[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 91 (Thursday, June 7, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6143-H6161]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         LUMBEE RECOGNITION ACT

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 465

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 65) 
     to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina, and for other purposes. 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 amendment 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order

[[Page H6144]]

     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 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. 65 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 New York (Mr. Arcuri) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. ARCURI. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  For purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded 
during consideration of this rule is for debate purposes only. I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.


                             General Leave

  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on House Resolution 465.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 465 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 65, the Lumbee Recognition Act. For over 100 
years, the Lumbees have been in Federal recognition limbo. This 
legislation, which maintains the strong bipartisan support of 215 
Members, aims to bring closure to the issue of full Federal recognition 
for Lumbee Indians of North Carolina, which has lingered in question 
for far too long.
  There's absolutely no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an 
Indian tribe. The Lumbee were first recognized as a tribe in 1885 by 
their home State of North Carolina. After initially seeking Federal 
recognition in 1888, the Congress acknowledged the Lumbee Indians as an 
Indian tribe via the Lumbee Act of 1956 but denied them any benefits 
and privileges of such status. This rare form of recognition is nothing 
more than an unjust half measure that must be corrected by Congress.
  Those opposed to the underlying bill will argue that it is the duty 
of the Department of the Interior to recognize the status of an Indian 
tribe. However, because of the action taken by Congress in 1956, 
creating half-measure recognition, the Department of the Interior has 
ruled that the Lumbee tribe is not eligible for the tribal recognition 
process which it administers. That's a very important point that should 
command the attention of every Member of this body. Simply put, the 
Department of the Interior is saying to Congress, your legislation in 
1956 created this recognition problem and now you are the appropriate 
branch of the Federal Government to rectify it, that is, Congress.
  The recognition of an Indian tribe by the United States has always 
ultimately been the responsibility of Congress. Even though the 
Department of the Interior established an administrative process for 
recognition of the tribes in 1978, Congress has since recognized nine 
tribes by special legislation where there were special circumstances. 
Further, because Congress tasks the administration with the authority 
to establish an administration recognition process in no way means that 
Congress completely abdicates its authority over such matters.
  Madam Speaker, numerous bills have been introduced regarding Federal 
recognition of the Lumbee starting way back in 1899. And during that 
time, numerous hearings were held and reports were filed. Most 
recently, the Natural Resources Committee held a hearing in April of 
this year where the underlying bill was debated and amendments were 
offered. Further, the Department of the Interior has researched and 
studied the Lumbee history 11 times.
  Madam Speaker, we owe it to the Lumbee Indians and the State of North 
Carolina to write the final chapter and close the book on the issue of 
full Federal recognition.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my good friend from New 
York for the time.
  Madam Speaker, the State of North Carolina formally recognized the 
Lumbee tribe in 1885. Since 1888, the Lumbee tribe has been waiting for 
full Federal recognition.
  Over the years, many bills were introduced in Congress to provide the 
Lumbees with Federal recognition, but these bills never reached the 
President's desk for signature. Finally, the Lumbee Act of 1956 
recognized the Lumbee as a Native American tribe but denied them the 
Federal aid that comes with full status as a federally recognized 
tribe.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process is reserved for 
tribes whose legitimacy must be established. This, however, is not the 
case with the Lumbees.
  The Department of the Interior since 1913 has studied the identity of 
the Lumbee Indians 11 times, and each report has concluded that the 
Lumbees are a Native American tribe descended from the Cheraw Indians.
  Furthermore, the Lumbee Act of 1956 actually prohibited the tribe 
from going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process. 
Congressional action is thus needed for Federal recognition so the 
Lumbee tribe can be eligible for the full benefits that they are 
entitled to.
  I wish to express my thanks to Mr. McIntyre for his strong leadership 
really on many issues affecting Native Americans as well as other 
important issues before this Congress and specifically for his 
perseverance and the brilliance that he has shown in bringing this bill 
to the floor today.
  Even though I support the underlying legislation, Madam Speaker, I 
must oppose the closed rule under which the majority brings forth this 
bill. One of the central tenets of our friends in the majority of their 
campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and 
bipartisan manner.

                              {time}  1415

  On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker reiterated her 
campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we 
would have the most honest and open government and we will.''
  Here we are 6 months later, 6 months later, considering the second 
closed rule of the day. It seems that the campaign promise was just 
that, a hollow promise. But this closed rule, the second of the day, is 
not an isolated incident, obviously. So far in the 110th Congress, we 
have considered a total of 25 closed rules, 25 closed rules in about 5 
months. Compare that to the 109th Congress where at this point we had 
considered six closed rules.
  Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to refute this 
fact by claiming that they have offered a number of open rules, but 
that's not the case. The former very distinguished chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Moakley, a Democrat, said, and I quote, ``Open rules are 
silent on the amendment structure.''
  By that definition, the Democrats have offered only one open rule 
this Congress. The majority on the Rules Committee had the opportunity 
to increase the number of open rules to two yesterday. However, they 
denied a motion that I made to amend this rule and allow an open rule. 
Not only did they deny our proposal for an open rule, they even denied 
an attempt to allow a bipartisan amendment offered by Representative 
Shuler, that even though I opposed that amendment on the merits, it 
came to the Rules Committee where Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays sat for a 
long, long period of time, and then they very diligently and 
respectfully explained their amendment.
  I happened to disagree with it, but as I stated in the Rules 
Committee, as strongly as I disagree with their amendment, I think they 
should have the right to present it. Yet not only did our friends, the 
majority in the Rules Committee, decide to close the rule absolutely, 
they even disallowed the bipartisan amendment by Mr. Shuler and Mr. 
Shays from being considered today by the full House. I think the 
Democrats should live up to their campaign promises and offer a more 
open process.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule, while, again, on the 
underlying substance of legislation, expressing my support for it.

[[Page H6145]]

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Shuler).
  Mr. SHULER. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs have established a process for 
recognizing Indian tribes. Recognition of tribes is a job for experts 
and requires facts. This decision should not be made by politicians 
relying upon a motion.
  Every time a legislature has gotten involved in this case, they have 
gotten it wrong. The North Carolina State House mislabeled the group 
four different times. The U.S. Congress made the decision worse in 1955 
by blocking them from going through the standard process.
  I offered an amendment which would have taken the emotion and 
politics out of this process. It would have allowed the experts of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs to establish the facts of this case, but this 
rule blocks that amendment.
  Today, we have missed an opportunity to settle this case. Instead, 
once again, we will leave it up to politicians.
  I am not an expert on Indian tribes. My colleagues are not experts on 
Indian tribes. None of us are qualified to make this decision.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and let the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs do its job.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure 
at this time to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking 
member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I rise to join my very distinguished 
colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, in not only opposing this rule 
but opposing the previous question on this. I am going to explain that 
in just a moment.
  Mr. Diaz-Balart went through and gave a very, very good summation of 
where we stand on this issue of openness, transparency and disclosure; 
and his reference to the December 6, 2006, quote from our distinguished 
Speaker, my fellow Californian, underscores the fact that everyone can 
talk about the issue of openness, transparency and disclosure. But when 
it comes to granting it, it's very sad and really a very sad day for 
this institution.
  Now I know that there has regularly been a lot of criticism over the 
way we as Republicans managed this institution for the 12 years leading 
up to last November's election, but I like to remind our colleagues 
that, whatever criticism they want to level at us, it's not about what 
we did, it's about what they promised they were going to do. That's 
really the sad thing here, the promises that were made, in fact, have 
not been kept. I think that's evidenced, as Mr. Diaz-Balart said, by 
virtue of the fact that we were going to have all of these open rules, 
and at this moment we are considering the second totally closed rule of 
the day, meaning that no Member will have the opportunity to offer any 
amendment whatsoever as we consider this measure.
  In the last Congress, we were proud of the fact that we were able to 
take on what was a bipartisan concern, that being the abuse that we saw 
of earmarks. We all know what that consists of. It has been reported 
very, very widely, the abuse of earmarks; and that played a role in 
leading us, in the last Congress, to respond.
  I am very proud in the 109th Congress we were able to pass major 
earmark reform that got at the issue of transparency and disclosure 
and, most important, enforceability, making sure that Members of this 
House, Democrat or Republican, stand up on the floor and raise a 
question and bring to the attention of this House an earmark that 
should be brought to the light of day.
  We heard that the reforms that were passed at the beginning of this 
Congress were going to build on what we did in the last Congress and 
``improve'' on the earmark reform that we passed in the 109th Congress.
  Let me say again, as I did when we considered the last rule, every 
Member of this House, Democrat and Republican alike, will in just a few 
minutes have an opportunity to vote on whether or not we believe the 
earmark reform that has been touted very widely is going to be 
enforced. That's the vote we are going to face.
  What it consists of is Mr. Diaz-Balart will move to defeat the 
previous question so that we will simply have an opportunity to make it 
in order to consider an amendment that will allow us to enforce this 
much-ballyhooed earmark reform process.
  Now, in the last rules debate, I quoted Ronald Reagan, and I quoted 
Ronald Reagan because during the discussion of the arms buildup and our 
negotiations with the former Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan used a Russian 
expression, and that Russian expression is ``doveryai, no proveryai.''
  I have to say that my Russian has improved between the debate on the 
last rule and the debate that we are holding right now, because I got 
it a little turned around. But thanks to our first-rate staff here we 
went on to the Internet and found the exact Russian expression: 
``doveryai, no proveryai.'' Now, what that means is trust, but verify.
  Everyone here has talked about the need for us to again have greater 
transparency, disclosure, accountability and enforcement on the issue 
of earmarks. Unfortunately, the rule that was passed in this 110th 
Congress, which was designed to improve on what we did in the 109th 
Congress, not only doesn't improve, it denies, it denies every 
Republican and every Democrat in this House an opportunity to come 
forward and, in fact, let the institution have the chance to determine 
whether or not this is a justifiable earmark.
  A couple of examples most recently, we saw the clash that took place 
between the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, our 
friend, Mr. Murtha of Pennsylvania, and the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Rogers). That was a very unfortunate part of the consideration of 
the intelligence authorization bill.
  Then we saw the quote, the statement that was made by the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, 
who has announced that we are not going to be considering earmarks in 
the appropriations process itself, earmarks are only allowed to be 
airdropped into the appropriations conference reports, again, again 
further blurring the opportunity for Members to have, in full view, 
these earmarks.
  Let me say once again we are going to give every Member of this 
House, in just a few minutes, the chance to vote on whether or not you 
believe there should be an opportunity for greater enforceability, 
transparency and disclosure of these earmarks that have been put into 
place. That promise was made early on; and, unfortunately, it has not 
been kept. We are going to give Members a chance to decide whether or 
not that promise should be kept.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and 
that ``no'' vote on the previous question will again allow Mr. Diaz-
Balart the opportunity to offer this very thoughtful amendment that 
should enjoy very strong bipartisan support.
  I thank again my friend from Miami for yielding.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Dreier, may want this to be about earmark reform, and he may want this 
to be about other things, but, frankly, this is a rule about the Lumbee 
Indians.
  Madam Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre) who can talk to us about 
the rule on the Lumbee Indians.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for 
H.R. 65, legislation to grant the Lumbee Indians Federal recognition.
  In the late 1500s, when English ships landed on the shores of Roanoke 
Island off the coast of North Carolina, the English discovered native 
Americans. Included among those native Americans were both the Cheraw 
and Pee Dee Indians, who were direct ancestors of the Lumbee Indians.
  Later, in 1888, the Lumbees made their first effort at gaining 
Federal recognition. For at least 500 years, the Lumbee Indians have 
been inhabitants of this land; and for over half of that time that our 
country has been in existence, 119 of the 231 years of our country's 
history, the Lumbee Indians have been seeking the recognition and 
respect that they deserve.

