[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6016-H6022]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2176, BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY 
                         LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1298 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1298

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of certain 
     land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. In lieu of 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the bill, 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute 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 against provisions 
     of 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, with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Natural Resources and 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 2176 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from 
Washington, Representative Hastings.
  All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative 
days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 
1298.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1298 provides 
for consideration of H.R. 2176, a bill which provides for, and 
approves, the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian 
Community.
  In lieu of the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural 
Resources, the rule makes in order the substitute printed in the Rules 
Committee report. The Rules substitute consists of the text of H.R. 
2176 with that same language and the text of H.R. 4115 as reported by 
the Committee on Natural Resources. That bill provides for, and 
approves, the settlement of certain land claims of the Sault Sainte 
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
  This is a fair rule, and it gives the proponents and opponents of the 
two Michigan Indian land claims bills a straight up-or-down vote on the 
bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation seeks to settle a land claim 
agreement which was reached in 2002 by the then-Republican Governor of 
Michigan John Engler and the two tribes. The current Democratic 
Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has also approved the deal.
  Under these bills, both tribes have agreed to relinquish their claims 
to land in Charlotte Beach, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, in 
exchange for a parcel of land outside of Port Huron, Michigan. The 
agreement reached between the tribes and the State allows the tribes to 
conduct gaming on their new land.
  If approved by Congress and the President, this agreement secures the 
private ownership rights of the Charlotte Beach land in question and 
will help to restore the fair market value of the land. It will also 
provide the two tribes with an opportunity to help create jobs and 
economic opportunities in Port Huron while further providing for their 
membership.
  The underlying bill conforms with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 
and the land being given to the two tribes was selected by the State of 
Michigan as appropriate places for economic development.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is nothing new. Under the 
Constitution, only Congress--not the Department of the Interior or a 
Federal court--holds the power to settle Indian land title and claims. 
As such, Congress has taken similar action in at least 14 different 
instances in recent years when there have been disputed land claim 
settlements. Not once in those instances did Congress prohibit a tribe 
from conducting gaming on the tribal lands. We also never forced a 
tribe to jump through hoops to exercise its right to do what it wishes 
on its own land. I see no reason why we should start now.
  Mr. Speaker, I have little doubt that today's debate on this issue 
will be both spirited and intense. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the 
House will do the right thing and pass this rule and the underlying 
legislation.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
and namesake from Florida, the other Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, this bill deals specifically 
with Indian land claims settlements in Michigan and designating new 
tribal trust lands that will be used to open any new Indian casinos in 
two Michigan towns.
  The Michigan delegation is split in their support and opposition to 
this legislation, with the two Representatives whose districts will 
become home to the new casinos being strongly in favor of this 
proposal.
  Generally, Mr. Speaker, it has been my long-held view that when it 
comes

[[Page H6017]]

