Doc Hastings

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, with millions of phone calls, emails and personal visits, the American people have made it clear to Congress that they want health care reform that lowers costs, not a government takeover of their health care system. I support reforms that will lower the cost of health care and increase choices for Americans, but the fact is that the bills being pushed through Congress won't achieve these goals. They, instead, lead to higher spending and more government control. Instead of listening to the American people, Democrats in Congress have made it clear that they will do whatever it takes to have their trillion dollar health care proposal become law. These bills making their way through Congress ignore the clear desire of Americans to scrap the government takeover of health care, and they ignore the clear desire of Americans to start over again. Congress must, instead, focus on commonsense solutions that reduce costs, increase choices, and help more Americans afford the coverage they deserve. The bottom line, Madam Speaker, is that Congress needs to start over on a new bill.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

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

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2314 and the substitute text that will be offered by my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie). Mr. Speaker, at the outset of this debate, it is important for all Members to understand that the substitute text that they will ultimately be voting on today is fundamentally changed from the original underlying bill that the House voted on in 2007. This rewritten text, the Abercrombie substitute, was drafted behind closed doors away from public view. It was unveiled less than 48 hours before we in the House were to be debating and voting on that substitute. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this lack of transparency has become the standard operating procedure for this Democratic-controlled House. Mr. Speaker, I am certain we will hear appeals from the bill's advocates that the vote on this bill should not be a partisan matter. I would agree. This is not a partisan matter; rather, it is a question of what is right and constitutional. But appeals to nonpartisanship ring hollow when the bill was rewritten in secret by just one party and then rushed to the floor with little time for scrutiny by the minority, but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, little time for scrutiny by the American people or the citizens of Hawaii. There is nothing more troubling about the House voting on a fundamentally rewritten bill than the position made public by the Governor of Hawaii. Something is very wrong when that Governor, a longtime vocal advocate of Native Hawaiian recognition, feels compelled to issue a statement last night that she can't support this rewritten bill. Now, the Governor and I disagree on the fundamental question of recognition, I want to make that clear, just as I fundamentally disagree with my good friend from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie) but I also strongly disagree with the House acting to impose a changed bill on one of the 50 States over their Governor's objections, especially when this Governor has long supported, as I mentioned, the concept of Native Hawaiian recognition and the original text of the bill. Let me explain the difference between the underlying bill, which is basically what the House passed in the 110th Congress, and the Abercrombie amendment in the nature of a substitute. This is very important, Mr. Speaker. The original bill extended recognition to the Native Hawaiian entity but withheld any tribal powers and privileges, such as immunity from lawsuit and State jurisdiction, until after negotiations with--and the consent of--the State of Hawaii and this Congress. Though this does not resolve my fundamental objection to the bill, it was an arrangement that drew the strong support of Governor Lingle of Hawaii. In contrast, the substitute alters this fundamental nature of the bill. Let me quote the words that the Governor of Hawaii, Governor Linda Lingle, used to describe this rewrite: ``The current bill establishes that the Native Hawaiian governing entity would start with broad governmental powers and authorities, with negotiations to follow.'' Again, the original bill starts with negotiations, followed by a grant of powers and authorities that are subject to the consent of the State. But the substitute starts with the grant of powers and authorities without the consent of the State, followed by negotiations for yet more benefits and powers. Let me be specific, Mr. Speaker, in two instances. First, section 9 of the substitute clearly spells out the powers granted to the Native American governing entity before negotiations without the consent of the State; it is immunity from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with only minor exceptions. Second, it is that ``governmental'' activities pursued by the entity or its officers and employees shall not be subject to State regulatory or taxation authority. The wording of this section suggests that the State criminal authority will not even apply to officers and employees of the Native Hawaiian governing entity as long as they are acting within the scope of their duties. To once again quote from the Governor of Hawaii's statement from last night, ``I do not believe such a structure, of two completely different sets of rules--one for `governmental' activities of the Native Hawaiian governing entity and its officers and employees, and one for everyone else--makes sense for Hawaii.'' Quoting further, ``In addition, under the current bill, the Native Hawaiian governing entity has almost complete sovereign immunity from lawsuits, including from ordinary tort and contract lawsuits, and I do not believe this makes sense for the people of Hawaii.'' And I am quoting from Governor Lingle. Without question, this rewritten bill strikes at the heart of the State of Hawaii's authority to enforce health and environmental regulations, taxes, and criminal law enforcement equally among its citizens. Congress should not be party to imposing this upon this State, or for that matter any State. Yet, despite the State of Hawaii's concerns with the rewritten bill, here we are tonight debating it on the floor of the House of Representatives. This legislation violates also, in my view, the United States Constitution because it establishes a separate, race-based government of Native Hawaiians. The authors and advocates of this bill have argued that Native Hawaiian recognition is no different than Congress recognizing an Indian tribe, and yet, Mr. Speaker, there are very important and real differences. Native Hawaiians are not and never have been members of an Indian tribe. Native Hawaiians do not share the same political and legal history as Federally recognized Indian tribes. The historical record on this point is very, very clear. For example, in the Hawaii Organic Act of 1900, section 4 states that all persons who were citizens of the