Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as I may consume at this time. Mr. Speaker, I support House Concurrent Resolution 63, and I want to thank our chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton); also, our chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and especially the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), my good friend and colleague, as original cosponsors of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and Mr. Richard Solomon of the United States Institute of Peace for their initiative and leadership to establish what is commonly known today as the Iraq Study Group, composed of nationally recognized leaders from both political parties, and co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Mr. Lee Hamilton. The Iraq Study Group conducted for well over eight months a most comprehensive review, in my humble opinion, of the crisis that we are now faced with in Iraq, and I sincerely hope that in the weeks and months to come that we here in this body will review seriously its recommendations for a resolution to the conflict in Iraq. Mr. Speaker, almost 5 years ago, as a member of the House International Relations Committee, I voted in support of the resolution which authorized our President to use military force against Saddam Hussein and his military regime, for the most critical reason presented by our President, our Vice President, our Secretary of Defense, and our National Security Adviser, that Saddam Hussein had in his possession supposedly nuclear weapons. Our Nation's own national security was severely at risk, imminent danger. These were the phrases that were used. And besides for other reasons, the nuclear issue was the linchpin, in my humble opinion, that convinced many of us on both sides of the aisle to approve the resolution to allow our President to wage war against Iraq. Mr. Speaker, our Nation, and especially the American people, have now come to realize that Saddam Hussein never had in his possession nuclear weapons, due to faulty intelligence and misleading statements made by top officials of this administration in order to totally change the atmosphere to have the public believe that our number one public enemy was Saddam Hussein and not Osama bin Laden. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, how in the world did we end up in Iraq and we have now caused more tension in the Middle East than ever before? As I recalled, Mr. Speaker, our Nation was attacked by some 18 terrorists, 14 Saudi Arabians, one Egyptian, two from the United Arab Emirates, and one Lebanese, on September 11, 2001. None of these terrorists came from Iran or Iraq. Most of them were from Saudi Arabia, and they were members of a terrorist organization that we now know as al Qaeda, and the leader of this terrorist group is Osama bin Laden. Our Nation was attacked on September 11, 2001. Most of the nations around the world not only sympathized with us but supported us, but the Congress gave authority to our President to go after Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization that was under the protective custody of the Taliban, which at the time controlled Afghanistan and certain parts of Pakistan. It is critically important, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that our colleagues and the American people need to be reminded on what prompted our President, as Commander in Chief, and this Congress, what actions our Nation took after our country was attacked on September 11, 2001. Our government leaders properly identified al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as the perpetrators of the attacks on September 11, 2001, and our President and the Congress acted accordingly to summon our military forces to wage war against Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization that was under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Well, we got rid of the Taliban, and we were successful in establishing a democratic government for the people and the leaders of Afghanistan, but we did not, and I repeat we did not, complete our mission of either killing or capturing the leader who was responsible for the attack against our country on September 11, 2001. The terrorist leader's name is Osama bin Laden, and after almost 6 years now, the most powerful country in the world militarily, Osama bin Laden still has not been killed or captured, let alone the fact that we did not complete our commitment in resources and force structure to sustain Afghanistan's newly established democratic government. Now, there is a new escalation of Taliban presence in Afghanistan and its ability to wage military operations against us and our NATO allies, and the situation in Afghanistan is now becoming more like Iraq, needing more troops and resources to fight the Taliban again. The critical question of why our country decided to wage war against Saddam Hussein is one that will be a matter of public debate for years to come, but suffice it to say, one, Saddam Hussein did not attack us on September 11, 2001. It was Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization that was based in Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan. Two, our President and his top officials had misled the American people and the Congress to state that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons. I honestly believe that this issue alone was the catalyst and what prompted Congress to give the President military authority to force Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. resolutions and to also locate and destroy his alleged supply of nuclear weapons. Three, we may have won the war in Iraq by eventually capturing Saddam Hussein, but we have caused more tension and conflict among the rival factions between the Shiites, comprised of 60 percent of this country's population of 26 million, and the Sunnis, which make up some 20 percent of the population, and the remainder the Kurds which, for the most part, is not involved in this conflict at this point in time. I must include, Mr. Speaker, the name of former Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki as part of the debate and discussion, if you will. General Shinseki, in my mind, was among the first of our military leaders who, for making an honest statement as a professional soldier concerning the situation in Iraq, was publicly criticized and humiliated by civilian superiors within the Department of Defense. In response to questions by members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, General Shinseki was asked how many troops it would require to take control of Iraq, and his response was something in the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. Here was a soldier who fought and was wounded while engaged in combat in Vietnam, a most respected officer who served with honor and distinction for some 35 years in defense of our Nation. Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, I must say, General Shinseki's professional assessment of the mismanagement and ill-planning of this war in Iraq could not have been more accurate, given the sad state of affairs we find our country is in now when dealing with Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us is plain and simple. It is a clear statement to the American people and to the world that Congress absolutely supports the efforts of all the men and women who proudly serve in the Armed Forces of the United States. It also sends a very simple message to President Bush that his recent decision to send an additional number of some 20,000 troops to the war effort in Iraq is not going to change the serious security problems and the civil war that is now in place between the Sunni and the Shiite factions. Mr. Speaker, we have fulfilled our mission, our military mission, by capturing Saddam Hussein who, of course, now recently was hung by the authorities with the new Iraq Government. It is up to the Iraq people and their leaders now to determine for themselves a political solution to the rights and privileges of the three major factions: the Sunnis, the Shiites and the Kurds. It is a fact that 60 percent of the population in Iraq is Shiite. Prime Minister Maliki is a Shiite, and interestingly enough, the President is a Kurd. Now the question is how and in what way the Sunnis are going to be part of this newly established government. And there is no denial, Mr. Speaker, that for the future the new government will be dominated by Shiites, an unintended consequence of our decision to wage war against Saddam Hussein, who was a member of the Sunni faction, which made up only 20 percent of the population of Iraq. But Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the rest of the Muslim world is Sunni. Eighty-five percent of the Muslim world is Sunni, we have to understand that, and Iran and the Shiite factions in Iraq make up only 15 percent. I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I want to quote again my good friend's quotation from Daniel Webster: God grants liberty to those who love it, but I say they must also be willing to die for it. The civil war now taking place between the Sunnis and the Shiites is a war not for seeking liberty and freedom, but it is a religious war that has been going on for the past 1,400 years. There are never winners in religious wars, Mr. Speaker. And no force, not even the most powerful nation of this world is going to change the hearts and minds of the Sunnis and the Shiites unless they themselves do so willingly and do it in a political way. Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that our troops now there and an additional number of 20,000 more soldiers that President Bush has ordered for deployment in Iraq are going to get caught in the crossfire of the civil war that is now going on between the Sunnis and the Shiites, a war that can only be resolved only among the Iraqi factions themselves and not with our military presence there. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague and friend from North Carolina, who currently is chairman of the Oversight Investigation Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee, Mr. Watt. (Mr. WATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I believe that the statements made earlier by our good friend from North Carolina was right to the point. Unilateralism was our policy. We told the world, We don't need you. And what are we doing now? We are practically begging the world to come and help us with this mess that we created. Diplomacy? Look at the success of the multilateralism that we have now advocated in our dealings with North Korea. But that was not the case with Iraq, and this is why we are having this problem. Madam Speaker, I gladly yield 5 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, who currently chairs the Subcommittee on Information and Policy, and I am very, very happy to introduce the gentleman for 5 minutes (Mr. Clay).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my good friend in just quoting Daniel Webster. ``God grants liberty to those who love it.'' The problem that I have right now is that I don't know if the people among the Shiites and the Sunnis love liberty that much to want to make sacrifices. The point of the matter is Saddam Hussein tortured and murdered over 300,000 Shiites. One mass grave contained 30,000 dead bodies. So we have got a real serious problem here. I gladly yield 5 minutes to the distinguished lady from the State of Texas, the chairlady of the Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee on environment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from the great State of Ohio (Mrs. Jones), currently serving as the chairwoman of the Committee on Ethics and a distinguished member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I would say in response to the gentleman's comments, we gladly accept the responsibility. That responsibility was truly exhibited in the election in November. This is the reason why we are taking action. I think this resolution, every bit, is part of that accepting the responsibility and the will of the American people who have spoken in the November election. I just want to note that. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is currently chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Economic Development in the Transportation Committee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I gladly yield 5 minutes to my distinguished colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from the U.S. Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), who currently is the chairlady of our Subcommittee on Insular Affairs of the House Resources Committee. She also serves as a member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to my distinguished friend and colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), currently serving as chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental and Hazardous Materials of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia for allowing me to say a few words to express my deepest appreciation to the gentleman that I have known for years now, since becoming a Member of this great institution. I also would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois, my good friend Mr. Hare, for sponsoring this legislation, and the spirit of bipartisanship, knowing that our Republican Members also have said nothing but praise for the legacy of this great American and as a Member of Congress. Mr. Speaker, I had some long discussions with this gentleman, Mr. Evans. In the years past, he came to Vietnam in 1969, and I was just there the year before, from 1967 to 1968, in that terrible conflict. If there is anything that I would like to say, point out not only his leadership, but the service of this great American to our Nation, as the senior member of the House Veterans' Affairs Committee, I want to say that Mr. Evans, in my humble opinion, is certainly one of the great leaders and advocates of the needs of our veterans throughout the country. It was one experience, as our good friend from California mentioned, that they went with Mr. Evans to Iwo Jima. He came to my district. If anybody wants to share that sense of experience, well, you have to fly 15 hours to get to my district. Mr. Evans was willing to make that kind of a sacrifice just to see that, as small as my district may be, we have about 3,000 to 4,000 veterans living in my district, and he felt it was important enough for him to come and see and hear some of the concerns that our veterans have in my district. I want to say to my colleagues and the Members of this House how fitting it is. I wish we could do more than just naming this post office after this great American Congressman, Lane Evans. I hope if there is a chance he might be listening to this proceeding, I just want to express and let him know how much I love him, not only as a friend but a truly great American.