Congressional Record, Volume 154 Issue 106 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 25, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H6045-H6058]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY LAND CLAIMS SETTLEMENT

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1298, I call up
the bill (H.R. 2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of
certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 2176

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

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands''
means those lands identified as alternative lands in the
Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N,
R2E, Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Bay Mills
Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of
Land Claim'' means the agreement between the Community and
the Governor of the State of Michigan executed on August 23,
2002, and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the
State of Michigan.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 2. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF
CLAIMS.

(a) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--Upon the date of
enactment of this Act--
(1) the Secretary shall take the alternative lands into
trust for the benefit of the Community within 30 days of
receiving a title insurance policy for the alternative lands
which shows that the alternative lands are not subject to
mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options to purchase, or
other security interests; and
(2) the alternative lands shall become part of the
Community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust
status.
(b) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into
trust as provided in this section as part of the settlement
and extinguishment of the Community's Charlotte Beach land
claims, and so shall be deemed lands obtained in settlement
of a land claim within the meaning of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719; Public
Law 100-497).
(c) Extinguishment of Claims.--Upon the date of enactment
of this Act, any and all claims by the Community to the
Charlotte Beach lands or against the United States, the State
of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the Governor of the
State of Michigan, or any other person or entity by the
Community based on or relating to claims to the Charlotte
Beach lands (including without limitation, claims for
trespass damages, use, or occupancy), whether based on
aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby extinguished. The
extinguishment of these claims is in consideration for the
benefits to the Community under this Act.

SEC. 3. EFFECTUATION AND RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.

(a) Ratification.--The United States approves and ratifies
the Settlement of Land Claim, except that the last sentence
in section 10 of the Settlement of Land Claim is hereby
deleted.
(b) Not Precedent.--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.
(c) Enforcement.--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be
enforceable by either the Community or the Governor according
to its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement
action is vested in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Michigan.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). Pursuant to House Resolution
1298, in lieu of the amendment recommended by the Committee on Natural
Resources, printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute printed in House Report 110-732 is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

TITLE I--BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this title, the following definitions
apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands''
means those lands identified as alternative lands in the
Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N,
R2E, Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Community.--The term ``Community'' means the Bay Mills
Indian Community, a federally recognized Indian tribe.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of
Land Claim'' means the agreement between the Community and
the Governor of the State of Michigan executed on August 23,
2002, and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the
State of Michigan, including the document titled ``Addendum
to Settlement of Land Claim'', executed by the parties on
November 13, 2007.
(5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.

SEC. 102. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT
OF CLAIMS.

(a) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--
(1) Land into trust.--The Secretary shall take the
alternative lands into trust for the benefit of the Community
not later than 30 days after both of the following have
occurred:
(A) The Secretary has received a title insurance policy for
the alternative lands that shows that the alternative lands
are not subject to mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options
to purchase, or other security interests.
(B) The Secretary has confirmed that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with
regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
(2) Part of reservation.--The alternative lands shall
become part of the Community's reservation immediately upon
attaining trust status.
(b) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into
trust as provided in this section as part of the settlement
and extinguishment of the Community's Charlotte Beach land
claims, and so shall be deemed lands obtained in settlement
of a land claim within the meaning of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719; Public
Law 100-497).
(c) Extinguishment of Claims.--Concurrent with the
Secretary taking the alternative lands into trust under
subsection (a), any and all claims by the Community to the
Charlotte Beach lands or against the United States, the State
of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the Governor of the
State of Michigan, or any other person or entity by the
Community based on or relating to claims to the Charlotte
Beach lands (including without limitation, claims for
trespass damages, use, or occupancy), whether based on
aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby extinguished. The
extinguishment of these claims is in consideration for the
benefits to the Community under this Act.

SEC. 103. EFFECTUATION AND RATIFICATION OF AGREEMENT.

TITLE II--SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS

SEC. 201. ACCEPTANCE OF ALTERNATIVE LANDS AND EXTINGUISHMENT
OF CLAIMS.

(a) Definitions.--For the purposes of this title, the
following definitions apply:
(1) Alternative lands.--The term ``alternative lands''
means those lands identified as alternative lands in the
Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Charlotte beach lands.--The term ``Charlotte Beach
lands'' means those lands in the Charlotte Beach area of
Michigan and described as follows: Government Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of Section 7, T45N, R2E, and Lot 1 of Section 18, T45N,
R2E, Chippewa County, State of Michigan.
(3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
(4) Settlement of land claim.--The term ``Settlement of
Land Claim'' means the agreement between the Tribe and the
Governor of the State of Michigan executed on December 30,
2002, and filed with the Office of Secretary of State of the
State of Michigan, including the document titled ``Addendum
to

[[Page H6046]]

Settlement of Land Claim'', executed by the parties on
November 14, 2007.
(5) Tribe.--The term ``Tribe'' means the Sault Ste. Marie
Tribe of Chippewa Indians, a federally recognized Indian
tribe.
(b) Land Into Trust; Part of Reservation.--
(1) Land into trust.--The Secretary shall take the
alternative lands into trust for the benefit of the Tribe not
later than 30 days after both of the following have occurred:
(A) The Secretary has received a title insurance policy for
the alternative lands that shows that the alternative lands
are not subject to mortgages, liens, deeds of trust, options
to purchase, or other security interests.
(B) The Secretary has confirmed that the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has been complied with
regarding the trust acquisition of the property.
(2) Part of reservation.--The alternative lands shall
become part of the Tribe's reservation immediately upon
attaining trust status.
(c) Gaming.--The alternative lands shall be taken into
trust as provided in this section as part of the settlement
and extinguishment of the Tribe's Charlotte Beach land
claims, and so shall be deemed lands obtained in settlement
of a land claim within the meaning of section 20(b)(1)(B)(i)
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.
2719(b)(1)(B)(i)).
(d) Extinguishment of Claims.--In consideration for the
benefits to the Tribe under this Act, any and all claims by
the Tribe to the Charlotte Beach lands or against the United
States, the State of Michigan or any subdivision thereof, the
Governor of the State of Michigan, or any other person or
entity by the Tribe based on or relating to claims to the
Charlotte Beach lands (including without limitation, claims
for trespass damages, use, or occupancy), whether based on
aboriginal or recognized title, are extinguished upon
completion of the following:
(1) The Secretary having taken the alternative lands into
trust for the benefit of the Tribe under subsection (b).
(2) Congressional acceptance of the extinguishment of any
and all such claims to the Charlotte Beach lands by the Bay
Mills Indian Community.
(e) Effectuation and Ratification of Agreement.--
(1) Ratification.--The United States approves and ratifies
the Settlement of Land Claim.
(2) Not precedent.--The provisions contained in the
Settlement of Land Claim are unique and shall not be
considered precedent for any future agreement between any
Indian tribe and State.
(3) Enforcement.--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be
enforceable by either the Tribe or the Governor according to
its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action
is vested in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour, 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 member of
the Committee on the Judiciary.
The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the gentleman from
Alaska (Mr. Young) each will control 20 minutes, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.

General Leave

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 2176.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from West Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Today, the Committee on Natural Resources is continuing our effort to
bring justice to Indian country. Last year, the committee brought to
the full House legislation to finally provide Federal recognition to
the long suffering Lumbee Tribe in the State of North Carolina.
We also brought to the floor legislation to grant Federal recognition
to six Virginia tribes 400 years after the founding of the Jamestown
settlement. These were the very tribes that greeted the English
settlers when they landed on our shores.
Today, we are considering legislation to end a 153-year odyssey
involving two federally recognized tribes in the State of Michigan--the
Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians.
This bill seeks to settle legitimate land claims of these two Indian
tribes. I would note that the resolution of Indian land claims is
something that is vested with the Congress, and Congress has taken this
type of action on numerous occasions. No precedent is being set by
these bills.
The genesis of the pending legislation dates back to 1807 when the
Chippewa ceded much of what is now the State of Michigan in a treaty
with the Governor of the Michigan Territory. Subsequent treaties ensued
in 1817, 1820, 1836, and in 1855.
In the case of both the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie, the 1855
Treaty of Detroit set aside land, in what is now known as Charlotte
Beach, for their exclusive use. However, shortly after the treaty was
concluded, that very land was sold to non-Indian speculators.
This is hardly the first time something like this was done to Native
Americans, but it is another indictment in the long and sad chapter of
their past treatment by those with wealth and power.
At present, some 100 non-Indian landowners reside on the Charlotte
Beach land, under a clouded title, due to the legitimate land claims
filed by the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie. This makes it
impossible for the residents of Charlotte Beach to receive title
insurance--depressing land values and making it difficult to obtain
mortgages, among other issues.
The Interior Department has testified to the legitimacy of the land
claims in question. Their legitimacy has also been recognized by two
Governors of the State of Michigan--Republican John Engler and current
Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.
Indeed, Jennifer Granholm stated in a letter addressed to me: ``The
Federal courts have held that both the Bay Mills Tribe and the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe trace their ancestry to the two Chippewa bands named
in the deed to the disputed Charlotte Beach lands and that both tribes,
accordingly, share in any potential claim based on those lands.''
To be clear then, that is what is at issue with the pending
legislation--the settlement of these land claims. There is no
administrative process available to accomplish this. It is something
that is solely vested with the Congress.
The pending measure would implement a settlement agreement entered
into by the Governor of Michigan, the Bay Mills and the Sault, and in
doing so, it would clear the land title cloud that has hung over the
residents of the Charlotte Beach area.
Under an agreement reached with the Bay Mills and with the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe, initially with Governor Engler and subsequently with
Governor Granholm, the tribes would relinquish their land claims at
Charlotte Beach, and instead, would be able to take into trust land at,
in the case of the Bay Mills, Port Huron, Michigan, and in the case of
the Sault Ste. Marie, either Flint, Monroe or Romulus, Michigan.
Under this settlement agreement, gaming is authorized on the new
reservation lands at Port Huron and at either Flint, Monroe or Romulus.
However, in my view, the primary concern of Congress is the
settlement of the land claims. What then occurs is a matter that is up
to the State of Michigan, its political subdivisions, and the affected
tribes.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that all Representatives of the
House of Representatives whose congressional districts contain either
the lands where the existing land claims rest or the areas where the
new reservation lands would be created support these two bills--the
dean of our House, Chairman John Dingell; Representative Bart Stupak;
Representative Dale Kildee, and Representative Candice Miller. I would
also note that the municipalities involved support this settlement.
I have set out the facts, Mr. Speaker, the historical record
regarding these two tribes and their Charlotte Beach land claims. I do
believe that the deliverance of justice is on the side of these two
tribes and of the legislation we are considering today.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Rahall has summarized the
settlement history of the Bay Mills land claim as well as the related
and