to matters that affect individual congressional districts that the 
House should give great consideration and deference to the views of the 
Representatives elected by the voters in those districts.
  However, I know many of my colleagues join me in having various 
serious concerns about our Nation's broken Indian gaming law, as well 
as the troubling issue of Indian tribes seeking to acquire new, prime 
locations to open casinos where no business or interest would be 
allowed to do so otherwise, and doing this without the ability of the 
local community to have a say in the expansion of gambling in their 
community.
  These aren't just matters affecting Michigan. They affect States 
across the Nation. Yet, this House is not being permitted to debate 
needed improvements to Federal Indian gaming law.
  This totally closed rule blocks every single Member of this House 
from coming to the floor and offering an amendment to this bill. The 
House is being severely restricted and is spending its time refereeing 
a parochial Michigan dispute instead of addressing the larger, more 
serious matters confronting other States.
  This violates the promises made by the liberal leaders of this House 
to the American people to operate in an open manner. This is not an 
open process, Mr. Speaker. It's a closed process. It's not open when 
debate is restricted only to Michigan when, in fact, there are very 
serious issues affecting many States all across this country.
  Congress created the ability of Indian tribes to get special 
treatment in opening casinos, and we've got a duty to police this 
process.
  The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is broken and needs 
improvement. The simple fact the House is spending several hours today 
debating this Michigan matter is evidence that the law is broken.
  If the House is going to spend time debating this subject, we should 
be fixing the larger problem. And if Congress is going to spend its 
precious time resolving a Michigan dispute, then we could use some real 
help in the State of Washington, my home State, where the citizens are 
seeing a dramatic expansion of Indian gaming, more casinos, bigger 
casinos, higher betting limits, with big profits being collected, and 
yet our State doesn't get one dime in revenue sharing.
  One of the reasons the proponents of this Michigan legislation, 
including the State's Governor, argue in favor of creating this new 
tribal land and two new casinos is because it will bring in millions of 
dollars in more revenue to the government of Michigan.
  Yet, in my home State of Washington, our State government gets 
nothing from Indian casinos that generate over $1.3 billion a year in 
revenue. In fact, there was a proposed revenue sharing of $140 million 
a year that the Governor of Washington State rejected without input 
from the citizens of the State or a vote of the State legislature. Some 
would say, well, your Governor made a terrible deal, and I would, of 
course, wholeheartedly agree. But there is something seriously wrong if 
a law allows giveaways of this magnitude to Indian casinos.
  But instead of allowing the House to discuss and consider amendment 
on the larger issues of revenue sharing, compact negotiations, and off-
reservation gaming, today's debate is restricted just to Michigan.
  Meanwhile, the liberal leaders of this House continue to refuse to 
let Representatives consider and vote on solutions to lower the price 
of gas in our country.
  Prices are skyrocketing. In Florida, the average price for a gallon 
of unleaded regular gasoline is $4.03. In Michigan, it's $4.07. In my 
State of Washington, it's $4.33. That's 31 cents higher than just a 
month ago and $1.20 higher than a year ago.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs to produce more American-made energy. 
We have the resources and technology to do it now. Now we just need to 
get the will of Congress here to allow it. For far too long, our 
Nation's reserves have been off limits. We can't afford these policies 
anymore, Mr. Speaker.
  America has abundant reserves in Alaska, in the West and offshore. 
Let's produce more oil and natural gas here in our country.
  But of course, this isn't the only answer. We need to invest in more 
nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, and other new energy sources. 
But all of this needs to happen in addition to tapping our own oil and 
gas reserves.
  Gas prices just keep going up and the liberal leaders of this 
Congress just can't say ``no'' to American-made energy anymore.
  Let the House debate proposals to generate more energy here in 
America. Stop blocking a House vote on tapping into America's oil and 
gas reserves while the price of gasoline climbs higher and higher.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so that the House can right away debate solutions to 
our higher gasoline prices.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my friend from 
Washington--I understand his passion and the need to stay on message 
about gas prices, but we're here talking about House Resolution 1298, 
which is the Bay Hills Indian Community, the land settlement matter 
with the State of Michigan, and a bill that came out of Natural 
Resources.
  My friend is insistent that we do something about oil. Well, when the 
Democrats on yesterday tried to pass price gouging, it was the 
Republicans that categorically rejected it. It's kind of hard to do 
something when people won't let you do nothing, particularly in the 
other body.
  I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my very good 
friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2176.
  I believe this bill will lead to an unprecedented expansion of off-
reservation Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian tribe 
that wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to 
build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.
  And let me show you, Mr. Speaker, what I'm talking about. We are 
looking at the two Indian reservations that have requested this special 
interest legislation. The land they are talking about is hardly an 
ancestral part of their reservation. It is 350 miles away from their 
ancestral lands where they already have a casino.
  As a Las Vegas Representative in Congress, I do not oppose gaming. I 
can attest to the positive impact that gaming can have on a community. 
I have no problem with other communities trying to replicate the Las 
Vegas experience, and I support the right of tribes to participate in 
gaming on their reservations, as both of these tribes already do.
  But the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, using a bogus land claim, a bogus land 
claim that has already been tossed out of State court and Federal 
court, and the result if this bill passes will be two new off-
reservation casinos more than 350 miles from the lands of these two 
tribes.
  Now, why are they coming to Congress? Because they have lost in State 
court. They have lost in Federal court. They do not comply with the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. So what do you do if you want a casino 
350 miles away from your reservation? You find a friendly Congressman 
to introduce special interest legislation in Congress.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. BERKLEY. How do we know this land claim is bogus? In his 
testimony before Congress in 2002, the chairman of the Sault Saint 
Marie Tribe called this land deal ``shady,'' ``suspicious'' and ``a 
scam,'' until his tribe partnered up with the shady, suspicious land 
deal, and all of a sudden switched his position.
  But more than 60 tribes across this country have announced their 
opposition to H.R. 2176, in which Congress for the first time would 
allow a tribe to expand its reservation into the ancestral lands of 
another tribe for the express purpose of gaming.
  This bill is opposed by the Department of the Interior, the NAACP, 
UNITE HERE, and a unanimous House Judiciary Committee. To sum up the 
issue: Congress is being asked to pass special interest legislation 
benefiting two tribes, each of which already has

