[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 81 (Wednesday, May 15, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3816-H3824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         MASHPEE WAMPANOAG TRIBE RESERVATION REAFFIRMATION ACT

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 377, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 312) to reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 
reservation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 377, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
Natural Resources, printed in the bill, is adopted, and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.

[[Page H3817]]

  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                                H.R. 312

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 
     Reservation Reaffirmation Act''.

     SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF INDIAN TRUST LAND.

       (a) In General.--The taking of land into trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe 
     of Massachusetts as described in the final Notice of 
     Reservation Proclamation (81 Fed. Reg. 948; January 8, 2016) 
     is reaffirmed as trust land and the actions of the Secretary 
     of the Interior in taking that land into trust are ratified 
     and confirmed.
       (b) Application.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, an action (including an action pending in a Federal 
     court as of the date of enactment of this Act) relating to 
     the land described in subsection (a) shall not be filed or 
     maintained in a Federal court and shall be promptly 
     dismissed.
       (c) Applicability of Laws.--All laws (including 
     regulations) of the United States of general applicability to 
     Indians or nations, Indian Tribes, or bands of Indians 
     (including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 5101 et 
     seq.)), shall be applicable to the Tribe and Tribal members, 
     except that to the extent such laws and regulations are 
     inconsistent with the terms of the Intergovernmental 
     Agreement, dated April 22, 2008, by and between the Mashpee 
     Wampanoag Tribe and the Town of Mashpee, Massachusetts, the 
     terms of that Intergovernmental Agreement shall control.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).


                             General Leave

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 312.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation 
Reaffirmation Act, will reaffirm the trust status of Mashpee's Tribal 
land and protect the Tribe from further attacks on its land and its 
sovereignty.
  The Mashpee relationship with the Federal Government is one of the 
oldest in the United States. In fact, their ancestors are the ones who 
welcomed the pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock, as well as the 
people who aided those pilgrims through hard times in 1621, in what we 
now refer to as the ``First Thanksgiving.''
  Like many Tribes, the Mashpee were intentionally and systematically 
rendered landless, through no fault of their own. They fought long and 
hard over the years to reestablish both their Tribe and their land 
base.
  The Tribe first petitioned the Federal Government for recognition in 
1978. Finally, after 30 years, the Bush administration extended formal 
recognition to the Tribe in 2007. However, they still remained 
landless.
  This was remedied in 2015, when the Department of the Interior took 
approximately 320 acres into trust to serve as the Tribe's reservation 
lands. The two parcels that compose the 320 acres are both within the 
Tribe's historic and ancestral homelands.
  The Tribe constructed a government center on the land, which includes 
their schools, courtrooms and multipurpose room, as well as a medical 
clinic facility. And they broke ground on a gaming facility that would 
eventually bring in much-needed revenue for Tribal operations and 
programs.
  However, in 2016, a group of Taunton residents, backed by an out-of-
state commercial gaming company, filed a Carcieri suit in federal court 
to challenge the Department of the Interior's action.
  Initially, the executive branch defended the decision to create the 
Mashpee reservation. However, in May 2017, the Department of Justice, 
under the Trump administration, inexplicably withdrew from the 
litigation and is no longer defending the status of the Tribe's land.
  Then, in September 2018, the Department of the Interior issued its 
first Carcieri decision in which it refused to reaffirm its own 
authority to confirm the status of the Tribe's lands into trust. The 
effect of this decision cannot be overstated. For the first time in 
this century, a Tribe was stripped of its sovereign rights to its land. 
It would mark the first time since the dark days of the termination era 
that the United States acted to disestablish an Indian reservation and 
render a Tribe landless.
  These attacks on the reservation and on the Tribe's very status have 
been devastating. The legal uncertainty that has been imposed by these 
events is forcing the Tribe to borrow thousands of dollars every day 
just to keep its government running, resulting in devastating cuts to 
essential services, and massive layoffs of Tribal members.
  This is completely unacceptable. We cannot idly stand by as Tribal 
people are once again harmed by yet another action by the Federal 
Government. Let's be honest, the Federal Government has done a terrible 
job of living up to its moral and legal obligations to Indian Country.
  Housing, education, healthcare, and basic needs often go unmet in 
Tribal lands. These are not extras or handouts to Tribal people. It is 
part of a trust responsibility, enshrined in numerous treaties, court 
rulings, and laws.
  But the needs still need to be met, despite the Federal Government's 
failings. So how do Tribes attempt to make up for that shortfall? By 
utilizing their land for economic development, including gaming.
  Economic development on Tribal lands is vital to the prosperity of a 
Tribe and the ultimate goal of self-determination and self-reliance. We 
have seen it numerous times across the Nation: Tribes using those 
dollars to fund their programs, construct housing and health clinics, 
and take care of the needs of their people.
  The Mashpee Tribe should not be hindered from economic development on 
their land solely because the State of Rhode Island wants to protect 
its own State-run gaming interest.
  H.R. 312 is widely supported in Indian Country, with letters of 
support from over 50 individual Tribes and pan-Tribal organizations.
  Additionally, the bill has strong support, including from the cities 
of Taunton and Mashpee, the Chambers of Commerce of both cities, the 
State of Massachusetts, numerous Members of the Massachusetts State 
House and State Senate, the Mayflower Society, and many local 
businesses and business leaders.
  Passage of H.R. 312 will protect the Mashpee Tribe's reservation 
lands and make clear that the Tribe is entitled to be treated the same 
way as other federally recognized Tribes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in 
strong opposition to H.R. 312.
  H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the Interior. 
It contradicts a Supreme Court decision and aims to reverse Federal 
court decisions on this matter in order to build a massive 400,000-
square-foot, off-reservation gaming complex for the benefit of Genting, 
a foreign Malaysian gaming company.
  H.R. 312 creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of 
Massachusetts:
  One reservation will be the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic 
reservation lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical 
boundaries of the town of Mashpee.
  The other reservation is, oddly, 50 miles away from Mashpee, in the 
city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's historic 
reservation and was selected by the Tribe and Genting for a billion-
dollar casino project because of its proximity to the Providence, Rhode 
Island, casino market, 20 miles distant.
  There is no reason for the second reservation, other than to build an 
off-reservation casino 50 miles away from the Mashpee Tribe, where they 
currently reside. In fact, the new off-reservation casino will be only 
20 miles from the New England Patriots' football stadium and, again, 50 
miles from the Mashpees' historic reservation.
  In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, with the 
intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing 
land in

