Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. I certainly want to commend and thank my colleagues for the statements that have been presented to pay this very special tribute and this resolution to Reverend Jesse Jackson for the performance and for the contributions that he has made, especially in bringing home these three soldiers who had been imprisoned for the past 31 days. In saying that, I certainly thank my good friend the gentlewoman from Florida for her sponsorship of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of the time to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters). (Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much more time do I have on this side?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton). (Mrs. CLAYTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis). (Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 40 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), my friend and colleague.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, recently in my home district, I was invited to participate in a special banquet sponsored by the high school leaders who are members of the Junior ROTC program. The program is administered by a retired military officer and the instructors are usually retired senior noncommissioned officers. That evening, Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed with the discipline, decorum and the conduct of these young high school students. These young Junior ROTC cadets learn about honor, duty and responsibility to their families, to their communities and to their nation. These young people learn also what it means to live as a free people, to understand and appreciate more what democracy and freedom is all about. But what impressed me even more, Mr. Speaker, was that as part of the opening ceremony, three candles were brought forth and placed on the head table. The candles were lit, and then the young cadet started explaining that these three candles represented Staff Sergeant Andrew Ramirez from Los Angeles, California; Sergeant Christopher Stone from Smith's Creek, Michigan; and Specialist Steve Gonzalez from Huntsville, Texas. These three soldiers are currently being held captive by the Serbian Army of Yugoslavia. The young cadet then reminded her cadet corps members and the entire audience that on behalf of approximately 1,000 Junior ROTC cadets and all the young people of American Samoa that we should all pray for the safety and welfare of these three soldiers and a special prayer for their families and loved ones. And I want to thank Major Ernest Logoleo and his administrative staff for doing an outstanding job with the JR-ROTC program in Samoa. And I also want to commend our JR-ROTC instructors for their commitment to excellence and teaching these young people the importance of living under a democratic form of government. Our instructors are--from the Samoana High School . . . CW3 Vasaga Tilo, MSG Afiafi Tinae, MSG Roy Peeble, and SFC Willie Togafau; from Leone High School . . . 1SG Mikaele Taliloa, 1SG Ben Laussen, MSG Tasiga Tofili, and SFC Vainuupo Nuusa; from Fagaitua High School . . . MSG Fatuesi Fatuesi, SFC Ofisa Asoau, and SSG Ernest Misaalafua; from Tafuna High School . . . MSG Lorn Cramer, MSG Arona Gabriel, and MSG Fesili Bryant; from Manu'a High School . . . 1SG Siaosi Asalele and SFC Mose Mata'utia. Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend the student cadet leaders from their respective high schools for their demonstration of leadership and example among their peers--Cadet Colonel Fatherday Sele of Samoana High School; Cadet Colonel Diamond Otto of Tafuna High School; Cadet Colonel Bert Fuiava of Manu'a High School; Cadet Colonel Rea Vele and Jason Poyer of Fagaitua High School; and Cadet Colonel Jessica Afalava of Leone High School. Mr. Speaker, as I was preparing my remarks for this special order, I had a difficult time trying to say with some sense of certainty, how the current debate now pending before the House Floor, is going to end--the options on whether Congress is going to officially ``declare war'' against the Republic of Yugoslavia, or whether Congress is simply going to pull the plug and tell the President of the United States to take our military presence completely out of Yugoslavia; or, that the President is not to move an inch until and unless the Congress says otherwise. Mr. Speaker, these options do not paint a very pretty picture for our nation and to our NATO Allies, let alone the lives of the three American soldiers that are now being held at risk. And Mr. Speaker, whether it be three American soldiers, 30,000 or 300,000--this begs the question how does America value the lives of our men and women in uniform? whether it be three, 3,000 or more? Mr. Speaker, I consider the life of any American soldier just as important as 3,000 or more. Mr. Speaker, how is it possible for this Congress to declare war against Yugoslavia and then decide to take our armed forces out of that country? The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, we already have committed our soldiers to Yugoslavia by keeping the peace in the State of Bosnia and already has cost our government some $9.4 billion to maintain the peace in this area of Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, there have been some arguments made that our Nation is not the ``policeman of the world,'' that this matter of Bosnia and Kosovo is not in our national interest. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may have already forgotten the fact that we did say that the Balkans is a European issue, and it should be handled by the Europeans. In fact, as I recall, President Chirac of France was quite specific about this matter, saying to the effect, ``You Americans stay out of this controversy. We in Europe will handle this.'' Well, we did. After 3 years of utter failure by France, England, Germany and other leading European countries to solve the crisis in Bosnia, our President was then asked to step in and the Dayton negotiations resulted in where we are now maintaining the peace in Bosnia. Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to be king of the mountain, the leader of the free world and the most powerful nation on this planet. I remember once mentioning to a foreign diplomat here in Washington that the United States is getting tired of being the world's policeman. This gentleman turned to me and said, ``So you would prefer China and Russia filling the vacuum? You would now prefer that we negotiate with China or Russia the global issues that will affect the life and death struggles of many nations that look up to America as their last hope for freedom and for economic and political stability?'' Mr. Speaker, I had to think again about what this diplomat said to me and wondered what would this world be like if America was not the premier leader of the free world, if America was to take the third or fourth seat down the line and allow China or Russia to lead the world on issues that affect the lives of every human being living in this world. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to stay the course, let the President lead this Nation, and that we should support his efforts to resolve the crisis in Kosovo. And if it becomes necessary that we utilize whatever force of arms to bring Milosevic to properly negotiate a peace agreement in that area of the world, so be it. And let us remember those three soldiers who are now held as hostages in Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Major Logoleo and his administrative staff, the instructors of the Junior ROTC program, and more especially some 1,000 high school cadet students who participate in this program. My only hope is that in the future the program will continue to give these young people excellent training in leadership, organization and a love and appreciation of the principles that our Nation was founded upon, equality, freedom and democracy.