PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 505, NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2007
(House of Representatives - October 24, 2007)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Pages H11965-H11973]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 505, NATIVE HAWAIIAN GOVERNMENT 
                       REORGANIZATION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 764 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 764

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     505) to express the policy of the United States regarding the 
     United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to 
     provide a process for the recognition by the United States of 
     the Native Hawaiian governing entity. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived except those 
     arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions of 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, and any amendment thereto, 
     to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
     hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources; (2) the amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake of 
     Arizona or his designee, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order (except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) or demand for division of 
     the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
     separately debatable for ten minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 505 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The gentleman from Florida 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington, my 
good friend, Representative Hastings. All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and to insert extraneous materials into the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 764 provides a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government 
Reorganization Act of 2007. The resolution provides 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Natural Resources. The rule makes in order 
an amendment offered by Representative Flake of Arizona. This was the 
only amendment submitted to the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to speak for long about this legislation 
other than to express my sincere hope that this body will move forward 
expeditiously with its passage. Our Nation is greater because of its 
vast diversity and the living narrative of all those who contribute to 
it. However, make no mistake, our government has treated a number of 
cultural communities in a less than favorable manner.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not here to debate the particulars of our 
Nation's dealings with Native Hawaiians. However, it is only right that 
all indigenous people should have a right to determine how they should 
interact with our government.

[[Page H11966]]

  As my good friend from Hawaii, Representative Neil Abercrombie, 
mentioned in the Rules Committee, the current system of land tenure for 
Native Hawaiians is organized under the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. 
This State agency does not meet the needs of Native Hawaiians in the 
most effective manner as it is currently arranged. What the community 
demands and needs is an entity in which the Native Hawaiians can be 
effectively engaged. Rightfully, this legislation will give Native 
Hawaiians an opportunity to create such an entity and empower 
themselves with self-determination.
  I do want to make note of my concern that there are some in this body 
who are seeking to create controversy where none exists. Contrary to 
what some say today, this bill does not allow gaming on Native Hawaiian 
lands, nor does it lay the groundwork for gaming. On the contrary, it 
takes the necessary steps to put Native Hawaiians on the necessary path 
to control their destiny.
  Additionally, similar legislation has passed the House in the 106th 
Congress and was reported out of the Natural Resources Committee in 
both the 107th and 109th Congresses. Unfortunately, the measure was 
never taken any further until today.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides the appropriate framework for debate 
on this bipartisan legislation, which is the culmination of many years 
of negotiation. I have been in this body, and I have seen Neil 
Abercrombie, and now Mazie Hirono, and before, Patsy Mink, work 
actively on this particular legislation.
  The lack of amendments submitted to the Rules Committee for this 
legislation is a testament to years of bipartisan collaboration. It is 
only right that we bring this legislation to the full floor today in 
this manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
and namesake from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation, 
offered in good faith by my friend and colleague from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie), would create a process, and I want to emphasize 
``process,'' because that is what this is, for establishing and 
recognizing a Native Hawaiian government entity that would be empowered 
to act on behalf of its members with the State and Federal Government.
  However, Mr. Speaker, as the Wall Street Journal noted in 2005, the 
practical effect of granting this status to self-identified Native 
Hawaiians would be to allow this new class of American citizens to 
declare, and I quote again from the Wall Street Journal, ``complete 
legal and territorial independence from the United States and the 
establishment of a Hawaiian nation-state.''
  Mr. Speaker, before this statement is dismissed out of hand as a 
completely unbelievable statement dreamed up by the editorial board of 
the Wall Street Journal, I should mention that they were not the ones 
that were making this claim. They were merely reporting on a statement 
made by the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs, which first acknowledged 
this fact.
  In addition, a recent statement made by the U.S. Civil Rights 
Commission raised concerns that this legislation, and, again, I quote 
from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, ``would discriminate on the 
basis of race or national origin and further subdivide American people 
into discrete subgroups according to various degrees of privilege.''
  Despite the best efforts of this legislation's advocates to compare 
Native Americans with Native American tribes who govern reservations 
and often live on them, this legislation would make it possible for our 
next-door neighbors in Hawaii to suddenly coexist under different legal 
regimes, a clear violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution's 
equal protection clause.
  Mr. Speaker, because this legislation would grant broad governmental 
powers to a racially defined group, to include all living descendants. 
The new Native Hawaiians created by this bill would need no geographic, 
political or cultural connection to Hawaii, much less a physical 
connection to a distinct Native Hawaiian community. As the Federal 
courts have recently explained, this is problematic. Again, I quote the 
Federal courts: ``The history of the indigenous Hawaiians is 
fundamentally different from that of indigenous groups in federally 
recognized Indian tribes in the continental United States.''
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this legislation raises significant 
constitutional concerns, which have been raised on other bills this 
year, namely, H.R. 8345, the Hawaiian Ownership Act of 2007, which the 
House considered in March of this year. The Hawaiian Township Act 
initially failed under suspension of the rules because 162 Members of 
the House recognized, and in 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Rice v. 
Cayetano, that the current configuration of Justices would likely 
strike down the Federal benefits flowing to Native Americans as an 
unconstitutional racial set-aside, if given the chance.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are legitimate constitutional 
concerns that must be addressed in the underlying Native Hawaiian 
Government Reorganization Act. I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the rule 
makes in order an amendment to be offered by Mr. Flake of Arizona that 
would attempt to address the constitutional concerns and ensure the 
underlying legislation complies with the equal protection clause of the 
14th amendment of the United States Constitution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. 
Hirono), who is an original sponsor of this measure.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. I thank 
Chairman Slaughter and Vice Chair McGovern for the rule which fairly 
gives the only amendment to be filed due consideration pursuant to 
House rules. I disagree with the amendment because it, if adopted, 
unnecessarily creates confusion where none exists.
  The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization bill is a good one, the 
result of over 6 years of fine-tuning and negotiations, including 
significant compromises with the Department of Justice, Department of 
the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget to conceive a law 
that should be approved by all persons concerned with the welfare of 
Native Hawaiians.
  This bill is supported by the Republican Governor of the State of 
Hawaii, the Hawaii State legislature, the American Bar Association, the 
National Congress of American Indians, the National Education 
Association, the NAACP, League of United Latin American Citizens, and 
dozens of other civil rights, professional associations and unions.
  I will enter into the Record a list of all supporters of this 
measure, as well as letters of support from the Governor of the State 
of Hawaii, Linda Lingle; the American Bar Association; National 
Congress of American Indians; and the Japanese American Citizens 
League, and thank them for their wholehearted support.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close by quoting a sentence from the letter from 
the National Congress of American Indians, which is of particular 
relevance to the proposed amendment to be offered. ``To invoke the 
equal protection or due process clause of the Constitution in this 
context, as some of the legislation's critics attempt to do, is a 
perversion of what those clauses were intended to do. Those submitting 
this argument are using the very cornerstones of justice and fairness 
in our democracy to deny equal protection to one group of indigenous 
people.''
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this body to adopt the rule so we may get on to 
the merits of this important legislation that will at long last afford 
the Native Hawaiian people self-determination and self-governance long 
given to other indigenous people of the United States but denied to 
Native Hawaiians.

