Eni Faleomavaega

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment regarding the construction of the third telescope on the top of Mount Graham in Arizona. The amendment adds new language limiting the appropriation of funds for the further construction of the Mount Graham telescope project until such time as the project complies with all environmental and historic preservation laws. This amendment is also intended to override the provisions of section 317 of this bill, which deems the alternative site for the third telescope to be in compliance with all the environmental laws, even though it isn't. The alternative site that section 317 refers to lies outside of the original boundaries set by Congress. The reason the Mount Graham project is so controversial is because Mount Graham has been a sacred place of worship for the Apache Indians for thousands of years and because the mount is home to an irreplaceable ecosystem, including the red squirrel. Section 317 is yet a third attempt to exempt the Mount Graham observatory project from the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other laws. The project was partially exempted from complying with studies under these laws by a 1988 law. The reason these studies were not completed in 1988 was that the proponents were unwilling to list the many alternatives to the project to the American public. A 1984 study listed 38 sites in the continental U.S. superior to Mount Graham. A 1987 study demonstrated that Mauna Kea in Hawaii was a better site than Mount Graham. The other alternatives are so important because Mount Graham is host to over 18 plants and animals found nowhere else in the world and is a mountain most sacred to the Apache people. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies show that the 7 telescopes authorized in the 1988 law would permanently destroy 25 percent of the best habitat of the endangered Mt. Graham red squirrel. Furthermore, the telescopes descecrate sacred religious ground. The San Carlos Apache Tribe calls this project, ``a display of profound disrespect for a cherished feature of our original homeland as well as a serious violation of our traditional religious beliefs.'' Protecting the religious rights of our people, including Indians, is part of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 317 would simply waive those protections. Subsequent University of Arizona studies showed the University had placed its project on the worst spot on Mt. Graham. Its studies also found another observatory site in southern Arizona with clearly superior visibility. The point is that if the university had just waited to finish its homework it would have chosen another site. Instead, in their haste, they committed a monumental scientific siting blunder. The U.S. Courts ruled in 1994 and 1995, that its December 1988 law, as well as NEPA and the ESA. Similarly, this House, in 1990, held hearings chaired by Congressmen Gerry Studds and Bruce Vento in which the Fish and Wildlife Service admitted that the ``no jeopardy'' opinion on which Congress relied in passing the 1988 exemption was carried out in probable violation of law. The point I am making is that the very assumptions we have been basing our actions upon regarding the construction of this project have been wrong. If that is the case, then is it really to much to ask to have someone scientifically review this project, and let the university follow the law like everyone else? There have been complaints that if we require the university to complete the necessary environmental studies then it will grately delay the project. That is not true. Even if we could begin construction today, the fact of the matter is that it will still take over 3 years to complete the two mirrors for the telescope, more than the amount of time it will take to complete the long-overdue environmental studies the university objects to. The National Congress of American Indians, representing over 200 tribes in the United States opposes this project. All of the tribes in Arizona, including the Hopi and Navajo support the Apache's opposition. The racial justice working group of the National Council of Churches, representing some 48 million U.S. citizens and some 50 Christian denominations oppose this desecration. As a final point, I would like to note that since passage of the 1996 omnibus appropriations bill, which contained a similar rider, a 6,000 acre fire burned large portions of the mountain. Perhaps this was a sign from God. At any rate, the fire seriously damaged the remaining habitat of the endangered species living on the mountain. If for no other reason than this, we need to make sure that all of the environmental protections are in place and are followed before we further destroy the top of the mountain. The American public holds our precious religious freedoms dearly. These are what our country was founded on. I cannot think of another instance where we have been asked to so callously disregard the religious rights of our own citizens. This is intolerable and I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a listing of groups opposed to the Mt. Graham International Observatory, and a letter from the San Carlos Apache Tribe regarding the Mt. Graham Observatory telescope project.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to ask that we have a recorded vote on the point of order?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I come before my colleagues and our great Nation today to state my strongest opposition to a proposal that some people view as nuclear lunacy. Some of my colleagues may have heard of this reckless initiative circulating around Capitol Hill, that would give birth to the world's largest nuclear waste cesspool--right smack in the middle amongst Pacific island nations and in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Mr. Speaker, after approximately 50 years of nuclear testing in the Pacific, where hundreds of the world's most lethal nuclear weapons have been detonated, would you not think Mr. Speaker, that the peoples and the environment of the Pacific have suffered enough from nuclear poisoning and contamination? Apparently not--as a group of investors from New York and Russia--yes, Russian--are pushing the idea of commercially developing Palmyra Atoll, a United States possession in the Pacific, as an international storage site for spent nuclear fuel and plutonium. These investors are prepared to sacrifice the health and welfare of millions of men, women, and children who reside in the Pacific, for the billions of dollars these investors intend to make in annual revenues. According to these investors, their commercial enterprise would bring together the Governments of the United States, Russia and others to jointly store over 200,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel and excess weapons plutonium on Palmyra Atoll. Although making money is the primary motive, they also proclaim altruistic objectives, such as: First, securing Russia's fissile materials from the nuclear black market, while restraining Moscow's spread of nuclear technology to suspect regimes; Second, discouraging the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel by nations for plutonium; and Third, materially aiding global efforts to stop nuclear proliferation. Although I find these nonproliferation objectives to be admirable, I take great exception to the investors' decision to locate their international nuclear storage site on Palmyra Island--a volcanic island. Hawaii's distinguished Senator, Daniel Akaka, has recently opposed the plan, calling it nuclear nonsense, and I cannot more wholeheartedly agree with the gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, it is the height of folly and sheer nonsense to build the planet's largest nuclear wastedump on a geologically-suspect, dormant volcano--a volcanic formation that is surrounded by swirling Pacific currents, storms, cyclones, and hurricanes. Or how about these freak waves that travel in the Pacific at 60 mph and at 60 feet in height? As many of us know, the Pacific Basin is afflicted by shifting tectonic plates, and volcanoes erupt regularly. With the State of Hawaii less than 1000 miles away and my district, American Samoa, also close by--who can guarantee that Americans will not suffer from the environmental firestorm to erupt if Palmyra Atoll is, again, subjected to geologic movement? Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the storage here of 200,000 tons of nuclear materials that shall remain radioactive, toxic and hazardous for over 100,000 years--in essence, for all time, as far as I am concerned. Mr. Speaker, the menace to surrounding Pacific island nations, such as Kiribati less than 200 miles away, is obviously the greatest. I would not want my family to live on islands anywhere close to Palmyra. What guarantees are there for the lives of some 1.2 million American citizens who live in the State of Hawaii, which is located less than 1,000 miles north of Palmyra Island? Mr. Speaker, the Palmyra proposal subjects Pacific residents to additional dangers, as ships carrying spent nuclear fuel and plutonium from all corners of the world shall traverse the Pacific to reach the island. The threat of accidental vessel sinkings and terrorist hijackings of the deadly nuclear cargoes are only the beginning of problems to anticipate and are surely to come if this body ever approves this proposal. After review of proposed legislation that would facilitate Palmyra Atoll's development as a private nuclear storage site, I believe that, in addition to the concerns I have already raised, the proposal is grossly unsound on its face. I have attached a copy of the draft legislation for the Record. The bill directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission [NRC] to expeditiously review the issuance of a license to the owners of Palmyra to operate a spent nuclear fuel storage facility, thereby applying undue pressure upon the NRC to circumvent normal environmental, engineering and safety requirements for such storage facilities. The bill further provides that key sections of the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] and the Clean Water Act shall not apply to the Palmyra facility, thereby sidestepping legal requirements for an environmental impact statement to be prepared. What are they trying to hide? The bill also makes no provision whatsoever for the ultimate disposition of the 200,000-plus tons of nuclear material to be stored on Palmyra. From my understanding, Palmyra is not to be a permanent repository like Yucca Mountain, which has entailed years of study and analyses which are still on-going. Nor is there any provision that addresses who will be liable in the event that a nuclear accident occurs at Palmyra or while nuclear materials are in-transit through the Pacific region. Can these investors cover this enormous liability, or are the United States and Russia expected to do so? Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill makes no mention of who will provide the necessary security and protection of these deadly fissile materials. The Palmyra storage facility will constitute a plutonium mine for centuries that will attract every rogue government and terrorist group with nuclear weapons ambitions. Who is to provide for the long-term security of Palmyra? Mr. Speaker, as I said in the beginning, this Palmyra Atoll initiative is nuclear lunacy. Rather than governments putting the responsibility of storing dangerous nuclear materials in the hands of a private company, perhaps we should consider having the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA] perform this crucial function for the world community. Mr. Speaker, the Palmyra Atoll proposal is the work of individuals who see only profits and outright greed, at the expense of the lives of the millions of people who live throughout the Asia-Pacific regions. These profiteers now see that by throwing to the Pacific Islands a few bones to chew on--that this will satisfy their needs. Is $250 million enough? What happened to the initial offer for $750 million? Mr. Speaker, I cannot more strongly urge our colleagues to stand with me in opposing this reckless legislation when and if it is introduced to be considered by this body. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following for the Record: Draft Bill To facilitate the ability of private owners to site, design, license, construct, operate and decommission a private facility for the interim or permanent storage of commercial high-level spent nuclear fuel on the Pacific Atoll of Palmyra subject to licensing by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from my district, and in doing so I always have to go through the State of Hawaii. Today, the State of Hawaii is celebrating Kamehameha Day, they call it every year, in honor of the great King of Hawaii, Kamehameha. I want to share with my colleagues some very interesting tributes to this great Polynesian Hawaiian king, whose statue is right here in Statuary Hall as it was a gift from the State of Hawaii commemorating this great island ruler. Kamehameha had to prove not only his kingship by birth, but he also had to prove his kingship by merit. His rivals were just as big as he. I do not know if my colleagues realize, Mr. Speaker, but the statute that we see here of King Kamehameha is supposed to be life size. This great King of Hawaii was almost 7 feet in stature, weighed almost 300 pounds, and can my colleagues just imagine that his rivals were just as big as he, and having a fleet of some 16,000 canoes, and the population of the Hawaiian community at that time was some 300,000 native Hawaiians that lived during his time. Prophesies were made before Kamehameha was even born that he would be truly a king of chiefs, and that is why his name is aptly called, The Lonely One, and I ask my colleagues to go see the statue of King Kamehameha in Statuary Hall.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I note also for the Record the gentleman from New Mexico fully supports this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 848 would increase the amount authorized for the Federal share of the costs of relocating Highway 27 around the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Park from $35 million to $51.9 million. A similar version of this bill was passed by the House during the 103d Congress. We have no objection to enactment of this legislation. The Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park was established in 1890 as the first national military park. It was created to commemorate and interpret the battle of Chickamauga in northern Georgia, which took place from September 19 through 22, 1863. ``Chick- Chat'' was one of the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. The park is maintained as closely as possible to its historic condition with the terrain, vegetation and historic road system that existed in 1863 largely intact. However, one of the crucial arteries over which the battle was waged, Lafayette Road, locally known as Highway 27, is now a major commuter and commercial route. The 3.7 miles of the highway located within the park present a significant impediment to visitor safety and enjoyment of the park, and its increasing use threatens the park's resources. Public Law 100-211 authorized $30 million in Federal funds to assist the State of Georgia in relocating this section of the highway around the park. The Federal contribution was limited to 75 percent of the total cost of relocation, with the funding contingent upon approval by the Secretary of the Interior of the design and location of the by- pass. Total appropriated funds stood at $25.446 through fiscal year 1995. Of that, $1.9 was rescinded from the fiscal year 95 appropriation. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the total estimated costs now stand at $69.2 million. The revised Federal share would, therefore, be $51.9 million. H.R. 848, as reported by the Resources Committee, increases the authorized appropriation to $51.9 million. We note that the Clinton administration also supports enactment of the bill. The Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 848, the bill of the gentleman from California, and 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 first would like certainly to commend the gentleman from Utah, the chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, for his leadership and working cooperatively with the Members of this side of the aisle, for bringing this very important piece of legislation for the Members to consider and approve. I also offer my commendation to the gentleman from New Mexico, who is our ranking member of the subcommittee, but certainly the author of the legislation now before us, the gentleman from Georgia. I want to say to my colleagues that 6 years ago I was, along with other Members of the Congress, going to Selma, AL, to commemorate the 25th anniversary of that historic march that took place in 1965. Mr. Speaker, I realize that coming from the other part of the world, I guess those islands out there in the Pacific are somewhat isolated at times, where we out in the Pacific do not seem to know what is going on in the continental United States. But seeing the extent of what had happened in watching this on television and seeing that one of our Members here, as the author of this very important legislation who participated in this important march knows, I want to share with my colleagues that one of the most spiritual experiences I have had was going down there to Selma, AL, and participating in a church service of that little chapel where it all started. All I was thinking of was the great and the late Martin Luther King, Jr., the advocate and certainly the leader of that momentous occasion and where our own Member, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] was part of that great march, and I hope that every Member of this Chamber will have an opportunity to go to Selma, AL, and see what it was like and to feel the problems and inequities that existed in the civil rights, not only of our black brothers and sisters, but certainly for all Americans. I think this is what this legislation is all about, to serve as a reminder that there are inequities despite what it says in the Constitution. We still have problems that are human, and as I certainly endorse the comments made by the gentleman from Massachusetts, we need to look a little deeper in terms of the problems that we still face in this Nation. Again I commend the gentlemen from Georgia [Mr. Lewis] for sponsoring this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today would amend Public Law 103-93, the Utah Schools and Land Improvement Act, which transferred land between the Federal Government and the State of Utah. At the time the bill was under consideration, we were approached by the Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, which is located along the border of Utah and Nevada. Their request was to correct some boundary problems along the southern edge of the reservation in Utah. Due to the current configuration of that boundary and the remoteness of the area, proper management of the land has been very difficult. The State of Utah and the Bureau of Land Management and the tribe have been unable to prevent persistent problems with trespassing and poaching on the land. Some are concerned that stopping action on the Utah Schools and Land Improvement Act to deal with the needs of the Goshute Tribe could be detrimental to the passage of this legislation. It was, therefore, agreed that the tribe would withdraw its request, with the promise that their needs would be addressed at a later date. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to say that we are here today to keep our promise to the Goshute Tribe. This bill will transfer approximately 8,000 acres of State and 400 of BLM land to the tribe, resulting in a much clearer boundary definition for the tribe to manage. This bill is supported by the tribe, the administration, the board of trustees for the school and Institutional Trust Lands Administration of Utah, Juab County, UT, and the Utah Wilderness Coalition. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen] the author of this piece of legislation. He is certainly to be commended for his tireless efforts to bring all the appropriate parties to negotiate an agreeable arrangement of land boundaries between the tribe and the State of Utah and the Federal Government. I also want to commend the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson], the ranking member of the subcommittee, for his review and close collaboration with the interested parties and organizations to bring this bill now up for full consideration by the House. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is what I would consider a model piece of legislation, where there has truly been the spirit of bipartisanship in certainly the leadership exemplified by the gentleman from Utah in bringing this now to the forefront and before the body. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back 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 have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, it is not often that I appear in the well to make speeches, but in this instance, I am compelled to do so, particularly to note the seriousness of the issue now before us. I feel it is very, very unfortunate that we are only given 7 minutes to debate a very major issue affecting the lives of some 200 native American Indians. Some of our friends have said we are French- Americans, we are Italian-Americans, we are Irish-Americans. The fact of the matter is we have only been granted native American citizenship in 1924; 300-some treaties we have broken, every treaty we signed to signify the sovereignty of the Indian tribes. I would like to remind my friends, there is only one designation given in our Constitution to recognize Indian tribes separate and apart from French-Americans or British-Americans. We are all Americans in that respect. Madam Speaker, I support the gentleman's amendment. I ask my good friend, the gentlewoman from Ohio, give the Indian tribes a chance and the Committee on Resources, which has primary jurisdiction over the needs of native Americans, give us a chance to work this thing over. The problem cases, 40 cases, that is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the problem that we are dealing with. Madam Speaker, the Indian Child Welfare Act works. Support the Young- Miller amendment. Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the House, it is not often that I appear in the well to make speeches. But in this instance, I am compelled to do so--particularly to note the seriousness of the issue now before us. H.R. 3286, as authored by the gentlelady from New York is an excellent piece of legislation to provide a better means whereby some 500,000 of our Nation's children are cared for through adoption. With one exception, however--and that's title III of H.R. 3286, which deals with adoption of children who are of Native American Indian ancestry. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alaska, who is also the chairman of the House Committee on Resources. Title III of this bill is the spoiler of this legislation, and I ask my good friend, the gentlelady from Ohio to give the Indian tribes and the Resources Committee an opportunity to do its job for proper hearing and thorough examination of the problem. Madam Speaker, for some 18 years now, Congress passed legislation specifically to address the plight of Indian tribes and to remedy the problem as noted in the 1978 report, that the ``wholesale separation of Indian children from their families--is perhaps the most tragic and destructive aspect of American Indian life today.'' Contrary to assertions that the 1978 Indian Child Welfare Act has not worked, it's not true. In fact it has worked very well. According to the 1995 testimony received, ``there may have been only 40 contested Indian adoption cases in the past 15 years, which is less than one- tenth of 1 percent of the total numbers of Indian adoption cases throughout the period.'' And I might note that the vast majority of the problem cases were caused by willful violations of the act. Madam Speaker, my heart goes out to the families that have had to expend their life's fortunes--$75,000 and even some $300,000 in court litigation. And I must say the responsibility lies squarely upon the shoulders of those adoption attorneys. I cannot believe for a second Madam Speaker, that these adoption attorneys were not aware of the Federal law governing the adoption of Indian children. These adoption laws have been in the books for some 15 years. Most, if not all the problem cases involving Indian children occurred after passage of the 1978 act. Any adoption attorney worth a grain of salt should have been aware of such laws--but the problem, Madam Speaker, the adoption attorneys purposely would advise adoption parents not to reveal the Indian ancestry of these children. And at $20,000 a pop for these adoption cases--again, Madam Speaker, the fault lies squarely on these adoption attorneys. Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Rules Committee has allocated only 7\1/2\ minutes to debate this very important issue. Moreover, I must remind my colleagues that it was not until 1924 that our Nation ever granted U.S. citizenship to Native American Indians. Our Nation also has broken every treaty that was signed with the Indian tribes. Madam Speaker, the speeches before me said our Nation should not distinguish between French Americans, Irish Americans, Polish Americans, Asian Americans--we're all Americans. But I must remind my colleagues that Native American Indian tribes, is the only ethnic group that the U.S. Constitution specifically makes reference to as a sovereign entity, for which the Congress of the United States is specifically assigned the responsibility of dealing with Native American Indians. Under the provisions of section 8, article I of the Constitution of the United States, it states, ``Congress shall have power to * * * regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes * * *'' The Native American Indians are specifically cited, Madam Speaker, because under our form of democracy we have had treaty relations with Indian tribes for the past 300 years. So, let's not mislead the American people by suggesting the Native American Indians are the same as French Americans, British Americans, Irish Americans, Italian Americans, because they are not. Again, I ask the gentlelady from Ohio to give the Indian tribes throughout America and the House Resources Committee a chance to review and provide input in this process. It has been suggested by the gentlelady that despite all her efforts, the Resources Committee and the Indian tribes were not responsive. The fact is, Madam Speaker, our legislative agenda is controlled by the Republican leadership of the House, and for whatever reason that the gentlelady's concerns were not addressed, I cannot respond other than to say I am willing to work the gentlelady at any time to resolve this problem. Again, Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the Young- Miller amendment by eliminating title III of H.R. 3286. Supplemental Views on H.R. 3286 We report these supplemental views on title III of H.R. 3286, the Adoption Promotion and Stability Act of 1996 (the ``bill''), because of our great concern that this bill, however well-intentioned, will do grave and unavoidable harm to the Indian Child Welfare Act (the ``Act'') and even, perhaps, to the future of Indian tribes and Indian children as well. In addition, we write to express our displeasure with the process in which this bill has been introduced, referred, and scheduled for a floor vote. The fact that Title III of this bill was introduced without any consultation with those people it affects the most--Indian parents, children, and tribes--strikes us not only as grossly paternalistic but a recipe for legislative disaster. Indeed, the laws and practices surrounding Indian adoptions are complex and poorly understood. Rather than proceeding rashly into a field armed simply with anecdotal evidence and fierce convictions, perhaps the sponsors should have sat down and gathered empirical information from the tribes and social workers most familiar with the day-to-day workings of the Act. In other words, the bill's sponsors should have at least thought about conducting a hearing on this important measure. Yet none were scheduled or even planned. The bill's sponsors had originally planned to bring this bill to the House floor without any Committee proceedings at all. Although the House leadership apparently agreed with the Committee Chairman that there should at least be an appearance of process and therefore granted a six day referral to this Committee, the fact remains that this Committee's role was always viewed suspiciously, and even antagonistically, largely out of concern that the committee membership would be sympathetic to the Indian tribes' point of view. Of course, we have serious problems with the bill, as set forth below. That is because this Committee takes this Nation's Federal trust responsibility towards the more than 550 Alaska Native and American Indian tribes seriously. This does not mean that the Committee is not aware of problems associated with the implementation of the Act, nor does it mean that the Committee is not willing to take measures to make improvements to the Act. The point is that the Committee members would have been willing to work with the sponsors in a constructive and deliberate manner on legislation that improves and strengthens the Act. But that is not what the sponsors apparently wanted. And that is unfortunate because the remaining adoption titles in the bill have strong merit. It seems odd to jeopardize passage of an otherwise worthwhile bill by burdening it with a controversial, untested, and hastily drafted provision that has merited the strong objection of the Committee of primary jurisdiction and the unanimous opposition of Indian tribes throughout the country.