Neil Abercrombie

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And this is about ethics.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I want to make sure I understand.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Will the gentlelady yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I'm sorry, the time is incorrect. The time is 2 minutes.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, we have got a new grand jury in the House, the Office of Congressional Ethics, and we have the House Ethics Committee. We have two identical, competing committees by design. Now, I defy anybody in this House to go to your next Rotary Club meeting and try to explain what that is all about. Any referral to the Office of Congressional Ethics will be seen as tantamount to a guilty verdict. Any other conclusion by the House Ethics Committee will be seen as a coverup. Mark my words, that is exactly what is going to happen. This is about ethics, not criminal prosecution. I have heard words like ``corruption'' used around here as if we are some sinkhole of depravity. If a criminal matter is at issue, it should be in the hands of the Federal Attorney, not appointees of the Speaker or the majority leader. I can't figure out where the ethics complaints come from. Are they dropped off at the door? What criteria will be applied by the OCE? This is about the House, and its membership should decide whether any Member has failed to meet its standards, not appointees who have not served or are not currently Members of the House. An ethics investigation is by definition peer review. Any appointee to the Office of Congressional Ethics who has not served in the House has no credibility in terms of judging Members or the conduct of House standards. And does anybody believe that complaints won't be in the media immediately, regardless of validity? The press irritation with the House Ethics Committee is because it has actually practiced confidentiality. This is an invitation to ideological mischief and character assassination. We say this is about our ability to police ourselves. The effect will be just the opposite. The House Ethics Committee no longer has any discernable function other than to affirm whatever has been referred to it. All this makes me sad, and it makes me angry. I have devoted every bit of energy in my life for nine terms to this House. I revere the opportunity for service in the people's House. With this proposal we are indicting ourselves. We are retreating before those who would tear this House down.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. We are retreating before those who would tear this House down, who denigrate our commitment and make us out to be little more than crooks and knaves and hustlers. We are the guardians of the Nation's liberty. We are the defenders of its constitutional imperatives. We are the people's House. We should be proud to stand up for this House, its institution and its legacy. Instead, we cringe before our critics and turn over our obligation to govern ourselves to others. If we have no respect for ourselves, how can we expect it from anybody else? I have faith and trust in my constituents. I have faith and trust in you, my colleagues of the House. We need to have faith and trust in each other. The regard and affection I have for every Member of this House is deep and abiding, the affection I started when I was the last man to be sworn in by Tip O'Neill before he retired when Bob Michel was here. In that spirit, I love the House of Representatives. It defines my life. It should define yours. This proposal is not worthy of the House and our responsibility to it. Turn it down.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the passage of H.R. 3332, the Kalaupapa Memorial Act of 2007. This measure would authorize Ka Ohana O Kalaupapa to establish a memorial to honor those who were forcibly relocated to Kalaupapa. Kalaupapa is a National Historical Park located on a remote peninsula of northern Molokai. From 1866 through 1969, about 8,000 people afflicted with Hansen's disease, previously known as leprosy, were relocated to the area now known as Kalaupapa National Historical Park. Many of the first settlers faced a harsh and difficult life. But the patients who were sent to Kalaupapa eventually built a community that allowed them to endure a life cut off from parents, children, brothers, sisters and friends. Even after medication was developed to control Hansen's disease, many patient residents chose to continue living in Kalaupapa. The site became a national park in 1980 and is dedicated to preserving the memories and lessons of the past. Kalaupapa is a living memorial to a community that once lived in extreme isolation. It now serves as a place of education, contemplation and quiet beauty. Unfortunately, many of the residents who finished their life in Kalaupapa do not have recognizable graves or grave markers. The memorial established by this bill would serve as a permanent marker and reminder of all 8,000 residents who lived on Kalaupapa. A little more than 20 patients remain in Kalaupapa. As time passes, the number of former residents of Kalaupapa gets smaller, as do the number of people who remember this part of Hawaii's history. With each passing, the sense of urgency for erecting a memorial becomes more and more heightened. We need to pass this bill as soon as possible so that this memorial becomes a reality before the passing of the next Kalaupapa resident. My colleague Representative Mazie Hirono has worked tremendously hard to bring this bill to the floor today. I commend her efforts and would also like to express my gratitude to Representative Nick Rahall, Chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, and Representative Raul Grijalva, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. We would not be here today were it not for their support and enthusiasm. I wholeheartedly support this bill, am proud to be an original cosponsor and ask my colleagues for their support of H.R. 3332.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my deep support for H.R. 760, the ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007.'' The treatment of Filipinos who fought with the United States Armed Forces in World War II is a dark chapter in American history. The Philippines became a United States possession after Spain ceded it as part of the treaty ending the Spanish-American War in 1898. In 1934, Congress created a 10-year time frame for independence through the ``Philippine Independence Act.'' However, since the Philippines remained a colonial possession until 1946 the United States retained the right to call upon military forces organized by the Philippine Government into the United States Armed Forces. On July 26, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued a military order that brought the Philippine Commonwealth Forces under the control of the United States Armed Forces during World War II. These men bravely fought with our own troops during the war, and many perished or suffered severe wounds from the battles in the Western Pacific Theater. After the surrender of Japan, Congress required the Philippine Forces to continue their service. Many