[[Page H3818]]

trust for the Mashpee Tribe for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 creates an 
off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with congressional 
intent. This is often called reservation shopping, and it is an abuse 
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a political 
headache, so they went to the bureaucrats within the BIA to obtain the 
two reservations through administrative action. RedState recently 
reported:

       No one is more desperate for H.R. 312 to succeed than 
     Genting Malaysia. If the casino doesn't come through, the 
     Tribe doesn't have to pay Genting back the over half a 
     billion dollars it borrowed.

  H.R. 312 is a financial bailout for Genting. The Tribe is swamped 
with a $500 million-plus debt to Genting, and there is no way the Tribe 
can ever pay this back and still make enough money to sustain itself. 
Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the 
Tribe.
  This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the 
financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent 
tribally owned.
  At the committee hearing on this bill, counsel for the Governor of 
Rhode Island testified that H.R. 312 will cause the State significant 
harm with regards to revenues for education, infrastructure, and social 
programs and is contrary to the limitations contained in the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Moreover, the American Principles Project also reported on the ties 
between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Mashpee Wampanoag 
Tribe, stating:

       The expansive Abramoff investigation uncovered major 
     corruption within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. Its chief, 
     Glenn Marshall, pled guilty in 2009 to multiple Federal 
     charges, including embezzling Tribal funds and campaign 
     finance violations committed while working with Abramoff to 
     secure the Federal recognition of the Tribe in 2007.

  For my Republican colleagues: The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 
voting Republicans during the committee markup, including the ranking 
member, Rob Bishop; President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill 
and urged Republicans to do the same; House Minority Whip Steve Scalise 
also sent an email recommending Members vote ``no'' on H.R. 312. Do you 
really want to vote for Elizabeth Warren's top Tribal priority?
  For my Democratic colleagues: Representatives Cicilline and Langevin 
strongly oppose this bill, and it is opposed by the Democratic Governor 
of Rhode Island. The bill is also ``strenuously opposed'' by other 
federally recognized Tribes in Massachusetts.
  For Members on both sides of the aisle: Do you really want your name 
tied to a Tribe that only received Federal recognition in 2007 as a 
result of shady lobbying by Jack Abramoff? Do you really want to vote 
for a $500 million bailout for a former gaming corporation?
  In short, H.R. 312 authorizes an off-reservation casino, bails out a 
foreign corporation from major financial problems of its own making, 
reverses the judgment of a Federal court, and contradicts the Supreme 
Court ruling.
  Wow, all in one breath.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote 
against H.R. 312, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), the sponsor of the 
legislation.
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I 
thank the chairman for all his hard work on this bill and so many 
others that are related to this.
  I also want to thank the Natural Resources subcommittee chair and 
ranking member, Mr. Gallego and Mr. Cook.
  I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts who has worked so 
hard and is a cosponsor, Mr. Kennedy.
  I also want to give particular thanks to the gentleman from Oklahoma 
(Mr. Cole) for his support and also voice my strong support for H.R. 
375, the bill that was just debated that is well thought out, well 
worked through--over a decade--and well worth the support of everyone 
here.
  Mr. Speaker, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has resided in southern New 
England for more than 12,000 years. To not have their land federally 
recognized is simply a disgrace.
  We have seen them in our history books, in historical paintings, in 
iconic murals. They are the Tribes that welcomed the Pilgrims for the 
first Thanksgiving. This President even put them in his own 
Thanksgiving proclamation just last year. He recognized them.
  Tragically, like so many Native Americans, the Mashpee Wampanoag 
Tribe has lived through centuries of injustice, the latest of which 
this House is debating today.
  For years, I have worked personally with the Tribe as they have used 
hard-earned Federal recognition to provide adequate housing, jobs, job 
training, and essential services, including native language learning, 
early childhood education.
  And this is important. We all know, in my region, the plague of the 
opioid epidemic, through Cape Cod, in that region. The incidence of 
overdose for the Wampanoag Tribe is 400 times. I will repeat that, 400 
times more, the number of overdoses for that Tribe. I have worked with 
them and will continue to work with them, if they are in existence, to 
try and help them deal with this scourge.
  The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is also a Tribe that, as you look at the 
landscape for Tribes around the country, is suffering so many things 
that other Tribes are--the uncertainty of their status.
  And this is the Tribe, I think, that best shows the inequities that 
are involved in these types of recognition.
  I will just say, I introduced this bill last Congress when we first 
heard rumors that the Department of the Interior was going to, for the 
first time, reverse the position of the previous administration and 
refuse to defend the Mashpee Wampanoag's right to their historic land. 
They are the only Tribe that has received recognition and then had it 
taken away from them.
  Now the Tribe's reservation is hanging by a thread, and they have 
been left to defend their land on their own. This is an existential 
threat.
  Without support from Congress, it will be nearly impossible for the 
Mashpee to engage in any kind of true self-government because they 
won't own their own land: no economic development, no Tribal 
headquarters, no elder housing, no pre-K programs. It means being 
treated as a second-class Tribe with no future.
  Bipartisan legislation to help a Tribe like the Mashpee would 
normally pass the House without issue. Just 2 weeks ago, we passed a 
parallel Republican-led bill for a Tribe in California without a single 
Member objecting--not a peep from the other side. President Obama 
signed a bill like this into law in 2014, and, importantly, President 
Trump did the same just last year.
  Sadly, although the substance of H.R. 312 is noncontroversial, the 
tactics employed by the bill's few opponents are not. Throughout this 
process, we have seen gross mischaracterization and outright lying for 
personal and financial gain.
  My Republican colleague, ranking member in the Rules Committee, a 
member of the Chickasaw Nation, a Republican from Oklahoma and an 
expert on these issues, said last night at the Rules meeting, never has 
he seen such misinformation about a simple bill, to the point of being 
scurrilous.
  This is not about gaming. It is not about picking winners and losers. 
It is simply about a Tribe's rightful place in its native land. That is 
all.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe in the best in this institution. I believe 
that many of us in Congress are here to lead. We are here to debate 
issues on their merits; we are here to find common ground when we might 
otherwise disagree; and we are here to set an example to show the 
American people what is right. Yet what we have seen happen to the 
Mashpee bill in the past week reflects the worst. No low seems too low.
  Where is the bottom?
  We have seen the President, through his tweets, trying to sink an 
entire Native American Tribe in the name of special interests, dirty 
lobbying, and outright bigotry.
  The cast of characters behind the scenes spewing information is 
revealing: a rightwing lobbyist, Trump loyalist; a Trump campaign 
operative who worked for convicted felon and Trump campaign manager 
Paul Manafort; individuals with financial interests that

