Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Shays- Meehan substitute and want to explain one provision in the bill which will clarify campaign finance law with respect to contributions to federal candidates by U.S. nationals. American Samoa is the only jurisdiction under U.S. authority in which a person can be born with the status of U.S. national. A national is a person who owes his or her allegiance to the United States, but is not a citizen. U.S. nationals travel with U.S. passports and are eligible for permanent residence in the United States. They are not foreign citizens or foreign nationals. In fact, they have most of the same privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. However, federal campaign law was enacted before American Samoa had representation in the U.S. Congress and current law fails to address the issue of contributions from U.S. nationals. Mr. Chairman, federal campaign law currently specifies that U.S. citizens and permanent resident foreign nationals may make contributions to candidates for federal office. Although there is an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission which interprets current law to allow U.S. nationals to contribute to federal elections, a federal court could at any time interpret the law to exclude U.S. nationals. Our failure to amend current law could also be interpreted to mean that Congress originally intended to prohibit U.S. nationals from contributing to federal elections. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it was or is the intent of Congress, or the law, to exclude U.S. nationals from contributing to federal campaigns. Congress simply enacted a law before American Samoa had representation in the U.S. Congress. Now it is time to amend the law to specifically address the issue of U.S. nationals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this technical change in any bill which moves forward.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Shays- Meehan substitute and want to explain one provision in the bill which will clarify campaign finance law with respect to contributions to federal candidates by U.S. nationals. American Samoa is the only jurisdiction under U.S. authority in which a person can be born with the status of U.S. national. A national is a person who owes his or her allegiance to the United States, but is not a citizen. U.S. nationals travel with U.S. passports and are eligible for permanent residence in the United States. They are not foreign citizens or foreign nationals. In fact, they have most of the same privileges and immunities as U.S. citizens. However, federal campaign law was enacted before American Samoa had representation in the U.S. Congress and current law fails to address the issue of contributions from U.S. nationals. Mr. Chairman, federal campaign law currently specifies that U.S. citizens and permanent resident foreign nationals may make contributions to candidates for federal office. Although there is an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission which interprets current law to allow U.S. nationals to contribute to federal elections, a federal court could at any time interpret the law to exclude U.S. nationals. Our failure to amend current law could also be interpreted to mean that Congress originally intended to prohibit U.S. nationals from contributing to federal elections. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it was or is the intent of Congress, or the law, to exclude U.S. nationals from contributing to federal campaigns. Congress simply enacted a law before American Samoa had representation in the U.S. Congress. Now it is time to amend the law to specifically address the issue of U.S. nationals. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this technical change in any bill which moves forward.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to authorize a national tsunami hazard mitigation program for all United States coastal States and insular areas. Tsunamis are waves generated by vertical movement of a large mass of ocean water. The word ``tsunami'' is Japanese and means wave in a harbor. Generally, an earthquake will have to be stronger than a magnitude 7.0 to generate a tsunami, and not all large earthquakes generate tsunamis. Tsunamis can be caused by vertical movement of the ocean floor, landslides into or under the water, volcanoes, and large meteorites. Tsunamis can have a destructive impact near their point of origin, or far from their origin. In the open ocean, a tsunami will pass through a given point as a small to moderate wave, but as the water becomes more shallow the destructive force increases. It is in harbors and other low-lying coastal areas that tsunamis do the most devastation. The Pacific region average about three destructive tsunamis per century. In recent history, there have been three Alaska earthquakes which generated destructive tsunamis. In 1946, a tsunami was over 100 feet high on Unimak Island; in 1958, a tsunami was over 1700 feet high in Lituya Bay; and in 1964, a tsunami was over 200 feet high in Shoup Bay. In Hawaii, significant tsunamis have occurred in 1868 and 1975. In an effort to mitigate the hazards caused by tsunamis in the Pacific, in 1994 the Senate Committee on Appropriations directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a Pacific tsunami hazard mitigation program. Since then the program has developed to the extent that there are two tsunami warning centers, one in Alaska, and one in Hawaii. Based on information gathered at these two centers from data collected from around the region, tsunami warnings are broadcast throughout the Pacific. The primary duties of the two tsunami warning centers are to provide tsunami warnings, help coastal communities prepare for future tsunamis through mapping of areas of potential inundation and community education, and to improve the timeliness and accuracy of the warnings through research and development. The legislation I am introducing today will expand this program to include the coastal states on the Pacific, Atlantic and Gulf coasts, and all of the inhabited territories of the United States. I believe this is necessary assistance which should be provided to our coastal communities. Through effective planning and timely warnings, this program will pay for itself with a significant reduction in federal disaster assistance costs. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and ask that it be given prompt consideration by the committee of jurisdiction.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 700, the Asian Elephant Conservation Reauthorization Act of 2001. The plight of the Asian elephant is not new. Today there are only about 40,000 wild Asian elephants in 13 countries in South and Southeast Asia. Half of the elephants live in India, while on the other end of the spectrum, there are 40 wild elephants in Nepal. With only 14 fairly large populations, scientists are concerned that the long-term viability of the species has already been significantly reduced. In 1997, after a precipitous drop in the population of the Asian elephants, Congress passed the Asian Elephant Conservation Act with a 5-year authorization. Since that time, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 million toward Asian elephant conservation, and foreign nations, local authorities and conservation organizations have contributed an additional $1 million. These funds have been used to finance 27 Asian elephant conservation projects in nine nations. The types of projects funded under the 1997 conservation act have varied with the location and have included construction of antipoaching camps, promotion of elephant conservation, and the study of mobility patterns, population dynamics and feeding patterns of elephants. Projects have also included equipping field staff working in protected areas in India and educating school age children in Asia in the importance of conserving Asian elephants. H.R. 700 is consistent with other successful legislative efforts including the 1988 African Elephant Conservation Act, the 1994 Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation Act, and the Great Ape and Neo- Tropical Migratory Bird conservation acts. Passage would authorize funding to the Interior Department's Multi-National Species Conservation Fund for Asian elephants for an additional 5 years, authorize the Department of the Interior to establish an advisory panel to increase public participation in the program, and reauthorize the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for 3 years. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce federal legislation to protect the voting rights of active duty military members whose home of residence is American Samoa. Since 1977, active-duty service members serving overseas or on the United States mainland have been excluded from fully participating and voting in both general and runoff Federal elections in American Samoa due to several factors, including local law that requires active duty military members to register in person, limited air and mail service between the U.S. mainland and American Samoa, and delays in the preparation of new ballots in the case of runoff elections. However, under the provisions of 42 U.S.C, 1973ff-1, Federal law states that: Each State shall-- (1) permit absent uniformed services voters and overseas voters to use absentee registration procedures and to vote by absentee ballot in general, special primary, or runoff elections for Federal office; (2) . . . (3) permit overseas voters to use Federal write-in absentee ballots . . . in general elections for Federal office.'' American Samoa law requiring uniformed service voters to register to vote in person is contrary to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act. The Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act recognizes that there is a considerable cost involved for a service member, and often a spouse, to travel to his/her home of residence to register to vote. Federal law also recognizes that active duty service members have little to say about where they are stationed. Yet, wherever they are sent, and whatever dangers they may encounter, Federal law recognizes that our service members are fundamentally entitled to the right to vote. Mr. Speaker, the discrepancy that exists between Federal and territorial law must be addressed. Soldiers from American Samoa serving in the active-duty military should be afforded a fair opportunity to vote in American Samoa as required by federal law. The fact of the matter is our military men and women place their lives on the line to protect our freedoms. The least we can do is ensure that their fundamental right to vote is also protected. Now more than ever, when our country is at war, and our nation is in crisis, we should make every effort to afford our service members and their dependents the right to vote. To ensure that American Samoa's election laws comply with Federal law, I have suggested that a division should be created within our local election office to deal specifically with absentee ballot and registration procedures. I also believe that the territory needs to reconsider matters pertaining to run-off elections. Under territorial law, it is nearly impossible for absentee voters to cast votes in a run-off election because local law mandates the run-off election to be held two weeks after the general election. This local mandate discriminates against active service members and other absentee voters. To address this problem in terms of Federal elections, I believe the best solution is to establish non-partisan primary elections during an election year in the event that there are three or more candidates running for Congress. Primary elections in the summer followed by general elections in the fall will afford all of our qualified voters an equal opportunity to cast their ballots. This will also ensure that our active duty service members are afforded the same rights and privileges as every other American serving in the U.S. Armed Services. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I look forward to its timely passage.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation before us, H.R. 2739, which facilitates Taiwan's participation in the World Health Organization. In follow-up to earlier measures enacted into law by this Congress, H.R. 2739 requires the United States delegation to the World Health Organization meetings in Geneva next May to submit to Congress a detailed plan of action for obtaining observer status for Taiwan at the World Health Organization summit. I congratulate the author of the legislation, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for his longtime leadership on this issue. I further commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, as well as my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), who currently is the manager of this legislation, and certainly our ranking Democratic member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for bringing this matter to the floor. I am deeply honored to join my colleagues in support of this bipartisan legislation. Madam Speaker, the World Health Organization is the preeminent international health organization in the world. In its charter, the World Health Organization sets forth the crucial objectives of attaining the highest possible level of health care for all people. Yet today the 23 million citizens of the Republic of China on Taiwan are still denied appropriate and meaningful participation in the international health forums and programs conducted by the World Health Organization. This is simply wrong and inexcusable and must be corrected. Access to the World Health Organization ensures that the highest standards of health, information and services are provided, facilitating the eradication of disease and improvement of public health worldwide. The work of the World Health Organization is particularly crucial today given the tremendous volume of international travel which has heightened the transmission of communicable diseases, such as HIV/AIDS, between borders. With over some 190 countries participating in the World Health Organization, it is a travesty that Taiwan is not permitted to receive World Health Organization benefits, especially when you consider Taiwan's 23 million citizens outnumber the population of three-fourths of WHO's member states. This lack of access to WHO protections has caused the good people of Taiwan to suffer needlessly, such as in 1998 when a deadly, yet preventable, virus killed 70 Taiwanese children and infected more than 1,100 others. Madam Speaker, there is no good nor valid reason why Taiwan should be denied at least observer status with the World Health Organization. As a strong democracy and one of the world's most robust economies, Taiwan rightfully should participate in the health services and medical protections offered by the WHO. Conversely, the World Health Organization stands to benefit significantly from the financial and technological contributions that Taiwan has offered many times in the past. This is particularly relevant at a time when the WHO's resources shall be severely stretched to address the health crisis in a rebuilding Afghanistan. Madam Speaker, Congress has spoken out forcefully on this issue before and we should stop the foot dragging. This legislation before us mandates that the administration should develop and submit a detailed plan of action to achieve this goal, observer status for Taiwan at the May 2002 World Health Organization summit. I urge my colleagues to adopt this worthy legislation. Madam Speaker, Taiwan a couple of weeks ago was just admitted as a member of the World Trade Organization and rightly so given the fact that Taiwan is one of the leading economic powers in the Asia-Pacific region and certainly with our own country. I am certain Taiwan will also contribute substantially in terms of funding projects and supporting scientific and health-related programs that are sponsored by the World Health Organization. Just last week we were privileged to visit with the Secretary General of the Democratic Party of Taiwan as well as the chairperson of the Taiwan Mainland Council. Both leaders demonstrated a keen understanding of the issues affecting the Asia-Pacific region and more importantly a demonstration of how democracy has advanced in the course of the past 10 years in this country. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation to amend Title 49 of the United States Code so that the airport security screening personnel referred to in Section 44935 of that Title can be U.S. citizens or nationals. American Samoa is the only place in the United States in which persons born of non-U.S. citizen parents acquire the political status of U.S. national, as opposed to that of U.S. citizen. According to the most recent data available, only 5.7 percent of American Samoa's population are U.S. citizens, with the vast majority being U.S. nationals. Enactment of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act into law last month added a requirement that all security screening personnel at airports be U.S. citizens. While I understand and strongly support Congressional intent to improve the quality of the security screening of baggage being put aboard commercial aircraft, I do believe the issue of U.S. nationals should be considered as part of the recent change. The U.S. nationals from American Samoa have a 100-year history of service to the United States. Just like citizens, these Americans owe their allegiance to the United States and have repeatedly demonstrated their allegiance in important ways. They are not foreign nationals, yet because of this one criterion placed on the hiring of security screening personnel, they will be treated as foreigners if this new requirement added in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act is not amended. With such a small number of U.S. citizens available in the American Samoa work force, the requirement in the Aviation and Transportation Security Act that security screening personnel be U.S. citizens also greatly reduces the pool of prospective employees. As a practical matter, this will be to the detriment of airline security on all flights within the region, thereby reducing, rather than increasing, security of the traveling public. Mr. Speaker, I see this amendment as a technical change to the law, and look forward to prompt passage so that security at the airport in American Samoa will remain strong.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, known as the Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2001. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman of our Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and our senior ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), not only for their leadership but their outstanding service in bringing this bill to the floor. I also want to thank the chairman of our Subcommittee on Benefits, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Simpson), and our ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), for their leadership. The House has already passed most of these provisions in four different bills, and I am glad we were able to work out an arrangement with the other body to adopt this broad range of laws and bills to help our veterans in this time of need. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is again involved in military conflict and activities all over the world, especially in Afghanistan. We are reminded of the daily sacrifices our active duty, our National Guard, and ready reserve members must make. Our service members are taken away from their families for long periods of time, they are paid less than their counterparts basically in civilian jobs, and, of course, they are ordered to take actions which place their lives at risk in defense of our Nation. Mr. Speaker, the benefits we provide to our veterans fit into the broad categories of health care, disability benefits, pensions, education and training, home loan guarantees, life insurance, burial benefits, and benefits for survivors. I am pleased to note that with passage of this bill, we are improving or increasing many of these benefits to our veterans. As a Vietnam veteran, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply appreciative that in section 302 of this bill it authorizes an additional 4 years to the Native American Veterans Housing Home Loan Program. This program provides direct VA guaranteed loans to Native Americans, Native Alaskans, Native Hawaiians, American Samoans, and other Pacific Islanders. Prior to the enactment of this pilot program, many Native Americans were not able to benefit from the national VA home loan guarantee program because commercial banks were unwilling to make loans for homes on Indian reservations, Hawaiian homestead lands, and Samoan communal lands. Since 1992, as a coauthor and supporter of this legislation, Congress recognized this inequity and created a pilot program to address the problem by providing direct VA home loans to these beneficiaries. For some 9 years now, the program has been a tremendous success. Hundreds of loans have been made and the default rate is very low. Given the success of the pilot program, Congress still needs to address or take the necessary steps to expand hopefully the pilot program to include veteran spouses of Native Americans. I hope the Department of Veterans Affairs will work with us; and I really, really am most appreciative not only of Chairman Smith but our ranking member's willingness to help me to address this issue, hopefully next year. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for his willingness to give me part of his time as well.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 58, a measure which expresses Congress' support for the 10th annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentarian Forum which shall be hosted by the East-West Center in Hawaii next month. Madam Speaker, I deeply commend the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Senator Daniel Akaka, for introducing and moving this important legislation. I also wish to recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), our distinguished colleague, who for the past 10 years, has provided leadership for the U.S. delegations participating in the meetings of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum. As a member of the past U.S. delegation to the APPF, I can attest that it has been a distinct pleasure for me in working closely with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) to represent U.S. interests. I further commend the House Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), our ranking Democratic member, for their assistance and support in bringing this legislation in a timely fashion. I also want to especially commend the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), not only as the manager of this legislation, my good friend, Mr. Bereuter, former chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, a subcommittee of the Committee on International Relations, who I believe, and my personal opinion, has been one of the primary moving forces for the past 10 years in his capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, and I certainly want to commend him for his outstanding leadership and service. In fact, he has been one of the primary forces in seeing that our country hosts the APPF conference now will be hosted next month in Hawaii. I sincerely hope that our colleagues will not be intimidated by the press which always seems to be the case whenever there are conferences and meetings to be held in Hawaii. The press always takes a negative way of thinking that all we are doing is getting suntan and enjoying the beach there in a warm climate. I would like to invite all of the members of press to see how much of an opportunity we get to enjoy the sun and warm weather in Hawaii