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Joint Resolution 44 which asks our colleagues for a declaration of war by the United States against the Government of the Republic of Yugoslavia. Although I have the greatest respect for the author of the resolution, the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and certainly a dear friend, I must respectfully oppose the resolution. Mr. Speaker, America's Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, deliberately drafted the Constitution to provide flexibility in the use of U.S. armed forces abroad. The President, as Commander in Chief, clearly has the authority to send our forces into potentially hostile situations without a declaration of war. In fact, since 1798 in our conflict with France over the Dominican Republic, to our air strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan against Bin Laden in 1998, CRS, the Congressional Research Service, has documented over 270 instances where America's Presidents have sent U.S. armed forces abroad into hostile situations. Over two centuries, and only five of these instances has the Congress actually declared war. Mr. Speaker, a declaration of war is neither necessary nor appropriate for our actions in Kosovo and Serbia. Our Nation and NATO are not at war with Yugoslavia. We are there to stop a sociopathic criminal from committing genocide against his Albanian citizens, actions which threatened to destabilize the Balkan nations, as well as Europe. A unilateral U.S. declaration of war would irresponsibly escalate the conflict, undermine our alliance with our NATO partners, and needlessly jeopardize our already tense relations with Russia. As a Vietnam veteran, Mr. Speaker, I have seen the violence of conflict, and it is not pretty. However, there are certain times when America must act because no other country can provide the leadership that we can. Almost a quarter of a million innocent people died from Milosevic's handiwork in Bosnia which Europe could not stop alone. Mr. Speaker, the call to action has come again, and America cannot stand idly by and let this madman continue with his genocidal campaign in Kosovo. The stakes are too high to play political games. I strongly urge our colleagues to defeat the resolution before us and support our armed forces in Kosovo and Serbia that are fighting to protect against these evil forces that Milosevic provides. Mr. Speaker, are we willing to allow China and Russia perhaps to take the lead in providing the leadership in global issues that affect all human beings on this planet? I dare not say, Mr. Speaker. Let America become the leader of the world as it should be in this issue affecting the Balkan area. Mr. Speaker, there have been only five instances in our nation's history that formal declarations of war were made by the Congress--the War of 1812 against England; the War of 1846 against Mexico; the War of 1898 against Spain; World War I and World War II. Mr. Speaker, there are ample precedents set not only by this President but by previous administrations as well, whereby acts of war have been always been part and parcel of U.S. foreign policies and security interests--I believe the Founding Fathers of this nation purposely placed the critical issues of war as a political and public policy matter rightfully as a matter to be decided by both the Administration and the Congress. Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Yugoslavia is not an American issue--it is a serious matter taken collectively with our Nation Allies. It is a matter that history has given all those European countries to seriously consider the alternative, if Milosevic is allowed to continue his policy of ethnic cleansing and atrocities by murdering and killing well over 300,000 human beings in that country, and the displacement of some 3.5 million persons now as refugees because of Milosevic's military activities in Yugoslavia. Mr. Speaker, am I to believe now that the most powerful nation on this planet is telling the world that the crisis in Yugoslavia is not in our national interest? If so, then why did the Congress allow our President to intervene and for which he provided a negotiated settlement on the Bosnia matter? Our President did his best to negotiate a settlement with Milosevic, but Milosevic refused and the bombing of Milosevic's military resources and related facilities was the only option left--simply to prevent more reckless killings and atrocities committed by Milosevic and his military forces. Mr. Speaker, this is not the time to tell the world and our NATO allies that we have now Americanized this conflict by officially declaring a war against Yugoslavia. Vote this resolution down.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation before the House, which commemorates the 20th anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) while reaffirming the strong commitment of the United States to provide for the legitimate defense needs of Taiwan under the TRA. I commend the author of the resolution, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, and the Democratic Ranking Member, Mr. Gejdenson, for moving this important resolution to the floor. I also recognize the Chairman and Democratic Ranking Member of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia-Pacific Affairs, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Lantos, as well as Mr. Rohrabacher, for their substantial contributions to formulation of the resolution. I am honored to join my colleagues on the House International Relations Committee as a co-sponsor in support of House Concurrent Resolution 56. Mr. Speaker, the United States has had a long, close and enduring relationship with Taiwan dating back to the end of World War II. With our support, Taiwan has risen from the region's ruins of war to become one of the world's strongest economies and most vibrant democracies in Asia. Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the people of Taiwan must be congratulated for the outstanding accomplishments of their thriving and prosperous democracy of 22 million people. All Americans should take pride in and share the achievements of our close friends. At the heart of the relationship between Taiwan and the United States is the Taiwan Relations Act, which for two decades has laid the foundation for peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. When the security of our friends in Taiwan was threatened by the People's Republic of China (PRC) in Spring of 1996, I supported the Clinton Administration in sending the Nimitz and Independence carrier groups to the Taiwan Strait to maintain peace. China's missile tests and threatened use of force contravened the PRC's commitments under the 1979 and 1982 Joint Communiques to resolve Taiwan's status by peaceful means. The Joint Communiques, in concert with the Taiwan Relations Act, lay the framework for our ``One China'' policy, which fundamentally stresses that force shall not be used in resolution of the Taiwan question. It is clearly in the interests of the United States and all parties that the obligation continues to be honored. Today, reports indicate that China has between 150 to 200 M-9 and M- 11 ballistic missiles in its southern regions facing Taiwan, and has protested U.S. efforts assisting Taiwan's defense as a violation of China's sovereignty. To pre-empt any Theater Missile Defense (TMD) that might be deployed in the future, China is expected to increase these missile batteries to over 650. Mr. Speaker, I find this situation unfortunate and ironic, as China has legitimate sovereignty interests to preserve with Taiwan, yet is providing the very justification for U.S. defensive intervention under the Taiwan Relations Act. If China truly desires to stop Taiwan from being included in plans for a U.S. Theater Missile Defense system for the Asia-Pacific region, then it should take immediate steps to defuse the crisis by scaling back its present deployment of ballistic missiles facing Taiwan, resuming the Cross-Strait Dialogue between Beijing and Taipei, and exerting influence with North Korea to curb development and proliferation of long-range missile technology. Mr. Speaker, in citing in part to the Taiwan issue, there is growing sentiment in Washington bent on portraying China as the major enemy of and security threat to the United States. I do not support this view, as it is unnecessarily alarmist and runs the risk of poisoning our longterm relationship with the PRC while undercutting our mission to integrate China as a responsible member of the international community. Nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the United States has demonstrated in recent years that the use of force by China against Taiwan will not be tolerated. The legislation before us reaffirms that fact, and the central role that the Taiwan Relations Act has played and will continue to play in ensuring U.S. commitment that Taiwan's status will be resolved peacefully by the governments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge our colleagues to support the resolution before us.