Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1728 establishes new procedures by which potential new additions to the National Park System are studied. The bill is identical to the language in title II of H.R. 260 from the 104th Congress. The administration and other interested parties are in general support of putting in place new procedures for the study of potential additions to the National Park System. These new procedures make a lot of sense to me. They will improve the quality of information we have on potential additions to the National Park System, as well as help prioritize our consideration of such additions. With the minor changes to the bill that were made by the Committee on Resources, I think the House should give the bill its unqualified support. I urge my colleagues to adopt this proposed bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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. Speaker, this proposed legislation now before us was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla). The bill, H.R. 3047, authorizes the addition of 16 acres to the Fort Davis National Historic Site in Texas. This is a measure that the National Park Service testified in favor of at the hearing that was held before our Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. I understand that the 16 acres in question is being acquired by a third party and will be donated to the park once the necessary authorization is received. Mr. Speaker, I support the passage of this legislation and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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, H.R. 765 introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a member of the Committee on Resources, requires the National Park Service to maintain a herd of wild horses on Shackleford Banks at Cape Lookout National Seashore. On July 16, 1998, President Clinton signed Public Law 105-202, the Peace Garden Memorial extension. Included as part of that law was language that is identical to the gentleman's bill, which is H.R. 765. Mr. Speaker, I do want to highly commend my good friend and colleague from North Carolina for his ingenuity in seeing that although this has already become law but I think for reassurances to make sure that the gentleman's horses on Shackleford are duly protected. I want to commend the gentleman for his persistence in making sure that this matter is going to be taken care of. I say to my colleagues that this matter has been addressed, although I think it is good that we need to give this reinforcement in the process. I thank my good friend from North Carolina for his persistence in this bill. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, H.R. 765. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues before me, I rise to extend my heartfelt sympathies and deepest condolences to the families of Officers Jacob Chestnut and Detective John Gibson. We pay this special congressional tribute today in honor of these extraordinary and courageous Americans who sacrificed their lives so that the Members of this institution and the public could be protected from harm and from danger. Mr. Speaker, sometimes we take it for granted that our Capitol Hill officers perform their duties day and night, faithfully, steadfastly, without complaint and with quiet dedication. At all times, they are willing to assist us and assist our constituents, going out of their way to be helpful and courteous. They serve this institution with dignity, with selflessness and, Mr. Speaker, as this tragedy as shown us, they serve this institution with great courage. My colleagues in the House, for all I know, it could have been any one of us walking down that Capitol hallway last Friday afternoon, any one of us or any one of the thousands of more than 18,000 staff members and visitors who enter that hallway of the Capitol building every day. It could have been any one of us. The violence was that random. Mr. Speaker, several members of Congress could have been hurt or killed last Friday. These brave officers, John Gibson and Jacob Chestnut, took the bullets instead. They took the bullets that recklessly endangered everyone in that hallway, including visitors who wanted very much to see America's greatest monument, a building that symbolizes freedom and democracy throughout the world. In this moment when there was only time to act, we saw the true nature of both of these men. We saw their courage and saw their deeply selfless impulse to protect life and to protect the sacred space which is at the very heart of this democracy, the House of Representatives of the American people. So while this tragedy has shocked all of us, Mr. Speaker, I would join my colleagues who have urged that it not result in undue restrictions of public access; restrictions that would change the very essence and character of the People's House. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all the men and women in uniform, along with these two gentlemen, who perform their duties day and night to protect us and to protect all Americans who grace the people's House with their presence to witness the world's greatest democracy. We know that all of them are sworn to protect this institution, as were Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. Mr. Speaker, words simply cannot express our great sorrow and the depth of gratitude. Mr. Speaker, in our Samoan tradition we say--(The gentleman from American Samoa spoke in Samoan)--``May your voyage be one of greatness and with great success.'' Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Christian-Green). (Ms. CHRISTIAN-GREEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 301, which reaffirms the commitment of the United States to Taiwan under the Taiwan Relations Act. I commend the authors of the resolution, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. DeLay, and the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Snowbarger. I further commend the Chairman and ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman and Mr. Hamilton, and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia-Pacific Affairs, Mr. Bereuter and Mr. Berman, and our other colleagues that have worked toward adoption of this important measure. I am proud to join our colleagues in support of the legislation. 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 ruins of war to become one of the world's most compelling success stories. Today, Taiwan has the 19th largest economy in the world, is America's 7th largest trading partner, and possesses tremendous foreign exchange reserves on a par with Japan. Taiwan has also made great strides toward democratization, with free and fair elections being held routinely at the local and national levels--culminating in the historic presidential election in 1996. 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. When the stability of our friends in Taiwan was threatened by China in spring of 1996, I supported the actions taken by 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 China's commitment under the 1979 and 1982 Joint Communiques to resolve Taiwan's status by peaceful means. The Joint Communiques, along with the Taiwan relations act, are the foundation of our ``One China'' policy, which fundamentally stresses that force should not be used in resolution of the Taiwan question. Clearly it is in the interests of the United States and all parties that the obligation continue to be honored, President Clinton's summit meeting in China achieved several important goals. In the process, however, I do not believe that the welfare and interests of the people of Taiwan were sacrificed. The United States has shown in recent years that the use of force by China against Taiwan will not be tolerated. The legislation before us reaffirms that fact, and that the United States remains committed to the proposition that the Taiwan question should be resolved peacefully by the people on both sides of the Taiwan strait. Mr. Speaker, I urge our colleagues to support House Concurrent Resolution 301.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, my remarks, in sharing these thoughts with my colleagues, I have entitled Indonesia's Human Rights Violations to the People of the West Papua, New Guinea. Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues are familiar with Indonesia's dismal record of human rights violations in East Timor. The abuses have been well publicized and documented, especially the Dili massacre of 1991, where hundreds of innocent Timorese were killed by government security forces. What has not received much attention, Mr. Speaker, is the tragic story of the people of West Papua, New Guinea, or Irian Jaya, as the people of New Guinea have renamed that province. West Papua, New Guinea, borders the independent nation of Papua, New Guinea, and forms the western half of the world's second largest island. Mr. Speaker, the recent violence by the Indonesian government against the people of West Papua, New Guinea, is nothing new. It is part and parcel of the long history of Indonesia's oppression of the native Melanesian people of West Papua, New Guinea. In 1961, the people of West Papua, New Guinea, with the assistance of Holland and Australia, prepared to declare independence from its Dutch colonial master. This enraged Indonesia, which invaded West Papua, New Guinea, and threatened war with Holland. As a Cold War maneuver to counter Soviet overtures for Indonesia to become a member of the Communist block, the United States intervened in the West Papua, New Guinea, issue. After the Dutch were advised that they could not count on the support of the allies in a conflict with Indonesia, Holland seized involvement with West Papua, New Guinea's, independence. Indonesia thus took West Papua, New Guinea, in 1963, suppressing the West Papua, New Guinea, people's dreams of freedom and self- determination. In 1969, a referendum called the ``Act of Free Choice'' was held to approve the continued occupation by force of West Papua, New Guinea, by Indonesia. West Papuans called it the ``Act of No Choice''. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. Only 1,025 delegates, hand picked by the Indonesian government, were allowed to vote, and bribery and threats were used to influence them. The rest of the 800,000 citizens, the local, or the indigenous Melanesians, the 800,000 West Papua, New Guineans, had no say in the undemocratic process. Despite calling for a one-person, one- vote referendum, the United Nations recognized the so-called vote. Mr. Speaker, since Indonesia took over West Papua, New Guinea, the native Melanesian people have suffered under one of the most repressive and unjust systems of colonial occupation ever known in the 20th Century. The Indonesian military has waged an ongoing war against the free Papuan movement and their supporters since the 1960s, and against the civilian populace that has objected to Indonesia's plan for development in West Papua. An example of the latter are the thousands of killings associated with the expansion of the Freeport copper and gold mines in West Papua, New Guinea. Incredible as it may seem, Mr. Speaker, estimates are that between 100,000 to 300,000 indigenous West Papua, New Guineans, have been