besides having these important meetings with some 270 parliamentarians from some 27 Asia-Pacific countries. Madam Speaker, since the founding of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum in 1993, its membership from the original 15 countries has now increased to some 27 members countries which includes the United States. This is a strong testament to the relevance and growing importance of the APPF as an institution where this January, over some 270 national parliamentarians from these Asia-Pacific governments shall meet to review and discuss pressing issues affecting the Asia-Pacific region as well as our own national interests. In its deliberations, the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum has traditionally focussed in several areas, such as the promotion of peace, stability and security of the region through multi-lateral dialogue as embodied in the ASEAN Regional Forum; liberalizing trade and investment to spur increased growth and development in the Asia- Pacific economies; protecting the regions environment and resources of clean water and air and land against degradation; and fostering respect for human rights, enforcement for the rule of law, and the expansion of universal education throughout all Asia-Pacific nations. Madam Speaker, as noted in the legislation, this year will mark the first time that the United States shall host the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. On this auspicious occasion, I find it particularly appropriate and fitting that the internationally respected East-West Center shall be the Secretariat and the host for the APPF meeting. As many of our colleagues know, the East-West Center was established by the Congress in 1960 to further the foreign policy interests of the United States and by promoting constructive relations and deeper understanding between the peoples and the leaders of the United States and our Asia-Pacific neighbors. Madam Speaker, the East-West Center has done an outstanding job in this mission and today, over 47,000 government officials, scholars, businessmen, journalists and other professionals from throughout the Asia-Pacific and the United States are alumni of the East-West Centers programs of collaborative study and research. In fact, a number of the Center's graduates are now national leaders and parliamentarians, many of whom shall participate in the Asia-Pacific parliamentary forum. I submit it is in our vital national interest that the United States continue to play a leading role in the fastest growing sector of the world, the Asia-Pacific region, where the U.S. conducts nearly $500 billion in two-way trade and ensures regional peace and stability with over 100,000 deployed military personnel. We can further that goal, Madam Speaker, by strong and active participation of the United States Congress in the upcoming meetings or conferences of the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum. Madam Speaker, in that regard, I urge the adoption of our colleagues of this important legislation before us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with the remarks that have been stated earlier by my colleagues, especially the chairman of the Subcommittee on Infrastructure, as well as my good friend from Utah, and especially my friend and colleague from Idaho. Those of us from the islands just want to share with my colleagues that we do have a sense of real appreciation and a real sense of gratitude for what this Senator has done for those of us who come from the insular areas. I do want to also pay a very special tribute to the Senator from Idaho, Senator McClure. Many of my colleagues may not know, but his name is well known in the islands. For his tremendous sense of compassion and sensitivity to the issues affecting the needs of those of us who come from the insular areas, I want to pay special homage and honor to Senator McClure for all that he has done. Some of my colleagues may not be aware, but Senator McClure was also one of the instrumental leaders that assisted greatly in the passage of the Compact of Free Association which was very, very important, especially for the security needs of our country. I remember also the strong working association Senator McClure had with the late Congressman Phil Burton and the efforts that they made to help those of us who come from the insular areas of the United States. I want to again thank our friends here for bringing this resolution to the floor. I could not think of a better person to have the Federal building named after than this great man, and I sincerely hope that maybe my good friend from Idaho will come and visit us so we can let him know that we have not forgotten this good man from Idaho, Senator McClure, for all that he has done for the territories.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I think, in view of the pending celebration of the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor, probably two major things have resulted from what has happened. One, I think our country should always remember that Americans are Americans regardless of race, creed or color. And I think the image and the understanding when we talk about Pearl Harbor, though there is no question about what happened and the sacrifices of those fellow Americans who died as a result of the Japanese attack, there is also the other very emotional feeling among many of the Japanese Americans throughout our Nation, because it was not a very happy experience for them when this happened. More than anything, too, as a result of the courageous efforts by these Japanese American soldiers and our black and fellow African American soldiers, for the first time President Truman, who was so moved by their sacrifices, he then issued an Executive Order to desegregate the Armed Forces. That is a major, major change in our national policy; and I thank the gentleman for his recognition of this.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I would very much like to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Georgia, and my good friend, the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois, for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of Senate Concurrent Resolution 44, which underscores Congress' strong support of National Pearl Harbor Remembrance Day and pays tribute to the United States citizens who died in the attack and the surviving American service members, many of whom belong to the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association. I deeply commend the authors of this important legislation, Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois and Senator Smith from New Hampshire, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), who introduced the House counterpart, House Concurrent Resolution 56, which was adopted earlier this year in May. Madam Speaker, as the resolution properly notes, this December 7th will mark the 60th anniversary of Japan's deadly surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. On that Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, a Japanese force of 353 dive-bombers and torpedo planes attacked U.S. military naval forces on Oahu without warning. Our Nation suffered staggering losses, with over 2,400 servicemen and women killed, another 1,200 wounded, over 320 aircraft destroyed or damaged, and all eight U.S. battleships in Pearl Harbor sunk or seriously damaged. The next day, the United States declared war on Japan and later its Axis partners. Madam Speaker, in many ways, we prevailed in World War II directly because of the brave and courageous members of our Armed Forces who died and fought at Pearl Harbor. Their sacrifices galvanized and ignited America's fighting spirit as never before, fueling us for years of battle until the forces of tyranny were defeated. But, Madam Speaker, the term Pearl Harbor also means something vastly different to certain Americans who suffered tremendously under the pretense of the policy of our national security. I am making reference specifically, Madam Speaker, to Americans of Japanese ancestry. Some 100,000 Americans were systematically herded like cattle and placed into concentration camps, with their property confiscated. At the height of tremendous hatred and bigotry and racism, what was very interesting is that we had another fantastic legacy to be shared with every American in our country. It is important to recognize the contributions of the Japanese- Americans who served in the U.S. Army's 100th Battalion and 442nd Combat Infantry group. History speaks for itself in documenting that none have shared their blood more valiantly for America than the Japanese-Americans who served in these units while fighting enemy forces in Europe during World War II. The records of the 100th Battalion and 442nd Infantry are without equal, Madam Speaker. These Japanese-American units suffered an unprecedented casualty rate of 314 percent and received over 18,000 individual decorations. Many were awarded after their deaths for bravery and courage in the field of battle. For your information, Madam Speaker, 52 Distinguished Service Crosses, 560 Silver Stars, and 9,480 Purple Hearts were awarded to the Japanese-American soldiers of the 100th Battalion and 442nd infantry. The 442nd Combat Infantry group emerged as the most decorated combat unit of its size in the history of the United States Army. President Truman was so moved by their bravery in the field of battle, as well as that of African American soldiers during World War II, that he issued an American order to desegregate the Armed Forces. I am happy to say that after Daniel Akaka introduced legislation in 1996 to review the war records of these soldiers, 20 Medals of Honor were awarded to these Japanese American soldiers, including Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. The Senator was initially awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in combat and was an original member of the 442nd Infantry Combat group. I might say also, Madam Speaker, that for many years I have served as executive officer of B Company of the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry. Madam Speaker, these Japanese Americans paid their dues in blood to protect our Nation from its enemies. It is a shameful legacy in the history of our country that when the patriotic survivors of the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry returned to the United States, many were reunited with their parents, their brothers, and their sisters who were locked up behind barbed wire fences living in concentration camps. I recall our former colleague and friend who now serves as Secretary of Transportation, former Congressman Norm Mineta. He said as an 11- year-old, he was in one of these concentration camps. He was told that they had to put all these Japanese Americans in these concentration camps, that it was for their protection. Here was an 11- year-old saying if it was for their protection, why were all the machine guns pointed inside the camps and not outside the camps. Madam Speaker, the wholesale and arbitrary abolishment of the constitutional rights of these loyal Japanese Americans will forever serve as a reminder and testament that this must never be allowed to occur again. Madam Speaker, as our government deals with the ramifications of the horrific terrorist attacks of September 11, I would hope our Nation would not forget this one basic lesson. I urge adoption of the resolution before us, which recognizes and honors the sacrifices of our armed services members who died and served at Pearl Harbor, for they inspire all Americans to seek to preserve and protect our great Nation and democracy. By the same token, Madam Speaker, let us not also forget what happened to our fellow Americans, the Japanese Americans. They suffered tremendously and did so without any guilt on their part, simply because they were Americans who happened to be of Japanese ancestry.