[[Page H6047]]

commingled claim of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. Therefore, I will limit
my remarks to why I believe this amended bill, which is championed by
my good friends from Michigan, Chairman John Dingell, Chairman Bart
Stupak, and Candice Miller, deserves the support of the Members of this
House.
Before the House today are two bills combined to resolve a problem
affecting two tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a number of
non-Indian landowners in an area of Michigan known as Charlotte Beach.
Let me point out the support for this bill in the districts that are
affected by them. The Members representing Bay Mills and the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribes support the bill. The two Members representing districts
where lands will be placed in trust support the bill.
Finally--and this is very important--this settlement deal was
negotiated by former Governor John Engler and is supported by Governor
Granholm.
It has been my practice--and I hope most of you understand--to defer
to the Members whose districts are affected by legislation because that
Member best represents the views of his constituents and knows his
district best. Of course, I can only wish that others would respect
this practice when it comes to Alaska. If so, we would be enjoying 42
million gallons of oil a day from ANWR. Instead, we have Members whose
districts are thousands of miles away and who are encasing this key to
American oil independence and lower gas prices in crystal by declaring
it a wilderness. That is something that even President Jimmy Carter, in
his cardigan sweaters, refused to do during the height of our gas
crisis.
Getting back to H.R. 2176, this bill settles two Indian land claims
without costing any Federal or State dollars and without imposing taxes
or fees on anyone. In fact, under the settlement deals, the tribes are
going to share revenues with the State of Michigan and with local
communities.
The bills are consistent with the compact agreed to by the tribes and
by the Governors pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
In this Congress, we have passed bills that recognize some tribes on
the condition that such tribes forego gaming. We made this condition a
part of their recognition of the bills. This breaks with long-standing
precedent and with treating Indian tribes on an equal footing with one
another. But we did it out of deference to the Members who represent
the tribes, out of deference to the Governors of the States affected,
and out of deference to the wishes of local communities.
If we want to remain consistent in this policy, then we should agree
to the request of the Members and of the Governors and of the local
communities of Port Huron and Romulus.
I understand there is opposition to this bill. By the way, Mr.
Speaker, I probably shouldn't say, but this bill should never have gone
to Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, it should never have gone to Judiciary. This
is not your jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction of Natural Resources
only, and for some reason, somebody tried to placate somebody and send
it over to Judiciary. Judiciary has no jurisdiction over this bill.
IGRA is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee.
I understand the opposition. On the one hand, we must defer to
Governors and to Members who don't want gaming, but on the other hand,
we are hearing we must not defer to Governors and to Members when they
want to permit and to regulate gaming. This is confusing.
Most of the opponents of these bills don't live in the area affected
by the legislation. I note that none of the amendments filed to this
bill were from the Michigan delegation.
So why are they opposed? I believe it is fear of competition. The
tribes whose lands are settled by H.R. 2176, as amended, have every
right under the law to provide economically to their members. That they
choose to do so by operating casinos is their choice, as well as that
of the Governor of Michigan. These enterprises will supply jobs to the
area, will provide funds for health care, and will provide better
education for Native Americans, and they will do so by engaging the
oldest American economic policies--good old-fashioned, competitive
capitalism.

{time} 1430

This is not the first time that Congress has taken lands into trust
for tribes outside traditional reservation boundaries and has allowed
the tribes the full economic benefit of these lands. As one example, I
point to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act from the 106th Congress.
That law directed the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust
for two tribes--the Lytton Rancheria and the Graton Rancheria--which
may not have been part of the tribes' historical ranges. In each case,
just like the bill being considered today, gaming was not barred.
Certainly, this is a common result whenever Congress or the
administration recognizes a landless tribe or restores land to a tribe.
In the meantime, the property owners in Charlotte Beach have watched
the value of their property plummet, something like 90 percent in some
cases. The cloud on the title to their land, resulting from the land
claims, has made it nearly impossible for them to sell or to secure a
mortgage. This isn't right, and it isn't right to leave them hanging
when the Governors of Michigan, the legislature, the affected
communities, and their Representatives want to move these settlements
forward.
This bill will end this ordeal that they're all facing.
Once again, I do urge support of H.R. 2176, as amended, and urge
passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, could I bring the temperature down somewhat
from the speakers by pointing out to my good friend from Alaska that
this matter is within the Judiciary Committee because the
Parliamentarian said so? So for the gentleman to make this assertion
that we have no claim of jurisdiction here is one of the errors that he
has made in his presentation.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm so proud that nobody has mentioned
casinos yet, because that means the casinos are not an issue, of
course, in this matter. Or you mentioned gaming. Okay. Chairman Rahall
concedes that he did mention gaming.
Well, let me tell you something. This is just like H.L. Mencken. When
they say this is not about money, Mencken says that means it's about
money.
Now, it just so happens that, on three occasions, these tribes have
tried to get the Department of Interior, which is where this goes--and
as for this business about its being in the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Congress, we don't sit around here, ruling on this business. We can
override the established procedures if we want to, and here, we want to
because the Department of Interior has turned down these claims three
different times--in 1982, 1983, and 1992. They said ``no.'' The reason
was they weren't meritorious.
And then an enterprising member of the bar--and I hate to tell you
that that was his profession--said, Ah, I've got an idea. Wait until
you see the charts that show how far Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills are
from where they want to locate the casinos.
I said it was 350 miles away. It's 348 miles away. I'm sorry. So
let's come clean, okay?
Now, the lady I supported for Governor, Governor Granholm, overrode
the State legislature to send you that letter, and it's not going by
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission rules or her own State's rules.
The people in Michigan have voted down casinos already. And, the former
Governor Engler, wow. He tried to stick it in bills coming over here.
He never would have done what we are doing here today but for the same
reasons of concern that those proponents of the bill have reason to be
concerned right now.
So that's the story, folks. If you want to start a run on forum
shopping for casinos, this is going to be the first bill that does it.
It is no joy for me to be before you opposing legislation reported by
the Natural Resources Committee and my friend Nick Rahall, and
supported so strongly by my friends John Dingell and Bart Stupak.
But this is bad legislation. I regret that the House is having to
consider it. And I must strongly oppose it.
Those pushing this legislation on the House do not always like to
emphasize the fact that it is about legalizing casino gambling where it
would not otherwise be legal--pure and simple.
And not just in two corners of Michigan. This is not a local Michigan
issue--leaving