[[Page H6018]]

gaming, based on a suspect land claim that has already been thrown out 
of court, so they can open casinos hundreds of miles from their 
ancestral lands, in direct competition with existing facilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today with Chairman Conyers and 
Congresswoman Kilpatrick to share my opposition to H.R. 2176. I believe 
this bill will result in an unprecedented expansion of off-reservation 
Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian tribe that wants to 
circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to build a casino 
outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.
  As Las Vegas's representative in Congress, I do not oppose gaming. I 
can attest to the positive impact that gaming can have on a community. 
I have no problem with other communities trying to replicate the Las 
Vegas experience, and I support the right of tribes to participate in 
gaming on their reservations, as both of these tribes already do. But 
the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act using a bogus land claim that has already 
been tossed out of both Federal and State court, and the result if the 
bill passes will be two new off-reservation casinos more than 350 miles 
from the lands of these two tribes. And beyond that, if this bill 
becomes law, any one of the more than 500 recognized Native American 
tribes can argue that they have the right to sue private landowners in 
an attempt to bargain for gaming somewhere else.
  How do we know the land claim is bogus? In his testimony before 
Congress in 2002, the chairman of the Soo Saint Marie tribe called it 
``shady,'' ``suspicious,'' and ``a scam.'' Soon thereafter, his tribe 
became a party to the deal and switched its position. But more than 60 
tribes across the Nation have announced their opposition to H.R. 2176, 
in which Congress for the first time would allow a tribe to expand its 
reservation into the ancestral lands of another tribe for the express 
purpose of gaming.
  This bill is also opposed by the Department of the Interior; the 
NAACP; UNITE HERE; and a unanimous House Judiciary Committee. To sum up 
the issue: Congress is being asked to pass special interest legislation 
benefiting two tribes, each of which already has gaming, based on a 
suspect land claim that has already been thrown out of State and 
Federal court, so they can open casinos hundreds of miles from their 
ancestral lands, in direct competition with existing facilities that 
have helped revitalize a major American city.
  If this bill is brought to the floor, I will strongly urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I certainly appreciate the gentleman 
yielding time to me.
  This rule allows us to proceed, and I wish to speak in strong support 
of the underlying bill, and I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2176, 
which is sponsored by Mr. Bart Stupak of Michigan and cosponsored by 
myself and also the companion bill, H.R. 4115, sponsored by Mr. 
Dingell, because these bills impact only three congressional districts 
in this House, only three, period. And those districts are Mr. Stupak's 
and my district and Mr. Dingell's.
  These bills are offered in the spirit of bipartisanship, and they are 
offered to settle a land claim that has existed in our State of 
Michigan, actually, for well over 100 years, about 150 years, when the 
State literally stole land from the Indians.
  And after the Indians spent decades seeking justice, the land claim 
settlement was negotiated by former Governor John Engler, and here is 
what he had to say about it, Mr. Speaker.
  He said: ``As Governor of Michigan, it was my duty to negotiate the 
land settlement agreements between the State of Michigan and Bay Mills 
and the Sault Tribe in 2002 . . . In December of 2002, I signed the 
agreement with the Sault Tribe. I am proud that every concerned party 
involved in this settlement supports this agreement. This is a true 
example of a State and the Tribes promoting cooperation rather than 
conflict.''
  I think it is important to note that these bills are supported by 
every elected official who represents the City of Port Huron, including 
the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, both United States Senators, 
myself, the State senator there, the State representatives, all of the 
county commissioners, the entire city council, and most importantly, 
the citizens themselves who voted ``yes'' on a city-wide referendum.
  It is supported by civic groups. It is supported by educational 
leaders, by labor leaders like the UAW, by every law enforcement 
officer in the county, including the county sheriff, the county 
prosecutor, and the police chiefs.
  It is about fairness and opportunity for one of the most economically 
distressed areas in the Nation, where the current unemployment rate, by 
best estimates, is somewhere between 14 to 16 percent.
  And it has been very unfortunate, in my opinion, that the opponents 
have been so untruthful about their opposition to these bills.
  For instance, they say that it is precedent setting, and yet the 
truth is in this bill. In section 3(b), the bill states the following: 
``The provisions contained in the Settlement of Land Claim are unique 
and shall not be considered precedent for any future agreement between 
any tribe and State.''
  The opponents also say that it allows for off-reservation gaming. Yet 
the truth is in section 2(a)(2) of the bill. It states: ``The 
alternative lands shall become part of the Community's reservation 
immediately upon attaining trust status.''
  And they also say it violates a 2004 Michigan referendum.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional 
minute.
  Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The truth is that it actually, the referendum--and as a former 
Secretary of State, I understand what ballot language actually says--it 
says, ``Specify that voter approval requirement does not apply to 
Indian Tribal gaming.''
  So clearly, most of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to these bills comes 
from those who already have theirs, and they don't want anybody else to 
have it.