[[Page H11967]]

  S. 310/H.R. 505: Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act--To 
  Express the Policy of the U.S. Regarding the U.S. Relationship With 
 Native Hawaiians and To Provide a Process for the Recognition by the 
              U.S. of the Native Hawaiian Governing Entity


                     Standing together for justice

       The following groups, entities and individuals from around 
     the islands and across the Nation have pledged their support 
     for Native Hawaiian self-determination through federal 
     legislation extending a process of official recognition to 
     Native Hawaiians as the indigenous people of Hawai`i, similar 
     to the existing federal policy available to American Indians 
     and Alaska Natives:
     Hawai`i organizations & entities
       Alu Like, Inc.; Alan M. Arakawa, Mayor, County of Maui; 
     Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs; Council for Native 
     Hawaiian Advancement; Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian 
     Warriors--Mamakakaua; Hale O Na Ali`i O Hawai`i; Hawaii 
     Carpenters Union; Hawaii Government Employees Association 
     (HGEA); Hawaii State AFL-CIO; Hawai`i State Legislature; and 
     Hawai`i State Teachers' Association.
       Hawaiian Homes Commission; Hui Hanai; Hui Kako`o `Aina 
     Ho`opulapula; I Mua Group; International Longshore and 
     Warehouse Union (ILWU); Japanese American Citizens League 
     (Honolulu Chapter); Kamehameha Schools; Kamehameha Schools 
     Alumni Association (KSAA); Ko`olaupoko Hawaiian Civic Club; 
     and Kualoa-Heeia Hawaiian Civic Club.
       Linda Lingle, Governor, State of Hawai`i; Nanakuli Housing 
     Corporation; National Association of Social Workers (Hawaii 
     Chapter); Native Hawaiian Chamber of Commerce; Native 
     Hawaiian Economic Alliance; Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Royal 
     Order of Kamehameha 1; and State Council of Hawaiian 
     Homestead Associations.
     National, regional & international entities
       Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)--Established 
     in 1953, ATNI represents and advocates for regional, national 
     and specific Tribal concerns. It is comprised of 54 Northwest 
     Tribal governments from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast 
     Alaska, northern California and western Montana.
       Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)--AFN is the largest 
     statewide Native organization in Alaska. It represents over 
     200 Alaska Native villages, corporations, and associations. 
     AFN's mission is to enhance and promote the cultural, 
     economic, and political voice of the entire Alaska Native 
     community.
       American Bar Association (ABA)--The American Bar 
     Association is the largest voluntary professional association 
     in the world. With more than 400,000 members, the ABA 
     provides law school accreditation, continuing legal 
     education, information about the law, programs to assist 
     lawyers and judges in their work, and initiatives to improve 
     the legal system for the public.
       Association of Asian Pacific Community Health Organizations 
     (AAPCHO)--AAPCHO is a national association representing 
     community health organizations dedicated to promoting 
     advocacy, collaboration and leadership that improves the 
     health status and access of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians 
     and Pacific Islanders within the United States, its 
     territories and freely associated states, primarily through 
     member community health clinics.
       Governors' Interstate Indian Council (GIIC)--Represents 21 
     state Indian Affairs agencies and organizations.
       Inter Tribal Council of Arizona (ITCA)--Established in 
     1952, ITCA is comprised of 19 member tribes and provides a 
     united voice for tribal governments located in the State of 
     Arizona.
       Japanese American Citizens League (JACL--National)--JACL is 
     the Nation's oldest and largest Asian Pacific American civil 
     rights organization, with over 24,000 members in 23 states.
       Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR)--LCCR consists 
     of more than 180 national organizations, representing persons 
     of color, women, children, labor unions, individuals with 
     disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays 
     and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups.
       League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC--
     National)--With approximately 115,000 members throughout the 
     United States and Puerto Rico, LULAC is the largest and 
     oldest Hispanic organization in the United States.
       League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC--
     California).
       Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund 
     (MALDEF)--MALDEF is the leading nonprofit Latino litigation, 
     advocacy and educational outreach institution in the U.S.
       Asian American Justice Center (AAJC)--AAJC, formerly the 
     National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, is one of 
     the Nation's leading experts on issues of importance to the 
     Asian American community including: affirmative action, anti-
     Asian violence prevention/race relations, census, immigrant 
     rights, language access, and voting rights.
       National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
     (NAACP)--The NAACP is the Nation's oldest and largest civil 
     rights organization. Its half-million adult and youth members 
     throughout the United States and the world are the premier 
     advocates for civil rights in their communities while 
     conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal 
     opportunity in the public and private sectors.
       National Association of Social Workers (NASW)--The National 
     Association of Social Workers represents over 150,000 social 
     workers in the U.S.
       National Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA)--
     NCAPA is a coalition of the Nation's leading Asian Pacific 
     American organizations. It represents the interests of the 
     greater APA community and provides a national voice on APA 
     issues.
       National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community 
     Development (National CAPACD)--National CAPACD's mission is 
     to enhance the capacity and ability of community based 
     organizations to conduct community development activities for 
     the Asian and Pacific Islander American communities.
       National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)--NCAI is the 
     Nation's oldest and largest American Indian and Alaska Native 
     organization that represents over 250 member tribes.
       National Council of La Raza (NCLR)--NCLR is the largest 
     constituency-based national Hispanic organization, serving 
     all Hispanic nationality groups in all regions of the 
     country. NCLR has over 270 formal affiliates who together 
     serve 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia--
     and a broader network of more than 30,000 groups and 
     individuals nationwide--reaching more than three and a half 
     million Hispanics annually.
       National Indian Education Association (NIEA)--Established 
     in 1969, NIEA is the largest national Indian organization of 
     American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian educators, 
     administrators, parents and students in the United States, 
     providing a forum to discuss and act upon issues affecting 
     the education of indigenous people.
       National Organization of Pacific Islanders in America 
     (NOPIA)--NOPIA is dedicated to ensuring the protection of 
     rights and fair treatment of all Pacific Islander Americans 
     through legislative and policy initiatives at all levels of 
     government.
       Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA)--OCA is dedicated 
     to securing the rights of Chinese American and Asian American 
     citizens and permanent residents through legislative and 
     policy initiatives at all levels of the government. OCA aims 
     to embrace the hopes and aspirations of the nearly 2 million 
     citizens and residents of Chinese ancestry in the United 
     States as well as to better the lives of the 10 million Asian 
     Americans across the country.
       Tribal Education Departments National Assembly (TEDNA)--A 
     membership organization for the Education Departments of 
     American Indian and Alaska Native Tribes.
       United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)--USET is an inter-
     tribal organization that collectively represents its 24 
     federally recognized member Tribes at the regional and 
     national level. USET is dedicated to promoting Indian 
     leadership, improving the quality of life for American 
     Indians, and protecting Indian rights and natural resources 
     on tribal lands.
       Virginia Indian Tribal Alliance For Life (VITAL)--An 
     independent public organization, established to support 
     Virginia Indian Initiatives by funding lobbyist and 
     bipartisan political campaigns which support the needs of 
     Virginia Indians in education, healthcare and economic 
     development.
       Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Public Lands 
     Authority--Established by the Constitution of the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to manage and 
     dispose of the public lands for the benefit of the people of 
     the Commonwealth who are of Northern Marianas descent.
       National Federation of Filipino American Associations--
     Hawaii Pacific Region 12 (NaFFAA--HPR 12)--NaFFAA was 
     established in 1997 to promote the welfare and well-being of 
     all Filipinos and Filipino Americans throughout the U.S., and 
     Region 12 is Hawai'i, Guam and Commonwealth of Northern 
     Mariana Islands.
       Individual Supporters: Joe Shirley, President, Navajo 
     Nation.
       Introducers of S. 310 on 1/17/07: Senator Daniel K. Akaka 
     and Senator Daniel K. Inouye.
       S. 310 Co-Sponsors: Senator Maria Cantwell on 1/17/07, 
     Senator Norm Coleman on 1/17/07, Senator Byron L. Dorgan on 
     1/17/07, Senator Lisa Murkowski on 1/17/07, Senator Gordon H. 
     Smith on 1/17/07, Senator Ted Stevens on 1/17/07, and Senator 
     Christopher J. Dodd on 1/17/07.
       Introducers of H.R. 505 on 1/17/07: Representative Neil 
     Abercrombie and Representative Mazie Hirono.
       H.R. 505 Co-Sponsors: Delegate Madeleine Z. Bordallo on 2/
     27/07, Delegate Eni Faleomavaega on 2/27/07, and 
     Representative James P. Moran on 2/27/07.
                                  ____