killed or have simply vanished or disappeared from the face of the earth during Indonesian colonization. Mr. Speaker, the depth and intensity of this conflict, spanning three decades, underscores the fact that the people of West Papua, New Guinea, do not have common bonds with nor accept being part of Indonesia. The indigenous people of West Papua, New Guinea, are racially, culturally and ethnically different from the majority of Indonesians. West Papuans are Melanesians, Mr. Speaker, they are not Indonesians. West Papuans practice Christianity. Indonesians practice Islam, or the faith of Islam. West Papuans have a unique language and culture which is distinct and different from the rest of Indonesia. Mr. Speaker, to make matters worse, the government of Indonesia has chosen a policy of transmigration, or a unilateral forced settlements, where hundreds of thousands of Indonesians have now taken residence in the lands belonging to these 800,000 to 900,000 West Papua, New Guineans, in their own homelands. Mr. Speaker, the tragic situation in West Papua, New Guinea, greatly concerns me. With the recent shootings over the pro-independence demonstrations in West Papua/Irian Jaya, I would hope all my colleagues in the House would join me in urging the Indonesian government to immediately stop these human rights violations and take steps now to review the status of West Papua, New Guinea, as it should be, especially perhaps it should be considered as a non self-governing territory under the auspices of the United Nations, similar to the territory of New Caledonia, currently a colony of France.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to say a few remarks with reference to the amendment now at hand. I would like to ask my good friend from New York for a dialogue concerning his amendment because there does seem to be a lot of misinformation going around here concerning the gentleman's amendment. I do want to thank him for his understanding of the uniqueness of the situation. I know my colleagues probably are not aware I am the only representative that represents U.S. nationals in the great United States of America. By definition of the U.S. immigration law, a U.S. national is any person who is born in the confines of American Samoa, who is a permanent resident, not permanent resident, born and raised in American Samoa who owes permanent allegiance to the United States but he is neither a citizen nor an alien. You tell me what that means? But I would like to ask the gentleman from New York if his understanding of a U.S. national is in that category and the reason for his amendment is that U.S. nationals can contribute to Federal elections?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, because we do need to understand exactly what is a permanent resident alien. A permanent resident alien is an alien who petitions the Immigration and Naturalization Service for his status, for which he is then issued a green card under the provisions of a quota number that is given to that person. By those conditions, a permanent resident alien is subject to the draft in times of a national emergency. I had several friends who were permanent resident aliens who were Vietnam veterans. They were subjected to the draft. Also, a permanent resident alien, after 3 years serving in the military, can also become a U.S. citizen, if he so wishes.

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is the gentleman aware that permanent resident aliens are subject to the U.S. draft?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So, by omission, permanent resident aliens cannot contribute in U.S. Federal elections?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Reclaiming my time to just ask, because I was hoping that maybe the issue of permanent resident aliens and green card holders would be addressed at another time, but this is very key and important, and I want to ask my friend does his proposed amendment exclude permanent resident aliens from participating and contributing to U.S. elections?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, Utah Governor Leavitt and Interior Secretary Babbitt signed a historic and unique agreement on May 8 of this year to provide for an exchange of lands between the State of Utah and the Federal government. H.R. 3830 legislatively ratifies that agreement, under which the United States would acquire approximately 410,718 acres of land and minerals owned by the State of Utah that are inholdings within the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, units of the national park and national forest systems and two Indian reservations, and in return would transfer to the State approximately 138,647 acres of public land and minerals and $50 million. The lands involved in the exchange have been a major source of contention for both the State of Utah and the Federal Government. We have spent many hours in the Committee on Resources dealing with issues associated with the lands covered by the agreement. This agreement puts the land exchange issue to rest in what I believe is a fair and equitable manner, and I am all for it. I want to commend Governor Leavitt and Secretary Babbitt for their leadership. For far too long this issue has frustrated efficient land management, sapped people's energies, and prevented benefits from accruing to the Utah School Trust and the Nation. These two gentlemen, with the support of many others, recognized that the current situation was doing nothing for the people or the resources. Paraphrasing the former Governor of Utah, Governor Matheson, they have taken a ``bold'' step in resolving this long-festering issue. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 3830 and hope that my colleagues will also support this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) for an explanation of this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Further reserving the right to object, Mr. Speaker, this important and bipartisan bill has as its single goal the promotion of economic development on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, home to the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Indian tribes. Their reservation sits on the oil-rich Williston Basin, and the tribes seek to gain much-needed revenues through a development agreement with the Alberta Energy Company. The lands surrounding the reservation have been the subject of much exploratory activity. That agreement would allow these tribes to develop oil and gas reserves on tribal lands as well as lands allotted to tribal members. But congressional approval of mineral leasing rights is required in this instance in order to overcome the problem of fractionated heirship, a problem that is widespread throughout Indian country. Basically, fractionated heirship is the result of Federal and Indian policy which provides that lands held in trust for Indians are passed down from generation to generation so that each successive generation of heirs owns an undivided interest in the original lands. Thus, parcels of lands such as those allotted in Fort Berthold have as many as 200 owners. Seventy percent of the Fort Berthold allotments have 20 owners. So in order to execute a lease, every individual with an ownership interest in a parcel of land has to agree to the lease. If one person objects, the lease will fail. The same thing will happen if one owner cannot be found. This arrangement simply creates too much of a headache for interested developers to make it worth their while to bring their activities to allotted Indian lands. What the Fort Berthold bill does is allow a leasing agreement to go forward when less than 100 percent of the owners of a particular allotment agree to the lease. In this case, the bill requires that at least as many owners as own 50 percent of the ownership interest in an allotment must agree to the lease. Furthermore, the Secretary of the Interior must still approve the leasing arrangements, thus continuing to exercise the United States' trust responsibility. Of course, the bill only applies to the Fort Berthold Reservation. In a certain sense, Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of tribes watching this situation. Fractionated heirship is a widespread problem, and it is a major source of the trust funds problem that also plagues the tribes and the administration. The administration has already sent Congress legislation to consolidate allotment ownership. But if the Fort Berthold situation works out well, I believe other tribes may well look to this legislation for ideas as well. Mr. Speaker, again I thank the gentleman from Utah, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, for his leadership and management of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen) to explain the legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Washington for her management of this legislation on behalf of the majority. Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 113 provides for congressional approval of the Secretary of the Interior's recent decision to recommend placement of the Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial in Area 1 of our Nation's capital. As we all well know, Mr. Speaker, Martin Luther King, Jr., in my opinion was the greatest civil rights leader of the 20th century. Congress has previously authorized the establishment of a Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial to honor Dr. King and his accomplishments. Pursuant to the Commemorative Works Act, a review of possible locations in which to place the memorial was done. Secretary Babbitt has determined that placement of the Martin Luther King Memorial in the central area of our Nation's capital is appropriate. Mr. Speaker, there is some urgency in getting this legislation enacted. Under the Commemorative Works Act, if the Secretary's recommendation is not approved by an act of Congress within 150 days, it is deemed disapproved. I support the speedy passage of this legislation so that work can continue on providing an appropriate memorial to Martin Luther King, Jr. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dixon). (Mr. DIXON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 2411, as was introduced by my colleague and a Member of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). This is a piece of legislation that is supported by the National Park Service as well as the local community. The bill has two provisions. The first provision authorizes a minor land exchange between the National Park Service and the town of Provincetown. The second provision extends of the term of the Cape Cod National Seashore Advisory Commission. This advisory commission has been in existence since the seashore was established and works with the National Park Service and the local community on numerous issues. Mr. Speaker, when the committee marked up 2411, it adopted an amendment to the bill that spells out the uses that are permitted on the exchange property and limits the extension of the advisory commission to 2008. These changes have been agreed upon by the National Park Service and the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I do support these provisions as well. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this piece of legislation.