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have seriously challenged the constitutionality of this proposed rule, as it was indicated yesterday by our good friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana and also now reiterated by my good friend from California. Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule has already gone through the process where 13 of our Republican friends from the other side of the aisle 13 years ago filed a lawsuit in the district court, Federal District Court of the District of Columbia, to challenge the constitutionality of this proposed rule. And what happens? The judge ruled that it was constitutional. Our friends on the other side appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, and they reaffirmed the decision of the lower court. So when you talk about the constitutionality of this issue, Mr. Speaker, I submit to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, the constitutionality of this proposed rule is moot. It is a moot issue. We have already discussed this in the court. Now, if my good friends on the other side of the aisle would like to appeal this case to the Supreme Court, then let us do it. But as far as I can read and with my limited knowledge of constitutional law, Mr. Speaker, this matter has already been settled in the courts that say this proposed rule is constitutional.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I just want to say that I do have the utmost respect for my good friend from Pennsylvania, and I am really saddened this day to hear that the small population of the district that I represent doesn't mean anything to my distinguished colleague who had made the statement, alluding to the fact that there are not very many Samoans living in this great Nation of ours. I really am saddened by that notion.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I have had a sleepless night in pondering and wondering how this day's debate is going to turn out, and it is most unfortunate that this issue has become divisive among our colleagues this day. Much has been said about America's insular territories and the District of Columbia. In fact, this is probably the first time in years that we have ever given this much attention to the privileges and rights of the five congressional Delegates, the privileges and rights of those of us who represent some 5 million fellow Americans that are part and parcel of this great Nation. Some have said that the insular areas don't pay Federal income taxes, and therefore why are we allowing our congressional Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole. In the first place, it is constitutional; we have been through that test already 13 years ago. The question of taxation without representation also comes to mind. And I submit to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it seems that at some period, at least in my humble opinion, at some period of time, if the Congress ever works its will to have the insular areas to pay Federal income taxes, that should we not also be allowed the right to vote? How ironic that here under the shadow of our Nation's Capitol some 600,000 U.S. citizens pay Federal income taxes. And my distinguished colleague representing the District of Columbia for how many years has pled this case, no representation without taxation, but she pays taxes. So how ironic is it that we are talking about representation and taxation, and yet right under the shadows of our Nation's Capitol 600,000 U.S. citizens are denied their due representation by my distinguished friend and colleague from the District of Columbia in the process. Where is the equity and fairness in the process, Madam Speaker? Much has been said about the population as a factor in this debate. And it seems that my friends on the other side have, almost to the point of making a mockery of the fact that I happen to have 70,000 residents of my district that I represent, I make no apologies for the fact that I represent some 70,000 residents of the United States territory of American Samoa. I make no apologies for the fact that nine of my soldiers have died fighting for our country's interest in that terrible conflict in Iraq, and about 40 or more wounded. I daresay, I wonder if any of my colleagues have a constituency of 70,000 whose soldiers, eight of them I have had to personally escort their remains to my district, which is about only a 16-hour flight from here. I make no apologies for the fact that I am here because this body passed a law some 26 years ago to allow my little territory representation. So if my colleagues on the other side want to introduce a bill to get rid of Delegate representation in this body, then do so. But don't come here and make these, almost an embarrassment, to suggest that my little constituency is less important to the fact that there are 36 million Californians living in California. Is it any different than the 500,000 living in Wyoming, another half million living in Vermont, or other States of our great Nation? So let's not use population as a factor to suggest that because I only have 70,000 residents and some 130,000 living throughout the United States, that because of that reason we should not be here. I submit, Madam Speaker, I am saddened that this has gotten to the point where we are caught in the crossfire, and here the congressional Delegates are caught in between the political movements that are going on. I respectfully request and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this proposed resolution. Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Res. 78, amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. I thank my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Maryland--the distinguished Majority Leader for his initiative and leadership by introducing this resolution now before us for consideration. This is not the first time this proposed rule has been debated and adopted. In 1993, the 103rd Congress amended the House Rules in the exact manner we are discussing today. From 1993 to 1995, the House of Representatives voted to allow the Congressional delegates of the different territories to vote in the Committee of the Whole, with the caveat that if the outcome of the vote was within the margin of the number of Delegates voting, the Committee would rise and the House would revote the question without the participation of the Delegates. In 1995, the new Republican majority eliminated these provisions from the House Rules and our Congressional delegates no longer voted in the Committee of the Whole. In the lawsuit filed by our Republican colleagues challenging these Rules in 1993, the federal district court determined that the Rules changes were constitutional. As the district court held, the determining factor that rendered these proposed rules constitutional was the revote provision that was included. In the view of the court, this