                              {time}  1100

  They don't want competition. And I think that is un-American. This 
bill is about fairness and opportunity for an area that desperately 
needs it. It is about justice.
  The city of Port Huron is home to the Blue Water Bridge, which is the 
second busiest commercial artery on the Northern Tier. It is the only 
international crossing where there is a gaming facility on the Canadian 
side and there is not one on the U.S. side. And if you were a very good 
golfer--maybe not me, but a good golfer--you could hit a golf ball and 
hit that Canadian casino facility right now where 80 percent of the 
revenues comes from America. Those are U.S. dollars and U.S. jobs that 
are being sent right across the river.
  I urge my colleagues to be fair.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Alcee Hastings, I salute you for bringing this bill 
to the floor from the Rules Committee. I support the rule, without 
qualification.
  Ladies and gentlemen, why do so many people approve this bill if it 
has so many problems? Well, because it's a bit like a wolf in sheep's 
clothing; you don't know what's underneath it. And so reciting all of 
these folks--starting with the Governor of my State--don't know what's 
underneath this bill. When H.L. Mencken says it's not about the money, 
you can bet it's about the money. And when I hear my colleagues say--
and I'm going to count the times that it will happen today--``It's not 
about casinos. This is not about casinos, folks.''
  Oh, no, that's what it's about. Okay?
  Let's start off with something that we should try to get clear. The 
assertion that this is about getting justice for two tribes who have 
waited for all these many years to get justice and we finally were able 
to get it to the Congress. How charming. How disingenuous.
  This so-called land claim--and we spent a good amount of time on it--
to the extent there really was ever a land claim, arose in the 19th 
century. It didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the tribe's 
historical lands or any treaty with the U.S. Government. The Charlotte 
Beach land in question apparently was a private gift to the tribe--and 
in those days it was one tribe--by individual members of the