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to first commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Utah and the gentleman from Connecticut for their sponsorship of this legislation. I wish I had known, I would have been more than happy to have been an original cosponsor of this legislation. I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 270 which expresses the sense of Congress that Americans should take time during Native American Heritage Month to recognize the contributions made by this country's first Americans. Mr. Speaker, I have come to this floor numerous times over the past 13 years to speak in support of Native Americans. In 1993, the 103rd Congress passed and the President signed into law House Joint Resolution 271 which I sponsored. This resolution designated the month of November in the years 1993 and 1994 as National Indian Heritage Month. I would have liked to have seen the designation made permanent. However, since that time our government has continued each November to recognize the traditions and accomplishments of Native Americans. In some ways I feel we have gone full circle in recognizing the benefits and wisdom of the earliest residents of this land. For instance, the Native Americans all understood the value of respecting the land, the rivers, the mountains, the seas, the oceans and all things that live around us. As European culture took over North America, I think we did not realize how much an impact western civilization would have on the land and the cultures of the indigenous people throughout the Western Hemisphere. Slowly over the past 40 years, we have been gaining some of that respect again. Through the passage of legislation such as the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, our Nation has taken some action to improve the environment throughout our country. With the passage of scores of bills designating national park and wildlife refuges as heritage areas, we are preserving special places within our borders. Visits to these designated areas are increasing faster than the growing population. This is a further indication of our appreciation of that which Native Americans have held sacred. Today most people feel they are environmentalists, and the transition we have gone through in this country to get to that point has had a significant impact on our actions as a government and as individuals. Even with this change in thinking, Mr. Speaker, I wish we would have done more to help today's Native Americans. After taking land from the Indians in the country's formative years and forcing tribes to move to land not of their choosing, we still have problems in Indian country. Recent statistics reflect the poverty rate at over 26 percent, well above the average of our country, and median household income is well below the average of the country. The Census Bureau released some statistics last month which I find interesting, Mr. Speaker. The opportunity for Americans to choose more than one ethnicity in the 2000 census resulted in 4.1 million Americans saying they are at least part Native Alaskan or American Indian. This more than doubled the number who indicated that they were Native Americans in the year 1990. California and Oklahoma had the greatest numbers of Native Americans living within their boundaries, with over 1 million residents between the two States and 19 percent of Alaska's population indicated they were at least part American Indian or native Alaskan. I am sure part of the increase as reported in the 2000 census is caused by the ability of Native Americans to select more than one race on the census forms, but I believe part of this increase is also attributed to an increased sense of pride among Native Americans and their willingness to acknowledge their heritage. Our Nation's Native Americans continue to support our armed services by enlisting and also serving as officers in the military and have done so with valor and distinction. How ironic, Mr. Speaker. We have just celebrated our national Thanksgiving with emphasis on the tribulations of the early Pilgrims, but so little is said that the Pilgrims would have starved to death if it had not been for the kindness and hospitality of the Native Americans who taught these early Europeans how to grow corn and to eat and prepare many other varieties of fruits and vegetables unknown to the Pilgrims or the first Europeans. Yes, let us give thanks to Divine Providence for all the blessing we have received from Him as was the case with the early Pilgrims, but we should also give thanks and some sense of appreciation how our Native American people taught and literally demonstrated their sense of compassion and concern for their fellow man. Native Americans did not need to be taught the parable of the Good Samaritan, or who is my neighbor. History has not dealt kindly with our Nation's treatment of our first Americans: the trails of many tears; our contradictory policies of first kill all the Indians; then the policy of assimilation as if by some means of osmosis Native Americans were then to be integrated and be part of mainstream America; then the policy of nonrecognition of Native Americans, that is, terminate the existence of any tribal nation. Still yet, our government has now established an administrative and regulatory process that has made it almost impossible to grant Federal recognition of a Native American tribe. Mr. Speaker, for the past several years I have tried earnestly to work with our colleagues to congressionally mandate the process of Federal recognition of Native American tribes. The gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) and I have introduced H.R. 1175 to better streamline the process. I want to thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for their support and leadership to conduct a hearing in the short while to come. Yes, let us support this legislation in recognition of the contributions of our first Americans. I commend the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) for their leadership and cochairmanship of our Native American Caucus. Our Native American community asks only to be treated fairly and opportunities to be economically self-sufficient.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 77, I am honored to rise in support of this important measure which urges our government to support efforts to reunite Korean Americans with their families in North Korea. As a member of the Asia-Pacific Congressional Caucus, it is most appropriate that we deliberate and pass this legislation in honor of our Korean American community throughout the United States. I especially want to commend the authors of this legislation, both the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who were instrumental in this measure's introduction. The gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) are respectively the chairman and vice chairman of the U.S. Republic of Korea Interparliamentary Exchange and they have done, in my personal opinion, an excellent job in furthering relations between our two nations. I would also like to commend the chairman and ranking Democrat of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their leadership and support in moving this measure on the floor. Mr. Speaker, as many of you know, our relations with North Korea are crucial as the Korean Peninsula has long been one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world. The United States currently has over 37,000 military personnel stationed in South Korea, with many of them patrolling the demilitarized zone. As one who served in the military in Vietnam, Mr. Speaker, I can never forget the presence of thousands of South Korean soldiers who fought side by side with us. I might submit that, in time of crisis, we know who our real friends are. I want to say to the leaders and the people of South Korea, for supporting us during the Vietnam War, I say, Kham-Samieda. Mr. Speaker, since the Korean War, millions of Koreans have had their families separated and torn asunder with the division of North Korea and South Korea. After almost some 50 years, the tragedy of family separation continues, impacting more than 500,000 Korean Americans who have been denied contact with their loved ones in North Korea. At a time when the administration has reviewed its policy to urge North Korea to improve implementation of the agreed framework on nuclear activities, verify constraints on North Korea's missile program and exports, and to adopt a less-threatening conventional military posture, we should also follow up South Korea President Kim's sunshine policy. Last year's historic summit meeting and joint declarations between the leaders of South Korea and North Korea, in my opinion, has already borne fruit, resulting in limited reunions between long-separated Korean family members. Mr. Speaker, we need to build on this progress, and we can only do so by adoption of this measure. Establishing ties and reuniting Americans of Korean ancestry with their relatives in North Korea addresses a humanitarian goal and, more importantly, could play a meaningful role in helping to open up North Korea while reducing tensions in the Korean peninsula. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I could not help but feel it necessary to take this special order with the hope that my colleagues in the House, as well as the American people, can appreciate my concerns about the provisions of a certain piece of legislation that was just recently passed by this Chamber. This is in reference to H.R. 3009, the Andean Trade Agreement bill. Mr. Speaker, the current trade policy with regards to canned tuna has provided significant benefits to certain Latin America countries, namely, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, as well as Ecuador, while maintaining an industrial tuna processing base in the United States. Since the enactment of the Andean Trade Agreement 10 years ago, the number of tuna factories in that region, the Andean region in South America, has actually increased by 229 percent. Production capacity now is up 400 percent. Direct employment is up by 257 percent. U.S. exports have grown from about $15 million to $100 million annually. In addition, the U.S. tuna industry has invested well over $30 million in new facilities and vessels. However, I must repeat, extending this agreement by providing duty-free treatment to canned tuna from our Andean friends and countries there in Latin America, especially Ecuador, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, will practically destroy the entire U.S. tuna industry. I have heard the argument that Congress has included canned tuna both in the Caribbean Basin Initiative, as well as NAFTA, and some have questioned why are we not doing the same for Ecuador and the Andean region. The simple answer is that no other country that has been extended this benefit has the potential to literally wipe out and destroy the entire U.S. tuna industry. Mr. Speaker, Ecuador alone has a production capacity equivalent to 2,250 tons per day. Using a 5-day workweek, this equates to a production capacity equivalent to 48.6 million cases per year. Using a 6-day workweek, Ecuador's production capacity will be equivalent to 58.5 million cases per year. To put this in perspective, U.S. consumption is at 45.3 million cases per year. In short, Ecuador could produce enough canned tuna to flood the U.S. market. Brand names like Chicken of the Sea and Bumble Bee, brand names that Americans have come to trust, in my opinion will be eliminated from the grocery shelves. It is even questionable whether tuna from Ecuador is dolphin-safe. So serious are these issues that Mexico now even levies a 24 percent duty, last year, on canned tuna exported from Ecuador. Mr. Speaker, it is also important to note that Ecuador levies a 20 percent duty on imported tuna from the United States. I am all for free trade, but I am also for fair trade. The fact of the matter is, more than 10,000 jobs in American Samoa, Puerto Rico and California will be lost if H.R. 3009 