
and the State legislature. Their judgment should be given some respect.
Georgetown Professor Viet Dinh, who was the U.S. Assistant Attorney
General for Legal Policy in 2001 to 2003, testified that ``Congress has
constitutional authority to enact the Native Hawaiian Government
Recognition Act, and to recognize a Native Hawaiian governing entity as
a dependent sovereign government within the United States or, in other
words, to treat Native Hawaiians just as it treats Native Americans and
Alaska Natives.''
Professor Dinh explained that when Congress recognizes Native people,
it does so in a political way, not a racial way, and he established two
criteria that Congress must deem having met in order to exercise this
authority. Basically, one, that people must have a native ancestry on
lands that became part of the United States; two, they must be members
of a distinct native community. H.R. 505 appears to have passed these
two tests.
This bill deserves a fair and open debate in this body, just as the
native people who are seeking formal recognition from the government
do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield 6 minutes to the
main drive behind this legislation, a valued member of our Committee on
Natural Resources, the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, our decision on Native Hawaiian
recognition ought to be governed by two very basic principles: First,
the concerns of the people of Hawaii, and second, the established
principles of sovereignty of indigenous people under which this
Republic has operated for over 200 years.
This bipartisan bill is supported by the Hawaii delegations in both
the House and the Senate, which are Democratic, by a Republican
Governor for the State of Hawaii, and by the Hawaii State Legislature,
which has adopted bipartisan resolutions overwhelmingly in 2000, 2001
and 2005, by the National Congress of American Indians, and by the
Alaska Federation of Natives.
Some are concerned that the establishment of a Native Hawaiian
governing body is only a Federal issue. I would submit, as has been
suggested, it's as much a State question as a national one, and we
ought to respect, as conservatives, the wishes of people at the State
level.
Despite what some believe or say, this is not about race; this is
about the sovereignty of an indigenous people. The Native Hawaiian
governing body, having the same characteristics as Native American
governments, deserves Federal recognition.
Some sometimes say that Native Hawaiians should not be set apart as a
separate category, yet our Congress has passed over 160 statutes
addressing the conditions of Native Hawaiians and repeatedly
recognizing the United States' political and legal relationship

[[Page H11980]]

and trust relationship with Native Hawaiians.
Again, despite what some say, this bill will not allow the Native
Hawaiian governing body to establish gaming facilities in the State of
Hawaii. It will not limit Federal control of Federal military
facilities in Hawaii, and the Native Hawaiian governing body will not
drain resources currently allocated to Native American tribes, Alaskan
Natives, or threaten their interests in any way. Indeed, as I mentioned
earlier, the NCAI actually supports this legislation.
I think fundamentally, as conservatives, we ought to allow the people
of Hawaii to manage their own affairs as they see fit. We ought to
respect the Constitution that we have, which recognizes the sovereignty
of indigenous people. And we ought to support the passage of this very
important and long-overdue legislation, H.R. 505.
And in closing, let me just add my congratulations to Mr.
Abercrombie, who has labored long and hard for this legislation and has
garnered significant bipartisan support, and I look forward to your
success today.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy to yield to another
Representative from Hawaii, the gentlelady, Ms. Mazie Hirono, for 5
minutes.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505,
the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which begins to
provide a measure of justice for the indigenous native people of the
Hawaiian Islands. I'd like to take a few moments to share some of the
history to show why this bill is so important to all the people of
Hawaii.
The Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893. Hawaii's last Queen,
Lili'uokalani, was deposed by an armed group of businessmen and sugar
planters who were American by birth or heritage, with the support of
U.S. troops. The Queen agreed to relinquish her throne, under protest,
to avoid bloodshed. She believed the United States, with which Hawaii
had diplomatic relations, would restore her to the throne. As we now
know, despite the objections of President Grover Cleveland, the
injustice of the overthrow was allowed to stand and the Republic of
Hawaii was established.
A few years later, in 1898, the United States annexed Hawaii. Prior
to annexation, a petition drive was organized by Native Hawaiians
securing signatures of almost two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian
population opposing annexation; 29,000 signatures out of an estimated
Native Hawaiian population of 40,000 at that time.