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Footnotes at end of article. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Turning to the substance of the bill, our objections are manyfold. In order to fully illustrate the depth and nature of our concerns, we believe it is appropriate to first examine the history and purposes of the Act. The Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted in 1978, after ten years of Congressional study, in order to protect Indian children and Indian tribes. This Committee, in its 1978 Report, determined that ``[t]he wholesale separation of Indian children from their families is perhaps the most tragic and destructive aspect of American Indian life today.'' \2\ As stated in the Act itself, Congress ``has assumed the responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes and their resources'' and ``that there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children . . .'' \3\ Prior to enactment of ICWA, the Committee received testimony from the Association on American Indian Affairs that in 1969 and 1974 approximately 25% to 35% of all Indian children had been separated from their families and placed in adoptive families, foster care, or institutions.\4\ The rate of adoptions of Indian children was wildly disproportionate to the adoption rate of non-Indian children. According to the 1978 House Report, Indian children in Montana were being adopted at a per capita rate thirteen times that of non- Indian children, in South Dakota sixteen times that of non- Indian children, and in Minnesota five times that of non- Indian children.\5\ In one House hearing, Chief Calvin Isaac of the Mississippi Band of Choctow Indians explained the cause for the large removal of Indian children: One of the most serious failings of the present system is that Indian children are removed from the custody of their natural parents by nontribal government authorities who have no basis for intelligently evaluating the cultural and social premises underlying Indian home life and childrearing. Many of the individuals who decide the fate of our children are at best ignorant of our cultural values, and at worst contempful of the Indian way and convinced that removal, usually to a non-Indian household or institution, can only benefit an Indian child.\6\ Thus, Congress chose to act to protect Indian tribes against the disproportionate wholesale, and often unwarranted, removal of Indian children from their families and subsequent placement in adoptive or foster homes. Chairman Udall, the Act's principal sponsor, reaffirmed the need for the Act on the House floor, ``Indian tribes and Indian people are being drained of their children and, as a result, their future as a tribe and a people is being placed in jeopardy.'' \7\ We emphasize that Congress enacted ICWA in recognition of two important interests--that of the Indian child, and that of the Indian tribe in the child. In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court in the Holyfield case expounded on this latter interest, quoting a lower court: The protection of this tribal interest is at the core of ICWA, which recognizes that the tribe has an interest in the child which is distinct but on a parity with the interest of the parents.\8\ Another problem surrounding Indian adoptions that the Congress chose to address was the inability of non-Indian institutions, in particular state courts and adoption agencies, to recognize the differing cultural values and relations in Indian communities.\9\ For instance, state courts and adoption workers usually failed to grasp the powerful role and presence of the extended family in Indian communities.\10\ Thus, Congress structured the Act to counter the tendency of non-Indians to focus solely on the immediate relationship of the Indian children to their parents while ignoring the relationship of the children to their extended family. In fact, that is a glaring shortcoming of the proposed bill which stresses only the relationship of the child's parent to the tribe. In order to balance the interests of Indian children and their tribes, Congress set up a carefully tailored dual jurisdictional scheme to provide deference to tribal judgment in cases involving Indian children residing on Indian lands and to provide concurrent but presumptive tribal jurisdiction in the case of Indian children not residing on Indian lands. It is important to recognize that this dual jurisdictional scheme settles jurisdictional and choice-of-law issues in a way that best facilitates the placement of Indian children with families. This is so for the simple reason that tribal courts are generally in a better position than state courts to know whether an Indian child has relatives who want to adopt the child, or whether there are other Indian or non-Indian families who want to adopt the child. As a final matter, Congress enacted ICWA to address the social and psychological impact on Indian children of placement in non-Indian families. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that ``it is clear that Congress' concern over the placement of Indian children in non-Indian homes was based in part on evidence of the detrimental impact on the children themselves of such placement outside their culture.'' Holyfield at 59-50. In particular, the Court noted studies that demonstrated that Indian children raised in non-Indian settings often have recurring developmental problems encountered in adolescence. Id. at 50, n.24. See also, Berlin, Anglo Adoptions of Native Americans, Repercussions in Adolescence, 17 J. Am. Acad. of Child Psychology 387 (1978). Removal of Indian children from Indian families precipitates not only a cultural loss to the Indian tribe but a loss of identity to the children themselves. Recent studies indicate that ICWA has worked well in redressing the wrongs caused by the removal of Indian children from their families. A 1987 report revealed as overall reduction in foster care placement in the early 1980s after enactment of ICWA.\11\ A 1988 report indicated that ICWA had motivated courts and agencies to place greater numbers of Indian children into Indian homes.\12\ Testimony received at a May 1995 hearing on H.R. 1448 from Terry Cross, director of the National Indian Child Welfare Association, indicates that, contrary to assertion by non-Indian adoption attorneys and agencies of hundreds or even thousands of ``problem'' Indian adoptions, there may be only 40 contested Indian adoption cases in the past fifteen years, less than one-tenth of one-percent of the total number of Indian adoption cases during that period. As set forth later, we believe that the vast majority of those ``problem'' cases are the direct result of willful violations of the Act and can be addressed by changes to the law that promote greater notification and sanctions for violations. Having examined the background of the Act, we turn to reservations about the substance of H.R. 3286. Section 301 of the bill would limit the application of the Act to off-reservation Indian children with at least one parent who maintains a ``significant'' social, cultural, or political affiliation with an Indian tribe. A determination of such an affiliation is final. Our first objection is that this section is vague. The bill provides no guidance to the courts as to the meaning of ``significant'' or ``affiliation''. The use of ``final'' can be read to preclude appellate review by state, federal or tribal courts. The vagueness inherent in this section is likely to lead to new levels and areas of litigation, contrary to the purposes of the Act and in frustration of efforts to quickly place Indian children with adoptive or foster families. Second, the bill needlessly jettisons a simple test for the application of the Act, membership (which is a political test), in favor of a complicated test. Again, this will likely promote rather than curtail litigation involving Indian custody proceedings, contrary to the purposes of the Act. Third, the bill would cede back to state courts and agencies the primary role of making placement and jurisdictional decisions. As explained in the history above, Congress chose to give primary jurisdiction over the adoption of Indian children to the tribes precisely because of the states' inability to understand tribal cultural and political institutions. Thus, to give states the role of first determining whether an Indian parent has sufficient social, cultural or political affiliations with a tribe as to warrant tribal court jurisdiction runs contrary to the intent of the Act. To date we have heard no testimony or evidence to support the assumption that there has been any improvement in the state courts' or agencies' abilities to understand tribal values and cultures. Fourth, by focusing solely on the relationship of the child's parent to the tribe, the bill ignores the entire role of the extended family in Indian country. Thus the bill operates at the expense of the child's grandparents, aunts and uncles who likely will have the requisite ``significant'' contacts with the tribe and who have a strong familial and cultural interest in the child. It was the inability of state courts and adoptions agencies to recognize this interest that led to the wholesale removal of Indian children from their culture in the first place. Fifth, the bill misses the fact that the Act is largely jurisdictional in nature. In other words, the Act transferred jurisdiction in Indian adoption cases to tribal courts from state courts because the tribes were in the best position to act in the best interest of Indian children. But, the Act in no way requires that Indian children be placed with Indian families. The bill, unfortunately, seems driven in part out of fear that tribal court jurisdiction is tantamount to placement in an Indian family. We believe this fear is unfounded.\13\ Rather, we believe that tribal courts remain capable of sound judgment and will place an Indian child with a family, Indian or non-Indian, when it determines that it is in the child's best interests. Section 302 of the bill provides that an Indian who is eighteen years of age or older can only become a member of a tribe upon his or her written consent and that membership in a tribe is effective from the actual date of admission and shall not be given retroactive effect. This section reaches directly into a core area of tribal sovereignty, membership \14\, and makes written consent a prerequisite for adults. The major problem with this approach is that tribal membership is not, as a matter of practice, synonymous with enrollment. Many tribes, especially smaller tribes, do not have updated enrollment lists. The Department of Interior's own Guideline to State Courts for Indian Child Custody Proceedings point this out.\15\ The provisions of this bill would penalize Indian children and their parents in these tribes. Lack of funds is one reason. Another reason is that Indians often do not enroll until such time as they need Indian Health Service care or scholarship assistance. In addition, we have heard testimony that tribe often simply ``know'' who their members are. The result is that many Indians who are part of the Indian community and eligible for enrollment would be excluded from the Act's coverage simply because they have not taken the formal step of enrollment. Thus, we believe the bill is overbroad in this respect because it will exclude children, even full-blooded Indians, whose parents are in fact members of a tribe. This bill exacerbates this problem by placing questions of membership in the hands of the state courts rather than tribal courts. We believe that a minimum, membership is a matter that should be left solely to the tribes. This section would also extend to involuntary proceedings and allow state agencies to remove Indian children from on-reservation homes where neither parent has enrolled in a tribe. Obviously, this is one of the very problems that led to the creation of the Act. We see no need to take such a dramatic step backwards. Lastly, we take issue with the assertion that this Act not apply to children who are one-tenth, one-sixteenth, one- thirty second, or some other degree of Indian blood. The law is clear in this respect: tribes, as sovereign entities, are free to set membership on any number of criteria, and each tribe has the power to determine whether or not to rely upon degree of blood as such a criterion. As previously stated, Congress has no business intruding upon such central matters of tribal sovereignty. Having set forth these criticisms, we suggest the following approach to address the real problem surrounding lengthy adoption disputes, namely the willful failure by adoption attorneys and agencies to comply with the terms of the Act. First, mandate notice to the tribe in all voluntary proceedings. Second, impose sanctions upon willful violators of the Act. While it is true that there are rare instances of Indian child custody cases that are painful for the children and families, we believe that most of the problems lie not the Act itself, but rather with the failure to comply with the terms of the Act. For instance, in the Rost case involving the twins from California, the biological father testified in court deposition that he had been counseled to omit any reference to his Indian heritage in order to avoid ICWA proceedings. When the terms of the Act are complied with, the Act works well and facilities the quick placement of Indian children. We are aware of the discrepancy in the Act which gives a tribe a right to intervene in custody proceedings, voluntary or involuntary, at any point, 25 U.S.C. 1911(c), yet mandates notice to the tribe only in involuntary proceedings, 25 U.S.C. 1911(a). We believe that as a matter of policy, the best approach is to provide notification to the tribe in all state court proceedings, voluntary and involuntary, in order to carry out the goals of the Act. We would be glad to work with the bill's sponsors on these changes if they desire. In sum, we believe that the Indian Child Welfare Act has been successful as a protection to Indian tribes and families. There will undoubtedly arise, from time to time, difficult adoption cases, but these cases are usually the result of an unintentional or, as is often the case, an intentional attempt to get around the requirements of the Act. We do not believe that the legislation at hand adequately addresses those problems. Such legislation deserved thorough examination by this Committee and input from the tribes it affects or we run the risk of imposing even more big-government paternalistic measures upon the Indian tribes. George Miller, M.C. Bill Richardson, M.C. Eni Faleomavaega, M.C. footnotes \1\ To date, the Committee has received letters from twenty- two individual tribes, as well as the Intertribal Council of Arizona (representing nineteen Indian tribes), the Bureau of Catholic Missions, the National Congress of American Indians (representing 201 tribes), the Association on American Indian Affairs, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Indian Child Welfare Association, the Indian Child Welfare Law Center, and the United Indians of All Tribes Foundation, all strongly opposing the bill. \2\ H.R. Rep. No. 1386, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (hereinafter 1978 House Report) 9. H.R. 12533, was introduced in the 95th Congress by Chairman Udall and co-sponsored by a number of committee members including Reps. Miller and Vento. \3\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901(2), (3). \4\ 1978 House Report at 9. \5\ Id. \6\ Hearings on S. 1214 before the House Interior and Insular Affairs Subcommittee on Indian Affairs and Public Lands, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. (1978). \7\ 124 Cong. Rec. 38102 (1978). \8\ Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 52 (1988) quoting In re Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962, 969-70 (Utah 1986). \9\ The Act states that ``the States . . . have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social prevailing in the Indian communities and families. 