[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.
____________________