provision essentially made the vote meaningless as an exercise of legislative power--a power that is reserved by the Constitution to the Representatives of the States. This judgment was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Given that this amendment to the House Rules was adjudged to be constitutional only because it provided what was characterized as a meaningless vote, why are we discussing this legislation? I submit that we are here because although the privilege extended by this change in the Rules is meaningless as an exercise of legislative power, it is vitally important because it provides a forum for our representatives from Puerto Rico, DC, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to participate in the democratic process. As the Majority Leader explained on the floor of the House last Friday when asked the purpose of this legislation, and he said and I quote, ``the purpose is to honor democracy.'' Each of us has been elected by our home districts to represent their interests in the U.S. House of Representatives. Because we do not represent states we do not vote on legislation, but we do advocate on behalf of our constituencies nonetheless. The Rules changes contemplated here today represent a symbolic extension of our ability as Congressional delegates to advocate, to educate, and to inform our colleagues in the House of Representatives as they vote on legislation that impacts the lives of some 5 million of our fellow Americans who live in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. If our goal here in Congress is to produce the best possible legislation, would it not benefit us to consider and debate in the Committee of the Whole the potential impact of legislation on all Americans, including those 5 million Americans residing in the territories? For example, given the strategic importance of Guam in the Pacific and the billions of dollars the United States spends on our military presence in Guam, wouldn't legislation pertaining to Guam benefit from the perspective of Guam's representative? Also, given that the Resident Commissioner represents nearly 4 million Americans, shouldn't his perspective on initiatives that impact the people of Puerto Rico at least be considered as Congress deliberates on such issues? Another obvious benefit of this legislation would be that the votes taken in the Committee of the Whole would establish a voting record for our constituents to inform them of our positions on issues that affect the lives of all of our people. While we make every effort to ensure that those we represent here in Congress are familiar with our position on current issues, a recorded vote would provide evidence of our commitment to their issues of concern. Recently, concerns have been expressed that, in my opinion, only distract from the fundamental issue of honoring democracy by agreeing to these Rules changes. First, this is not an issue of party affiliation. We are here from both parties. Second, this is not an issue of patriotism. We are all Americans--just as in your districts, our soldiers from the territories sacrifice their lives and limbs to protect our freedoms. Third, this is not an issue of population size. Our populations range from 70,000 to over 3.4 million. We are each here to represent the interest of our respective areas--territories, district, and commonwealth. The Rules changes being considered to allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are important not because they would provide the territorial representatives a symbolic vote, but because they would enhance our opportunities to participate in the democratic process. These changes have been judicially affirmed as clearly constitutional. The passage of these rules gives Congress the potential to enhance legislation produced in the House. H. Res. 78 would allow us as Delegates and Resident Commissioner to better represent our constituents by providing a voting record through which they could evaluate our positions on national legislation. I strongly support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 78, and allow the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner a vote in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 392, the District of Columbia and United States Territories Circulating Quarter Dollar Program Act. I want to commend my colleague from the District of Columbia for introducing this proposed legislation to include the District of Columbia and the territories by amending the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act that was made law since 1997. I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee; as well as the ranking member, the gentleman from Alabama, for their leadership and support of this legislation. Madam Speaker, I also want to especially thank the gentleman from Delaware, my esteemed friend, for his unwavering support of this legislation. For many years he has worked tirelessly with the sponsor of this bill, and I would be remiss if I did not thank the good gentleman from Delaware for his commitment to pass this historic legislation. This important piece of legislation has been an ongoing issue for the past 8 years, Madam Speaker. All five congressional delegates are and were original cosponsors of this bipartisan measure. During the 107th Congress we introduced H.R. 4005, identical legislation that was unanimously passed by the House and was received in the Senate in 2002. In the 108th and 109th Congresses, the same legislation was unanimously passed with bipartisan support by the House. But, unfortunately, Congress adjourned before the Senate could consider the bills. Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that we pass H.R. 392 and that the Senate will pass this legislation before the 110th Congress adjourns. H.R. 392 affords us an opportunity to recognize the special contributions of the residents of the good people of the District of Columbia and the territories. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will be happy to check on that with my good friend. I represent probably the smallest constituency in the House. But is it any different from our friends from Wyoming, if we are talking about population as a factor, to give representation? The fact is it is not because of the population but because of our status as a U.S. territory. Now I can't say, because many of the Members don't realize we have had a 106-year unique political relationship with this great Nation. I bet to say that not many of the Members know about that relationship. If you want to talk about the contributions we have made, my little territory has the highest per capita casualty rate in the whole United States. If you want to count the numbers, I have had to go eight times to my district to take the remains of our soldiers who were killed in that terrible war in Iraq. If you want to make comparisons to the 70,000 people, yes; but we also say in a very proud way, we are very, very proud to make that contribution to our great Nation. So if you want to talk numbers, I think we can get into other situations as well.