[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 86 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H3588-H3589]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REVOCATION OF MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA CHARTER
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 533) to revoke the charter of incorporation of the Miami
Tribe of Oklahoma at the request of that tribe, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 533
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REVOCATION OF CHARTER OF INCORPORATION.
The request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to surrender the
charter of incorporation issued to that tribe and ratified by
its members on June 1, 1940, pursuant to the Act of June 26,
1936 (25 U.S.C. 501 et seq.; commonly known as the ``Oklahoma
Welfare Act''), is hereby accepted and that charter of
incorporation is hereby revoked.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Beyer) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
General Leave
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Utah?
There was no objection.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have another piece of legislation that does wonderful
things. It should have been done earlier than this, but this time we
are going to get it all the way through the system.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Mullin) to explain his legislation.
Mr. MULLIN. I thank the chairman for yielding.
The Miami Tribe's current charter of incorporation is an outdated
governing structure that harms business and economic development. We
wrote this bill because these charters can only be removed literally by
an act of Congress.
The Miami Tribe has said that the outdated charter is inoperable. It
imposes restrictions on business operations that are unmanageable and
unnecessary.
Oklahoma is known for its entrepreneurial spirit, especially among
our State's tribes. It is important that Congress remove these hurdles
for investors, business partners, and potential customers.
As lawmakers, it is our job in Congress to foster an atmosphere that
promotes economic growth across the country. I take this responsibility
very seriously, and I hope that you will join me today in eliminating a
needless economic burden on the Miami Tribe in my home State of
Oklahoma.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, H.R. 533
simply revokes a corporate charter issued to it by the Federal
Government.
Under the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act and the Indian Reorganization
Act, many tribes were issued corporate charters in the 1930s and 1940s
that were aimed at enabling them to better manage their own affairs and
pursue business relationships with private entities.
For some tribes, these corporate charters have proven unnecessary and
end up hindering their business opportunities, as they will inevitably
come up in negotiations with private entities and are looked upon with
suspicion.
The charter must be revoked by an act of Congress, and Mr. Mullin, on
behalf of his constituents, is simply being a good Congressman and
complying with the tribe's request through this bill.
Similar legislation has passed over the years without event, and I
ask my colleagues to stand with me in support of Mr. Mullin's
noncontroversial bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me say just a few words about this particular piece legislation
by myself. It is a one-page piece of legislation that should be easy to
read--and those are always dangerous because they are easy to read--
that grants the request from the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma to revoke a
charter of incorporation which was issued back in the New Deal era--a
1936 law that was implemented
[[Page H3589]]
in 1940. And as we know, any of those pieces of legislation that age
that well have got to be reviewed at a specific period of time.
Right now, we have a situation in which this tribe funds itself in a
cumbersome situation with an outdated document that puts on limitations
and uncertainty in the tribe business when they don't have to, because
they are dealing instead with the business activities that come through
their tribal constitution.
They are doing it the right way. And unfortunately, it requires an
act of Congress to allow them to do what they ought to be doing and are
doing in the first place and just clean up this act. So only we can do
that.
It is in accordance with the tribal wishes, and it is in accordance
with Congressman Mullin, who represents this particular tribe in the
House. He has sponsored this. This is a good bill. The Department of
the Interior does not object to this piece of legislation. An identical
version passed in the House in the 113th Congress by a voice vote. I
would hope we would do it again, and this time make sure we go all the
way through the system and do what is right for this particular tribe.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1515
Mr. BEYER. I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak very slowly as I
am waiting for someone else to show up on the next bill and would,
therefore, yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin) for another couple of anecdotes as to why this
piece of legislation is needed. I will tug on the gentleman's coat when
he shows up and he can quit.
Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Speaker, you know, this is a piece of legislation
that unfortunately we have tried 2\1/2\ years, way too long, to try to
get through this body; but it also opens an important conversation
about taking a look at all of these charters.
Why is it that Congress has to come together to pass commonsense
legislation that should be up to the tribes themselves to make the
decision? When they are hindering the businesses and the atmosphere
that these tribes are able to operate under, they are not able to go
out and provide jobs to not just their members but, also, to the
communities which they live in and they thrive in.
Miami Tribe is a large employer of the city of Miami. The city of
Miami has been in a situation where they have lost two major employers,
and they look to these tribes like this in the community to create not
just jobs at a casino, but manufacturing jobs, jobs that help our
national defense. Yet they are hindered constantly by the effect that
they can't simply do the work without asking Congress' permission.
They are a sovereign nation. Why is it that they would have to
continue to come back on something that isn't needed, something that
dates all the way back to the 1930s? Unfortunately, this is exactly
where we find ourselves today.
I am so glad that this is actually one of those things that is a
bipartisan approach. Common sense does prevail in these Halls sometimes
when we can come together and we can work at something that is
noncontroversial. Even at that, we started this in the 113th Congress;
and now we are in the 114th Congress, and we are still talking about
it. We are 6 months into the 114th Congress, and we are trying to get a
commonsense piece of legislation passed.
If I remember correctly, last year, when we tried to put this
through, there was only one ``no'' vote. If that is not bipartisanship,
then, what is? This should have been on the President's desk already.
So I join my colleagues in supporting this bill, but I also want to
thank them for their patience, for the city of Miami and the tribe of
Miami for their patience and the opportunity to bring this up again.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I certainly don't want to break any
protocols we may have. So, therefore, I want to echo what the gentleman
from Oklahoma so brilliantly and so fluently and obviously not slowly
enough said.
With that, Mr. Speaker, once again, we will go through this concept
that hopefully--does the gentleman from Virginia, even though I realize
he has yielded back, would the gentleman like some of my time?
Mr. BEYER. I would be happy to take some if the chairman wouldn't
mind.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Bless you.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend my gratitude to the
Congressman from Oklahoma for teaching me how to say ``Miami.'' I have
been mispronouncing ``Miami'' all through my short presentation. I also
want to thank him for his leadership and being so responsive.
I think that there are perhaps many other laws on the books that we
should look at in a very simple way to revoke the charters, as
necessary.
I would also like to offer my help to the Congressman from Miami with
our two Virginia Senators. It sounds like, if it passed this House with
only one negative vote last year, that perhaps the Senate is the place
where this is being held up. If we can provide some support to him in
his moving this through the Senate side, I would be delighted to do
that.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 12\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a good piece of
legislation. I want to thank Mr. Mullin for bringing it up.
While we are on the subject, I would like to talk about the necessity
of ICWA, the Child Welfare Act of this Congress past which I was a
sponsor of.
The gentleman is here. So we won't talk about ICWA today. We will
just let Mr. McClintock get in here and make his statement. Eventually,
Mr. Speaker, I will talk about the foster care homes, the need for
volunteers, so we don't have 300 children in my State staying with
State supervision instead of adopted. So we will talk about that later.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, with great appreciation to my good
friends from Oklahoma and Virginia and Alaska, I yield back the balance
of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, H.R. 533.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________