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of news stories recently about attacks on Christians in India. These attacks are deplorable and should be condemned. But even as we condemn them, we ought not to lose sight of the fact that the government of India has acted swiftly--in word and in deed--to also condemn the attacks and to take strong action against those who appear to be the perpetrators. To date, there have been more than 200 people arrested in the two states, Gujarat and Orissa, where the violence has occurred. Both the two state governments and the central government have deployed extra manpower, particularly police and investigation support teams, into the regions. In Gujarat, where the attacks have ruined property, the state government has already authorized relief and compensation payments for damaged property. Not only has the government of India acted against the alleged perpetrators, it has condemned them, publicly and repeatedly, in no uncertain terms. Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Narayanan, India's head of government and head of state respectively, have spoken out against these crimes and those who would commit them. The Prime Minister even embarked on a one-day fast seeking a renewal of communal harmony, and did so on the January 30 anniversary date of the death of Mahatma Gandhi, India's revered leader, thereby trying his government's policies to Gandhi's ideals of non-violence and cultural diversity. It is right for the Prime Minister to link his fast and the ideals of Gandhi. India is a diverse nation. Although it is predominantly a Hindu nation, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains freely practice their religions and have for centuries. It is important to note that these attacks, as heinous as they are, have only occurred in two states, which is home to only a small portion of India's Christian community. The vast majority of Christians live in parts of India that have not seen any signs of violence. Mr. Speaker, let me close by noting that these attacks, terrible as they are, remind us that India itself remains a secular democracy, committed to the principles of individual tolerance and religious diversity. Its government has publicly demonstrated that commitment in recent weeks. It is to be commended for it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today and I will continue to do so in the coming weeks to express my utter dismay and disappointment with the United States Postal Service. On April 17, 1900, the traditional chiefs of the South Pacific Islands of Tutuila and Aunu'u agreed to become a part of the United States and the United States flag was raised on what is now known as the U.S. Territory of American Samoa. Since that time, the residents of American Samoa have been proud of their affiliation with this great Nation and have demonstrated their loyalty and patriotism in countless way. Mr. Speaker, April 17 is known as Flag Day in American Samoa and it is the biggest holiday in the territory. Flag Day celebrations are not limited to American Samoa. Flag Day is celebrated throughout the United States wherever there is a sizeable Samoan community. American Samoans in Hawaii, California, Nevada, Utah, Alaska, Washington, and other parts of the United States pause each year on this important date to celebrate this monumental occasion in its history. Unbeknownst to many Americans, Mr. Speaker, April 17 of next year will mark the 100th year in which this South Pacific territory, U.S. territory, has had a political relationship with the United States. And the local government leaders have been preparing for this centennial celebration for the last 3 years. Three years ago, American Samoa's governor and myself began the process of requesting that a U.S. postage stamp be issued to commemorate the centennial of American Samoa joining the part of the American political family. The Postal Service responded to our 1996 request for a stamp by saying we were too early to apply for consideration. We again asked last year, and we were told we applied too late. We have also been told that the Postal Service just does not recognize territorial events. Having researched the issue, which expected America Samoa to be treated like any other American jurisdiction in this regard. States which have had centennials of their statehood commemorated recently on postage stamps include the States of Wisconsin, Tennessee, Iowa, Utah, Florida, and Texas. The Postal Service also issues stamps to commemorate such territorial acquisitions as the Louisiana Purchase, and the acquisitions of the territories of Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. America Samoa, Mr. Speaker, is the only U.S. territory left which voluntarily joined the United States. We have waited 100 years for a commemorative stamp, and the Postal Service is still making excuses. Mr. Speaker, how much longer do we have to wait? Mr. Speaker, this is absurd. I ask my fellow Americans to write and to e-mail the U.S. Postal Service to give American Samoa its centennial postage stamp. Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service's conduct in handling this matter is clearly inconsistent with past Postal Service practices. The Postal Service has issued commemorative stamps for flowers like roses, comic strips, horses, and even a foreign country like Australia. Yet here, when the request is one for recognition of a celebration of a political union with the United States territory, the first of such stamp for an American territory, the Postal Service saw fit to reject the request on grounds that it would not add to its so-called balanced stamp program. Many Americans do not realize this, Mr. Speaker, but American Samoa was a major staging area for some 40,000 soldiers and Marines in World War II. Thousands of Samoa's sons and daughters served proudly in the military service. Mr. Speaker, this is absolutely ridiculous, and I appeal to my fellow Americans to write to the Postal Service, tell them why we should have a postage stamp. We need a postage stamp, and I think we could ask for no less. The per capita rate of enlistment in the U.S. military services is as high as any state or territory; for decades American Samoa served as a Naval coaling station for our ships in the Pacific; during World War II, American Samoa was the staging point for 30,000 U.S. marines involved in the Pacific theater; the territory was the first land some astronauts came to during the Apollo missions, including the now famous Apollo 13 mission; and American Samoa produces more NFL player per capita than any jurisdiction in the U.S. with approximately 15 Samoans currently playing professional ball. In the 1990's, stamps were issued in recognition of the Federated States of Micronesia (1990), the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (1993), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (1990), and the Republic of Palau (1995), all of which were territories in recent memory. Mr. Speaker, with this history of recognizing centennials of statehood, acquisitions of territories and other important events in the political history of every other territory, I ask the U.S. Postal Service why not American Samoa? Mr. Speaker, I am here today to tell you that there is no balance. There is no logic. There is no equality in treatment. The Postal Service is acting in a manner that is totally inconsistent with its past practices and decisions. How else can you explain the inconsistent actions the Postal Service has taken regarding treatment of U.S. territories. Perhaps American Samoa stands a better chance of convincing the Postal Service to issue a commemorative stamp if it reframed the current request as one asking for a stamp to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the special relationship between the Samoan Fruit Bat and the United States. The Postal Service has seen fit to issue stamps for a variety of issues and causes, including birds, and perhaps this change in approach will bolster our chances for success. To achieve balance in representation, Mr. Speaker, is a very difficult task. Reasonable persons with reasonable expectations will disagree about what reasonably balanced means. However, this