[[Page H3819]]

are counter to the Tribe, including two former Trump Plaza Casino 
officials and a major financier with both casino and National Enquirer 
interests.
  Cultural warfare to benefit bank accounts, corrupt intent for 
personal gain, all in the form of a racist tweet. And some Members of 
this body are eager to let him get away with it. But not me, not my 
cosponsors, and not the majority of this House.
  I still believe this House has an opportunity today to do what is 
right. We can show the Native American people that we will stand up for 
them, that after nearly 250 years since our country's founding we would 
not be where we are without them. They deserve that dignity; they 
deserve that respect; and they deserve that sovereignty for their 
historic homeland.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be on the right side of history today. Vote 
``yes'' and save the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues on the 
other side understand that, as the city of Mashpee, no one has any 
problems, but it is the city of Taunton that is part of the problem, 
and that is where we have the gist. So I caution them to watch their 
rhetoric.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. It is a very 
generous gesture when we have a different point of view on the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 312, the Mashpee 
Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.
  Mashpee Wampanoag people have lived in the Massachusetts area for 
thousands of years. In fact, our shared Thanksgiving tradition 
highlights a celebration of Pilgrims and Indians breaking bread 
together over the first colonial holiday, and it is the Mashpee who sat 
at the table.
  In 2007, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe was federally recognized. Mr. 
Speaker, 8 years later, the Bureau of Indian Affairs approved the 
decision to take land into trust on behalf of the Mashpee for a 
reservation. The Tribe was then able to provide services directly to 
its citizens, become eligible for Federal programs, and explore 
economic opportunities.
  Shortly after, in 2016, the Mashpee's reservation decision was 
challenged in court by plaintiffs stating that, because the Tribe was 
federally recognized after 1934, the Department of the Interior could 
not take land into trust on behalf of a Tribe. This decision stems from 
the 2009 Supreme Court decision, Carcieri v. Salazar. It is an example 
of why that law needs to be fixed.
  In 2018, the administration issued a decision that would take the 
Mashpees' reservation out of trust. This marked the first time since 
the termination era that a Tribe has lost their trust land.
  Frankly, from my standpoint, Mr. Speaker, an attack on trust land 
anywhere threatens trust land everywhere, so I am very happy to be 
working with my good friend, Mr. Keating, on H.R. 312. It is a 
bipartisan bill, and it is necessary. It will reaffirm the trust status 
of the Mashpee reservation.
  The local elected officials with jurisdiction over the land are 
supportive of the bill, as is the State's entire congressional 
delegation, as is the Republican Governor of the State.
  Mr. Speaker, a ``yes'' vote on this bill will right a wrong. It is a 
vote for local control. It is a vote for Tribal sovereignty, and it 
brings the Mashpee land back into trust. It marks another important 
step in our shared American journey.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 312, 
the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. This bill 
will allow the Mashpee Tribe to open a massive off-reservation casino 
right on the border of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, nearly 40 miles 
away from their historic Tribal lands in Cape Cod.
  The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe became federally recognized in 2007. 
Under the Indian Reorganization Act, the United States Department of 
the Interior is only allowed to take land into trust for Tribes 
recognized before 1934.
  In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this Federal standard in 
the Carcieri v. Salazar decision. In 2015, the U.S. Department of the 
Interior ignored the Indian Reorganization Act and the U.S. Supreme 
Court's ruling and took land into trust for the Mashpee Tribe.
  A year later, the residents of Taunton, Massachusetts, sued and won 
in U.S. district court to stop the casino from being built in their 
town. The district court ruled that the Department of the Interior 
should not have taken land into trust for the Mashpee Tribe and 
instructed the Department to conduct a further review of the Tribe's 
eligibility.
  After reviewing the Mashpee Tribe's application last year, the U.S. 
Department of the Interior rejected the Tribe's claim based on the 
finding that the Tribe was not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934, 
which meant the Department lacked authority under Federal law to take 
land into trust on their behalf.
  Today's bill would reverse this final decision of the Federal court 
and the Department of the Interior and disregard the U.S. Supreme Court 
precedent in allowing the Tribe to build an off-reservation casino in 
Taunton, Massachusetts.
  If H.R. 312 passes today, it would be the first time--I repeat, the 
first time--Congress ever reversed a final Federal court ruling that 
determined a Tribe did not meet the Federal standard to have land taken 
into trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
  The impact of this bill would be disastrous and would open a 
floodgate for Tribes to come to Washington to hire the biggest 
lobbyists they can to get their carve-out from Congress.
  Do we really want to go down this road? Does Congress want to be in 
the business of picking winners and losers? That is exactly what this 
bill does.
  The Tribal land system shouldn't depend on which Tribes hire the most 
expensive lobbyists. Instead, it should be based on fairness under our 
law and applied equally.
  Instead of this bill directly benefiting the Tribe, as some have 
suggested, the bill will bail out Genting, the Malaysian hedge fund 
that is financing this deal. Even if this bill passes today and the 
Mashpee build a casino, it is very unlikely, according to all the 
experts, that the Mashpee casino will ever be profitable for the Tribe 
because they owe Genting a half-billion dollars.
  Proponents of this bill have argued that Congress is the last hope 
for the Mashpee Tribe and that they will go bankrupt without this 
casino, but Genting Malaysia has already written off the half-billion 
dollars it gave to the Tribe as a loss on its financial statements. If 
today's bill fails, the Mashpee Tribe does not need to pay back this 
money because, under the agreement with Genting, it is contingent on 
the casino being built. The debt is erased.
  Regardless of what happens with this bill today, the Mashpee Tribe 
will still be a federally recognized Tribe and will continue to receive 
Federal benefits.
  Mr. Speaker, I started off opposing this bill because of the damage 
it would do to Rhode Island's economy. The casino in Rhode Island 
generates over $300 million in economic activity and is responsible for 
thousands of jobs in Rhode Island. I am very proud of my fierce defense 
for my State, and putting an off-reservation casino on the border will 
have a significant, negative impact on Rhode Island.
  But the more I learned about this legislation, the more I realized 
the dangerous precedent this bill would set if it became law. H.R. 312 
would reverse a Federal court ruling, undermine the Indian 
Reorganization Act, ignore a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and reject the 
2018 decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Most 
perniciously, it is a special deal for a single Tribe, and that is just 
wrong.
  I stand here in opposition to this bill not only because of the 
impact on my

