[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 111 (Tuesday, July 24, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1313]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  INDIAN TRIBAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT OF 2011

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. HOWARD L. BERMAN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 23, 2012

  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2362, 
the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 
2011. My reasons for opposing this ill-conceived and unnecessary 
legislation are spelled out in a dear colleague I issued with several 
of my colleagues, and which I submit for the record. I urge all of my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2362.

                          Vote No on H.R. 2362

       Dear Colleague: We urge you to oppose H.R. 2362, the Indian 
     Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 
     2011, when it is considered on the House floor today. This 
     bill provides for investment activities by WTO member nations 
     in a select number of Indian tribal lands, with implied 
     special consideration for Turkish businesses. Although the 
     bill ostensibly applies equally to all WTO member nations, 
     its Findings section exclusively discusses Turkey's relations 
     with Native Americans, alleging that Turkey has 
     ``demonstrated a unique interest in bolstering cultural, 
     political, and economic relationships with Indian tribes and 
     tribal members''--without explaining the nature of this 
     ``unique interest.'' Moreover, in both the operative and non-
     operative sections of the bill, the concept of ``all WTO 
     member nations'' is expressed as ``Turkey and other World 
     Trade Organization member nations''--an odd description that, 
     if adopted by Congress, would suggest that the United States, 
     for no apparent reason, prefers Turkish investment in tribal 
     areas over that from other WTO member nations.
       Turkey is an important NATO ally, but we are concerned 
     about the prospect of singling out Turkey for special 
     consideration at a time when Ankara is pursuing so many 
     objectionable policies. For example:
       Turkey recognizes the terrorist Hamas government in Gaza 
     and even received its leader in the Turkish parliament 
     earlier this year--disturbing hypocrisy from a state that 
     receives U.S. support for its own fight against terrorism. 
     Turkey also demands that Israel end its naval blockade of 
     Gaza, despite the deadly security threat Hamas poses to 
     Israel. Turkey's repeated, flagrant criticism of Israel is 
     particularly troubling and potentially destabilizing.
       As a member of the UN Security Council two years ago, 
     Turkey voted against sanctions on Iran.
       For 38 years, Turkey has illegally occupied the northern 
     third of the island Republic of Cyprus, a member of the 
     European Union. More recently, Turkey has threatened the use 
     of force to stop Texas-based Noble Energy from drilling for 
     oil and gas off the shores of EU-member Cyprus and to 
     blacklist any businesses that work with Cyprus for natural 
     resource extraction.
       Turkey continues to deny the Armenian Genocide during which 
     1.5 million Armenians perished and has threatened punitive 
     measures against the United States if Congress recognizes 
     this tragic event. Since 1993 Turkey has maintained a 
     destabilizing blockade of Armenia.
       On July 19, Congress sent H.R. 205 to the President for 
     signature into law. That bill, known as the HEARTH Act, 
     provides that all Native American tribes, not just a few, 
     would have the right to lease tribal lands for economic 
     development purposes to any party, domestic or foreign--not 
     just to Turkish parties. H.R. 205 would also maintain 
     traditional federal government oversight of economic use of 
     tribal lands; in contrast, H.R. 2362 would limit that 
     oversight for the tribal lands to which it would apply. But, 
     even at it is best, H.R. 2362--with its focus on only a few 
     tribal areas and its implied preference for Turkish 
     investment--is redundant and an unusual, unprecedented, and 
     unnecessary endorsement of a state that, though an ally, 
     continues to pursue problematic policies.
       We encourage you to vote no on H.R. 2362.
     Howard L. Berman.
     Gary Ackerman.
     Eliot Engel.
     Shelley Berkley.

                          ____________________