[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 75 (Tuesday, May 8, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H4562-H4567]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1294, THOMASINA E. JORDAN INDIAN
TRIBES OF VIRGINIA FEDERAL RECOGNITION ACT OF 2007
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 377
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1294) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy
Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern
Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe,
Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian
Tribe. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule
XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended
by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the
bill, modified by the amendments printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules to accompany this resolution, shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of
debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1294 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. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my good friend from Washington,
Representative Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the
rule is for debate only.
I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 377.
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, as the Clerk just read, this
rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan
Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007. The rule
provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally divided and
controlled by the chairperson and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides something that has been long
overdue to six Native American Tribes in Virginia.
[[Page H4563]]
After literally centuries of injustice, some 3,175 members of these
great tribes will finally gain Federal recognition under this bill.
Just like the great Seminole and Micosukee Tribes in south Florida that
I am privileged to represent, these six tribes now have the chance to
finally receive the proper recognition and respect they rightfully
deserve.
Just like the other 562 Federally recognized American Indian tribes
in the United States, these tribes will finally have access to basic
services, such as child welfare services, adult care and community
development, services every one of us in this body take for granted.
Each of these six American Indian tribes descended from the historic
tribes that occupied the Virginia coastline in 1607. Their rich history
and tradition forever ties them to this land. Over the centuries, they
have survived racial hostility and State-sanctioned attempts to stamp
out their heritage and cultural identity.
Notwithstanding their ancient bonds to this soil, they continue to
walk oppressed among us. The reason for such injustice? Because in the
early part of the 19th century, Virginia officials intentionally
destroyed the majority of their historical records and artifacts that
affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Virginia
finally recognized them in the 1980s, and it is appropriate and long
overdue that Congress is finally following suit.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Native American tribes, whose land was
forcibly taken from them centuries ago, are still struggling for their
basic rights and freedoms to this day. I ask, does this story of
repression, refusal and repudiation not ring true for so many
generations of Americans? Now, it takes acts of Congress to give them
the recognition they have long deserved.
Legislation providing Federal recognition for these six tribes, the
Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Rappahannock
and the Mattaponi is today what we seek and what for too long has been
denied. I ask again how we reconcile this kind of repression and
repudiation.
The Queen of England is in the United States today. Last week, she
visited the coastline of Virginia, Jamestown, where many of these
people that we seek to get designation for and recognition for today
came from, and yet she would not have had an opportunity to see them in
their cultural array for the reason that they are not recognized.
Legislation providing Federal recognition for these six tribes has
been introduced in both the House and the Senate in every Congress
since the 106th, without action. To deny them recognition once more is
to perpetuate the tyranny.
The underlying legislation would be a small step in rectifying our
Nation's history of suppressing these great people. I am proud to
support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend
from Florida and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary
30 minutes. 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 today in strong
opposition to this closed rule. This closed rule provides for
consideration of a bill to Federally recognize six new Indian tribes in
the State of Virginia. This bill marks the first time in over 20 years
that the House of Representatives has considered legislation to extend
Federal recognition to a tribe.
While I will acknowledge Congress can grant Federal recognition to
individual tribes, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian
Affairs has the administrative process by which a group may establish
itself as an Indian tribe and become eligible for services and benefits
extended to other tribes under Federal law.
{time} 1245
While each of these six tribes have separately submitted a petition
for recognition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, none of the petitions
are complete. Rather than wait for these petitions to go through the
administrative process, the Democrat majority has decided to bring this
legislation to the floor under a completely closed rule, which allows
no input or improvements to be made to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, despite commitments made by the Democrats for a new era
of openness, the Rules Committee has only approved one truly open rule
that allowed Members of Congress to come to the floor and offer
amendments during consideration of a bill. House Resolution 377 is the
18th closed rule brought forth by the Democrat majority, which means
that this is the 18th time the Democrat majority has shut Members of
Congress out of the deliberative process. So I urge my colleagues to
vote against this closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time
to yield 7 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a
leader in this fight in each of the Congresses that we have spoken of.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from
Florida for yielding me the time.
I would also like to address my good friend from Washington, also Mr.
Hastings, as well as my friend from Connecticut sitting behind Mr.
Hastings, because I heard his statement earlier which reflected the
statement of the gentleman representing the minority on the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address these concerns, legitimate
concerns, that have been raised, and explain why I think you would
agree that what we are doing today is not only appropriate and proper,
but well-justified.