[[Page H6019]]

tribe who had brought it. And rather than deed the land directly over 
to the tribe, the members evidently deeded it over to the Governor of 
Michigan--neither of the two that have been mentioned--to hold in trust 
for the tribe. That was back in the 1850s. It's not clear if the 
previous owner tribal members or anyone else ever told the tribe or the 
Governor about the gift. In any event, the lands were totally neglected 
by the tribe. About 30 years later, they were sold off by the State for 
a long-standing property tax delinquency.
  The so-called land claim lay moribund and forgotten for 100 years, as 
best we can tell. And in 1982 one of these tribes, the Sault, asked the 
Interior Department to review and pursue a claim for the loss of the 
Charlotte Beach land. The Interior Department declined, saying the case 
had no merit. They renewed the request in 1983 and in 1992, getting the 
same answer each time. The Interior closed the files on the matter, and 
that was the end of it.
  Then one day an enterprising lawyer, a member of the bar doing land 
research, looking for an Indian land claim he could help engineer and 
do the authorization to build a new casino outside the established 
legal process, came across a record of the delinquency sale.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Michigan has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield my colleague an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank my colleague.
  By that time, the tribe had divided.
  There were two possible candidates for reasserting the claim. The 
first tribe he contacted, the Sioux, was not interested. But the other 
one, Bay Mills, was very interested. And so this wonderful lawyer began 
preparing a case to file based on the delinquency sale he had uncovered 
and its connection to the tribe he had interest in.
  A bare week before the lawsuit was filed, another enterprising 
gentleman purchased some land within the Charlotte Beach claim area. 
Coincidental. And within a few months, he had entered into a so-called 
settlement with the tribe regarding the so-called land claim in which 
he agreed to give the tribe a parcel of land he already owned near 
Detroit.
  Now, all the other off-reservation casinos are 10 miles away, 20 
miles away, not 350 miles away.
  He also agreed to sell the tribe some additional land adjacent to the 
parcel. Enough land for a new casino--and not too far from Detroit.
  But the settlement was conditioned on the Interior Department taking 
the land into trust, a necessary step to its being eligible for an 
Indian casino.
  That part didn't work out like they'd planned, so that settlement was 
eventually scrapped in favor of Plan B, back to the courts in an 
attempt to get a favorable court ruling to take to Interior.
  As we know, Plan B also failed. So then came Plan C, which brings us 
here today.
  But the three plans are not that different. They all share the same 
objective. The difference is just means to an end. Apparently, any 
means.
  And who was backing Mr. Golden? The details are still somewhat 
shrouded in mystery.
  But we do know that the principal stakeholders in this off-
reservation Indian casino venture are Michael Malik and Marian Illich, 
wealthy casino developers from the State of Michigan, who have opened 
casinos from coast to coast and in Hawaii, bankrolling legislation and 
referenda as needed to open the way.
  And they have also been quite active politically in Washington in 
recent years as well. I won't go into the details of that now, but I 
think you get the idea.
  Many of the facts I have just recited are in the public record. The 
essence of the rest were laid out in testimony by one of the two 
tribes, the Sioux Tribe, the tribe that initially wouldn't take the 
bait, back before they were persuaded to go after their own short-cut 
to getting an off-reservation casino.
  That statement can be found in the printed hearing of the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs, held on October 10, 2002, on the bill S. 
2986, a precursor bill to the one we are considering today.
  That was 5 long years ago, of course. And the chairman, or chief, of 
that tribe at the time, Bernard Bouschor, who gave that testimony, who 
had held that elected position for 17 years at the time he testified, 