{time} 1330

These petitions are now in the National Archives.
The Hawaiian culture was under siege. The Republic of Hawaii
prohibited the use of the Hawaiian language in Hawaii schools. Everyday
use of the Hawaiian language diminished greatly. Hula, which had been
suppressed by the missionaries and then restored by King Kalaukaua a
few years before the overthrow, survived but did not thrive. Hawaiians
were pressured to assimilate and much was lost.
When Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana'ole was elected to serve as
Hawaii's Delegate to Congress, he succeeded in passing the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside some 200,000 acres of
land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the
landless status of so many Native Hawaiians who were displaced by
newcomers and became the most impoverished population in their own
land. In recognition of its trust responsibility to our Native
Hawaiians, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is
still in force.
Hawaii became a State in 1959. Beginning in the late 1960s and early
1970s, a Native Hawaiian cultural rediscovery began in music, hula,
language, and other aspects of the culture. This cultural renaissance
was inspired by hula masters, kumu hula, who helped bring back ancient
and traditional hula; musicians and vocalists, who brought back
traditional music sung in the Hawaiian language; and political leaders,
who sought to protect Hawaii's sacred places and natural beauty.
This flowering of Hawaiian culture was not met with fear in Hawaii
but with joy and celebration and an increased connection with each
other. People of all ethnicities in Hawaii respect and honor the Native
Hawaiian culture.
In 1978, Hawaii convened a constitutional convention that was
designed, in part, to right some of the wrongs done to Native
Hawaiians. The constitutional convention created the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs, or OHA, so that Native Hawaiians would have some ability to
manage their own affairs.
The constitutional convention also laid the groundwork for the return
of some Federal lands to Native Hawaiians, including the island of
Kaho'olawe, which currently is held in trust for a future Native
Hawaiian governing entity. The convention also designated the Hawaiian
language, along with English, as the official State language of Hawaii
for the first time since the overthrow in 1893.
We can trace the genesis of this bill, embodying the hope of an
indigenous people to control their own fate, all the way back to the
overthrow of 1893. It has been a long road. I believe how we treat our
native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are. Clearly,
there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people
of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. But one
of the great attributes of America has always been our ability to look
objectively at our history, learn from it, and where possible make
amends.
Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an
inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native
people. They desire the right to exercise management over their own
affairs and land.
Our State motto, which is the same as that of the Kingdom of Hawaii,
is ``Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the
land is perpetuated in righteousness.'' This is an historic vote and
one that helps to perpetuate righteousness by righting an historic
wrong.
I ask my colleagues to stand with the people of Hawaii and support
this bill.
Mahalo nui loa.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
(Mr. WESTMORELAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I thank my friend for yielding.
I feel like Bill Murray in ``Groundhog Day,'' the movie. I've only
been in Congress for 3 years, but my respect for Mr. Abercrombie has
grown. I try to take experiences with people I have differences with
and learn. He is one of the most patient people that I have seen up
here, and the fact that he took a big problem and has ate it just a
little at a time, I admire that. And I want him to know how much
respect I do have for him for his tenaciousness, and I hope I can be
just as tenacious with things that are important to my constituents as
he has been and also the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
Let me say that from what we have heard today, it reminds me of a
story of some gentlemen down in the Okefenokee swamp that were going
coon hunting. If you're not familiar with coon hunting, you use dogs
and you go at night, typically build a campfire, and you all sit around
and talk and gossip and share stories and some other activities
sometimes while you're waiting for the dog to tree. One night this old
World War I veteran was down there in the Okefenokee, and he had a
wooden peg leg. It was pretty cold that night, and the dogs were out
running; so he laid down and he got a little too close to the campfire
and he burned off about 6 inches of that wooden leg. Well, when the dog
started barking and they had really treed the coon, he was the first
one up. And he got up, and he said, ``Come on, boys. Old Sam has treed
one.'' And he started running off across the field with that one leg
about 6 inches shorter. And after two or three steps, he turned around
and he said, ``Watch out, boys. There's a hole every other step.''
Well, there are a few holes in this, and I want to try to plug up
those holes today as far as what the ability of Congress is able to do
and what our Constitution says.
So I rise today to oppose the legislation. I want to try to go into
what this bill actually does and how it relates to what I feel like our
Constitution says and what the limits of our Congress is.
Every aspect of this bill from its goal to its methods, I think,
undermines the

[[Page H11981]]

idea that we are one that has come from many people. I think the
legislation is divisive and will give a group of U.S. citizens special
rights over other citizens based solely on race.
Our Constitution seeks to eliminate racial separation, not promote
it. How can we promote equality while separating our people?
Some people here today have characterized this legislation as nothing
more than a kind gesture to Native Hawaiians. This is not the case.
This bill will not only create a new race-based government but it will
allow rights and privileges to Native Hawaiian descendants throughout
the United States that their neighbors and friends throughout this
country do not enjoy.
The Federal Government today will decide what is best for 20 percent
of the Hawaiians who have Native Hawaiian ancestry. The Federal
Government should not and cannot create a new Indian tribe for ethnic
Hawaiians. Congress does not have this power. The Bush administration
has rightly promised to veto the bill if it passes because it will
``discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further
subdivide the American people.''
This attempt to divide America sets a frightening precedent for
separating groups of Americans based on racial backgrounds. This bill
is irresponsible, I believe, and simply unconstitutional.
My good friend from Oklahoma got up and spoke about that the leaders
of the State want this legislation. Well, in 2006 there was a survey
done of the Hawaiian people by a nonpartisan grassroots institute of
Hawaii that found that 69.89 percent of Hawaii's residents want to vote
on a Native Hawaiian government before it is considered at the national
level, and 80.16 of Hawaii's residents do not support laws that provide
preferences for people groups based on their race; 68.3 percent of
residents in the First Congressional District, Mr. Abercrombie's
district, want that vote; and 66.95 percent of the entire State opposed
the 2006 bill to create a Native Hawaiian government.

Definition of Native Hawaiian

This bill will grant broad governmental powers to Native Hawaiians
including all living descendents of the original inhabitants of Hawaii.
Geographic, cultural, and political connections are not required.
This bill does not effectively define what it means to be a member of
the new Native Hawaiian government. Anyone with one traceable drop of
Native Hawaiian blood could claim the same right to this alternate
government, regardless of how far removed they are from their ancestors
or even what State they live in.
There is nothing in this bill that prohibits this newly organized
government entity from including members with Native Hawaiian
backgrounds from Arizona or Connecticut. Furthermore, this new
government entity will then have to come up with a system for assessing
and cataloguing all the people who claim to have Native Hawaiian
heritage. This could be more costly and time consuming than anyone
today realizes.
The new government will have authority over more than 20 percent of
Hawaii's population, and possibly countless more nationwide. And no
where in this legislation is there an opportunity for citizens of the
state of Hawaii (Native or not) to vote to accept this newly created
government. This is a Federal imposition of the worst kind, one in
which the citizens who this bill affects most, have little or no say in
acceptance or implementation.
In fact, a 2006 survey of the Hawaiian people done by the non-
partisan Grassroot Institute of Hawaii found that:
69.89 percent of Hawaii's residents want to vote on a Native Hawaii
government before it is considered at the national level.
80.16 percent of Hawaii's residents do not support laws that provide
preferences for people groups based on their race.
68.3 percent of residents in the first Congressional District (Rep
Neil Abercrombie) want that vote.
66.95 percent of the entire State opposed the 2006 bill to create a
Native Hawaiian government.
77.83 percent of Hawaiians would vote for statehood if the vote was
held today. (In 1959, 94 percent voted for statehood.)