[[Page H6146]]

  As the largest tribe east of the Mississippi and the largest 
nonrecognized tribe in America, it is unfathomable that this tribe of 
55,000 people has never been fully recognized by our government. H.R. 
65 would provide equal treatment to the Lumbee tribe by correcting a 
half-measure that was adopted by this Congress in 1956, 51 years ago on 
this very day.
  The 1956 half-measure acknowledged the Lumbees as Indians but cut off 
the tribe from the Federal statutes that apply to all other Federally 
recognized tribes. Every other tribe subjected by Congress to such a 
half-measure has since been fully recognized by a special act of 
Congress.
  This would only apply to the Lumbees. It will not apply to the other 
tribes. You may hear arguments to the contrary, but this refers to 
correcting an injustice done by the Lumbee Act of 1956. So it is 
applicable only to this tribe.
  H.R. 65 would do the same thing for the Lumbee tribe as it has done 
for two other tribes that were put in a similar circumstance. Thus, 
H.R. 65 is a long-overdue act of justice that would treat this tribe 
just like every other tribe in the same position has been treated. 
There is no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian 
tribe.
  The State of North Carolina has consistently recognized that since 
1885 under a series of State statutes, using different names for the 
tribe, until 1952, when the tribe held a referendum to decide upon its 
own name and not take a name imposed on it. They adopted the name 
Lumbee, drawn from the name of the river that the tribe was found at 
the time of the first white contact with these Indians in the 1730s.
  The State amended its law to recognize the tribe under the name 
Lumbee in 1953, and that same bill was introduced in Congress to obtain 
Federal recognition under that same name. Before the Federal bill was 
enacted, though, Congress amended the bill to include termination 
language; and, as a result, Congress recognized the tribe in name only 
at the same time in 1956.

                              {time}  1430

  Because of this 1956 half-measure, the Solicitor General of the 
United States has ruled that the Lumbee tribe is not eligible for the 
tribal recognition process currently administered by the Department of 
the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Solicitor General 
has already ruled that the tribe has to come back to Congress to 
correct this injustice. Congress did it; Congress needs to correct it.
  In any case, there's no need to send this back to the BIA. Why? 
Because the Department of Interior has already studied this tribe 11 
separate times and each time has concluded that the Lumbees are indeed 
Indian, and they are descended principally from the Aboriginal Cheraw 
Tribe. The Department's own records also show that the modern day 
Lumbees are the same Indians first recognized by the State of North 
Carolina back in 1885 and by Congress by name in 1956. So Congress 
itself has put the Lumbee tribe in the Indian ``No Man's Land'' with 
the enactment of the 1956 half measure.
  Congress has done this in the past to two other tribes, the Tiwas of 
Texas and the Pascua Yaqui of Arizona. In both cases, Congress has 
since gone back, passed special statutes extending full recognition to 
those tribes. So there is direct precedent for this action today, and 
it only is applicable to the Lumbees, and in all fairness, Congress 
should do the same for the Lumbees that they've done for other tribes 
that were in this unique position. This is all that we're asking, for 
the Lumbee tribe to be treated equally and fairly like every other 
tribe in this situation has been treated. If this is not done, the 
Lumbees will continue to be the only tribe in America left in this 
legal limbo, and that's fundamentally unfair to the Lumbee tribe. The 
recognition of an Indian tribe has always been done by the United 
States. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility. More than half of 
the 565 tribes now federally recognized were recognized by Congress. 
And even after the Department of Interior established a separate 
procedure in 1978, Congress itself has still taken the effort to 
recognize nine tribes by special legislation when there were special 
circumstances, which is what we have here, special circumstances.
  In 1935, D'Arcy McNickle, the Special Indian Agent of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, reported to Congress; this Special Indian Agent of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs back in 1935 concluded, ``that they are 
Indians cannot be doubted,'' and I quote.
  So now, in 2007, I trust that you and my colleagues will agree it is 
time for discrimination to end and recognition to begin. Join me in 
finally rectifying this wrong. Vote for the rule and vote for 
recognition for the Lumbee tribe.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, in a few minutes I 
will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we 
can amend this rule to allow the House to consider a change to the 
Rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the 
earmark rule.
  Now, by defeating the previous question, we wouldn't be derailing 
consideration of this important legislation today. But we would be 
fixing an unfairness, rectifying an unfairness in the House Rules. And 
we believe very strongly in this.
  At this time, Madam Speaker, and I had an opportunity in the Rules 
Committee yesterday to point out to Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays that, as 
I've stated before, on the floor of this House today, I oppose the 
substance of the amendment that they brought before us, but I certainly 
support it and support, at this time, their right to be heard.
  It's unfortunate that the rule, the closed rule bringing the 
legislation to the floor today, has closed out all of the Members of 
the House, including Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays.
  Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).
  Mr. JONES of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I do want to commend 
Congressman McIntyre for his labors of love and his efforts to bring 
this to the floor and his support for this.
  I happen to oppose him on this for several reasons, and I want to say 
that I'm from North Carolina, as well as Mr. McIntyre. This has been an 
ongoing issue, as he made reference to in his comments, for years and 
years. But this issue of the Lumbee should be allowed to go through the 
existing Federal process. And I believe sincerely that Representatives 
Shuler and Shays offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to allow 
this to happen, but sadly, it was rejected.
  The BIA process allows non-biased experts to objectively examine 
historical evidence and make decisions based on seven strict criteria. 
If there are problems with the process, then we should fix the process; 
``we'' meaning the Congress. But Congress should not start down this 
slippery slope of hijacking the objective BIA process and start 
recognizing tribes on its own. This is and would be a serious mistake.
  Madam Speaker, roughly 250 native groups have applications pending at 
BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs. If we pass this bill, all of these 
groups will come knocking at the door of Congress seeking Federal 
recognition, and it will be impossible for those of us in Congress to 
say no.
  Lumbees' tribal origins are suspect, at best. Over time, they have 
self-identified themselves as four different tribes: Cherokee in 1924; 
Cheraw in 1933; Siouan in 1934; and now they are Lumbees. This makes it 
all the more important for experts to determine their eligibility, not 
subjective Members of Congress.
  Madam Speaker, the CBO says Federal recognition of Lumbees would cost 
$489 million in the first 5 years; $489 million in the first 5 years. I 
hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who maybe support 
this legislation, would allow this Congress, on such an important 
issue, to debate it, to debate amendments, and let's see how we can at 
least let the American people know that this is an open process and not 
a closed process.
  And, Madam Speaker, I will tell you again, in closing, that many 
people in North Carolina are familiar with this issue and the history 
of the Lumbees. And their heritage is in question.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will vote against 
the rule and the legislation.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, in response to my colleague from North 
Carolina, I would have to say that

[[Page H6147]]

while it is the role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to certainly deal 
with Indian tribes, we have delegated that responsibility to them as 
Congress, to that agency. We have not abdicated our responsibility. 
That is our responsibility as Congress. We should not give over our 
responsibility in any particular area completely to an agency. We have 
delegated that responsibility to them, and I think it is the 
responsibility and the duty of people in Congress to bring forth 
recognition in cases such as this.
  With that, I would like to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I rise to support the proposed rule 
to bring this bill, H.R. 65, for consideration. And I certainly would 
like to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York, who's 
managing this legislation, and my good friend from Florida, the 
opposition, for their being here and to deliberate on the importance of 
this bill.
  Madam Speaker, this is not a Republican or a Democratic piece of 
legislation. I say this because this bill has the absolute support of 
the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, and 
also the senior ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from 
Alaska, Mr. Don Young. So we have bipartisan support to this proposed 
bill. In fact, over 215 Members have already sponsored this proposed 
legislation.
  And I would be remiss if I did not give special commendation for the 
outstanding job that the gentleman from North Carolina has put in 
trying to bring this legislation for the last 6 years I believe, the 
gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McIntyre. And I do commend him very 
much for his leadership and for his sensitivity in bringing this 
legislation out to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 65 would extend Federal recognition status to the 
Lumbee tribe of North Carolina. Several studies undertaken by the 
Department of the Interior have consistently concluded that the Lumbees 
are a distinct self-governing Indian community historically located on 
the Lumbee River in North Carolina.
  This legislation is long overdue. Indeed, Congress passed the Lumbee 
Act of 1956. On its surface, one would deduce that this law was to 
provide Federal recognition to the Lumbee people. Instead, Congress 
perversely added a provision making the Lumbee Indian people ineligible 
for the services provided by the United States to other federally 
recognized tribes.
  Today, we are simply here to rectify this injustice. This bill was 
reported by the Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 24-7. The 
tribe agreed to the provision that no gaming operation is ever to be 
part of their operations if they are ever to be recognized.
  Madam Speaker, finally, I would note that the tribe has sought 
recognition through the current administrative procedure which was 
developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which, by the way, was done 
through Federal regulation. It was not done by statutory mandate by the 
Congress. But this is not an option for them.
  In 1989, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs at the Department 
of Interior made the determination that the Lumbee Indian people are 
not eligible for the current process, and the fact that we have to go 
back to the provisions of the Lumbee Act of 1956. So there is no other 
option to obtain justice for these people, Madam Speaker.
  And let me note that Congress is empowered to recognize Indian 
tribes, just as we have recently done for the Virginia Indian tribes. 
There are some 560 federally recognized Indian tribes in our country, 
and of those, Congress recognized 530 of them.
  Madam Speaker, the times that I've met with the many members of this 
distinguished tribe, they noted to me, they say that many of them have 
fought, members of that tribe have fought in the defense of our Nation. 
And for a population of 53,000, and I believe six members of this tribe 
have already died from this terrible conflict that we're faced with now 
in Iraq. And to me, that is a way to show the patriotism, and we owe 
the people this recognition, I submit, Madam Speaker.
  I urge my colleagues to support the proposed rule and pass this 
proposed bill, H.R. 65.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I wish I had just come to Congress, because 
then I could believe what I'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. 
I could have total ignorance about the past and feel comfortable with 
what we're doing. The problem is I've been here 20 years, and I know 
what we're doing. We are returning to the old ways under the Democratic 
Party that bypassed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lots of people 
made lots of money in the process.
  This is not an open rule. This is not a restricted rule. This is a 
closed rule. And for a freshman Member of Congress to stand up and 
justify a closed rule and not even allow a debate on whether the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs should be involved blows me away.
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs, if it needs to be fixed, how are you 
going to know about it unless you have a debate?
  But you don't want a debate. You want a closed rule. You do not want 
a debate about this issue. And why? It's pretty obvious.
  If you look at the record, it's very different than what was 
described. If you talk about what happened, it's very different than 
what was described.
  When it came before the committee in the 1950s, the Member bringing 
it out, Mr. Carlyle, said, ``Now, I should like for you to recall that 
there's nothing in this bill that requests one penny of appropriation 
of any kind. There is nothing in this bill that would call for any 
upkeep or expenditure. It just simply relates to the name of these 
people of that county.''
  And then we go on.

                              {time}  1445

  The first question that was asked by Mr. Aspinall: ``What are the 
tribal origins of these Indians?''
  And then he asks: ``I can understand that they may have some Indian 
blood to that effect, but surely they have some Indian blood in their 
veins from other acknowledged tribes of the day.''
  ``Mr. Carlyle: `I think perhaps I have a member of that race here who 
would be able to answer that question.'
  ``Mr. Aspinall: `The next question would be: What benefit would they 
expect to get from this? Just purely the name Lumbee Indian Tribe does 
not appear to me to give too much importance to it, unless they expect 
to get some recognition later on as members of some authorized tribe 
and then come before Congress asking for the benefits that naturally go 
to recognized tribes.'
  ``Mr. Carlyle: `No one has ever mentioned to me any interest in that, 
that they had any interest in becoming a part of a reservation or 
asking the Federal Government for anything. Their purpose in this 
legislation is to have a name that they think is appropriate for their 
group. I do not know that they refer to themselves as a tribe. They are 
citizens who belong to the Indian race, and they were interested in 
having a name that would have, they think, some significance.' ''
  And then he goes on to say: ``Well, I just do not know of any 
particular tribe of Indians in this country that they claim to be 
associated with.''
  That is the history of the debate.
  And then we go to the floor of the House:
  ``Mr. Ford: `Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I should 
like to ask the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina, 
whether or not the bill, if enacted, would in any way whatsoever commit 
the Federal Government in the future to the furnishing of services or 
monetary sums.'
  ``Mr. Carlyle: `Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the bill does not 
provide for that, nor is it expected that it will cost the government 
one penny.'
  ``Mr. Ford: `There is no obligation involved, as far as the Federal 
Government is concerned, if this proposed legislation is approved?'
  ``Mr. Carlyle: `None whatsoever.'
  ``Mr. Ford: `It simply provides for the change of the name?' ''
  That is all the bill did. It wasn't intended to do something else. It 
wasn't intended to make them a tribe with all the benefits. It was 
simply to give them a name. And to come before this Chamber and suggest 
that somehow this bill was to do more is an outrage.