no longer holds that position.
  And his tribe, who now stands to gain an off-reservation casino that 
could take in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is now busy doing 
what they can to disown his testimony.
  But if my colleagues find Chief Bouschor's testimony credible, as I 
do, it certainly lays out the course of events in a way that some were 
quite likely not aware of before. And any assertion that this is a 
legitimate Indian land claim just won't stand up to those facts.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL of California. I thank my colleague and friend from 
Washington for yielding.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, the original intent of why we allow gambling 
on Indian reservations was so that we could give some economic 
opportunity to full-blooded Indians on their native tribal lands in 
very remote areas in which hardly any economic opportunity existed.
  So what do we have now? Now we see various Indian tribes that have 
already achieved tremendous economic benefits that are now wanting to 
put casinos in urban and suburban areas that are long distances from 
their native tribal lands and where there is a lot of economic 
opportunity, and to fill those, not even helping any of the people in 
their tribe who are back on the reservation.
  With a bill like this, we have strayed a long ways from the original 
intent of Indian gambling. Now, this bill is about two tribes 
specifically in Michigan. I am from California, but yet this trend, 
this movement, is not limited to just Michigan. Throughout the country, 
you see groups either trying to create new tribes in urban areas in 
order to locate gambling operations or, like these in Michigan, to 
extend from a remote area and set up new gambling in a new metropolitan 
area. All of this has nothing to do with the original intent of the 
Indian gambling laws.
  If communities like Detroit, or anywhere, wish to have gambling, they 
don't need this House; they don't need this Congress; they don't need 
the Indian gambling laws to do it. Through their State and local 
communities, they can allow people to gamble. They can set up various 
gambling operations, if they want, within their community and within 
their State. That's up to them. But let us not all here in this House, 
in this Congress, set a trend. Let's not set a precedent. Let's not use 
Indian tribes in order to dot the urban and suburban areas of this 
country with monopoly gambling operations.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, my good friend, John 
Dingell, the gentleman from Michigan.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, before us is a very simple responsibility. 
It is a power that has been exercised exclusively by Congress since the 
very first Congress in 1789, when in the Indian Nonintercourse Act of 
that year, only Congress may extinguish Indian land claims. That has 
been the law ever since.
  So before us is simply the question of whether we're going to accept 
or deny a settlement agreed upon by the tribes and by the State of 
Michigan to resolve a serious problem in the Upper Peninsula, in the 
district of our good friend and colleague, Mr. Stupak.
  Having said that, what is going to happen is this legislation will 
permit us to resolve those questions, to enable Indians to resolve the 
land claims concerns that they have, and to allow the State of Michigan 
to resolve its concerns and to allow its citizens to remove clouds over 
the title on the lands which they own up there, and which will enable 
the Indians to begin to live a more orderly and proper life.
  This legislation was opposed by my friend, Mr. Jack Abramoff, who 
left a rather spectacular and smelly legacy. And it is a chance for us 
now to undo some of the nastiness that he sought to do by preventing 
the resolution of these questions.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule. I urge my colleagues to 
support the settlement of these rights which were agreed upon between 
two Governors of the State of Michigan--Governor Engler, a Republican, 
and Governor Granholm, a Democrat.
  And this legislation is not only supported by the affected tribes and 
citizens of the Upper Peninsula but also by the AFL-CIO and the UAW and 
a wide roster of other unions that are strongly supportive of this.