passes in its current form. Why? Because the minimum wage rate for cannery workers in Ecuador is 69 cents per hour, Mr. Speaker, which in my humble opinion brings us to the real issue of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.J. Heinz Corporation, the parent company of StarKist Tuna Company, has lobbied aggressively for the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean Trade Agreement. But it must be made clear that StarKist Tuna Company is the only U.S. tuna processor that supports duty-free treatment for canned tuna exported from Ecuador. Put another way, StarKist is the only U.S. tuna processor willing, in my opinion, to sell out American workers in exchange for 69-cent-per-hour wages that StarKist now pays its tuna workers in Ecuador. As you know now, Mr. Speaker, American Samoa is the home of the largest tuna cannery facility in the world. One facility, currently operated by StarKist, a subsidiary of Heinz Corporation, employs about 2,700 workers. The other facility is operated by Chicken of the Sea of California and currently employs about 2,500 workers. Together, these two companies employ more than 74 percent of my district's workforce in the private sector. Approximately 85 percent of the private sector jobs in my district are dependent, either directly or indirectly, upon the tuna fishing and processing industry. As Malcolm Stockwell, the former vice president of StarKist Seafood, recently testified before a Senate committee, ``A decrease in production or departure of one or both of the existing tuna processors in American Samoa could devastate the local economy, resulting in massive unemployment and insurmountable financial problems.'' The CEO of Chicken of the Sea has already noted that if the Andean Trade Agreement includes duty-free treatment of canned tuna, its operations in American Samoa will be forced to lay off over 1,000 cannery workers, and that is just for starters. StarKist has testified that if Ecuador is given the same trade preference as the U.S. territory of American Samoa, its production would almost immediately shift to low labor cost areas like Ecuador. Mr. Speaker, I specifically asked StarKist and Heinz executives what financial loss StarKist would incur if canned tuna was not included in the Andean Trade Agreement. I was told that StarKist would suffer no economic loss. In other words, StarKist is the only one who is pushing for this because of the low labor costs among Andean countries. I wish to note that the minimum wage in American Samoa is at $3.20 per hour, which is, by far, way below even our own national minimum wage structure. It reminds me of the words offered by the late Senator Borah from Idaho when the issue of fair labor standards was debated in the Congress as far back as 1937. Senator Borah said, ``I look upon a minimum wage such as will afford a decent living as a part of a sound national policy. I would abolish a wage scale below a decent standard of living just as I would abolish slavery. If it disturbed business, it would be the price we must pay for good citizens. I take the position that a man who employs another must pay him sufficient to enable the one employed to live.'' Senator Pepper from Florida then asked the Senator, ``What if he cannot afford to pay it?'' Senator Borah responded, ``If he cannot afford to pay it, then he should close up the business. No business has a right to coin the very lifeblood of workmen into dollars and cents. Every man or woman who is worthy of hire is entitled to sufficient compensation to maintain a decent standard of living. I insist that American industry can pay its employees enough to enable them to live.'' Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I agree with Senator Borah. StarKist, like any other industry, should pay its employees proper wages. That was one of the big issues in the 1930s when the question of labor minimum wages was debated in the Congress. The fear was that if some kind of a minimum wage standard would be established, there would be chaos in the business industry, especially in those days in the South, which was always looked upon as an area of low labor costs, 10 to 12 cents an hour for a 10-hour workday, even among children at the time, I suppose. What they found out is that when they did establish a minimum wage standard since the 1930s, there was tremendous economic growth in the economy. When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, tuna processing is the only industry holding together the economy of my district. American Samoa's only advantage in the global marketplace is duty-free access to the U.S. market. What price has American Samoa paid to have U.S. trade privileges, I ask. As a Territory of the United States, our men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice in military service to our Nation. American Samoa pledges its allegiance to the United States. Ecuador and other Latin American countries do not. American Samoa has been the backbone of StarKist sales. The Andean countries have not. In the past 25 years, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea have exported almost $6 billion worth of canned tuna from American Samoa to the United States. Thanks to American Samoa, StarKist is now the number one brand of tuna in the world today. Mr. Speaker, why is it that StarKist and the parent company Heinz Corporation are pushing to allow tuna imports to come to the United States duty-free from the Andean countries and yet are opposed by two other major tuna processing centers here in the United States and even by the entire U.S. tuna fishing fleet here in our country? At a recent hearing, a StarKist official testified, ``StarKist will continue to sell and can tuna. However, the history of tuna canning in the U.S. and Puerto Rico has demonstrated quite clearly that StarKist will also take whatever action is required to remain cost competitive.'' Is this why StarKist and Heinz Corporation are such strong supporters of the trade agreement that the entire U.S. tuna industry opposes? At 69 cents per hour for wages earned for cannery workers in Ecuador, I can understand why StarKist is pushing for passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. International Trade Commission conducted section 201 and section 332 investigations in 1984, 1986, 1990 and 1992 to determine if canned tuna was an import-sensitive product. In each case they overwhelmingly concluded that canned tuna is an import- sensitive product. The facts that made canned tuna an import-sensitive product in the ITC studies still apply today. With the advent of canned tuna from low-wage countries, retail pricing of canned tuna, when adjusted for inflation, has dropped by 53 percent between 1980 and 2000. Canned tuna represents a tremendous value versus other sources of canned protein. In May of 2000, light meat tuna retail prices were 10 cents per ounce while albacore retail tuna prices were 23 cents per ounce. Competitive proteins were significantly more expensive. That is, canned chicken was selling at 40 cents per ounce, canned turkey at 40 cents per ounce, Spam at 33 cents per ounce and corned beef was selling at 20 cents per ounce. Due to the intense competitive environment caused by low-cost foreign imports, retail prices of canned tuna in the U.S. are the lowest among all developed nations of the world. The comparison includes Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. U.S. tuna processors face significant wage disparities when compared with foreign tuna processors. Average hourly wages in the U.S. processing facilities in California, Puerto Rico and American Samoa are approximately $11, $6.50 and $3.20, respectively. Average hourly labor rates in the key exporting countries of Thailand and Ecuador are approximately 60 cents and 69 cents per hour respectively. It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that tuna processors in foreign nations are not required to abide by the same health, welfare, safety, regulatory, conservation or even environmental standards imposed upon U.S. tuna processors. In addition, they often receive government and other financial subsidies that provide an unfair economic advantage. The quantity of tuna imports measured in kilograms between 1990 and the year 2000 has increased by 20.3 percent. Within this number, canned tuna imports have increased by 10 percent, while imports of frozen tuna loins have increased by 67.3 percent. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, as it relates to Ecuador and Colombia in 1990 before the U.S.-Andean trade agreement was enacted, Ecuador and Colombia tuna exports to the United States represented only 2.6 percent of total U.S. tuna imports. In other words, in 1990 the total value of tuna that was imported from tuna loins and canned loins from these two countries was at $9.7 million. In the year 2000, after 10 years of the Andean trade agreement in force, Ecuador and Colombia tuna exports to the U.S. represents now 23.3 percent of the total U.S. tuna imports. This represents a 796.2 percent increase, Mr. Speaker, over 10 years and an annualized rate of growth of 24.5 percent. Mr. Speaker, these increases in exports have been enabled by a tremendous expansion of Ecuadorian and Colombian tuna processing and fishing industries. As I stated earlier, factories are now increased from 7 to 23 percent. Annual production capacity has increased from 108 million cases per ton to 500 million tons. Direct employment has increased from 3,500 employees now to 12,500 employees or an increase of 257 percent. The fleet, which was nonexistent 10 years ago, now represents the second largest tuna fishing fleet in the eastern tropical Pacific, right below Mexico. The Ecuadorian fleet now catches more than 35 percent of the total tuna landed out of the east tropical Pacific. As imports have increased, U.S. production volumes have declined because trade benefits provided to foreign nations make it difficult for U.S. processing facilities to compete. For example, in 1990, four of the five tuna processing facilities in Puerto Rico have closed. Once the largest employer in Puerto Rico, with more than 15,000 jobs in 1990, Bumble Bee now operates the last processing facility in Puerto Rico with less than 1,000 workers. Bumble Bee has stated that they will close their Puerto Rico factory within 6 months if tuna is included in the ATPA. The key reason is the hourly labor rate differential of $6.50 an hour in Puerto Rico versus 69 cents an hour in Ecuador. That is obvious. Chicken of the Sea has closed their tuna processing facility in Terminal Island in California, while Bumble Bee still operates its Santa Fe Springs plant in California. Total employment has dropped from 1,000 now to a mere 300. Bumble Bee has stated that if tuna is included in APTA, they will shift at least half of their California production to Ecuador within 12 months, resulting in the loss of more than 100 jobs. This will probably lead to the full closure of their California factory within 2 years. My district has not lost either of the two tuna processing facilities yet, operated by both Chicken of the Sea and StarKist, Mr. Speaker. However, in Department of Labor wage hearings over the past 10 years, both Chicken of the Sea and StarKist have stated emphatically that any increase in wage rates will increase in the shift of production to lower-wage countries. Based on these testimonies, a total hourly wage increase since 1990 has been approximately 20 cents per hour, which to me personally, Mr. Speaker, is an insult, much less than the increase in the U.S. minimum wage over the same period of time. The minimum wage in Samoa is less than half that of the U.S. despite American Samoa being a U.S. territory. American Samoa recognizes that any decreases in tuna sector employment can decimate their fragile economy where the tuna industry represents 88 percent of private sector employment. I do not know, Mr. Speaker, how would you describe the disparity in wage