is not the situation here. The Postal Service is being totally unreasonable on these facts. I understand that decisions about which stamp requests to approve and which stamp requests to reject are difficult decisions to make and that in the end there will always be a person or group who will not be happy with such decisions. I respect the fact that the postal service cannot please everyone. I have no qualms with these aspects of the stamp- approval process. I do, however, have serious concerns and reservations when decision-making processes yield results that do not logically follow based on established precedent. Mr. Speaker, it is inequitable and unreasonable to deny American Samoa what the Postal Service has routinely granted other U.S. territories and states. I will not stand by idly, Mr. Speaker, when my constituents, the people of American Samoa--people who are deeply patriotic and appreciative of the relationship American Samoa shares with our Republic--are unequitably treated by a semi-independent agency of our Federal Government. Neither will my colleagues in the House and Senate. Numerous Members of Congress have written to the Postal Service urging the Postal Service to treat American Samoa's request in the same manner it has treated similar requests by the other territories. Despite these efforts to persuade, using precedent and reason, the Postal Service to this day refuses to issue a commemorative stamp honoring the 100th anniversary of the union between the U.S. and American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do what is right, what is just, what is fair, and what is reasonable on these facts. Nothing more. I ask that you join the people of American Samoa in urging the Postal Service to reconsider its position and to grant American Samoa's request for a postal stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of its political union with the United States.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on House Concurrent Resolution 42, a measure regarding the use of United States Armed Forces as part of a NATO peacekeeping operation to implement a peace agreement in Kosovo. At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would voice my objection on procedural grounds to the rule authorizing debate today of H. Con. Res. 42, a measure on which the Democrats had no input and the Administration has not been permitted to comment upon. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the fragile peace negotiations on Kosovo are being conducted by the six member Contact Group and international community as we speak. Because of the sensitivity of these on-going negotiations, this is the absolute worst time to hold a contentious debate on Kosovo in the House of Representatives. Mixed signals from the U.S. Congress concerning the U.S. role in Kosovo undercut the Administration's ability to forge a successful peace agreement between the warring factions in Kosovo. Already the situation is being manipulated by Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic, whose belligerence has been encouraged by perceived ambivalence in Washington. No doubt this has played a role in recent setbacks to the peace process, as exemplified by Milosevic's emboldened insistence to U.S. Special Envoy Richard Holbrooke that any political agreement based upon his country's acceptance of foreign troops is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to vote against the rule on H. Con. Res. 42. It is clearly irresponsible to hold a divisive Kosovo debate now in Congress that will, in all likelihood, materially damage prospects for a lasting peace agreement being reached in that war-torn province. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, if a peace accord in Kosovo is negotiated, I would urge support for the President's authority to deploy U.S. troops to implement the peace agreement, as embodied in H. Con. Res. 42. As the world's lone superpower, I believe the government of the United States has a moral obligation to do what we can to stop the senseless bloodshed in Kosovo. Already over 200,000 lives have been sacrificed in the region's violence and it must be stopped. On a strategic level, it is important that the war in Kosovo not be allowed to escalate and spread, threatening the stability of surrounding Balkan states as well as that of NATO partners, Greece and Turkey. The United States has a strategic interest in preserving the peace and stability of all of Europe, including its southern flank. Achieving these important objectives require that an international peacekeeping force be formed by NATO. As NATO's leader, I believe it appropriate and not an undue burden that the United States contribute 4,000 U.S. troops, only 14% of the total NATO deployment of 28,000 peacekeeping soldiers. History has shown repeatedly that if the United States does not participate and lead, NATO is ineffective and falls apart. Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, America cannot afford to walk away from the genocide and instability festering in Kosovo. I urge our colleagues to support H. Con. Res. 42 and its urgent mission to bring peace to the long suffering people of Kosovo.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of legislation which is being introduced today by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes-Norton with the four Congressional delegates as cosponsors. The legislation would amend the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act to extend the program by an additional year for the purpose of including the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands. Mr. Speaker, in the 105th Congress when we passed the Commemorative Coin Program Act, the insular areas were omitted from the legislation. Current law authorizes the minting of twenty-five cent coins to commemorate each of the 50 states through state-specific designs on one side of the coins. It is a ten-year program, with five states being honored each year. This bill amends current law by adding an eleventh year to the program. During this year, the District of Columbia and the four insular areas, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, would also be recognized through the minting of twenty-five cent coins. Commemorative designs on one side of the coins would be submitted by the chief executive officer of these areas. This legislation is very timely for my Congressional district, Mr. Speaker. American Samoa will celebrate the centennial of its union with the United States in the year 2000. American Samoa has a long, proud history of supporting the United States--ever since the traditional leaders of the main island of Tutuila ceded their island to the United States on April 17, 1900. Tutuila's beautiful harbor is the deepest in the South Pacific, and the port village of Pago Pago was used as a coaling station for U.S. naval ships in the early part of the century and as a support base for U.S. soldiers during World War II. To this day, American Samoa serves as a refueling point for U.S. naval ships and military aircraft. At the present time, American Samoans have a per capita enlistment rate in the U.S. military which is as high as any state or U.S. territory. Our sons and daughters have served in record numbers in every U.S. military engagement from World War II to the present operations in the Middle East. We have stood by the United States in good times and bad, and we will continue to do so. Congress has recognized American Samoa's proud heritage on numerous occasions, and many of my constituents have asked that the United States Government provide special recognition of the 100th year of our union. I believe it would be most fitting to acknowledge the centennial anniversary of our relationship with the United States with the issuance of a commemorative coin, and I am optimistic that this bill will become public law later this year.