helped occupy lands, many oversaw military operations, and many made the ultimate sacrifice to secure our victory in World War II. Yet, when wartime service ended formally in 1946 they did not receive the same benefits and the same treatment as other American soldiers. Yet, for all their heroic and courageous actions, Congress passed the ``Recession Act'' in February 1946, to the objection of many, including General Macarthur. This essentially denied Filipino Veterans any of the benefits that their American comrades in arms received; including full access to veterans' health care, service-connected disability compensation, non-service connected disability compensation, dependent indemnity compensation, death pension, and full burial benefits. No other group of veterans has been systematically denied these benefits. Congress has the opportunity to right this wrong. H.R. 760 restores the benefits these brave warriors were denied. This legislation has been introduced since 1992. However, time is running out. In September 2000, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimated that the number of surviving Filipino Veterans is 59,889. However, by 2010, VA estimates that their population will dwindle to just 20,000, because of their advanced age. Many argue that paying for Filipino veterans is not something Congress should undertake, because they are not U.S. citizens, and that the PAYGO offsets takes money away from Americans. However, such a statement fails to recognize that Filipino veterans served not merely as allies, but as U.S. forces. It fails to recognize that the United States made the same promise to provide for these veterans' needs as it does to any other person who serves in uniform; a promise that we have, up to now, failed to uphold. Congress must act now for the sake of justice and to show that we Americans truly appreciate the sacrifice these men made. Let us remember the heroism of these veterans by honoring their service and fulfilling our commitments to them. I urge the House to consider and pass this important measure.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is a discussion on the rule and not necessarily on the bill itself, I would like to confine my remarks, at least in this initial phase of dealing with the issue, on some of the points raised by my good friend and colleague Mr. Hastings. I am appreciative of the points that he raised, because I think they are in need of not so much refutation but perhaps clarification. It is easy to understand why those who are not necessarily familiar, and I am not speaking about Mr. Hastings personally, I am talking about the references that he cited in his commentary, it is easy to understand why people who are not familiar with a little bit of the history of Hawaii could come to some of the conclusions or make some of the observations that they have. Absent the context within which this bill is coming forward, it is understandable. That context then is what I want to establish, so that it becomes clear. I certainly don't want to get in an argument with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal either, and they are making some quotations there about complete territorial independence. Well, I think what is being referred to there, and what the likelihood of the reference is, is that there was in fact not territorial in the sense of annexation of territory, like the Philippines or Hawaii or Puerto Rico or that kind of thing that occurred during the kind of ``imperial phase'' of the United States, but there was in fact territorial independence, because Hawaii was a kingdom. It is one of the things that kind of gets lost in the shuffle, and that is one of the reasons we are here today, Mr. Speaker. The United States of America has in fact had, over a 175-year period leading up to the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893, a series of treaties and conventions; 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, 1887, dealing with commerce, dealing with trade, dealing with various recognitions. The Kingdom of Hawaii had treaties and conventions with other nations, as well as the United States. So as a result of that history, we have a succession of land claims and assets that have come from the time of the kingdom to the shotgun republic that occurred after the overthrow of the kingdom and the annexation of the United States into the territory, and into finally becoming a State, as was indicated, in 1959. We are in fact the last State to enter the Union, along with Alaska in 1959. I bring this up simply to point out that far from subdividing the American people, as was cited by my good friend, quite the contrary; it incorporates the politics as well as the historical reality of this land secession and the assets associated with it, because this land generates income. Basically what this is about, Mr. Speaker, is land and other assets, including money, and who controls it. When this land came in, it wasn't worth anything. The Wall Street Journal did not comment, I am certain, on the ceded lands. They are called ``ceded lands'' because they were ceded from the kingdom to the succeeding governmental entities. They could care less, the Wall Street Journal, about these lands when they were worth nothing, when they were not seen to be able to be marketed. But let me explain now, and I ask my good friend as I look at him now with a smile on my face, we are talking about land in Hawaii? You are talking big bucks. You are talking money here. That is what this is about is land and money and who controls it. And this land has, from the time of the kingdom, resided with the Native Hawaiians. That is who is to be the beneficiary. That takes me to the point, Mr. Speaker, of the entry into the Union. The Admissions Act requires us, requires us, the Admissions Act of 1959 requires us to utilize those lands and assets for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. That is in the Admissions Act. We are not here on the floor today because we didn't have anything better to do in Hawaii than to try to bring this to the Federal Government. On the contrary, the Admissions Act requires us to make certain that these lands are utilized for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. The reason we have the bill here is that in order to accomplish that, we need to get a governing entity that can come to the Department of the Interior for approval in order to be able to conduct the affairs, similarly to, parallel to what now happens with Native Americans in the so-called lower 48 in the mainland of the United States and with various Alaska Natives and corporations and other entities that have been set up in Alaska. This is a history of indigenous people. They are different from other indigenous people because they were a kingdom, and we would not have the 2 million acres we are talking about had those acres not been associated with an indigenous people. They are not imaginary, they are real. Finally, let me say with Rice v. Cayetano, Governor Cayetano, the first Filipino American to be elected Governor, that issue was settled on a question of voting procedures and had nothing whatsoever to do with programs for Native Hawaiians.

