[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H6099-H6101]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1230
  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 31, LUMBEE RECOGNITION ACT, AND 
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1385, THOMASINA E. JORDAN INDIAN 
           TRIBES OF VIRGINIA FEDERAL RECOGNITION ACT OF 2009

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 490 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 490

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 31) 
     to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North 
     Carolina, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Natural 
     Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions of the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 1385) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy 
     Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe-Eastern Division, 
     the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, Inc., the 
     Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian Tribe. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points 
     of order against consideration of the bill are waived except 
     those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived except those arising 
     under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote 
     in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the 
     Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with 
     or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). All time yielded during 
consideration of the rule today is for debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CARDOZA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks 
on House Resolution 490.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CARDOZA. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 490 provides for consideration of H.R. 
31, the Lumbee Recognition Act, under a closed rule, and also for 
separate consideration of H.R. 1385, the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian 
Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2009, under a structured 
rule. Both bills are debatable for 1 hour, each equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on 
Natural Resources. The rule for H.R. 1385 makes in order two amendments 
listed in the Rules Committee report. Each amendment is debatable for 
10 minutes. The rule also provides for a motion to recommit with or 
without instructions on both bills.
  Mr. Speaker, the two bills before us today will right several wrongs 
in our country's history and bring closure to the issue of full Federal 
recognition of the Lumbee Indians of North Carolina and six Indian 
tribes in Virginia.
  Since the late 1800s, the Lumbee Tribe has been seeking Federal 
recognition despite the fact that congressional hearings and the 
Department of the Interior's studies have consistently concluded that 
the Lumbees are a distinct, self-governing Indian community. In fact, 
the Lumbees were first recognized as a tribe in 1885 by their home 
State of North Carolina. In that time, however, various bills to 
recognize the tribe failed due to opposition from the Department of the 
Interior.
  Most importantly, in 1956, Congress formally acknowledged the Lumbee 
Tribe with passage of the Lumbee Act. However, it was passed during a 
period of Federal Indian policy known as the Termination Era. As such, 
while Congress acknowledged the Lumbee, it effectively ended its 
relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to 
the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition.
  This termination has subsequently prevented the Lumbees from 
receiving recognition from the Department of the Interior which has 
maintained that only Congress can restore that relationship.
  A similar injustice has occurred in Virginia. Records exist 
documenting a relationship between the six Indian tribes, local 
governments, and the Commonwealth of Virginia for centuries. It has 
long been established that ancestors of these six tribes resided in 
Virginia when the first white settlers landed in Jamestown, yet their 
history is fraught with deliberate discrimination and document 
destruction.
  During the Civil War, most local records and tribal documentation 
were destroyed in fires at government buildings. At that time, many 
Indians began adopting Anglo-American names, language, and customs to 
conceal their tribal identity and ensure their survival.
  In addition, Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act--pushed by a noted 
white supremacist--was responsible for the deliberate and systematic 
destruction of over 46 years of any records that traced and recorded 
the existence of vast Indian tribes.
  The Department of the Interior has generally not questioned the 
tribes' ancestry or tribal government status. But despite the wealth of 
documentation that exists for each tribe, it is not clear whether they 
could obtain proper documentation to be acknowledged by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. I would add that each of these six tribes was 
recognized by the Commonwealth of Virginia between 1983 and 1989.
  Mr. Speaker, the circumstances surrounding all of these tribes are 
certainly unique and warrant special attention by Congress. Congress 
has passed bills recognizing all of these tribes several times, 
including last session. The Lumbee bill passed with strong bipartisan 
support while the Virginia Tribes bill passed by voice vote.
  I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to once again support 
these long-overdue bills.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. First, let me say how great it is to see you in the 
Chair, Mr.

[[Page H6100]]