[[Page H3820]]

State, and not because I am unsympathetic to the challenges the Tribe 
faces, but this legislation will continue their exploitation by a 
powerful foreign entity.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island so 
that we may have a quick colloquy.
  As the gentleman made mention, it was locals in Taunton that actually 
sued; is that true?
  Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Yes.
  Mr. GOSAR. Does the gentleman think that the court in which they sued 
had any of the information skewed in front of it, in front of their 
jurisdiction?
  Mr. CICILLINE. I am not aware of the information they had.
  Mr. GOSAR. All this information that we are hearing, that is myth 
versus fact; is that true?
  Mr. CICILLINE. Again, I don't know about the legal proceedings. I 
know that the litigation was begun by the people in the local 
community.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for engaging in the 
colloquy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to address a point that was brought up during the debate on this bill, 
that the Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition if H.R. 
312 does not pass. That is true. We have never stated the Federal 
recognition was in jeopardy.
  What we are talking about, which is fundamental to the survival of 
the Tribe, is destroying a Tribe's sovereign government. That is really 
what is at stake.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), another sponsor of this legislation.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for moving this 
critical piece of legislation forward and for shepherding it to the 
House floor today.
  I thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Keating, for his 
advocacy on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which calls both of 
our districts home.
  Nearly four centuries ago, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe opened their 
homes and their lands to the Pilgrims who sailed to our shores. That 
same welcoming spirit survives in their ancestors who live in 
Massachusetts today.
  That is why I am proud to have the Wampanoag people call my district 
their home. They have planted their roots deeply in Massachusetts, and 
they see a future of self-determination and prosperity in the city of 
Taunton.
  But I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated them in the 398 years 
since they shared their precious resources with those strangers, not to 
mention the generations before them that called the region home for 
nearly 12,000 years.
  I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated many Native people 
throughout our history and how we have taken their land, silenced their 
voices, poisoned their water, and disrupted their culture. We have 
dismissed their very humanity.
  It is that shame that leaves us here today with a decision to make. 
Today, as this House debates this bill, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is 
on the verge of dissolution. An unjust Supreme Court decision, followed 
by a reversal by the Department of the Interior to take the Tribe's 
land into trust, has left the Tribe with no other options. They are 
without access to critical Federal funds to support their public 
services, including health centers and schools.
  The question today is, do we allow this to become a closing chapter 
in the story of an indigenous people who put their faith and trust into 
strangers? Do we allow a legal loophole to define American citizens out 
of existence?
  Or do we begin to right the wrongs of our past? Do we begin to march 
down a path of justice and equality and hope for the Native people 
whose dreams for this country outlive our very democracy?
  To me, that choice is simple. It is a matter of right and wrong, of 
correcting a historical injustice that has perpetrated for far too 
long. It would simply put the Mashpee Tribe on equal footing with all 
other federally recognized Native American Tribes.
  I want to take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to rebut some of the arguments 
made by our colleagues.
  One, that this is an off-reservation development: There is no 
reservation. There is nothing to be off-reservation. I cannot imagine 
that the argument actually is that, for a Tribe that called thousands 
of acres home, you are going to say they can only represent one small 
portion of that and not have two facilities. That can't possibly be how 
the U.S. Government is dictating what Tribal lands can be today of an 
area they called home for 12,000 years.
  Two, my colleagues argued that this overrules a court decision. The 
last time I checked, that is what Congress does. We write laws. The 
courts interpret them. They strike down laws all the time. We write 
them again. That is in the Constitution. That is inherent in our 
responsibilities, in our obligation. The actual court decision, if you 
read it, indicates that Congress has the inherent power to do exactly 
what we are doing, 100 percent.
  Three, our colleagues referenced the Gun Lake decision and the Gun 
Lake legislation. Gun Lake was a response to a decision by the Supreme 
Court as well, 100 percent.
  We have heard allegations of lobbyists. The lobbyist for our 
colleagues in Rhode Island for their casinos is married to a 
communications official in the White House. You can't possibly be 
saying that there is some issue here with Federal lobbying that is not 
directly and 100 percent in line with lining their own pockets for the 
opposition to this bill.
  They said that the Tribe is about to go bankrupt. The Tribe is about 
to go bankrupt, but all of a sudden, the Tribe doesn't owe the 
financiers money. Which one is it?
  Next, Federal benefits, they are saying that all the Federal benefits 
will remain. That ignores the Federal benefits that come with Federal 
recognition of reservations: the Indian Business Development Program, 
Financial Assistance and Social Services, employment assistance for 
adult Indians, vocational training for adult Indians, educational 
contracts under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, food distribution programs on 
the Indian reservation, Tribal transportation programs, Bureau of 
Justice Assistance Tribal justice system grants, treatment as a State 
under the Clean Water Act, treatment as a State under the Clean Air 
Act, exercise of Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction. All 
of those are contingent on this bill today.
  A dangerous precedent is going to be set. The dangerous precedent 
that is going to be set is that Massachusetts residents legalized 
gambling. The Tribe went through a compact with the State that was 
approved. They went through a referendum with the people of Taunton 
that was approved nearly 60-40 that townspeople in Taunton want this 
bill. They want this development.
  It is a billion dollars for a working-class community. The folks who 
don't are, yes, a few residents of that community whose lawsuit has 
been financed by a rival casino developer to end this project so they 
can build a different one down the road.