25 U.S.C. 1901(5). \10\ As stated in the 1978 House Report: ``[T]he dynamics of Indian extended families are largely misunderstood. An Indian child may have scores of, perhaps more than a hundred, relatives who are counted as close, responsible members of the family.'' 1978 House Report at 10. See also Holyfield at 35, n. 4. \11\ See Note, The Best Interests of Indian Children in Minnesota, 17 American Indian Law Review 237, 246-47 (1992). \12\ Id. \13\ The Supreme Court has rejected attacks against tribal court jurisdiction founded on claims of bias or incompetence, noting Congressional policy promoting the development of tribal courts. See Iowa Mutual Ins. Co. v. LaPlante, 480 U.S. 9, 19 (1987). \14\ See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55-56, (1978), citing Roff v. Burney, 168 U.S. 218 (1897). \15\ The Guidelines state: Enrollment is not always required in order to be a member of a tribe. Some tribes do not have written rolls. Others have rolls that list only persons that were members as of a certain date. Enrollment is the common evidentiary means of establishing Indian status, but it is not the only means nor is it necessarily determinative. Guidelines for State Courts: Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed. Reg. 67,586 (Nov. 26, 1979). Response to Representative Pryce's Indian Adoption ``Horror'' Cases (H.R. 3286) Shonna Bear case (Okla.): Case involves Creek Indian woman who wanted to place her child in the custody of the Clarke family. Rep. Pryce says the tribe used ICWA to overturn the mother and adoptive parent's plans and took baby away from adoptive parents. But this case does not involve a misguided application of ICWA. Rep. Pryce leaves out the fact that it was the birth mother who changed her mind (after only 10 days) and decided to keep her baby. Furthermore, ICWA would have been appropriate because both the parents and the baby were Indians. The tribe was involved because the birth mother excluded the father and the father's family from her decisions. This is not a case of the Tribe coming in and using ICWA to take a baby from the non-Indian parents. Quinn family case (Wash.): Quinn family, seeking to adopt, Indian child, began relationship with 15 year old birth mother seven months prior to birth. Two weeks after birth, mother changed her mind and attempted to enroll in her tribe even though ``she had no connection with her Native ancestry''. The courts eventually ruled for the Quinns after 3\1/2\ years. Rep. Pryce leaves out fact that prior to birth mother had been attempting to enroll in her tribe and that Quinn family knew she and the baby were Indian. Not a misapplication of ICWA. Long custody battle could have been avoided had the attorneys provided notice to the mother's tribe. Under ICWA, there was nothing to prevent tribal court from placing the baby with the Quinn family. The point is ICWA was designed to protect Indian heritage and that is what the mother eventually decided was in her child's best interest. Rost Case (Ohio): The Rosts, a couple from Rep. Pryce's district, sought to adopt twin Indian girls (1/32 Indian degree of blood) from California. Birth parents consented to placement with Rosts. Before adoption finalized, birth father changed his mind and the father's mother enrolled the father and the twins in the tribe. California family court, following ICWA, transferred jurisdiction to tribal court. Appellate court reversed and gave custody to the Rosts. Case is on appeal to the Cal. Supreme Court. Rep. Pryce leaves out fact that birth father, on advice of the adoption attorney, attempted to hide fact that he was Indian so as to avoid ICWA. The adoption attorney thought by hiding Indian identity from court, that it would make adoption go smoothly. The whole point of ICWA is to prevent the loss of Indian children by fraud or trickery. It does not matter that children were only \1/32\ Indian. Tribes are free to set their own membership requirements and may or may not rely on blood quantum. Lastly, there is nothing in ICWA to prevent the tribal court from placing twins with Rost family. Kayla America Horse Case (Kentucky): Rep. Pyrce states that Indian woman married to native American and had two children. After divorce, woman granted custody. Yet half-brother of father feels he has right to children under ICWA. Rep Pyrce leaves out fact that the tribal court placed Kayla with family on temporary basis, retaining baby as a ward of the tribal court. By express terms of ICWA, tribe retained jurisdiction. Case does not involve retroactive enrollment nor a case where parents or children are not Indian members. Pryce's bill has nothing to do with his situation. As usual, battle is over forum (tribal v. State court) that of custody battle. Tribal court still free to place child with mother.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, in 1978, Congress enacted the Indian Child Welfare Act to prevent ``[t]he wholesale separation of Indian children from their families * * * perhaps the most tragic and destructive aspect of American Indian life today.'' H.R. Rept. No. 95- 1386. The law recognizes that Congress, which has ``responsibility for the protection and preservation of Indian tribes,'' believes ``that there is no resource that is more vital to the continual existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.'' The U.S. Supreme Court in 1988 wrote that ``[t]he protection of this tribal interest is at the core of the Indian Child Welfare Act which recognizes that the tribe has an interest in the child which is distinct but on a parity with the interest of the parents.'' But title III of H.R. 3286 would significantly undercut this important law. Title III contains provisions that would add a new race- based Indian identity test focusing upon a child's significant cultural, social, and political contacts instead of tribal membership, would ignore the important role of the extended family in Indian culture, would lead to increased litigation, and would have the effect of excluding tribal members from coverage of the Indian Child Welfare Act. These provisions were written without any effort to discuss or meet with Indian tribes, which are not only the people whose culture and interests are at stake, but are sovereign governments. I reiterate: there have never been hearings on these provisions. Democrats and Republicans alike on the Resource Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Indian Child Welfare Act, strongly disapprove of railroading this bill through the House without adequate consideration, and I urge my colleagues to vote to strike title III that amends the Indian Child Welfare Act. Contrary to opponents' assertions, studies since passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act indicate that it has worked well by motivating courts and agencies to place greater numbers of Indian children into Indian homes. Testimony we received in 1995 indicates that there may have been only 40 contested Indian adoption cases in the past 15 years, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the total number of Indian adoption cases during that period. The vast majority of those problem cases are the direct result of willful violations of the act and can be addressed by changes to the law that promote greater notification and sanctions for violations. I am prepared to work on amendments to the act in a careful and deliberate manner. But title III of H.R. 3286 is neither careful nor deliberate; it is irresponsible legislation in response to isolated anecdotes, and given the lack of even superficial consideration of its impacts, it does not belong to H.R. 3286. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to strike title III on the House floor.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I want to say, preliminarily, that I certainly have the highest respect for the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Pryce, as we have tried earnestly to find a middle ground and see how we can resolve this very important issue. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to title III of H.R. 3286 which amends the Indian Child Welfare Act. If enacted, title III will harm helpless Indian children, damage the Federal relationship with Indian tribes, and allow States to decide who is and isn't Indian. In 1978, Congress passed the Indian Child Welfare Act to stop the hemorrhage of Indian children being separated from their families. This act was passed after long and careful deliberation which included all affected parties. Hearings were held, drafts were circulated, and questions were asked. On the other hand, the provisions before us today have never been given a comprehensive hearing and not one Indian tribe was consulted or included in any discussion. The proponents of the language are taking a shotgun approach in reaction to a couple of badly handled adoptions. Democrats and Republicans alike on the Resources Committee rejected the method and the language used in this title by striking the language from the bill before reporting it. The Resources Committee has the jurisdiction and the expertise over Indian matters yet the Chairman had to fight just to have the bill referred to the committee for only 6 days. The original leadership plan was to once again bring an important piece of legislation to the floor without benefit of Member or committee involvement. The Resources Committee takes the Federal trust responsibility toward the more than 550 Alaska Native and American Indian tribes very seriously. As I said the committee overwhelmingly supported removing the offensive language that was reinstated in the floor package before us today. Title III of this bill would require that a child's significant cultural, social, and political contacts with a tribe determine his or her ``indian-ness'' instead of tribal membership. It ignores the important role of the extended family in Indian culture and would lead to increased litigation. The outrage that prompted the passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act were numerous. Prior to its enactment, the rate of adoptions of Indian children was wildly disproportionate to the adoption rate of non-Indian children. Indian children in Montana were being adopted at a per capita rate 13 times that of non-Indian children, in South Dakota 16 times that of non-Indian children, in Minnesota 5 times that of non-Indian children. The act's principal sponsor and my good friend Chairman Mo Udall, said during the floor debate, ``Indian tribes and Indian people are being drained of their children and, as a result, their future as a tribe and a people is being placed in jeopardy.'' I realize that there are problems with the Indian Child Welfare Act. I know that one problem is with adoption attorneys who pressure parents not to acknowledge their Indian heritage on adoption forms. But I also know that there have only been problems with less than one-half of 1- percent of the total number of Indian adoptions since the act was passed. Let us work together to solve any problems with the current act. During the last several decades this body has worked hard not to be paternalistic toward Indian tribes. We must allow tribes to be involved when we move to amend an act of such magnitude. I implore my colleagues to strip the Indian language from this bill. I urge my colleagues to strike out title III of this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation which will afford U.S. nationals the opportunity to participate in reserve office training corps scholarship programs. Under current law, American Samoans born in American Samoa are considered U.S. nationals. These are persons who owe their allegiance to the United States, but are not U.S. citizens. Persons born in American Samoa are the only persons in the world who are given this status, as persons born on all other U.S. soil may become U.S. citizens by right of birth. Also under current law, only U.S. citizens are authorized to enlist in the Reserve Officer Training Corps, or ROTC for short, scholarship programs, and only U.S. citizens are eligible to become military and naval officers. The legislation I am introducing today would require U.S. national residents residing in a State of the United States and desiring to apply for a ROTC scholarship program, to file an application to become a naturalized citizen within 60 days of being accepted into the program. The legislation would also require U.S. nationals who are not residents of a State of the United States, to become a resident of a State, and to file an application to become a naturalized citizen within 60 days of becoming a resident as defined in our immigration laws. Mr. Speaker, I believe this legislation strikes a fair balance between two competing interests. On the one hand, it gives the resident of American Samoa the same opportunities to become military and naval officers as the residents of the States and the other territories. On the other hand, while keeping the requirement that all military and naval officers be U.S. citizens, it requires U.S. nationals to prove their willingness to serve our country in a timely manner, thereby ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not spent on someone who will later prove ineligible for service. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting a copy of the legislation with my statement.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I have just returned to Washington form the South Pacific, where I was privileged to be part of the U.S. delegation to the signing ceremonies for the Treaty of Rarotonga. I want to take this opportunity to inform our colleagues in Congress and the people of our great Nation of the historic event that took place this past Monday, March 25, 1996, in Suva, Fiji. