Eni Faleomavaega

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, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 3642 along with the chairman of the Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, Mr. Gallegly, and the senior Democrat of the Resources Committee, Mr. Miller. Enactment of this bill would transfer small parcels of land from the Bureau of Land Management to various Indian Tribes in the State of California. In each instance the land has been declared as appropriate for disposal by the BLM and the affected tribal governments have formally requested the land be transferred to them. As part of the process of drafting this legislation, the Department of the Interior contacted local communities and received support for, or a lack of interest, in each land transfers. These parcels may not be large in size but I hope they will prove of benefit to the tribes. I believe this legislation is good policy. This is a case where the Federal Government examined its registry of lands and supports the release of lands it no longer deems necessary to remain under Federal control. The land my be excess to the needs of the Federal Government but I'm confident that the Indian tribes which will take over management of the lands will put them to good use. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this legislation. 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. I, too, would like to reciprocate by adding my commendation to the distinguished gentleman from California, as the chairman of our subcommittee, who has worked quite diligently in the past several months in passing this legislation that affects the needs of our Native American communities throughout the country as well as the territories. I really would like to express my appreciation to him for the fine working relationship that we have had over the past several months and on a very bipartisan basis for a change, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this bill, which was introduced by my good friend, Representative Tim Johnson. This bill rights an old wrong by compensating the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe for the massive and devastating impact of the Pick-Sloan plan, which authorized the construction of two dams, the Big Bend and Fort Randall dams, on the best lands of the Crow Creek Tribe. The dams flooded the 15,000 acres of the tribe's best grazing and woodlands and displaced entire communities against their will. Although Congress was aware of the extent of the damage and passed legislation in 1962 to replace lost tribal infrastructure, buildings, and roads, the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Indian Affairs never fulfilled our responsibility and commitment under the provisions of the law. I agree with Rep. Johnson of South Dakota that it is time we followed through on our promises to the tribe. It goes without saying that we have had a rather poor history of keeping our promises to the Indian tribes. For example, we broke the Fort Laramie treaties of 1851 and 1868, treaties which the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe signed. We made a promise to the Tribe almost 35 years ago that we would help them because of all the damage that we inflicted upon them. As the ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Native American and Insular Affairs, I am glad to see that we are finally following through on our promises to the tribe. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from South Dakota has worked diligently and tirelessly on behalf of the nine recognized tribes of South Dakota, including the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, to get this legislation passed. Mr. Johnson has been a loyal and hard working member of the subcommittee, and I certainly enjoyed immensely working with him in working on other pieces of legislation. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this legislation. 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. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I certainly admire the Chair's generosity and sincere efforts in pronouncing my name. I know that this has always been a difficult problem with many Members but it is Faleomavaega. It is one of those Polynesian names. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2710 would transfer almost 2,640 acres of land currently within the Six Rivers National Forest to the Hoopa Valley Tribe to be held in trust for the Tribe. This land, which includes an operating campground, is adjacent to the southern boundary of the Hoopa Valley Reservation. There is question as to whether or not this land was intended to be part of the original reservation boundaries and by looking at a map of the area one could easily conclude that may have been the case. Regardless, the Forest Service has testified that it supports this transfer so long as public access to the area remains available. The Tribe has agreed to this and plans to continue to operate the campground for the public's use. I hope addition of this land will benefit the Tribe in the future and ask my colleagues to join me in supporting passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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 yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Torres]. (Mr. TORRES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this bill would settle claims made by the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indian Tribe against two irrigation districts in Southern California. Mr. Speaker, before proceeding on, I just want to clarify for the record that the name of this tribe, the Torres-Martinez, is not in any way a reflection of the gentleman from California, Esteban Torres or the gentleman from California, Matthew Martinez. I just want to clarify that for the record, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, some 11,000 acres of reservation land has been unusable by the tribe due to flooding by the Salton Sea. The tribe had originally accepted the land with the understanding that the Salton Sea would recede allowing the tribe access to the lands. When this did not occur, the tribe filed a trespass suit against the two local irrigation districts. The courts found for the tribe and to head off additional litigation, the Department of the Interior brought all the parties together to work out a settlement. H.R. 3640 would enact the administration's settlement. Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 3640 will allow the Torres-Martinez Tribe to procure land to utilize for the tribe's benefit and put an end to an 80-year dispute. It will lift barriers which have impeded needed improvements to California Highway 86. Further, it will ensure proper drainage for the local water districts. Mr. Speaker, support for the administration's settlement enacted by this legislation is broad. The Resources Committee has received letters of support for its passage from at least 16 nearby Indian tribes including the Barona, Cahuilla, Campo, LaJolla, Morongo, San Manuel, and Soboba Tribes. Nearly every non-Indian community in the vicinity has written in support as well. Governor Wilson and California Attorney General Lundgren also support its passage. Let me make it perfectly clear that I believe that the Torres- Martinez Tribe is the aggrieved party in this instance and it is they who are being compensated. I think this settlement is fair and should proceed. The Torres-Martinez Tribe has waited 80 long years for the Federal Government to make good on promises it made. Having made this point I also want to mention that the Cabazon Tribe which runs a successful gaming operation in the vicinity has raised concerns over the settlement. The Department of the Interior failed to include the Cabazon Tribe in its discussions on the settlement. It should have. Failure to do so has caused for difficulties between the Cabazon and the Torres-Martinez Tribes which should not exist. The Cabazon Tribe is looking out for the welfare of its members and we should expect no less from them. Mr. Speaker, the Torres-Martinez Tribe has given assurances to the committee that they will continue to meet with the Cabazon Tribe to try to work out their differences, pursuant to passage of this legislation. I think that is as it should be. I would like to see the tribes come to an equitable agreement but I believe this legislation should proceed. Mr. Speaker, I wish to clarify that this settlement for Torres- Martinez is not done for our colleagues Esteban Torres and Matthew Martinez as some have suggested. I urge my colleagues to support passage of this bill. Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record: The Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Thermal, CA, August 30, 1996. Re Torres Martinez Settlement Act, H.R. 3640 (S. 1893). Mr. John A. James, Tribal Chairman, Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, Indio, CA. Dear Mr. James: In recent meetings with the Administration and Congress, we have been informed that representatives of Cabazon are spreading the word around Washington that Torres Martinez is unwilling to meet with Cabazon concerning the Torres Martinez Settlement Act, H.R. 3640 (S. 1893). Of course that is not true, as you are well aware. My Tribal Council met with your Tribal Council in your tribal offices for several hours on July 29, and listened respectfully to your objections to the Torres Martinez Settlement legislation. You explained to us your view that the populated part of the valley is ``Cabazon's market'' and that our Tribe has no right to compete in ``Cabazon's market''. We explained to you our view that the entire Valley is ``everyone's market'', and that everyone has the right to compete in that market. You stated that you would attempt to defeat our Settlement legislation, unless we agreed to an amendment which would exclude any land acquisitions in the populated part of the Valley (north of Airport Blvd). We stated that we could not agree to such an amendment, because it would effectively destroy the most important economic- development benefits contained in our Settlement. The July 29 meeting ended on that note of respectful disagreement between sovereign tribal governments. On August 9, I replied to your letter of August 6 requesting another meeting ``to discuss our differences regarding H.R. 3640 and to make a sincere and diligent attempt to reach a compromise on this issue''. After reviewing what had occurred at the July 29 meeting my August 9 letter made the following reply to your request for further meetings, discussions, and negotiations: ``Unless you have a proposal different from the one which you presented to our Tribal Council on July 29th, we see no reason to revisit the same issues in another meeting. If you do have a different proposal, please put it in writing and send it to us for our Tribal Council's consideration. Any new issues can be discussed with you in another Council-to-Council meeting.'' As I thought was made perfectly clear in my August 9 letter, we stand ready to meet with you at any time to discuss your concerns with H.R. 3640 (S. 1893). We still see no reason to revisit the same issues which were discussed with you for several hours on July 29; but if you have some reason to believe that further discussion for new issues might be fruitful, please contact me and we will arrange another Council-to-Council meeting at the earliest mutually convenient time. If you have a new proposal. If you have a new proposal (different from the one you presented at the July 29 meeting), please put it in writing and send it to me for presentation to my Tribal Council, so that we can begin thinking about it prior to the next meeting be held in our tribal offices. In conclusion, I reiterate that my Tribal Council is ready and willing to meet with your Tribal Council at any mutually convenient time, to discuss H.R. 3640 (S. 1893) or any other matter of concern to you. If you wish to meet with us, all you have to do is ask. Sincerely, Mary E. Belardo, Tribal Chairperson.

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 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 am pleased to offer my support for this bill which would extend for 2 more years an important demonstration project contained in section 405 of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. This demonstration project allows participating tribes and tribal organizations who operate their own hospitals or clinics to directly bill Medicaid and Medicare for services provided to eligible Indian patients. Direct billing has saved these tribes invaluable time and money that they otherwise would have lost by having to route their billing through the Indian Health Service. By saving the tribes time, the program has allowed the tribes to more efficiently manage their limited resources and improve billing practices, which in turn has generated even more income for these programs. At a time when the national level of need funded [LNF] for most Indian health programs rests at 60-70 percent, these additional dollars make an important difference in the kinds of services and quality of care these tribes can provide. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this demonstration program has been a remarkable success and hope that in time we will be able to expand this worthwhile project to other tribes and tribal organizations. Mr. Speaker, I thank the author of this bill, the gentleman from Alaska [Mr. Young], the chairman of the House Resources Committee, and the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking Democrat of the Resources Committee, for their support. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill H.R. 123, to express my concerns about what effect this legislation will have on America, today and in the future. I am concerned that promoting English as the official Government language in this particular way will result in situations where Americans not yet completely proficient in English will be disadvantaged when it comes to seeking and receiving vital assistance from Government--be it exercising their right to vote, receiving the fullest education possible, health issues, particularly emergency situations--or any other social services. My strong preference is to look at this issue from another angle. There is no question that English is a language of opportunity and that it is practical to carry out as much government business as possible in this language. In practice this is the case already--the GAO reported recently that between 1990-1994 Federal agencies, other than Defense and State, published 265 documents in languages other than English-- less than 1 percent of all the government documents reviewed by the GAO. In reality, about 97 percent of U.S. residents above the age of 4 speak English well or very well. It is the 3 or 4 percent of our population that needs assistance when communicating in English that I am concerned about. Rather than passing legislation which promotes the use of English in a way that can be perceived as exclusive, culturally insensitive and which may result in further marginalization of minorities. I agree with others who have suggested we should instead focus on encouraging all Americans to become proficient in English-- through making English language programmers fully accessible to all. It is not socially responsible to pass legislation such as H.R. 123 and expect those who cannot communicate in English--often not because they lack the will to try but because they are simply not enough programmes to go around--to cope without any means of communication with Government, which is after all there to serve the people. I strongly urge my colleagues to focus instead on strengthening our capacity to provide the means for new immigrants and those struggling to learn English to do so. My second specific concern related to this legislation is an uneasy sensation I have that there are darker political undertones to the desire to promote the use of English only. The legislation is worded in such a way that it appears to be promoting English very much at the expense of other languages. The legislation does not recognize sufficiently the important of multiculturalism in the history of this country, and the strength multilingualism brings to our country today and its place in the emerging global marketplace. I bring to this debate a unique perspective in that I represent a district where the languages of every day transaction are English and Samoan. Bilingualism is a strength in my constituency and I cannot support legislation that does not adequately recognize this. Finally, I would like to note that moves afoot in this Congress to declare English as the official language of the United States have attracted the attention of the international community. I refer particularly to a resolution passed by the fourth Polynesian language forum, held in New Zealand in August last year which was supported by government representatives of 13 governments of Polynesia including New Zealand, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Easter island, Western Samoa, Fiji, and Tonga. The resolution specifically stated its incredulity that the United States, otherwise a world leader in the field of human rights, should even consider legislation such as this. The resolution also reminds us that the international community recognizes the rights of indigenous people to have their languages used officially in government. In addition to the points I have made above in relation to the effect of this legislation on all minority groups in the U.S. this Congress would be wise to reflect upon its obligations to protect the languages and cultures of Native American peoples. We should not forget that the international community is watching, and judging us by our actions.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, at some point in time in this debate the gentleman from Massachusetts, I know, will be offering an amendment to the pending legislation, and for that reason I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] which will continue the meaningful standard of current Federal law on the use of the dolphin safe label. Mr. Chairman, it was through a public outcry beginning over a decade ago that Congress responded in 1990 with the dolphin safe label we see on all tuna sold in the United States. American consumers wanted to purchase canned tuna, but they were not willing to do so if it meant killing over 100,000 dolphins per year. It was through a grass roots belief that dolphins should be protected that the dolphin safe label was born. Throughout this period, Mr. Chairman, Mexican fishermen have wanted to catch tuna by encircling dolphins and selling it to consumers in the United States. The Gilchrest bill would give foreign interests greater access to our markets and remove the incentives to the tuna industry to stay in the United States. That is not good policy for anyone but the foreign fishing fleets and foreign canners. Mr. Chairman, today, in a misplaced effort to comply with the foreign trade agreement, supporters of this bill propose changing the definition of dolphin-safe so dolphins can be chased and encircled in the catching of tuna, and the tuna can still be sold in the United States under the dolphin-safe label. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to this legislation and, quite frankly, even with the Studds amendment, but I do not believe that the bill adequately protects the dolphin stocks. Without the Studds amendment, Mr. Chairman, the consumers will not have that choice because they will not be able to tell dolphin-safe tuna from dolphin-unsafe tuna. H.R. 2823 is not the solution, Mr. Chairman, to the dolphin issue I would choose, but the Studds amendment is the tolerable option. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Studds amendment when it is brought before the floor for consideration.