There was a white-tie dinner at the White House last night. The
country, particularly Virginia, is celebrating the 400th anniversary of
the Jamestown settlement. But these six Indian Tribes are the reason
why those English settlers were able to survive. They showed them how
to survive. They sheltered them. They taught them how to grow the
plants that were native to North America. They took care of them.
Subsequently, when the English settlers got on their feet, they
displaced these Indians, took their land and treated them pretty badly.
Finally, in 1677 there was a treaty signed with King Charles II.
There was no American government at the time. It was the only
government that could sign a treaty. It is the oldest Indian treaty in
existence today. It continued, that treaty, but the implementation of
it did not. The English government, in other words, its settlers here,
violated that treaty at every opportunity, diminished these tribes and
took their land.
Then, to compound this situation, and to understand why this is a
unique situation beyond the 400th anniversary, in 1924 the Commonwealth
of Virginia passed what was called the Racial Integrity Act. It was
sponsored by a white supremacist who had alliances with the Nazi
government in Germany, we understand. It was a very bad time in
American history.
This law allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to destroy the
documents that proved the existence of these Native American families.
They legally went into the courthouses and destroyed the birth records,
they destroyed everything that identified them as Native Americans, and
that is why there is a unique situation here. They don't have the
documentation that they would need to present to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
This is compounded, of course, by the fact that this recognition
process is almost impossible. We wouldn't want to wish it on our worst
enemy, to have to go through what Native American tribes now have to go
through. It is demeaning and deliberately frustrating. And they were
told, well, you might get recognition, but certainly not in your
lifetime. These Native Americans have been mistreated by this country.
Now we have compromised. You could say we have unfairly treated them
again, but it is the only way to get this recognition through in time
for the celebration of the Jamestown settlement.
We said, we are not going to treat you like other Native American
tribes. You are not going to be able to have
[[Page H4564]]
gambling, to have casinos, to even play bingo. We are going to prohibit
it in this legislation, just to reassure people who are concerned about
gambling, and understandably, given all of the corruption that has
occurred, Jack Abramoff and so on. I don't have to get into all that.
We made the compromise, and they reluctantly agreed to it.
Then, even though they have 500 acres that everyone agrees is theirs
that should be put into trust, we are going to hold back and require
all of the environmental processes and so on to be gone through by the
Department of Interior. Whatever that administrative process is, they
have to wait and go through all of that in order just to have their own
land put into trust. Another compromise.
We have compromised in every way we could. That is the reason for the
closed rule. We have talked to everyone that appeared to have any
opposition.
Mr. Wolf had legitimate concern about gambling. We tried to bring
this to the floor before. He has blocked it. I can understand his
concern. But this is a unique situation. We have addressed it. We have
addressed that issue on gambling. Mr. Wolf now supports the bill, he
has told me.
Mr. Young supports the bill, because he has have looked at it
extensively. I don't believe my good friend from Connecticut is on the
Natural Resources Committee and may not have participated in those
discussions, all of those compromises that have led us to this point.
But I think if you look at the justice of this situation, if you look
back at the truth of what has occurred to these Indians, you have to
come to the conclusion that this is a unique situation. This is
justified. In fact, this is urgent.
There are some representatives of the tribes here today. They have
been so frustrated, cynical even, disappointed that the Congress won't
understand what they understand and what they would like to be able to
pass on to their children.
The only people that would ever educate them and their ancestors were
Christian missionaries. They were forbidden to go to public schools.
They were forbidden to have jobs. They couldn't get their children out
of hospitals if they called them an American Indian because they would
be subject to a year in prison.
I don't want to go into all of this, because I would like to put this
behind us, because it is a very sad chapter of American history.
Hopefully that chapter is about to end and a new chapter will begin
with this legislation.
That is why I would ask my colleagues, approve this legislation. Do
the right thing. Do it in time, so we can honestly celebrate with the
people in Jamestown and with these tribes.
These tribes deserve recognition. They deserve to be able to have the
kind of pride that they have merited through their persistence. They
are extraordinarily patriotic, loyal to this country, honest and
obedient. They are good people. Let's pass this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from
Virginia laying out his remarks on this and his arguments on this, but
it seems to me if there is this much work done with it, we certainly
should have an open process because of all the compromises made, rather
than a closed process.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my
friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Moran, I totally trust and
understand his sincerity, but everything he said there are significant
answers to. And all he has done is raised even more questions. He is
basically saying to pass this bill and rush it through the Senate real
quickly so we can have this be part of the celebration.