[[Page H6148]]

  Now, what we are doing today is to bypass the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has to see that there was a 
political, social, and economic association. That is what this tribe 
has to prove. But they don't want them to go before the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs because this is a tribe that had no name. It had no 
reservation. It had no language.
  Now, if I am wrong, then the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be the 
one to decide. But I would say as strongly as I can say--no one here 
has the capability to know if this is truly a tribe.
  Now, why would we want the Bureau of Indian Affairs to decide whether 
it is a tribe? Because they study it. They do the research on it. They 
determine that there is some legitimacy. If you create an Indian tribe 
that is truly not meeting the Federal standard, you make a mockery of 
every Indian tribe that exists today that can prove it.
  I would just like to close by saying that you are opening up a 
Pandora's box. You are letting the floodgate in. And the best proof is 
my colleague from American Samoa who said we just did it a few months 
ago or weeks ago for someone else. It's no different. Now we do this. 
And then the next Member is going to come in and say, You did it for 
them and you did it for them. How come not us?
  I know that former Representative Simmons, former Representative 
Johnson, and I have opposed tribes in our State of Connecticut 
bypassing the process. If they meet the standard, they should become a 
tribe. If they don't, they shouldn't. And I would just say to any of my 
colleagues who may have gotten elected in the meantime that if you 
allow this to happen you are going to allow a floodgate, and if you 
have a State-recognized tribe, they are going to come and say, I am a 
State-recognized tribe. Make me a Federal-recognized tribe. Make me a 
sovereign nation. Give me all the benefits that true tribes that are 
federally recognized have.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote down this rule, allow an honest 
debate about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What are you afraid of? To 
have a debate about the need to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs look 
at it? What are you so concerned about? What don't you want the public 
to know?
  This is a closed rule. It is totally restricted, and it is an 
outrage.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega) to respond.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I do want to say I do have the 
highest respect for my good friend and colleague who has just taken the 
floor. In fact, I do want to commend him as a former Peace Corps 
volunteer for the islands of Fiji. And, as I said, I don't question 
some of the dialogue or the conversations or part of the Congressional 
Record that was taken from previous Congresses and other Members of 
Congress in the previous years in dealing with the issue. But let me 
share with my colleagues the situation of how we have dealt with the 
American Indians.
  Madam Speaker, I submit our first policy, our first national policy, 
was to kill the Indians. Get rid of them.
  Following that, our next policy was let's assimilate the Indians, 
make them all part of America.
  And then, guess what? The next policy was to terminate the Indians. 
Don't give them any sense of recognition as a people.
  These are our national policies in eras and periods of how we have 
dealt with Native Americans. So now the fourth policy that we now 
enunciated is let's find a system or procedure of how we can recognize 
them as Indian tribes.
  Let me share with my colleagues what happened on that specific day 
when we held a hearing on the Lumbee Indians. This was years ago. One 
of the tribal chiefs of the Lumbee Indians testified before our 
committee and said they had to examine their teeth, their teeth, to see 
if they looked like Indians and having a certain structure of their 
facial features to make them look like Indians.
  I must submit, Madam Speaker, the process that my good friend talks 
about was not developed until 1975 and thereafter. And the very person 
who wrote the regulation where these Indian tribes had to meet seven 
criteria in order for this Indian process to be completed and they 
would say now you are federally recognized, well, the person who wrote 
that regulation made a submission before our committee and said, even I 
would not have been able to submit an application if this is what we 
have to go through as the process. It is the most expensive process 
that we have had to burden Indian tribes to come up with.
  And I must say, Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend 
from Connecticut, I don't doubt his sincerity in terms of what he said. 
The process has failed. There is no question. But we have just 
recognized four or five Indian tribes from the State of Virginia. So 
how does that make it different in the State of North Carolina for this 
tribe, the Lumbee Indians? Over 100 years these people have been 
fighting for recognition, and they deserve that recognition, Madam 
Speaker.
  Let me give a bit of history to my colleagues. We held 389 treaties 
with the American Indians, and guess what? We broke every one of them. 
That is the kind of history that we have had in dealing with Native 
Americans. They deserve better, Madam Speaker.
  Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Support this 
legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, before closing, I 
would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Connecticut, who would like to make some other remarks.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  The arguments we just heard, though, are what frightens me the most. 
Because my colleague has said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is broken; 
therefore, Congress should be the ones to decide.
  So will you tell me how Congressman Murphy opposes the Schaghticokes 
when they come and make that argument? Just come to Congress, and if he 
has the political clout, they become a federally recognized tribe.
  What do we say to my colleague, Joe Courtney, who has taken Mr. 
Simmons place, about the Eastern Pequots? We are saying, go before the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now they are just going to come to him and 
say, you did it twice.
  What do they say to me with the Golden Hill Paugussetts, who want to 
build a casino in Bridgeport and want to be recognized as a federally 
recognized tribe because all three of these tribes have State 
recognition?
  We want to make sure they meet the standard. If they meet the 
standard, that is fine. But what you have done by your argument is just 
simply say, don't go through that process. It's broken. We are not 
going to fix the process. Just come to your Member of Congress and if 
they have the political clout, get it through. And that is what scares 
me more than I can express.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend 
that I did submit proposed legislation to rectify the process that has 
failed. But, unfortunately, we have still not taken up the legislation, 
so I want to try it again.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, why don't we take that 
up first before we go through this process?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I will submit to my good friend, Madam Speaker, the 
situation that, dealing with the Lumbee Indians, the Congress did 
formally recognize them in 1956 and there was no process in place.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, they recognized name only. That is all 
the tribe asked for. They wanted nothing else. And it wasn't Congress 
that did it against their objection. They did exactly what they asked 
for.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, in answer quickly to the questions 
raised by my colleague from Connecticut when he says they don't want to 
go before the BIA because they do the research, that is absolutely 
incorrect. We have records of 11 studies that the BIA has done and 
every time concluded this was an Indian tribe.
  Secondly, he says this is opening a Pandora's box; what do we say to 
the other tribes? This deals with one tribe

[[Page H6149]]

with a specific statute that the Congress of the United States passed 
51 years ago today called the Lumbee Act of 1956. That is what we 
answer. We are dealing with that specific law dealing with this 
specific tribe, and we have a specific bill today to answer the 
injustice Congress has done to this specific tribe that only deals with 
the Lumbee Tribe.
  Third, there must be something, I guess, magical about going to the 
BIA. He asks, what are we afraid of? The answer is nothing. Not only 
have 11 studies already been done by the BIA, but the General 
Accounting Office itself says in conclusion in their own regulations 
under the law that authorized the BIA, the BIA's recognition process 
was never intended to be the only way groups could receive Federal 
recognition, and that is in statutory language itself.
  So what are we afraid of? Nothing. They have been through 11 
examinations. We are ready to rectify an injustice that occurred 51 
years ago today. I believe it is long overdue that Congress do the 
right thing.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, I will be asking 
for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this 
rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House 
to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.
  Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, 
joint resolution, conference report, or manager's amendment includes 
either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a 
statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against 
the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.
  However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican 
majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not 
available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a 
question of consideration. But because the Democratic majority Rules 
Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points 
of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of 
earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question 
of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.
  This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of 
the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress and 
provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks 
before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark 
rule is nothing more than a fig leaf.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, at this time, 
while reiterating my support for the underlying legislation, which I 
think is worthy legislation and has been thoroughly studied, I think it 
is most unfortunate that it has been brought forth with a totally 
closed rule.

                              {time}  1500

  I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question so 
that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to 
the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to 
the earmark rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, for over 100 years the Lumbee Indians have 
been recognized by their home State of North Carolina.
  The Department of the Interior has researched the Lumbee history on 
11 separate occasions. Numerous bills have been introduced, many 
congressional hearings have been held, and the Department of the 
Interior has stated that the Lumbee are not eligible for the 
Department's recognition process because of Congress' action in 1956.
  The gentleman from Connecticut has asked the question, what are we 
trying to hide? That's insulting. There is nothing that anyone is 
trying to hide. What we are trying to do is recognize a long-overdue 
injustice and recognize the Lumbee Tribe. That is what this bill is 
about, that is what all the hard work from the gentleman from North 
Carolina is about, is to rectify a long-overdue injustice.
  Clearly, the time for half-measures is over. We have a responsibility 
to address the issue and write the final chapter of the unfortunate 
Lumbee Indian Federal recognition saga, which has gone on far too long.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on 
the rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 465 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec. 3. Clause 9(c) of Rule XXI is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(c) As disposition of a point of order under paragraph 
     (a), the Chair shall put the question of consideration with 
     respect to the bill, joint resolution, or conference report, 
     or amendment described in paragraph (a)(3). The question of 
     consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes by the Member 
     initiating the point of order and for 10 minutes by an 
     opponent, but shall otherwise be decided without intervening 
     motion except one that the House adjourn.''.
                                  ____

       (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 form 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. ARCURI. Madam 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 noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. ARCURI. Madam Speaker, on that, I demand the yeas and nays.

[[Page H6150]]

  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 electronic voting, if 
ordered, on the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 192, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 444]

                               YEAS--217

     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
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     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)
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     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
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--192

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     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)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Alexander
     Blackburn
     Cantor
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Gerlach
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Kagen
     LaHood
     McNulty
     Miller (NC)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Shadegg
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Tancredo
     Watson

                              {time}  1527

  Mrs. CUBIN, Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS and Mr. MARCHANT changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin and Ms. DeLAURO changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 444, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  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. ARCURI. Madam 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 214, 
noes 193, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               AYES--214

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     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
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     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)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--193

     Akin
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan

[[Page H6151]]


     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Alexander
     Bishop (GA)
     Blackburn
     Cantor
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Gerlach
     Hastings (FL)
     Holden
     Jefferson
     Kagen
     LaHood
     Lewis (GA)
     Lynch
     McNulty
     Miller (NC)
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Shadegg
     Smith (NJ)
     Stark
     Tancredo


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain on this vote.

                              {time}  1535

  Mr. ROSS changed his 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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 445, had I been 
present, I would have voted ``aye.''


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 445 to 
H. Res. 465, I was mistakenly recorded as an ``aye''. My intended vote 
was ``no''.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 465, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee 
Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 65

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lumbee Recognition Act''.

     SEC. 2. PREAMBLE.