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by my good friend from Maryland concerning the legislation. But I think as a point of observation that I would like to share with the gentleman about the movement of tuna, not only as a migratory fish, but the fact that the way tuna is being caught in the eastern Pacific is quite different than the problems that we face in the western Pacific, the problems we have along the coastlines, the Latin American countries where the tuna tend to come up closer to the dolphins. I do not know if it is because of the current or the warmth of the water, whatever it is, that causes this difference in how the tuna survives when it moves, quite different than from the way that we catch tuna in the western Pacific. The fact is that the tuna tends to go lower in depth and so that when we do the purse seining, the dolphins are not as much affected as opposed to the problems we face in the eastern Pacific. This is the predicament that we find ourselves under. The fact that because of the differences in temperature, whatever it is, that causes the tuna, the eastern Pacific tuna to go up a little closer to the dolphins so we obviously end up with a very difficult problem there, where our friends from Mexico and other countries that have the tendency, when they do catch the tuna under the dolphins, the dolphins definitely are more affected by it as compared to the problems that we have in the western Pacific. I say to my good friend while I can appreciate his observations of how my forefathers have given a real sense of appreciation not only for the ocean environment, but the fact that here one of the most beautiful mammals in the world that we see and putting them on a sacrificial altar for the name of expediency and saying that tuna is more important than dolphins, I submit to the gentleman from Maryland, I could not disagree with him more on this issue.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, American Samoa is in the middle of the South Pacific Ocean, and fishing has been the life blood of Samoans for thousands of years. While today's commercial canning operations bear little resemblance to my father's subsistence fishing, we continue to use the same resource, the Pacific Ocean. The Samoans are also known as the voyagers, and countless generations ago, my forefathers, using Samoa and Tonga as a base, expanded the known world to include the island groups now known as French Polynesia, which includes the Island of Tahiti, the Cook islands, the Hawaiian Islands, and many of the smaller islands in between. We learned well the ways of the ocean, including who our friends are. In my lifetime, I have had the opportunity over the years to share the experiences of my ancestors. As a youth I traveled extensively on the waters of the Pacific in vessels voyaging between Tokelau and the Manu's islands. I have even traveled on a purse seiner for 400 miles from Samoa to the southern Tongan Islands. I was also invited to sail on the famous Hokule'a, a historical Polynesian sailing canoe built by native Hawaiians and constructed so as to be the same in size and configuration as the ancient sailing canoes. With Nainoa Thompson as our first Polynesian navigator in 200 years, we voyaged on the Hokule'a from the Island of Rangiroa in French Polynesia to Hawaii, utilizing noninstrument navigational methods, sailing by the movement of the stars, the ocean waves, and the flight of birds. During this voyage, I had the opportunity to experience firsthand the interaction among those who live in the sea and those who live on and above it. I developed a greater appreciation for all living things, and confirmed the gentle, helpful nature of dolphins. In fact, the experience I got from being at sea for weeks at a time is that the dolphins were always there, and I can share with my colleagues that the dolphins are just like humans. Dolphins have been sacred to the Polynesians as far back as our legends recount our history. Ancient Polynesians would rather starve than kill a dolphin. When people are at sea under sail for weeks, dolphins are of tremendous psychological benefit. I have experienced lack of movement in the doldrums and the intense heat of the tropics, and I can understand how the dolphins would have given early Polynesian travelers a sense of hope. My voyage on the Hokule'a gave me an opportunity to contemplate that perhaps the reason God created dolphins was to provide psychological support for sailors at sea. Samoan legend and modern news reporting all confirm today's common knowledge about dolphins: They are of no threat to mankind, and have on occasions saved the lives of their fellow mammals. In return mankind has hunted them down, killing over 100,000 per year, not for sustenance, but because tuna swim under them. When this was brought to the attention of the U.S. public, we rose in outrage and put enough economic pressure on the tuna industry to change its methods of fishing. And you have already heard, dolphin deaths have dropped from over 100,000 per year to 3,300 in 1995. This is a significant achievement, and we consumers are to be commended. Congress did its part as well, placing an embargo on tuna that is caught by methods which harm dolphins, and by enacting legislation which permits the use of the all-familiar ``dolphin safe'' label. Part of the underlying problem is that tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean swim under schools of dolphin, and one easy, quick way to catch tuna in the eastern Pacific is to chase dolphins until they are too exhausted to swim any further. Then the dolphins, and the tuna under them, are encircled in a net. It is this chasing and netting procedure that causes the harm to the dolphins. In the western Pacific Ocean, the tuna do not always swim under schools of dolphin, and tuna are found through the use of modern techniques, including helicopters and sonar. By netting schools of tuna which are not swimming under dolphins, the problem is solved: Consumers get their canned tuna, and no dolphins are killed in the process. Now, under pressure from foreign governments, it is being proposed that the current statutory and regulatory system be changed. My colleagues will recall that when we debated the implementing legislation for GATT and the proposed World Trade Organization, many of us pointed out the economic and policy difficulties which passage of the legislation would create. This is an example of the kind of problems we knew we would encounter under regulations of the World Trade Organization, or the WTO. Today we are being told that our dolphin safe embargo is in violation of the WTO rules, and that if we do not remove our embargo, the United States will be forced to pay significant fines. today we are being asked to forget a sound fisheries management policy that has reduced dolphin kills by 96 percent; we are being asked to forget the sound policy of using the attraction of the consumer market in the United States to alter the behavior of nations less concerned with the preservation of life; and instead we are being asked to give in to the foreign interests. H.R. 2823 is a bad idea because it rewards those who have the worst record in the killing of dolphins. This bill is nothing more than giving in to blackmail. What the foreign governments are saying is that unless we lift the embargo on canned tuna, they will allow the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of dolphins to resume. If this isn't blackmail--I don't know what is! Lifting the embargo constitutes only part of the bill. This will also perpetrate a fraud on the American consumer. H.R. 2823 changes the definition of dolphin safe to allow chasing, injury, harassment, encirclement, and capture of dolphins as long as no dolphins are observed dead in the nets. This definition allows tuna which have been caught by encirclement to be sold as dolphin safe in the U.S. market. This, Mr. Speaker, constitutes consumer fraud. This canneries in American Samoa were the first to announce they would no longer purchase tuna caught in association with dolphin. In large measure, this decision resulted in a marked decrease in the killing of dolphins worldwide--from a high of 115,000 in 1986 to less than 4,000 in 1995. Lifting the tuna embargo on Mexico and changing the definition of dolphin safe will confuse American consumers and undermine the integrity of an American industry which is currently struggling to survive. Lifting the embargo will also encourage what is left of the U.S. tuna industry to move to foreign countries in which businesses do not have to comply with any of the regulations that apply to U.S. companies located in our States and territories. U.S.