  They say that this is too close to the Rhode Island border. There is 
an existing casino in Rhode Island that recently started 500 yards from 
the Massachusetts border. You cannot be serious about this.
  There is no argument, other than greed, that comes back to why anyone 
should vote against this bill. This is about the recognition of a 
sovereign nation that welcomed strangers to their land 400 years ago 
and helped us celebrate our first Thanksgiving, and the ability of our 
Federal Government to recognize them for who they are. If nothing else, 
this Tribe deserves that.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
hope that I won't take the whole 3 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 312, the Mashpee 
Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.
  This bill will have enormous impacts on my home State of Rhode 
Island. The

[[Page H3821]]

intent of this bill is to allow for the construction of a new casino 
resort near the State line between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, 
which would rival the existing casinos in our State.
  The Twin River Casino Hotel and the Tiverton Casino Hotel of Rhode 
Island generate $300 million each year, representing the State's third 
largest source of funding. These dollars support vital education and 
infrastructure programs in Rhode Island. Rhode Island would suffer 
tremendously if H.R. 312 became law.
  Beyond the economic damage that would occur to Rhode Island, the 
precedent that would be set by this bill is fundamentally unfair. The 
bill would overturn a 2018 decision by the U.S. Department of the 
Interior, and it would reverse a 2016 ruling by the U.S. District Court 
for the District of Massachusetts.
  If Congress grants the Mashpee Tribe this exception, then other 
Native American Tribes would seek individual relief. Congress would be 
creating an unbalanced patchwork process for Tribes to put land into 
trust. Such a system would be based on lobbying, not on firm principles 
or deliberative rulemaking.

                              {time}  1500

  The process to take Tribal lands into trust is complex and requires 
careful consideration of the interests of our indigenous peoples in 
conjunction with local communities. We know this complexity firsthand 
in Rhode Island, as the Supreme Court decision Carcieri v. Salazar 
directly concerned our State.
  But the solution is to create a uniform standard for the whole 
country, not a haphazard process wherein Congress chooses winners and 
losers, again, based on lobbying. This is why I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this bill. The bill creates evident harms to our State revenues 
in Rhode Island, but it also represents a slipshod way of addressing 
the very real issues of how Tribes have land taken into trust.
  My friends in the Massachusetts delegation insist that this issue be 
handled with alacrity. I respectfully disagree. The urgency they 
express is grounded in the dollars and cents of gaming development, 
money loaned on the promise of casino riches. Those loans may have been 
imprudently granted, but we cannot allow imprudent financial dealings 
to force our hand.
  Rather than rush a Tribe-specific loophole, I ask my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on H.R. 312 and to, instead, update the Indian 
Reorganization Act to make this process more transparent and fair. Mr. 
Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) 
has 10 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) has 15 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  Mr. KEATING. Mr. Speaker, I have been around here a little while, and 
I have never heard so many people from Arizona really concerned about 
anything that is going on in Rhode Island. For that matter, I haven't 
heard many people in Rhode Island that concerned about what is 
happening in Massachusetts.
  But this is what it is about, I guess. It is not what it is about to 
me. It is not what it is about to our cosponsors. I know it is not what 
it is about to Mr. Kennedy. I know it is not what it is about to the 
chairman of this committee.
  I am puzzled. People are saying this is a circumvention dealing with 
gaming. This bill isn't about gaming. Let me bring it back into focus, 
but let me just address one thing first.
  I am puzzled because this Tribe went through the State process. This 
wasn't a circumvention. They went through the Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts' process for deciding gaming institutions. The State 
decided this. Congress isn't deciding this. The Commonwealth of 
Massachusetts decided this. They created an area in southeastern 
Massachusetts along with two other areas in the State where this would 
be located.
  So I have got news for the people in Rhode Island: They can do their 
best to kill this bill and destroy this Tribe, but it is still going to 
get a casino because the State of Massachusetts said so.
  So now that I am through just pointing out what this bill isn't 
about, let me just make the last point about what it is about.
  It is about justice. It is about doing the right thing. It is about 
taking a Tribe that, through its whole history, has lost all of its 
land even though it did occupy that land where it is in Taunton, where 
it occupies it now.
  This is about doing the right thing, and it is a disgrace in this 
Congress that politics, special interests, lobbying, and conflicts have 
taken over this debate. Let's do the right thing. This is part of our 
history. We wouldn't be here where we are without this Tribe. Let's 
respect that. Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric coming from the other side is hot and heavy 
like I don't know what I am talking about with Native American Tribes 
when I have lived my whole life in association with Tribes. So let's 
get through some of the false myths that are out here that continually 
are being talked about.
  Now, the myth is that Congress has done this for other Tribes, i.e, 
we have heard about the Gun Lake Tribe.
  Fact: That is false. This will be the first time, as my colleague 
from Rhode Island said, that Congress would overturn a Federal Court 
decision where the court ruled that the Tribe did not meet the Federal 
standard to have land taken into trust, a State-recognized Tribe.
  Myth: The Tribe is facing extinction unless Congress acts.
  That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal 
recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding 
even if H.R. 312 does not pass. Further, if this is not solely about a 
casino, then my amendment should have been considered and adopted in 
committee. The amendment was a compromise that would have secured a 
reservation for the Mashpee for all purposes but not gaming.
  Myth number three: H.R. 312 is not a casino giveaway nor a case of 
reservation shopping.
  Fact: It is both. There is no reason for the second reservation other 
than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from where the 
Mashpee Tribe currently resides. If this weren't solely about a casino, 
then my amendment would have also been adopted in committee.
  Myth: The two tracts of land in the town of Mashpee and the city of 
Taunton both are sites within the Tribal historical territories. My 
colleague from Massachusetts actually alluded to this.
  That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will build a massive, 400,000-
square-foot, off-reservation casino away from their Tribal land on the 
border. That would be Taunton, Rhode Island.
  In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with the 
intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing 
land in trust for gaming in Taunton 50 miles away from the Tribe's 
historic reservation--he also brought that point up, that it wasn't 
their traditional land--what Congress intended in the Gaming Regulatory 
Act would be severely harmed.

