Eni Faleomavaega

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. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. Smith]. H.R. 1944 directs the Forest Service to convey about 295 acres of Federal land within the Warner Canyon Ski Area of Fremont National Forest to Lake County, Oregon. In exchange, the county would convey to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about 320 acres of inholdings within the Hart Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. Significantly, the bill provides that this exchange would be of equal value, subject to appraisals, and under terms acceptable to both the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior. The administration has support and testified in support of this legislation. The Forest Service property contains a small ski area that costs the Federal Government about $10,000 per year to administer but generates only $400 in ski fees to the U.S. Treasury. The proposed exchange appears to be a good deal, Mr. Speaker, both for the Lake County, which wants the ski area to continue to operate for the benefit of community residents, and for the Federal Government, which would receive additional lands for the wildlife refuge. Mr. Speaker, I do compliment the gentleman from Oregon on his legislation and urge Members to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island [Mr. Weygand].

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, so now they are more sincere than ever.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to note that in the hearings process, maybe the gentleman will for the record, it is my understanding that this issue has been going on now for over 10 years and that very much the National Park Service was properly informed; but yet they sat on this issue for all this time until the gentleman practically was forced to have to introduce legislation to get them moving. Is that correct?

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 765 introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Jones], requires the National Park Service to maintain a herd of wild horses on Shackleford Banks in Cape Lookout National Seashore. I recognize and appreciate my good friend's deep personal interest in this matter, as well as the concern this issue has generated in the local community. As such, I am supporting the bill in the House today. I must note for the record that the administration has strong concerns and objections to the bill which are also shared by the National Parks and Conservation Association, a park advocacy group. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 765 has been very specific in management directives for the National Park Service, right down to specifying that the number of wild horses that must be maintained at the National Seashore be no less than 100 and no more than 110. That detailed a number may well cause some significant management problems, I am sure. We do not know the genetic diversity of this herd, nor the carrying capacity of the small barrier island on which they live. In fact, a report on the genetic diversity of the horses is due by sometime next month. We would do well to have better scientific information as we consider this legislation. Part of the problem here, Mr. Speaker, is that the National Park Service waited for years to develop a management plan to deal with these horses. The National Park Service's handling of this matter has also raised concerns within the local community. I understand that the Foundation for Shackleford Horses, a local group, is currently reviewing a draft memorandum of understanding between the National Park Service and the foundation that will address many of the issues that H.R. 765 now involves. This I hope will be a positive step. It seems to me that a great deal of time and effort has been spent by the National Park Service and others in this matter. Perhaps from these efforts scientific and management processes could be made to work cooperatively, and before this bill is sent to the President we would have a product that all parties could support. This legislation also has the full support of the Governor of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation of the gentleman from North Carolina, with the hope that we will try to iron out some of the difficulties or provisions of the bill before it is sent to the White House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation sponsored by the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle]. While the concept of dams in the wilderness area may raise concerns, this bill addresses some very unique circumstances. The 18 small dams and weirs at issue were in existence in 1975 at the time Congress designated the Emigrant Wilderness within the Stanislaus National Forest in California. The Forest Service has released a draft management plan that would provide for the continued maintenance of 7 of the 18 structures. The bill, however, directs that all 18 structures be repaired and maintained. Initially, Mr. Speaker, the Forest Service opposed this legislation primarily because they were concerned about the added costs of repairing and maintaining of these facilities. In response to their testimony, the committee adopted a substitute to clarify that the maintenance and operation of these facilities shall be at private expense. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that we are grandfathering preexisting uses and not providing a blanket exemption from the Wilderness Act in this legislation. This bill is about people with backpacks, not bulldozers, who will be involved in the repair and maintenance of these small structures. The legislation does not contemplate that motorized vehicles of any kind will be allowed in the wilderness area. The small lakes created by these dams receive heavy use by recreationists, including fishermen. A positive aspect of this bill is that the recreational uses are more widely dispersed, rather than concentrated in fewer areas as would be the case if the dams were allowed to deteriorate. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Nadler] and include his statement for the Record.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday in opposition to Representative Istook's amendment to H.R. 2107, the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and related agencies. The amendment would have prohibited new lands from being placed into trust for American Indians unless the tribes entered into agreements concerning the collection of certain taxes with local and State governments. I was not able to give my entire statement in the time allotted, and had submitted my entire statement to be included in the Congressional Record. This was not done. The following is my entire statement as I intended it to be entered in the Record: Mr. Chairman. I rise in strong opposition to the Istook/ Visclosky amendment which would prohibit the use of BIA funds to transfer any new land into trust unless a binding agreement is reached between Indian tribes, states, and local governments regarding state and local excise taxes on retail sales to non-Indians on new trust land. There are many reasons to oppose this amendment. First, as a matter of procedure, this is more than a matter of setting a level of appropriations. This amendment sets legislative policy on a subject under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. The issue of whether any additional statutory conditions should be placed on transfers of land into trust for Indian tribes deserves public hearings and the deliberations of the committee of jurisdiction. The subject of this amendment has not been considered by the Committee of jurisdiction. By proceeding with an appropriations rider, we lose the value of public input to Congress available through committee hearings, and those of us who serve on authorization committees are again locked out of the full deliberative process. Many of you have seen the conflicting statements of the many ``Dear Colleague'' and other letters which have been circulated over the past ten days. In many cases, these letters are in direct conflict with one another. This is happening because there have been no hearings through which facts can be sought and properly reported from the committee of jurisdiction to the House. Now I ask you, is this the best way to set the nation's policy? When voting on a subject of this significance, wouldn't you be more comfortable having the benefit of prior legislative deliberations? Turning now to the merits of the legislation, I believe it is not controverted that current law and regulations mandate that the Secretary of the Interior provide notice to state and local governments prior to making a final determination on taking Indian land into trust status. Additionally, the Secretary must consider the impact on state and local governments of removal of the land from the tax rolls. Furthermore, state and local governments who disagree with a decision of the Secretary can appeal adverse decisions within the Department of the Interior and in the federal courts. If the land proposed to be transferred into trust is not part of a current reservation and the proposal is for economic development, the transfer is subject to a higher standard of scrutiny. This is a sufficient regulatory scheme already in place to protect the rights of state and local governments, and it keeps the negotiations between the Indian tribes and the United States, which is consistent with our government to government relationship. If this amendment were enacted into law, state and local governments would be given an absolute veto over all future transfers of land into trust status. This is a significant change in national policy, and as I noted earlier, this change would be made with our only deliberations being today's debate. Finally, Mr. Chairman, as a matter of equity, I find it very disturbing that we are debating today, yet another attack on the American Indian. I fear that efforts like this are a renewal of the efforts of Congress' in prior decades when actions were taken to make sure our first Americans are never given the opportunity to achieve success. There was a recent advertisement I heard that pretty well summed up our treatment of this country's Indians. It went something like this: two hundred years of exploitation and neglect, more than 700 broken treaties, $2 billion in tribal trust funds lost or mismanaged, $200 million in funding cuts last year, and now politicians want to levy new taxes against tribal governments. Haven't they paid enough? The ad was a brutally-accurate summary of our past treatment of the American Indians. The question for today is, do we continue along that destructive line of reasoning, or do we provide today's tribes with the opportunity to determine their future through their own self-initiative. Most Indian reservations contain lands which are inholdings, plots of land within the reservation which were sold out of trust decades ago pursuant to the 1887 General Allotment Act. In many instances these plots contain homes occupied by tribal members who have inherited them or acquired them but have not had them taken back into trust by the Secretary of the Interior. Many tribes are extremely poor and have been in the process of having these homesites taken back into trust for decades. The tribes are not doing this to set up truck stops or tobacco shops or any other form of commercial operation. Usually the tribes are merely working to reacquire their lands and to insure that those lands and the Indians who live on them will be eligible to participate in the various Bureau of Indian Affairs programs which apply only to trust lands. Tribes are doing this for reasonable, practical purposes. The Bureau of Indian Affairs operates road maintenance programs, environmental services programs, real estate services programs, water resources programs, and a large number of other programs which only apply to trust lands. Tribes want their members to participate in and benefit