[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.
____________________