[[Page H6048]]

aside that the Michigan delegation is sharply divided itself.
This would create a national blueprint for casino forum shopping,
where no corner of the country would be safe from the designs of any
developer or casino operator, working in league with any far-off Indian
tribe.
They say it does not set a precedent--says so right in the bill:
``don't look for a precedent here.'' Who are they trying to kid?
This legislation is highly controversial, and with good reason.
Earlier today I discussed the dubious origins of this supposed Indian
land claim. Let me now turn to other major flaws in this proposal.
To begin with, it spurns every single procedure Congress established
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to balance the sovereign rights
of Indian tribes to conduct their own affairs, on their own lands, with
the legitimate concerns many of our citizens have with the potential
spread of casino gaming into their communities.
It simply declares the process to be completed, and the two tribes to
have succeeded.
The bill's proponents will tell you that the bill complies fully with
the process set out in IGRA. But it does not; it simply jumps to the
finish line and arbitrarily deems the process to be satisfied.
Section 102(a)(1) orders the Interior Department to take the lands
into trust.
Section 102(a)(2) directs that the lands become part of the tribe's
reservation.
Section 102(b) declares that the process complies fully with all the
requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for purposes of
legalizing a casino on the new lands.
What could be simpler? Or more manipulative?
Let's not kid ourselves. That's not complying with process; that's
doing a preemptive end run around it.
This bill shows absolutely no regard for the established process.
No regard for the usual review in the Interior Department, who
opposes this bill.
Don't be fooled by rumors of some high-level private go-ahead. The
Interior Department has testified against this legislation--publicly--
twice in the last 5 months--before the Resources Committee, and before
the Judiciary Committee.
No regard for Michigan voters, who passed a referendum in 2004
restricting the expansion of casino gambling in their State. The bill
does an end run around that process as well.
The proponents claim that there is an exemption in the referendum for
casinos on Tribal lands.
Well, of course there is. That's required by tribal sovereignty under
Federal law. That would be the case whether the referendum said so or
not.
But no one in their wildest dreams ever imagined that someone would
try to twist the common-sense concept of ``Tribal lands'' to sweep in
lands 350 miles from the Tribe's ancestral homelands.
This bill does not honor the referendum. It blows a gaping hole
through it, and utterly violates the spirit of the voters' decision to
limit the spread of casinos in their State.
No regard for the other Indian tribes in Michigan, all of whom signed
compacts in 1994 solemnly pledging, as a means of curtailing the
impulse to build new casinos far and wide, that revenues from any off-
reservation casino any of them built would be shared among them all.
This bill simply blesses a superseding compact for these two tribes
that lets them off the hook, without going through any of the
established process for negotiating and approving a new compact.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act rightly disfavors off-reservation
casino gaming.
And as set forth in greater detail in the Interior Department
guidelines, the greater the distance involved, the greater the risk of
harm to tribal welfare, and the more tenuous the benefits.
The distance involved here--350 miles from the reservation--is a
whole new order of magnitude. And the tribes involved have no known
historical connection whatsoever to the lands they would acquire.
The proponents say there is a precedent. But what they are referring
to is no precedent at all.
The Torres-Martinez case was brought by the Interior Department on
behalf of the tribe, for reservation land that an irrigation district
had placed under water.
Under the settlement, the tribe was allowed to acquire land in trust
within 10 miles of its existing reservation--that land also had to be
within its historical territory.
The tribe has not built a casino on that land, and has no plans to.
Furthermore, the land claims here being enlisted in the service of
obtaining these off-reservation casinos have already been rejected by
the courts.
And they are not even claims involving the United States. They are
strictly private claims, against the State of Michigan, bearing no
relation whatsoever to the kind of claims that could legally be settled
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
This legislation is supported by exactly two tribes in Michigan--the
two who expect to get off-reservation casinos they could not hope to
obtain under established legal process.
It is opposed by other Michigan tribes, who are joined by over 60
tribes across the country.
Not because they oppose Indian gaming. They all have their own
interest in preserving their rights to build casinos on their own
lands.
What they are opposed to is the free-for-all that would predictably
ensue if this unprecedented effort to circumvent the law--a law they
have all lived under for 20 years--were to pass.
This legislation is also opposed by the NAACP because of its lack of
basic procedural fairness, due process, or any respect for voters in
communities across the country who may understandably have concerns
about casinos being built in their neighborhoods.
Let me also say a word about the view of organized labor. And I say
this as someone who has a labor voting record in Congress, over almost
44 years, that is second to no one's.
This bill is supported by some in labor; it is opposed by others.
Labor is not united. And why would they be? If this legislation has
any direct effect on jobs, it will be only to move them from one casino
in Michigan to another.
For these and other reasons, the House Judiciary Committee, which
received a sequential referral of this legislation, voted unanimously
to oppose it.
By passing legislation favoring the narrow interests of the Bay Mills
and Sault Ste. Marie tribes and their private-sector allies, Congress
would set a dangerous precedent for side-stepping the established
review process for land claims, and create a shortcut for spreading
casino gambling into every corner of the country.
We should not start down that path. The tribes should pursue whatever
claims they may have through the normal procedures--and succeed or fail
on the merits.
And so I strongly oppose this bill, and urge everyone else in this
body to do likewise.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I yield myself so much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2176. In
unanimity and purpose and philosophical intent with the chairman of the
full Judiciary Committee and, by the way, in consistency with all of
the folks who voted on this bill out of the Judiciary Committee,
regardless of the assertions of who had actual jurisdiction, that's
where it was directed.
I'm interested in this bill for a number of reasons. First of all,
when you have a reservation where they comply with regulations and go
through the Indian Gaming Act and get the authority to establish a
gaming facility, that's on the reservation. But I would submit, Mr.
Speaker, that 350 miles away is off the reservation. And I think the
motive of this thing is way off the reservation.
In fact, the precedent that would be set by this bill would be a
precedent, and I understand there's language in the bill that says it
doesn't set a precedent. My comment is, Yeah, right. Everything we do
around here sets a precedent. In fact, it sets a pattern for the rest
of the reservations in the country.
We've got to say ``no'' at this point. If not, we will be back here.
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee's comment is well taken. It
sets a pattern that all of the reservations and the tribes in the
country will look at, and they will say how can we also go off the
reservation and establish a gaming facility.
For those reasons, I oppose this bill, H.R. 2176.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise once again 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.
This debate is not about the right of American communities and Indian

[[Page H6049]]

tribes to participate in gaming. I have no problem with other
communities trying to replicate Las Vegas' experience, which has been
so very successful, and I support the rights 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 by using a bogus land claim, a bogus land
claim that has already been tossed out of both Federal and State
courts.
Now, our proponents say that we are here because we want to improve a
legitimate land claim and want to have justice for our Indian friends.
Well, justice has already been served. This bogus claim has been thrown
out of Federal court and State court.
The result, if this bill passes, will be two new off-reservation
casinos more than 350 miles from the lands of these two tribes. And 350
miles is a very substantial amount. It is from Washington, D.C. to
Cleveland, Ohio. 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 off their reservations. Let's circumvent the Indian gaming laws,
come directly to Congress, and Congress can end up spending all of our
time approving Indian gaming casinos on every street corner in every
American city.
How do we know this land claim is bogus? Because the chairman of the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe called it shady, suspicious, and a scam until he
joined with the other tribe and switched his position.
More than 660 tribes are opposed to this legislation in which
Congress, for the first time, will 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, more than 60 tribes across the United
States, and by a unanimous vote of the Judiciary Committee.
To sum up this issue, Congress is being asked to pass special
interest legislation benefiting only two tribes, each of which already
has gaming.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Nevada has
expired.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield the gentlelady 15 more seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. This, remember, is based on a suspect land claim that
has already been thrown out of the State and Federal courts so that
they can open up a casino hundreds of miles from their ancestral lands
and in direct competition with existing facilities.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this very bad piece of legislation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I reserve.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is left for
all Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 15
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Alaska, 14\1/2\; the gentleman
from Michigan, 3 minutes; and the gentleman from Iowa, 8\1/2\.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished member of our Committee on Natural Resources, a member of
my class as well, and from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dale Kildee.
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the land claim settlement
legislation relating to the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Michigan. I have considered several factors that,
when taken together, would move me to speak strongly in favor of final
passage.
First, the legislation before us has bipartisan gubernatorial
support. In 2002, then-Republican Michigan Governor John Engler signed
two separate agreements between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the Bay
Mills Indian Community in order to settle the disputed, and still
disputed, land claims in the Charlotte Beach area of Michigan. And, in
November of 2007, the present Democratic Governor, Jennifer Granholm,
amended and reaffirmed these agreements, and she strongly supports
those bills.
Second, my own hometown of Flint, Michigan, supports bringing an
Indian casino to the city. Flint Mayor Don Williamson gave testimony
through the Natural Resources Committee this year, expressing his
strong support for these proposals. And the City Council of Flint
passed a resolution supporting similar legislation that was followed by
the people of Flint voting in a citywide referendum in support of
bringing an Indian casino to Flint.
Mr. Speaker, faced with Flint's economic difficulties and the need to
settle these Indian land claims, I strongly support this bill.
Under the settlement agreement, the Bay Mills Indian Community would
acquire one parcel of land in Port Huron, Michigan, while the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe would acquire one parcel of land, the location to be
determined by the tribe with the approval of the local governing body.
That site would be limited to the County of Monroe or to the City of
Romulus or to the City of Flint.
Finally, as has been spoken before, only Congress has the legal
authority to extinguish the land claims of Indian tribes, and it has
done so on several occasions, and that is why this bill is before us
today. And that law dates back to the first Congress of the United
States.
To summarize, two Governors of Michigan have signed compacts with
these two tribes to accomplish this. The three cities that would be
affected have voted to welcome these tribes, and the three Members of
Congress representing those cities are strongly in support of this
bill. This bill will bring justice to these Indian tribes, and it will
help the economy of the cities involved.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to
this debate. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is about
competition. That's all it is. Let's face it. It's competition.