       The preamble to the Act of June 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 254), is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``and'' at the end of each clause.
       (2) By striking ``: Now, therefore,'' at the end of the 
     last clause and inserting a semicolon.
       (3) By adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``Whereas the Lumbee Indians of Robeson and adjoining 
     counties in North Carolina are descendants of coastal North 
     Carolina Indian tribes, principally Cheraw, and have remained 
     a distinct Indian community since the time of contact with 
     white settlers;
       ``Whereas since 1885 the State of North Carolina has 
     recognized the Lumbee Indians as an Indian tribe;
       ``Whereas in 1956 the Congress of the United States 
     acknowledged the Lumbee Indians as an Indian tribe, but 
     withheld from the Lumbee Tribe the benefits, privileges and 
     immunities to which the Tribe and its members otherwise would 
     have been entitled by virtue of the Tribe's status as a 
     federally recognized tribe; and
       ``Whereas the Congress finds that the Lumbee Indians should 
     now be entitled to full Federal recognition of their status 
     as an Indian tribe and that the benefits, privileges and 
     immunities that accompany such status should be accorded to 
     the Lumbee Tribe: Now, therefore,''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       The Act of June 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 254), is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By striking the last sentence of the first section.
       (2) By striking section 2 and inserting the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. (a) Federal recognition is hereby extended to the 
     Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. All laws and regulations of 
     the United States of general application to Indians and 
     Indian tribes shall apply to the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina and its members.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding the first section, any group of 
     Indians in Robeson and adjoining counties, North Carolina, 
     whose members are not enrolled in the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina as determined under section 3(c), may petition under 
     part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations for 
     acknowledgement of tribal existence.
       ``Sec. 3. (a) The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and its 
     members shall be eligible for all services and benefits 
     provided to Indians because of their status as members of a 
     federally recognized tribe. For the purposes of the delivery 
     of such services, those members of the Tribe residing in 
     Robeson, Cumberland, Hoke, and Scotland counties in North 
     Carolina shall be deemed to be residing on or near an Indian 
     reservation.
       ``(b) Upon verification by the Secretary of the Interior of 
     a tribal roll under subsection (c), the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     develop, in consultation with the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina, a determination of needs and budget to provide the 
     services to which members of the Tribe are eligible. The 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall each submit a written statement of such 
     needs and budget with the first budget request submitted to 
     Congress after the fiscal year in which the tribal roll is 
     verified.
       ``(c) For purposes of the delivery of Federal services, the 
     tribal roll in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     section shall, subject to verification by the Secretary of 
     the Interior, define the service population of the Tribe. The 
     Secretary's verification shall be limited to confirming 
     compliance with the membership criteria set out in the 
     Tribe's constitution adopted on November 11, 2000, which 
     verification shall be completed not less than 1 year after 
     the date of the enactment of this section.
       ``Sec. 4. Fee lands which the Tribe seeks to convey to the 
     United States to be held in trust shall be treated by the 
     Secretary of the Interior as `on-reservation' trust 
     acquisitions under part 151 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation) if such lands 
     are located within Robeson County, North Carolina.
       ``Sec. 5. (a) The State of North Carolina shall exercise 
     jurisdiction over--
       ``(1) all criminal offenses that are committed on; and
       ``(2) all civil actions that arise on, lands located within 
     the State of North Carolina that are owned by, or held in 
     trust by the United States for, the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina, or any dependent Indian community of the Lumbee 
     Tribe of North Carolina.
       ``(b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept 
     on behalf of the United States, after consulting with the 
     Attorney General of the United States any transfer by the 
     State of North Carolina to the United States of any portion 
     of the jurisdiction of the State of North Carolina described 
     in paragraph (1) pursuant to an agreement between the Lumbee 
     Tribe and the State of North Carolina. Such transfer of 
     jurisdiction may not take effect until 2 years after the 
     effective date of the agreement.
       ``(c) The provisions of this subsection shall not affect 
     the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare 
     Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1919).
       ``Sec. 6. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as are necessary to carry out this Act.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 465, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the bill, modified 
by the amendment printed in House Report 110-180, is adopted and the 
bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 65

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Lumbee Recognition Act''.

     SEC. 2. PREAMBLE.

       The preamble to the Act of June 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 254), is 
     amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``and'' at the end of each clause.
       (2) By striking ``: Now, therefore,'' at the end of the 
     last clause and inserting a semicolon.
       (3) By adding at the end the following new clauses:
       ``Whereas the Lumbee Indians of Robeson and adjoining 
     counties in North Carolina are descendants of coastal North 
     Carolina Indian tribes, principally Cheraw, and have remained 
     a distinct Indian community since the time of contact with 
     white settlers;
       ``Whereas since 1885 the State of North Carolina has 
     recognized the Lumbee Indians as an Indian tribe;
       ``Whereas in 1956 the Congress of the United States 
     acknowledged the Lumbee Indians as an

[[Page H6152]]

     Indian tribe, but withheld from the Lumbee Tribe the 
     benefits, privileges and immunities to which the Tribe and 
     its members otherwise would have been entitled by virtue of 
     the Tribe's status as a federally recognized tribe; and
       ``Whereas the Congress finds that the Lumbee Indians should 
     now be entitled to full Federal recognition of their status 
     as an Indian tribe and that the benefits, privileges and 
     immunities that accompany such status should be accorded to 
     the Lumbee Tribe: Now, therefore,''.

     SEC. 3. FEDERAL RECOGNITION.

       The Act of June 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 254), is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By striking the last sentence of the first section.
       (2) By striking section 2 and inserting the following new 
     sections:
       ``Sec. 2. (a) Federal recognition is hereby extended to the 
     Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, as designated as petitioner 
     number 65 by the Office of Federal Acknowledgement. All laws 
     and regulations of the United States of general application 
     to Indians and Indian tribes shall apply to the Lumbee Tribe 
     of North Carolina and its members.
       ``(b) Notwithstanding the first section, any group of 
     Indians in Robeson and adjoining counties, North Carolina, 
     whose members are not enrolled in the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina as determined under section 3(c), may petition under 
     part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations for 
     acknowledgement of tribal existence.
       ``Sec. 3. (a) The Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina and its 
     members shall be eligible for all services and benefits 
     provided to Indians because of their status as members of a 
     federally recognized tribe. For the purposes of the delivery 
     of such services, those members of the Tribe residing in 
     Robeson, Cumberland, Hoke, and Scotland counties in North 
     Carolina shall be deemed to be residing on or near an Indian 
     reservation.
       ``(b) Upon verification by the Secretary of the Interior of 
     a tribal roll under subsection (c), the Secretary of the 
     Interior and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall 
     develop, in consultation with the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina, a determination of needs and budget to provide the 
     services to which members of the Tribe are eligible. The 
     Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services shall each submit a written statement of such 
     needs and budget to Congress after the tribal roll is 
     verified.
       ``(c) For purposes of the delivery of Federal services, the 
     tribal roll in effect on the date of the enactment of this 
     section shall, subject to verification by the Secretary of 
     the Interior, define the service population of the Tribe. The 
     Secretary's verification shall be limited to confirming 
     compliance with the membership criteria set out in the 
     Tribe's constitution adopted on November 16, 2001, which 
     verification shall be completed within 2 years after the date 
     of the enactment of this section.
       ``Sec. 4. (a) Fee lands which the Tribe seeks to convey to 
     the United States to be held in trust shall be treated by the 
     Secretary of the Interior as `on-reservation' trust 
     acquisitions under part 151 of title 25 of the Code of 
     Federal Regulations (or a successor regulation) if such lands 
     are located within Robeson County, North Carolina.
       ``(b) The tribe may not conduct gaming activities as a 
     matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority 
     of any Federal law, including the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
     Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) or under any regulations 
     thereunder promulgated by the Secretary or the National 
     Indian Gaming Commission.
       ``Sec. 5. (a) The State of North Carolina shall exercise 
     jurisdiction over--
       ``(1) all criminal offenses that are committed on; and
       ``(2) all civil actions that arise on, lands located within 
     the State of North Carolina that are owned by, or held in 
     trust by the United States for, the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina, or any dependent Indian community of the Lumbee 
     Tribe of North Carolina.
       ``(b) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to accept 
     on behalf of the United States, after consulting with the 
     Attorney General of the United States any transfer by the 
     State of North Carolina to the United States of any portion 
     of the jurisdiction of the State of North Carolina described 
     in paragraph (1) pursuant to an agreement between the Lumbee 
     Tribe and the State of North Carolina. Such transfer of 
     jurisdiction may not take effect until 2 years after the 
     effective date of the agreement.
       ``(c) The provisions of this subsection shall not affect 
     the application of section 109 of the Indian Child Welfare 
     Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. 1919).
       ``Sec. 6. There are authorized to be appropriated such sums 
     as are necessary to carry out this Act.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) and the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) each will control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on H.R. 65.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from West Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  To my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this measure, which 
would extend Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, 
is long overdue. For over 115 years, this tribe has sought Federal 
recognition only. When Congress finally stepped in to take action on 
this matter, it was in the midst of the termination era, an era in 
which the Federal Government was in the process of terminating its 
relationship with existing federally recognized tribes. As a result, 
Congress recognized the Lumbee Tribe in 1956, but in the same breath it 
terminated its relationship with the tribe.
  At no time has the Department of the Interior ever opposed Federal 
recognition for this tribe based on a belief that the Lumbees are not 
entitled to such status. Indeed, several studies undertaken by the 
Department of the Interior have consistently concluded that the Lumbees 
are a distinct, self-governing Indian community historically located on 
Drowning Creek, now the Lumber River, in North Carolina.
  Although the State of North Carolina has recognized the tribe for 
over 100 years, it has done so under various names. The State of North 
Carolina, not the Lumbees, is responsible for the various names imposed 
upon the tribe.
  It was not until the tribe pressured the State that the tribe was 
authorized to conduct a referendum to choose its own name. When it did 
so in 1951, it chose the name ``Lumbee Indians of North Carolina.'' 
This is the only name ever selected by the tribe, and it is this name 
by which Congress, in 1956, recognized the Lumbees.
  Some have expressed a concern about the cost of this bill. I want to 
note that the cost of this bill is for discretionary programs only. 
There is no mandatory spending. Any actual cost of this bill is subject 
to appropriations.
  Others have expressed concern that the size of the Lumbee Tribe will 
unduly impact the tribes in their districts. This is not a reason to 
single out the Lumbees.
  The Lumbees are Indians organized as a tribe, and they deserve 
Federal recognition and access to the benefits and services in the same 
manner as other federally recognized tribes. Congress should not 
determine whether or not to honor its responsibilities to Indian tribes 
based on cost.
  To address claims that the tribe is only interested in Federal 
recognition so they may conduct gaming, the tribe supported an outright 
gaming prohibition which has been included in this bill. The gaming 
prohibition precludes the Lumbee Tribe from engaging in, licensing, or 
regulating gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any 
other Federal law.
  Extending Federal recognition to the tribe at this time is not 
something new nor does it bypass the administrative process established 
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
  Congress first recognized the tribe in 1956. But because of our 
actions at that time, the tribe is not eligible for the administrative 
process. Congress is solely responsible for the injustice committed on 
this tribe. Now, after over 50 years, it is up to us to correct the 
wrong that Congress imposed so many years ago.
  This legislation is sponsored by our colleague, Representative Mike 
McIntyre of North Carolina, and enjoys bipartisan support, including 
North Carolina Representatives Butterfield, Etheridge, Price, Coble, 
Hayes, Miller and Watt.
  I certainly commend Representative Mike McIntyre of North Carolina 
for his dedication, his persistence, and his devotion to the Lumbee 
Indian Tribe. They have no better friend in the Congress of the United 
States.
  I, too, am a cosponsor of H.R. 65; and I am pleased that Natural 
Resources ranking member, Mr. Don Young, is also a strong supporter.
  Importantly, the Governor of North Carolina, Mike Easley, supports 
this measure, as do two former Governors, former Republican Governor 
Martin and former Democratic Governor Hunt.
  The pending measure was reported by the Natural Resources Committee 
by a roll call vote of 24-7.
  In closing, I again commend the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
McIntyre) for his dedication to this issue. Through his tireless 
efforts, the bill before us today has 215 cosponsors.
  So let us join in this effort to grant the Lumbee Tribe the 
recognition they

[[Page H6153]]

have long deserved. As Coach Kelvin Sampson, basketball coach at 
Indiana University noted in his testimony at our hearing, the Lumbees 
do not need our permission to call themselves Native American, but, 
unfortunately in today's world, they need our validation. It is up to 
us to do the right thing by extending Federal recognition to the tribe.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the pending 
measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I compliment the chairman of the 
committee, Mr. Rahall. As many of my colleagues know, I have long 
supported the efforts of the Lumbee Tribe to be federally recognized.
  I have had discussions with the sponsor of the bill who represents 
them, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre). I have studied 
their case for many years when I served as ranking member and chairman 
of the Committee on Resources.
  The Lumbee's quest for recognition has been going for more than 100 
years, which seems to be longer than almost any other tribe currently 
in the recognition process. During this time, the Lumbees have been put 
under a microscope and subjected to intensive debate by the State of 
North Carolina, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Congress, historians, 
and other Indian tribes.
  In my judgment and that of the committee, this is clearly a distinct 
community of Indian people who meet the definition of ``tribe'' under 
article I, section 8 of Constitution; and the fact that more than 200 
Members of this body have cosponsored H.R. 65 attests to the tribe's 
legitimacy.