How clever were these six tribes to decide that this is the way they
would get it through and bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs process.
With this legislation we are going to create six independent nations
within our Nation, and we are now going to go back to bypassing a
process and just deciding here in this Chamber.
I have no way of knowing if each of these are a legitimate tribe.
There is no way for us in this Chamber to know it. We did that before
Republicans were elected, and we stopped the process because we saw
bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs process was corrupting. It was
corrupting because it meant that if you had the influence, even if you
didn't meet the standards of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you could
become a tribe.
The fact is that my colleague has said he has dealt with one of the
objections. What you have done is dealt with the objection so the bill
can pass. But gambling will be alive and well. First the prohibition
will be tested in the courts, and the mere fact that my colleague said
we are not treating them fairly by taking it out is his next argument
to say we have to treat them fairly once they are tribes.
The bottom line is gambling is a license to print money, and the
financial instincts and pressures will be so great that to say they
will not have gambling is patently laughable. They will have it, if
they are a tribe.
The bottom line to me is this: We have a process. We started to go
around that process and we started to bring bills forward, and now
every State is going to ask the same thing that Mr. Moran did. The
process is too long.
Well, if we don't like the process, fix the process. But we are not
capable to decide what tribe should become independent nations within
the confines of the United States. We don't have that capability. We
have given that process to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we need to
document it. The fact that these six tribes can't document that they
have an historic economic, social and political continuity is
significant. It is very significant. They don't even have reservations,
a place where they were meeting.
So I can't say how strongly I oppose this legislation. I fear that,
however well intended my colleague from Virginia is, he has become the
point of the spear that will result in a huge, huge pressure. The
tribes in Connecticut, the tribes in Massachusetts, the tribes in New
York, those that can't prove that they meet the Federal standard, like
these tribes, will come to Congress and say they want the same thing.
And our argument disappears, because when this passes, and I think it
will, more than 50 percent of our Members will have voted for it, they
will not be able to go and say to any tribe, follow the process. They
will, in my judgment, have corrupted the process of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs and now have no standing to say follow it.
Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues, if you have a tribe, and I
speak to all of my colleagues, those that are in this Chamber and those
who are not, if you have a tribe that you think is trying to get around
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and you vote for this legislation, you
will have no standing whatsoever to oppose them. You will now have to
be part of corrupting that process, going around and passing a bill on
the floor, when we have no capability whatsoever to determine if they
are a legitimate Federal tribe, not State tribe, a Federal tribe,
proving social, political and economic continuity through historic
times.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I know
this: I sure will.
{time} 1300
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would ask my friend from Connecticut to
listen to my response to the points that he just made because I know he
is a fair man. And when he considers the fact that, first of all, the
Narragansett Tribe was recognized in the 1990s with a similar
prohibition, and they don't gamble.
This particular tribe, they were raised by Christian missionaries.
They believe gambling is a sin. They could be operating bingo parlors
down the street today. They don't because they believe it is wrong to
do so. They don't want to gamble.
But they are unique, and I would say to my friend, in 1912 through
1946, the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia systematically erased
all reference to Indians in all public records. That is unique. That
hasn't happened in other States. The Governor of Virginia recognizes
these tribes. They have been recognized for hundreds of years.
And the fact is, we are not bringing this legislation up all of a
sudden now.
[[Page H4565]]
This legislation we have been trying for 8 years to get through; 8
years I have sponsored it. But these Indian tribes didn't have any
money to influence the process.
The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and I go back to this, as
embarrassed as I am about the fact that it passed the legislature of
Virginia, required all persons to register as ``white'' or ``colored''
in the language of those days, and it made it a criminal offense for
Indians not to so register. That is why they were eliminated in the
State. It is what a historian called a paper genocide. That is why this
is a very unique situation. It is not all of a sudden. For 8 years, we
have been trying to pass this legislation. The Governor recognizes they
exist, and it is not about gambling.
It is understandable you would assume it is about gambling. It is
not, and we have examples of other tribes that are not gambling today
that have similar prohibitions. So I would say to the gentleman, please
do the right thing. Read the bill carefully, and I trust you will
support it as a result.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Could I ask the gentleman, he mentioned one tribe that he
referred to as a Christian tribe, are we recognizing one tribe or six
tribes?
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. In this case, we are recognizing six. There
was one tribe in the 1990s, the Narragansett Tribe, a similar
prohibition against gambling was instituted. They don't gamble.