                                              National Congress of


                                             American Indians,

                                 Washington, DC, October 22, 2007.
     Re Support H.R. 505--Native Hawaiian Government 
         Reorganization Act of 2007.

       Dear Representative: I am writing on behalf of the National 
     Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the nation's oldest and 
     largest organization of tribal governments, to express our 
     strong support of H.R. 505, the Native Hawaiian Government 
     Reorganization Act of 2007. As this matter has made its way 
     through Congress, the NCAI member tribes have consistently 
     passed resolutions supporting the Native Hawaiian right to 
     self-determination (attached). NCAI and the tribal nations we 
     represent continue to support

[[Page H11968]]

     Native Hawaiian people in their efforts towards a path to 
     self-determination, and we urge you to do the same by voting 
     in favor of H.R. 505.
       H.R. 505 would reaffirm the Native Hawaiian right to self-
     governance and enable the creation of a process that will 
     lead to self-determination and economic self-sufficiency for 
     Native Hawaiian people. Like all of the nation's indigenous 
     peoples, Native Hawaiians lived on their homelands and 
     governed their own affairs before the first contact with 
     Europeans until the overthrow of the Native Hawaiian 
     government in 1893. Since that time, Native Hawaiians have 
     continued to suffer more than a century of injustice, 
     including neglect and abuse of Native Hawaiian entitlements 
     and civil rights, by the United States.
       Like all of the indigenous peoples of the United States, 
     Native Hawaiians deserve the right to determine their own 
     future. The purpose of self-determination is not simply for 
     its own sake. Rather, it is what enables indigenous people to 
     maintain their culture, language, and identity. This is a 
     purpose that all American citizens can support. Congress has 
     consistently supported Native Hawaiian recognition through 
     numerous programs intended to benefit Native Hawaiians along 
     with the other indigenous peoples of the United States. 
     Furthermore, it is a purpose that was recently affirmed by 
     the United Nations in the Declaration on the Rights of 
     Indigenous Peoples, which passed with overwhelming support.
       Some critics have misstated the effect of H.R. 505. Let me 
     be clear that this bill, like all legislation impacting 
     tribal governments, concerns U.S. policy toward and 
     relationship with the nation's sovereign, indigenous peoples 
     and is not race-based legislation. The unique legal and 
     political relationship that indigenous Hawaiians have with 
     the United States is like that of all Native Americans and is 
     based on our status as aboriginal people with pre-existing 
     governments with whom the U.S. entered treaties and other 
     agreements. It is this historical, political reality that 
     provides the foundation for the unique relationship that has 
     always existed--and continues to exist today--between the 
     United States and the indigenous people whose homelands fall 
     within the borders of what is now the United States.
       The argument that recognition of a Native Hawaiian 
     governing entity would establish a race-based government is 
     antithetical to the very foundation of the United States 
     government's relationship with the indigenous peoples who 
     have inhabited this land from time immemorial--a relationship 
     that has long been recognized by Congress, the federal 
     courts, and the Executive branch. Those making this argument 
     are suggesting that Native Hawaiians should, and indeed must, 
     be treated differently from the other indigenous peoples 
     residing in what is now the United States.
       The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act would 
     establish parity for Native Hawaiians with the other 
     indigenous peoples of America. To invoke the equal protection 
     or due process clauses of the Constitution in this context, 
     as some of the legislation's critics attempt to do, is a 
     perversion of what those clauses were intended to do. Those 
     submitting this argument are using the very cornerstones of 
     justice and fairness in our democracy to deny equal treatment 
     to one group of indigenous people.
       The Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act is 
     consistent with this country's longstanding commitment to 
     preserving the right of indigenous people to continue to 
     exist as peoples. Passage of the bill is a matter of 
     fundamental fairness and will rectify an injustice that has 
     existed for far too long. Its enactment will set Native 
     Hawaiians on the path toward self-determination and self-
     governance, as is their inherent right. I urge you to support 
     H.R. 505. Please contact myself or Virginia Davis, 
     [email protected] or 202-466-7767 with any questions. As 
     always, I thank you for your leadership on this important 
     issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Joe Garcia,
     President.
                                  ____