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I personally want to thank the gentleman from Arizona for allowing me such time to share my thoughts with my colleagues and certainly with the American people concerning this great American. Mr. Speaker, I first met Congressman Udall in 1975 when I became a staffer for the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He became chairman of the committee in 1977 and used this position very effectively in support of our Nation's environmental needs. During his 30-year career in the House, he was known for his considerable legislative accomplishments, his unfailing grace, and was respected by all those who knew him. Mr. Speaker, known as one of the more liberal Members of the House, his ideas were opposed by many but have since come to be recognized as part of our national evolution. His legislative accomplishments were noteworthy: Strip mine control legislation, protection of millions of acres of Federal lands as wilderness, revision of Federal pay system, establishment of the Postal Service as a semiprivate organization, reform of the Civil Service to promote merit pay, more flexibility for Federal managers, and the enactment of the first meaningful laws governing the financing of Federal campaigns. Mr. Speaker, earlier in his career he was a professional basketball player, lawyer, county attorney, lecturer and cofounder of even a bank. He ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall ran for the Speaker of this institution against Representative John McCormick in 1969. Like another of my heroes, the late Congressman Phil Burton, Mo Udall lost his race for a leadership position and then devoted his efforts to legislative work. As a Nation we continue to benefit from Congressman Udall's work on broad environmental issues and Congressman Burton's work for our national parks. I am honored, Mr. Speaker, to have considered Mo Udall a true friend and am further honored to make this tribute to him. This resolution recognizes his achievements and he will live on in the memories of those who knew him for decades to come. Mr. Speaker, Mo Udall's legacy will be remembered by Members of this institution and for the past years, for now and even for future generations to come, millions of Americans will come to enjoy the beauty of our national parks, our rivers, our national refuges and wildernesses all because one man made a difference, struggling very hard in very difficult times to pass national legislation to preserve these national treasures. Mo Udall's name will never be forgotten. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I admired most about this great man, this great American, is that he truly had a love and affection for the Native American people. I recall, Mr. Speaker, in the movie ``Dances with Wolves,'' if you remember that one incident where Kevin Costner was walking along the riverside or the meadows with this Indian chief and this Indian chief turned to Kevin Costner and said, ``You know, my most, if there is anything that I want to be in my life, was to become a true human being.'' I would like to say on behalf of all the Samoans living here in the United States, I pay a special tribute to Mo Udall. He was truly a human being.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to provide improved administrative procedures for the Federal recognition to certain Indian groups. Mr. Speaker, I have been working on this issue now for over seven years. In 1994, the House passed similar legislation but that effort died in the Senate. Although this legislation was defeated in the House late last year, we are still faced with an expensive, unfair process through which Indian groups seeking federal recognition must go. I still wish to help address the historical wrongs that the two hundred unrecognized tribes in this nation have faced. This bill streamlines the existing procedures for extending federal recognition to Indian tribes, removes the tremendous bureaucratic maze and subjective standards the Bureau of Indian Affairs has placed against recognizing Indian tribes, but also provides due process, equity and fairness to the whole problem of Indian recognition. Mr. Speaker, a broad coalition of unrecognized Indian tribes has advocated reform for years for several reasons. First, the BIA's budget limitations over the years have, in fact, created a certain bias against recognizing new Indian tribes. Second, the process has always been too expensive, costing some tribes well over $500,000, and most of these tribes just do not have this kind of money to spend. I need not remind my colleagues of the fact that Native American Indians today have the worst statistics in the nation when it comes to education, economic activity and social development. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the recognition process for the First Americans has been an embarrassment to our government and certainly to the people of America. If only the American people can ever feel and realize the pain and suffering that the Native Americans have long endured, there would probably be another American revolution. Mr. Speaker, the process to provide federal recognition to Native American tribes simply takes too long. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has been completing an average of 1.3 petitions per year. At this rate, it will take over 100 years to resolve questions on all tribes which have expressed an intent to be recognized. Mr. Speaker, the current process does not provide petitioners with due process--for example, the opportunity to cross examine witnesses and on-the-record hearings. The same experts who conduct research on a petitioner's case are also the ``judge and jury'' in the process! In 1996, in the case of Greene v. Babbitt, 943 F. Supp. 1278 (W. Dist. Wash), the federal court found that the current procedures for recognition were ``marred by both lengthy delays and a pattern of serious procedural due process violations. The decision to recognize the Samish took over twenty-five years, and the Department has twice disregarded the procedures mandated by the APA, the Constitution, and this Court,'' (p. 1288). Among other statements contained in Judge Thomas Zilly's opinion were: ``The Samish people's quest for federal recognition as an Indian tribe has a protracted and tortuous history . . . made more difficult by excessive delays and governmental misconduct.'' (p. 1281) And again at pp. 1288-1289, ``Under these limited circumstances, where the agency has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of regard for the substantive and procedural rights of the petitioning party, and the agency's decision maker has failed to maintain her role as an impartial and disinterested adjudicator . . .'' Sadly, the Samish's administrative and legal conflict--much of which was at public expense--could have been avoided were it not for a clerical error of the Bureau of Indian Affairs which 29 years ago, inadvertently left the Samish Tribe's name off the list of recognized tribes in Washington. With a record like this, it is little wonder that many tribes have lost faith in the Government's recent recognition procedures. President Clinton has acknowledged the problem. In a 1996 letter to the Chinook Tribe of Washington, the President wrote, ``I agree that the current federal acknowledgment process must be improved.'' He said that some progress has been made, ``but much more must be done.'' To those who say we should retain the current criteria, and not permit tribes which have been rejected under the current administrative procedure to apply for reconsideration, I say read the Greene case. It is rare that a court is so critical of an executive agency, but in this case there clearly is a problem. This bill addresses the problem directly. Mr. Speaker, the legislation I am introducing today will eliminate the above concerns by establishing an independent three member commission which will work within the Department of the Interior to review petitions for recognition. This legislation will provide tribes with the opportunity for public, trial-type hearings and sets strict time limits for action on pending petitions. In addition, the bill streamlines and makes more objective the federal recognition criteria by aligning them with the legal standards in place prior to 1978, as laid out by the father of Indian Law, Felix S. Cohen in 1942. Some have expressed concern that this bill will open the door for more tribes to conduct gambling operations on new reservations. While I cannot say that no new gambling operations will result from this bill, I do believe that this bill will have only a minimal impact in this area. I would like to remind my colleagues that: unlike state-sponsored gaming operations, Indian gaming is highly regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; before gaming can be conducted, the tribes must reach an agreement with the state in which the gaming would be