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding to me for a few seconds to respond to some of the concerns that he has expressed on the floor concerning whether or not we ought to be giving the privilege of the congressional Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole. The gentleman makes a good point. The fact of the matter was that this matter was taken to court by the other side of the aisle, and on appeal the Court said it is constitutional if this procedure takes place where if, as a result of the vote a congressional Delegate's vote makes a difference, any Member of the House can also then appeal to the Chair for a revote. That is what makes it constitutional. But to the point where the gentleman says because Guam is only 160,000 residents, I think once we get into the population consideration we are getting into another area. My good friend, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, who is a Republican, represents 4 million Americans. I can also make the argument to my good friend that we also bleed and die in the wars that we were currently fighting. If there is any sense of equity and fairness in the process, at least give us a chance to participate in that regard. I can say the same thing for our good friends from the State of Wyoming or other States. But when you consider the fact that we have a $20 billion presence of our military, the strategic importance of Guam, we should appreciate the fact that people representing the territory of Guam should be given an opportunity. Guam, despite its small population, does and is a very important territory as far as our military strategic interests are concerned. To the question of the minimum wage issue, I would say to my good friend from Missouri that I would prefer that we take this issue up at another point in time because I have my own ideas. I would simply say the fact of the matter is that the Federal Labor Standards Act does apply to my little district since 1938. The Congress amended the Federal Labor Standards Act in 1956 to allow the Territories, because in those days our economic situations were just not able to bear the Federal minimum wage standards. For that reason, we have established these industrial committees through the supervision and administration of the U.S. Department of Labor to help us, being under the Federal umbrella. So we do this so that eventually the economies of these territories will come up to par with the national standards. The problem is that my good friends on the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are not under the minimum wage provisions of the Federal Labor Standards Act. This is the issue we are trying to correct. I must say that I think the good Speaker from San Francisco has been unfairly characterized to suggest that she is doing this as a double standard, being hypocritical. I think it was unfair for our good friends on the other side of the aisle to depict the Speaker in doing something like this. It is not right. I thank my good friend from Missouri for yielding, and I just wanted to explain those things.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I just want to make a point of clarification for my friend here from Texas, insinuating and implying there was something special given to my district, American Samoa, over this minimum wage issue. I suggest the gentleman should read the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. American Samoa has been subjected to the minimum wage law since 1938. So I suggest to my Republican friends, they ought to check their law and find out what the situation has been. The Northern Mariana Islands was not even in existence for the past 50 years, only until 1976. So I want to clarify that for the record. And I suggest to my friend from Texas, read the law before you start making accusations against the Speaker, insinuating and implying that her character, that she applied a double standard to the company that supposedly has been operating in my district. I suggest to my friend from Texas, read the law before you start attacking the Speaker on this matter.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I am honored to be here this morning and certainly want to thank my good friends, the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Georgia, for allowing me to participate in this proposed legislation to honor the memory and legacy of one of the great spiritual giants, not only as a native son of our Nation, but certainly of the world, that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. King was not a political leader, nor was he a military leader, nor was he a noted writer or author. Nor was he a philosopher. He was a Christian minister who understood thoroughly the real spiritual and the moral force of the principles taught by the Savior some 20 centuries ago, that of loving our neighbors as ourselves, showing tolerance and respect for our fellow human beings. Dr. King was well aware of the social, economic and political inequalities that existed in our Nation, that his own people, the African Americans for some 200 years, have been treated as second-class citizens despite the hundreds of thousands of their sons and daughters who fought and bled and died defending our Nation against its enemies. Dr. King's statement and speeches are well noted throughout the world. One of the statements that I like best is, ``At the end, we will not remember the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.'' And, yes, we all remember one of his most memorable speeches in that August during the summer of 1963 at the Lincoln Memorial, where he spoke before some 250,000 people and hundreds of millions more around the world, when he echoed the words, ``I have a dream, that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.'' Madam Speaker, this is what America is all about, and I thank Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for reminding us what our Nation should stand for, the real meaning of freedom under the provisions of our national Constitution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank my colleague and dear friend for allowing me to intervene in this special order and I really appreciate the courtesy extended to me to discuss the issue of H.R. 2 which was recently passed by this body yesterday. As you know, one of the specific provisions of the bill provides for the application of the Federal Labor Standards Act to the Northern Marianas territories. I do want to say that in a response to recent comments made by our colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), saying to the effect that something is fishy about this proposed legislation, I would suggest that before he starts spouting off his mouth, perhaps he should get the facts first before expressing an opinion to this issue. The fact of the matter is the Fair Labor Standards Act does apply to American Samoa, my district, since 1938. So this whole idea that American Samoa has received a special exemption and the Fair Labor Standards Act not being applicable to my district is totally wrong and erroneous. The fact of the matter is since 1956, the Congress amended the Fair Labor Standards Act requiring at that time most of the territories, who are very difficult in terms of economic development and in the process the other territories went on their own ways and the Federal minimum wage law became applicable, except for my district. The fact of the matter is