   The National Congress of American Indians: Resolution #PHX-03-004


   Title: Support Federal Legislation Calling for Recognition of the 
       Hawaiian Nation and Return of Land to the Hawaiian Nation

       Whereas, we, the members of the National Congress of 
     American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine 
     blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in 
     order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the 
     inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights 
     secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United 
     States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are 
     entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United 
     States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding 
     of the Indian people and their way of life, to preserve 
     Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, 
     safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish 
     and submit the following resolution; and
       Whereas, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 
     was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest 
     national organization of American Indian and Alaska Native 
     tribal governments; and
       Whereas, the federal policy affords all Native Americans 
     and Alaska Natives the right to be self-governing within a 
     defined land base; and
       Whereas, there is a need for self-government; and
       Whereas, the NCAI at its 56th annual session adopted 
     Resolution #99-042, at its 57th annual session adopted 
     Resolution #00-032 and at it 58th annual session adopted 
     Resolution #SPO-01-087, all of which support the sovereign 
     rights of native Hawaiians and recognizes the need to develop 
     a true government-to-government relationship with the 
     Hawaiian nation; and
       Whereas, NCAI also adopted the same resolution that the 
     Hawaiian Nation's goal is federal recognition as a sovereign 
     indigenous nation with inherent rights to self-determination 
     and self-governance.
       Now therefore be it resolved, that the NCAI does hereby 
     support federal legislation calling for recognition of the 
     Hawaiian nation, a self-determined entity created by and for 
     native Hawaiians and their descendants in furtherance of a 
     true government-to-government relationship; and
       Be it further resolved, that the NCAI further supports the 
     return of land to the Hawaiian Nation; and
       Be it further resolved, that this resolution shall be the 
     policy of the NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by 
     subsequent resolution; and that a copy of this resolution be 
     transmitted to the Hawaii state legislature, the Governor of 
     the state of Hawaii, the Hawaii congressional delegation, the 
     Congress of the United States of America, the Secretary of 
     the Department of the Interior, the Attorney General of the 
     United States, the Secretary of State, the President of the 
     United States and the Trustees of the Office of Hawaiian 
     Affairs; and
       Be it finally resolved, that this resolution shall be the 
     policy of NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by 
     subsequent resolution.


                             CERTIFICATION

       The foregoing resolution was adopted at the 2003 Mid-Year 
     Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at 
     the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Gila River Indian Community, in 
     Phoenix, Arizona on June 18, 2003 with a quorum present.
                                                         Tex Hall,
                                                        President.
       Attest: Juana Majel.
       Adopted by the General Assembly during the 2003 Mid-Year 
     Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at 
     the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Gila River Indian Community, in 
     Phoenix, Arizona on June 18, 2003.
                                  ____



                                           Executive Chambers,

                               Honolulu, Hawaii, October 23, 2007.

     Re H.R. 505--Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 
         2007.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House, Canon House Office Building, Washington 
         DC.
     Hon. John A. Boehner,
     House Minority Leader, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and House Minority Leader Boehner: I am 
     writing to you to express my very strong and unqualified 
     support for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act 
     of 2007, H.R. 505, often referred to as the ``Akaka Bill.'' 
     Enactment of this important bill is just and fair and will 
     help to preserve the language, identity, and culture of 
     Native Hawaiians.
       I am very pleased that the bill will likely be considered 
     this week on the House floor, as this bill has the bipartisan 
     support of almost every elected official in Hawaii, the 
     strong support of Hawaii's business community, and most 
     importantly, the strong support of Hawaii's people.
       H.R. 505 would afford Native Hawaiians a long overdue 
     measure of justice by providing them with the means to 
     reorganize a formal self-governing entity. That entity would 
     allow them to regain a portion of the self-determination 
     taken from them over a century ago. This country's other 
     native peoples, including American Indians and Alaska 
     Natives, have been allowed to exercise some form of self-
     governance for decades. Native Hawaiians, therefore, are not 
     asking for ``preferential'' status, but rather the same 
     treatment all other of America's native peoples have 
     received.
       The bill does not create ``racial'' distinctions, but 
     rather affords participation in the Native Hawaiian Governing 
     Entity to those who are descendants of the indigenous people 
     of the Hawaiian Islands, a criterion Congress has long 
     characterized as being non-racial. Indeed, Congress has 
     already recognized Native Hawaiians to a large degree, by 
     repeatedly singling out Native Hawaiians for special 
     treatment, by acknowledging a ``special relationship'' with 
     Native Hawaiians, and by stating that ``the political status 
     of Native Hawaiians is comparable to that of American 
     Indians.'' This bill formalizes that status by providing 
     Native Hawaiians with an actual limited self-governing 
     entity.
       H.R. 505 is surely constitutional, as the United States 
     Supreme Court has consistently upheld the special status of 
     indigenous peoples and defers to Congress's near plenary 
     authority to decide which native peoples to recognize.
       I began this letter by stating my unqualified support for 
     H.R. 505. I conclude by respectfully asking for you to 
     support this important measure as well. I thank you in 
     advance for your consideration of this request.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Linda Lingle,
                                                         Governor.