conducted; under IGRA (the Indian Gaming and Regulatory Act) gaming can only be conducted on land held in trust by the federal government; and any gaming profits can only be used for tribal development, such as water and sewer systems, schools, and housing. The point I want to make is even if an Indian group wanted to obtain recognition to start a gambling operation, they couldn't do it just for that purpose. Ninety percent of the substance of the current criteria are unchanged in the bill before us today. For a group to obtain federal recognition, it would still have to prove its origins, cultural heritage, existence of governmental structure, and everything else currently required. Should that burden be overcome, a tribe would need a reservation or land held in trust by the federal government. This bill makes no effort to provide land to any group being recognized. If the land issue is overcome, under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, a tribe cannot conduct gaming operations unless it has an agreement to do so with the state government. A prior Congress put this into the law in an effort to balance the rights of the states to control gambling activity within its borders, and the rights of sovereign tribal nations to conduct activities on their land. The difficulty in obtaining gaming compacts with states made the national news for months last year because of the almost absolute veto power the states have under current law. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this reading of the law in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). I want to emphasize this point--this is not a gambling bill, this is a bill to create a fair, objective process by which Indian groups can be evaluated for possible federal recognition. Mr. Speaker, this bill is not perfect in every form, but it is the result of many hours of consultations. I have sought to work with the tribes and with the Administration to come up with sound, careful changes that recognize the historical struggles the unrecognized tribes have gone through, yet at the same time recognizes the hard work the Bureau of Indian Affairs has done lately in making positive changes through regulations to address these problems. We have reached agreement on almost every major issue, and these changes have been incorporated into this bill. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I hope we can take final action on the issue of Indian recognition before this century ends and start the next century by addressing at least some of the wrongs of the past two centuries.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, although I am denied the privilege of voting on the floor of this great institution, on behalf of the thousands of Samoan Americans men and women who proudly wear with pride and honor the uniforms of our armed services wherever they are in the world, I am grateful for at least the privilege to express an opinion on this most serious issue that is now before this body. Mr. Speaker, if we proceed to vote on the articles of impeachment, as mandated or forced upon the Democratic Members by our friends in the majority, I find it difficult to comprehend why procedurally the Members on this side of the aisle are not at least afforded the courtesy of voting, as a matter of conscience, to censure the President of the United States. They have the votes to impeach, but for the sake of fairness, why are Members so adamant in not allowing other Members who also represent millions of our fellow Americans to vote for censure? Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the majority, and they are my friends, when all of this is over, with blood all over this floor, my friends in the majority will have pounded and hammered some 218 nails on the flesh of this man without even an ounce of blood as a cure. Mr. Speaker, although I am denied the privilege of voting on the floor of this great institution, on behalf of the thousands of Samoan- American men and women who proudly wear with pride and honor the uniforms of our armed services--wherever they are in the world--I am grateful for at least the privilege to express an opinion on this most serious issue that is now before this body. Some twenty-four years ago Congress moved toward the impeachment of President Nixon. In that case, President Nixon directed the FBI and CIA to coverup illegal activity, used the IRS to investigate political enemies, and cheated on his personal income taxes. Those actions were grave enough that it was expected that more than a two-thirds majority of the Senate would vote to convict. In contrast, the actions taken by President Clinton were of a personal nature and his attempts to save himself and his family from personal embarrassment are not, in my opinion, impeachable. Some have argued that a resolution of censure is unconstitutional. I am not persuaded by that argument. For one reason, such resolutions have been pursued on several occasions in the past, including a Senate censure of Andrew Jackson in 1834, resolutions and statements of censure against President John Adams in 1800, against President John Tyler in 1842, against President James Polk in 1848, and against President James Buchanan in 1860 and 1862. In more modern times, two censure resolutions were brought against President Richard Nixon, one in 1973 and one in 1974. The actions the Congress cannot take against a President, such as reducing his salary during a current term in office, are spelled out in our Constitution. No where does it say the Congress cannot express its opinion of actions taken by a sitting President. Mr. Jack Maskell, author of a recent CRS report on this issue notes that although there is ``no express constitutional provision regarding censure . . . there is also no express constitutional impediment'' for Congress to adopt a resolution expressing censure. It is also being argued that censure is no more than a slap on the wrist. In fact, strongly-worded resolution of censure is sure punishment which would have greater impact, in current terms and in the future, than this doomed-to-fail effort to remove the President from office. In addition to being disproportionate to the wrongs committed, a trial in the Senate based on articles of impeachment adopted by the U.S. House of Representatives will distract the Nation for months and make it more difficult for the Congress to attend to its legislative duties. Such an action at this time lowers the standard for future impeachments, and will encourage future Congresses to bring articles of impeachment against future Presidents for offenses other than ``high crimes and misdemeanors.'' As a practical matter, a trial in the Senate on articles of impeachment against President Clinton will likely not result--in my opinion--in a conviction by a two-thirds majority vote as required by the constitution. Mr. Speaker, if we proceed to vote on the articles of impeachment as mandated or forced upon the Democratic Members by our friends in the majority, I find it difficult to comprehend why, procedurally, the Members on this side of the aisle are not at least afforded the courtesy of voting--as a matter of conscience--to censure the President of the United States. You have the votes to impeach, but for the sake of fairness, why are you so adamant in not allowing other members, who also represent millions of our fellow Americans, to vote for censure? Mr. Speaker, I say to my friends in the majority--and you are my friends--when all this is over, with blood all over this floor, my friends in the majority will have pounded and hammered some 218 nails or more on some 218 pounds of this man's flesh with your hands, without even an ounce of blood as a cure. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day for our American democracy. Instead of acting according to the highest principles of compromise, consensus and bipartisanship, the American people are witnessing the worst example of how we, as representatives of the people, are acting in a most pathetic, mean-spirited, adversarial, partisan process. Mr. Speaker, I submit--God definitely needs to bless America.