from these programs. However, if the Istook amendment is adopted and the Secretary of the Interior is precluded from taking any of these former trust lands back into trust, we will eventually have a new second class of citizen in this Nation. If the Istook amendment is adopted we will have some Indians living the life of the poorest of the poor who don't even qualify for various Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. We will have Indians living on Indian reservation land which does not qualify for any Indian program. This is absurd, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Oklahoma is trying to prevent a handful of Indians from setting up businesses which do not collect State and local sales and excise taxes. He is trying to resolve a problem that exists in a very few instances in a few States. The vast majority of lands taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior have nothing whatsoever to do with diesel fuel or tobacco or tax advantages. Instead of solving a problem common to only a few individuals, this amendment would create a whole new level of second- class citizens. This amendment would create a class of Indian which lives on lands within a reservation but receives no Bureau of Indian Affairs services; a class of Indian which receives no State sewer, no State water, no State police protection, no State fire protection, on other State services except State tax collection services. Mr. Speaker, few lands have ever been enacted which would do so much damage while solving so few problems. The gentleman from Oklahoma apparently is trying to stop Indian Tribes from setting up businesses which do not collect State and local sales and excise taxes. He is trying to resolve a problem that exists in a very few instances in a few States. However, this limitation on appropriated funds would impact all Indian tribes in all States. The way I understand this amendment, not a single acre of land could be taken into trust, anywhere, for any reason. If that is not the first step toward ending any possibility of economic development for the poorest of this Nation's poor, I don't know what is. In my opinion, this draconian limitation on appropriated funds is far worse than the problem. I understand that a few Indian businesses are selling diesel fuel and tobacco and a few other types of merchandise without collecting State and local sales and excise taxes. I can appreciate how this gives a competitive advantage to a handful of Indian businesses. I will support a bill which will cure this problem to the satisfaction of all of the interested parties. But, the vast preponderance of land being taken into trust by the Secretary of the Interior has nothing whatsoever to do with tax advantages. Most parcels of land being taken into trust are small tracts consisting of an acre or two which lie within an existing Indian reservation, non-trust land scattered like a checkerboard between trust lands. Economically fencing, accessing, monitoring, and developing these checker boarded lands is extremely expensive, almost impossible. The Interior Department spends millions upon millions trying to block up these lands and put them into useful production. But because of the 1887 General Allotment Act which allowed Indian lands to be sold and thereby taken out of trust, the Department has to take these lands back into trust. The effect of the Istook amendment would be catastrophic for any Indian tribe which is trying to have even the smallest plot of land taken back into trust. This spending limitation is aimed at solving a commercial problem which many of the States have already solved. Even Oklahoma has worked out most of its problems with these tax havens owned by an Indian tribe. However, this limitation on appropriated funds ignores all of these solutions. Instead, this language would completely eliminate the Secretary of the Interior's ability to take any land into trust, in any State. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is not only unnecessary but also wrong. The Indians of this Nation suffer the highest unemployment anywhere. Health care, child care, economic opportunity, and just about any other social service available to the average American is barely available on a marginal basis to Native Americans. What we do not need is this strangle hold on the Secretary of the Interior. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Istook amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Istook-Visclosky amendment. There are many reasons to oppose this amendment, Mr. Chairman. First, as a matter of procedure, this is more than a matter of setting a level of appropriations. This amendment sets legislative policy on a subject under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources. The subject of this amendment has not been considered by the committee of jurisdiction. By proceeding with an appropriation rider, we lose the value of public input to Congress available through committee hearings. Those of us who serve on the authorization committees are again locked out of the full deliberative process. Many of us have seen conflicting statements of the many ``Dear Colleagues'' that have been floating around. In many cases these letters are in direct conflict with one another, which raises the question all the more, we need to have hearings on this issue. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it is not controverted that current law and regulations mandate that the Secretary of the Interior provide notice to State and local governments prior to making a final determination on taking Indian lands into trust status. State and local governments who disagree with a decision of the Secretary can appeal adverse decisions within the Department of the Interior and in the Federal courts. This procedure is already in place. If this amendment is enacted into law, Mr. Chairman, State and local governments would be given an absolute veto over all future transfers to or of land trust status. This is a significant change of national policy. I submit this cannot be done. Finally, Mr. Chairman, as matter of equity, I find it very disturbing that we are debating today yet another attack on Native American Indians. I fear that efforts like this are a renewal of the efforts of Congress in prior decades when actions were taken to make sure our first Americans were never given the opportunity to achieve success. There was a recent advertisement I heard that pretty well sums up, Mr. Chairman, our treatment of our Nation's Native Americans. It went something like this: 200 years of exploitation and neglect, more than 700 broken treaties, 700 broken treaties; $2 billion in tribal trust funds lost or mismanaged, $200 million in funding cuts last year, and now the Chamber of this hallowed hall wants to levy new taxes against tribal governments. Have Native Americans not paid enough, I submit, Mr. Chairman? This ad was a brutally accurate summary of our past treatment of American Indians. The question today is, do we continue along the destructive line of reasoning or do we provide today's tribes with the opportunity to determine their future through their own self-initiative? Mr. Chairman, I have heard that we talk about fair play. Let us propose a law to honor every one of these 700 broken treaties that our government broke and let us see what happens. If we talk about fair play, let us honor the 700 treaties that our government committed itself with these Native Americans and let us see what the landscape is going to be with what this Nation is all about. Mr. Chairman, I submit we ought to vote against this proposed amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and again I commend the gentleman from Colorado for his sponsorship of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 951 provides for the exchange of certain public lands in Hinsdale County in the State of Colorado for private lands that are located within or in proximity to several wilderness study areas and a backcountry bi-way. The bill provides that the exchange be of equal value. In addition, as a condition of the exchange, the private landowner will keep approximately 440 of the 560 acres under a conservation easement. The exchange is supported by the local community, by the environmental groups, and the administration. I am unaware of any controversy associated with the bill and certainly will support this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

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, Senate Joint Resolution 29 is a Senate-passed measure that was authored by the good Senator from the State of Hawaii, Senator Daniel Inouye, and is a companion to H.J.Res. 76, a bill introduced by my colleague on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey], who is also a member of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission. The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior to design and construct a statue or a similar structure at the FDR Memorial to recognize that President Roosevelt's great leadership was provided while the President used a wheelchair. I know that many Members are aware of the controversy that preceded the dedication of the FDR Memorial on May 2, 1997. Representatives of the disabled community have raised concerns that the memorial did not adequately reflect the President's disability and undertook a campaign to see that President Roosevelt be depicted in a wheelchair to reflect that disability, which was the result of polio, did not diminish his ability to provide great leadership to our Nation. Although the President took actions to play down his disability, he has been an inspiration to millions of Americans who have seen that a disability need not diminish the ability of an individual to fully participate in all aspects of life. The issues addressed by Senate Joint Resolution 29 were of great concern to the disabled community and the FDR Memorial Commission and members of the Roosevelt family. I am glad to see we have before us today a consensus bill that will address this issue in a dignified and thoughtful manner. Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation and urge my colleagues for their support of this bill. I thank my good friends and the gentleman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands for his management of this bill.

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, this morning the other body started its hearings on alleged violations of certain individuals and companies about our campaign laws, and I want to commend my good friend, the Senator from the great State of Hawaii, Senator Daniel K. Akaka, for reminding his colleagues and Members of this institution to be careful of generalizing the issues and the implications. Sometimes the media in its feeding frenzy is questioning the integrity and the honesty of the entire Asia Pacific community in our Nation, that their honest contributions made in our national and local elections sometimes are being questioned simply because these Americans are of Asian or Pacific ancestry. Let me give my colleagues a little bit of history about the sacrifices of the Asia Pacific community, and it is sealed in their blood. The Japanese-Americans of the 100th battalion, 442d infantry combat troops, after fighting our enemies in Europe: 9,000 Purple Hearts, 560 Silver Stars, 65 Distinguished Service Crosses, and only 1 Medal of Honor. I ask my colleagues, let us be careful of generalizing people and the composite view of our Nation here in our country, and I thank the Speaker for giving me this chance.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, before I yield the balance of my time, I would like to say that I would be remiss if I did not offer my commendations to the members of the staff on this side of the aisle for their tremendous work with the Members in getting this piece of legislation successfully passed here on the floor of the House: Mr. Rick Healy, Marie Howard Fabrizio, Jean Flemma, and Ann Owens.