                              {time}  1545

  Here are some of the facts about the Lumbee tribe. It is a State-
recognized tribe. It has submitted huge amounts of documentation to 
prove that it is an autonomous Indian community that can trace links to 
a historic tribe. Even the Act of 1956, which terminated the tribe, 
helps to prove their case.
  The reason for this is that, in order to be terminated by Congress, 
you first must be recognized. The fact that Congress had to identify 
the Lumbees before terminating them is a clear indication that Congress 
considered them to be a distinct Indian community within the meaning of 
the Constitution. Why else would Congress feel a need to prohibit 
benefits for this community if, as the opposition alleges, they were 
not eligible for the benefits in the first place?
  Ask anyone who has traveled to Robeson County, and they will report 
that the county is largely governed by the Lumbee people already. In 
one sense, this bill merely puts a Federal endorsement on the fact that 
an independent, self-governing tribe exists in North Carolina.
  But this is a tribe that still lacks the status of all the other 
federally recognized tribes. And in lacking the benefits, immunities 
and the responsibilities accorded to other tribes, the Lumbees are 
second-class citizens within the Indian world. This is not right.
  H.R. 65 corrects this historic injustice, and I urge my colleagues to 
pass this bill as soon as possible.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre), who is responsible for this legislation.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record at 
this point three letters which Mr. Rahall referred to from North 
Carolina's three governors over the last 31 years, both Democrat and 
Republican, including a former Member of this body, Congressman Jim 
Martin, who later became governor, as well as Governors Jim Hunt and 
Mike Easley, who support this effort for the Lumbees.

                                      State of North Carolina,

                                                   April 18, 2007.
     Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,
     Chair, Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Don Young,
     Ranking Member, Natural Resources Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Rahall and Congressman Young: Thank you 
     for the opportunity to submit written comments about pending 
     legislation for federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of 
     North Carolina by the Congress of the United States of 
     America. I believe full federal recognition of the Lumbee 
     Tribe by Congress is long overdue.
       Recognition of and interaction with the Lumbee people as a 
     unique, distinct Indian tribe began when settlers from 
     Virginia, South Carolina and Europe first arrived in the Cape 
     Fear and Pee Dee River Basins after the Tuscarora War (1711-
     1715). There, the settlers encountered a well-populated, 
     cohesive American Indian tribal group situated mostly along 
     and to the west of what is now known as the Lumber River in 
     Robeson County. As early as 1890, the U.S. Department of 
     Interior acknowledged this fact among others as evidence that 
     the Lumbee people are American Indians.
       A proclamation by colonial Governor Matthew Rowan on May 
     10, 1753 stated that Drowning Creek (Lumber River in Robeson 
     County) was ``the Indian Frontier.'' Other historical records 
     of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including 
     Revolutionary War pensions for Lumbees who fought for 
     American independence, attest to the Lumbees as American 
     Indians.
       In 1885, North Carolina's General Assembly passed a bill 
     recognizing and naming the Lumbee tribe ``Croatan.'' In 1911 
     the General Assembly changed their name to the ``Indians of 
     Robeson County'' and in 1913 to ``Cherokee Indians of Robeson 
     County.'' None of these names was chosen by the tribe. In 
     1953, the State officially changed the tribe's name to 
     ``Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina'' following a 1952 tribal 
     referendum requested by the Lumbees and paid for by the State 
     in which this name was overwhelmingly chosen. These names all 
     apply to the same American Indian tribe.
       For more than a century, North Carolina's Governors, 
     various state legislators and Members of the North Carolina 
     Congressional delegation have supported the effort by the 
     Lumbee Tribe to obtain federal recognition, beginning with a 
     petition to Congress in 1888. Enclosed are copies of letters 
     by former Governors James G. Martin (R) and James B. Hunt, 
     Jr. (D)--my immediate predecessors--attesting to the strong 
     bipartisan support for federal recognition that the Lumbee 
     Tribe has enjoyed during the last generation.
       In the past, federal recognition has been denied because of 
     opposition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of 
     Interior on budgetary grounds. Each of several federal 
     investigations into the Lumbees' history, genealogy and 
     ethnicity has concluded that the Lumbees are in fact American 
     Indians. It follows that federal recognition should be 
     authorized for this long-standing American Indian Tribe.
       Personally and on behalf of North Carolina, I offer to our 
     fellow Lumbee citizens and to the Congress our full, 
     unqualified support for Congressional recognition of the 
     Lumbee Tribe. I encourage your support for the Lumbee Tribe 
     and for the adoption of this bill.
       I thank the House and the Natural Resources Committee for 
     holding this hearing and for allowing me to offer written 
     comments about the Lumbee Tribe recognition bill.
       With warm personal regards, I remain
           Very truly yours,
                                                Michael F. Easley,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                          State of North Carolina,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                       Raleigh, NC, July 30, 1991.
     Hon. Daniel K. Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inouye: I have asked James S. Lofton, 
     Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Administration 
     to represent me at the Joint Hearing regarding S. 1036, the 
     Lumbee Recognition Bill, which will be held on August 1. 
     Secretary Lofton will be accompanied by Henry McKoy, Deputy 
     Secretary of the Department of Administration, Patrick O. 
     Clark, Chairman of the North Carolina Commission of Indian 
     Affairs, and A. Bruce Jones, the commission's executive 
     director.
       I fully support the passage of S. 1036 and am requesting 
     the support of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 
     The State of North Carolina has recognized the Lumbee Tribe 
     as a separate and viable Indian entity since 1885. The 
     passage of S. 1036 will entitle the Lumbee to enjoy the same 
     rights, privileges and services enjoyed by other federally 
     recognized tribes in the nation and will, further, be a major 
     step toward rectifying the inequities suffered by the Lumbee 
     people for centuries.
       I thank you for your attention to this matter and will 
     appreciate your favorable consideration of my request.
           Sincerely,
     James G. Martin.
                                  ____

                                          State of North Carolina,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                 October 18, 1991.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: The United States House of 
     Representatives recently passed H.R. 1426 which provides for 
     full federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw 
     Indians of North Carolina.

[[Page H6154]]

       I am in support of this legislation as evidenced by the 
     enclosed testimony given on my behalf by Secretary James S. 
     Lofton of the North Carolina Department of Administration at 
     a joint hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Indian 
     Affairs and the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee 
     held August 1, 1991. H.R. 1426 is now before the United 
     States Senate, as is its companion bill, S. 1036.
       I am requesting your support of the passage of this 
     legislation and its subsequent signing into law following its 
     successful passage.
           Sincerely,
                                                  James G. Martin,
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                          STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,


                                       Office of The Governor,

                                                   March 11, 1993.
     Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
     Secretary Department of Interior,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bruce: I am pleased that you were able to be in our 
     state recently and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with 
     you.
       There are approximately 40,000 Lumbee Indians living in 
     North Carolina and they have been officially recognized by 
     the State of North Carolina since 1885. The Lumbees have been 
     seeking federal recognition since 1888. Seven studies have 
     shown them to be an independent Indian community.
       I would like to reiterate my strong support for the 
     Congressional process for federal recognition of the Lumbee 
     Indian tribe in North Carolina. As you know H.R. 334, 
     introduced by Congressman Charlie Rose of North Carolina, 
     would provide such recognition. We support that legislation 
     as stated in my letter of January 28, 1993.
       Federal recognition of the tribe has been endorsed by the 
     N.C. Commission of Indian Affairs, the Governors' Interstate 
     Indian Council, and the National Congress of American 
     Indians, which is the oldest and largest Indian organization 
     in the country.
       In 1956 a bill was passed by the Congress to recognize the 
     Lumbee tribe, but it denied the tribe the benefits or 
     protections afforded to Indians by the U.S. of America.
       For over 100 years the Lumbees have tried to obtain federal 
     recognition, but to no avail. It is my opinion that the 
     administrative recognition process that was proposed by the 
     previous administration simply is too cumbersome, time-
     consuming, costly and has not worked effectively. Therefore, 
     I would urge you to support the Congressional recognition 
     process as proposed by Congressman Rose.
       I want to work with you and the President in any way 
     possible to help the Lumbee Tribe receive Congressional 
     recognition. I am confident that this recognition is not only 
     in our state's and the tribe's best interest, but in the 
     interest of the United States as well.
           Sincerely,
                                                James B. Hunt, Jr.
     Governor.
                                  ____

                                          State of North Carolina,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                 January 28, 1993.
     Re Federal Recognition of the Lumbee Indians.

     Hon. Bruce Babbitt,
     Secretary, U.S. Department of Interior,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bruce: This letter is to ask your assistance in 
     obtaining federal recognition for the Lumbee Indian tribe, 
     which has many members in North Carolina. Congressman Charlie 
     Rose (D-N.C.) has introduced a bill (H.R. 334) that would 
     provide such recognition.
       Before the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs considers 
     H.R. 334, I understand that the Clinton Administration will 
     release its position on the bill. I ask that you and the 
     President support the bill.
       The Lumbee have 40,000 enrolled members in the United 
     States and should be recognized. In fact, seven studies in 
     this century have shown them to be an independent Indian 
     community.
       I appreciate your consideration of this letter. Please 
     contact Congressman Rose or me if we can assist you in any 
     way this matter.
       My warmed personal regards.
           Sincerely,
                                                James B. Hunt, Jr.
                                                         Governor.

  Madam Speaker, 51 years ago today, Congress committed an injustice 
against the Lumbee tribe, and today, on this 51st anniversary, we have 
the opportunity to correct this injustice. And that ought to be 
thrilling for us here to know that, by our action, before we leave to 
go home this weekend, Congress can affirmatively do something right for 
55,000 people who have been overlooked and who have been suffering from 
the indignity of only being half-recognized in name but never fully 
recognized as an Indian tribe, the only tribe in America put in this 
position by the Congress itself by a specific Act Congress passed in 
1956.
  Madam Speaker, I was born and reared in Robeson County, North 
Carolina, the primary home of the Lumbee people. I go home there 
virtually every weekend, and I have the high honor of representing 
approximately 40,000 of the 55,000 Lumbees who live in my home county. 
I'm a minority in my home county.
  In fact, there are more Lumbees in Robeson County than any other 
racial or ethnic group. The Lumbee Indians are my friends, many of whom 
I've known all my life. They're important to the success of everyday 
life in southeastern North Carolina, and their contributions to our 
society are numerous and endless.
  From medicine and law to business and banking, from the farms and 
factories to the schools and churches, from government, military and 
community service to entertainment and athletic accomplishments, the 
Lumbees have made tremendous contributions to our county, State and 
Nation.
  In fact, in my home county, the former sheriff, the current clerk of 
court, the register of deeds, the school superintendent, several county 
commissioners, including the chairman, several school board members and 
the representative in the State legislature of the area where I live, 
as well as two of the district court judges and one of the superior 
court judges are all Lumbee Indians.
  Lumbee contributions are also being recognized at home by both the 
public and private sector. From city councils to county commissioners, 
from the Chamber of Commerce to the Southeastern Regional Medical 
Center, all have endorsed the effort to grant the Lumbees Federal 
recognition.
  The Lumbee Indians do not live on a reservation. They are fully 
integrated in society and have been successful in all phases of 
society. This is not about gambling. In fact, gaming is specifically 
prohibited in this legislation.
  This issue of Federal recognition for the Lumbee Indians is one that 
primarily affects two congressional districts, the one that I represent 
and the adjoining district represented by my friend and colleague, 
Congressman Robin Hayes.
  The Lumbees have no lobbyist. They have no national organization 
that's been hired to come up here and help them. They themselves have 
set their own record that we admire and respect.
  As most of my colleagues here know, I have personally visited with 
over 300 of you on both sides of the aisle and talked to all of you 
that I could in one-on-one conversations, explaining the importance of 
this bill and Congress correcting an injustice that occurred in 1956 
under a specific act that Congress passed.
  In one aspect or another, the U.S. Congress has deliberated on the 
issue of Federal recognition for this tribe for over 100 years, 119 
years to be exact. Since the Lumbees first came to Congress for 
recognition, Congress has directed the Department of the Interior to 
examine the tribe's history. Please listen carefully: Eleven different 
times the Bureau of Indian Affairs has studied this tribe and has 
positively concluded that the tribe has strong Indian identity and 
community.
  Some of you may ask, well, why are we even here debating this then? 
The answer is simple. That answer is that Congress has not rectified 
the wrong that it perpetrated on the Lumbees in 1956.
  At the height of Federal Indian termination policy, an unfortunate 
time in our country's history, by an act of Congress, Congress enacted 
a half measure in 1956 that recognized the Lumbees in name only and 
made them ineligible for Federal benefits. Many years later, in 1989, 
after going through the process, the Solicitor General of the United 
States said the Lumbees were ineligible because of that 1956 Act and 
the Lumbees would have to come back to Congress to get this corrected.
  Congress, since 1956, thankfully, has repudiated the Federal Indian 
termination policy it was implementing back at that time, but the 
Lumbee tribe still continues to labor under the vestiges of an 
outdated, outmoded and unfair law. There are only two other tribes in 
America that were put in this position, the Tiwas of Texas and the 
Pascua Yaquis of Arizona, where they were recognized specifically by 
Congress in name only, and in both cases, Congress went back and 
rectified the situation fully recognizing those tribes.
  So what does that mean? Today, this day, the Lumbees are the only 
tribe in America in this situation, and there is direct legal precedent 
of congressional