{time} 1445

I'm a little disturbed that the casinos in Detroit that are owned by
Indian tribes now are objecting to their brethren, because it's about
competition.
We have been over this time and time again. This is not a new bill.
This is an attempt to settle a land claim by those who own land and who
no longer have title of it because of a court ruling. This is not just
about casinos.
And by the way, to the chairman of the Judiciary, I did mention
``casinos'' in my statement. It's there, I want you people to
understand, and I did mention ``gaming,'' but I did say ``casinos,''
too. I'm not trying to hide anything. This is their prerogative under
IGRA to have the title to this land.
This land was not voluntarily given away. This land was taken. The
State of Michigan said it was taken. The courts have said it was taken.
These tribes have a legal title to this land. And, until they get that
land, the people who now have homes, who have stores that have been
inherited from their parents, that title is not theirs.
But we have those in Detroit and those interests from outside of
Michigan that don't want any more competition. Competition, apparently,
is bad for the American way. I think it's good.
Again, let's go back to those people who represent the area. And the
Governor and the community all support this bill.
I reserve my time.

Point of Order

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, point of order.
Can you ask that gentleman to sit down and to shut up up there? I
don't care who he is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Occupants of the galleries will be in order.
Mr. CONYERS. I'm pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the
chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Cheeks
Kilpatrick from Michigan, and I would yield her 1\1/2\ minutes and
would ask the ranking member of the Judiciary to do the same.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from
Michigan.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, as
well as the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me my time.
This is about the law. This is about the law. This is about
Michigan's law. In 1993, after 20 years of trying, the

[[Page H6050]]

Michigan legislature--I, a member at that time, and others--passed a
law that, after many referendums in the City of Detroit, a referenda
would be held throughout the State of Michigan that said who could have
casinos. We were allowed that after 20 years of working on that.
In 1994, back to the people of the State of Michigan, there was a
referenda that said if you are to have a casino you must come back to
the people. This law circumvents that. There are 18 Native American
tribes in Michigan. All but two who are getting this casino deal do not
support this legislation, mainly because, in the Michigan compact,
Native Americans share in the net profits. This bill would not allow
the other 16 tribes to share in the profits, thereby putting their own
reservation casinos in jeopardy, while at the same time rewarding 2 and
not the other 16 sharing the profits.
There's a way to fix this. Go back to the ballot box, which is what
the Michigan law says. Let the people of Michigan speak on this.
Casinos are regulated by States, as IGRA gives them that authority, not
by the Federal Government.
Much has already been said, and I will tell you who opposes this: The
Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Department of Interior, the National
Indian Gaming Association, UNITE HERE, AFSCME, NAACP. We can fix this,
but go through what everybody else went through to get gaming and
casinos in their community.
The Native Americans asked for it. Over 60 tribes across this country
oppose this legislation. Why must we circumvent them and come here?
It's not about competition, as Americans love competition, and we
support that. Go through the process. Respect the law.
Native American tribes deserve better, and we want to see that
happen.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind consideration and care when, in
December of 2007, you agreed with me that both of these bills should
not be brought to the floor without being considered under regular
order. The House Natural Resources Committee and the House Judiciary
Committee both had hearings on these bills, and while the Natural
Resources Committee reported the bill favorably by a 21 to 5 vote, the
House Judiciary Committee reported the bill unfavorably by a zero to 29
vote. Since that vote, both of these bills are opposed by 16 of the 18
tribes that are in the State of Michigan; and opposed by over 60 Native
American tribes across the country; by both Michigan's AFSCME and the
NAACP; and finally, the U.S. Department of Interior not only opposes
the bills but questions the validity of the land claim that they
purport to forward.
In essence, both of these bills will allow two Native American tribes
located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to build casinos 350 miles from
their reservations and near the city of Detroit and in Port Huron,
Michigan. I vehemently oppose both of these bills.
My reasons for opposing these bills, which will allow land to be
taken into trust for gambling purposes for the settlement of proposed
land claims, are actually very simple. These bills set a dangerous
precedent for Congress; they contravene Michigan State law; they are
very controversial among the tribes in Michigan and throughout Indian
Country; it is not clear that these land swaps are valid; and finally,
Congress has not had a comprehensive review of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, IGRA, in nearly two decades. Furthermore, it is
important to note that these land claims have never been validated by
the U.S. Government or any court of law. In fact, the courts have ruled
against the Bay Mills Tribe on their claim on two separate occasions.
The people of Michigan have spoken at the ballot box about gaming
expansion in our State. In 1994, they voted to allow three casinos in
the city of Detroit. In 2004, the people voted to limit any more
expansion of gaming unless there was a statewide referendum. In
addition, the Michigan Gaming Compact specifically prohibits off-
reservation gaming unless all of the tribes in Michigan agree to a
revenue-sharing plan. These two bills are simply an attempt to
circumvent both the will of the people of Michigan and the compact the
Michigan State Legislature has made with the tribes in Michigan.
Instead, these bills would have Congress mandate not one, but two
off-site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away from the
reservations of these tribes. Moreover, the disputed land is located
near the two tribes reservations in the Upper Peninsula but yet the
land they want for a ``settlement'' is located 350 miles away near the
city of Detroit. If these bills were to become law, what would prevent
other tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States
for off-site reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act?
It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress, the House Resources
Committee, on a bipartisan basis, passed legislation by an overwhelming
margin to restrict off-site reservation gaming. Yet today, it now seeks
to expand Native American gaming in an unprecedented manner.
Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that allows
tribes to conduct gaming on lands acquired before October 17, 1988. In
1993, former Governor John Engler negotiated a gaming compact with the
seven federally-recognized tribes in Michigan, including the Bay Mills
and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes.
In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across the
State, a provision was added to the compact that required any revenue
generated by off-reservation gaining be shared among the tribes who
signed the compact. This provision has worked well for over 15 years.
The two bills before Congress today would simply nullify this
critically important provision of the Michigan Gaming Compact. Both of
these bills would allow the tribes to; (1) settle a land claim that has
never been validated and is located near their reservations in the
Upper Peninsula of Michigan and (2) acquire lands 350 miles from their
reservation to build casinos. Furthermore, these bills actually include
gaming compacts in them that were never approved by the Michigan State
Legislature who has approved every other gaming compact. It is
important to note that Congress has never passed a gaming compact in
the history of Indian gaming. IGRA specifically grants that authority
to the States.
In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a statewide referendum
and overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that would restrict the
expansion of gaming in the State of Michigan. This referendum would
require local and statewide approvals for any private expansion of
gaming in Michigan.
The people and the elected officials of Michigan already have a
solution to this matter--the ballot box. There is nothing in the
referendum that would prevent the two tribes and their non-Indian
developers from initiating a statewide referendum to get casinos in
Port Huron and in Romulus. In fact, both of those cities have already
passed local referendums. But the tribes and their developers decided
to short-circuit the vote of the Michigan people and come to Congress
to get a casino on a proposed land claim that is located near the
tribes' reservation lands in the upper peninsula of Michigan.
I am aware that the Governor of Michigan has sent the House Natural
Resources Committee a letter supporting these bills. You should know
that there is no legal basis for the State to support these agreements
because, in fact, the State has already won this case in the Michigan
Court of Claims and the Bay Mills Tribe appealed it all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the
case.
The Governor ignored the fact that the city of Detroit will be the
main victim of the State's largess in these casino deals. The city of
Detroit will lose hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the
competition of these new casinos and that will cause irreparable harm.
Harm to whom? Harm to the current investors of the casinos in the city
of Detroit, who have invested more than $1.5 billion in the
construction of the three casinos in the city of Detroit. Harm to the
thousands of jobs that have been created and the tax revenue that those
jobs generate for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan.
Ultimately, this will harm the State. When compared to their private
counterparts, Native American gaming sites, because they are sovereign
nations and must share their revenue with other Native American tribes,
do not bring in the tax revenue of private investors.
In the end, these two tribes are seeking to do an end-run around two
statewide referendums and the Michigan Gaming Compact of 1993. Rarely
have voters in any State in this country spoken so clearly on gaming
issues. In light of all of this, it would be a travesty for Congress to
mandate two off-site reservation gaming casinos that would have such a
negative impact on the people in Michigan.
But, for the moment, let us ignore the impact that these bills will
have on the city of Detroit. Let us ignore the precedent that these
bills will set, allowing any Native American tribe to claim any piece
of land hundreds of miles away, as their native tribal land. Let us
ignore the fact that IGRA has not been reauthorized in more than two
decades, and clearly needs to be revisited and revised by Congress.
What I cannot ignore is the strong possibility that the very integrity
of Congress is in jeopardy.
On October 10, 2002, in testimony before the Senate Committee on
Indian Affairs, the chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Bernard
Boushor, said ``the Bay Mills case was a scam from the start.'' In
testimony and information provided to the House Natural Resources
Committee in February of this year, Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu
cited

[[Page H6051]]