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I join strongly with our colleagues in urging passage of this resolution of support for our men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces now confronting Saddam Hussein in the Persian Gulf. Mr. Speaker, the Iraqi Government has repeatedly shown contempt for the diplomatic resolution of the crisis created by their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs. Over the last year, Saddam Hussein has pushed the United States and the International community three times to the brink of war, only to dance away under cover of diplomatic ruses. With the UNSCOM report issued days ago and Ramadan to begin this weekend, it is clear that the time for diplomacy is over. The Iraqi Government has lied again and U.N. weapons inspectors have been stopped from doing their job. U.S. and British military forces in the Persian Gulf are now ensuring what diplomacy could not--that Iraq will not threaten the region nor the world with weapons of mass destruction. I commend President Clinton for making this courageous decision at this very difficult time--knowing opponents at home and overseas would charge him with undercutting the impeachment proceedings. I don't buy into these charges, as we all know, as does the President, that the impeachment shall continue and the outcome will not change. If anything, his action at this time will only harden the impeachment vote against him. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support the Commander-in-Chief and our Armed Forces in the Gulf that have placed their lives at risk to ensure that nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from Iraq or other rogue nations do not threaten our shores and that of our allies.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of House Resolution 494, the Guam Centennial Resolution. Mr. Speaker, as other speakers have already noted, this year marks the 100th anniversary of the first flying of the American flag over the island of Guam. Over the past 100 years, a lot of things have changed, but Guam's loyalty to the United States has remained steadfast. To the best of my knowledge, Guam remains the only populated U.S. territory to have been captured and occupied by enemy forces during World War II. Despite the repressive tactics of the Japanese during their three-year occupation of the Island of Guam, the people of Guam remained loyal to the United States, and lost many lives and suffered inhumane treatment simply because they retained this strong loyalty. The citizens of Guam have in the past and continue to support our military services with high enlistment rates and the loss of local land given up for military based in support of their island and the rest of our nation. Even today, Guam hosts significant naval and air force bases which frequently are the staging point for national military operations in the Pacific. As foreign countries have dictated the removal of our operational stations in the western Pacific, Guam's location in the central Pacific has increased in importance, and today is considered to be of strategic importance. Despite the support of the U.S. citizens in Guam of the United States over the past century, their desire for increased autonomy has met with resistance in Washington, D.C. I wish to commend Congressman Underwood for his efforts to fight for increased automy for the people of Guam and for his efforts to move this legislation to the floor today. I also want to recognize Congressman Don Young, Chairman of the Committee on Resources, and Congressman George Miller, Senior Democrat on the Committee for their support of today's legislation and their continued support of the U.S. insular areas in general.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have come before our colleagues and the Nation several times regarding Indonesia's brutal suppression of the Melanesian people of West Papua New Guinea, or Irian Jaya province, as the Indonesian Government has renamed West Papua. Last month, I welcomed the announcement of a significant development in the Indonesian Government's position on West Papua. According to press reports from Jakarta, Indonesia's President B.J. Habibie agreed to call for a national dialog on West Papua as soon as possible. The proposed dialogue, supported by Indonesian Parliamentary leader Abdul Gafur and the Indonesian Council of Protestant Churches, was to address a three-part agenda covering: (1) human rights, (2) autonomy matters, and (3) issues of independence. Although President Habibie's pronouncement was very welcome news, I am disturbed by recent developments in West Papua that have called into question his sincerity in pushing for true reform. Within the past week, the Indonesian authorities have shown a shocking disregard for political openess in West Papua by arbitrarily incarcerating several leaders and local officials in West Papua. On October 1, Amnesty International issued an action alert regarding the arrest of Don Falsy, a respected civil servant with the Regional Development Planning Body in Jayapura. According to Amnesty International, it is ``concerned for the safety of Don Falsy who has been in detention since 29 September 1998 and who has been denied access to his lawyers, raising fears that he is at risk of ill-treatment.'' Amnesty International states that ``Don Falsy was arrested without a warrant at his home in Jayapura, the capital of the province of Irian Jaya, by local police and taken . . . he continues to be detained.'' Noting that Don Falsy's arrest is in connection with his alleged role in planning a meeting in Jayapura to discuss the independence of West Papua, Amnesty International states that ``Don Falsy is a possible prisoner of conscience who appears to have been detained for the peaceful exercise of his beliefs.'' Mr. Speaker, the arrest of Don Falsy for his political beliefs is not an isolated case. Also taken into custody last week for the association with Don Falsy were church leader, Reverend Augustinus Ansanai, and two local officials, Baas Yufuwai and Marinus Mehuwe. And just yesterday, another prominent Papuan leader, Theys H. Eluay, was arrested by the Indonesian police on questionable charges of subversion. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to join Amnesty International in calling upon the Indonesian Government to allow Don Falsy and other jailed Papuan leaders immediate, regular and on-going access to their lawyers. Furthermore, we request that the Indonesian authorities ensure that these prisoners of conscience are protected from ill-treatment, and that they be promptly released from custody if they are being held solely for the peaceful expression of their belief in support of West Papuan independence. Mr. Speaker, while the Government of Indonesia has committed itself to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights--including Article 19 which holds that ``Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression . . .''--the recent arrests in West Papua are a flagrant violation of this solemn commitment for which Jakarta should be condemned and held accountable. Combat Troops Pull Out of Irian Jaya JAKARTA, Indonesia (October 4, 1998--British Broadcasting Corporation)--The Indonesian armed forces are reported to have ended their special operations in the province of Irian Jaya. The move comes amid mounting evidence of past army atrocities. Irian Jaya is the third region in the Indonesian archipelago where the military has scaled down its activities following President Suharto's resignation. Pro-independence rebels have engaged in a low-level conflict with the military in Irian Jaya since the mid 1960s. The decision by the armed forces to end the special status of Irian Jaya follows a cease fire agreement with one of the rebel groups. Antara, the state-run news agency, quoted a regional commander as saying combat troops would withdraw but other soldiers would remain to guarantee security. Major-General Amir Sembiring said a cease fire had been agreed to between the military and the separatist Free Papua Movement (OPM) rebels. ``The military operation status has been revoked and our activities will be shifted to safeguard vulnerable areas,'' he added. But he also said he had ordered the immediate arrest of protesters who had raised separatist flags in the northern town of Manokwari on Friday. allegations of torture and killings The military's withdrawal follows a new policy of reducing activity in troubled areas in order to avoid the human rights violations which harmed Indonesia's international image under Mr. Suharto. Combat operations against the pro-independence movement in East Timor stopped in June. That coincided with an offer of