-flagged purse seiners and tuna canning facilities in the United States must comply with the higher U.S. standards placed on U.S. companies by Federal law. Most foreign countries do not require the same high environmental and labor standards as the United States, and this works to the disadvantage of U.S. citizens and businesses because it puts pressure on U.S. companies to move overseas to be more competitive. There is proof that this movement to overseas locations is occurring. As a matter of policy, we should be encouraging businesses to locate and expand in the United States, not move to foreign soil. In 1983, 28.3 million pounds of foreign canned tuna entered the U.S. market above the quota. By 1991, this amount had increased to 237.2 million pounds--a more than eight-fold increase. In 1991, canned tuna from U.S. plants accounted for approximately 50 percent of the U.S. market. By 1993, our market share had been reduced to approximately 39 percent. Mr. Speaker, lifting the embargo on tuna caught by foreign nations will drive the last nail into the coffin of what remains of the U.S. tuna industry. Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Taiwan, Sri Lanka, and other countries are already able to export their canned tuna to the United States without having to comply with any of the safety, health, or environmental regulations that apply to U.S. companies. Adding additional countries to this list will have a devastating effect on the largest industry in American Samoa. It is believed that approximately 80 percent of our private-sector employment is associated with the catching, cleaning, canning, and shipping of tuna. Needless to say, closure of these plants would devastate the economy of American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, now is not the time to turn back the clock. Dolphin deaths worldwide have been reduced by 96 percent because of tough dolphin safe laws in the United States and Europe. The foreign businesses which are behind this harmful bill insist the U.S. change its law to unload their hard-to-market dolphin unsafe tuna in the lucrative U.S. dolphin safe market. This makes a mockery of the term dolphin safe. Unfortunately, the dolphins cannot be here to make a case for themselves. A few of us are here in the Chamber today to speak on their behalf, and I want to say on behalf of the millions of dolphins at risk, the day will come when mankind will be held accountable for its actions. This should be an easy vote. By voting against this bill, you will be voting for the dolphins, for U.S. fishermen, for the U.S. boat owners, for the U.S. tuna canners, and against foreign interests. Let us not be governed by foreign interests. Save the dolphins and kill the Gilchrest legislation. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Bogus Claims About Tuna-Dolphin Bill Dear Colleague: As the House prepares to debate H.R. 2823, the International Dolphin Act, you should know the truth behind several misimpressions frequently conveyed by supporters of the legislation. A careful examination of the facts provides overwhelming justification for the Studds ``Truth in Dolphin-Safe Labelling Amendment.'' H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``This bill doesn't allow more dolphins to be killed. It will reduce the number of dolphin deaths.'' But the fact is: H.R. 2823 allows the number of dolphin deaths to rise by over 30 percent! H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``Our bill doesn't allow dolphins to be hurt.'' But the fact is: dolphins may be regularly encircled, harassed and injured under the provisions of the bill! H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``Environmentalists support this bill.'' The fact is: over 80 grassroots environmental organizations vigorously oppose this bill and support the Studds amendment. By contrast, only the five environmental groups that secretly negotiated this agreement with Mexico support the bill. H.R. 2823 supporters say: ``We must support this bill, and we can't change this bill, because we would renounce an international treaty and damage American credibility.'' The fact is: no treaty has yet been negotiated, just an agreement to negotiate a treaty! This bill requires that we change U.S. law as a condition of negotiating the international agreement. The U.S. is the only country required to change its domestic consumer protection laws to conform to the pre-treaty agreement. Congress must not perpetuate a fraud on American consumers. ``Dolphin Safe'' must mean that dolphins are not injured or killed in the hunt for tuna, which is what our constituents believe it means. H.R. 2823 allows an increase in dolphin deaths and the unlimited injuring and harassment of dolphins. That is not ``Dolphin Safe.'' Support the Studds amendment to keep the ``Dolphin Safe'' label honest for American consumers.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Utah. It might be of interest, Mr. Speaker, that it was since 1844 that when the Mormon Church was founded that missionaries were first sent to the South Pacific in the South Seas. So the Polynesian people have had a very long and standing relationship with the Mormon Church since 1844, and because of this, even through His Majesty is not a member of the Mormon faith, but certainly most respectful throughout the region for his energy a and certainly for his outstanding leadership as one of the great leaders in the Pacific region. And for this, Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for this opportunity and want to wish His Majesty a very most welcomed visit here in our country.