under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the U.S. Department of Labor every 2 years would constitute a committee composed of those who were members of the labor union, someone representing management, someone representing the local government officials and for a whole week we would conduct hearings in trying to determine what is the economic status of the territory relative to its ability to provide what is considered fair and equitable salaries and wages for both government workers as well as the private industry workers. It so happens that rather than being called a banana republic, I am a tuna republic because that is our main industry. I happen to have the two largest tuna canning facilities in the world. We export almost $500 million of canned tuna to the United States and provides 5,000 workers employment opportunities. I have in my district Starkist Corporation that was owned by Heinz Corporation, is now owned by Del Monte, whose headquarters are based in San Francisco, and Chicken of the Sea's headquarters is based in San Diego. The fact of the matter is I wanted to note for my colleagues, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry) and also the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), that the reason why this provision is to include Northern Marianas is because the Northern Marianas is not included in the Fair Labor Standards Act. I might also want to note the fact that our colleague, George Miller, for years has been very concerned about the garment industry that developed out of the Northern Mariana islands. And who were the best patrons of the problems that we have in the Northern Marianas? A fellow by the name of Jack Abramoff and former Congressman Tom DeLay. And every time we talk about sweat shops, the way that expatriates were being hired, cheap labor and the real serious problems that we have had in the Northern Marianas, the Republican Congress did not take any action on the matter. The fact of the matter is there is a fellow by the name of Willie Tan who was closely associated with Mr. Abramoff. After finding out that he had violated how many Federal labor laws, he paid up front $9 million, not even questioning whether or not that the investigators that went there to find out if there were violations of labor laws, he went and he paid off on this. What has happened is that the garment industry in the Northern Marianas has gone down. And where is Mr. Willie Tan now operating his garment factories? In China. I think it would be important for our Republican colleagues first to understand, we are not exempted under the standards of the Fair Labor Standards Act. I want to make that point clear and I really, really appreciate the gentleman allowing me to correct these sweeping statements made by our colleagues from the other side suggesting that our Speaker has made this special provision just to exempt one of her corporate constituency which happens to be Del Monte. This is not true. This is absolutely not true.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Not even the courtesy, to my colleague from Florida, to make such statements and to say that the honorable Speaker from San Francisco is being hypocritical in saying that one of her constituent companies is being let off the hook in this exception for American Samoa because we have the presence of Del Monte through the Starkist Company that does the packing of canned fish in my district. It is right there. I wanted to be very plain and clear on this and wanted to note, also, that Mr. George Miller for the last 15 years as the senior member of the House Education and Labor Committee has brought this to the attention of the Republican Congress how many times, to say something is going on that is wrong with the sweat shops that were developed out of some of these business people only to take advantage of the cheap labor. I say that, yes, the beginning salaries of the workers that we have there is below Federal minimum wage. But there is a reason for it and that is the reason why the Federal Government through an act passed by the Congress since 1956, we followed that religiously for the last 2 years. I have disagreements also at times with the two major corporate companies that do business in my district, but that is part of the process and I have always advocated that we should get better, higher salaries for our workers. But in the process, the point that I wanted to make to our colleagues and friends in letting them know is that, yes, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Federal law relating to Federal labor standards does apply to the territory of American Samoa. However, in the Northern Marianas there is nothing. There is a real interesting question. Because the Northern Marianas came into this unique political relationship with the United States which is called a covenant relationship, there may be some provisions in there that are going to be questioned. It is my intention that I am going to call Chairman Rahall as well as Mr. Miller. We hope to have an oversight hearing on this issue as soon as we can at the earliest possibility, maybe sometime next month. We want to find out exactly the whole thing. But for them to say that there is a double standard that our side of the aisle have taken is utterly not true. I want to make that firmly established in the Record. I will elaborate on this issue more specifically sometime next week when I take a special order, but I do want to thank my good friend and colleague from Florida for giving me this opportunity to clarify this, I wouldn't call it a misunderstanding but a misaccusation, I suppose, is a better word for saying it. But I do want to thank my good friend for allowing me to say this.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6111, the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006, which includes an extension of 30A tax credits for American Samoa's tuna canneries and protects the jobs of more than 5,000 cannery workers in the Territory. As a matter of public record, I thank the Honorable William Thomas, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, for his unwavering support in getting this deal done. Chairman Thomas is a true friend of American Samoa and has stood by us in our most difficult times. Because of him, our people have hope for a better future, and for this, I extend my deepest appreciation to the gentleman from California. I also thank the Honorable Charles Rangel, Ranking Member of the House Committee on Ways and Means. Congressman Rangel is also a friend of American Samoa and has championed our cause on each and every trade agreement that has come before the U.S. Congress. He also supports our extension of 30A tax credits and is fully committed to working with us to implement a long-term tax policy based on the input of all vested stakeholders, especially our tuna canneries which are our largest private sector employers. The possession tax credit offered by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 has encouraged two U.S. tuna canneries which employ more than 5,150 people or 74 percent of the workforce to remain and invest in American Samoa. More than 80 percent of American Samoa's private sector economy is dependent either directly or indirectly on these canneries and a decrease in production or departure of one or both of the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate the local economy resulting in massive layoffs and insurmountable financial difficulties. For this reason, I again thank Chairman Thomas and Ranking Member Rangel for supporting my efforts to include an extension of 30A tax credits for American Samoa in H.R. 6111. Given how serious this issue is for American Samoa, I also urge my fellow colleagues to vote in favor of this important bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I do thank my good friend and colleague for giving me this opportunity, Madam Speaker. I had to literally run to the floor, only to find out that this important piece of legislation is a special tribute not only to our colleague, but certainly a special friend and a mentor, and what I consider as an institution, an institutional, outstanding leader in our Nation, about to retire. Madam Speaker, in this conference report I want to express my support of the U.S.