[[Page H11969]]

     
                                  ____
                                         American Bar Association,


                                  Governmental Affairs Office,

                                 Washington, DC, October 23, 2007.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the American Bar 
     Association, I urge your support for the Native Hawaiian 
     Government Reorganization Act of 2007, H.R. 505, introduced 
     by Representative Neil Abercrombie (D-HI).
       The ABA, as the national voice of the legal profession, has 
     a long standing interest in the legal issues concerning 
     America's native and indigenous peoples. Over the past twenty 
     years, our House of Delegates has adopted numerous policies 
     supporting self-determination and self-governance for 
     American Indians and Alaska Natives. In 2006, we adopted 
     policy supporting the right of Native Hawaiians to seek 
     federal recognition of a native governing entity within the 
     United States similar to that which American Indians and 
     Alaska Natives possess under the Constitution.
       The ABA supports H.R. 505. It is a conservative measure 
     drafted to provide an ordered process that would lead to 
     renewed self-determination for the Native Hawaiians. The goal 
     is the creation of a political entity within U.S. borders 
     developed by the indigenous Hawaiian people to serve, 
     maintain and support their unique cultural and civic needs, 
     including advocacy on their behalf on the federal and state 
     level.
       This would represent a return to self-determination for the 
     Hawaiian people and a renewal of federal support for their 
     unique history. For 1,000 years prior to the overthrow of the 
     Hawaiian monarchy, the people who we now know as the Native 
     Hawaiians lived under an organized political framework 
     governed by the rule of law. This kingdom had a written 
     constitution and was recognized by the U.S. Government as a 
     sovereign nation. Congress ratified treaty agreements with it 
     and recognized its representatives.
       In 1893, U.S. agents acting without official sanction 
     orchestrated a coup against this sovereign state and 
     overthrew Hawaii's last queen. Acknowledging this crime and 
     the continuing effect it had on Queen Liliuokalani's 
     subjects, Congress chose to intercede by taking a managerial 
     posture towards the kingdom's assets and accepting a 
     fiduciary duty to the Native Hawaiians and their progeny. 
     This was the beginning of a unique relationship between 
     Congress and the Hawaiian people. In 1993, the destruction 
     of the Hawaiian nation's last government was acknowledged 
     with regret in U.S. law (Public Law 103-150, also known as 
     the Apology Resolution). H.R. 505 would allow the Hawaiian 
     people the right to govern their own destiny by replacing 
     the Congressional mandate with Native Hawaiian governance 
     within the state of Hawaii.
       Opponents of this legislation claim that allowing Native 
     Hawaiians the right to self governance would imperil the 
     constitutional rights of non-Native Hawaiians to equal 
     protection under the law. They point to the former Kingdom's 
     wealth and claim that self-determination will create a system 
     of benefits disadvantaging those who are not of Native 
     Hawaiian heritage. However, Native Hawaiians, in seeking 
     rights and privileges that other indigenous people of the 
     United States enjoy under our system of law, are not 
     compromising the rights of others but exercising their own 
     rights to property, to self-determination and to be 
     recognized as an indigenous people by Congress.
       The right of Native Hawaiians to use of the property held 
     in trust for them and the right to govern those assets is not 
     in conflict with the Equal Protection Clause since it rests 
     on independent constitutional authority regarding the rights 
     of native nations contained within the text of Articles I and 
     II of the Constitution. The constitutional framers recognized 
     the existence of native nations within the United States that 
     predated our own democracy and created a system for federal 
     recognition of indigenous nations within our then expanding 
     borders. The framers empowered Congress through the Indian 
     Commerce Clause and the Treaty Clause to maintain relations 
     between the U.S. federal government and the governments of 
     these native nations. Our courts have upheld Congress' power 
     to recognize indigenous nations and have specifically 
     recognized that this power includes the power to re-recognize 
     nations whose recognition has been compromised in the 
     historical past. Thus, the Native Hawaiians have the right to 
     be recognized by this body, this right is not in conflict 
     with the rights of others, and this recognition may be 
     renewed despite historical lapses.
       I urge you to support the rights of Native Hawaiians to 
     self-determination by voting for H.R. 505 and against any 
     weakening amendments.
           Sincerely,
                                                Denise A. Cardman,
                                                  Acting Director.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, 
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this act. Having 
great familiarity with the peoples of the Hawaiian Islands and with 
Native Hawaiians, I understand their concerns that we should have 
codified a stronger statement of what their rights are as indigenous 
peoples.
  This is really about making sure that language and culture and 
history are preserved. It also is consistent with the law which created 
the admission of Hawaii to this Union. I think the date, Mr. 
Abercrombie could correct me if I am wrong, it was August 21, 1959. 
That was an important date for this Nation, because it is a day that we 
embraced not only Hawaii but Alaska. It was a day that we embraced the 
potential of this country to extend its reach and embrace peoples of 
many different cultures.
  This act is an act that needs to be passed so that we can keep 
unfolding the real purpose and quality of America.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time,
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. 
Abercrombie), the sponsor who has labored with this legislation 
actively in several Congresses, who is from the Committee on Natural 
Resources, and the author of this bill.
  Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as this is a discussion on the 
rule and not necessarily on the bill itself, I would like to confine my 
remarks, at least in this initial phase of dealing with the issue, on 
some of the points raised by my good friend and colleague Mr. Hastings. 
I am appreciative of the points that he raised, because I think they 
are in need of not so much refutation but perhaps clarification.
  It is easy to understand why those who are not necessarily familiar, 
and I am not speaking about Mr. Hastings personally, I am talking about 
the references that he cited in his commentary, it is easy to 
understand why people who are not familiar with a little bit of the 
history of Hawaii could come to some of the conclusions or make some of 
the observations that they have. Absent the context within which this 
bill is coming forward, it is understandable. That context then is what 
I want to establish, so that it becomes clear.
  I certainly don't want to get in an argument with the editorial board 
of the Wall Street Journal either, and they are making some quotations 
there about complete territorial independence.
  Well, I think what is being referred to there, and what the 
likelihood of the reference is, is that there was in fact not 
territorial in the sense of annexation of territory, like the 
Philippines or Hawaii or Puerto Rico or that kind of thing that 
occurred during the kind of ``imperial phase'' of the United States, 
but there was in fact territorial independence, because Hawaii was a 
kingdom. It is one of the things that kind of gets lost in the shuffle, 
and that is one of the reasons we are here today, Mr. Speaker.
  The United States of America has in fact had, over a 175-year period 
leading up to the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893, a series of 
treaties and conventions; 1826, 1842, 1849, 1875, 1887, dealing with 
commerce, dealing with trade, dealing with various recognitions. The 
Kingdom of Hawaii had treaties and conventions with other nations, as 
well as the United States.
  So as a result of that history, we have a succession of land claims 
and assets that have come from the time of the kingdom to the shotgun 
republic that occurred after the overthrow of the kingdom and the 
annexation of the United States into the territory, and into finally 
becoming a State, as was indicated, in 1959. We are in fact the last 
State to enter the Union, along with Alaska in 1959.
  I bring this up simply to point out that far from subdividing the 
American people, as was cited by my good friend, quite the contrary; it 
incorporates the politics as well as the historical reality of this 
land secession and the assets associated with it, because this land 
generates income.
  Basically what this is about, Mr. Speaker, is land and other assets, 
including money, and who controls it. When this land came in, it wasn't 
worth anything. The Wall Street Journal did not comment, I am certain, 
on the ceded lands. They are called ``ceded lands'' because they were 
ceded from the kingdom to the succeeding governmental entities. They 
could care less,