Chairman Boushor's testimony, stating that the original lawsuit on the
land claim was a collusive lawsuit.
The proponents of this legislation have repeatedly stated that these
bills are simply to address the aggrieved landowners in Charlotte
Beach. But according to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe ``the Charlotte
Beach claim did not originate with Bay Mills. It was a product of a
Detroit area attorney who developed it specifically as a vehicle to
obtain an IGRA casino . . . the goal was never to recover the Charlotte
Beach lands.''
How was this originally a collusive lawsuit? The Bay Mills Tribe sued
Mr. James Hadley on October 18, 1996 who entered into a settlement in
which he gave land to the Bay Mills Tribe 300 miles from their
reservation to build a casino in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That plan was
rejected by the Department of the Interior. The point is that Mr.
Hadley was not an aggrieved landowner, he was an active participant in
what the Sault Tribe described as ``a collusive lawsuit'' and ``a
scam.''
I strongly encourage all of you to read the testimony of the former
Sault Ste. Marie chairman before the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs, the testimony of the Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu, and
review the documents Chief Cantu provided to the Committee, which was
provided to the House Natural Resources Committee at its hearing in
February and to the House Judiciary Committee at its subsequent
hearing.
There is a way to save the integrity of Congress. The Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe has requested that the U.S. Department of the Interior
investigate the land claims made by these tribes, and determine whether
they are valid claims, worthy of Federal resolution. It is my
understanding that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the
validity of these land claims. I would urge the Committee to wait until
this investigation is complete until it rushes into passing legislation
that mandates off-reservation gaming.
Congress should not be in the business of handing out off-site
reservation gaming casinos. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress
is the rejection of both of these bills for the following reasons:
These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress by approving a
compact which is a State, not a Federal, responsibility;
They contravene Michigan State law;
They are controversial among the Native American tribes in Michigan;
indeed, nine out of Michigan's 12 tribes oppose these bills;
The city of Detroit would lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of
millions of dollars in the investments made by the three casinos
currently operating in Detroit;
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already rejected a similar
application for gaming in Romulus, Michigan;
These bills would involve the removal of valuable land from the tax
rolls of the State of Michigan, resulting in the potential loss of even
more revenue;
It is uncertain that these land swaps are legitimate, possibly
jeopardizing the integrity of the U.S. Congress;
The Committee should allow the Department of the Interior the time to
do their due diligence to determine if these are valid land claims; and
Congress needs to revisit, revise and reauthorize the IGRA, which has
not had a comprehensive review in nearly two decades.
Let me state for the record, once again, that I am not opposed to
more gaming in the State of Michigan. I am also not opposed to off-site
reservation gaming. I have been opposed, am currently opposed, and will
always be opposed to any measure, any bill, any regulation that says
that the will of the people does not matter. The will of the people is
tantamount. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress prevails and that
the voice of the people matters in rejecting these bills on the floor
today.
Mr. RAHALL. I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I reserve.
Mr. CONYERS. I've got to reserve. I've only got 1 minute left,
Chairman Rahall.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to yield to the distinguished
dean of the House of Representatives--the gentleman from Michigan, a
dear friend to all of us regardless of our position on this issue--
Chairman John Dingell, 5 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. I want to commend and thank my good friend from West
Virginia and my good friend from Alaska for their gracious kindness in
this matter.
This is a cry for justice from Indians who have had their land
unjustly and improperly taken from them. It is not a violation of
Indian gambling law, and this is the only place in which those Indians
can get justice. They asked for justice.
Now, you've just heard a lot of things, and there are a lot of people
on this floor who are entitled to their own view, but they are not
entitled to their own facts.
What are the facts? Under Michigan law, this is legal. Here's a copy
of the vote and the ballot that was put before the people of Michigan.
It specifically excludes this kind of transaction, and it says that it
will ``not apply to Indian tribal gaming'' and then goes on to say ``or
gambling in up to three casinos located in the City of Detroit.'' It
doesn't apply. That's hooey.
Now, let's take a look. The claim is legitimate. The land was stolen
from the Indians in an improper tax sale, and until this matter is
resolved, there will be no peace in the area. The Indians will be
denied justice, and land titles and land settlements in the northern
part of Michigan will be clouded for years to come.
This came out of the committee 22-5. It has been heard many times.
Now, the legislation follows--it does not set--congressional
precedent in dealing with Indian land claim settlements. In fact, the
Congress, as mentioned by the gentleman from Michigan, has the sole
power to extinguish land claims, since the very first of the Congress,
and it follows precedents set by Torres Martinez, the Timbisha
Shoshone, the Mohegan Tribe, the Seneca Nation of New York, and the
Mashantucket Pequot Tribe in 1983.
This is drastically different than off-reservation gambling. In that
scenario, the tribe purchases land and then the Secretary lets them go
down there and gamble. This is not so. As mentioned, it fully complies
with the requirements of the Indian gambling law.
The land was not selected by the Indians. It was selected by the
Governor of the State of Michigan, John Engler, and it was ratified by
the Michigan legislature and by our current Governor, with a change in
the law.
The votes of the people of the communities have supported the fact
that if gambling is to occur in these communities it will occur. The
people of the State of Michigan, the people of the cities involved have
come out and have said they want this to take place.
Let us give justice to the Indians. The bill does not, I repeat,
violate the will of the people of the State of Michigan.
And the legislation is going to bring desperately needed jobs to
southeast Michigan, some 4,000 in my district, some 1,000 in that of
the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller). It is
supported by unions that believe that this will bring good union jobs
to Michigan and that it will help the Indians.
As repeated, there are two groups here who oppose this legislation.
One group is of those who legitimately oppose gambling. That's a matter
of concern to them, and I respect their judgment. The rest are those
good-hearted folk who seek an unfair advantage. They want to protect
and preserve their outrageous monopoly on gambling. That's what's at
stake. That's all that's involved here; a bunch of good-hearted people
are seeking special preference for themselves.
A Member came over to me, and he talked about Abramoff. I remember
Abramoff, a very unsavory individual, and the interesting thing is that
Abramoff was hired at a high price to oppose the legislation we are
discussing today. So, if you're concerned about voting with Jack
Abramoff, don't vote against the bill; vote for the bill. The Abramoff
vote is a ``no'' vote. The right vote is an ``aye'' vote.
Vote to give justice to the Native American people. The citizens of
the communities in which these facilities will be located legally,
legitimately and properly are, in my district, in one city, 100 percent
African American and, in the other, 50 percent African American. There
is no racial question here. If you are looking to do racial justice,
support the legislation. Take care of the Native Americans, and take
care of the African Americans who will benefit from these jobs.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I'd be happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
(Mr. DENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this
legislation, H.R.

[[Page H6052]]

2176, which consolidates two bills that promote off-reservation tribal
gambling.
Why is a guy from Pennsylvania talking about this issue today? Well,
this bill sends a signal that reservation shopping, under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, is okay. Well, it's not okay, and it is
out of control.
The bill before us today would create Indian governmental entities,
tribal casinos, on lands that are more than 300 miles from the
homelands of these tribes. Creating a far-flung string of casinos on
lands with no connection to the tribe's heritage was not the intent of
IGRA.
Establishing these off-reservation casinos has absolutely nothing to
do with the preservation of Indian culture. It is about money, pure and
simple. Twenty years ago, before IGRA, there were no tribal casinos in
this country. Now there are more than 400, and tribal gambling is
currently a $19 billion a year business.
That is precisely the reason why I introduced H.R. 2562, the
Limitation of Tribal Gambling to Existing Tribal Lands Act of 2007,
which would preclude new casino development on lands that are taken
into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim. That bill was
inspired by efforts of a tribe, located more than 900 miles from
Pennsylvania, to force homeowners and business owners in my district
off their properties, just so yet another tribal casino could be built,
all based on a 1737 land conveyance, all designed to displace 25
homeowners, a crayon factory--Crayola crayon, we all know the product--
and many other businesses.
And, with respect to the Abramoff comments that I have heard, I'll be
the first to acknowledge that, as to Mr. Abramoff's actions, he did
take advantage of the tribes, but it was the tribal gambling issue that
was the source of the corruption.
And I think the proper vote is a ``no'' vote on this legislation.
Again, for those of us who have had to deal with these off-
reservation shopping issues, it's very painful for the homeowners, as
much as when the Supreme Court went along. Defeat the bill.
Mr. RAHALL. May I have the time that is left?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 7
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Alaska has 13. The gentleman from
Michigan has 1\1/2\ minutes, and the gentleman from Iowa has 5\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a dear colleague of
ours from Michigan as well, to a gentleman who has been very tenacious
for many, many years in seeing this bill to its fruition, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

