[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.

       (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.

          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.

                          ____________________