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the outstanding leadership and distinguished service of one of the South Pacific's most honored heads of state, His Majesty King Taufa'Ahau Tupou IV of the Kingdom of Tonga. His Majesty King Taufa'Ahau Tupou IV, the eldest son in the royal family, was born at the royal palace in Nuku'alofa on July 4, 1918. As crown prince, he studied in Australia at Newington College and the University of Sydney, where he received bachelor of arts and bachelor of law degrees. His Majesty was the first Tongan ever to receive university degrees. In addition to academic accomplishments, he excelled in athletics, being a member of the university's championship rugby and rowing teams. Upon concluding academic studies, His Majesty was appointed to the cabinet of the Tongan Government with the portfolio of Minister of Education, and later as Minister of Health. In 1949, he became the premier of Tonga, thus acquiring additional portfolios in foreign affairs, education, and agriculture. From early on, His Majesty has carried the major burden of the kingdom of Tonga's administration as well as development. During His Majesty's 16 year term as premier, Tonga benefited tremendously from his guiding hand, resulting in steady development and economic advancement of the kingdom. Due to his efforts, education standards were dramatically improved in Tonga with the establishment and expansion of public high school and college systems. In the business sector, His Majesty pushed for the creation of the Tongan copra board, the Tongan produce board, the agricultural council and the government fishing fleet--the backbone of the kingdom's economy. Under his able leadership, public communications and the media were also facilitated, with the establishment of the Tongan broadcasting commission and the local newspaper, the Tonga chronicle, now in its 31st year on publication. In 1965, with the passage of her late Majesty Queen Salote Tupou III, the crown prince was proclaimed King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV and coronation ceremonies were held in 1967. The remarkable progress achieved in the kingdom of Tonga during His Majesty's years of leadership has gained the respect of overseas nations and contributed to positive relations with international neighbors. His Majesty, in particular, has fostered close relations with the United Kingdom, which provides substantial financial support for Tonga's continued economic improvement. Mr. Speaker, this Friday in Utah, His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV will be honored again--this time by the Seacology Foundation for His Majesty's efforts in protection of the environment. The Seacology Foundation is a nonprofit foundation founded to help protect island ecosystems and island cultures. Seacology scientists include experts in endangered species, island Flora and Fauna, and island ecosystems. One hundred percent of the money donated to seacology goes directly to building schools, hospitals, installing safe water supplies, and meeting the other needs of the indigenous people who live near the rain forests so that these people will not have to sell off the rain forest to survive. Seacology scientists donate their time as well. His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV has been selected to receive this year's Seacology Foundation award as ``indigenous conservationist of the year'' for providing royal protection for the peka, or flying fox, colony in Kolovai village in Tongatapu, and for his protection of the primary forests of 'Eua island, and or supporting the establishment of a system of nature preserves throughout the kingdom of Tonga. His Majesty has also spent lifelong service as an interpreter and custondian of Tongan culture, both ancient and modern. The history and culture of the Tongan people are among the most ancient and historical among the Polynesian people. As a letter from the Seacology Foundation to His Majesty notifying him of the award explains, none of these achievements would have occurred without his strong leadership and support. Mr. Speaker, I deeply congratulate His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV and the Seacology Foundation for all their efforts and I would submit for the Record a copy of a letter from Dr. Paul Alan Cox, PH.D., chairman of the board of Seacology Foundation to His Majesty. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honor to call on my colleagues and our great Nation to join me in recognizing the outstanding and exemplary service of His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV on behalf of the good people of Tonga, the Pacific region, and our global community. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a copy of the letter to His Majesty from Dr. Paul Cox of the Seacology Foundation. December 15, 1995. His Majesty King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, The Kingdom of Tonga. Your Royal Highness: It is with deepest respect that I inform your royal highness that you have been selected as the 1996 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year by the Seacology Foundation. This annual award is made to honor those indigenous people who have performed heroic service in preserving their own ecosystems and cultures. After careful consideration of the activities of your majesty in providing royal protection for the peka or flying fox colony in Kolovai Village in Tongatapu island (which is the oldest flying fox refuge in the world), for your protection of the primary forest of `Eua island, for your support in establishing a system of nature preserves throughout the Kingdom of Tonga, and for your life-long service as an interpreter and custodian of Tongan culture, both ancient and modern, the Scientific Advisory Board of the Seacology Foundation has unanimously voted to honor your majesty with this award, which is the most prestigious conservation award for indigenous people in the world. The Seacology Foundation invites you, at our expense, to attend an award dinner in your honor and a presentation ceremony in Salt Lake City, Utah to receive your award, which will consist of an engraved plaque and a cash award of $1,000. Fine Nau and I will meet with you personally to arrange a convenient date for this event. Because of your stellar service, both public and private to conservation, and because of the tremendous example of dedication and courage that you have set for your own people--the Polynesian Islanders--and for indigenous peoples throughout the world, the Seacology Foundation is pleased to bestow upon you the most distinguished award for indigenous conservation in the world by naming you 1996 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year. We offer you our sincere appreciation for your tremendous devotion to protecting this planet. Warmest personal regards, Nafanus Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D, Chairman of the Board. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time to my good friend from the State of Utah [Mr. Hansen].