{time} 1500

Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Much has been said about this legislation, my legislation. I want to
thank Chairman Rahall and Mr. Young for their leadership in helping me
correct a grave injustice, not just for the Native Americans, but also
for the non-Native Americans, my constituents.
I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, H.R. 2176, which is a
commonsense fix of a very serious matter. The bill would provide for
the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community
and of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe in Michigan.
I have been working on this problem for over 10 years, and I first
introduced legislation in 1999 in an effort to resolve this issue. I
became involved in this land claim dispute at the request of the
property owners at Charlotte Beach, not of the Native American tribes.
Tribal claims to the land have created a cloud on their title, owned by
my constituents in Charlotte Beach.
As a result, local assessors have reduced the property values of the
Charlotte Beach land owners by 90 percent because of the valid clouded
title created by the Indian land claim dispute.
The tribes' claim to the land in question dates back to 1855, when
the U.S. Government signed the Treaty of Detroit, deeding the land to
the tribes. However, the land was later sold to non-native land
speculators without the Native Americans' consent, eventually resulting
in an eviction of the tribal members.
In order to finally resolve this land claim dispute, a settlement
agreement was reached in 2002 between former Governor John Engler and
the tribes. The settlement agreement has been reaffirmed by Michigan's
current Governor, Governor Jennifer Granholm.
After years of extensive negotiations between the parties, this bill
represents a straightforward solution to this localized problem in my
district.
In order to implement this agreement, Congress must approve the
negotiated land settlement. Unfortunately, incumbent casino gaming
interests are opposed to this commonsense solution, and they have
circulated misleading information in an attempt to derail this
legislation. So let me take the opportunity to set the record straight
on my legislation.
First, this bill has nothing to do with ``off-reservation gaming
acquisitions.'' It is a land claim settlement. Off-reservation gaming
occurs when a tribe purchases private land and petitions the Secretary
of Interior to place the land into trust for gaming purposes. This
legislation ratifies a land claim settlement negotiated by the State of
Michigan. This was done under the authority granted in IGRA's land
claim exception clause.
Second. In regards to the argument against the location of these
lands, the selected lands were chosen by Governor John Engler in
consultation with local communities, not with the tribes. The sites
were selected for economic development. Local support had been
expressed through a local referendum and through unanimous resolutions
by the cities and counties, and it has an existing gaming market on the
Canadian side of the border where U.S. dollars are being spent.
Our legislation follows, rather than sets, congressional precedent
for settling land claim disputes. Congress has passed over a dozen
settlement acts on which replacement lands are eligible for gaming,
including two that specifically state that the land is eligible for
gaming, most recently that of the Torres Martinez Tribe of California
and that of the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe, in 2000.
Our legislation does not violate the wishes of Michigan voters.
Opponents have attempted to confuse Members about the wishes of
Michigan voters on this issue by citing passage of the 2004 referendum,
which seeks to limit the expansion of private gaming in our State. The
actual wording of the referendum states, ``A voter approval requirement
does not apply to Indian tribal gaming.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman 15
seconds, too.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska also recognizes
the gentleman from Michigan for 15 seconds, so the gentleman from
Michigan is now recognized for a total of 30 seconds, of which none
have been yet exhausted.
Mr. STUPAK. So the actual wording of the referendum states, ``A voter
approval requirement does not apply to Indiana tribal gaming.''
By passing H.R. 2176, Congress will bring about a final resolution to
this land claim dispute that has been going on for more than 100 years.
Without congressional approval, the land exchange cannot be completed,
and the residents of Charlotte Beach, my constituents, will continue to
face clouded land titles and economic hardships.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to ignore the
rhetoric from those attempting to protect casinos.
Support this land claim settlement. Support H.R. 2176.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I'm listening with great interest to this debate that we
have here on this floor, and it's interesting the unique way that the
Michigan delegation doesn't agree on this.
As I've listened to the presentation made by the gentleman, Mr.
Dingell, and to the intensity with which he speaks, certainly, I've
listened to the argument, but I'll say this: The situation with this
legislation is that the

[[Page H6053]]

land in question becomes part of the reservation, and when it becomes
part of the reservation, we all know it's going to be turned into a
gaming casino. So to argue that this only settles a land claim--the
courts had their opportunity to settle the land claim, both the State
court of Michigan and the U.S. Federal court, and that's why we're
here.
The people who are pressing this claim on the floor of this Congress
didn't get the resolution that they had asked for. They weren't able to
prevail in court, so now they come to Congress and say, set a precedent
so that we can, essentially, confer this land title on the Native
Americans. When they take that title, it comes in trust. The Governor
then takes the land in trust, but as soon as it goes in trust, it says
that any and all claims are hereby extinguished to that land. So we're
abrogating decisions made by the Federal court here and by the State
court.
Mr. STUPAK. Would the gentleman yield on that point?
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield briefly.
Mr. STUPAK. On the Federal claim brought forth by Bay Mills, the
Sault tribe was not part of that action, and the Federal court said,
your cousins--the Chippewas of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe--must be
joined. Go back and get joined and come back later. In the meantime,
they started negotiations in the State court. The State court said, you
have a valid land claim, but we cannot give you economic damages
because the 6-year statute of limitations has run. This claim should
have been brought 100 years ago.
So that's the injustice we're trying to correct; they could not be
given money damages because more than 6 years had lapsed. The statute
of limitations had run.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, though, did not the two tribes
then join together and go back to Federal court?
Mr. STUPAK. No.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I would yield to the gentleman if he could tell me
why not.
Mr. STUPAK. Because they began the negotiation under IGRA, as
required under section 20, to begin a negotiation with the Governor,
and they had to make a settlement with the Governor, who can do it. So,
instead of going back to court, they used the legislature and the
Governor's office to work out a settlement to avoid further litigation.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman. I think
that does add clarity to this debate. The option to go to the Governor
and to the legislature and the option of the other things we've heard
about was better than going back to court under those circumstances.
Mr. STUPAK. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy.
Mr. KING of Iowa. In any case, this legislation simply says that any
claims now would be resolved if this legislation passes, ``any and all
claims, whether based on aboriginal or recognized title, are hereby
extinguished.'' That's what this legislation does.
Then it says also ``these are unique claims and shall not be
considered precedent.'' We know, again, that everything that happens in
this Congress sets a precedent and creates an idea and an avenue.
I'm faced with a situation that, I think, could be multiplied in its
difficulty because of the actions this Congress may take today, Mr.
Speaker. Perhaps I'll take that up in my closing remarks.
Mr. Speaker, at this point, I'll reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has the
right to close.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. At this time, I yield 8 minutes to the good lady
of the district that's represented, not from California, not from any
other area such as Nevada and California, again, that oppose this
legislation. She represents this area, and we ought to listen to her as
to why she is for this bill.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. I thank the gentleman, my distinguished
colleague from Alaska, for yielding and for his complimentary remarks.
Mr. Speaker, this issue has been waiting for a congressional vote for
many, many years but not for as long as our Nation's history of
sometimes mistreating Native Americans.
This case settles a land claim from over 100 years ago, at a time
when our country treated Native Americans terribly and at a time when
the State of Michigan, as has been said, literally stole this land from
the Indians.
Throughout the decades that followed, Native Americans sought
justice. Finally, former Michigan Governor John Engler negotiated a
settlement that was agreed to by everyone involved. Let me just read
briefly a section from his letter.
``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 . . . 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.''
This land claim settlement is unique to Michigan, and it does not
impact any other congressional district other than the three
congressional districts of the people who are supporting it here who
have spoken today, as have been mentioned. That is myself, Mr. Stupak,
and Mr. Dingell. I would point out that, in a time of hyper
partisanship, this is a wonderful example, I believe, of
bipartisanship.
I would note that much of the opposition to this bill comes from
Members of Congress who already have gaming in their districts,
districts like Las Vegas or like the city of Detroit, and that their
opposition is not based on ideology but on, rather, their not wanting
any honest competition. I reject this on its face because I believe in
the free market, and I believe in free market principles.
Some have said that this is stuffing a tribal land claim down the
throat of a community that doesn't welcome it. Actually, the opposite
is true. This legislation is supported by every elected official who
represents the city of Port Huron in any capacity and at any level of
government. As has been mentioned, there is the former Governor, John
Engler; the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm; both United States
Senators; myself, as a Member in the U.S. House here; the State
senator; the State representatives; the county commissioners, and the
entire city council.
Additionally, it has the support of civic groups, of business groups
like the Chamber of Commerce, of educational leaders, and of labor
unions like the UAW.
For those who might be concerned about what law enforcement thinks,
we have letters here of support from the county sheriff, from the
county prosecutor and from all of the police chiefs. Most importantly,
it has the support of the citizens of the city, as evidenced by a
citywide referendum vote in support.
The opponents of this legislation have said, first of all, that they
don't want any competition. Therefore, they hope this bill will die.
They have said, even though their communities and their districts have
economic development, they need to protect that and that the citizens--
the good Americans of a community like mine--cannot have fairness or
economic opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, this is un-American, and I would hope that my fair-
minded colleagues would reject that out of hand.
The opponents of this have also stated several outright untruths
about this bill. They say that this bill will set a precedent, and that
is false. In fact, in section 3(b) of this bill, it 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 this bill will allow for off-reservation
gaming. This is also false. In fact, section 2(a)(2) of the bill states
the following: ``The alternative lands shall become part of the
community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status.''
In fact, this site was not reservation shopping, as Mr. Stupak has
pointed out. It was specifically chosen because it is the only
community with an international border crossing where there is already
casino gaming on one side and not on the U.S. side.