[[Page H11970]]

the Wall Street Journal, about these lands when they were worth 
nothing, when they were not seen to be able to be marketed.
  But let me explain now, and I ask my good friend as I look at him now 
with a smile on my face, we are talking about land in Hawaii? You are 
talking big bucks. You are talking money here. That is what this is 
about is land and money and who controls it. And this land has, from 
the time of the kingdom, resided with the Native Hawaiians. That is who 
is to be the beneficiary.
  That takes me to the point, Mr. Speaker, of the entry into the Union. 
The Admissions Act requires us, requires us, the Admissions Act of 1959 
requires us to utilize those lands and assets for the benefit of Native 
Hawaiians. That is in the Admissions Act.

                              {time}  1230

  We are not here on the floor today because we didn't have anything 
better to do in Hawaii than to try to bring this to the Federal 
Government. On the contrary, the Admissions Act requires us to make 
certain that these lands are utilized for the benefit of Native 
Hawaiians. The reason we have the bill here is that in order to 
accomplish that, we need to get a governing entity that can come to the 
Department of the Interior for approval in order to be able to conduct 
the affairs, similarly to, parallel to what now happens with Native 
Americans in the so-called lower 48 in the mainland of the United 
States and with various Alaska Natives and corporations and other 
entities that have been set up in Alaska.
  This is a history of indigenous people. They are different from other 
indigenous people because they were a kingdom, and we would not have 
the 2 million acres we are talking about had those acres not been 
associated with an indigenous people. They are not imaginary, they are 
real.
  Finally, let me say with Rice v. Cayetano, Governor Cayetano, the 
first Filipino American to be elected Governor, that issue was settled 
on a question of voting procedures and had nothing whatsoever to do 
with programs for Native Hawaiians.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  I appreciate my friend from Hawaii's clarification on this, and I 
just want to point out a couple of things in my opening remarks.
  I emphasized that this is a process which I think acknowledges the 
fact that there is a history that goes back to when Hawaii was a 
kingdom, and so I acknowledge that point. But I simply raise those 
issues because those issues I think are important when we talk about 
the United States as a whole, as a government under laws and everybody 
being treated equal, and these are questions that I think need to be 
addressed.
  I appreciate very, very much my friend's clarification on this. The 
point that this is a process and the point that there is some lineage 
going back from a State to a territory to a kingdom probably has some 
viability to it.
  But there are always unintended laws when we write national laws that 
appeal to one State or one set of people. That is what we have to be 
cautious about. That is why I simply raise these concerns. The issue is 
before us. We have a rule and we have made in order an amendment that 
deals with the 14th amendment. I think that is important to be 
discussed, and I doubt if this issue will be completely decided here 
today.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am the last speaker, and I will reserve my 
time until the gentleman closes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to oppose the previous question 
so that I may amend the rule to have Speaker Pelosi, in consultation 
with Republican Leader Boehner, immediately appoint conferees to H.R. 
2642, the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act 
for 2008.
  Two days ago a number of news publications, including Roll Call, 
reported that the Democrat leadership intends to play political games 
and hold off on sending any appropriations bills to President Bush so 
that they can use an upcoming anticipated veto of the Labor-HHS 
appropriations bill to serve as ``an extension of their successful 
public relations campaign on the State Children's Health Insurance 
Program.'' Roll Call is the one that made that observation on October 
22, 2007.
  While the House Democrat leadership plays politics on this issue, 
however, our Nation's veterans are paying the price. The Senate has 
already done its work and appointed conferees for this bill. And for 
every day that House Democrats allow the veterans funding bill to 
languish without conferees for their only political advantage, our 
Nation's veterans lose $18.5 million, money that could be used for 
veterans housing, veterans health care, and other important veterans 
support activities.
  On October 18, American Legion National Commander Marty Conaster, 
five national vice commanders and all 55 Legion national executive 
committee members sent Speaker Pelosi a letter pleading with her to put 
partisanship aside and provide this funding for the troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I include a copy of the letter for the Congressional 
Record.

                                          The American Legion,

                               Indianapolis, IN, October 18, 2007.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: Today ends the Fall meeting of The 
     American Legion's National Executive Committee, at The 
     American Legion's National Headquarters in Indianapolis, 
     Indiana. The National Executive Committee consists of an 
     elected leader from each of The American Legion's 55 
     Departments (50 States, the District of Columbia and four 
     foreign countries). In accordance with The American Legion's 
     National Constitution and By-laws, the National Executive 
     Committee serves as The American Legion's governing body.
       The National Commander Marty Conatser briefed The National 
     Executive Committee on an array of issues to include the 
     status of the VA budget for FY 2008. The fiscal activities of 
     the 110th Congress--the FY 2007 Continuing Resolution, the 
     Budget Resolution for FY 2008, and the passage of the 
     Military Construction, Veterans' Affairs and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations for FY 2008 were reviewed.
       However, in trying to grasp why such a bipartisan bill, 
     which passed overwhelmingly in both chambers, still hasn't 
     moved in over a month is rather difficult, especially since 
     the President has already said he would not veto the bill, 
     even though it exceeds his recommendations. Understanding why 
     the appropriations process has come to a complete halt is 
     difficult. What is preventing the appointment of conferees, 
     the Conference Committee, or passage of a Conference Report?
       We are now in the new fiscal year with no idea when the Mil 
     Con-VA appropriations will be passed. If history repeats 
     itself, this standoff may last well into the second quarter 
     of the fiscal year. This uncertainty is disturbing to not 
     only The American Legion and other veterans' and military 
     service organizations, but to every veteran who is dependent 
     on VA for timely access to quality health care, earned 
     benefits, and other services provided by a grateful nation.
       Madam Speaker, the newest generation of wartime veterans 
     are reporting to VA medical facilities every day as troops 
     are returning from deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some 
     will be determined to be service-connected disabled because 
     of medical conditions incurred or aggravated while on active-
     duty. Others may very well have invisible scars that need 
     attention as soon as possible. As VA welcomes new patients, 
     the existing patient population cannot be ignored nor should 
     their health care be rationed due to limited available 
     resources. There are veterans dependent on VA as their life-
     support system.
       The American Legion represents 2.6 million wartime 
     veterans, but also speaks for the 24 million veterans of the 
     United States Armed Forces and their families.
       Please continue the appropriations process--name conferees, 
     convene the Conference Committee, and pass the Conference 
     Report.
           Sincerely,
         Marty Conatser, National Commander; Thomas L. Burns, Jr. 
           (DE), National Vice Commander; Randall A. Fisher (KY), 
           National Vice Commander; David A. Korth (WI), National 
           Vice Commander; James L. Van Horn (AK), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Ross Rogers (AK), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Peggy G. Dettori (AK), National 
           Vice Commander; Donald Hayden (MN), National Vice 
           Commander; Floyd W. Turner (AL), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Julius Maklary (AZ), National Executive 
           Committeeman; James W. Hackney (CA), National Executive 
           Committeeman.
         Jeff Luginbuel (CO), National Executive Committeeman; 
           John J. Jackson (DE), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Robert J. Proctor (FL), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Ray Hendrix (GA), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Cleve Rice (ID), National Executive 
           Committeeman; W. Darrell Hansel