Native Hawaiians are a Racial Group, Not a Tribe

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has seven mandatory requirements for
tribal recognition. Among other things the tribe must have existed as a
tribe since 1900 as documented by the state; existed as a community--
including 50% of the group residing together; and possessed governing
documents and membership criteria
The Supreme Court's definition of a tribe in Montoya v. United States
asserts that a `tribe' must be a united community under one leadership
or government, and inhabiting a particular territory. Former Attorney
General Ed Meese emphasizes the distinction between racial groups and
tribes, ``If sharing one drop of aboriginal Hawaiian blood makes a
tribe, then Chicanos, Latinos, African Americans, and Mexicans could
become a tribe if Congress so decrees''.
Meese went on to say that the phrase ``Indian Tribe'' has a fixed and
distinct Constitutional meaning that cannot be changed by a simple act
of Congress. This definition limits ``tribes'' to preexisting tribes
within North America, or their offshoots, that were thought to be
``dependent nations'' at the time of the framing of the Constitution.
Such American Indian tribes had to live an independent existence in a
separate community, apart from the rest of American society.
By these standards Native Hawaiians would never qualify as a tribe.
Hawaii is the most integrated society in the U.S.--there are no
Hawaiians living apart from other Americans. All U.S. citizens who
reside in Hawaii are equally citizens of Hawaii and the United States
and are entitled to enjoy all the privileges and immunities common to
other citizens, including protection against discriminatory laws, and
racially-discriminatory laws.
Even the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have objected strongly and
consistently to the `race based' classifications in this legislation.
Their report released on May 18, 2006 said that passage of a similar
bill would ``discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and
further subdivide the American people into subgroups accorded varying
decrees of privilege.''

Conservative Concerns; Congress Can't Create Tribes

Congress lacks the power to invent Indian tribes. In U.S. v.
Sandoval, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Congress can recognize
existing tribes, but does not have the authority to create them. ``It
is not meant by this that Congress may bring a community or body of
people within the range of this power by arbitrarily calling them an
Indian tribe.''
Congress can only acknowledge groups who have long operated as a
tribe with preexisting political structure and who live separately and
distinctly from other communities both geographically and culturally.
Neither is true of the Native Hawaiians today who live in different
States, and under different State laws and systems, and who for years
have co-existed in the same communities with non-Native Hawaiians.

Community Distinctions

The fact that Native Hawaiians have lived and currently live in
Hawaii in the same communities as non-native Hawaiians will cause many
potential problems should this bill become law--in effect creating one
set of laws for Native Hawaiians and a potentially drastic different
set of laws for non-native Hawaiians living in the same house.
Different codes of law would apply to people differently based on
race, even though all Hawaiians now currently live and function in one
community, attend the same churches, shop at the same stores and attend
the same schools. One business may be exempt from State taxes, State
business regulations, and zoning laws while the other one is not.
Because of this, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act
could be found in violation of the 14th amendment equal protection
clause.

Bill Provisions:

Creation of New Federal Offices: This bill will create a Native
Hawaiian Relations Office within the Department of Interior and a new
interagency coordinating group to coordinate political and legal
relationships between the new tribe and all agencies of the U.S.
Federal government.
Formal Negotiations--Government to Government: This legislation would
allow for negotiations between the three governments, the United
States, the State of Hawaii, and the new Native Hawaiian government.
The Native Hawaiian people would be able to negotiate with these
governments on the transfer of lands, natural resources, and other
assets and the authority over these transferred lands.
The Native Hawaiians could renegotiate the exercise of civil and
criminal jurisdiction in their government, possibly changing which laws
or even Constitutional rights they will adhere to by having the option
of redrawing various jurisdictional lines. This new government will
also be able to negotiate on the delegation of powers and authorities
they have from the Federal and State government and possible
reparations or grievances for historical wrongs committed against
Native Hawaiians.

Hawaii Cases--Race

Rice v. Cayetano--2000: Currently there are more than 150 statutes
that confer Federal benefits to the Native Hawaiian people. Rice v.
Cayetano put many of these benefits in jeopardy and casts serious doubt
on the Constitutionality of this legislation.
The Court hold that the State of Hawaii's limitation on voting for
certain posts to only

[[Page H11982]]

``Native Hawaiians'' contradicted the Fifteenth Amendment because it
used ancestry as a substitute for race.
Morton v. Mancari--1974: In this 1974 case, the Court noted there was
a large distinction between a racial group consisting of ``Indians''
and a political group, a federally recognized tribe.
The Court asserted that all government programs that extend benefits
according to racial classifications must be ``strictly scrutinized''
and are presumed invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The Hawaiians--pushing for the passage of this bill before us today--
seek to provide a process for the United States to recognize Native
Hawaiians as a governing tribe that is political in nature. The stated
goal of this legislation is to ensure that ``Native Hawaiians are
treated as a unique and distinct, indigenous, native people with whom
the U.S. has a special political and legal relationship.''
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 5 minutes to
another distinguished member of our Natural Resources Committee, the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 505.
First, I want to commend the author of this bill, my good friend and
colleague, the gentleman from Hawaii, for his leadership and tireless
efforts in bringing this legislation to the floor for consideration. I
also want to commend my good friend the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms.
Hirono) for her coauthorship of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall); and the senior ranking
member, Mr. Young, for their support of this legislation.
This bill is important for many reasons but none more critical than
to address the serious needs of the indigenous Native Hawaiians who are
the indigenous and aboriginal people who not only inhabited these
islands way before Europeans ever arrived, but they are still there, I
submit, Mr. Speaker.
In 1893 a great injustice took place. The government of the sovereign
nation of Hawaii, then ruled by its Queen Liliokalani, was overthrown
by U.S. military forces, which later the President of the United States
stated that this overthrow of the Queen's government was done without
authorization neither from the President nor from the Congress of the
United States. It was not until 1993 that Congress passed a joint
resolution to acknowledge and apologize on behalf of the United States
on the illegal and unlawful overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893
and for the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-
determination.
This is not the first time Congress has shown deference towards the
status of the indigenous Native Hawaiians. In the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act of 1921, Congress expressed and reaffirmed the
``special'' and ``trust'' relationship between the United States and
the Native Hawaiians. Moreover, Congress, in passing the Hawaiian Homes
Commission Act of 1921, also recognized Native Hawaiians as ``a
distinct and unique indigenous people.''
This bill sets the institutional framework for the establishment of a
relationship between the United States and the indigenous Native
Hawaiians just as Congress has done for the indigenous American Indians
and the indigenous Native Alaskans.
At this point I want to personally commend the gentleman from
Oklahoma for his support of this legislation, not only as the cochair
of our Native American Congressional Caucus but certainly as a proud
member of the Chickasaw Nation from Oklahoma. I cannot think of a
better person who understands and appreciates more the plight and
sufferings of his own indigenous people, almost an exact replica of the
fate of the indigenous people of Hawaii, the Native Hawaiians. I hope
my colleagues in their officers have had a chance to listen to Mr.
Cole's eloquent statement that he just shared with us.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to note the particularly strong support of
this bill from the senior ranking member of our committee, the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). In my opinion, the gentleman from
Alaska is probably the most recognized expert in this Chamber who
understands historically how Congress has also accepted Native Alaskans
as a ``trust responsibility'' in the same way that American Indians are
treated under the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I submit to my colleagues that this should not be a
partisan issue. If there are doubts among our colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, I would strongly suggest consultations with the
gentlemen from Oklahoma and Alaska.
Mr. Speaker, after 114 years our national government, especially this
body, the Congress of the United States, which has plenary authority
under the Constitution to deal with issues affecting the rights and
general welfare of the indigenous population of our Nation, this bill
seeks to correct that remaining group, the indigenous people who
inhabited the Hawaiian Islands and later established a sovereign nation
and later established treaty relations with other countries, even with
our own country.
After the unlawful and illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, the
status of the indigenous people of the Hawaiian Kingdom was never
properly addressed by the Congress of the United States. Mr. Speaker,
Congress has properly determined that American Indians of the lower 48
States are an indigenous people. We have also declared Native Alaskans
as an indigenous people. The only remaining group to be recognized are
the indigenous people of the State of Hawaii, some 400,000 Native
Hawaiians.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is not based upon race. It is a bill to
establish a reconciliation process by giving the indigenous Native
Hawaiians the same status as we have done for the indigenous American
Indians and the indigenous Native Alaskans.
I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this bill.