[[Page H6020]]

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
  Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity--and to my 
colleagues, in a bipartisan effort--to make sure we can maintain 
restrictions on off-reservation casinos and gambling.
  I want to point out five key areas, Mr. Speaker, that, I think, are 
part of the argument.
  First and foremost, I do support tribal gaming. I think it's been 
very successful. As a matter of fact, a number of our properties from 
Nevada are partners across the country with tribal gaming 
establishments. So, when the rules are followed, I think it's a very 
appropriate approach to revenues for the communities.
  But first of all, Mr. Speaker, the bill authorizes an unprecedented 
expansion of off-reservation gaming. Never before has the U.S. Congress 
been in the business of deciding whether a community should and can 
have a casino. I don't think it's the job of the U.S. Congress to make 
decisions for local and State governments. Does that mean someone from 
Iowa or from Illinois or from Arizona could come in and request to have 
a casino in their back yard? I don't think that was the intent of the 
Tribal Gaming Act. And this is a dangerous precedent. It permits 
unlimited expansion across this country.
  Number two, it overrides a careful review process. Currently, Mr. 
Speaker, if a tribe wants to build a casino, there is a process in 
place. All the rules must be followed; all inspections must be done. I 
think that's an appropriate use of the process that's available 
currently under U.S. law.
  Number three, it also violates the 1993 Tribal Compact by the 
Michigan tribes. I know there are arguments on both sides of that, but 
there was an agreement made in 1993.
  Number four, as a Member of Congress from the great State of Nevada, 
one of my jobs is to make sure we can uphold the wishes of a particular 
State. This legislation overrides the wishes of Michigan people. In 
2004, there was a referendum that limited gaming to specific areas that 
were approved by local and State governments. This has not happened in 
this case.
  Number five, I know my colleague from Nevada, Congresswoman Shelley 
Berkley, talked about the validity of the land claims. There is a 
question.
  But the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is, should Members of Congress be 
making a decision for local communities and for State governments on 
whether there should be tribal gaming or whether there should be 
expansion? I stand here today in a bipartisan effort with my colleagues 
from across the aisle, asking for the balance of this Congress to vote 
``no.'' It establishes a dangerous precedent expanding casinos across 
our country without following the proper rules and regulations.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
be here, and I appreciate the bipartisan spirit in which this debate is 
conducted and why this is just a bad idea.
  Many of us come to this microphone, to this well, through our 
conclusions from a whole variety of backgrounds and interests. I think 
back, not all that long ago, when I had a good friend in town, and we 
had a great philosophical debate about organized gambling coming to his 
town. And he was all for it. He had been, I think, the third generation 
of a great restaurant in that town. It was very well known, well known 
all over the State, and he said it would boost his business. Well, 
about 2 years after that casino landed in that town, he closed his 
doors. I think it was in his family for decades. It broke his heart. 
There was trembling in his voice when we had a conversation over the 
phone. Because, when organized gambling comes to your town, there are 
very few who will make a whole bunch, and there are a whole bunch who 
will lose a lot.
  And it is not the economic tool that people profess. Study after 
study after study clearly shows there is more net loss, that there is 
more cannibalization of small businesses around these organized 
gambling casinos than there is success and benefit that happens inside.
  Certainly, the local governments that house them love it; it means 
cash to them. That's great. But at what price? And we really need to 
stop ourselves and ask, at what price?

                              {time}  1115

  We already have more casinos in Michigan than we have public 
universities. And this isn't about fairness for this tribe. This tribe 
has seven casinos already, $400 million in revenue. And what they are 
asking to do is something unprecedented. The Federal court ruled 
against them. The State court ruled against them. But they said let's 
go around all of those things, including a 2004 referendum by the State 
of Michigan that said enough is enough, we're going to cap it right 
here at what we have. They went around all of those things, and it's 
like putting a casino from a tribe in Washington, DC in Cleveland and 
saying, ``This is part of our heritage, you need to help us.'' That's 
not what this is. This is about organized gambling and putting it in a 
place where they think they can make more than the $400 million in 
revenue they are already making.
  I just plead with this House and this Congress don't set this 
precedent. And I don't care if they say it in the bill or not, it is a 
precedent. And every community in America will wake up one day and say 
we can do this too. We can come to Congress. We can show up and go 
around our States and our legislatures and our people and the courts, 
and we'll go to Congress too and get special treatment to have an 
organized gambling casino in a neighborhood near you.
  A lot of people speak for both sides of this issue, but very few will 
speak for the folks who will lose everything when these casinos come to 
town.
  I plead with this House not to do this. It's not the right thing to 
do. We know it's not the right thing to do. I encourage all of us to 
vote ``no'' on the rule and vote ``no'' on the subsequent legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, after I made my opening remarks, my friend from Florida 
stood up and said that I was on message, and I thank him very, very 
much for the compliment because I was talking about something that the 
American people clearly, clearly are concerned about, and that is the 
high energy costs and particularly the high prices of gasoline. So I 
think, Mr. Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for 
lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing price 
of gasoline.
  By defeating the previous question, the House will have that 
opportunity. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend 
the rule, not rewrite the rule, just amend the rule, to make in order 
and allow the House to consider H.R. 5656, introduced by Representative 
Hensarling of Texas.
  If this House has time to spend several hours debating Indian land 
claims and new casinos in Michigan, then it certainly has time to 
debate the high price of gasoline. It's time we start producing more 
American-made energy. Our country can't afford the knee-jerk, no-to-
any-drilling-in-America approach that the liberal leaders of this House 
still cling to. The citizens of our country can't afford a Congress 
that does nothing. It's time for this House to act, and defeating the 
previous question will allow us to do so.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the 
amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the 
vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, then, 
to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about 
rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made gasoline 
and energy.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  I am forever amazed, Mr. Speaker, at my colleagues' way of going 
about trying to assert something into measures