[[Page H6155]]

action for what we hope to correct this afternoon.
  Therefore, Congress is the only legal entity available for the 
Lumbees to achieve Federal recognition. This House has passed 
legislation twice to do that for the Lumbees only to see it not move 
forward in the Senate.
  Today, though, I'm pleased to say that both U.S. senators from North 
Carolina, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, a former Member of this 
body, do support Federal recognition for the Lumbee tribe. Today, there 
are 215 of my colleagues who have cosponsored this bill. Today can be 
the first step toward rectifying this wrong of 51 years ago. On this 
day, June 7, 1956, Congress put the Lumbee tribe in legal limbo, and 
today, 51 years later, we can finally correct this injustice.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, let me urge this House not to delay 
anymore on this issue. Fifty-one years has been long enough; 119 years 
has been far long enough. Eleven studies already done by the BIA have 
concluded that these folks deserve being understood as an Indian 
community, and now we're in the position to move to recognition.
  The evidence is clear, cogent and convincing. It's time to say 
``yes'' to dignity, ``yes'' to respect, ``yes'' to fundamental 
fairness, ``yes'' to honor, ``yes'' to Federal recognition. Indeed, it 
is time for the discrimination to end and recognition to begin.
  May God grant us the courage and the will to do the right thing.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to my friend and colleague 
from North Carolina's bill, the Lumbee Recognition Act.
  My position on this bill is very straightforward and fair. All groups 
seeking Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes should go through the 
administrative process of the Department of the Interior's Office of 
Federal Acknowledgment.
  This office is staffed with expert historians, anthropologists and 
genealogists. Their focus is to evaluate data provided by petitioning 
groups and determine the merits of a group's claim that it is an Indian 
tribe. This includes whether the group existed since historical times 
as a distinct political entity.
  In this case, the Department of the Interior said the 1956 Lumbee Act 
prevents the Lumbee from going through this process. Congress should 
act and lift that restriction. Like other groups, the Lumbees should 
have the opportunity to attain Federal recognition as a tribe. I agree 
with that.
  However, I cannot support this legislation which will allow the 
Lumbee or any other group for that matter to circumvent the process. 
This would be unfair to already existing tribes like the Eastern Band 
of Cherokee Indians in western North Carolina who have a significant 
historical and cultural impact on my region of the State. They don't 
want to see their cultural identity undermined by legislation such as 
this.
  Prominent genealogists have also raised serious questions about the 
tribal identity of the Lumbee.
  Paul Heinegg, award-winning genealogist and author, whose work is 
recognized by the American Society of Genealogists, has concluded that 
the Lumbee are ``an invented North Carolina Indian tribe.''
  Dr. Virginia DeMarce, former chair of the National Genealogical 
Society, has published her research on the history of the Lumbee, with 
findings that contradict H.R. 65, the bill we're debating today. Her 
research finds that many Lumbee families migrated to Robeson County, 
North Carolina, from other areas prior to 1,800.
  Her research has been corroborated by other notable genealogists who 
refer to other self-identified Lumbee families as residing in other 
areas prior to any colonial settlement in Robeson County.
  In fact, the name Lumbee is based, as the chairman mentioned earlier, 
on this group's proximity to the Lumbee River and is a modern creation 
that the group selected as its name in 1952. In fact, this Lumbee group 
has petitioned Congress numerous times under the names Cherokee, 
Siouan, Croatan and Cheraw, among others.
  I, along with members of the North Carolina delegation, in bipartisan 
fashion, have sponsored legislation in this Congress and sponsored 
legislation in the last Congress that would fix this problem. They 
could actually have the Lumbee go through the normal process.
  In fact, my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has authored legislation this 
time, which I'm a cosponsor of, that his predecessor sponsored as well, 
that would clear the way for the Lumbee to go through the normal 
process. I think we should accept that. In fact, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Walter 
Jones, as well as Mr. Shays and I offered the amendment that was ruled 
out of order by the Rules Committee. In fact, the Rules Committee would 
not let us offer that as an amendment here on the floor today. In fact, 
that's a responsible way to deal with the Lumbee issue.
  Federal recognition matters get caught up in emotion, and let's face 
it, politics. So, rather than going through this legislative body, I 
think we should go through the regulatory process for the longstanding 
government-to-government relationships the United States has 
established with tribes.
  We should take the politics out of Federal recognition and allow the 
experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs. I 
think that's a responsible way to deal with this issue.
  And I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill so we can 
deal with this in a responsible and reasonable manner, going through 
the longstanding process that we have established as a Congress.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Shuler), a very valued member of our Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. SHULER. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 65. I grew up in 
North Carolina near the Eastern Band Cherokee Indian reservation. I 
conducted youth camps on the Eastern Band Reservation for young men and 
women who attended the reservation schools.
  The Cherokee people have a distinct, living culture that makes them 
different from many other people in the world. I'm embarrassed to say 
that efforts were made right here on this floor to take their language 
and their culture away from them. Congress has arbitrarily voted on the 
identity of Indian tribes many times and have gotten it wrong. Today, 
it will again get it wrong.
  There is no historical tribe with the name Lumbee. That name wasn't 
used until 1952. Over the years, the Lumbee identified themselves as 
four different tribes, meanwhile they claim the Tuscarora people as 
part of their group, even though the Tuscarora angrily dispute this.
  There is no Lumbee language. There is no reservation. There is no 
record of any Lumbee being forced out by Andrew Jackson's troops with 
the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears. Yet, the Congress is being asked to 
recognize them as the third largest tribe in the U.S.

                              {time}  1600

  The Department of Interior testified that there are serious doubts 
about the identity of the Lumbee. The Congressional Budget Office says 
recognizing this group would cost nearly $1 billion. Shouldn't we try 
to get the facts straight before making such a commitment?
  The Bureau of Indian Affairs process requires that any petition group 
meet seven mandatory criteria in order to become Federally recognized. 
This process involves qualified experts in the field of genealogy, 
anthropology and Indian history. I strongly oppose any attempts to 
circumvent this established process by any group.
  My great friend, Mr. Mike McIntyre, has pointed out that the Lumbees 
are not allowed to go through the process. He is right. That's why I 
have introduced an amendment to this bill which would have allowed the 
Lumbee to go through the process. That amendment was rejected.
  Members of the Congress should not arbitrarily rule on the identity 
of a people without establishing the facts, and the best way to 
establish those facts is to let the system work and let the experts do 
their jobs. Reject this bill and protect the integrity of the process.

[[Page H6156]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, particularly 
since he supports the bill. I appreciate the courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't speak on this House floor often, and usually 
it's about things that I can be a little less passionate about. But I 
feel this passion because I think the House of Representatives is doing 
something it will deeply regret.
  What it's doing is it's bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
process in the name of fairness when there is nothing fair about what 
we are doing. My colleague stood up and said, may God grant us the 
courage and will to do the right thing. I would like to say the same 
thing, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing.
  The right thing sometimes is standing up to your constituents and 
saying you may be a large group of people, but there is a process. If I 
bypass the process, then I open up every congressional district to this 
same political effort.
  Now, there are things that are said that are misleading, I won't say 
untrue, but very misleading. It's true that there were 11 reports or 
investigations. The problem was, they were never able to pinpoint that 
there was an historic Indian tribe called the Lumbee or anything else. 
They were never able to determine that. Now, this group of Indians, not 
a tribe, but a group, have basically backed off making requests to go 
through the process.
  What they did, in 1956, was they came and requested one thing and one 
thing only, and we established that in the rules debate. What they 
requested was to have a name, because they didn't have a name. They 
don't have a reservation, they don't have a language, they don't have a 
name.
  So Congress gave them a name that they wanted. That's what Congress 
did. They said, we don't want anything else. There was nothing unfair 
about what Congress did. Congress did something that they haven't done 
for other tribes. They gave a name to a tribe that was requesting a 
name. Indian tribes don't need to have a name. They have a name, they 
have a history.
  Now, we set up the process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a 
reason, because we are creating a sovereign Nation. I just made 
reference to the fact that there was testimony from the Assistant 
Secretary of Indian Affairs, the United States Department of Interior, 
on April 18, and he basically said, please follow the process. You, 
Congress, established this process. Now, they didn't say this part. 
They just said, follow the process, and they pointed out that there are 
seven criteria.
  Now, if they follow the process and they don't meet the seven 
criteria, then they don't become a federally recognized tribe unless 
Congress then says, you know what, they met six of them, and we think 
the one they didn't meet would have been hard for them to determine.
  But the amendment that we offered, because this is not an open rule, 
it's not even a restricted rule, it's a closed rule, we can't have this 
debate. There's a reason why we don't want to have this debate, I 
guess, and that is that it's uncomfortable to have and deal with the 
facts. The facts are, no tribe, no reservation, no language, no name.
  But Congress, because there are 50,000 people involved, is going to 
pass legislation creating a tribe. What my colleague has said in the 
past is, well, we just did it a few weeks ago. What's the big deal? 
Well, the big deal is, under the Republicans, we didn't do this, 
because we knew this is a corrupting process.
  I would like to know why there aren't more Democrats who are speaking 
out against this because they oppose their tribes not going through the 
process. How are we going to say to the Schaghticokes, how are we going 
to say to the Eastern Pequots, how am I going to say to the Golden Hill 
Paugusetts, go through the process. But if you are fortunate and you 
have someone who is articulate about making an argument and has visited 
300 Members, and we all like, you know, that's what it takes.
  I know, I will say something I am not comfortable saying. I was 
asked, did the Republicans earn the right to regain Congress? I said, 
you know what? We didn't earn the right. I, frankly, thought that a new 
Congress would maybe be a cleansing process and we would get our act 
together. I just hope and pray that this new Congress does the right 
thing.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished 
member of our Committee on Natural Resources, the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  (Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of our 
committee and also the distinguished senior member, senior ranking 
member of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska, for their 
bipartisan support of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 65, the proposed 
legislation to federally recognize the Lumbee Indian tribe of North 
Carolina. I commend my good friends and colleagues from North Carolina, 
especially my good friend, Mr. McIntyre, for his perseverance, his 
leadership and his determination to provide this long-overdue Federal 
recognition to the Lumbee Tribe. This is a bipartisanship bill. This is 
not a Republican or a Democratic bill.
  Specifically, H.R. 65 extends Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe 
and specifies that tribal members will be eligible for Federal 
benefits. The bill expressly prohibits the Lumbee Tribe from conducting 
gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any Federal law. The 
bill also provides the State of North Carolina with jurisdiction over 
all civil and criminal matters on land owned by or held in trust for 
the Lumbee Tribe.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. The existence of the 
Lumbee Tribe as a distinct Indian community is beyond question. They 
are descended from the Cheraw and related tribes in North Carolina, and 
they have lived along the Lumber River since the first white settlers 
lived in the area. Even today, the tribal members live in a tightly 
knit community, mostly in Robeson County, North Carolina. Lumbees have 
been recognized by the State of North Carolina since 1885, and the 
tribe has been seeking Federal recognition for nearly 120 years.
  This legislation is necessary to remedy the inequity created by this 
very institution. The Congress of the United States of America passed a 
law in 1956 which federally recognized the Lumbee Tribe but at the same 
time prohibited the application of Federal programs available like it 
has done for other American Indian tribes. This act has been 
interpreted in the courts as conveying Federal recognition and 
termination of the tribe at the same time but has prevented the 
Department of Interior from providing Federal recognition to the Lumbee 
Tribe through the administrative process. As a result, the only 
recourse available for this tribe is to seek relief from the Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that the authority to 
deal with all matters affecting the welfare and needs of the first 
Americans or American Indians is expressly stated under provisions of 
clause 3, section 8, article 1 of the Constitution of the United 
States.
  I want to share with my colleagues some questions, perhaps, that may 
have been raised concerning the proposed legislation.
  ``Question: Is this the first time the Lumbee Tribe has sought 
Federal recognition?
  ``Answer: No. This tribe first sought Federal recognition through a 
petition submitted to Congress in 1899 and in 1956. Congress formally 
recognized the Lumbee Tribe. However, it effectively terminated its 
relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to 
the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition. Since 
that time, the tribe has had substantial interaction with the Congress. 
The tribe has also petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for 
recognition through its administrative process. The Bureau denied this 
petition, indicating that the tribe is not eligible for the process 
because of Congress' prior action.
  ``Question: Why is the tribe not going through the administrative 
process,'' as it was argued earlier by some of our colleagues?