  Myth: This bill has nothing to do with approving a specific casino 
project.
  Fact: We actually heard it again from the other side. If that were 
the case, then my amendment would have been made in order and received 
votes or deemed adopted at the committee level. The amendment would 
have secured a reservation for the Mashpee Tribe for any nongaming 
purposes.
  These may include, but not be limited to, the construction and 
operation of Tribal government facilities and infrastructure, housing, 
a hospital, a school and library, a museum, a community center, 
assisted living for Tribal elders, business development, natural 
resources management, the Tribe's exercising its government 
jurisdiction over Tribal members, and many other Tribal uses.
  The next myth is that H.R. 312 is not a bailout.
  H.R. 312 is not a bailout? In fact, the Malaysian hedge fund, Genting 
Malaysia, that is underwriting the casino--yes, underwriting this 
casino.

[[Page H3822]]

  The Mashpee Tribe will not receive a penny of revenue from the casino 
for many years, if ever, because of the massive size of the $500 
million-plus debt they have incurred to Genting. Genting, therefore, 
will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe.
  This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the 
financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent 
tribally owned.
  The last myth: The Mashpee Tribe will go bankrupt if H.R. 312 does 
not pass.
  Fact: The Mashpee Tribe will only be required to repay its debt to 
the Malaysian company underwriting the deal if H.R. 312 is enacted and 
the casino is approved.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Kansas (Ms. Davids).
  Ms. DAVIDS of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
bill. I have heard a lot of rhetoric today about the role of Congress 
and the role of the administration in recognizing or not recognizing 
Tribal lands, Tribal governments, reservations, and the ability of 
Tribes to participate in whatever kind of economic development they so 
desire.
  I have also heard a lot of talk and discussion. I am pleased to hear 
talk and discussion on this House floor about the need to make sure 
that Tribes are recognized, that Tribal sovereignty is recognized, and 
that this government needs to do right by Native people and indigenous 
people to this land.
  But the basis for support of this bill today is not necessarily 
rooted in whether or not we are doing the ``right thing.'' Congress has 
a duty to properly exercise our plenary power over interactions with 
Tribal people and with Tribal governments. The Constitution gives 
Congress plenary power over interactions with Indian Tribes. What is at 
stake here today is how Congress and the Federal Government are going 
to continue to interact with Indian Tribes.
  Tribes don't need Congress Members' sympathy. What Tribes need is for 
us to properly exercise our duty. This bill does that. This bill 
exercises Congress' proper power to recognize a Tribe, to recognize 
Tribal reservation lands, and it has nothing to do with what happens 
afterwards.
  This bill wouldn't abrogate or alter the application of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act or any other piece of legislation. This bill 
would simply do exactly what Congress' job is to do: recognize the 
Federal-Tribal relationship that exists and the Tribal lands that are 
properly held in trust and should be held in trust for an Indian Tribe. 
That is what we are doing right now.
  All the talk and discussion about other pieces of legislation that 
might be called into question after this bill is passed should be 
debated later. That has nothing to do with what this specific bill 
applies to.
  Our role here is very simple. We have got to recognize the Mashpee 
Tribe's reservation. We have got to recognize their sovereignty and 
their self-determination.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to address Congress' intent, under article 
I, section 8.
  As I said before, the Mashpee reservation of the city of Mashpee is 
not of consequence. It is the area outside of their previous homeland 
of Taunton that is of discussion. That is only the aspect here. What 
has happened here is the bypassing of protocol and law that actually 
causes the problem.
  So let me give you a little bit of background about why I have this 
problem.
  We had seen previous abuse in the past where the off-reservation land 
was taken in a trust against the will of States, compacts, and local 
communities for the sole purpose of building new casinos.
  This was certainly the case of the Tohono O'odham Nation right in 
Arizona when they acted against the fellow Tribes, the State of 
Arizona, and the general public to open an off-reservation casino in 
Glendale, despite agreeing to a voter-approved compact not to build any 
more casinos in the Phoenix metro area until the compact was 
renegotiated. Litigation discovery and audio recordings affirm this 
shameful conspiracy implemented by the Tohono O'odham.
  I am concerned that this bill as written will encourage future abuse 
in that regard and allow for more off-reservation casinos to be built 
against the objections of local communities.
  Furthermore, there is no CBO score for this bill. There is no 
committee report that I have seen. We are pushing this bill through 
that has no chance of being signed into law without amendment and 
without knowing the full ramifications of this legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let's go back to some more of the myths.
  The Mashpee Tribe will lose its Federal recognition and benefits if 
H.R. 312 does not pass.
  Once again, that is false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its 
Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and 
funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass.
  Here is the next myth. It was the intent of Congress for all Tribes 
to have land and trust under the IRA of 1934 regardless of when the 
Tribes obtained Federal recognition.
  Fact: That is not what the Supreme Court said in Carcieri v. Salazar. 
The Supreme Court said that the Tribal aspect of the IRA of 1934 does 
not authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land in trust for 
Tribes that were not under Federal jurisdiction on the date of 
enactment of IRA, or 1934.
  Fact: There is no evidence that Congress, in 1934, thought that off-
reservation gaming would turn into the controversial mess it has become 
today.
  Myth: After a Federal judge struck down the Obama administration's 
second definition of Indian analysis, the Trump administration chose 
not to defend the decision.
  Fact: The Trump administration chose not to defend the decision 
because the judge said it was ``not even close,'' and the Obama 
administration had not used this analysis in any other Tribe's trust 
land case. It was used once only for the Mashpee. The Court remanded 
the matter back to Interior for an examination under the same ``first 
definition of Indian'' analysis used for all other Tribes.
  In applying the Obama administration's analysis used for all other 
Tribes, the Trump administration determined the Mashpee did not 
qualify, and yet Tribes blame the Trump administration for something 
the Obama administration could have done years ago but chose not to.