Republic of Hawaii in 1898 were declared citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, if Congress then believed it was recognizing the existence of a separate Native Hawaiian community, the Organic Act would have expressly reflected this; instead, all Hawaiians were recognized as full citizens. Mr. Speaker, this is in stark contrast to our Nation's history of less than equal treatment of individual Indians and Indian tribes. But try as we might, Congress cannot revise historical and political facts. H.R. 2314 attempts to do just this, to rewrite legal history. Mr. Speaker, this observation is shared by constitutional and civil rights experts. For example, in its 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court in Rice v. Cayetano commented on the proposition of Native Hawaiian recognition, saying that it, and I quote from that case, ``would raise questions of considerable moment and difficulty. It is a matter of some dispute whether Congress may treat the Native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes.'' Just yesterday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reiterated its standing opposition to any legislation, and I quote from the commission, ``that would discriminate on the basis of race or national origin and further subdivide the American people into discrete subgroups according to varying degrees of privilege.'' Mr. Speaker, in 1959 a vote was taken in Hawaii on the question of becoming a State. Over 94 percent voted in favor of statehood. In other words, citizens of Hawaii voted overwhelmingly to join our Union as one unified State. Today, under this bill, Congress will vote on dividing the State of Hawaii through the creation of a separate governing entity based solely on race. If Congress is going to impose this division on Hawaii over the objections of its Governor, then I believe the citizens of Hawaii themselves deserve to have a vote on this matter. In a Zogby poll from December 2009, a couple of months ago, only 34 percent of Hawaiians supported the concept of the Federal Government's imposing a new racially based subpopulation of citizens on the islands. Like their fellow Hawaiians who voted overwhelmingly for Statehood in 1959, Hawaiians today want a say in the future of their archipelago. The same poll found that 58 percent want a Statewide vote on this issue. So, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment that will be offered which would require just such a Statewide vote, and I hope all Members will join me in adopting that amendment. As I noted at the outset of my remarks, the House last voted on Native Hawaiian recognition in 2007. I want to reiterate today, Mr. Speaker, that we will be voting on a different bill today. The 2007 legislation was rewritten. I believe the changes today are so fundamentally different that those Members who voted ``yes'' in 2007 should take the time to reconsider their votes. There is another compelling reason for reconsideration when the Governor of Hawaii, the State that is impacted, has gone from an enthusiastic supporter of the 2007 bill to not supporting the rewritten bill. I hope many of my colleagues will recognize this dramatic change from just 3 years ago. The Governor remains a committed supporter of Native Hawaiian recognition. Her position has not changed. It is the bill that has been fundamentally changed and rewritten. Like the Governor, who supported the 2007 bill, they, too, have good reason to oppose this rewritten version today. Now, Mr. Speaker, before concluding my opening statement, I want to take a moment to publicly state that I have a great deal of respect and affection for my colleague from Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie. He is departing the House at the end of this week, and I do regret that I am leading the opposition to his bill in his final days here in the House. To be very honest, Mr. Speaker, I would much rather be on the floor supporting his bipartisan legislation to write into law a 5-year plan to develop America's offshore oil and gas reserves. Regrettably, such reasonable legislation stands no chance of making it to the floor in this Congress, and I do regret that. So I hope that my good friend knows that my opposition to this recognition bill is based on my view of the matter and is not a reflection of the high regard for which I hold him as my friend. I want to wish him well in his future endeavors--well, maybe not real, real well.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, I hope the gentleman has checked with the Ethics Committee; but having been a long-time member, I gladly accept that from my good friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Hawaii.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, as I said in my remarks, the gentleman from Hawaii certainly will be missed. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young). (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire how much time on both sides remains.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Let me just make reference to the 1959 vote. The vote was not whether you accept statehood--because if they had voted no, they could not have been a State--the question is whether they wanted statehood. Over 94 percent said yes, they want statehood. So that is a little bit of semantics there, but it is very important. This issue to me is equally as important because the vote there said we want to become part of the United States as a unified State. This action that we are debating here today could divide the State of Hawaii. They ought to have the opportunity to vote. So I urge my colleagues to vote for the Hastings amendment. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment made in order under the rule.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, my amendment simply requires a statewide vote of approval in Hawaii before the Federal recognition is extended to the Native Hawaiian entity. The use of a statewide vote in Hawaii is not uncommon. For example, it has been used to establish staggered terms for the State Senate, to modify the term length for the State Tax Commission, to issue bonds for private schools, and to establish residency requirements for candidates seeking higher office. My amendment merely proposes that before Congress changes the civil rights of all Hawaiians and establishes a two-tiered government in Hawaii, one of which is based on an individual's ancestry and race, a vote of all Hawaiians should be held to approve these changes. The most important statewide vote held in Hawaii occurred in 1959, when 94.3 percent of Hawaiians voted in favor of the Hawaiian Admissions Act in joining the Union as one unified State. When the outcome of the statewide vote was published, there was no footnote indicating that Native Hawaiians would be separated from their neighbors as a distinct political unit. In fact, there is ample testimony and statements from public officials describing the racial harmony in the melting pot that was and still is Hawaiian culture. This is not to say Native Hawaiians should not have a distinct culture and history though, Mr. Speaker. We all honor and respect their culture and its contributions to all Americans, but this does not mean that there must be a separate legal and political status for them just as there must not be a separate legal and political status for anyone else based on their race and ancestry. It would be a grave mistake for Congress to impose this new separate government affecting the citizens of Hawaii without their consent, as H.R. 2314 proposes to do. I must point out that even if my amendment is adopted, Mr. Speaker, it will not relieve the serious concerns that many of my colleagues and constitutional experts outside of Congress have with the underlying subject of this legislation, but what this amendment does do is that it puts the question to the people this legislation affects most, the citizens of Hawaii. In 1959, as I said, 94-plus percent of Hawaiians voted for statehood. Today, Hawaiians should be afforded a statewide vote on the question of creating a separate government based on race. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, just in response, the State of Hawaii can and does hold statewide votes during general elections. Article 17 of the Hawaii Constitution describes the process for holding such votes, and it takes the action of the legislature. This is consistent with Hawaii's political culture. Since 1994, for example, the State of Hawaii has considered 25 different statewide votes. They include a number of things, and I talked about that in my opening remarks. But Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that if we were to pass this bill, article 17 would come into play, because I believe in all likelihood, because of recent polling, the legislature of Hawaii would say, you know, we have the ability to put this to a vote; maybe we ought to do this since we are creating another governmental entity that has different rules and regulations than the State of Hawaii. That seems self-evident to me. My amendment simply facilitates that by saying that that should happen and it can happen under article 17 of the Hawaiian Constitution. With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Reference was made to how this would affect the laws of Hawaii. Let me read from the Abercrombie substitute, page 51, line 1H: The Native American governing entity shall be immune from any lawsuit in any Federal or State court, with some exceptions as I had noted earlier. On the same page, page 51 of the Abercrombie substitute, line 18: Governmental nonbusiness, noncommercial activities undertaken by the Native Hawaiian government entity shall not be subject to the regulatory or taxation authority of the State of Hawaii. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am just pointing out this is what the substitute says, and these are the concerns that the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii and the Governor of Hawaii have, because we all know when we are writing laws here that the word ``shall'' as opposed to ``may'' has very, very strong meaning, and in both cases it says ``shall.'' With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could inquire of my friend from Hawaii if there are any more speakers on their side of the aisle.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Well, reclaiming my time, maybe we could work together on that right now if that would be the case. Mr. Speaker, I am simply pointing this out because this is evolving into a process, and who is being left out of this process happens to be the elected Governor of the State of Hawaii. And to me that is regretful. With that, I will reserve my time.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I will yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Speaker, in the exchange between my friend from American Samoa and my friend from Hawaii, the issue was brought up that Governor Lingle was contacted today and that there would be a way to try to satisfy her concerns, and I don't doubt at all that that effort will be tried. Hopefully it will be successful. But let me just review where we were. When we started the process, when we started this Congress, the original text of H.R. 2314 was something that Governor Lingle endorsed. The Senate bill, which I think was identical or very close, she also endorsed that. But now with the action of the other body, with the Senate in passing what is commonly referred to as the Akaka amendment, which is similar to what we are debating here today, the Governor does not support that. Now we have the base bill here which the Governor does support, and we're debating now a substitute--which I hope doesn't pass but I am a realist. And it may pass. And now we will have a bill in both Houses or two bills, one in each House, in which the Governor disagrees with. Now, if you're negotiating in good faith, it would seem to me that you should at least start with the position where the Governor of the affected State is in agreement with what you're trying to do and that's not the case today if the substitute were to pass. Now, again, I am going to say that I take my good friend from Hawaii at his word that he is going to negotiate. Maybe if he was the only negotiator it could be worked out. I don't know because I don't know what is going on behind those doors. Nobody knows, unfortunately.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to congratulate and commend my good friend from Hawaii, because I know he has been working on this all the time that he has been here and probably before. But I just fundamentally disagree with the approaches taken with his substitute simply because, at least in the broadest sense, this is the only State that is affected by this legislation, the State of Hawaii. Why should we push forward when the Governor of this State does not agree with the substitute and when the chief legal officer has some question, apparently--in fact, it is not apparent, it is pretty obvious--with some of the remarks I think that my friend just made as it relates to laws and regulations to the State of Hawaii? Since this legislation only affects one State, wouldn't it be prudent for this body and representatives of the other 49 States to suggest to the State of Hawaii and all their elected officials, Why don't you come up with something that you can fundamentally agree on? But that has not been the case. It has not been the case in the other body, and, if this substitute passes, it will not be the case in this body. And that disturbs me. That disturbs me that we completely apparently don't want to take into consideration their concerns on issues that affect the citizens of the State of Hawaii. So it is for those reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I urge my colleagues to vote against the Abercrombie substitute; because if the Abercrombie substitute is defeated, we will now have a bill that the Governor of Hawaii can support. That is a good starting point in future negotiations if the House or the Senate, the other body, were to pass this legislation. With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Abercrombie amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.