[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 28227-28244]
[From the U.S. 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;

[[Page 28228]]

       (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 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

[[Page 28229]]

       (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 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).

[[Page 28230]]

       (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
       (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

[[Page 28231]]

     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 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

[[Page 28232]]

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 3 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.
  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 2 
criteria that Congress must deem having met in order to exercise this 
authority. Basically, 1, that people must have a native ancestry on 
lands that became part of the United States; 2, they must be members of 
a distinct native community. H.R. 505 appears to have passed these 2 
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

[[Page 28233]]

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 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.

[[Page 28234]]

  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. 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 1 leg 
about 6 inches shorter. And after 2 or 3 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 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.

[[Page 28235]]

  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 ``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

[[Page 28236]]

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 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

[[Page 28237]]

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.
  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

[[Page 28238]]

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 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.

[[Page 28239]]

  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. Speaker, I rise to thank the 261 Members who supported H.R. 505, 
the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007. I also want 
to encourage my colleagues who did not support the bill to talk to me 
and Congressman Abercrombie to learn more about the merits of the 
legislation. The passage of the bill has been celebrated by the people 
of Hawaii--Native Hawaiians and non-Native Hawaiian alike. I thank all 
the members of this body for the respectful and deliberate manner in 
which the debate was conducted.
  During the course of my remarks on the bill, I was privileged to 
place into the record several recent letters of support for H.R. 505, 
including letters from the Governor of the State of Hawaii, as well as 
the National Congress of American Indians and the American Bar 
Association, two of more than 50 national and state organizations that 
worked hard on behalf of the bill.
  After the vote on the bill, I received another letter of support from 
the Japanese American Citizens League, one of many civil rights 
organizations championing the efforts of Native Hawaiians to regain 
their right of self-governance and self-determination.
  Americans of Japanese ancestry fought their own battles against 
discrimination and subjugation, although for a shorter duration, when 
they were sent to relocation camps during World War II. They understand 
all too well the deprivation suffered by the Native Hawaiians, since 
their sovereign government was

[[Page 28240]]

overthrown, and have lent their full support to the Native Hawaiian 
cause, which I deeply appreciate.
  It is therefore important that this letter from the Japanese American 
Citizens League be inserted into the Congressional Record to reflect 
the support of the JACL for this historic vote to recognize the 
inherent sovereignty of the indigenous, native people of Hawaii. I 
thank the members of JACL for their valuable support.
                                                 Japanese American


                                              Citizens League,

                                    Washington, DC, Oct. 23, 2007.
     Hon. Mazie K. Hirono,
     1229 Longworth House Office Building, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative Hirono: The Japanese American Citizens 
     League (JACL), the nation's oldest and largest Asian American 
     civil rights organization, fully supports the passage of H.R. 
     505, The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 
     2007 (NHGRA), introduced by the Members of the Hawai`i 
     Congressional Delegation. The bill is scheduled for a vote 
     before the House on Wednesday, October 24th and I ask that 
     you vote in favor of the bill and against any motion to 
     recommit H.R. 505.
       A process of U.S. recognition is already available to 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives, and enactment of NHGRA 
     extends a similar process to Native Hawaiians. There are over 
     560 federally recognized Native governing entities 
     functioning in the U.S, along side local, state and federal 
     governing entities. Native Hawaiians are the indigenous 
     people of Hawai`i, whose ancestors practiced sovereignty in 
     their ancestral lands that later became part of the United 
     States. The establishment of a process of federal recognition 
     for Native Hawaiians moves us toward fairness in federal 
     policy toward American Indians, Alaska Natives and Native 
     Hawaiians.
       Protection of Native Hawaiian culture, as well as existing 
     Native Hawaiian programs is critical for future generations. 
     Perpetuation of distinct, living cultures requires self-
     determination, and that is necessary for the Native Hawaiian 
     culture as well. Enactment of NHGRA protects this greater 
     self-determination, and thus the distinct culture. It 
     protects existing programs because it establishes a single 
     U.S. policy reaffirming that as the indigenous people of 
     Hawai`i, Native Hawaiian people have a special political and 
     legal relationship with the U.S., consistent with the Hawai`i 
     Constitution, over 150 existing Federal laws addressing 
     Native Hawaiians and the U.S. Constitution regarding Native 
     people of the lands of the 50 states.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Floyd Mori,
                                                National Director.

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support H.R. 505, and I 
do so in recognition 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?

[[Page 28241]]


  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 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

[[Page 28242]]

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
     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

[[Page 28243]]

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.
  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

[[Page 28244]]


     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.

                          ____________________