-India Nuclear Cooperation Act of 2006, and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the ranking member, Mr. Lantos, of the International Relations Committee, Senator Richard Lugar and Senator Joseph Biden, chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate, for moving this legislation forward. With my time remaining, I wish I had more time, I cannot help but to say that we are going to miss one of the most outstanding leaders that we have had in our Nation, and I want to pay that special tribute to my good friend, and he is like a father to most of us, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), whom I am going to miss very much. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006 and I commend Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos of the House International Relations Committee, and Senators Richard Lugar and Joseph Biden, Chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, for their leadership in moving this legislation forward. While some of our critics may argue that India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPS), I submit that had it not been for our country's indifference, or benign neglect, if you will, India may have been a member of the nuclear club years ago and our discussion about the NPT would be a moot point. To be specific, India had a civilian nuclear program in place prior to the NPT being opened for signature in 1968 and, at the time, India was only months away from possessing nuclear weapons. But, in 1967, the U.S. joined with the Soviet Union in crafting a nuclear nonproliferation treaty which to this day states that only the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France are permitted to own nuclear weapons because only these five nations possessed nuclear weapons at the time the treaty was open for signature. Again, India had a civilian nuclear program in place and was only months away from possessing nuclear weapons prior to the NPT being opened for signature in 1968. But U.S. policy toward India precluded India from becoming a member of the exclusive nuclear club and this is why I agree with India's position that the NPT is, and has always been, flawed and discriminatory. In fact, history speaks for itself. In 1962, when China attacked India, the U.S. responded by saying it might protect India against a future attack. But when China exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1964, the U.S. welcomed China as a member of the nuclear club and we also supported China's bid to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. In 1965, when Pakistan attacked India, the U.S. remained neutral while China outspokenly supported Pakistan. Concerned for its own security and having little reason to rely on the U.S., India announced in 1966 that it would produce nuclear weapons and it is little wonder that India exploded its first nuclear device in 1974. Recent U.S. State Department declassified documents on U.S. foreign policy show that India had little choice given the hostile attitude assumed by the United States towards India during the Nixon/Kissinger years. As we all can agree, India then and India today lives in one of the world's toughest regions and it is somewhat Eurocentric for the U.S. to treat India as if it is beholden to us for the safety, protection and well-being of her people. It is no grand gesture on our part that we now offer India civil nuclear cooperation. Instead, U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation is long overdue and, quite frankly, the deal is as good for us as it is for India. Madam Speaker, I commend President Bush and Prime Minister Singh for bringing this initiative to the table. I also applaud the efforts of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns who is the unsung hero of U.S.- India civil nuclear cooperation. As the lead negotiator for this agreement, he has represented this nation's interest with unprecedented distinction and I am honored to have worked with him during these critical months leading up to today's historic vote. I also want to thank Mr. Sanjay Puri who worked in cooperation with Under Secretary Burns and Members of the House and Senate to bolster support for this agreement since the day it was first announced. I commend him for being a part of today's victory and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the conference report.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 1087, designating Room H-139 of the Capitol as the ``Henry J. Hyde Room.'' I believe that this high honor is a fitting tribute to my friend and colleague for his 32 years of distinguished service in Congress. Mr. Hyde is truly an institution in the Halls of Congress. His character, his wisdom, and his eloquence will long serve as an inspiration to those who will grace the Halls of Congress in the future. Through his leadership on the House Committee on International Relations, his guidance on the House Committee on the Judiciary, and his selfless dedication to the people of the 6th District of Illinois, Mr. Hyde has proven to be a true statesman, easily worthy of the honor this legislation would bestow on him. In my experience working with Chairman Hyde on the International Relations Committee, he has proven himself time and again to be a strong leader. On many of the most pressing international issues of our time, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, our Nation's ongoing relations with China, and the pending nuclear agreement with India, Chairman Hyde has been the voice and the conscience of the American people. Throughout his tenure in Congress, Mr. Hyde has focused on improving the lives of children, working families, seniors, and military veterans. Examples of his service in his home district include public works projects to provide flood control and clean drinking water, new housing developments for senior citizens and children with special needs, and grants to provide new equipment for the local fire and police departments. A military veteran himself, Mr. Hyde has long championed the cause of today's military veterans. Mr. Hyde served in the U.S. Navy in the South Pacific, New Guinea and the Philippines during World War II and continued to serve in the U.S. Naval Reserve until 1968, retiring at the