[[Page H11971]]

           (IN), National Executive Committeeman; David O. Warnken 
           (KS), National Executive Committeeman; Charles D. 
           Aucoin (LA), National Executive Committeeman; Dr. 
           Gordon B. Browning (MD), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Richard W. Anderson (CT), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Paul H. ___, for Walter W. 
           Norris (DC), National Executive Committeeman; William 
           E. Marshall (France), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Andrew W. Johnson (HI), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Kenneth J. Trumbull (IL), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Michael E. Wanser (IA), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Randall Coffman (KY), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Robert A. Owen (ME), 
           National Executive Committeeman; James F. Army (MA), 
           National Executive Committeeman.
         John E. Hayes (Mexico), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Virgil V. Persing (MN), National Executive 
           Committeeman; David N. Voyles (MO), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Michael J. Landkamer (NE), National 
           Executive Committeeman; John E. Neylon (NH), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Bruce Jorgensen (NM), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Jerry L. Hedrick (NC), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Carl W. Swisher (OH), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Schmidt (OR), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Gerald N. Dennis (MI), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Charles E. Langley 
           (MS), National Executive Committeeman; Bob O. Beals 
           (MT), National Executive Committeeman; Ron Gutzman 
           (NV), National Executive Committeeman; William A. 
           Rakestraw, Jr. (NJ), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Paul Mitras (NY), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Curtis O. Twete (ND), National Executive Committeeman; 
           Bobby J. Longenbaugh (OK), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Alfred Pirolli (PA), National Executive 
           Committeeman.
         William J. Kelly (Philippines), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Ernest Gerundio (RI), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Paul A. Evenson (SD), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Ronald G. Cherry (TX), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Leslie V. Howe (VT), National Executive 
           Committeeman; William F. Schrier (WA), National 
           Executive Committeeman; Arthur D. Herbison (WI), 
           National Executive Committeeman; Carlos Orria-Medina 
           (PR), National Executive Committeeman; Billy W. Bell 
           (SC), National Executive Committeeman; Jennings B. 
           Loring (TN), National Executive Committeeman; William 
           E. Christoffersen (UT), National Executive 
           Committeeman; Rob R. Gordon, Jr. (VA), National 
           Executive Committeeman; William W. Kile (WV), National 
           Executive Committeeman; ------ ------, for Irvin A. 
           Quick (WY), National Executive Committeeman.

  Mr. Speaker, on that same day, the commander in chief of the Veterans 
of Foreign Wars, General Lisicki, also urged Speaker Pelosi and the 
Democrat leadership to put partisanship aside for the benefit of our 
Nation's veterans and troops. These pleas from the American Legion and 
the VFW fall on the heels of multiple requests from Republican Members 
of this House to both Speaker Pelosi and Democrat Majority Leader 
Senator Reid, urging them to end their PR campaign and begin conference 
work on the Veterans appropriations bill.
  Unfortunately, it appears as though all of these commonsense requests 
have fallen on deaf ears and our Nation's veterans are being forced to 
pay the price for continued Democrat partisanship and lack of 
leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Congressional Record these two letters 
so everyone watching today's debate across the country can see the 
efforts that have been made by the Republican Party to end this impasse 
on the important issue of providing adequate funding for those who have 
sacrificed so much on behalf of the country.

                                Congress of the United States,

                               Washington, DC, September 17, 2007.
     Office of the Speaker,
     U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Madam Speaker: We write to urge you in the strongest 
     possible terms to reach a prompt agreement on the conference 
     report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans 
     Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642). Few issues are more 
     important than adequate funding for our Nation's veterans. 
     The leadership in the House cannot allow this critically 
     important funding to fall victim to the usual partisan 
     wrangling which occurs all too often in Washington.
       Veterans should not be used as tools for political 
     bargaining and gamesmanship. Both the House and Senate passed 
     the FY08 MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming 
     majorities because our commitment to veterans rises above 
     partisan squabbling. Tragedies such as the recent revelations 
     at Walter Reed Army Medical Center must never be repeated. 
     The findings of insufficient care at Walter Reed and other 
     facilities should be seen by Congress as a mandate to finish 
     the work and live up to the promises we have made to our 
     veterans.
       After decades of flat funding, total VA budget rose from 
     $48 billion in FY 2001 to approximately $70 billion in FY 
     2006, a 46 percent increase. This year, the House voted to 
     increase funding by $6 billion over FY07, one of the largest 
     in the 77 year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 
     Both the Senate and House versions received overwhelming 
     majority support passing by a vote of 409-2 in the House and 
     92-1 in the Senate.
       Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would 
     continue the trend of significant increases in veterans 
     funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor 
     that agreement and see that the commitment we made to our 
     veterans is honored.
       We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As 
     members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill 
     our promises to them. We ask for you to look past the 
     heightened partisanship of our times and unite us on this 
     issue by making it a first priority to quickly bring a stand 
     alone Veterans appropriations bill through conference so the 
     Congress may present the President with a bill by October 1, 
     2007.
       We stand ready to assist you in reaching this goal.
           Sincerely,
         Stevan Pearce; Steve Buyer; Don Young; Greg Walden; 
           Marilyn N. Musgrave; Ron Lewis; Jim Saxton; ------; 
           Thomas Price; Tim Walberg; Mary Fallin; John Kline; 
           Ginny Brown-Waite; David Obey; Tom Tancredo; John L. 
           Mica; Mark Souder; Louie Gohmert; Rick Renzi; Mario 
           Diaz-Balart; Jean Schmidt; Gus M. Bilirakis; Adrian 
           Smith; Pete Sessions; Paul Ryan; Dana Rohrabacher; 
           Spencer Bachus; K. Michael Conaway; Tom Feeney; J. 
           Randy Forbes; Jon C. Porter; John Shimkus; Jim Gerlach; 
           Mike Ferguson; Mary Bono; Dean Heller; Jeff Miller; Sue 
           Myrick; Geoff Davis; Thelma Drake; Steve King; Jeb 
           Hensarling; Barbara Cubin; Scott Garrett.
                                  ____