rates, whether or not 69 cents per hour in Ecuador would be considered cheap labor or slave labor. I sometimes have a very difficult time distinguishing between the two standards. Chicken of the Sea has stated that if tuna is included in APTA, they will shift about half of their workers in American Samoa to Ecuador within 12 months; and like I said, that is just the beginning. Concerning our tuna fishing fleet, this is one of the other great concerns that I have concerning this legislation, Mr. Speaker. In 1990, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet was the dominant fleet in the world, allowing the U.S. to exert leadership in international conservation efforts. The U.S. fleet developed the eastern tropical Pacific fishing grounds and then developed the western tropical fishing grounds where they operate today. In the year 2000, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet now has been surpassed by Taiwan, Spain, South Korea, Mexico, Ecuador, Venezuela, Japan, and France; and we are no longer the dominant fishing nation that we once were. U.S. tuna boat owners are disadvantaged, as they are required to abide by strict safety, personal liability, regulatory and environmental and conservation standards that are vigorously enforced by the U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Coast Guard. These standards are not observed by foreign- flag vessels and are not even enforced by their respective governments. Mr. Speaker, as an example, between 1997 and the year 2000, Ecuadorian- and Colombian-flag tuna fishing vessels incurred more than 900 violations of Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission regulations, with the acronym of IATTC. The IATTC is a multilateral organization that establishes fishing regulations in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. While the IATTC reports violations, the flag countries of the violating vessels are to take enforcement action. To date, of the 900 violations only three, only three have been resolved. The U.S. State Department, which represents the U.S. and the IATTC, is well aware of these violations and has the authority to impose a U.S. embargo on fishery products from Ecuador and Colombia to force compliance with international conservation regulation. However, and unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, they have not yet taken any action. Mr. Speaker, if tuna is included in the APTA, the eastern tropical Pacific fishing grounds will become more valuable. However, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, which developed this fishery in the 1960s and the 1970s, cannot return to the ETP, as Mexico, Ecuador and Venezuela have systematically taken up all available fishing licenses and quotas. If tuna is included in the APTA, employment in my own district in tuna processing facilities will be reduced, the U.S. fleet will lose their largest market for selling their catch, and they will become competitively disadvantaged versus all other international fleets. All of the major U.S. tuna boat owners have stated that if tuna is included in this bill, they will immediately begin the process of divesting their ownership positions in their vessels worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and the vessels will ultimately move to foreign ownership. As the vessels move to foreign ownership, Mr. Speaker, the U.S. would lose its voice in multinational conservation efforts. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. tuna processing and fishing industry has supported the objectives of the Andean trade agreement for the past 10 years despite the fact that canned tuna was excluded from the actual agreement. To ensure the survival of the U.S. tuna processing and fishing industry, and to recognize the support they have provided for the Andean pact nations, I would certainly hope that the U.S. Congress would continue to exclude canned tuna from the provisions of this bill. Mr. Speaker, excluding canned tuna from APTA will not negatively impact the economies of Ecuador and Colombia, I can assure. In fact, Bumble Bee, which has a $30 million tuna processing facility with more than 1,200 employees in Ecuador, will continue to invest and grow in that region. Excluding canned tuna from APTA will support more than 10,000 U.S. tuna processing and fishing jobs in California, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the entire U.S. tuna fishing fleet whose jobs will be at risk, obviously. Excluding canned tuna from the APTA will support my district's economy where some 85 to 88 percent of the private sector employment is provided by the tuna industry. Exclusion of canned tuna for the APTA will support the U.S. tuna fishing fleet of approximately 50 vessels, as I have stated earlier, out of American Samoa and supply the U.S. canneries while giving the U.S. a strong voice, hopefully, in multinational fisheries conservation. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. represents the largest market for canned tuna consumption in the world. It is estimated that the U.S. represents 28 percent of that global consumption. Canned tuna is consumed by 96 percent of U.S. households. Canned tuna represents the number three item in U.S. grocery stores based on dollar sales per linear foot per shelf space. Three U.S. brands, Bumble Bee, StarKist and Chicken of the Sea, represent more than 85 percent of U.S. tuna consumption. I would like to share with my colleagues some interesting facts to consider. Bumble Bee Seafoods, Incorporated, is a U.S. corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, with revenues of approximately $750 million and employment of approximately 5,000 people. Bumble Bee is a wholly owned subsidiary of ConAgra Foods, a U.S. corporation headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska, with annual revenues of approximately $27 billion and employment of approximately 80,000 workers, almost all of which is in the United States. ConAgra is the second largest retail food company in the United States and the largest food service provider. Bumble Bee is the number two brand of canned tuna in the United States with a 27 percent branded market share. Within canned tuna, Bumble Bee has the number one position in albacore and the number two position in light meat. Bumble Bee is the leading brand of canned seafood with number or two positions in salmon, shrimp, crab, sardines, and other canned seafood varieties. Bumble Bee operates tuna, shrimp and surimi processing facilities in California, Puerto Rico, Louisiana, Minnesota, Ecuador, Fiji, and even Trinidad. Bumble Bee is the largest buyer of canned salmon in the world and the largest customer of U.S.-owned processing locations in the State of Alaska. Bumble Bee sources raw material from U.S. fishing vessels harvesting tuna, salmon, pollock, whiting, shrimp and other fish species in the major oceans of the world. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank again the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), our senior ranking member, for their offered assistance to continue our efforts to formulate some resolution to my concerns relative to the U.S. tuna industry. I would be remiss if I did not also express my personal thanks and appreciation especially to my colleague and friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), without whom we would not have gone this far to find a solution hopefully to the needs of our workers and the entire U.S. tuna industry. I also want to thank Mr. Dennis Mussell, the CEO of Chicken of the Seafood Company, and Mr. Chris Lischewski, the CEO of Bumble Bee Seafood, and Mr. Julius Zolezzi and Paul Crampe who represented some 50 boat owners and who make up the entire U.S. tuna fishing fleet through the United Tuna Cooperative. Mr. Speaker, I do not mind that we work with our colleagues to address the social and economic needs of our friends in the Andean region. We have been doing this now for the past 10 years since the Andean trade agreement was enacted. My only concern, Mr. Speaker, is that our national policy also now is to sacrifice the entire U.S. tuna industry in order to accommodate the economic needs of our friends from Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru and Colombia. I hope not, Mr. Speaker. I sincerely hope not. One of the issues or reasons why we are trying to do crop substitution in helping these Andean countries was to lessen the drug trafficking going on coming from Latin America into our country. I recall one of the previous presidents of the Republic of Colombia made a very interesting observation. He said if there was not so much consumption and demand by Americans maybe there would not be a supply or a need to have a supply of drugs coming from Latin America. So I look forward to continuing consultations with our House colleagues, as well as with the Members of the House when this bill will be further reviewed, I hope, in conference.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my appreciation and thanks to the chairman of the committee, as well as our senior ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) for their willingness to see that maybe down the line in the legislative process we may work out a compromise; but at this point in time, I have to respectfully oppose the current legislation as it now states. Mr. Speaker, my district is home to the largest tuna cannery facilities in the world. One cannery is operated by StarKist, which employs about 2,700 workers; and the other cannery is operated by Chicken of the Sea out of California, which employs about 2,500 workers. I note also to my friend from Pennsylvania, it is true, Chicken of the Sea is foreign owned, but so is Shell and British Petroleum and they are legally doing business here in our country, employing millions or even thousands of American people. Today these companies employ, as I said earlier, 74 percent of our workforce. Approximately 85 percent of the private sector jobs in American Samoa are dependent either directly or indirectly on the tuna fishing or processing industry. Mr. Speaker, I asked specifically StarKist and Heinz executives what financial loss StarKist would incur if canned tuna was not included in this agreement. I was told that StarKist would suffer no economic loss, other than the exception to the fact that tuna workers in Ecuador are being paid 69 cents an hour. My colleagues are probably not aware that minimum wage for cannery workers in American Samoa is only $3.20 cents an hour, which is far below even our national minimum wage. Mr. Speaker, I submit my people do not want handouts. They want to work. Maybe of interest to my colleagues, for 40 years our leaders and our people purposefully did not want to have anything to do with the welfare program that was instituted in our country. Why? Because they did not want handouts. They want to work. When all is said and done, Mr. Speaker, tuna processing and the fishing industry we have there is the only industry holding together the fragile economy of my district. American Samoa's only advantage in the global market place is duty-free access to the U.S. market. And what price did America Samoa pay for this trade privilege? We owe allegiance to the United States. Other countries do not. Again, I submit I sincerely hope that we will be able to work out something that will be helpful not only to our tuna industry but as well as to assist our friends from the Andean countries.