{time} 1345

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I have an amendment that has been made in order which I plan to offer
later.
When I came on the floor yesterday, I was approached by several
Members who pointed out that my amendment was, perhaps, overly broad. I
went back to the office and took a look, and I

[[Page H11983]]

happen to agree, it is. And it might confuse people. Because in my
original amendment I said nothing in the action will relieve any
sovereign entity within the jurisdiction of the United States,
including the Native Hawaiian governing authority, from complying with
the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment of the United States
Constitution.
And so I would like to see if the proponents of the measure would
agree to a unanimous consent request to narrow the amendment so that it
would simply apply only to the Native Hawaiian governing authority, as
opposed to the Native American or any sovereign entity within the
United States.
I would yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
Let me just state what the narrowed one would do: ``Nothing in the
act shall relieve the Native Hawaiian governing authority from
complying with the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the
United States Constitution.''
I'm not trying to play a game of ``gotcha'' here at all. I have the
utmost respect, and that respect has grown over the years, for the
gentleman from Hawaii. No Member of Congress works harder for his
constituents and is more thoughtful in legislating than Mr.
Abercrombie. But for those of us who have some concerns that this goes
beyond land disposition or other smaller issues, this is not an idle
concern that we have.
The U.S. Civil Rights Commission noted recently that this legislation
``would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and
further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according
to varying degrees of privilege.''
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I would be glad to yield.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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?
Mr. FLAKE. That would be fine with me.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
First of all, no one questions your sincerity on this. I do think
that we could really create a legal situation here without knowing the
consequences of the amendment.
Now, Congress, back in 1968, recognizing that in certain areas, the
14th amendment, by the way, says ``States'' shall not do certain
things. So they wrote the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. That was
written very, very carefully by both Houses. The great constitutional
attorney Senator Sam Irwin played a major role in that, and they carved
out how the basic rights contained within the fifth and the 14th
amendment would apply on Indian tribes.
It's a well-done bill. And had we had the chance to discuss this in
committee, perhaps we could have reached some agreement; I'm not sure.
But I'm very concerned about adopting anything without knowing the
consequences when it took them months, in 1968, to craft the Indian
Civil Rights Act. It's a two-page bill, and it really enumerates pretty
well the fifth amendment and the 14th amendment.
So, at this time, I think that we would be treading on rather
dangerous territory to have the courts have to look at, first of all,
the Constitution, the treaties, the 14th amendment and the Flake
amendment and decide where they conflict, which one to apply.
So, despite your sincerity, I wish we had discussed this in
committee, perhaps we could have arrived at some remedy there. But here
I think we're going to create a lawyer's delight.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would continue to yield for a
moment.
Mr. FLAKE. Yes.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.
Mr. KILDEE. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FLAKE. I would.
Mr. KILDEE. I would take that as a very helpful and constructive
suggestion.
First of all, Mr. Flake, you and I are friends, and you are a friend
of Mr. Abercrombie, also. And I think what he suggests would be a good
thing. Perhaps, I'm just saying, I'm not sure, perhaps the 1968 law
somehow could be worked into this, but we aren't prepared to do that
now without knowing exactly what we're doing. And I think it would be
helpful. I would take Mr. Abercrombie's willingness to sit with you. I
will be glad to sit with you. We all believe in civil rights, we all
believe in the principles of the fifth and the 14th amendment, and I
think we could very well work this out in conference.
Mr. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for providing the
text of ICRA yesterday. I did read through it and was convinced and
compelled that my original amendment was overly broad, and that's why I
sought to restrict it here.
Seeing that we cannot restrict it, I will withdraw the amendment. But
I will offer the motion to recommit later. And the motion to recommit
is pretty much similar to what the amendment would have been, further
restricted.
I take the gentleman's concerns. We don't know what the implications
will be with the amendment, but I would submit that we don't really
know what the implications might be without the amendment. And what the
motion to recommit will do will simply have three sections. It's just
one page here. It will say that what will apply is the U.S.
Constitution's Bill of Rights, the Federal civil rights laws, and that
no racially defined burdens of immunities, so we will make sure that no
persons shall, as a result of the operation of this act, be exempted
from any Federal or State law, regulation tax or legal burden that is
the basis of the law.
I would say that it is true, this needs to go to the Senate and then
come back here. And if there are problems in that this is overly broad,
the motion to recommit, then that, perhaps, can be fixed as the bill
works its way through. But I think that, because we swear an oath to
uphold the Constitution, that we should endeavor to make sure that what
we pass does not run afoul of, in particular, the 14th amendment.
I understand the gentleman's concerns in talking about ICRA of 1968,
but I think we can all agree here that the sovereign nature of Native
American tribes in the United States is a little different than what
we're talking about here.
So, I think it would behoove us to be careful here and to make sure
that we aren't doing anything that might upset the applecart, that we
need to make sure that we're not creating something here that might run
afoul of the Constitution. I think that's our obligation.