Speaker. I would like to express my appreciation to my good friend from 
California, my colleague, Mr. Cardoza, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule actually provides for the consideration of two 
problematic bills--H.R. 1385, which would extend recognition to six 
Indian tribes in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and H.R. 31, which would 
extend recognition to the Lumbee Tribe in the State of North Carolina. 
Both adopt an arbitrary and inconsistent recognition process that 
threatens those tribes who are already Federally recognized and upends 
the process for future applicants. And this rule provides for an even 
more problematic process.
  The issue of tribe recognition--like all matters before Congress--
demands clarity, fairness and transparency. The two underlying bills, 
unfortunately, deliver just the opposite. H.R. 1385 would extend 
recognition to six Virginia tribes rather than requiring that they go 
through the normal Federal recognition process at the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  These tribes have sought legislative action because they lack the 
proper documentation to complete the regular administrative process. 
This is due to the fact--and it was correctly pointed out by my 
California colleague--that they've been victims of targeted attacks in 
the past which resulted in the destruction of many of the very 
important historical documents that would have been necessary. This is 
a reminder, Mr. Speaker, of a very, very ugly chapter in our Nation's 
history, and Congress should work very carefully to address this issue.
  While the situation of the Virginia tribes is difficult--and I 
recognize that--for the reasons I just stated, we need to consider the 
overall fairness of our actions. For instance, there are currently nine 
other tribes, nine other tribes that have fully completed their 
application processes and are awaiting final determinations. They have 
done their due diligence and deserve to have their cases addressed in 
the proper order. While the six tribes covered in H.R. 1385 may deserve 
special dispensation from the normal BIA process, questions have been 
raised regarding the fairness of penalizing the nine other tribes who 
fully completed the process and are patiently waiting in line for the 
determination.
  The process serves a purpose: ensuring that tribal determination is 
fair, consistent and fully vetted. We need to think very, very 
carefully, Mr. Speaker, before upending that regime.
  H.R. 31 is even more controversial, not least because the price tag 
comes to $786 million--or, Mr. Speaker, I should say ``at least'' $786 
million. We know that an enactment of this bill would cost, again, at 
least three-quarters of a billion dollars. And I say ``billion'' 
because I know the word ``trillion'' is used more frequently around 
here tragically these days. But it would be very, very, very costly. It 
could balloon to an even larger level of funding.
  At issue is conflicting membership estimates of the Lumbee Tribe. The 
Interior Department estimates it at 40,000; the tribe itself estimates 
it at about 55,000, a difference of nearly 40 percent. But what's more, 
local North Carolina media have reported that some in the tribe intend 
to expand its membership once this bill is enacted. They're waiting for 
Federal recognition and then want to increase their numbers, expanding 
the cost of this bill even further and pulling resources away from the 
long-recognized tribes.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the Lumbee Tribe, just like any other Indian tribe, 
should obtain Federal recognition on its merits. It may indeed deserve 
recognition. However, the merits are still far from clear. The last 
several administrations have opposed their application. The Obama 
administration has reversed course, but it has not offered any 
explanation as to why. In fact, the administration does not yet have 
its appointees in place at the Interior Department to even articulate 
their reasoning.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress must fully vet all of these issues and act in a 
clear, comprehensive way that eliminates the current confusion and 
restores clarity and certainty. And yet inexplicably, the rule which 
we're debating right now curtails the ability of Members, Republican 
and Democratic Members, to offer their amendments so that a 
comprehensive consensus solution could, in fact, be reached.
  Rather than an open process which would have allowed the House to 
address many of these issues, the rule for the Lumbee Tribe bill is a 
closed rule, despite submission of the very thoughtful amendment by Mr. 
Shuler. It is, in fact, a bipartisan amendment. He should be allowed to 
bring his alternative before the House for an up-or-down vote. It's 
very sad that I have to stand here as a minority Member fighting for 
the rights of a majority Member of this institution.
  Similarly, Madam Speaker, the ranking member of the Agriculture 
Committee, our friend from Roanoke, Virginia, (Mr. Goodlatte) asked for 
an open amendment process on the Virginia bill. While two of his 
amendments were made in order, an open process would have allowed him 
to offer all of his amendments and permitted all Members to 
participate.
  Madam Speaker, these bills have problems but this rule has a bigger 
problem. As happens all too often in this Democratic majority, this 
debate will be closed rather than open, and Members will be shut out of 
the process.
  So I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule. We can address these 
very, very important issues in a more fair and balanced way.

                              {time}  1245

  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I'd like to inquire from my friend and 
colleague from California if he has any further speakers.
  Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CARDOZA. I would yield.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding, and, Madam Speaker, I 
will inform my friend that there are no other requests for time on our 
side of the aisle. At this juncture, I will encourage my colleagues to 
oppose this rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARDOZA. Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate my colleague from 
California, and I understand that he has concerns about this process 
and these measures.
  I would just like to remind the entire body that the Lumbee bill has, 
in fact, been before the Congress before. This Congress has acted on 
it. Despite the claims to the contrary, Congress has traditionally 
taken the lead in recognizing Indian tribes. In fact, Congress has 
recognized 530 of the 561 Federally recognized tribes.
  Despite the fact that the Department of the Interior established 
certain administrative procedures in 1978, Congress has stepped in and 
recognized tribes nine additional times due to extraordinary 
circumstances, much like this.
  I think that this is an appropriate rule, and I think we will have an 
opportunity to debate the issues during the debate time that has been 
allotted.
  I would ask my colleagues to support the rule, and I urge Members on 
both sides of the aisle to once again take an important step forward in 
correcting hundreds of years of injustice which are long overdue.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous 
question.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 174, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 295]

                               YEAS--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Adler (NJ)
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Clarke
     Clay

[[Page H6101]]


     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Marchant
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Sutton
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--174

     Akin
     Alexander
     Altmire
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Ellsworth
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Griffith
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bean
     Becerra
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt
     Broun (GA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Dingell
     Engel
     Grayson
     Gutierrez
     Johnson, Sam
     Kennedy
     Lowey
     McMorris Rodgers
     Melancon
     Pence
     Pingree (ME)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schock
     Sullivan
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (OH)

                              {time}  1309

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, I regrettably missed rollcall vote No. 295 
on June 2, 2009. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed 
rollcall vote No. 295 on passage of H. Res. 490. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``nay.''
  Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS.
  Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 295 I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 295 I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________