                              {time}  1515

  Could the fate of a billion-dollar casino be the reason why the Obama 
administration bent the rules? I wonder.
  H.R. 312 doesn't amend the IRA. It doesn't amend any law. Rather, 
H.R. 312 declares the Obama action struck down by the U.S. district 
court to be lawful and proper. The bill also orders the court to 
dismiss the lawsuit concerning the casino property and to prohibit the 
filing of any future lawsuit over it.
  Mr. Speaker, we constantly see over and over again, the problem with 
H.R. 312 is it is once again being rushed to the floor.
  I want to reference a letter from Eagle Forum and highlight, 
basically, their reservations.
  ``This bill is a deceptive plan to undermine the Federal Government's 
decision to deny the Mashpee Tribe land for a new casino. The Mashpee 
Tribe has previously engaged in questionable financial and lobbying 
dealings. They are currently $450 billion in debt to Genting, a foreign 
Malaysian gaming company, because of this project.
  ``The Tribe has no way of paying the company back, which means 
Genting will be the true owner of this project. Taxpayers should not be 
responsible for the bailout of their irresponsible dealings.''
  Down further it goes:
  ``Just the issue of gambling alone has been devastating to families 
across the United States, especially among Native Americans.''
  Further down it goes:
  ``For these reasons, we urge you to vote `no' on H.R. 312, Mashpee

[[Page H3823]]

Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.''
  I also want to reference Americans for Limited Government:
  ``The House of Representatives should reject H.R. 312, the Senator 
Elizabeth Warren-led attempt to punch piecemeal holes through the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This isn't about the ability of Tribes 
using land that is part of their long-established heritage for casino 
development, but, instead, it is about whether Congress should place 
gambling institutions on unrelated land based upon proximity to urban 
areas.
  ``If Senator Warren and her benefactors wish to change the Indian 
gaming laws, they should introduce wholesale reforms rather than 
turning the existing law into Swiss cheese for nothing more than 
investor pecuniary interests.
  ``Rick Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.''
  We actually have our opposition to 312:

       I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 312, the Mashpee 
     Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, when it comes 
     before the House today.
       H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the 
     Interior, contradicts a Supreme Court decision, and aims to 
     reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to 
     build a massive, 400,000-square-foot, off-reservation gaming 
     complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian 
     gaming company.
       The bill forever strips the Federal Government of its 
     jurisdictions over this Tribal casino and overturns a well-
     reasoned decision from a Federal judge.
       H.R. 312 also provides a massive tax shelter for Genting by 
     shielding the land--and the casino on it--from taxation and 
     State regulation.
       The bill creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of 
     Massachusetts, one reservation which we have no problem with, 
     in the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation 
     lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical 
     boundaries of the town of Mashpee.
       The other reservation will be 50 miles away from Mashpee in 
     the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's 
     historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and 
     Genting for a billion-dollar casino project because of its 
     proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20 
     miles away.
       In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
     with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original 
     reservations.
       By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 
     creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with 
     congressional intent. This is often called ``reservation 
     shopping,'' and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act.
       The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a 
     political headache, so they went to the previous 
     administration to obtain the two reservations through 
     administrative action.
       Once again, the Federal judge, however, ruled that what the 
     previous administration did was unlawful, so now they need 
     legislation to authorize this off-reservation casino.
       The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans in 
     the committee markup. Ranking Member Rob Bishop was one of 
     those. These Members are joined by Americans for Limited 
     Government, the American Principles Project, the Coalition 
     for American Values, Eagle Forum, the Governor of Rhode 
     Island, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Congressman David 
     Cicilline, Congressman James Langevin, and President Donald 
     Trump in opposing this bill.
       President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged 
     Members of Congress to do the same last week. House Minority 
     Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members 
     vote ``no'' on H.R. 312.
       The bill is also strenuously opposed by the only other 
     Federally-recognized Tribe in Massachusetts.
       All of this opposition was enough to have the bill pulled 
     from consideration by the House of Representatives under the 
     suspension of the rules procedures one week after it was 
     considered in committee with no bill report or score--
     actually, there was a bill report but no score from the 
     Congressional Budgetary Office.
       Now, the Democrat leadership is using a closed rule and not 
     allowing any amendments to get this controversial bill out of 
     the House of Representatives. Given that H.R. 312 authorizes 
     an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation 
     from major financial problems of its own making, and 
     reverses the judgment of a Federal court and contradicts 
     Interior and Supreme Court decisions, it is no wonder that 
     the majority had to resort to these drastic measures.
       I urge everyone to vote ``no'' and to oppose this bill that 
     sets a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to 
     off-reservation Tribal casinos all over the United States if 
     enacted into law.