[[Page H6157]]

  ``Answer: The administrative process is for those groups where it 
needs to be determined whether or not the group is an Indian tribe.''
  I submit to my colleagues, we have not done a very good job in 
dealing with the first Americans, and I sincerely hope that this 
proposed legislation will rectify the situation that this tribe has 
been seeking for over 100 years.
  I want to share this proposed bill, which will provide us with an 
opportunity to address this long-standing injustice that has been done 
to the Lumbee Indians. I support the Lumbee recognition bill because I 
believe it is consistent with our responsibility as Members of this 
great institution to give the members of the Lumbee Tribe their right 
to be recognized as truly an American Indian tribe.
  Let's correct this inequity that has existed now for over 100 years 
and as a tribute to the six Lumbee Indian soldiers who died recently in 
the war in Iraq, for which they made the ultimate sacrifice and have 
given their lives in defense of our Nation. After 100 years, these 
people have been tortured enough.
  I am reminded of the words echoed by a retired Marine general and 
former colleague from this body, the former gentleman from Guam, 
Congressman Ben Blaz, a good Republican and a very dear friend of mine. 
He said, also, this is a statement this gentleman made, his observation 
also of the unfair treatment of his people in some past history, and 
this is about sending all the tribes that we have here in America and I 
know are great warriors, because that's the inherent character of the 
first Americans. They are warriors.
  This is what Congressman Ben Blaz says. ``We are equal in war, but 
not in peace.''
  Give the Lumbee Indians what they deserve, recognition as they should 
get from this great institution.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield whatever time he may 
consume to Mr. Hayes from North Carolina.
  Mr. HAYES. I want to thank the distinguished chairman of the 
committee and distinguished ranking member. I want to particularly 
commend my friend and colleague, Mike McIntyre, for his tireless effort 
in outlining in great and accurate detail the essence of the issues 
being presented here today.
  I want to thank my friend, Eni, again, for his effort and accurate 
description of the situation that we find ourselves in.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 65, the Lumbee 
Recognition Act. Since I have been a Member of Congress, I have worked 
hard to see that the Lumbee Tribe receives full Federal recognition, 
and I am very pleased that the House is considering this bill on the 
floor today.
  As you know, I am a proud original cosponsor of H.R. 65, which was 
sponsored by my friend and colleague, Congressman Mike McIntyre. Mike 
has been a strong and tireless advocate of the Lumbee Tribe for years, 
and it has been an honor and a pleasure, as always, to work with him on 
this and other issues as well.
  I know Senator Dole and Senator Burr are working hard to garner 
support for the Lumbee Recognition Act in the Senate, and I appreciate 
their leadership on the issue as well. The Lumbee Indian tribe has an 
extensive history in North Carolina, ranging back to 1724 on Drowning 
Creek, which is now referred to as the Lumber River. The Lumbee Tribe 
has been recognized by the State of North Carolina since 1885. The 
Lumbee Tribe has over 55,000 members and is the largest tribe in the 
State of North Carolina and the largest nonrecognized tribe in America.

                              {time}  1615

  The Eighth District, which I serve, is home to many of the Lumbees 
who reside in North Carolina, primarily in Hoke, Scotland and 
Cumberland Counties. These important members of my constituency should 
be federally recognized so they are able to receive various Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and other Federal Government services and programs they 
rightly deserve.
  The heritage of the Lumbee tribe is as strong today as when first 
recognized by North Carolina. The tribe has every reason to be proud of 
the rich and valued cultural contribution they have given to our 
community. Today, the House is doing what the Federal Government should 
have done 51 years ago. We should pass this vital piece of legislation 
and give the Lumbee tribe the distinction of a federally recognized 
tribe. It's a very important step forward in the process, and I am 
hopeful that we will see the other body act favorably on this bill in 
the near future.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in strong support of the Lumbee 
Recognition Act.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield an additional 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre).
  Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Speaker, just in reference to some of the comments 
that have been made by those who are hindering the efforts to move 
forward with recognition of the tribe, let me answer those, because I 
think it's only in fairness that all of our colleagues who are 
listening to this debate understand this.
  Number one, there is an accusation of bypassing the process. This is 
not bypassing the process. There have been 11 investigations done, 
ordered through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
The tribe itself was ordered not to go any further with this process by 
the Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor General said 
to the Lumbees, because of the 1956 Lumbee Act, that specific act of 
Congress, you have got to specifically go back to Congress and get this 
situation corrected.
  Secondly, there's been some comments about the name of the Lumbees. 
The name was chosen by the tribe prior to ever coming to Congress. The 
name was ratified by the State of North Carolina, after other names had 
been imposed upon the tribe. The tribe chose its own name, and when it 
came to Congress, it was the Lumbee, and that name was acknowledged by 
virtue of the very title, the Lumbee Act of 1956. So we're not hear 
today debating the name.
  Third, in making any comment that the tribe is uncomfortable with 
going through the process and then there were comments about no 
reservation, no language. Well, those are not requirements, even under 
the BIA process. Those are not criteria. I mean, that's why the Lumbees 
have made such great contributions to our society. They have been fully 
integrated, as I outlined in my opening remarks. Medicine and law, 
banks and business, farms and factories, military, entertainment, 
athletic accomplishments, like the great Kelvin Samson, coach of the 
Indiana Hoosiers, who testified in a hearing about this.
  And then, fourth, again, the accusation was made, as it was during 
the Rules debate, that this would open up problems with other tribes. 
Well, no, my friends, it won't. And please hear this clearly to all 
those who are listening.
  This is dealing with a specific act, the Lumbee Act of 1956. That's 
why other tribes will not come in here and open the flood gates and 
demand that we do for them. The Lumbees are the only tribe in America 
in this situation created because of the 1956 act which the Solicitor 
General has told them to go back to Congress to correct.
  There were two other tribes in this situation, the Tiwas of Texas and 
the Pascua Yaqui of Arizona. They were in the same situation. They came 
back to Congress; Congress rectified it.
  So what does that mean? Quite simply, the only tribe in America in 
this situation are the Lumbee tribe. It is high time for us to let this 
discrimination and injustice end. They've waited 51 years. Today is our 
opportunity to correct the injustice and proceed with recognition.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to do a dialogue here.
  I'm quite sure that our good friend, the senior ranking member from 
Alaska, as well as our chairman, previously, this House has passed 
recognition of the Lumbee people, the Indians, I think twice already in 
the time when even former Congressman Charlie Rose was a Member of this 
great institution. And if I recall, I would like to ask the gentleman, 
it did pass the House of Representatives. But what happened afterwards? 
Twice. And then it was referred to the Senate. Maybe my colleagues, our 
colleagues need to know, to

[[Page H6158]]