[[Page H11984]]

So, that's what the motion to recommit will be. It will be
``forthwith,'' so this will not take any time. It won't have to come
back to committee. And I will be glad to give copies across so people
can be familiar with it before we're voting on it.
But, again, this is not a game of ``gotcha'' at all. I have great
respect for those on the other side of the aisle who have worked hard
on this legislation.
With that, I would yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.''

{time} 1400

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.
Mr. FLAKE. I appreciate the gentleman's concern about motions to
recommit. They are sometimes by their nature political. I don't always
vote for the ones offered by my side because of that. However, I am
only going to the motion to recommit now because I can't offer my
amendment as modified. I would be glad to forgo offering the motion to
recommit if I could get a commitment under unanimous consent to
restrict my amendment to what I outlined, and I will be glad to read it
again. If it is true that the legislation does address this concern, it
would be redundant at best, or at worst, but it would at least give us
here, and I think, frankly, there is a pretty safe harbor I would think
for those of us who are concerned about the constitutionality in saying
that this legislation should have the Bill of Rights apply to it,
Federal civil rights laws, and there would be no racially defined
burdens or immunities. So that is a pretty safe harbor, and I am not
seeing it as political. But I would be glad to withdraw that if we
could go back and have my amendment accepted as modified.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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. FLAKE. I thank the gentleman.
I think that we can work with this in the quiet if we simply accept
the motion to recommit or preferably the actual amendment that simply
says, and let me read it again, ``Nothing in the act shall relieve the
Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the equal
protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.'' That's a pretty safe harbor. And I think that if it
goes to the Senate and we find there is something in there that needs
to be modified or tweaked, we can do that as the bill comes back. But
we ought to have at least that, I would submit. And so with the
knowledge that we can't modify that, then we will offer the motion to
recommit later.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left for each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The gentleman from West Virginia
has 9 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Utah has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, before yielding to my next speaker, I do
want to certainly recognize the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake) who
has, for the first time in quite a few months if not this year, been so
gracious and so kind to give us at least 5 minutes' notice of what the
minority side's motion to recommit is going to be all about instead of
at the last nanosecond receiving such recommittal motions as we have on
so many bills before this body in an effort to play gotcha. So I do
appreciate knowing what that recommittal motion is going to be ahead of
time.
Thank you, Mr. Flake.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Honda).
Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as chairman of the Congressional
Asian Pacific American Caucus in unconditional support of H.R. 505, the
Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. This bill
provides a process for the reorganization of the Native Hawaiian
governing entity for the purposes of a federally recognized government-
to-government relationship.
Since the annexation of the Territory of Hawaii, Native Hawaiians,
Hawaii's indigenous peoples, have been treated by Congress in a manner
similar to

[[Page H11985]]