[[Page H6021]]

that we are dealing with, that, when all is said and done, don't have 
anything to do with the measure that we're dealing with.
  I agree with my colleague that we have a serious crisis in this 
country having to do with energy policy. But I also would urge him to 
understand that the President's energy policies have failed this 
country and that when he and his party were in the majority and had an 
opportunity to do all the things they are talking about, that many of 
them were not done.
  The fact is there are 68 million acres offshore and in the United 
States that are leased by oil companies. They are open to drilling and 
are actually under lease but are not developed. The fact is that if oil 
companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could 
generate additional oil, six times what ANWR would produce at its peak. 
The fact is 80 percent of the oil available in the Outer Continental 
Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil 
companies haven't decided it's worth their time to drill there. And, 
when they are saying it's not worth their time, they are saying they 
don't have the equipment to do it. The fact is that drilling in the 
Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for a considerable period 
of time in the future, probably as many as 8 to 10 years, and then 
would only save the consumer less than 2 cents per gallon in 2025.
  All of us know all the things to say here. We know to say 
``switchgrass'' and ``shale'' and ``geothermal'' and ``solar,'' and we 
could go on and on and on with the number of potentials for alternative 
energy. But yesterday, when we tried to do something about price 
gouging, it was the minority party that defeated the measure, that was 
on the floor of the House, under suspension.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the bill. I support gaming in this country. 
I support the MGMs and the Harrah'ses of the world and their right to 
run a casino wherever legally they may be permitted to do so. I support 
the Seminole Indians and the Miccosukee Tribes in Florida that I am 
proud to represent. And I support and have supported continuously their 
right to run a casino. I also support Jai Lai in my community and their 
right to run a casino. I also support casinos in my community and their 
right to run a casino, just like I support these two tribes in Michigan 
as well. I also support competition and economic development and the 
job creation it can spur. And I take full exception to my colleague 
from Lansing, who is a dear friend of mine on the other side who spoke 
earlier. I can attest to job creation in the Seminole and Miccosukee 
Indian Tribe areas that were told that there would be no jobs created, 
and literally thousands of people, mostly not Native Americans, are 
working in those establishments.
  Finally, I support all of us in this body coming to terms with what 
happened to Native Americans, Africans, and people of Caribbean descent 
and others after Columbus discovered America in 1492. I'm always 
reminded of Flip Wilson's comedy routine that he did that, if Columbus 
discovered America, then the Native Americans must have been running 
down the shoreline, saying, ``Discover me.''
  So, before Members of this body start talking about Indian tribes 
unfairly swapping pieces of land, they should remember that the land 
wasn't ours in the first place. We took it from the tribes and then 
often relocated them to some far-off, remote, and undesirable place 
that we could find for them to be placed.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an ideal situation for any of us in this 
body. We all wish that a unanimous agreement would have materialized in 
Michigan. Yet, despite a land claims compact being reached by the State 
and the tribes, a Republican and Democratic governor, some just don't 
want this agreement to go through, and that is their prerogative. Thus, 
as it has done at least 14 times in the recent past, Congress must do 
what is right and settle this dispute. When an injustice has been done 
and there are efforts to perpetuate that injustice, something must be 
done. Someone must step in and stop it from happening again.
  I urge my colleagues to do just that and to support the previous 
question, the rule, and the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is 
as follows:

    Amendment to H. Res. 1298 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     the House shall, without intervention of any point of order, 
     consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a 
     requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition 
     of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill 
     are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government 
     Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if 
     offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered 
     as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
                                  ____

       (The information contained herein was provided by 
     Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the 
     lO9th Congress.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my 
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.

[[Page H6022]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________