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which would retain the country of origin rules in effect on June 30, 1996 for apparel items produced in American Samoa. This legislation is limited in scope, and it will have a limited impact on U.S. trade. It is, however, critical to the economic development of American Samoa. Mr. Speaker, the American Samoa Government has been pursuing outside investment opportunities for many years. Recently, a garment manufacturing company has begun production in American Samoa--the first significant new outside industry to invest in the territory since the 1960's. The new industry provides jobs for our people, tax revenues for the local government, and secondary revenue for a variety of private sector businesses. The industry is small by U.S. standards, it employs fewer than 500 local people at this time, but it represents diversification for our economy, and its presence lessens our dependence on the Federal Government. The plant is running smoothly and is ahead of schedule with respect to production levels. Because this is a new industry for American Samoa, it requires a significant amount of planning and training of the local work force. While our people need time to develop the sewing skills needed to be competitive on a worldwide basis, we are very good at cutting--regularly meeting or exceeding the quantitative standards. To take advantage of our cutting skills, the existing garment manufacturing company is proposing a three-phase expansion. The expansion plans call for the construction of an enlarged cutting facility where fabric of U.S. origin will be cut, a dye plant in which grey goods or pre-dyed fabric of U.S. origin will be dyed and a knitting facility where yarn of U.S. origin will be knit into fabric. This will be good for the U.S. textile industry--in American Samoa and on the mainland. We estimate that an additional $5 to $7 million can be generated for the mainland U.S. textile industry if the expansion goes forward as planned. In addition, sewing capacity in American Samoa will increase in order to handle the larger output of material. The total required work force after 3 to 5 years is estimated to be in the range of 2,000 persons. Mr. Speaker, this is a very small number in U.S. mainland terms, but it is of great significance on an island whose population totals 60,000 people. It now appears that a recent change in U.S. Customs regulations will jeopardize our infant garment industry and its future growth. As of July 1, 1996, garments produced almost entirely in American Samoa lose their previous Customs treatment even if only a relatively small portion of the production process is performed in a foreign country. The garment company doing business in American Samoa would like to import United States yarn to American Samoa, knit or weave it in American Samoa, dye it in American Samoa, cut it in American Samoa, use what the plant in American Samoa can sew, ship only the excess out to another country for sewing, bring it back to American Samoa for final assembly and packaging and have the finished goods enter the United States as products of the United States. This was possible under the old regulations; under the new regulations which took effect on July 1st of this year, this can no longer be done. It does not make good business sense for this company to expand as it is proposing in American Samoa unless this expansion is economically feasible. The legislation I am introducing today, if enacted into law, would grandfather the nascent American Samoa garment industry under the old rules, enabling the industry to operate successfully in American Samoa and allowing the existing company to build a larger production facility and finance an orderly expansion. I believe that this legislation is reasonable and fair and in the best interest of the U.S. textile industry as a whole and the U.S. territories in particular. My legislation is limited in scope and will merely preserve the old country of origin rules for garment producers in America Samoa. My legislation will help other manufacturing companies who may contemplate locating in American Samoa. This industry is already providing more than 400 new local jobs in American Samoa, and will provide hundreds more if the expansion plans can be implemented. The infant industry and its future growth are at stake. This is an important test case which will prove whether or not new export industries can be successful in American Samoa. The implications of the success, or failure, of the expansion project are critical for the economic future of the territory. Mr. Speaker, the experience of the people of American Samoa is a good example of the difficulties the United States territories face in attracting businesses to invest in our economies. American Samoa's economy has been hampered by our isolation from world markets and world shipping lanes. We have relied on incentives such as the possessions tax credit and the advantages offered under General Note 3(a) of the Harmonized Trade Agreement to help attract the outside investment our economy needs to grow, but those incentives are disappearing. Over time, the advantages of doing business in the U.S. territories may be outweighed by the emergence of low-cost alternatives engendered by NAFTA and GATT/WTO policies. Countries with lower wage scales, such as Mexico and others in Central America and the Far East, could lure business away from the United States. Under our analysis, sewing in higher wage countries will continue to be reduced, and there may not be a domestic U.S. sewing industry in ten years. I believe that this legislation will better position the United States to keep as much of the industry in U.S. hands as possible, and I look forward to seeing this bill enacted into law.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which will add carrier competition to the passenger air routes between Pago Pago, American Samoa and Honolulu, HI. Mr. Speaker, the experience of the people in the territory I represent is a good example of the difficulties we Pacific Islanders face in establishing regular and reliable air transportation at a reasonable rate for passengers, vital cargo, and mail. American Samoa is comprised of a remote group of islands located in the South Pacific Ocean. The territory is approximately 2,200 miles from the closest State in the United States, which is the State of Hawaii. With millions of square miles of open ocean surrounding our islands, air transport is not simply a faster way for travelers to get from point to point, it is often the sole and only feasible means to bridge our isolation. Because American Samoa is a remote destination, the U.S. Department of Transportation, in an effort to assure at least minimal air service, designated Pago Pago, American Samoa as an EAS--essential air service-- community on October 26, 1979. This designation recognizes that American Samoa is a remote location in need of air service on a regular basis to ensure that certain necessities are available. The U.S. Postal Service averages between 27,000 and 30,000 pounds of mail per week for local residents. Among other vital cargo carried on this route are medical supplies such as Hepatitis B serum, hemodialysis supplies, insulin, samples requiring laboratory testing, and blood packs for rare blood