Mr. ABERCROMBIE

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. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, I'm very grateful and thank you. I want to thank Mr. Bishop for his kind remarks. It exemplifies, I think, the kind of relationship we have on the Resources Committee. And I want to repeat that for those who are in their offices, maybe are not here on the floor but in their offices and may be tuning in. I want to emphasize that the tenor of his remarks and the courtesy with which he put it forward, including his sense of humor, which is well recognized in the committee and appreciated, reflects that this legislation is not only bipartisan, it's nonpartisan. That is to say, it's not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue and has never been presented on this floor, through all the different sections of the Congress, from its introduction over the past 7 years and as it has moved through the Congress over past sessions, it has never ever been presented as a partisan issue, Republican or Democrat. And I say ``nonpartisan'' because the committee reflects the full spectrum of the left of the Democratic Party and the right of the Republican Party. Whether you are characterized as a progressive or a conservative, this issue transcends that precisely for what Mr. Bishop so rightly pointed out. This bill directly affects and only affects the ceded lands and the Hawaiian homelands and the assets associated with Native Hawaiians in Hawaii. Everybody who's on the Resources Committee and everybody who has dealt with issues that have come before the body as a whole coming out of the Resources Committee understands that there are particular and peculiar instances associated with each Member's district, whether it's salmon runs in the Northwest or whether it's water issues based on treaty obligations in the Southwest, whether it's indigenous people in Alaska or indigenous people in Hawaii. Each area has particular contexts and situations that need to be addressed legislatively. And so what the committee tries to do in a nonpartisan way is address those issues in a very specific manner so that they can be resolved without impinging on any other aspect of constitutional consideration. Let me point out practically how that happens. For those of you who have visited Hawaii, when you land at the airport, you're landing on what's called ceded land. That ceded land produces revenue. Now, obviously the airport didn't exist back when the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown in 1893, and it didn't exist when the United States annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii as a territory of the United States, and that airport as it is configured today did not exist with the advent of statehood. And so what we have now is very, very valuable land producing revenue. And that's what this is all about, 1.8 million acres of ceded land coming in a continuum from the time of the overthrow of the kingdom down to the State of Hawaii today where the ownership of the land, and the benefit's very clearly recognized, including in the Admissions Act of Hawaii to the State of the Union: Public Law 8-3, March 18, 1959, which specifically requires us to address questions of benefiting Native Hawaiians through the lands that have been ceded to them or which were created for them by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. That's what we're dealing with here today. So we are asking that deference be given to the committee's work, which has been nonpartisan, which has no ideological difficulties associated with it, that deference be given and understanding to what the Admissions Act requires of us. And I find it ironic that support comes from Mr. Young, Mr. Don Young, as it came from other Republican chairmen. In fact, this was first introduced under Republican chairmen, passed under Republican chairmen. Mr. Hansen of Utah and Mr. Pombo of California and Mr. Young of Alaska, as well as Mr. Miller and Mr. Rahall, all have supported this act, as have the committees. Mr. Young is now in Alaska speaking to the Federation of Natives, of Alaskan Natives, because we recognize that there are indigenous people who were not a party to the Constitution when it was formed and first passed but have activities, and in the contemporary context, their lives' affected by how we deal with them. The Constitution requires us as a Member of Congress to be able to do that. So what is at stake here very, very simply for the Members is that this is enabling legislation. That's all it is. This creates the opportunity for Native Hawaiians to take responsibility for their own actions with regard to the control and administration of their own assets. That is not in dispute. The land boundaries are there. The amount of money that's coming in is not in dispute. What's in dispute is who's going to control those assets. That's what this is about. This gives the opportunity to Native Hawaiians to organize themselves to come back to the Secretary of the Interior, whoever that may be, and to ask the Secretary of the Interior to recognize that governing entity over these assets. If the Secretary of the Interior disagrees with it, they have to go back to the drawing board. This is enabling legislation, and it's enabling legislation that has been put together responsibly by responsible members of the Resources Committee in consultation with one another and with various administrations, and we would ask for your favorable consideration on the floor today.

Mr. 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. 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. ABERCROMBIE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If the gentleman would continue to yield for a moment.

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.