autonomy from President B.J. Habibie which has given new hope for an end to the conflict there. In August, the armed forces also pulled troops out of the province of Aceh after revelations of widespread abuses against the local population. Human rights groups hope the move in Irian Jaya will end similar abuses there. Many allegations of torture and extra-judicial killings have been made against the soldiers who went into a remote area of the province in 1996 after separatist rebels took a number of Indonesians and Europeans hostage. some irians calling for independence Irian Jaya, home to one of the world's biggest gold and copper mines, the Freeport, is a former Dutch East Indies territory of 1.5 million people. It forms the western half of the huge island of new Guinea, with independent Papua New Guinea occupying the eastern half. Our correspondent Jonathan Head says just as the Indonesian authorities are adopting a softer approach towards dissent, they are facing more open hostility in Irian Jaya. The political changes in Jakarta have prompted many Irians to campaign for an independent state despite warnings from the military that this is unacceptable. Those soldiers who remain in the province have the difficult task of trying to contain the growing opposition to Indonesian rule without resorting to the heavy-handed tactics of the past.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for S. 459, a measure to reauthorize the Native American Programs Act of 1974. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Native American Programs Act to extend the authorization to fiscal year 2000 of appropriations for programs administered by the Administration for Native Americans (ANA) with the Department of Health and Human Services. This legislation would also reauthorize, for a period of 1 year, the Native Hawaiian revolving loan fund. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical to continue the availability of a modest amount of grant funds used by native communities nationwide to foster economic growth, develop tools for good governance and promote social welfare. In 1974, the Native American Programs Act was enacted by Congress to assist tribes and other Native American communities with developing social, economic, and governance strategies in order to become economically self-sufficient. Since its enactment, hundreds of tribes, reservation communities, and other native organizations have benefited from the programs funded under this Act, programs which foster the development of stable, diversified local economies by developing the physical, commercial, industrial and/or agricultural components necessary for a functioning economic base. ANA has provided grants for governance, social, and economic development projects; grants to assist with tribal recognition efforts; grants for projects to assist tribes in their capacity to meet environmental requirements; grants to support projects which promote the survival and preservation of Native American languages and funds to support the Native Hawaiian revolving loan fund. These projects have served to improve the quality of living for thousands of Native American families and communities. The ANA funding policy is to assist Indian Tribes and Native American organizations to plan and implement their own long-term strategies for social and economic development. The aim is to increase local productivity and reduce dependence on government social services. This legislation will extend until fiscal year 2000 the authorization for these modestly funded yet very successful programs to strengthen and rebuild tribal communities around the United States. I wish to thank my good friends, Senator Campbell, Senator Inouye and Senator Murkowski for their efforts to extend the authorization for these valuable resources to improve opportunities for self-sufficiency for Native American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and other native peoples. Mr. Speaker, the programs authorized in this measure are critical to fostering social and economic self-sufficiency--a goal shared by this Congress as we move toward greater fiscal responsibility in all American communities. I urge my colleagues to act favorably and expeditiously on this measure.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my friend.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, again I want to commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of our Committee on International Relations, for his leadership and for bringing this piece of legislation to the floor. My commendation also to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) for his participation and his support of this legislation; and certainly my good friend, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for their support. Mr. Speaker, this resolution gives a sense of observation and recognition of this 59th anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non- Aggression. The resolution reaffirms the U.S. Policy of the nonrecognition of the occupation by the Soviet Union of the free Baltic states, mainly Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, subsequent to this infamous non-agression pact which was done in 1939. The resolution also urges Russia to renounce as illegal the Molotov- Ribbentrop NonAgression Pact and its secret protocols. The resolution welcomes the signing of the U.S.-Baltic Charter in January 1998, and it calls also on the President and the Secretary of State to ensure that Russia understands that the Nazi-Soviet Non- Aggression Pact should be considered illegal, null and void. The resolution will have no impact on U.S. foreign policy, Mr. Speaker. Rather, it is intended as an implicit warning to the Russians to keep their hands off the Baltic states and to emphasize that these states are no longer in the Russian sphere of influence. This resolution may cause minor problems with our Russian friends, but so it does call on the administration to push our Russian friends to formally renounce the nonaggression pact as illegal, null and void. The administration does not oppose this resolution, Mr. Speaker. Privately it questions its need and utility, but we think it is important. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we continue to condemn the Nazi- Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939 which led directly to the illegal incorporation of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union, an act which the United States for some 50 years refused to recognize. Mr. Speaker, in 1918 under the League of Nations then, the countries of Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia were fully recognized as sovereign and independent nations and these nations were duly recognized even by our own country. But then in 1939 the nations of Germany under Adolf Hitler and Russia under Joseph Stalin signed an agreement known as the Nazi- Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression which basically divided these Baltic states. Estonia and Latvia went to Poland, Poland became part of the Soviet Union, and, of course, Lithuania became part of Germany. But in 1940 the Soviet Union invaded these three countries and occupied them ever since then. Mr. Speaker, ironically our country never officially recognized the occupation of these three countries. In 1991 with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the Cold War was over, these Baltic states are again duly recognized as sovereign and independent nations. As the process of NATO enlargement unfolds next year, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we underscore our strong commitment to the continued independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of these three Baltic states. The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of an African proverb that states that when two elephants fight, the grass gets trodden. It seems that these countries, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, always get caught when larger and more powerful nations fight. Mr. Speaker, I submit, let us not allow this to happen again to these three states. A couple of years ago it was my privilege to visit the newly recognized states of Estonia and Latvia. They are good people, no different from us here in America. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have got to recognize the importance of this resolution. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.