[[Page H6054]]

They have also said that this legislation violates the process under
the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA. Yet the
legislation makes it very, very clear that the land cannot be taken
into trust until it is determined that the land complies with NEPA.
They also say that this bill would violate the will of the people of
Michigan because of a referendum that was passed in 2004, which
required statewide voter approval for any expansion of gaming. This is
completely false. As a former Secretary of State, I know a little bit
about ballot language, and this is what the ballot language actually
says: ``Specify that voter approval requirement does not apply to
Indian tribal gaming,'' which is exactly what this bill does.
I would offer as proof of this that, since the referendum passed in
Michigan, several tribal casinos that are operated by some of the
richest tribal opponents of this bill have actually opened facilities.
Now, apparently, they didn't violate the will of the voters as long as
they could make money. Yet they want to stop our communities, again,
from fair competition. I would say please spare me the righteous
indignation.
Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my beautiful State of Michigan,
that our beautiful State of Michigan, is suffering terrible, terrible
economic challenges. We have the highest unemployment in the Nation. We
have the lowest personal income growth in the Nation. We have the
highest foreclosure rate in the Nation. We have the largest exodus of
our young people. Our population is moving to other States to seek
economic opportunity.
The city of Port Huron, that I represent, actually has one of the
highest unemployment rates, not only in the State but in the entire
Nation.

{time} 1515

By the best estimates right now, it's anywhere from 14 to 16 percent.
Some have said it could be even higher. And yet we try to pay our
taxes. We educate our children. We always legitimately think of
ourselves as patriotic Americans. We are proud, and we have never asked
for a handout, and today we are only asking for Congress to ratify the
compacts of our Governors so that we can help ourselves.
For those who think that a vote today against this bill will stop
gaming in this community, let me just point out this photo here behind
me, which is of a Canadian casino, which is about 282 yards away. Now,
a good golfer, not me, but a good golfer could hit this Canadian
casino. It's right across the St. Clair River, a short trip over the
Blue Water Bridge, and about 80 percent of all of their revenues comes
from American citizens. Mr. Speaker, I would say that those dollars
should be spent in an American facility to help Americans get jobs.
This bill is all about fairness and opportunity, and I would urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes''; ``yes'' for private property rights,
``yes'' for the rights of States to negotiate in good faith and for the
good of their State, and ``yes'' for Americans to have fairness and
opportunity to compete with our wonderful Canadian neighbors for jobs
in a community where the jobs are desperately needed.
And I would just close on a note: I have heard that there is a number
of family values-type groups who are opposed to this. Let me just show
you an example of a recent mailing ostensibly from a group called
Michigan Family Alert.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentlewoman.
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. This is a so-called Michigan Family Alert,
and, of course, it's saying that they are opposed to these casinos,
and, if you're a family values person, you had better to be opposed
too. And yet from Business Week what they have said is: ``As it turns
out, Gambling Watch is a tiny operation financed by MGM Mirage, one of
the world's largest gaming companies, locked in a bitter dispute with
two Native American Indian tribes that hope to open casinos in
Michigan. The Las Vegas company inaugurated a new $800 million casino
in downtown Detroit in October and is not in the mood for any
competition.''
And I close on that note.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to yield 45 seconds
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 additional
seconds.
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank you all for this moment and this
minute.
I represent a great many tribes in California, none of whom will be
adversely affected if this casino goes in or doesn't go in. I come to
the floor as a supporter of tribal and historic rights and their gaming
rights. I have absolute support for Native Americans having gaming on
their tribal lands. I also have absolute support for private property.
As the gentlewoman from Michigan would like to have private property
respected, then the State of Michigan can license a casino on that site
to anyone they want, including those Indians on lands that are not in
trust.
We, as Federal officers, are being asked to put land in trust for
purposes of a casino which has no historic link to the tribes receiving
it. We should insist that tribal land be given appropriately in
Michigan as close to as possible their historic land or in areas that
are for some purpose other than manipulating and distorting the intent
of our laws to create a casino.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
Mr. CLAY. I thank the chairman from West Virginia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2176, legislation
that would ratify a longstanding tribal land claim in the State of
Michigan.
The Bay Mills Indian community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe have
worked for over a decade to achieve an agreement with the State of
Michigan that would reinstate land rights that these tribes lost
shortly after signing a treaty with the Federal Government in the
1850s.
In an effort to achieve justice for these tribes, who have sought to
reclaim their lands for over 100 years and to protect the homes of over
100 families who currently reside on the disputed land in Charlotte
Beach, the State of Michigan negotiated a land-swap settlement. That
agreement would give the Bay Mills Indian community 20 acres of land in
Port Huron and give the Sault Tribe up to 40 acres in Romulus or Flint.
Under Federal law, the new lands provided to the tribes would be
eligible for gambling casinos, just as the Charlotte Beach land would
be eligible. The purpose of the land claim agreement is to give
alternative land that has the same property rights as the land that was
stolen from these tribes.
Mr. Speaker, two Governors from the State of Michigan and those
Members of Congress whose districts are most affected have all endorsed
the land-swap agreement that would give these tribes new lands in
exchange for the 110 acres of land they lost in the 19th century.
There is no authentic argument against this bill. The legislation
before us does not expand gaming, as some opponents have erroneously
charged. This legislation simply restores justice to Native Americans
in the State of Michigan and provides these Indians there an
opportunity to raise badly needed revenues.
I urge adoption of the bill.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. How much time is left totally, Mr. Speaker? How
much time does the Judiciary have, the majority and minority?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has \3/4\
of 1 minute remaining; the gentleman from Alaska has 4\1/4\ minutes
remaining; the gentleman from Michigan has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining;
and the gentleman from Iowa has 1\1/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alaska will state his
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Who has the right to close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia.

[[Page H6055]]

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman, not for
closing, but I will yield him 2 minutes of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia now has
2\3/4\ minutes.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I plan to close with that time; so I reserve
the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West
Virginia will control 2\3/4\ minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, I hope
everybody recognizes again that what this is about is competition.
That's all it is. In the meantime, there are two Native tribes,
American Indians, that have a right under IGRA to, in fact, have these
lands that they negotiated with the Governors, the State legislature,
the communities, and reached a deal; yet this is the last body that has
the ability and the responsibility of settling disputes on lands owned
by or not owned by American Natives. Not the courts, no one else. And
that's why we are here today.
It does disturb me, when I see other tribes that actually have the
backing of other institutions outside the State of Michigan, the city
of Detroit, that oppose their brethren from achieving the same goals
they did. I'm also disturbed because we have those that are non-Native
that have their title in question that will never, in fact, unless we
act, have that title cleared up. And that's our responsibility in this
body.
There is justice, there should be justice, for American Indians. And,
by the way, I believe I am the last one on that committee that voted
for the original gaming legislation for American Natives. Chairman
Udall and I passed that legislation. I believe Mr. Dingell probably
voted for it, and maybe Mr. Conyers voted for it at that time because
we thought there was an opportunity there to improve the economic base
of the American Indian, and we approved correctly.
Now, those that oppose gaming, I understand that. I don't gamble.
That's not my thing. But I also will tell you I don't disrespect those
who do gamble. And as the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) said,
I could even hit a golf ball across that river to that gaming place in
Canada, and I want some of that Canadian money to come down to America
instead of its going from America to Canada.
In the fairness of this bill, we should vote ``yes.'' In fairness to
the American Indians, we should vote ``yes.'' This legislation should
become a reality. The State of Michigan Senators support it. The
Governors support it. The legislature supports it. The communities
support it. The police officers support it. And only those that oppose
it have another interest.
I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate, and some things come to
mind that I don't believe have been adequately answered. I'm going to
ask the question and hope that someone answers it with the time they
have left rather than asking me to yield them time.
What is the claim the two tribes have on this land and the
distinction between it and all the rest of the State of Michigan? I
think that's a good question.
When I look at this situation, I apply it to the district that I
represent. And I have represented two reservations, two tribes, and two
gaming casinos for the last 11\1/2\ years. Now I have an outside tribe
that has just been created within the last generation that has come in
and bought land within my district in order to set up a health care
clinic, and now the bait and switch takes place and it's going to be a
casino instead. They get some of their problems cleared by this bill,
2176, if it passes today because, regardless of whether the bill says
it's a precedent, it's a precedent. If it's not about money, it's about
money, as we heard the chairman say. Where could a tribe not establish
a casino if they determine to do so? Any land that they could buy for
whatever purpose, whether it was a bait and switch or whatever, this
opens up the door. As the gentlewoman from Las Vegas said, we could end
up with casinos everywhere.
But we need to stand on some principle, and I don't see that the land
is a consistent principle that can be defended in this case, Mr.
Speaker. I oppose 2176. I urge that it be defeated.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas
25 seconds.
Ms. BERKLEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to end this myth about competition.
How can anybody claim that the gaming casinos are afraid of
competition and the free market when the tribes are playing by a
different set of rules? Talk about unfair competition, the Indians
don't pay taxes on their casinos, and that's why they are so
successful. So I don't want to hear any nonsense about competition and
fear of competition. That's a lie.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, the only
reason we are here today, and I admire all of the devoted people to the
cause of our Native Americans, is that these two casinos are located
not 5 miles or 10 miles away but 345 miles and 348 miles away. That's
why we are here. And by rationalizing that, guess what's going to
happen? We are going to have the biggest casino forum shopping this
country has ever known because we will have done it here listening to
people explain to me about Abramoff's role and how important this is,
so compelling.
So, please, vote ``no.''