American Indians and Alaska Natives. Congress has passed over 160
statutes to address the conditions of Native Hawaiians and has
repeatedly recognized the United States' political and legal
relationship with Native Hawaiians.
H.R. 505 formally extends the Federal policy of self-governance and
self-determination to Native Hawaiians, thereby providing parity in
Federal policies toward American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians.
This bill does not grant Federal recognition, but provides a process
for Native Hawaiians to be federally recognized. The Secretary of
Interior will be required to certify the Native Hawaiian governing
entity before it is federally recognized.
This bill will also provide a structured process to address the
longstanding issues resulting from the overthrow of the Kingdom of
Hawaii. The bill provides for a negotiation process to resolve these
issues with the Federal and State governments and will alleviate the
growing mistrust, misunderstanding, anger and frustration about these
matters.
This measure is supported by Hawaii's Republican Governor, Linda
Lingle, Hawaii's congressional delegation, and the Hawaii State
legislature. The bill is supported by the National Congress of American
Indians and Alaska Federation of Natives as well as numerous other
national organizations. In addition, the bill is also supported by a
number of organizations in Hawaii who have passed resolutions in
support of enacting this bill.
I ask my colleagues to support this measure and advance the
reconciliation process for our people.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to reserve.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I have the right to close and I will reserve
the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. In closing, I will merely state I have
appreciated this particular dialogue we have had, without the long
colloquy we went through in this particular area. I would humbly submit
that at least some of the times in the past when more than adequate
time to consider a recommital has been given, the bill tends to
disappear from the floor before the vote takes place. So we are happy
this may not necessarily be the case today.
With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, according to the American Bar Association,
``The right of Native Hawaiians to use of property held in trust for
them and the right to govern those assets is not in conflict with the
equal protection clause since it rests on independent constitutional
authority regarding the rights of native nations contained within
articles I and II of the Constitution.''
The ABA further adds, ``Our courts have upheld Congress' power to
recognize indigenous nations and has specifically recognized that this
power includes the power to re-recognize nations whose recognition has
been compromised in the historical past.''
Indeed, I would note that this body, the Congress, has recognized 530
of the 561 federally recognized Indian tribes. It is clear that we have
this power and this authority and that is simply what we are doing
today with respect to Native Hawaiians.
I again want to commend the delegation from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie
and Ms. Hirono, for the work that they have put into this legislation.
I commend our Committee on Natural Resources and the staff that have
worked so hard to, once again, bring this effort to the floor of the
House in a nonpartisan, bipartisan piece of legislation. I join my
colleague from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) in hoping that the motion to
recommit is not offered by the gentleman from Arizona. But should it be
offered, then I hope my colleagues will certainly recognize that what
we are attempting to prevent by arguing against that motion is a
discrimination against Native Hawaiians. And we are asking that we
treat them no differently than other Indians.
I would close by again urging my colleagues to join, once again, in
supporting this legislation in a strong bipartisan manner and I would
urge a ``no'' on any motion to recommit.
Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 505,
the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, which begins to
provide a measure of justice for the indigenous, native people of the
Hawaiian islands. I could argue the legal and constitutional arguments
on why this bill should be passed, but I want to take a few minutes to
share some of the history to show why this bill is so important to all
the people of Hawai`i.
As many of you know, the Kingdom of Hawai`i was overthrown in 1893.
Hawai`i's last Queen, Lili`uokalani, was deposed by an armed group of
businessmen and sugar planters, who were American by birth or heritage,
with the support of U.S. troops. The Queen agreed to relinquish her
throne, under protest, to avoid bloodshed. She believed the United
States, which with Hawai`i had diplomatic relations, would restore her
to the throne. As we now know, despite the objections of President
Grover Cleveland, the injustice of the overthrow was allowed to stand,
and the Republic of Hawai`i was established.
A few years later, in 1898, the United States annexed Hawai`i. Prior
to annexation, a petition drive organized by Native Hawaiians secured
signatures of almost two-thirds of the Native Hawaiian population
opposing annexation (29,000 signatures out of an estimated Native
Hawaiian population of 40,000). These petitions are now in the National
Archives.
The Hawaiian culture was under siege. The Republic of Hawai`i
prohibited the use of the Hawaiian language in Hawai`i schools.
Everyday use of the Hawaiian language diminished greatly and it was in
danger of dying out. Hula, which had been suppressed by the
missionaries and then restored by King Kalaukaua a few years before the
overthrow, survived but did not flourish. Hawaiians were pressured to
assimilate and much was lost.
When Prince Jonah Kuhio Kalaniana`ole was elected to serve as
Hawai`i's delegate to Congress, he succeeded in passing the Hawaiian
Homes Commission Act of 1920, which set aside some 200,000 acres of
land for Native Hawaiians. The reason for the legislation was the
landless status of so many Native Hawaiians, who were displaced by
newcomers and became the most impoverished population in their native
land. In recognition of its trust responsibility toward Native
Hawaiians, Congress passed the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, which is
still in force.
Hawai`i became a state in 1959. Beginning in the late 1960s and early
1970s, a Native Hawaiian cultural rediscovery began in music, hula,
language, and other aspects of the culture. This cultural renaissance
was inspired by hula masters (kumu hula), who helped bring back ancient
and traditional hula; musicians and vocalists, who brought back
traditional music and sang in the Hawaiian language; and political
leaders, who sought to protect Hawai`i's sacred places and natural
beauty.
This flowering of Hawaiian culture was not met with fear in Hawai`i,
but with joy and celebration and an increased connection with each
other. People of all ethnicities in Hawai`i respect and honor the
Native Hawaiian culture. We are not threatened by the idea of self
determination by Native Hawaiians.
In 1978, Hawai`i convened a constitutional convention that was
designed, in part, to right some of the wrongs done to Native
Hawaiians. The constitutional convention created the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs or OHA so that Native Hawaiians would have some ability to
manage their own matters. The people of Hawai`i ratified the creation
of OHA and voted to allow the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs to be elected solely by Native Hawaiians. Although the Supreme
Court in Rice v. Cayetano decided that limiting the vote in this manner
violated the 15th Amendment, that decision was based on the fact that
the State of Hawai`i ran the elections, not whether or not Native
Hawaiians are an indigenous, native group with an inherent sovereignty.
In fact, the court expressly avoided the issue of whether or not Native
Hawaiians are analogous to an Indian tribe.
The Constitutional Convention also laid the ground work for the
return of some federal lands to Native Hawaiians, including the island
of Kaho`olawe, which is currently held in trust for a future Native
Hawaiian governing entity. The ConCon, as it is known in Hawai`i, also
designated the Hawaiian language (along with English) as the official
state language of Hawai`i for the first time since the overthrow in
1893.
I was in the Hawai`i State Legislature when we approved creation of
Hawaiian language immersion schools, recognizing that language is an
integral part of a culture and people. The Hawaiian language was in
danger of disappearing. Public Hawaiian language preschools, called
Punana Leo, were started in 1984. We now have Hawaiian language
elementary, middle, and high schools in Hawai`i, and a new generation
of fluent Hawaiian language speakers are helping to keep this beautiful
and culturally important language alive. Other native peoples are
looking to the Hawai`i model as a means of preserving and perpetuating
their native languages.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support H.R. 505, and I
do so in recognition

[[Page H11986]]