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks in associating myself also with the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for her comments and certainly our total opposition to the rule. Mr. Speaker, I want to plainly state for the Record that I do support U.S. efforts to counter drug interdiction and production in trade among the Andean countries. I also want to note that I am a free trader but only ask that trade be fair. That is all we are asking for. For the information of my colleagues, the U.S. tuna industry has already provided under the current provisions of the Andean trade agreement explosive growth in opportunity for our Andean country neighbors. Under the present ATPA rules, tuna loins are already exempt from any of the meaningful duties. As a result, the number of tuna loin factories in Andean countries have increased by 229 percent since the enactment of ATPA in 1991. Production capacity has increased by 400 percent. Exports to the United States have increased by 56 percent. Sales of tuna from the Andean countries now total almost $100 million a year. Thanks to the present ATPA tuna rules, Andean countries are now the largest exporters of tuna to our country. In return for U.S. efforts, Ecuador currently imposes a 20 percent duty on canned tuna from the United States. Other Andean countries impose duties of 10 percent and 15 percent. To protect its own market from product dumping, Mexico imports a duty free of 24 percent on canned tuna imported from Ecuador. In the middle of all this, Mr. Speaker, is the U.S. Congress really now going to allow canned tuna to come to the United States duty free? Where is the fairness of all of this, Mr. Speaker? I believe it is important for my colleagues to understand that Ecuador and Colombia have the capacity now to process more than 540,000 tons or 48.6 million cases of tuna per year. With U.S. consumption of 45.3 million cases per year, Ecuador and Colombia have the production capacity to wipe out literally, Mr. Speaker, the entire U.S. tuna industry. In an effort to save approximately 10,000 American jobs and protect the fragile economy of my own district in my own territory, including workers in California and Puerto Rico, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means; the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I have worked together to build, hopefully, a bipartisan coalition to object to this legislation. I want to note for the Record that Chicken of the Sea, Bumble Bee, the United Tuna Cooperative, the entire U.S. fishing fleet, and ConAgra are adamantly opposed to the inclusion of canned tuna in ATPA. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed that no hearings were held in the House on this very bill. I would hope that Members whose districts would be potentially affected by pending legislation such as this will be given the courtesy at least of an input of Members of the House whose districts are definitely going to be affected as a result of this bill. The bottom line, in my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, is that my territory is more than 85 percent dependent, either directly or indirectly, on the U.S. tuna processing and fishing industries. As StarKist has repeatedly testified, ``A decrease in production or departure of one or both of the existing processors in American Samoa would devastate the local economy, resulting in massive unemployment and insurmountable financial problems.'' This begs the question, Mr. Speaker: Why is only canned tuna up for discussion? What happened to the other industries doing their fair share to provide economic alternatives to drug production in the Andean countries? I am all for helping our Andean countries, but I want to ensure that the U.S. tuna industry, the U.S. tuna fishing fleet, and the workers in California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa are also protected in the process. I want to quickly note that if canned tuna is not excluded, this country will see the end of the U.S. fishing fleet which is composed of 50 vessels. Investments in these vessels are worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Our World War II veterans built this fleet and for almost 100 years, the tuna industry has been with us. In times of national crisis, our tuna fishing fleet has been our eyes and ears on the high seas. Our fishing fleets report to the Coast Guard and other Federal agencies any suspicious movements of vessels that may also affect the security of our Nation. My colleagues need to understand that there are no fishing licenses left in the eastern Pacific. Our U.S. tuna fishing fleet cannot fish in the eastern region of the Pacific. What kind of justice is this, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker, canned tuna represents the third fastest moving product category in the entire U.S. grocery business. Canned tuna provides a high-quality, affordable source of protein for 96 percent of U.S. families. If H.R. 3009 is not amended, if this legislation is not shut down, canned tuna will become a foreign-controlled commodity instead of a branded product that U.S. consumers have trusted with confidence for over 95 years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down on this proposed rule concerning this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to exclude canned tuna from this bill and vote against the rule which will not allow Members from both sides of the aisle to introduce appropriate amendments so that at least we can debate the merits of this bill.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, we have been debating in this body for some time now how to achieve the appropriate balance, in war and in peace, between protection of the state and protection of the individual liberties that are so important to a healthy democracy. As we wrestle with the aftermath of September 11th, we begin to see the same debate and the same concerns echoed in other democracies around the world. One debate, not much focused on, has occurred in our ally and good friend, Turkey. That nation, which has lost over 30,000 of its citizens due to terrorist attacks, and which has suffered great hardship as a result of their support for our policy of economic sanctions against Iraq and others in the Middle East, has nonetheless conducted a vigorous public debate about what kind of democracy should flourish in Turkey. That debate has ended with a series of constitutional reforms, reforms that the State Department says ``embodies the values that the international coalition is defending.'' These reforms are broad ranging. In some cases, they expressly limit the power of the state to stifle freedom of expression, or to pry into the private lives of citizens, even those who might be suspected of criminal behavior. Others enshrine individual rights to gather, to protest or to form political parties. Still others aim for a more inclusive society by allowing use of languages other than Turkish. A group of the reforms seek to place an economic floor of support below the citizens in order to help assure opportunities for economic betterment. Finally, a group of reforms seek to streamline government and make it more responsive to the citizenry. More than 30 constitutional reforms were adopted. Once implemented, they should go a long way toward erasing any opposition to Turkey's entry into the European Union. It is also important to note that these reforms have been made in a Moslem nation. Turkey has always believed it important to protect the secular nature of its society, often at the risk of being criticized from within and without. Turkey's reforms, indeed its impetus to reform, is living proof that democracy and Islam are compatible. Mr. Speaker, there are two other things about these reforms that are remarkable. First, Turkey moved boldly on many fronts to examine past practices and seems willing to make large changes to enshrine democracy. Second, despite economic pressures, political pressures, and the exigencies of the current war against terrorists, it never wavered in its pursuit of a democratic ideal. Turkey, and the entire community of democracies, should feel justly proud of what has been accomplished to date.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Concurrent Resolution 217. I am honored to join the chairman of the House Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde); our ranking Democrat member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos); and the Chair of our Subcommittee on East Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), in jointly introducing this measure which honors the close friendship and extraordinarily deep relationship between Australia and the United States. As many of our colleagues may know, last month marked the 50th anniversary of our alliance with Australia under the ANZUS Treaty. The resolution before us properly recognizes that this vital security relationship has made historic and significant contributions to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and will continue to do so throughout the new century. Even before the ANZUS Treaty was signed in 1951, however, Australia and the United States have worked together in partnership to confront common threats to democracy. From the summer of 1918, when the U.S. 33rd National Guard Division joined Australian troops at the Battle of Le Hamel in France, we have fought together as allies in World War I, World War II, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, and, more recently, in conflicts in the Persian Gulf and even Somalia. Madam Speaker, it was during World War II in particular at the Battle of the Coral Sea where United States and Australia naval forces joined in one of the allies' finest hours in the Pacific Theater. On May 4, 1942, the joint forces of American and Australian warships stopped the Axis armada, which had never before been defeated, in its historic march across the Pacific region. By crushing the fearsome enemy fleet, a planned invasion of Australia was stymied and marked the strategic and pivotal turning point in World War II, leading to the victory for allied forces and the protection of the free world. It was this victorious alliance between the United States and Australia that the ANZUS Security Treaty was born, which holds that the U.S. and Australia will act to meet the common danger in the event of an attack against either country. Madam Speaker, when the horrific terrorist attacks against our Nation occurred on September 11 of last month, Australia took immediate steps to demonstrate their commitment and support of the United States in this crisis. I deeply commend Prime Minister John Howard, who was in Washington at the time, for his strong leadership and standing in solidarity with America. Within days, Australia invoked article IV of the ANZUS Treaty, following with a concrete commitment of military assets, including special forces detachments, military aircraft and amphibious command capability. When requested by President Bush, Australia also took steps to immediately freeze the assets of terrorist organizations. Madam Speaker, the quick and timely response of Australia in coming to our Nation's aid to combat international terrorism leaves no doubt in our minds that our friends are indeed very serious about their security commitments to the United States. In addition to our extensive defense and intelligence cooperation, Australia has worked closely with the United States to combat global problems such as the HIV-AIDS crisis, the international criminal syndicates and narcotics trafficking, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology. We have also served together in international peacekeeping forces, for which in particular Australia should be deeply commended for its outstanding leadership of multinational operations in East Timor, which resolved the crisis and restored stability in that new-born nation. Madam Speaker, the United States and Australia also share a robust trade relationship. We are Australia's second largest trading partner, with an annual trade exceeding $22 billion a year; and our two nations consult and work closely in the World Trade Organization and APEC for the promotion of international trade and regional economic development. To further boost our trade relationship, it is necessary and appropriate that a free trade agreement be finalized between our nations. Madam Speaker, for all these reasons and more, I urge our colleagues to support passage of this measure that honors our common heritage with Australia: the respect of human rights, the rule of law, the trust in free market economies, and our fundamental belief in government by democratic rule. Madam Speaker, adoption of this measure sends a strong message reaffirming the deep respect and enduring bonds of friendship that have bound and will always bind the people of the United States with the good people of Australia.