This is about recognition.
Mr. SHAYS. So your reference that one tribe would clearly not want
gambling, it is a fact that these tribes did want gambling and the only
way you could get this bill through the Chamber was to take it out, and
you said on the floor, I think I heard you correctly, that it was an
outrage to take it out and it took away their rights and so on.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I didn't use the term ``outrage,'' but I do I
think it is unfair. If I were a Native American member of any of these
six tribes, I would feel badly that I wasn't treated the way other
Native American tribes have been treated. It is a matter of pride and
sovereignty, so you can choose not to gamble, not to have Congress say,
we don't trust you; we are going to prohibit you from gambling. But it
is not their intent to gamble.
Mr. SHAYS. I would just point out to my colleague that a number of
tribes said they didn't want gambling, and then when they had the
opportunity, they seized it in spite of the fact that they said they
didn't want to.
The precedent can be turned over by the court, and it can be changed
simply by inserting language in some major appropriation that the tribe
can have gambling, and it may not even see the light of day.
The fact that the tribe has sought for years to bypass the Bureau of
Indian Affairs only says that they have tried to bypass the Bureau of
Indian Affairs. The fact that you have introduced this bill continually
only tells me that you have tried to bypass the process.
If the process is not working, change the process.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I
again thank my friend and thank you for being able to communicate in
this fashion.
The fact is that they have tried for 8 years to get recognition. But
when you say that they are bypassing the process, the reason the
process doesn't work is, in this case, the Commonwealth of Virginia
made it legal to destroy all of the documentation that would have
proved their existence. It was legal under the Racial Integrity Act.
They went in and destroyed every reference to them.
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, as we keep talking about it, more
warnings go off to me.
The fact that they would have only tried for the last 8 years to go
through this process, it strikes me as extraordinarily arrogant that
this tribe, that has only tried for 8 years, should bypass tribes that
have tried for much longer than that. And the fact that they are trying
now as opposed to in the past tells me that they saw the kind of
revenues that existed and said, hey, let's be part of this gravy train.
That concerns me as well.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. First of all, it is six tribes. The Governor
of Virginia recognizes them, and the Commonwealth of Virginia has
recognized them since it did away with the Racial Integrity Act.
Senator Allen when he was Governor recognized them because they do
exist.
Mr. SHAYS. Let me just point out that States do recognize. But if you
establish as a precedent that all tribes recognized by States will get
Federal recognition, then you have just included a whole number of
Connecticut tribes that will have State recognition. State recognition
is different than Federal. Federal has to prove that there is a
socioeconomic and political continuity through historical times.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in
order to respond to the gentleman.
And what would be wrong with that? I am reminded of the comedian Flip
Wilson who said that when Christopher Columbus discovered America, the
Native Americans must have been running down to the shoreline saying,
``Discover me.''
Enough already. We have abused these people continuously. We put them
on reservations, and now we would stand here in this body and argue
that they are not entitled to designation? This particular set of
tribes, all six of them, have gone to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and
sought recognition there. And since the 106th Congress, we have
introduced measures here, whether or not they gamble or didn't gamble.
They gamble in Connecticut, and they gamble in Florida. And this
crazy Nation is going to gamble its brains out, but it ain't the
Indians' fault. And if it is their fault, then they ought to have that
right from what we took from them.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. This is an important dialogue to have, and I appreciate
the candor of the gentleman. What he has basically said is: What's
wrong with that?
What is wrong with all of the State-recognized tribes getting Federal
recognition in my State, for instance?
I would like all of my State legislators and my senators and my State
representatives to hear what you just said because that is what
concerns us. There is a lot wrong with that because some of the State-
recognized tribes don't meet the standard that we say of a social,
political and economic continuity. There were times when they didn't
even exist for awhile, but we recognize them on the State level.
I can't emphasize enough that what you are doing is you are opening a
huge Pandora's box; and however well intended you are, you have heard
the basic argument. Every Member of Congress who has a State-recognized
tribe but not a federally recognized tribe, be well aware of what this
new Congress is coming from: What's wrong with that? There is a lot
wrong with that.
Go through the process. And if the process is not working, change the
process. Don't start overriding the Bureau of Indian Affairs and doing
it just for a select few.