find out what happened when it went to the Senate. Twice we've passed 
this legislation and when it was referred to the Senate, what happened?
  Mr. McINTYRE. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Absolutely, I yield.
  Mr. McINTYRE. Twice it passed the House, H.R. 334 on October 28, 
1993; prior to that, H.R. 1426 on September 26, 1991. No action was 
taken in the Senate at that time. Senator Jesse Helms decided to block 
any passage. Senator Dole, to her credit, when she was elected, the 
first bill Senator Dole dropped as a U.S. Senator was to recognize this 
tribe, because she realized this bill had been held up for those 32 
years over in the Senate, even though the U.S. House had passed it 
twice.
  So that is why this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Senator Dole's 
bill tracks the same language that we have here in the House. This is 
an effort we all recognize to correct an injustice that should have 
never happened.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to compliment Mr. 
McIntyre. He was very concise in his presentation about why we should 
act on this legislation.
  And Eni, I'm glad you brought up the fact that it has passed the 
House twice, died in the Senate. Congressman Rose came to me, and 
that's when I got interested in this legislation. And it's long 
overdue.
  Now, I know there will be a motion to recommit which I will not offer 
and will not support. But I want to remind people that motion is a 
motion to actually have them go through, the Lumbee, the process. And I 
heard much about the process.
  Now, I've been involved in this business now 34 years, and the 
process of recognition is at the will and the whim of a bureau that, in 
fact, supported, and the Solicitor General said, no, you have to go 
back to Congress, and, in fact, we will not recognize you. If you go 
through the process, just forget it.
  We've already gone through the process, in reality. In fact, we had a 
hearing a while back, including the assistant secretary of the BIA, and 
I asked him, when was the last time the process worked? When was the 
last tribe recognized through the process? And he stuttered and 
stammered, and I think he had one in the last 10 years. That's the 
process?
  And we've been waiting 51 years for this recognition, 51 years. The 
Congress did act, twice. The Congress set up the original act, and now 
we're being asked, through a motion to recommit, to use the process? 
And I'm saying, nonsense.
  Let's do what is right today. Let's recognize this tribe as they 
should. Let's make sure that, in fact, they can go forth.
  And those that oppose this, let's not kid yourself. It's not about 
policy. It's really about cutting the pie up. We have been told by a 
study, this is going to cost $400 million more. And then the other side 
says, no, it's to come out of the pot. This is not about the money 
because the money is in the formula. If we don't appropriate any more 
dollars, then it doesn't cost any more money. But if they're 
recognized, they do have a right to participate in those programs as 
they should, as a recognized tribe.
  And so I'm suggesting that this is long overdue. Again, 
congratulations to the chairman and to the Congressman who represents 
that district. And I hope he remembers that, when I have an issue on 
Alaska, that Members that represent the districts ought to be listened 
to. And I do respect that representation.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I will vote against H.R. 65, the Lumbee 
Recognition Act.
  This was a very difficult decision. I have only had to vote on a few 
issues that have caused me so much difficulty. One being my vote 
against the war in Iraq. The same difficulty is here today.
  Today's votes will decide the future for the Lumbee tribe.
  However, H.R. 65 determines the future of many more individuals, such 
as the entire Native American Community and our Nation as a whole.
  There is too much information arguing both for and against giving 
Federal recognition through the legislative process to this tribe.
  As a Hispanic, I understand what it is like to have to fight for 
equality.
  As an American, I treasure and understand the importance of 
sovereignty, of liberty, independence, autonomy and freedom.
  I believe that the best method to decide whether to develop a new 
sovereign relationship is to have the Lumbee directly apply to the BIA. 
The Lumbee tribe should apply for recognition via the administrative 
process and I support allowing this to occur.
  My vote today will follow that decision because of the many questions 
regarding their name, the criteria to be Lumbee, and their bloodline.
  I want the Lumbee tribe to know that I respect the individuals whose 
strength, courage and determination have allowed them to fight for 
their people and to continue the struggle.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 65, 
a bill which extends Federal recognition to the Lumbee tribe of North 
Carolina. This bipartisan legislation, which has more than 215 
cosponsors, including Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rahall and 
Ranking Member Young, corrects a 50-year injustice and gives long 
overdue Federal recognition to one of the oldest Indian tribes in the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, the Lumbee tribe has made repeated requests to Congress 
for recognition since 1888, and the voluminous record compiled by 
Congress shows that Federal recognition has been unfairly delayed. H.R. 
65 simply provides equal treatment to the Lumbee tribe by correcting a 
half-measure adopted by Congress in 1956 regarding the tribe. The 1956 
half-measure acknowledged the Lumbees as Indians but cut off the tribe 
from the Federal statutes that apply to federally recognized tribes. 
This injustice was done at the height of Indian Federal termination 
policy.
  Every other tribe subjected by Congress to such a half-measure has 
since been fully recognized by a special act of Congress. H.R. 65 would 
do the same thing for the Lumbee tribe. Thus, H.R. 65 is a long overdue 
act of justice that treats the Lumbee tribe just like every other tribe 
in its position.
  There is no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian 
tribe. The State of North Carolina has consistently recognized the 
tribe since 1885 under a series of State statutes using different names 
to refer to the tribe. In 1952, the tribe held a referendum to decide 
upon its own name under State law and adopted the name Lumbee, drawn 
from the name of river where the tribe was found at the time of first 
White contact in the 1730s. North Carolina amended its law to recognize 
the tribe under the name Lumbee in 1953, and the same bill was 
introduced in Congress to obtain Federal recognition under the same 
name. Before the Federal bill was enacted, though, Congress amended the 
bill to include termination language. As a result, Congress recognized 
and terminated the tribe at the same time in 1956. Because of the 1956 
half-measure, the Solicitor General has ruled that the Lumbee tribe is 
not eligible for the tribal recognition process administered by the 
Department of the Interior.
  Mr. Speaker, in any case, there is no need to study the tribe's 
history; the Department of the Interior has already done so 11 times in 
response to numerous bills to recognize the tribe and has always 
concluded that the Lumbees are Indian, descended principally from the 
aboriginal Cheraw tribe. And the Department's own records show that the 
modern-day Lumbees are the same Indians first recognized by the State 
of North Carolina in 1885.
  Congress itself put the Lumbee tribe in the Indian ``No Man's Land'' 
with the enactment of the 1956 half-measure. In the past, Congress has 
done this to two other tribes: the Tiwas of Texas and the Pascua Yaqui 
of Arizona. In both cases, Congress rectified the injustice by enacting 
special statutes extending full Federal recognition to the tribes. 
Congress should perform a similar act of simple justice for the Lumbee 
tribe by enacting H.R. 65.
  The recognition of an Indian tribe by the United States has always 
ultimately been congressional responsibility. Even though the 
Department of the Interior established an administrative process for 
recognition of tribes in 1978, over the past 30 years Congress has 
recognized nine tribes by special legislation where there were special 
circumstances. Insofar as the Lumbee tribe is concerned, the 1956 half-
measure represents a special circumstance. H.R. 65 is long-overdue 
legislative remedy for the injustice inflicted on the Lumbee tribe 50 
years ago by Congress.
  For these reasons, I support H.R. 65 and urge my colleagues to join 
me in voting for this remedial legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Snyder). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 465, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

[[Page H6159]]

  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit offered by Mr. McHenry

  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McHENRY. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. McHenry moves to recommit the bill H.R. 65 to the 
     Committee on Natural Resources with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House promptly with the following 
     amendment:
       At the end of the bill, add the following:

     SEC. 4. NO BAR TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECOGNITION.

       The Act of June 7, 1956 (70 Stat. 254), shall not be 
     construed to constitute a bar to the consideration by the 
     Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs of a 
     petition of any group of Indians described in sections 2(a) 
     and 2(b) of the Act of June 17, 1956 (70 Stat. 254), as 
     amended by this Act, for recognition as an Indian Tribe.

     SEC. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

       The amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the 
     date that the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian 
     Affairs approves the petition for Federal recognition as an 
     Indian tribe by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to 
     part 83 of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, submitted 
     by the Lumbee Regional Development Association on December 
     17, 1987, and subsequently supplemented.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and simple motion to 
recommit. This takes the emotion of politics out of the Federal 
recognition process and allows the experts at the Office of Federal 
Acknowledgment to do their jobs.
  This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is something very familiar to the 
chairman as well as all of the members of the Interior Committee. 
They've seen it before. It's very familiar to the members of the Rules 
Committee as well because they've seen it as well. It's the very same 
form and shape that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has filed, along with 
myself as a cosponsor, with me as a cosponsor I should say, and a 
number of our colleagues from North Carolina. It's a bipartisan bill as 
originally constructed.
  And what this motion to recommit does is allow us to have a vote on 
this issue here on the House floor. It's the very same text as the 
amendment, I said that Mr. Shuler offered, as well as Mr. Jones and Mr. 
Shays, that we offered through the Rules Committee, and it was not 
allowed by the majority party through the Rules Committee process. In 
fact, there was a partisan vote on that issue, eight Democrats voting 
``no,'' two Republicans voting ``yes,'' even though it was a bipartisan 
amendment to the bill.
  In simple terms, this motion will put the Lumbees in the front of the 
Federal recognition process, in the front of that line, and it removes 
the bar on the Lumbees and other groups described in the 1956 Lumbee 
Act from petitioning for recognition through the administrative 
process.
  It extends recognition to the Lumbees under the terms and 
restrictions of H.R. 65, this bill, only when the Secretary makes a 
final positive determination on the Lumbee petition. It's a very fair 
and balanced way to allow the Lumbees to be recognized as a tribe.
  The Lumbees oppose the motion because it does not allow them to 
circumvent the process. But it is fair to the other 561 federally 
recognized tribes, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee in western 
North Carolina; all of whom went through the proper rigors of the 
recognition process.
  Now, what is important about this is that we have a vote on it. My 
colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, originally wrote this bill 
that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has refiled again in this Congress.
  This bill is bipartisan, as I said. And this motion to recommit is 
the very same language of that bipartisan bill.
  Now, what was wonderful is that, over the last 10 years, Congressman 
Taylor, my friend and former colleague here in this body, was able to 
prevent this Lumbee recognition bill from being put forth and, in 
essence, made sure that the Lumbees went through the Federal process.
  It's unfortunate this bill has come to the floor today. It's even 
more unfortunate that this motion to recommit was not allowed as an 
amendment to this bill. And so what this bill does is allow it to go 
back to committee so that the committee can actually go through the 
normal process of marking up this bill and to hear from outside groups 
as well but ensures that we go through the normal process that my 
colleagues from North Carolina, many of my colleagues from North 
Carolina, on a bipartisan basis, seek.
  And I think, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that my colleagues 
vote for this motion to recommit because it is fair. It will be a 
bipartisan vote, I believe, and I'm very hopeful that it will be. And I 
think it's going to be the best thing for the Lumbees and the best 
thing for this process of Federal recognition of Native American 
tribes.
  And I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit because 
it's the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to do on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, during general debate, I addressed the issue 
that is the subject of this motion, as did the ranking member, Mr. 
Young; as did the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McIntyre). The 
administrative process is for those groups where it needs to be 
determined whether or not they are an Indian tribe. That is not the 
case here.

                              {time}  1630

  Congress passed the Lumbee Recognition Act in 1956, 51 years ago, but 
in recognizing the tribe, Congress also made them ineligible for 
Federal services that are normally accorded to recognized tribes. 
Indeed, the 1956 Act also barred the Lumbee Tribe from going through 
the Federal acknowledgment process. And let me note that this tribe 
first sought Federal recognition in 1899, 108 years ago. To now subject 
them to a process that may take 20 more years is simply an injustice.
  I urge rejection of this motion.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Just a little history, Mr. Speaker. There are 
561 total recognized tribes. We have recognized 16 of those through 
action of Congress, and 31 were recognized by the Department of the 
Interior.
  And about the motion to recommit saying go back and follow the 
process, in the last 10 years, and the fact is longer than 10 years, I 
think 15 years or longer than that, 1978 was the last one, the so-
called system worked and with a Bureau that, in fact, has suggested 
that they are not recognized. Well, what chance would the Lumbees ever 
have of being recognized? It wouldn't happen. So what this motion to 
recommit does is say, all right, we are just not recognizing them. It 
is really not a motion that says they have to follow the process.
  And we do have the authority. The Congress has the ultimate 
authority. Like I said, we have already done 16 these, and it says 
right here that the Supreme Court ruled in the United States v. 
Sandoval that the Congress cannot arbitrarily recognize a group of 
Indians as a tribe, but its powers are very broad. All Congress has to 
do is determine that, one, the group has ancestors who lived in what is 
now the USA by the time of European discovery and, two, the group be a 
``people distinct from others.'' And that is what the Lumbees are.
  So this is a motion to really stop the recognition, let's not kid 
ourselves, because they will never be recognized through the process.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alaska is entirely 
correct, and I associate myself with his comments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.

[[Page H6160]]

  Mr. McHENRY. 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 152, 
nays 237, not voting 43, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 446]

                               YEAS--152

     Akin
     Altmire
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hastert
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McNerney
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roskam
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Tanner
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--237

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hayes
     Heller
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Poe
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--43

     Baker
     Berman
     Blackburn
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Holden
     Hooley
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Kagen
     LaHood
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Rohrabacher
     Shadegg
     Smith (NJ)
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1700

  Messrs. ETHERIDGE, ROTHMAN, GRIJALVA, BISHOP of Utah, McCRERY, HELLER 
of Nevada, LYNCH, MARSHALL, McCOTTER, CARDOZA, POE and McDERMOTT, Ms. 
MOORE of Wisconsin and Mrs. MUSGRAVE changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. McCARTHY of California, TERRY, TIAHRT, SHUSTER, NEUGEBAUER 
and HASTERT changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 256, 
nays 128, not voting 48, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 447]

                               YEAS--256

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Bonner
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Cannon
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Delahunt
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Garrett (NJ)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hayes
     Heller
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Hunter
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder

[[Page H6161]]


     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     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 (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--128

     Akin
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blunt
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Camp (MI)
     Carter
     Castle
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Courtney
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dingell
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (NY)
     Hastert
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Paul
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shays
     Shuler
     Sires
     Smith (NE)
     Stearns
     Tanner
     Terry
     Tiahrt
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--48

     Baker
     Berman
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Calvert
     Campbell (CA)
     Cantor
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Doyle
     Eshoo
     Filner
     Fossella
     Gallegly
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Holden
     Hooley
     Issa
     Jefferson
     Kagen
     LaHood
     Lofgren, Zoe
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNulty
     Miller, Gary
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Ortiz
     Pickering
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Pryce (OH)
     Rohrabacher
     Shadegg
     Smith (NJ)
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Walden (OR)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1708

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Ms. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 447, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________