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan bill, which enhances international efforts to protect critical coral reef habitats, and commend the author, my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman), for introducing this piece of legislation. I say this especially because one does not have to come from an island to have a sense of appreciation what coral reefs are all about. I know there are a lot of reefs in Illinois and Ohio. But certainly, I want to really commend not only our chairman of the Committee on International Relations, but also our ranking senior Democratic member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their leadership in bringing this measure to the floor. Indeed, I am honored to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. Madam Speaker, coral reefs and the marine life they support are the world's most biologically diverse marine ecosystems. Yet, it is only recently we have begun to appreciate how important coral reefs are to local, regional, and national interests, especially the economies of several countries. For example, coral reefs provide fisheries for food and raw materials for new medicines and pharmaceuticals. Tourism and recreation flourish along coral reef tracts and provide jobs and real income for coastal residents. They also provide effective shore protection, shielding coastal communities and harbors from violent storms and erosion. Yet, because corals depend on light and require clear water for growth, they are remarkably fragile. Recent evidence indicates that coral reefs are deteriorating worldwide, and many are highly at risk. Symptoms include the loss of coral diversity, an increased abundance of algae, an increased frequency in outbreaks of coral bleaching and other diseases, such as black band disease. Scientists and managers still lack critical information about the causes, but evidence suggests that a variety of human forces, including shoreline development, increased sediments and pollutants in the water, ship groundings, and overfishing, including destructive fishing practices such as the use of dynamite and cyanide, have all contributed to the decline of healthy coral reef ecosystems. Madam Speaker, the destruction of coral reefs is particularly profound in developing nations in the tropics. Legislation before us addresses this problem, and is specifically targeted to encourage coral reef resource protection in these developing countries. By authorizing the administration to sell, reduce, or cancel loans owed by these nations to the United States in an amount equivalent to what these countries spend on coral conservation programs, we promote the economic growth while significantly enhancing international efforts to protect and restore coral reefs and coastal marine resources. Madam Speaker, this is a very worthwhile initiative and piece of legislation. I again commend my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, for his authorship of this bill; and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the entire United States tuna industry, with the exception of StarKist, opposes granting duty-free status to capped tuna products from Andean countries as contemplated in the Andean Trade Preference Agreement. Shame on Charlie the Tuna. Shame on StarKist for threatening an American industry, American consumers, and even American workers. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is there is enough tuna production capacity in Ecuador to supply the entire U.S. market with canned tuna. Put another way, there is enough production capacity in Ecuador to wipe out the U.S. brands of tuna that our Nation has come to love and trust. No more Chicken of the Sea. No more Bumble Bee. If canned tuna is not exempted from the Andean trade agreement, the only thing America consumers will know is private-label tuna packed in Ecuador and other Andean countries. How safe is it? Consider this: Ecuador and Colombia incurred more than 706 fishing violations in the years 1998 and 1999 and still counting. Of those violations, only three actions were taken. In other words, Ecuador goes unchecked. Ecuador keeps fishing beyond the closure of the fisheries, past the quota, and breaks the rules; but America lives by the rules, Mr. Speaker. Our U.S. purse seining fleet, which conducts tuna fishing operations, also plays by the rules, our rules. Chicken of the Sea lives by the rules. Bumble Bee lives by the rules, but StarKist wants us to ignore the rules. I say to Charlie the Tuna, sorry, rules are important. The Andean pact countries are not up to the same standards utilized by the U.S. canned tuna processors. How safe will canned tuna be if Ecuador is allowed to dump its products in the United States? What does this mean for the American consumer? The fact of the matter is that canned tuna represents the third fastest moving product category in the entire U.S. grocery business. Canned tuna provides a high-quality affordable source of protein for 96 percent of U.S. families. Shame on Charlie the Tuna. Shame on StarKist and H.J. Heinz for putting the American consumers at risk and for putting Americans out of work. Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate that the entire U.S. tuna industry with the exception of Heinz and its subsidiary, StarKist, is opposed to the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement. Every U.S. processor, with the exception of StarKist, is about the business of protecting America's tuna industry. I also wish to note that Bumble Bee is the only American company that has invested in the Andean pact region. Yet despite its presence in Ecuador, Bumble Bee does not support the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement. Chicken of the Sea does not support the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement. The U.S. fishing fleet does not support the inclusion of canned tuna in the Andean trade agreement. Today, the Andean pact nations have the largest fleet in the eastern Pacific region controlling more than 35 percent of the total catch, growing from about 20 obsolete fishing vessels now to 87 large fishing vessels. Mr. Speaker, Ecuador and others fail to adequately cooperate with international conservation and abide by the Inter-American Tuna Commission regulations. Elimination of duties will result in product dumping, threatening American consumers and American industry. The U.S. International Trade Commission conducted studies of the tuna industry for 5 years, verifying canned tuna is an import-sensitive product. Mr. Speaker, if Ecuador is allowed to send its tuna into America duty free, canned tuna will become a foreign-controlled commodity instead of a branded product U.S. consumers have trusted for over 95 years. If Ecuador is allowed to send its tuna into the U.S. duty free, U.S. tuna operations in California, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa will be forced to close. I am talking about American workers losing 10,000 jobs if this industry closes. Mr. Speaker, I say respectfully shame on Charlie the Tuna. Shame on StarKist. Shame on H.J. Heinz for threatening an American industry in a time of national crisis.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, on the auspicious occasion of the National Day of the Republic of China (ROC)--October 10th, 2001--I send my warmest greetings, congratulations and best wishes to President Chen Shui-bian, the Honorable C.J. Chen, ROC Representative to the United States, and the good people of Taiwan. I also wish to acknowledge and thank President Chen, Representative Chen and the leaders of Taiwan for their strong support of the United States in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on America. As our Nation struggled to recover from the horrific tragedy, I would note Taiwan was one of the first governments to declare unequivocal support for and cooperation with the United States to combat terrorism worldwide. President Chen has repeatedly affirmed Taiwan's strong belief that the United States is on the right course in going after terrorists and extremists worldwide, and Taiwan has offered assistance in this mission. Terrorism knows no national boundaries and terrorists seek to destroy freedom and our democratic way of life. Standing shoulder to shoulder as fellow democracies, Taiwan has mourned with America, shared the pain of our Nation, and joined in partnership to fight terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the quick response of Taiwan is not surprising, as the Republic of China is a true democracy--a democracy that cherishes, protects and respects all of the rights of her citizens. The success of Taiwan's democracy is further reflected in her prosperity where, despite having only 23 million people, Taiwan has developed into one of the most important and robust economies in the world. As the United States leads the global fight to eradicate terrorism, Mr. Speaker, let us be thankful for good friends and allies such as Taiwan. In this regard, Representative C.J. Chen has done an excellent and superb job on Capitol Hill and Washington in representing Taiwan and furthering relations between our governments. Mr. Speaker, on October 10th, the National Day marking the birth of the Republic of China, I ask our colleagues and all Americans to join me in saluting and honoring the strong, vibrant and impressive democracy that is Taiwan today.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, on the auspicious occasion of the National Day of the Republic of China (ROC)--October 10th, 2001 --1 send my warmest greetings, congratulations and best wishes to President Chen Shui-bian, the Honorable C.J. Chen, ROC Representative to the United States, and the good people of Taiwan. I also wish to acknowledge and thank President Chen, Representative Chen and the leaders of Taiwan for their strong support of the United States in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks on America. As our Nation struggled to recover from the horrific tragedy, I would note Taiwan was one of the first governments to declare unequivocal support for and cooperation with the United States to combat terrorism worldwide. President Chen has repeatedly affirmed Taiwan's strong belief that the United States is on the right course in going after terrorists and extremists worldwide, and Taiwan has offered assistance in this mission. Terrorism knows no national boundaries and terrorists seek to destroy freedom and our democratic way of life. Standing shoulder to shoulder as fellow democracies, Taiwan has mourned with America, shared the pain of our Nation, and joined in partnership to fight terrorism. Mr. Speaker, the quick response of Taiwan is not surprising, as the Republic of China is a true democracy--a democracy that cherishes, protects and respects all of the rights of her citizens. The success of Taiwan's democracy is further reflected in her prosperity where, despite having only 23 million people, Taiwan has developed into one of the most important and robust economies in the world. As the United States leads the global fight to eradicate terrorism, Mr. Speaker, let us be thankful for good friends and allies such as Taiwan. In this regard, Representative C.J. Chen has done an excellent and superb job on Capitol Hill and Washington in representing Taiwan and furthering relations between our governments. Mr. Speaker, on October 10th, the National Day marking the birth of the Republic of China, I ask our colleagues and all Americans to join me in saluting and honoring the strong, vibrant and impressive democracy that is Taiwan today.