                                Congress of the United States,

                                  Washington, DC, October 4, 2007.
     Office of the Senate Majority Leader,
     U.S. Capitol,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Majority Leader Reid: We write today to ask you to 
     keep the Senate in session the week of October 8, to help 
     pass this years' veterans appropriations. Now that we are 
     already into the new fiscal year, it is imperative that the 
     House and Senate reach a prompt agreement on the conference 
     report on the FY2008 Military Construction and Veterans 
     Affairs Appropriations Act (H.R. 2642).
       It is unfortunate the Senate has been unable to act upon 
     many of its Constitutionally mandated appropriations bills. 
     While the House continues to wait upon the Senate to complete 
     its work, we call upon you to quickly move veterans 
     appropriations through conference so a final version of the 
     bill may be passed and presented to the President. We believe 
     that veterans issues rise above the partisan divisions of 
     Washington which is evident by the passage of the FY08 
     MilCon-Veterans appropriations with overwhelming majorities 
     in both Houses, 501-3 combined.
       The Senate cannot allow this critically important funding 
     to continue to fall victim to the usual partisan wrangling 
     which occurs all too often in Washington. If tragedies such 
     as the recent revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center 
     are to be diverted in the future, we must pass veterans 
     funding now. From FY 2001 the total VA budget rose from $48 
     billion to approximately $70 billion in FY 2006, a 46 percent 
     increase. This year, the House voted to increase funding by 
     $6 billion dollars over FY07, one of the largest in the 77 
     year history of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because 
     we have asked so much of our brave men and women in uniform 
     during the War on Terror we must uphold our commitment to 
     veterans upon their return home.
       Earlier in the year, the new Majority agreed they would 
     continue the trend of significant increases in veterans 
     funding begun by the Republican Congress. We ask you to honor 
     that agreement and see the commitment we made to our veterans 
     is upheld.
       We must never forget the sacrifice of our veterans. As 
     members of Congress, we have a solemn obligation to fulfill 
     our promises to them. We ask you to look past the heightened 
     partisanship of our times and unite us on this issue by 
     making it a first priority to bring a stand-alone veterans 
     appropriations bill through conference so the Congress may 
     present the President with a bill no later than October 12, 
     2007.
           Sincerely,
         Stevan Pearce; Duncan Hunter; Don Young; Jim 
           Sensenbrenner; Wally Herger; Jim Saxton; John Kline; 
           Geoff Davis; Tom Tancredo; Louie Gohmert; Ginny Brown-
           Waite; Doug Lamborn; Darrell Issa; John T. Doolittle; 
           Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Jeff Miller; Scott Garrett; Paul 
           Ryan; Adrian Smith; K. Michael Conaway; Michele 
           Bachmann; Tim Welberg; Jean Schmidt; Dan Burton; Phil 
           English; Randy Kuhl; Greg Walden; Jo Ann Davis; Jim 
           Moran; Thomas Price; John R. Carter; Tom Feeney;

[[Page H11972]]

           Phil Gingrey; Vito Fossella; Gary G. Miller; Jim 
           Gerlach; Jeb Hensarling; Pete Sessions; Mark Souder; 
           Randy Neugebauer; John E. Peterson; Trent Franks; Gus 
           M. Bilirakis; Wayne T. Gilchrest; Timothy H. Bishop; 
           Michael T. McCaul; Thelma Drake.

  I ask all of my colleagues to vote against the previous question so 
we can put partisanship aside and move this important legislation 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material appear in the Record just prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. With that, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about the right to 
live. It is about empowering Native Hawaiians to own their destiny and 
choose how to manage their livelihood. This bill is not about gaming. 
In fact, it expressly is prohibited in this bill.
  Instead, the bill is about providing an opportunity to effectively 
reorganize the Native Hawaiian government to better meet the needs of 
Native Hawaiians.
  The underlying legislation enjoys the support of Hawaii's Republican 
Governor Linda Lingle, the business community in Hawaii, the National 
Congress of American Indians, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and 
Hawaii's entire congressional delegation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act has 
received immense bipartisan support year after year. It is now time 
that we fulfill the duty of this Congress and serve Native Hawaiians 
just as they have served and contributed to the vibrant and diverse 
culture that is America.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, the previous question, and on 
final passage of the bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

     Amendment to H. Res. 764 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. The House disagrees to the Senate amendment to the 
     bill, H.R. 2642, making appropriations for military 
     construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related 
     agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and 
     for other purposes, and agrees to the conference requested by 
     the Senate thereon. The Speaker shall appoint conferees 
     immediately, but may declare a recess under clause 12(a) of 
     rule I for the purpose of consulting the Minority Leader 
     prior to such appointment. The motion to instruct conferees 
     otherwise in order pending the appointment of conferees 
     instead shall be in order only at a time designated by the 
     Speaker in the legislative schedule within two additional 
     legislative days after adoption of this resolution.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     109th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution--[and] has no substantive legislative 
     or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is not what 
     they have always said. Listen to the definition of the 
     previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual 
     published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page 
     56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using 
     information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American 
     Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is 
     defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition 
     member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages 
     an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the 
     pending business.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 175, not voting 39, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 997]

                               YEAS--218

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

[[Page H11973]]



                               NAYS--175

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--39

     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Bono
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cooper
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Forbes
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Hastert
     Holt
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirk
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     McCotter
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Shea-Porter
     Smith (NJ)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wilson (OH)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there 
are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1301

  Mr. BUCHANAN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217, 
noes 179, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 998]

                               AYES--217

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--179

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Blackburn
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cooper
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Tom
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Forbes
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Hastert
     Hunter
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kirk
     Lewis (CA)
     Mahoney (FL)
     McCotter
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Reyes
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Shea-Porter
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Wilson (OH)
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1311

  Mr. SHAYS and Mr. HERGER changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________