{time} 1530

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, I would like to
take this opportunity to implore the other body to act upon the Lumbee
and the Virginia Tribe bills that this body had sent over for its
consideration last year. The magnitude of injustice that has befallen
these Indian people is almost beyond comprehension.
To the matter at hand. One hundred fifty-three years ago, ladies and
gentlemen, that is when these tribes were robbed of their land. The
historic record shows they were swindled out of their promised land.
This has been their version, their own version of the Trail of Tears.
We must not continue to condone that.
We have a higher calling in this body. This is a matter about rising
above the petty differences, it's about making restitution and making
the tribes involved whole, making the tribes involved whole, and as
well clearing title to land where the good people of Charlotte Beach
reside.
So I would say to those of my colleagues with concerns over this
measure, look into your souls. There, it is my hope, that you will find
justice to this cause, to this land claim settlement. The pending
legislation, I might add, is supported by the United Auto Workers, the
International Union of Operating Engineers, and the International Union
of Machinists.
As I conclude, let me say again that it is time we move on so that we
can address other issues of importance to Indian country, such as the
Indian Health Care Improvement Act, reported out of the Committee on
Natural Resources; self-governance issues; other land and economic
development issues, such as with the Catawba in South Carolina.
There are many other Indian tribes in Indian country around our
country that have many injustices yet to be addressed by the Congress
of the United States. We have to look into our souls and decide that it
is time to move above these petty differences, to realize that it is
incumbent upon us in the Congress to address these issues when others
will not.
So I implore my colleagues to support the pending legislation as well
as ending many other injustices to our first Americans, our native
Indians.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 1298, the previous question is ordered
on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Hensarling

Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

[[Page H6056]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. HENSARLING. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Hensarling of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R.
2176 to the Committee on Natural Resources, with instructions
to report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
At the end of the bill, insert the following:

TITLE III--REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT FOR
FEDERAL AGENCIES

SEC. 301. REPEAL OF ALTERNATIVE FUEL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENT
FOR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142) is repealed.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia reserves a
point of order.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I listened very carefully to this debate, it is clear that the
majority of the speakers feel very passionately that this is a debate
about economic development for the region, a distressed region of
Michigan. It's about economic development for a Native American tribe.
Someone would have to be totally out of touch with their constituency
not to realize that the number-one challenge to the economic well-being
of our citizens is the high cost of energy.
So, Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit is very simple. It removes a
provision in last year's ``non-energy'' energy bill that would prevent
the government from using its purchasing power to spur the growth of
American energy resources, such as coal-to-liquids technology, oil
shale, and tar sands.
This is especially important since we know that right north of the
border, right north of Michigan, that our neighbor to the north,
Canada, is rich in these resources. Particularly, so much of their
energy and many of their exports come from tar sands.
The real estate that we are talking about in question could be
greatly impacted should the section 526 not be repealed. Because as
most people know who have studied the issue, Mr. Speaker, the United
States Air Force wishes to enter into long-term contracts in order to
help develop these promising new alternative energy alternatives. Yet
in the Democrat ``non-energy'' energy bill, they would be effectively
prevented from doing so. That will clearly have an adverse impact upon
the economic growth, the economic well-being of the Native American
tribe in question, not to mention the real estate in question as well.
So, again, Mr. Speaker, when we look at energy, energy now has become
a health care issue. It has become an education issue. It is certainly
a Native American issue. It is an economic growth issue as well. What
has happened is we have seen that the Democrat majority simply wants to
bring us bills that somehow believe that if we beg OPEC, we can bring
down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we sue OPEC, we can
bring down the price of energy at the pump. Maybe if we somehow berate
oil companies, that will cause prices to go down at the pump. Maybe we
should tax them. Well, they will take those taxes and put it right back
in their price.
But what the Democrat majority hasn't decided to do is to produce
American energy in America and bring down the cost of energy that way.
Not only have they decided not to do it, Mr. Speaker, they are moving
in the complete opposite direction with this section 526, which
prevents the Federal Government from contracting in order to spur the
growth of these promising alternative fuel sources, like coal-to-liquid
technology, like oil shale, like tar sands. They are moving in the
complete opposite direction.
Mr. Speaker, not unlike probably yourself and many of my other
colleagues on the floor on both sides of the aisle, we hear from our
constituents. I have heard from a constituent that says the high cost
of energy now is preventing them from having three meals a day. The
high cost of energy has caused them to have their adult children to
have to move back in with them. Yet our Democrat majority will not
bring a bill to the floor that actually produces American energy.
What Republicans want to do on this side of the aisle is, number one,
continue to develop our renewable energy resources. Mr. Speaker, before
coming to Congress I was an officer in a green energy company. Those
technologies are promising. But, Mr. Speaker, until they are
technologically and economically viable will be years to come. In the
meantime, people have to take their children to school every day.
People have to go to work every day. Many have to go and see their
physicians.
And so we need to bring down the cost of this energy now. We know
that we haven't built a refinery in America in almost 30 years. Our
capacity is down. We are having to import not just crude but we are
having to import refined gasoline as well. Yet, the Democrat majority
does nothing, does nothing to help build more refineries.
We need diversification. We need nuclear energy. We sit here and talk
to the American people about the threat of global warming, yet we know
nuclear energy has no greenhouse emissions whatsoever.
It's imperative that we pass this motion to recommit and get more
American energy today.

Point of Order

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, certainly after listening to the gentleman's
diatribe, or whatever it was he was talking about, it's certainly not
related to the pending legislation. Never once did I hear the word
``Indian.'' It's a further example of the petty politics the minority
is trying to play with the serious problems confronting the American
people.
I insist on my point of order, and I raise a point of order that the
motion to recommit contains nongermane instructions, in violation of
clause 7 of rule XVI. The instructions in the motion to recommit
address an unrelated matter to the pending legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on
the point of order?
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I wish to be heard.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how, when you can have speaker after
speaker come to the floor and say essentially this is a bill having to
do with the economic well-being of a distressed area of Michigan, the
economic well-being of a Native American tribe, and not believe that
somehow the cost of energy factors into the economic well-being.
We are talking also about a piece of real estate. We are talking
about the value of underlying minerals in this piece of real estate
that will be greatly impacted on whether or not this section 526 is
repealed or not.
I would just simply ask the Speaker, when is it germane to bring a
motion to produce American energy in America and bring down the high
cost of energy for the American people? If not now, when, Mr. Speaker?
When will the Democrat majority allow these motions to be voted on?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The bill, as amended, addresses settling certain land claims of two
tribal communities in the State of Michigan. The instructions in the
motion to recommit address an entirely different subject matter;
namely, alternative fuel procurement. Accordingly, the instructions are
not germane. The point of order is sustained. The motion is not in
order.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HENSARLING. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds that

[[Page H6057]]

a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is
not present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
table will be followed by a 5-minute vote on the passage of the bill if
no further proceedings in recommittal intervene.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226,
nays 189, not voting 19, as follows:

[Roll No. 457]

YEAS--226

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

NAYS--189

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

NOT VOTING--19

Cannon
Cantor
Cubin
Cummings
Delahunt
Fossella
Gohmert
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Peterson (PA)
Putnam
Rush
Salazar
Snyder
Speier
Sullivan
Sutton
Yarmuth

{time} 1605

Mrs. CAPITO and Mr. BURTON of Indiana changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. CROWLEY, UDALL of New Mexico, ABERCROMBIE, LYNCH, and ROTHMAN
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Jones of Ohio). The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 121,
nays 298, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 458]

YEAS--121

Abercrombie
Allen
Andrews
Arcuri
Baldwin
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berman
Berry
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Castor
Clay
Clyburn
Cole (OK)
Cramer
Davis, Tom
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doyle
Ellsworth
Engel
English (PA)
Foster
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kuhl (NY)
LaTourette
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney (NY)
Matsui
McCrery
McHugh
McKeon
McNulty
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Schakowsky
Serrano
Sires
Smith (WA)
Solis
Space
Stupak
Tanner
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Walsh (NY)
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Welch (VT)
Wilson (OH)
Wu
Young (AK)

NAYS--298

Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Baird
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Carter
Castle
Cazayoux
Chabot
Chandler
Childers
Clarke
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Conaway
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Lincoln
Deal (GA)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Doggett
Donnelly
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellison
Emanuel
Emerson
Eshoo
Etheridge
Everett
Fallin
Farr
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter

[[Page H6058]]

Inglis (SC)
Israel
Issa
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Jordan
Kaptur
Keller
Kilpatrick
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kucinich
LaHood
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mitchell
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Oberstar
Obey
Pascrell
Payne
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sali
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Scalise
Schiff
Schmidt
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauscher
Taylor
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Tsongas
Turner
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walz (MN)
Wamp
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield (KY)
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman (VA)
Wolf
Woolsey
Yarmuth
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Cannon
Cubin
Cummings
Delahunt
Fossella
Lampson
Mahoney (FL)
McCotter
Peterson (PA)
Putnam
Ros-Lehtinen
Rush
Snyder
Speier
Sutton

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1614

Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida and Mr. PAYNE changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BUTTERFIELD changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was not passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________