I want to point out to my colleague, I am not impressed that it was
from the 106th Congress. That is just a few years ago. There are others
that are going through the process fairly, working hard, and now they
are going to say we have been trying since the 103rd and the 105th and
99th.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the
gentleman from Washington through the Chair if he has any remaining
speakers. I'm the last speaker for this side and I'm prepared to
reserve until the gentleman has closed.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have no more requests for time, so I'll
close.
Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the exchange that we have had
here back and forth between the gentleman from Virginia and the
gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Florida begs to a
process
[[Page H4566]]
that should be much more open. Clearly there are some issues that were
raised.
My friend from Connecticut talked about the process and the fact that
this may be bypassing the process. Maybe an open process would have
allowed us to pursue that, but we don't have that opportunity. We have
a closed rule dealing only with six tribes. I think that is
significant.
So, Mr. Speaker, as a majority member of the House Rules Committee in
the last Congress, I just want to point out that nearly 16 percent of
the rules by that committee in the last Congress were open rules and 84
percent were restrictive or closed.
Thus far in this Congress, the 110th Congress, only 2.5 percent of
the rules brought forth by the new Democrat majority on the Rules
Committee have been open, while a staggering 97.5 percent have been
restricted or closed.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the trend we see before us today with
yet another closed rule denying Members an opportunity to try to
improve legislation does not continue for much longer. However, I must
comment that I am more disbelieving with each restrictive and closed
rule brought to the floor.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this
closed rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would remind my good friend, I have served
with him on the Rules Committee in the minority and in the majority,
and he is obviously in his statistics not taking into consideration the
preprinting requirements that have been offered.
I would also remind you that no one came to the Rules Committee with
reference to any amendment as it pertains to this particular matter
that was noticed last week that it was going to be up.
And now I yield to my friend.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend for yielding.
First of all, if there is a preprinting requirement, that means that
once that deadline is done and debate starts on the floor, no one can
come down and amend the rule. Therefore, it's a closed rule.
Secondly, I can't say for certain, but the exchange that we had down
here, a very good exchange, may have brought forward some idea by a
Member wanting to come down and at least discuss an amendment. We don't
have that opportunity. That is simply the point that I am making. This
is a closed rule.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, in closing now, on
behalf of the six tribes that I believe we have a great opportunity
today to finally bringing closure to their injustice. Indeed, in my
view, Congress has a duty to end the suppression and provide these six
Native American Indian tribes with recognition long overdue.
Number one, they were not recognized by the Federal Government. And
if they didn't exist for a very long time, it was because of the
Federal Government. And then when they tried to come back and say that
we are going to meet all of these exacting requirements under the
petition, who had destroyed their records, the Virginia government had
destroyed their record.
What part of that don't you all understand, that these people can't
make something out of whole cloth in a situation where their records
have been destroyed?
How vicious can one situation be when you destroy the records of
individuals and then ask them to corroborate and prove they exist? That
is a virtual impossibility.
In this particular case, if there is one group of Native Americans
that deserve an exception, and I might add they would be all six of
these in light of the fact that systematically at every courthouse in
Virginia every one of their records were burned or destroyed, and that
was under the aegis of the authority of the Virginia government.
Give these people a break, if no one else. Now they have made it very
clear that they do not intend, they forgo the right to gamble. And all
things considered, I don't see my colleague from Connecticut and I
don't see any colleagues from California and Nevada and me and others
from Florida around turning the revenue back that is being produced.
The State of Florida, for example, is about the business of trying to
come up with better formulas so they can get more of the revenue that
is coming into the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. I suggest to you
that Connecticut probably would be near bankrupt if it hadn't been for
the Indian tribes and the revenue that comes into that State.
Somewhere along the line when you have taken from people, you ought
to at least give them an opportunity to have the playing field level.
And we are talking about in this case only 3,175 members, 562 Federal
tribes have already been recognized. And yes, Mr. Shays, I think every
other one of them ought to be recognized, including my ancestors that
are Creek Indians.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question
on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a
quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adopting
House Resolution 377 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adopting
House Resolution 370.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 186, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 305]
YEAS--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
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)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
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
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
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
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
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
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Weldon (FL)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NAYS--186
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
[[Page H4567]]
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
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
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Brown, Corrine
Doyle
Engel
Fattah
Gilchrest
Goode
Harman
Hulshof
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Marchant
Markey
McCotter
McMorris Rodgers
Ros-Lehtinen
Souder
Sullivan
Tiahrt
{time} 1338
Mr. WELLER of Illinois and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. WELDON of Florida changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
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.
____________________