of the long-standing ties between Native Hawaiians and Alaska Natives,
who themselves underwent a struggle to be recognized for the purpose of
settling their aboriginal land claims. H.R. 505 concerns a struggle
involving Native Hawaiians, who are seeking to formalize a kind of
relationship among the Federal government, the State of Hawaii, and
Hawaii's aboriginal peoples based on the powers of the Congress to
regulate Indian affairs. I have been proud to work with my good friend,
the Gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), to work on passing this
bill for all the years we have served together. I want to recognize and
congratulate the Gentleman for his iron commitment to this legislation
and to the well-being of Hawaii and the nation.
This Congress has passed several laws of unique application to Native
Hawaiians, invoking the authority of the so-called Indian Commerce
Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. An important
example of these laws is when Congress conveyed lands in Hawaii for the
purpose of benefiting the Natives. This has been supplemented with
additional benefits and services exclusively for Natives based on their
status as Natives.
But there is a shortcoming in these laws: Congress has not yet
authorized the Natives to organize a governing entity. At some point,
we the Congress have to provide a means for the Native Hawaiians to
administer these benefits in accordance with our current policy of
promoting self-determination among Native American people in general.
Native Hawaiians have largely stayed intact as a distinct community and
we would be doing a great disservice to them if we did not set up a
process for their recognition as a governing entity. The governing
entity will be the vehicle they use to advance their economies, and
preserve and pass on their special heritage and language to future
generations.
I understand that some Members have a problem with this bill. It has
been said many times already but it's worth emphasizing again: H.R. 505
has the endorsement of the Governor, the Congressional Delegation and
the State Legislature of Hawaii. It does not cut into programs for
American Indians and Alaska Natives. Enrollment to the governing entity
is elective.
We can trace the genesis of this bill, embodying the hope of an
indigenous people to control their own fate, all the way back to the
overthrow of 1893. It has been a long road. I believe how we treat our
native indigenous people reflects our values and who we are. Clearly,
there is much in the history of our interactions with the native people
of what is now the United States that makes us less than proud. But one
of the great attributes of America has always been the ability to look
objectively at our history, learn from it, and where possible make
amends.
Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, have an
inherent sovereignty based on their status as indigenous, native
people. They desire the right to exercise management over their own
affairs and land. By law, a portion of income from the former crown
lands of the Kingdom of Hawai`i (also called ceded lands) is allocated
to benefit the native Hawaiian people. At present, that income is
managed by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, a state agency. Management
of this income and Hawaiian lands should be done by a Native Hawaiian
governing entity now that the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian
Affairs are elected by all the residents of the State of Hawai'i and
not just Native Hawaiians.
As has already been mentioned today, this legislation is supported by
the great majority of Hawai`i's people, by its Republican governor, by
our State Legislature, and by dozens of organizations, including the
Congress of American Indians and the Alaska Federation of Natives.
This legislation primarily affects the State of Hawai`i. Our state
motto, which is the same as that of the Kingdom of Hawai`i, is ``Ua man
ke ea o ka aina i ka pono,'' which means ``the life of the land is
perpetuated in righteousness.'' This is a historic vote and one that
helps to perpetuate righteousness by righting a historic wrong. I ask
that you stand with the people of Hawai`i and oppose the Flake
amendment, oppose the motion to recommit, and support passage of the
bill.
Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much).
For these reasons, we owe a great deal of deference to the judgment
of the elected representatives of the State of Hawaii. They are the
ones who are accountable for this legislation on their islands. The
Delegation of Hawaii understands best that Native Hawaiians have
struggled for decades to achieve a status that adequately promotes
their self-determination.
Let's keep in mind that Congress has recognized Native Americans for
various purposes over the years. We are not limited by a strict set of
criteria such as those set forth in the Interior Department's Federal
acknowledgment regulations. While these criteria are sensible to apply
in some cases, a quick look at some of the Indian statutes passed in
the early days of our republic make it clear that Congress viewed its
powers to deal with Indians in a very broad sense.
Opponents often say that Native Hawaiians are not a tribe and that
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution limits Congress to recognize
only tribes in the contiguous 48 States.
The meaning of ``tribes'' in Article I, Section 8--commonly called
the Indian Commerce Clause--is broad in scope. There is nothing that
limits Congress to recognizing only the aboriginal people of the Lower
48 States. In fact, Congress was recognizing Indians for special
reasons when they were in lands that were not part of the United
States. And Congress has authorized the reorganization of reservations
that were broken up and tribes that were terminated. Again, Congress
has broad, plenary authority to recognize Native peoples.
H.R. 505 is a good bill and it is a first, critical step for Native
Hawaiians to deal with Hawaii and the Federal government in a fashion
befitting their special status as a distinct Native community. In their
wisdom, the Representatives from Hawaii have left issues regarding
benefits, services, and lands to future negotiations with the newly
organized governing entity. We can deal with these issues in a
deliberative, careful fashion with the Native governing entity when it
is organized.
I'm pleased to support H.R. 505 and to advance a process for
recognizing a Native Hawaiian entity.
Mr. RAHALL. I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 764, the previous question is ordered on
the bill.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Flake

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. FLAKE. In its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Flake moves to recommit the bill H.R. 505 to the
Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Page 44, after line 22, insert the following:
(h) Applicability of the United States Constitution's Bill
of Rights.--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.
(i) Applicability of Federal Civil Rights Laws.--The Native
Hawaiian governing entity shall be subject to Federal civil
rights and antidiscrimination laws in the same manner and to
the same extent as a State or local government of the United
States.
(j) No Racially Defined Burdens or Immunities.--No persons
shall, as a result of the operation of this Act, be exempted
from any Federal or State law, regulation, tax, or other
legal burden on the basis of that person's race or ancestry
or on the basis of any classification that is defined by race
or ancestry.

Mr. FLAKE (during the reading). I ask unanimous consent that the
motion be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned before, I originally had an
amendment that I would have liked to have offered which would simply
say that we would add the following: ``Nothing in this act shall
relieve a Native Hawaiian governing authority from complying with the
equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the United States
Constitution.''
This motion to recommit is very similar to that.
As I mentioned before, the U.S. Civil Rights Commission has concerns
about the legislation. They said, ``This would discriminate on the
basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American
people into discrete subgroups accorded varying degrees of privilege.''
I think there is sufficient concern that we should find the safe
harbor here of making sure that the 14th amendment applies. This motion
to recommit, I will read the entire thing, it is not long. So I will
read all of it.

{time} 1415

It simply says: ``Page 44, after line 22, insert the following:
Applicability of

[[Page H11987]]

the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights. The Native Hawaiian
governing entity shall be subject to 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.
``Section (i). Applicability of Federal civil rights laws. Shall be
subject 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. Section (j). No racially defined burdens or immunities. No
person shall, as a result of the operation of this Act, be exempted
from any Federal or State law, regulation, tax, or other legal burden
on the basis of that person's race or ancestry or on the basis of any
classification that is defined by race or ancestry.''
This is a pretty good default, a default back to the Constitution,
and says that nothing in this act has to be compatible, has to fit
within the Constitution. That is all that this motion to recommit does.
Some will raise the concern that this might apply to Native American
groups here on the mainland. It does not. This only applies to this
act, to the Native Hawaiian governing entity.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very narrowly drafted motion to recommit. It
is drafted ``forthwith'' so it will come immediately back so it won't
spend any more time in committee. Then, if there are issues unforeseen,
when it goes to the Senate and comes back, we can work on them. But in
the meantime, I think it is a much better option to actually have this
default and to go back to the U.S. Constitution.
The gentleman mentioned earlier that the act provides that the
Secretary of the Interior has to certify that we are in compliance with
the U.S. Constitution. I would just state for the record that we
haven't had the best record relying on the Secretary of the Interior to
manage trust accounts or other things. We shouldn't delegate that
authority here. We shouldn't delegate our responsibility to uphold the
Constitution to an official in the executive. That is our purpose here.
We make the laws. We should ensure that they are given the guidelines
and given the protections here that the Constitution affords.
So I would urge adoption of the motion to recommit. As I mentioned, I
offered it reluctantly. I would have rather, because motions to
recommit sometimes become political, and this is not, so I would have
preferred to offer this as a straight amendment narrowed to this
specific act, but wasn't afforded that opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to say again that I want to commend those on
the other side of the aisle for working so hard on this legislation and
for their diligence in working to make sure that this is a good bill.
This will improve it. This will simply say that those under this act
are afforded the guarantees and the protections of the U.S.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Hawaii is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 178,
nays 235, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 999]