  Once again, I want to reiterate, if you have a problem with the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, let's do the wholesale changes on a 
massive scale, not do it one piece at a time, one Tribe at a time, not 
allowing lawful actions to occur.
  So, I ask all my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this bill. Send a 
clear message that we have got to follow the law or change it wholesale 
for everybody.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote from my colleagues, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Upholding the establishment of Tribal homelands should be, and is, 
one of the most important actions that this Congress can take. It is 
not just about tax-exempt status or economic development, both of which 
are vitally important to Tribal communities.
  It is also about the construction of schools, housing, clinics, elder 
care facilities, things that are extremely vital to the quality of life 
and well-being of Tribal members.
  It is also about recognizing a Tribe's historical, cultural, and 
spiritual connection.
  It is not about protecting a market share. It is not about the tweets 
from the President. It is not about the scare tactics and hysteria of 
off-reservation gaming that is constantly used in trying to fight the 
self-determination and the ability of Tribes to take care of 
themselves.
  And it is about identity.
  I want to just follow up on the gentlewoman from Kansas' comment. To 
ensure Tribal sovereignty and self-governance, land is critical to the 
connection of people to their land. And the real-world decisions that 
we are making have real consequences.
  To strip people of their land is to strip them of their identity, to 
strip them of their self-governance and their self-determination. It is 
a sad state that, nearly 400 years later, the Mashpee still have to 
fight for land that is rightfully theirs.
  But we can remedy that today.
  I want to thank our colleagues Mr. Keating and Mr. Kennedy, as well 
as the entire Massachusetts delegation, for spearheading this effort to 
save the Mashpee's land, preserve their way of life, and reestablish 
and not allow a precedent to stand where trust land that was given is 
taken away.
  This is an important piece of legislation with implications across 
Indian Country.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift adoption of H.R. 312, and I yield back 
the remainder of my time.
  Ms. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter 
from the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah expressing their concerns 
about this legislation. I want to reiterate that I support this 
legislation. However, I believe it is important that the concerns of 
this sister tribe be included in this debate.

                                                Wampanoag Tribe of


                                            Gay Head Aquinnah,

                                                     Aquinnah, MA.
     To: The United States House of Representatives, Honorable 
         Representatives
     From: Chairwoman Cheryl Andrews-Maltais, The Wampanoag Tribe 
         of Gay Head Aquinnah (The Aquinnah Wampanoag)
     Date: May 15, 2019
     Re: H.R. 312

  The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah (Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe) 
   Strenuously Opposes H.R. 312, Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation 
                           Reaffirmation Act

       The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah (Aquinnah 
     Wampanoag) strenuously opposes the above referenced Bill due 
     to the fact that it creates two classes of Tribes within the 
     same Wampanoag Tribal Nation.
       H.R. 312 unfairly provides a pathway for economic 
     development for one Tribe (the Mashpee Wampanoag) while 
     simultaneously creating an obstruction to the other Wampanoag 
     Tribe (the Aquinnah Wampanoag) whose Tribal community also 
     lives within the same shared Ancestral territory of the 
     Wampanoag Nation.
       The Bill sets forth a pathway for one Tribe (the Mashpee) 
     to acquire lands in trust outside of its original homeland 
     ``village site'' of the Town of Mashpee and does not provide 
     the same opportunity for the other Tribe (the Aquinnah).
       H.R. 312 also removes all clouds of the applicability of 
     the Indian Reorganization Act (as Amended), and all other 
     laws enacted for the benefit of Federally Recognized Tribes 
     for one Tribe (the Mashpee) and not for the Aquinnah who is 
     of the same Wampanoag Nation and who was federally recognized 
     25 years earlier.
       The Bill provides a remedy to the Department of the 
     Interior's (DOI's) egregious determination that the Wampanoag 
     are not eligible to have lands taken into trust for one Tribe 
     (the Mashpee Wampanoag), while

[[Page H3824]]

     omitting the other Wampanoag Tribe (the Aquinnah Wampanoag) 
     from this remedy from which the Aquinnah Wampanoag are also 
     suffering.
       The Aquinnah Wampanoag would support this Bill, H.R. 312 if 
     included as part of ``and for other purposes''. The simple 
     request is for a simple amendment to create fairness, equity 
     and parity for both Wampanoag Tribes within Massachusetts.

     SEC. (D) REAFFIRMATION OF INDIAN TRUST LAND TO ALSO INCLUDE 
                   THE WAMPANOAG TRIBE OF GAY HEAD AQUINNAH (THE 
                   AQUINNAH WAMPANOAG)

       (a) In general.--The taking of any land into trust by the 
     United States for the benefit of the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay 
     Head Aquinnah of Massachusetts is reaffirmed as trust land 
     and the actions of the Secretary of the Interior in taking 
     that land into trust are ratified and confirmed.
       (b) Applicability of laws.--All laws (including 
     regulations) of the United States of general applicability to 
     Indians or nations, Indian Tribes, or bands of Indians 
     (including the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 51O1 et 
     seq.)), shall be applicable to the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay 
     Head Aquinnah and its Tribal members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 377, 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on passage of the bill will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on:
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 375; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 1892.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 275, 
nays 146, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               YEAS--275

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Axne
     Babin
     Bacon
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Davis, Rodney
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duffy
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Ferguson
     Finkenauer
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Hagedorn
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Hill (CA)
     Himes
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd (TX)
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Mast
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moolenaar
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Mullin
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newhouse
     Norcross
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Rouzer
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young

                               NAYS--146

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Arrington
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cicilline
     Cline
     Cloud
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Mooney (WV)
     Norman
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rose, John W.
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Abraham
     Brooks (IN)
     Cleaver
     Cummings
     Higgins (LA)
     Johnson (LA)
     Pence
     Roby
     Ryan
     Swalwell (CA)

                              {time}  1555

  Mr. MARSHALL changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. BERGMAN, AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, SMITH of Washington, 
HORSFORD, BABIN, and MASSIE changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________