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Government of the United States of America signed the protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone [SPNFZ] Treaty, also known as the Rarotonga Treaty, formally evidencing America's unequivocal support for the nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. Mr. Speaker, this action by our Government constitutes a great and momentous development in the history of relations between the United States and the nations of the Pacific region. At the Suva ceremonies, the Governments of France and Great Britain joined us in signing the protocols of the SPNFZ Treaty. With this development, Mr. Speaker, all of the world's nuclear powers are now signatories to the South Pacific Nuclear Treaty. I want to express my deepest heartfelt appreciation to the House Committee on International Relations chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman] and the committee's ranking Democrat, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Hamilton], for authorizing me to represent the Committee on International Relations and the U.S. Congress in this historic milestone achievement for the people of the Pacific. Coming from the Pacific, Mr. Speaker, I was deeply honored to have been extended this great privilege. Mr. Speaker, for decades, the island nations have strived for U.S. accession to the SONFZ protocols, which symbolizes America's support of and respect for the South Pacific people's dream of a homeland free of nuclear weapons. To have played a small role in Washington over the past 8 years in bringing about the realization of these aspirations for the people of the Pacific has been a long and hard struggle, but indeed, a very worthy one. At this time of celebration in the Pacific, I want to recognize and thank those who have contributed greatly over the years in a bipartisan spirit to this week's historic event. In particular, the following individuals must be recognized for their leadership, the former chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asian-Pacific Affairs, the gentleman from New York and former Congressman, the Honorable Stephen Solarz; former Congressman and revered champion of Pacific interests, the gentleman from California and my very good friend, the Honorable Robert Lagomarsino; and the greatly respected member of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Iowa, currently chairman of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services, the Honorable Jim Leach. I also want to express appreciation to my colleagues and Members of this great institution--Congressmen Ben Gilman, Lee Hamilton, Chris Smith, Howard Berman, Congresswoman Connie Morella, Congressmen Gary Ackerman, Ron Dellums, Doug Bereuter, Tom Lantos, Pete Stark, Matthew Martinez, Bob Underwood, and the distinguished delegation from the State of Hawaii, Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, Congresswoman Patsy Mink, and my good friend, Congressman Neil Abercrombie--for supporting my efforts over the years for U.S. accession to the SPNFZ Treaty. Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize the tremendous leadership role that the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency [ACDA] has played in urging, since the Reagan administration, for U.S. support of the SPNFZ Treaty. ACDA has long been a crucial and vital part of several administrations' efforts to stop nuclear proliferation around the globe. While ACDA's mission is growing with greater importance--Start II implementation, chemical weapons convention ratification, and completion of the comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations and implementation--I find it an unfathomable tragedy that ACDA's funding is being butchered. Stopping proliferation of weapons of mass destruction must clearly be a top priority of our Government, and steps must be taken to ensure that ACDA will be given the resources necessary to accomplish this most urgent of missions. Mr. Speaker, although we were not able to stop France from resuming their recent nuclear bomb detonations in the South Pacific, we should welcome the fact that Paris' irresponsible actions ignited worldwide protests and served as a catalyst for France to join the SPNFZ Treaty protocols. Mr. Speaker, although we were not able to stop France from resuming their recent nuclear bomb detonations in the South Pacific, we should welcome the fact that Paris' irresponsible actions ignited worldwide protests and served as a catalyst for France to join the SPNFZ Treaty protocols in an attempt to defuse international condemnation. Mr. Speaker, the international community's strong and visceral opposition to French nuclear testing sent a strong message that we have entered into a new post-cold-war era where nuclear testing and nuclear weapons development are increasingly viewed around the world as an unnecessary evil for preserving peace, stability, and freedom. Perhaps this is a lesson we can all take to heart on the eve of the 21st century. Mr. Speaker, it is about time that the three remaining nuclear powers have finally joined Russia and China, who ironically supported SPNFZ years ago, by acceding to the SPNFZ Treaty. The fact that all of the world's declared nuclear powers are now signatories to the treaty, establishing the South Pacific's vast nuclear-free zone, cannot but be perceived positively in Geneva, Switzerland, where the United Nations- sponsored Conference on Disarmament is under way. Joining the SPNFZ Treaty is proof of the nuclear powers' good faith commitment to progress on nuclear disarmament, that should bolster efforts to negotiate a genuine ``zero-yield'' Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty before the end of this year. Mr. Speaker, a couple of observations, as I have followed the question of nuclear testing for the past 8 years and diligently pursued this issue with my colleagues while serving as a member of the House Committee on International Relations. We proved in World War II the devastating effect of nuclear weapons and their impact on human beings. The bomb the United States dropped on Hiroshima some 50 years ago killed and vaporized over 150,000 men, women, and children, and points to the stark reality of the devastation that nuclear weapons can wreak upon mankind. Mr. Speaker, I am not one to quibble with the fact that we were at the height of a world war or that the axis powers were on the verge of oppressing all of the free people of the world and that our country was in the midst of this great war for democracy and freedom, but what basic lessons have we learned, Mr. Speaker, in perfecting how to destroy multitudes of fellow human beings by the creation of this great weapon, the atomic bomb? I wonder when we detonated what was known then in 1954 as the ``Bravo Shot,'' where the United States was the first nation to explode a thermonuclear device, which was then known as the hydrogen bomb, what was gained for mankind while the people of the Marshall Islands suffered from these hydro tests in their homeland? I also wonder, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time in our history whether nuclear weapons really provide security for the American people as well as the other nations of the world. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that we have perfected the use of nuclear weapons and their destructive powers, just as we have made, I am sure, earnest efforts to harness peaceful uses of nuclear energy to improve living conditions for mankind. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we are now capable of exploding a thermonuclear device 1,000 times more powerful than the atom bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that we have perfected a device to hand down to generations to come so that we can kill other human beings by the destructive nature of the atom and hydrogen bomb. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the fact that the Western nuclear powers condemn China now for continuing its efforts to perfect its nuclear devices, while the United States, for example, allocates a tremendous amount of our military budget to maintain our distinct and unchallenged nuclear technology supremacy. I find this hypocritical, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, while we harnessed nuclear energy for the benefit of our citizens to provide electricity for our homes, our Government also has to deal with the reality that it is going to take approximately $350 billion of the American taxpayers' money to clean up and store the spent nuclear waste that is in our own country. This is just in our own country. It does not even address the issue of other nations currently using nuclear energy for electrical production. So we seem to be at a crossroad now, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, where is it going to end, or when is it ever going to end? We need to bring the nuclear nightmare to an end and regain some sense of morality among nations of the world, so that peace can be attained in a constructive fashion. We cannot continue with this idea that we are going to win and they are going to lose if we press that nuclear button first. Mr. Speaker, I submit whoever presses that nuclear button, it is going to be a lose/lose situation for all of the nations of the world. I sincerely hope that perhaps having nuclear-free-zones, like the South Pacific nuclear-free-zone, throughout the world will be a positive step for peace and stability in the world. We should all take a minute and say to ourselves, let us hold back, let us have a sense of better control of what we are doing, especially since we have already proven the destructive nature of nuclear weapons. We do not need to prove this again, as we did in World War II among the people that lived in Nagaskai and Hiroshima. I pray, Mr. Speaker, that my colleagues will help in our efforts to see that perhaps the five nuclear nations and the other undetected nations who have the capability for nuclear destruction, will provide a very strong and binding commitment that we will not spread this evil cold danger to other nations of the world. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record: House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Washington, DC, May 27, 1993. Hon. Warren M. Christopher, Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC Dear Mr. Secretary: We write to recommend an early review of U.S. policy toward signature of the Protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone (SPNFZ) Treaty. Such a review would appear to be appropriate not only in the context of non-proliferation policy but also because of the relevance of SPNFZ to U.S. relations with the South Pacific. SPNFZ is a significant non-proliferation measure and any support the U.S. can lend to it would strengthen the cause of non-proliferation in the region. It would also contribute to support for the extension of the Non- Proliferation Treaty in 1995. Given the importance of SPNFZ to South Pacific Forum members, U.S. accession to the Protocols would enhance U.S. influence and credibility in the South Pacific. As we understand them, the provisions of the SPNFZ Treaty and its three Protocols do not appear to be inconsistent with U.S. national interests. The Treaty specifically respects states' rights under international law to freedom of the seas and leaves it up to individual signatories to decide whether to allow foreign ships and aircraft to visit or transit their territory. We note that, at the hearing of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 18 May, you said the U.S. was not at odds with the basic thrust of SPNFZ. You did, however, express concern about the Treaty's possible impact on the U.S.'s operational flexibility and freedom in the South Pacific. We would be interested in understanding the nature of the Administration's concerns about operational flexibility for U.S. forces in the South Pacific, and are interested in working with you in support of a policy regarding the SPNFZ Protocols that protects and promotes U.S. interests in the South Pacific and enhances U.S. non-proliferation objectives. We are writing a similar letter to the Secretary of Defense. With best regards, Sincerely yours, Benjamin A. Gilman. Jim Leach. Lee H. Hamilton. Gary L. Ackerman. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of House Concurrent Resolution 148, legislation stating the House's support for U.S. military intervention to protect Taiwan against threatened military aggression by the People's Republic of China [PRC]. I would strongly urge our colleagues to support this vitally needed measure. Mr. Speaker, I think we all can all agree that there is no matter more urgent in the world than the events unfolding now in the Taiwan Strait. Deterring conflict in the Taiwan Strait must and should be the No. 1 priority of our Nation. I want to commend the chairman of the House International Relations Committee, the Honorable Ben Gilman; the chairman of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia-Pacific Affairs, the Honorable Doug Bereuter; and the ranking Democratic members of House International Relations Subcommittees, the Honorable Tom Lantos and Robert Torricelli; and Representative Cox, the author of House Concurrent Resolution 148, for their leadership in forging the 83 member bipartisan coalition, that through the introduction of the resolution on March 7, 1996, spoke unequivocally and with strength as to America's commitment to--protect democracy, ensure freedom, and preserve peace--in Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation, which sends a clear message that America will not stand idly by while China commits its military forces in an attempt to intimidate and instill fear in the people and Government of Taiwan. Moreover, I cannot more strongly applaud and support the actions taken by the administration recently. Stationing the USS Independence aircraft carrier group off Taiwan, with the USS Nimitz carrier group to arrive shortly, has sent a clear message to China that the Government and people of the United States of America will not tolerate a military attack or missile-enforced blockade of Taiwan by the PRC. The decisive action by the administration was no doubt prompted in part by congressional action calling for immediate United States intervention to defuse the hostile environment created by Beijing's angry rhetoric, missile tests and military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. China's reckless efforts are intended to influence the outcome of the democratic national elections now pending in Taiwan. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the March 23d election is to be the first democratic election of Taiwan's president. China's threatened use of force contravenes the PRC's commitment under the 1979 and 1982 joint communiques to resolve Taiwan's status by peaceful means. The United States-China Joint Communiques and the Taiwan Relations Act--which govern the trilateral dynamic in the Taiwan Strait--fundamentally stress that force will not be used to resolve the Taiwan question. Mr. Speaker, when China's recent aggressive actions evidenced their willingness to violate the principle of Taiwan's peaceful resolution-- threatening the stability of the entire Asia-Pacific region--the United States stepped forward because no other country could do what we did in drawing the line with China. After discussions with ambassadors from several nations in the region, I think it safe to say that much, if not all, of the Asia- Pacific is extremely grateful for America's bold and decisive leadership in preserving stability in the region. Although their governments may not have issued official statements to that effect, I believe the sentiment is clearly there supporting America's intervention. Mr. Chairman, although I am a Vietnam veteran, I can assure you I am no warmonger. Having fought on the battlefield for America, I weigh very heavily and carefully any commitment of U.S. Military Forces. Having been there myself, I do not want our servicemen and servicewomen put in harm's way unnecessarily. Although much attention and criticism has been directed against Beijing for the crisis in the strait, certainly Taipei deserves its share of the blame for contributing to the unnecessary escalation of tensions with China, which now threatens our forces in the area. For years, United States administrations, both Republican and Democratic, have unequivocally supported the ``One China'' policy-- acknowledging that there is only one China whose government is in Beijing, and that Taiwan is part of China. Peace in the Taiwan strait has been the result. Taiwan's actions over recent years, however, have given rise to the very real perception in Beijing and the world that this premise is being challenged--that Taiwan's independence is being sought. While I support the issuance of the Visa for Taiwan's President Lee to speak at his alma mater, Cornell University, many believe that he overplayed his hand with the media, treating his visit to the United States as that of a head of state. Similarly, President Lee's trips to other Asia-Pacific nations have been accompanied by great fanfare. Against this background has been Taiwan's campaign for United Nation's membership, which has materially altered the PRC's perception of Taiwan's motives and conduct. While the PRC's bellicose actions are to be condemned, I can understand and appreciate Beijing's anxiety and fear that a recognized province of China may simply choose to secede while the world watches. Taiwan's aggressive pursuit of independence has gone way beyond everyone's expectations. Mr. Chairman, let us hope that with the intervention of United States Military Forces in the Taiwan Strait that this will be a stabilizing factor for peace--allowing cooler heads to prevail. Mr. Speaker, no one wants a war involving China, Taiwan, and America. It is a conflict where everyone comes out a loser, and would fundamentally destroy the promise of prosperity for the entire Asia- Pacific region in the Pacific Century. The legislation before the House, H.Con.Res. 148, expresses the feeling of the House of Representatives that the United States should commit itself to protect Taiwan in the event of an unprovoked war or conflict with the PRC. Mr. Speaker, United States intervention is clearly a stabilizing factor promoting peace in the Taiwan Strait and I would strongly urge our colleagues to adopt unanimously this measure. China must know unequivocally that the American people stand united behind Taiwan's democracy, and that we will do whatever is necessary to ensure that the question of Taiwan's future will be resolved through peace, not war. Mr. Speaker, H.Con.Res. 148 sends that message directly to Beijing, as well as cautioning Taipei against independence initiatives that are destabilizing, and I would strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this well-crafted measure.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I want to make sure that the American public is aware of two very dangerous provisions in H.R. 3019, a continuing resolution which would fund, among other things, Interior spending for the remainder of the fiscal year. Though these two majority sponsored provisions primarily affect American Indians, I believe they have far reaching implications for the rest of the country as well. Why should we care? Because as the great jurist Felix Cohen observed, The Indian plays much the same role in our American society, that the Jews played in Germany. Like the miner's canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, reflects the rise and fall in our democratic faith. This country was founded on two great principles--the inalienable right of a people to govern themselves and the solemn right of a people to freely practice their religion. Yet there are two provisions in this spending bill that are an affront to those principles and the rights of our people. I am afraid to think what our Founding Fathers would think of these measures. Had this bill been brought up under an open rule, I would have offered an amendment to strike both of them. The first provision that deeply concerns me is the Mt. Graham rider contained in section 335 of the general provisions of the Interior portion of the bill which would waive applicable law, reverse three court decisions and permit immediate construction of an observatory on Mt. Graham in Arizona. This is a measure of the worse sort that should be stricken as soon as possible. First, this rider approves the destruction and mechanized desecration of the single-most sacred site of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Can you imagine waiving the law to approve the clearing of part of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem or the Vatican in Rome? Well that is what this provision does, not to mention the fact the telescope's owners plan to charge rent to other users even though it lies on public land. This rider ignores the rights of those who prayed and worshiped on the mountain for centuries and is an assault on religion. Second, this rider is wrong because it waives the very laws and procedures designed to ensure that we respect cultural and religious traditions. It circumvents the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the National Historic Preservation Act which charge the Federal agencies to protect against harm to such sites. The rider does this over the repeated opposition expressed in tribal council resolutions and now in the resolutions of the National Congress of American Indians. Third, this rider has never been properly considered by Congress. It surfaced mysteriously in the third Interior conference committee without having been included in either of the House or Senate appropriations bills. But to add insult to injury, its sponsors took out a provision of far greater importance in order to get it in--a report on American Indian HIV/AIDS prevention needs. The only hearing ever held on this matter was a joint hearing of two House authorizing committees in 1990 at which the General Accounting Office reported that the irregularities involved in granting the original permit were so great that it would not have withstood judicial scrutiny except for the waiver provided in the last days of the 100th Congress. The official who signed the original permit admitted at that hearing that he had exceeded his legal authority in granting it. Finally, this rider is bad for the environment because it waives the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act. All these laws ask is that the agencies examine alternatives to see whether less harmful means are available to achieve the same end. Even if the ESA might preclude the project as proposed, exemptions are available for regionally significant projects. It seems that given the fact that the observatory sits on a world class ecological site left behind by the glaciers that is the home of numerous species of animals and plants, some of medicinal value, and several that are virtually unknown anywhere else, we should at least weigh the alternatives and ask the developers to begin the permit application process. This rider sets a dangerous precedent for further site-specific waivers when the laws of this country get in the way of development. Since the President vetoed the last Interior appropriations measure in December, Mt. Graham has become a cause celebre. Grammy award- winning rock musicians Pearl Jam have featured it in a new Website for citizenship and the Indian band Red Thunder has also spoken out against the project in their tours and radio appearances. I am proud that this Nation's youth is involved in today's issues, so I would ask that this Congress set a better example for them. We should return to a higher standard of substantive discussion, procedural honesty, and simple justice by striking the Mt. Graham rider. The second provision which gravely concerns me is the so-called ``Lummi'' provision contained in section 115 of the general provisions of Interior portion of bill. Under the guise of ``property rights'', the measure that would penalize any self-governance tribe in the State of Washington, but particularly the Lummi Nation, for exercising its sovereign on-reservation rights. This provision is dangerous because it sets a precedent for fiscally punitive actions against any tribe in any State, self-governance or not, that tries to exercise its legitimate governmental powers. This act of intimidation flies in the face of the longstanding congressional policy of self-determination and the fiduciary relationship between the United States and the 557 American Indian and Alaska Native tribes in this nation. This unwarranted and unprecedented intrusion into tribal matters goes against the grain of every anti-Washington, antibureaucracy sentiment embodied in the Contract With America. This provision is unnecessary because it is an extraordinary attempt to unduly influence ongoing and fruitful negotiations between the tribe and local on-reservation property owners. This is a local issue that can and should be resolved through negotiations without the heavy hand of big brother. The Lummi provision is unprecedented in its attack on Indian sovereignty and the ability of tribes to manage their own natural resources. My history tells me that the tribe acquired its senior water rights more than 140 years ago in the Treaty of Point Elliot in which the tribe reserved enough water to sustain the reservation as a homeland and to support the fisheries resource of the Nooksack Basin. But by penalizing the tribe's funding--up to 50 percent of its self-governance funding which are used to fund education, social services, natural resources, and law and order--for exercising the tribe's senior water rights, the sponsors are doing nothing short of rewriting federal western water law to suit their own purposes. I would also point out that I am not alone in my assessment because the President in his December 18, 1995 veto message specifically identified the same provision as a reason for his veto. The President rightly noted that in penalizing ``these tribes financially for using legal remedies in disputes with non-tribal owners of land on their reservations'' this provision does not serve the interests of our nation and its citizens. Madam Speaker, this action has an unblemished record when it comes to breaking Indian treaties--we have broken every one--so perhaps it should come as no surprise that we are trying to break another. But I for one, and my Democratic colleagues agree, that it is time for us to stop. If we can override federal treaties and laws simply because we do not happen to agree with the claims of one party in a dispute, what does that mean for the rest of us, not to mention any of the other 556 tribes in this country? I have always been proud of the fact that we are a nation of laws, and of our rich history of justice. But this provision, Mr. Speaker, this provision is not justice. Madam Speaker, in closing, I'd just like to say that if we as Americans take our rights seriously, if we cherish those principals which made our country great such as the freedom to practice our religion and the freedom of self-determination, then we need to really think about our treatment of Native Americans, and ask ourselves if we can do better. We can start by eliminating the Mt. Graham and Lummi provisions. I urge the White House and the Senate to reject these measures.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

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

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the distinguished gentleman. Mr. Speaker, while having some reservations which I will note later, I rise today in support of H.R. 497. Mr. Speaker, the amount of gambling has increased considerably in the United States over the last two decades. While before many Americans were confined to gambling in the States of Nevada and New Jersey, or to parimutuel betting, today fully 48 of the States of the United States participate in some form of gambling. This has provided a new stream of revenue for State and municipal treasuries, which has in turn provided additional services to the residents of those States. The issues this legislation tries to address are very comprehensive, and I commend the chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee for trying to address these issues. For most Americans, gambling provides leisure-time entertainment. For a small minority, however, many of whom are those who least can afford to lose their limited earnings or savings, gambling is an addictive, destructive habit. The question is, as a matter of public policy, Are the drawbacks to permitting gambling so destructive that legal gambling should be restricted or eliminated? While I am not a gambler, as I noted earlier, gaming activities are being used by almost all States for public purposes. Gaming operations are also now being used by American Indians throughout our country to raise money for improvements to schools, hospitals, and roads on their Indian reservations. As a member of the Committee on Resources, I am especially concerned that Indian gaming not be unfairly targeted should this legislation become law. My concern is that there may be individuals who want to use this bill in an attempt to stop or curtail gaming throughout the United States, and that this opposition is centered on moral grounds but more particularly, that this is an attack on the successes which have been achieved by American Indians through gaming. If this were truly a moral concern, why is the Commission being empowered to study only gaming? Why not also include the study of alcohol consumption, the use of cigarettes and tobacco among teenagers and adults, and abortion, too? Are those activities any more or less moral than gaming? Again, for those who may be determined to eliminate Indian gaming, I find it very unfair to target only gaming in this Commission. Those of us on the Committee on Resources are familiar with the