YEAS--178

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett

[[Page H11988]]

Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NAYS--235

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--19

Bilbray
Buyer
Carson
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Hinojosa
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Knollenberg
Lewis (CA)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Shea-Porter
Walberg
Wilson (OH)
Wynn
Young (AK)

{time} 1450

Messrs. EDWARDS, STUPAK, MITCHELL, CARNEY, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York,
Messrs. COSTELLO, LYNCH, HALL of Texas, Ms. BERKLEY, Messrs. SCOTT of
Georgia, ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, TIERNEY, DONNELLY and LOBIONDO
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CARTER, SMITH of New Jersey, TERRY, WELDON of Florida,
SHADEGG, CHABOT, and PICKERING changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 999, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 999, I was unable to vote.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 999, had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Shuler was allowed to speak out of order.)

Longest Yard Classic Congressional Football Game

Mr. SHULER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate everyone and
thank everyone who took part in this year's Longest Yard Classic;
although the game didn't quite go like we had expected it to go. It was
28-0. Zero is something I've come to know pretty well during my
Washington days with the Redskins. We knew quite well about that zero.
Quarterback rating did not go up during that game. I will say that we
had some great wide receivers. Every one offensively who got in the
game got a chance to catch the football, which was great.
I do want to say and congratulate the Capitol Hill Police, not only
for their great win over the Members of Congress, but for what they do
when they sacrifice their lives every single day of their lives.
We were able to see firsthand how actually across the aisle we can
work together, Democrats and Republicans, 7 a.m. practices. No one
showed up late, almost never.
Ken Harvey and John Booty from the NFL came down and helped coach us,
and we have special thanks to them and to all the participants, all the
Members who played and to the Members who came out to watch us.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHULER. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, my friend.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman, and I just
want to echo what he said about the Capitol Hill Police and what they
do every day, protecting us, making sure the grounds are safe, not only
for us but the people who do business here, the visitors here. So we
owe them a great debt of gratitude.
I would urge all of you, while not all of you were able to get out to
the game and not all of you were able to play in the game, but I would
urge all of you, when you see a Capitol Hill Police officer out there,
thank them. Thank them for what they do for you, for your family and
for, as I said, everybody that uses this great Capitol Hill complex.
The game, as Heath pointed out, didn't end up the way we thought it
would. Some thought we gave better than we took. Some thought that the
Capitol Hill Police could have scored 56 on us. That will remain to be
seen, but nobody was hurt during the game. Everybody played. We all had
a lot of fun, and we raised some money for the benevolent fund that
goes to the kids of the Capitol Hill Police. So it was a great success.
I appreciate all those that participated. Practices were early. Heath
and John Booty and Ken Harvey, who really ran the show, did a great job
of getting us out there in the morning.
I also want to thank the Members that showed up to the game. Some of
you came out: Henry Brown, Mike Conaway, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Jesse
Jackson, Gregory Meeks and Lincoln Davis. Thank you guys for coming out
there to the game. I think that's extremely important that when you are
out there, we're out there, leaving a little skin on the field, a
little blood, but all of it's for a great cause to the Capitol Hill
Police.
Sergeant at Arms, Bill Livingood, thank you. The Chief of Police,
Philip Morse, thank you for all your help. And also a special thanks to
Vardell Williams, who's now become the voice of the Longest Yard
Classic. Thank you. He works here for the superintendent, but he
volunteered to be out there to be the voice of the Longest Yard
Classic.
So again I thank everybody, and congratulations to the Capitol Hill
Police.

[[Page H11989]]

The following is our team roster.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jersey
Member name State number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kendrick Meek........................ Florida................ 0
Zach Wamp............................ Tennessee.............. 1
Pat Murphy........................... Pennsylvania........... 3
Jim Jordan........................... Ohio................... 4
Joe Donnelly......................... Indiana................ 7
Anthony Weiner....................... New York............... 9
Charlie Dent......................... Pennsylvania........... 15
Brad Ellsworth....................... Indiana................ 18
Heath Shuler......................... North Carolina......... 21
Jason Altmire........................ Pennsylvania........... 24
Sam Graves........................... Missouri............... 27
Jack Kingston........................ Georgia................ 28
Jim Gerlach.......................... Pennsylvania........... 30
John Sullivan........................ Oklahoma............... 39
Dean Heller.......................... Nevada................. 42
Jeff Flake........................... Arizona................ 44
Todd Tiahrt.......................... Kansas................. 45
Michael Arcuri....................... New York............... 58
Thaddeus McCotter.................... Michigan............... 65
Rick Renzi........................... Arizona................ 67
Gresham Barrett...................... South Carolina......... 76
Paul Ryan............................ Wisconsin.............. 80
Bill Shuster......................... Pennsylvania........... 00
Kevin McCarthy....................... California............. 11*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Might change.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, 5-minute voting will
continue.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 261,
nays 153, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 1000]

YEAS--261

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Calvert
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole (OK)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hall (TX)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hobson
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NAYS--153

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Inglis (SC)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Upton
Walberg
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Waters
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf

NOT VOTING--18

Bilbray
Buyer
Carson
Davis (CA)
Dicks
Feeney
Hunter
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, E. B.
Lewis (CA)
Reyes
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Shea-Porter
Wilson (OH)
Wynn
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

{time} 1504

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________