types. Because ocean shipping can take up to 2 months, perishable food items such as bread, vegetables, dairy products, and meat must come in by air. Currently, there is only one airline providing service between American Samoa and Honolulu. This airline reported an operating profit of 50 percent on the route for 1995, by comparison, an operating profit of 10 percent is considered good on other domestic routes. The American Samoa Government has tried for years to attract a second air carrier to the route, but history has shown that our market can only support one carrier at a time. After looking at the route, each potential carrier has determined that there is insufficient passenger traffic for two airlines and each has declined to enter the market. This scenario provides the sole air carrier with a virtual monopoly and affords the carrier the opportunity to charge excessive rates. The legislation I am introducing today, if enacted into law, will direct the Secretary of Transportation to solicit proposals from air carriers which are willing to provide a certain minimum level of service between American Samoa and Honolulu. The figures show that the route can be self-sustaining and does not require a subsidy when served by a single carrier. Based on the proposals received, the Secretary will, in consultation with the Governor of American Samoa, select one carrier to provide the service. The award of the air service route will be for a period not to exceed 2 years, and may be renewed. American Samoa's economy has been hampered and our people have been inconvenienced for too long because of the lack of adequate air service to connect us to the national air transport system. I believe that this legislation will inject competition into this limited market, and I look forward to seeing this bill enacted into law.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend all of my colleagues, regardless of position, for their heartfelt commitment on the issue of most favored nation [MFN] trade status renewal for China-- clearly the most pressing issue now facing relations between Washington and Beijing. Although I have the greatest respect for those Members in Congress that sincerely believe that denial of MFN is necessary to prod China into complying with its international obligations and for progress in human and political rights, I feel that they are misguided. Thus, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose adoption of House Joint Resolution 182 and to support House Resolution 461. I have long been a supporter of maintaining broad and comprehensive ties with the Peoples' Republic of China--a policy of China engagement that has been upheld in a bipartisan fashion by five previous administrations. It is in America's national interest to have a productive relationship with a China that is strong, stable, open and prosperous-- a China that is increasingly integrated into the international community and global marketplace as a responsible and accountable partner. Over the past two decades, we have seen tremendous strides forward in China on several fronts. Although China still has significant problems in several areas--such as human rights, nuclear and missile proliferation, and fair trade--can anybody seriously question whether today's China is fundamentally different from the Communist China that existed before President Nixon's triumphal opening. Due to vigorous trade and the concomitant expansion of contacts with the West, China has evolved into a more open society with a government that is increasingly sensitive to international opinion. It is absolutely vital that the United States support the continued opening of China to the world via the medium of trade--not close the door. Denial of MFN to China achieves nothing while forcing American businesses to unnecessarily pay a great sacrifice. Moreover, the inevitable trade war to erupt between China and the United States over MFN denial would also adversely impact all of the economies of the Asia-Pacific nations. Is it any wonder that Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other Asian governments have begged the United States not to deny China MFN--a unilateral economic sanction that is clearly useless without multilateral support. Mr. Speaker, we cannot isolate China by applying trade sanctions but, ironically, that action would result in the isolation of America, both economically and politically. Mr. Speaker, I would urge our Members to support renewal of MFN trade status for China, as it is in America's national interest to maintain productive and positive relations with China--a nation that is destined to be the leader of Asia in the 21st century. United States engagement with China. Oppose adoption of House Joint Resolution 182 and support House Resolution 461.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, this is not a happy occasion for me to be standing here before my colleagues and to pay a special tribute to the late Congressman Bill Emerson from the State of Missouri. Bill Emerson, I think, can adequately be described as stubborn as those Missouri mules, as I understand it, but Bill Emerson also had a heart. He had a heart full of compassion, and one of real appreciation for the needs of America's elderly and the poor and the hungry. It was my privilege to serve as a member of the Select Committee on Hunger, where Bill Emerson was also one of the senior members of the committee. The occasions that I have had in having hearings with him and to listen to this man, I certainly have respected him very highly for his opinions about the needs of America's hungry. It was also my privilege, Mr. Speaker, to attend or to be a member of the delegation that went to Somalia, as it was cochaired by the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis]. Bill Emerson was a member of that delegation. It was not until that trip that I felt the real sense of compassion that this man had for those who are really in need. As my good friend, the gentleman from Georgia, indicated earlier, we had to wear jackets for our safety because of the dangerous situation that the people of Somalia were confronted with at that time. Bill Emerson was there because he had compassion. I believe personally that it was because of his strong convictions that he was able and was one of the forces which led President Bush to send the troops that were needed from the resources that America had, that he wanted for humanitarian reasons to help the needs of that nation. Bill Emerson was a dear friend because he helped me, and I am sure this was true of so many of my colleagues here. For my elderly people and the disabled in my district, Bill Emerson was one of the key players who helped me provide the legislation for their needs. I certainly would like to convey my heartfelt condolences to Jo Ann and to the members of his family and to this great gentleman, not because he was a Republican, but because he was a great American.