long-standing problems within Indian country. By most, if not all measures, our American Indians are at the bottom of the ladder when it. comes to housing, income, education, or any other measure of economic development. Here are a few facts which portray the dismal conditions in which many of our first Americans live. I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the locations of the reservations on which many American Indians now live, are not locations of their choosing. Many tribes were forcibly moved to these reservations from much more desirable locations at which they could and did provide for themselves. Fact: the life expectancy of an American Indian is 47 years; the life expectancy of all Americans is 78 years. Fact: the 1990 census determined that 30.9 percent of our Nation's Indians live in poverty; the poverty rate for the U.S. population was 13.1 percent. Fact: in 1991, the unemployment rate on Indian reservations was 45 percent; for the United States, when that number goes above 7 percent we take significant action to reduce it. I could go on, but I think my point is clear: the Indians are in trouble, and they can use whatever assistance is available. Mr. Speaker, through the judicious use of gaming operations, Indian country is slowly pulling itself up the ladder of life. Indian gaming is a well-regulated system that is serving its purpose remarkably well. No one is forced to gamble and all the profits received by the tribes go directly to tribal uses. The U.S. Government does not have the money to make all the capital improvements needed on the reservations, and through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress has established a system to pay for improvements in Indian country through voluntary, private contributions. After 500 years of mistreatment, this is one Indian program I feel good about--it is voluntary, efficient, and privately funded. I have heard accusations that Indian gaming is fraught with criminal activity including Mafia and other syndicate-type operations, but the truth is these allegations have been investigated by Federal authorities and they are unfounded. In fact, at hearings I helped organize, the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified before the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs during the 104th Congress that there is no truth to these allegations. Indian gaming is a well- managed, highly regulated activity providing widely disbursed public benefit. I appreciate the willingness of the Committee on Judiciary to remove some of the most egregious anti-Indian-gaming provisions contained in H.R. 497, as it was introduced. Given Congress' efforts over the years to monitor and regulate this activity, I am concerned that other amendments offered by the Committee on Resources were not included in the legislation to ensure Indian gaming received fair consideration. For example, given the extent to which Indian gaming is federally regulated, and the complexity of those regulations, I believe it would be beneficial to include on the Commission persons with an expertise in this area. I also want to express my concern with the limited time in which the Committee on Resources was afforded to consider this bill. H.R. 497 was referred to the Committee on Resources for the period beginning December 21, 1995, through February 28, 1996, most of which time the House was adjourned or in pro forma session. Finally, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hyde for his willingness to include the territories in this legislation.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the committee in a brief colloquy. Was it the intent of the Committee on the Judiciary to include the U.S. Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions within the meaning of the terms ``United States,'' ``States,'' and ``political subdivisions of States'' as used in section 4 of this legislation?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, all Americans, including those of us in Congress, are concerned about the destruction of the rain forests that is occurring all over the world. The rain forests constitute unique and irreplaceable ecosystems sometimes called the lungs of the earth. In addition to their function in replenishing the earth's atmosphere, the rain forests provide essential protection against global warming, contain hundreds of plants found nowhere else on earth, house many animals unique to the rain forests alone, and provide protection against destruction of coral reefs and marine life. I would like to call my colleagues' attention to a unique effort to save these vital systems and to an individual who is being honored for his own efforts to save the rain forests. 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. The Honorable A.P. Lutali, Governor of American Samoa, has been selected to receive this year's Seacology Foundation Award as ``Indigenous Conservationist of the Year'' in recognition of his superb efforts to preserve the Samoan rain forest and indigenous Samoan culture. Governor Lutali's efforts include responsibility for passage of an act to protect the American Samoa flying fox and our joint work to create the U.S. National Park in American Samoa. As a letter from Seacology Foundation to Governor Lutali notifying him of the award explains, neither of these achievements would have occurred without the Governor's strong leadership and support. I congratulate Governor Lutali and the Seacology Foundation for all of their efforts and I am submitting for the record a copy of a letter from Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D, chairman of the board of Seacology Foundation to Governor Lutali for review by my colleagues. October 24, 1995. Governor A.P. Lutali, Office of the Governor, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago, American Samoa. Dear Governor Lutali: On behalf of the Board of Directors and the Scientific Advisory Board of the Seacology Foundation, it gives me great pleasure to inform you that you have been selected as the 1995 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year. This award, believed to be the only one of its kind in the world, annually recognizes an indigenous person who has demonstrated heroic efforts in protecting the environment. The Seacology Foundation invites you, at our expense, to attend an award dinner in your honor and a presentation ceremony in Provo, Utah to receive your award, which will consist of an engraved plaque and a cash award of $1,000. Lorraine Clark, Executive Associate Director of the Seacology Foundation, will be in touch with Rob Shaffer from your staff to arrange a convenient date for this event. In making this award, the Seacology Foundation wishes to recognize your personal courage and foresight in protecting the rainforests and wildlife of American Samoa. You have demonstrated your commitment to conservation in many different ways. Examples of your environmental leadership include passage of an act to protect flying foxes, including the rare Samoan Flying Fox, Pteropus samoensis, or pe'a vao by the Territorial Legislature of American Samoa. Your leadership was crucial in passing this legislation, which is believed to be the first legislation enacted by any Pacific island government to protect flying foxes. Because of your example, many other island governments have now enacted similar legislation. Even more impressive was your visionary foresight in establishing the 50th National Park of the United States of America, the National Park of American Samoa. It was your leadership and your vision that brought together a coalition of Samoan school children, villagers, matai and other traditional community leaders, Territorial officials, scientists, conservationists, and U.S. Congressmen to create a new future for the people of American Samoa. You personally held meetings with key scientists and village leaders, you personally hosted a distinguished congressional delegation in Samoa, you personally traveled to Washington, D.C. to testify on behalf of the park and you personally provided leadership at every phase to assure passage of the enabling legislation. You exercised this leadership without any concern for its potential impact on your own political future. Because of your selflessness and bi-partisan approach, the American Samoa National Park Bill became one of the first national park bills to pass both houses of the United States Congress without a single dissenting vote. You played a key role in guaranteeing that the aspirations and well being of Samoan villages were paramount in the enabling legislation. Unique land acquisition techniques, revolving around long term leases were used under your direction. Village chiefs were guaranteed important roles in formulating park policy. The Samoan language and culture are to be highlighted in all park activities. As a result of your foresight, American Samoa will have a National Park that will preserve both Samoan wildlife and Samoan culture. Many other examples of your conservation leadership could be cited. The Territorial Division of Wildlife and Marine Resources under your leadership has made important progress in evaluating and protecting the wildlife of American Samoa. Coastal Zone Management has flourished under your leadership. But perhaps most important has been your quiet personal example. You quietly led an effort to re-introduce the rare Samoan toloa or duck to your home island of Aunu'u. The crack of dawn has frequently found you on your hands and knees weeding the garden plot in front of the territorial offices. Many have seen you picking up rubbish and doing your own part as a private citizen to beautify the exquisite islands of American Samoa. 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 Indigenous Conservationist of the Year 1995. We offer you our sincere appreciation for your tremendous devotion to protecting this planet. Warmest personal regards, Nafanua Paul Alan Cox, Ph.D., Chairman of the Board.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to premise my remarks this afternoon on a very serious issue, in my humble opinion, for my colleagues and certainly for the American public to be better informed about this very serious issue. First of all, I hold no personal grudge or animosity toward the President of France, President Chirac, who will be visiting us today and is scheduled to address a joint session of the Congress tomorrow. Second, I also hold no personal animosity toward the good people and the citizens of France. But, Mr. Speaker, it is out of fundamental principle that I take this special order on behalf of some 200,000 French citizens living in French Polynesia who all oppose President Chirac's ambitious plan to explode now six nuclear explosions in the South Pacific. I take this special order also in behalf of some 28 million men, women, and children who live in the Pacific region, whose lives depend on a good safe environment, especially the marine environment. I take this special order on behalf of some 167 nations of the world who officially protested to President Chirac not to explode these nuclear bombs. Note also, Mr. Speaker, that 10 of the 15 member- countries of the European Union also protested against France for conducting nuclear explosions in the Pacific. Some have suggested, Mr. Speaker, earlier that the issue now is moot since 5 days ago France and Mr. Chirac has decided to end its nuclear testing program. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, January 29, 3 short days before he is to arrive in Washington, and I presume he is now in Washington, President Chirac of France announced in a formal news release the end of his nuclear testing program in the South Pacific. Though he makes a pretty speech, just in time to come to Washington posing as a fervent advocate of nuclear disarmament and warm ties with America, I want to point out to my colleagues and to the American people, Mr. Speaker, the height of hypocrisy of Mr. Chirac's conduct and remarks. Mr. Chirac began his news release with these words, and I quote: Dear compatriots, I announce to you today the final end to French nuclear tests. Thanks to the final series that has just taken place, France will have a durable, reliable and modern defense. Point No. 1, Mr. Speaker. France already has the fourth largest Navy in the world. France also has the world's third largest arsenal of nuclear weapons. Before it even began its final series of nuclear tests, France had already exploded over 200 nuclear bombs in land, air, and water far from the home of enlightenment. In particular, Mr. Speaker, France had already exploded 178 nuclear bombs in the South Pacific. Were those 200-plus nuclear bomb explosions not enough to ensure a durable, reliable, and modern defense, Mr. Speaker? If those 200 were not enough, why should we now believe that the 6 additional nuclear bombs France has just conducted in the South Pacific will be enough to stay its appetite in the future for an even more modern defense? Point No. 2, Mr. Speaker. The, quote, final series of French nuclear tests were not even necessary. They were not even necessary. The United States freely offered France the technology it sought to ensure its so- called nuclear weapons reliability. Why did France not accept the United States offer, I ask, Mr. Speaker? Because of a combination of two basic things, in my opinion: No. 1, French national pride, and I must give them that sense of credit; and, No. 2, there is French suspicion that the United States was withholding the state-of-the-art technology. Mr. Speaker, Chirac wants to be perceived as promoting nuclear disarmament and expects to have warm ties now with America. Mr. Speaker, this is the height of hypocrisy. One who defiantly violates a world moratorium and resumes unnecessary nuclear testing cannot and must not be regarded as a promoter of nuclear disarmament. And one who is suspicious of assistance from the U.S. offers cannot be regarded as promoting warm ties with America. Mr. Speaker, President Chirac continued his speech by saying, and I quote, ``The security of our country and our children is assured.'' In turn, Mr. Speaker, I say at what price and whose children is President Chirac referring to? The sixth nuclear bomb explosion that France just exploded last Saturday, since violating the world's moratorium on nuclear testing, was over six times more powerful than the bomb that we dropped on Hiroshima 50 years ago. That atom bomb, Mr. Speaker, incidentally vaporized and killed some 150,000 men, women, and children in the city of Hiroshima, and later claimed another 50,000 who died as a result of nuclear contamination and related illnesses. Mr. Speaker, in response to France's latest nuclear explosion in Fangataufa Atoll, the mayor of Hiroshima, Japan, said these words, and I quote: I feel renewed anger. Nuclear tests aimed at developing and maintaining nuclear technology will do nothing but increase the risk of putting human beings on the brink of ruin. Mr. Speaker, I might now ask, what kind of security has France really secured for our children? France's nuclear test sites are leaking cancerous radioactive waste into the swirling waters of the Pacific Ocean which cover one-third of the world's surface. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that France has put not only its children but all of our children on the brink of ruin by exposing them to nuclear contamination through a resulting toxic food chain. Mr. Speaker, Chirac's reckless actions have also initiated the nuclear arms race all over again. Horrific environmental concerns aside, Chirac's decision to resume unnecessary nuclear testing in the South Pacific has opened a Pandora's box that holds chilling implications for nuclear and non-nuclear nations alike. Prime Minister Keating of Australia recently said, and I quote: The French government is to be strongly condemned for the latest test at Fangataufa Atoll and for conducting it during negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty which are now entering the final stages in Geneva, Switzerland. What implications, Mr. Speaker, does Chirac's reckless decision to initiate the nuclear arms race all over again hold for the security of the world? Let me share, Mr. Speaker, the domino effect of Chirac's reckless decision last June. There is now a serious move by India to link the negotiations of a comprehensive test ban treaty in Geneva to its call for negotiations to start this year on removing all nuclear weapons in a specified time. The five nuclear superpowers are, of course, against this move, but joining India in this initiative, ironically, Mr. Speaker, is its archenemy Pakistan. Adding to this difficulty, Mr. Speaker, India refuses to sign the nuclear nonproliferation treaty on the basis that the nuclear nations are still maintaining their nuclear arsenals, which in effect makes the whole treaty meaingless and discriminatory. India's representative to the current and disarmament conference in Geneva made this observation, and I quote: We are of the view that to be meaningful, the treaty should be securely anchored in a global disarmament context and be linked through treaty language to the eliminating of all nuclear weapons in a time-bound framework. In other words, Mr. Speaker, India is pushing for no loopholes in the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. As it currently stands, what assurances do non-nuclear nations have if nuclear nations retain their nuclear arsenals? I submit, Mr. Speaker, if France's resumption of nuclear tests in the South Pacific is a case in point, non-nuclear nations have next to nothing in assurances from the five-nation nuclear club, comprised of one that is willing to defy world moratoriums at will and four that are willing to act in complicity by looking the other way. I submit, Mr. Speaker, because of Chirac's reckless and selfish decision, India is now resisting Western pressure to forgo the nuclear option and is now initiating an ambitious ballistic missiles program. India is saying, ``If France can defy world moratoriums to assure a durable, reliable and modern defense, then so can we.'' Just this week, India successfully launched a new ballistic missile, the improved Prithvi No. 2, that has a range exceeding 150 miles and a capability of being fitted with nuclear warheads. This means, Mr. Speaker, that India has a missile with nuclear capabilities that can reach the capital of Pakistan. Is it surprising that Pakistan now wants to utilize M-11 ballistic missiles from China? These M-11 missiles are also capable of carrying nuclear warheads, and can hit key cities throughout India. But the chain reaction Chirac has created does not stop there, Mr. Speaker. India and China have just signed a contract for India to purchase uranium from China. Now, China, in an expression of its own security concerns, is developing warm relations with Russia. China's position is that it cannot depend on Western powers for its security, as renewed apprehension grows between Russia and the NATO powers. Meanwhile, China and Russia may still conduct nuclear tests and have not unconditionally accepted a genuine zero-yield comprehensive test ban treaty. All of this, Mr. Speaker, has been fueled in part by France's defiant violation of the international testing moratorium, which has contributed to a global atmosphere of distrust and paranoia where nations are reluctant to give up their nuclear options. Australian Prime Minister Keating sums it up this way: ``Such irresponsible actions send the worst possible signal to nations that aspire to possess nuclear weapons, and damages efforts to advance nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. The French Government is to be strongly condemned.'' Despite world condemnation, Mr. Speaker, Chirac arrogantly continued his speech of eurocentric rationale by marginalizing Asia-Pacific concerns. President Chirac states: ``I know the decision I took last June may have caused worries and emotions.'' Mr. Speaker, can you believe this? Chirac thinks his decision only caused ``worries and emotions.'' Is he still denying the environmental effects of his unnecessary nuclear bomb explosions in waters conveniently located halfway around the world from Paris? Is he still claiming that his nuclear bomb explosions have no ecological consequences? Is he unaware that he has initiated a nuclear arms race all over again? Or does he just take nuclear proliferation lightly, suggesting that it should cause nothing more than a few worries and emotions? What kind of world leader could be so barbaric in his interpretations, Mr. Speaker? President Chirac continues by claiming that, ``While my resolve was not affected, I was not insensitive to those movements of public opinion.'' How sensitive, Mr. Speaker, was he? Was he sensitive enough to stop nuclear explosions? Was he sensitive enough to consider the 28 million people living in the Pacific region whose lives will be affected for decades to come as a result of the nuclear nightmare Chirac's unaffected resolve created for them? As Prime Minister Bolger of New Zealand has noted, and I quote, ``Despite all suggestions from France that this is a totally safe and benign operation, there is no such thing as a safe nuclear test. They all create massive damage. It is just a matter of how much, when, and what leakage there is.'' Even Philippines President Ramos also has this to say, Mr. Speaker, and I quote once again: ``I condemn in the strongest terms the latest tests by France. This latest test is a continued defiance of the international communities' appeals to France.'' Mr. Speaker, I might also note, this latest test comes shortly after all 10 Southeast Asian countries signed a treaty providing for a nuclear-free zone in that part of the world. While President Chirac may claim sensitivity, the latest in French nuclear testings are an affront, a slap in the face to Asia-Pacific countries. Since when is a slap in the face, Mr. Speaker, considered to be an expression of sensitivity? Promoting his propaganda to the hilt, Mr. Speaker, Chirac continues his response to the world's condemnation of French nuclear testing. These ``movements,'' as Chirac likes to describe, ``testified to the growing importance the world's inhabitants attach to collective security and safeguarding the environment. I share these concerns.'' Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that the world's No. 1 nuclear proliferator, the man responsible for initiating the nuclear arms race all over again, would now try to convince us that he shares our concerns for collective security and safeguarding of the environment. If this were the case, why did he not just accept the technology the United States offered? Why conduct unnecessary nuclear testing? Why reopen the nuclear arms race? Why create the paranoia? Why pit nuclear nations against nonnuclear nations? Why pit Western powers against non-Western powers? Why, on the one hand, claim that there are no ecological consequences of nuclear testings, but on the other hand, choose to conduct these nuclear tests far from the borders of France? Whose environment is Chirac really interested in safeguarding, Mr. Speaker? And whose security is he really concerned about? In a very patronizing way, Mr. Speaker, Chirac also said, and I quote, ``I know that nuclear energy can be frightening, but in a world that is still dangerous, our weapon is a deterrent--that means a weapon that can serve peace. Today I have the feeling of having accomplished one of my most important duties by giving France, for decades to come, the capability for its independence and security.'' I think that answers the question for us, Mr. Speaker, right there. It is French security and the French environment that Chirac is concerned about. To heck with everyone else's independence and security. France has its own rules. France does its own thing. If it wants to violate world moratoriums, it will. France, after all, comes first. Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I thought peace meant working together to create an equitable environment for all citizens of the world, not just French ones. While I am on the subject, Mr. Speaker, I might question Chirac's use of the word ``Independence.'' Does ``Independence'' in Chirac's vocabulary include freedom for the native people of French Polynesia who have felt the brunt of French colonial reign since the islands of French Polynesia were what Westerners would call ``colonized'' by France, after some 500 French soldiers with guns and cannons subdued the Tahitian chiefs and their warriors in the 1840's. Or is independence just a concept, like security, that Chirac applies only to the people of France? Mr. Speaker, Chirac continued his dramatic monologue by saying, and I quote, ``a new chapter is opening. France will play an active and determined role in world disarmament and for a better European defense,'' end of quote. Mr. Speaker, do I hear Chirac correctly? Do I hear him trying to justify his latest nuclear testings by saying he did it all to stabilize relations in Europe? For him to suggest that the resumption of French nuclear testing was done to stabilize relations in Europe is ridiculous. When France first presented the idea of ``concerted deterrence'' and offered to extend its nuclear umbrella to its European partners, there were few takers, Mr. Speaker. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 10 of the 15 European Union countries voted with the United Nations, protesting the resumption of French nuclear testing. Why, Mr. Speaker, are the European Union members not more anxious to be shielded by the French nuclear umbrella? This is partly because the European Union nations are more comfortable with the protection the United States has provided them for the past 50 years, and partly, Mr. Speaker, because historically, France just cannot be trusted. Mr. Speaker, in the 1940's France surrendered to Nazi Germany. In 1966, at the height of the cold war, when nuclear missiles were pointed at every major country in Europe, France pulled out of the NATO alliance. Today France has still not officially joined NATO, and as we have clearly seen from September of 1995 to January of this year, France cannot even be trusted to honor a world moratorium it called for and agreed to only 3 short years ago. How can any nation, European or not, be assured of any French position? Mr. Speaker, Chirac says, and I quote, ``I will take intiatives in this direction in the coming weeks. As all of you, dear compatriots, I want peace--solid and durable peace. We all know that peace, like freedom, has to be built each day. That is the purpose of the decision I took and that will be the guideline for my action tomorrow.'' Mr. Speaker, can we really put stock in Chirac's guideline for tomorrow? France's own urban minister said about Chirac's decision to explode six additional bombs in the South Pacific, and I quote, ``He did what he said he would do, and he did the right thing.'' Mr. Speaker, something is rotten in Denmark when world leaders consider that they have done the right thing by violating world moratoriums that they agreed to. Chirac's aide said Chirac will earn international respect for sticking determinedly to a decision almost as unpopular domestically as it was internationally. Mr. Speaker, if the responses of world leaders from Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the Philippines, the Pacific nations and Europe is any indication of international sentiment, Chirac will be a long time in earning anybody's respect. Anyone with a social conscience, world leader or not, knows that the only interest Chirac considered in resuming nuclear testing was the higher interests of French military industrial lobbyists and their profitable $2.5 billion nuclear program. Mr. Speaker, now Chirac wants to come to Washington and make a case for peace and act as a spokesperson for the world's poor. But, Mr. Speaker, did you know that France is now the top weapons exporter and weapons supplier in the world? Mr. Speaker, is it with irony or with hypocrisy that President Chirac will promote peace and act as a spokesman for the world's poor when France is the biggest exporter of weapons to developing nations? Mr. Speaker, while Chirac may script his story for Eurocentric audiences, the people of the Pacific who feel the brunt of colonial reign have their own story to tell. It is a travesty that tomorrow their voices will be made mute in this Chamber by one who so arrogantly and so openly marginalizes not only their concerns, but the concerns of the world community as well. Mr. Speaker, it is an act devoid of all social conscience that has afforded Mr. Chirac the opportunity of delivering his downright deceptive message from a Chamber that symbolically represents the highest of democratic values. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join together and support the privileged resolution, H.R. 350, introduced by the Honorable Patsy Mink of Hawaii, the distinguished gentleman from Guam, Robert Underwood, the Honorable Patricia Schroeder from Colorado, and myself, which requests the Speaker to withdraw the invitation to President Chirac to address a joint session of Congress. If the invitation is not revoked, then I urge my colleagues not to attend the joint session of Congress. To attend the session is to act in complicity, to validate France's position that it is okay to violate world moratoriums, to resume nuclear testings that poison the Pacific, to initiate a nuclear arms race all over again, to place humanity on the brink of destruction. As a member of both the Pacific island community and the U.S. House of Representatives, and as one who has sailed to the nuclear testing site of Mururoa and been arrested at the hands of French commandos in waters of French Polynesia, as one who has considered the kind of world that I want my children to live in--Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, I cannot in good conscience be a party to such hypocrisy.