rank of commander. Earlier this year I was privileged to travel to American Samoa with Chairman Hyde where he recognized and acknowledged the military service and sacrifices of our Samoan soldiers in the global war on terror. Chairman Hyde is my dear friend and a cherished colleague. He is highly regarded by members from both sides of the aisle for his leadership and integrity. I support H. Res. 1087 and I encourage my fellow members in Congress to support this resolution recognizing the invaluable contribution of Mr. Hyde to this great Nation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act, and I want to certainly commend Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos for their leadership in moving this legislation forward. This proposed legislation is a classic example of what bipartisanship is all about, and I, again, commend our chairman and ranking member and their staffs for their statesmanship and initiative in bringing this bill to the floor for consideration. I also want to compliment my colleague from New York (Mr. Ackerman) for giving our colleagues a little historical perspective about this whole question of non-proliferation, and I want to share with my colleagues a historical perspective of why India did not and could not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Mr. Chairman, while some of our critics may argue that India has not signed the NPT, I submit that had it not been for our own country's indifference, I call it benign neglect, if you will, India may have been a member of the nuclear club and our discussion about the NPT would have been a moot point. In the early 1960s, despite having a civilian nuclear program, India called for a global disarmament, but nations with nuclear weapons turned a deaf ear. In 1962, China attacked India claiming it was responding to border provocation. The United States responded by saying it might protect India against a future attack, but when China exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1964, the U.S. welcomed China as a member of the nuclear club, and we also supported China becoming a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. It may be of interest to our colleagues, Mr. Chairman, that India had a civilian nuclear program in place prior to the NPT being open for signatures in 1968, and at the time, India was only months away from possessing nuclear weapons. So while critics may argue that India has not signed the NPT, I agree with India's position that the NPT is, and has always been, flawed and discriminatory. Therefore, it is little wonder that India exploded its first nuclear device in 1974. Recent U.S. State Department declassified documents on U.S. foreign policy show that India had little choice given the hostile attitude assumed by our country towards India during the Nixon- Kissinger years. I commend President Bush and Prime Minister Singh for bringing this initiative to the table. I also applaud the effort of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns who was our chief negotiator in development of this agreement. He did an outstanding job and showed true statesmanship. I also want to thank Mr. Sanjay Puri, a great leader in our Indian American community for all that he has done to rally support for this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5682, the U.S. and India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act and I commend Chairman Henry Hyde and Ranking Member Tom Lantos for their leadership in moving this legislation forward. This proposed legislation is a classic example of what bipartisanship is all about and I again commend our chairman and ranking member and their staffs for their statesmanship and initiative in bringing this bill to the floor for consideration. I want to share with my colleagues a historical perspective why India did not and could not sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Mr. Chairman, while some of our critics may argue that India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPS, I submit that had it not been for our country's indifference or, benign neglect, if you will, India may have been a member of the nuclear club and our discussion about the NPT would be a moot point. In the early 1960s, despite having a civilian nuclear program, India called for global disarmament but nations with nuclear weapons turned a deaf ear. In 1962, China attacked India claiming it was responding to border provocation. The U.S. responded by saying it might protect India against a future attack. But when China exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1964, the U.S. welcomed China as a member of the nuclear club and we also supported China to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. It may be of interest to our colleagues that India had a civilian nuclear program in place prior to the NPT being opened for signature in 1968 and, at the time, India was only months away from possessing nuclear weapons. So while critics may argue that India has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPS, I agree with India's position that the NPT is, and has always been, flawed and discriminatory. Therefore, it is little wonder that India exploded its first nuclear device in 1974. Recent U.S. State Department declassified documents on U.S. foreign policy show that India had little choice given the hostile attitude assumed by the United States towards India during the Nixon/Kissinger years. In 1965, believing India was weakened from its war with China, Pakistan attacked India. In response, the U.S. remained neutral while China outspokenly supported Pakistan. Concerned for its own security and having little reason to rely on the U.S., India announced in 1966 that it would produce nuclear weapons within 18 months. But, in 1967, the U.S. joined with the Soviet Union in crafting a nuclear non- proliferation treaty which to this day states that only the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France are permitted to own nuclear weapons because only these five nations possessed nuclear weapons at the time the treaty was open for signature in 1968. As we all can agree, India then and India today lives in one of the world's toughest regions and it is a bit Eurocentric for the U.S. to treat India as if she is beholden to us for the safety, protection, and well-being of her people. It is no grand gesture on our part that we now offer India civil nuclear cooperation. Instead, U.S.-India civil nuclear cooperation is long overdue and, quite frankly, the deal is as good for us as it is for India. Mr. Chairman, I commend President Bush and Prime Minister Singh for bringing this initiative to the table. I also applaud the efforts of Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns who was our chief negotiator in the development of this agreement. As the lead negotiator, Secretary Burns has represented our Nation's interest with distinction and true statesmanship, and I am honored to have worked with him during these critical months leading up to today's historic deliberation of this important bill. I also want to thank Mr. Sanjay Puri, a great leader in our Indian- American community for all that he has done to rally support for this bill. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5682.