[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11495-11500]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1294, THOMASINA E. JORDAN INDIAN 
           TRIBES OF VIRGINIA FEDERAL RECOGNITION ACT OF 2007

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee 
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 377

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     1294) to extend Federal recognition to the Chickahominy 
     Indian Tribe, the Chickahominy Indian Tribe--Eastern 
     Division, the Upper Mattaponi Tribe, the Rappahannock Tribe, 
     Inc., the Monacan Indian Nation, and the Nansemond Indian 
     Tribe. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 
     XXI. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
     by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed in the 
     bill, modified by the amendments printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules to accompany this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1294 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to such time as may be designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. For purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my good friend from Washington, 
Representative Hastings. All time yielded during consideration of the 
rule is for debate only.

[[Page 11496]]

  I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous 
consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise 
and extend their remarks on House Resolution 377.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as the Clerk just read, this 
rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1294, the Thomasina E. Jordan 
Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act of 2007. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of general debate in the House, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairperson and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides something that has been long 
overdue to six Native American Tribes in Virginia.
  After literally centuries of injustice, some 3,175 members of these 
great tribes will finally gain Federal recognition under this bill. 
Just like the great Seminole and Micosukee Tribes in south Florida that 
I am privileged to represent, these six tribes now have the chance to 
finally receive the proper recognition and respect they rightfully 
deserve.
  Just like the other 562 Federally recognized American Indian tribes 
in the United States, these tribes will finally have access to basic 
services, such as child welfare services, adult care and community 
development, services every one of us in this body take for granted.
  Each of these six American Indian tribes descended from the historic 
tribes that occupied the Virginia coastline in 1607. Their rich history 
and tradition forever ties them to this land. Over the centuries, they 
have survived racial hostility and State-sanctioned attempts to stamp 
out their heritage and cultural identity.
  Notwithstanding their ancient bonds to this soil, they continue to 
walk oppressed among us. The reason for such injustice? Because in the 
early part of the 19th century, Virginia officials intentionally 
destroyed the majority of their historical records and artifacts that 
affirmed the existence of Native Americans in Virginia. Virginia 
finally recognized them in the 1980s, and it is appropriate and long 
overdue that Congress is finally following suit.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Native American tribes, whose land was 
forcibly taken from them centuries ago, are still struggling for their 
basic rights and freedoms to this day. I ask, does this story of 
repression, refusal and repudiation not ring true for so many 
generations of Americans? Now, it takes acts of Congress to give them 
the recognition they have long deserved.
  Legislation providing Federal recognition for these six tribes, the 
Chickahominy, the Eastern Chickahominy, the Monacan, the Rappahannock 
and the Mattaponi is today what we seek and what for too long has been 
denied. I ask again how we reconcile this kind of repression and 
repudiation.
  The Queen of England is in the United States today. Last week, she 
visited the coastline of Virginia, Jamestown, where many of these 
people that we seek to get designation for and recognition for today 
came from, and yet she would not have had an opportunity to see them in 
their cultural array for the reason that they are not recognized.
  Legislation providing Federal recognition for these six tribes has 
been introduced in both the House and the Senate in every Congress 
since the 106th, without action. To deny them recognition once more is 
to perpetuate the tyranny.
  The underlying legislation would be a small step in rectifying our 
Nation's history of suppressing these great people. I am proud to 
support this rule and the underlying legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend 
from Florida and namesake, Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule. 
This closed rule provides for consideration of a bill to Federally 
recognize six new Indian tribes in the State of Virginia. This bill 
marks the first time in over 20 years that the House of Representatives 
has considered legislation to extend Federal recognition to a tribe.
  While I will acknowledge Congress can grant Federal recognition to 
individual tribes, the Department of Interior's Bureau of Indian 
Affairs has the administrative process by which a group may establish 
itself as an Indian tribe and become eligible for services and benefits 
extended to other tribes under Federal law.

                              {time}  1245

  While each of these six tribes have separately submitted a petition 
for recognition to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, none of the petitions 
are complete. Rather than wait for these petitions to go through the 
administrative process, the Democrat majority has decided to bring this 
legislation to the floor under a completely closed rule, which allows 
no input or improvements to be made to this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, despite commitments made by the Democrats for a new era 
of openness, the Rules Committee has only approved one truly open rule 
that allowed Members of Congress to come to the floor and offer 
amendments during consideration of a bill. House Resolution 377 is the 
18th closed rule brought forth by the Democrat majority, which means 
that this is the 18th time the Democrat majority has shut Members of 
Congress out of the deliberative process. So I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time 
to yield 7 minutes to our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran), a member of the Appropriations Committee and a 
leader in this fight in each of the Congresses that we have spoken of.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from 
Florida for yielding me the time.
  I would also like to address my good friend from Washington, also Mr. 
Hastings, as well as my friend from Connecticut sitting behind Mr. 
Hastings, because I heard his statement earlier which reflected the 
statement of the gentleman representing the minority on the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to address these concerns, legitimate 
concerns, that have been raised, and explain why I think you would 
agree that what we are doing today is not only appropriate and proper, 
but well-justified.
  There was a white-tie dinner at the White House last night. The 
country, particularly Virginia, is celebrating the 400th anniversary of 
the Jamestown settlement. But these six Indian Tribes are the reason 
why those English settlers were able to survive. They showed them how 
to survive. They sheltered them. They taught them how to grow the 
plants that were native to North America. They took care of them. 
Subsequently, when the English settlers got on their feet, they 
displaced these Indians, took their land and treated them pretty badly.
  Finally, in 1677 there was a treaty signed with King Charles II. 
There was no American government at the time. It was the only 
government that could sign a treaty. It is the oldest Indian treaty in 
existence today. It continued, that treaty, but the implementation of 
it did not. The English government, in other words, its settlers here, 
violated that treaty at every opportunity, diminished these tribes and 
took their land.
  Then, to compound this situation, and to understand why this is a 
unique situation beyond the 400th anniversary, in 1924 the Commonwealth 
of Virginia passed what was called the Racial Integrity Act. It was 
sponsored by a white supremacist who had alliances with the Nazi 
government in Germany, we understand. It was a very bad time in 
American history.
  This law allowed the Commonwealth of Virginia to destroy the 
documents that proved the existence of these Native American families. 
They legally

[[Page 11497]]

went into the courthouses and destroyed the birth records, they 
destroyed everything that identified them as Native Americans, and that 
is why there is a unique situation here. They don't have the 
documentation that they would need to present to the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs.
  This is compounded, of course, by the fact that this recognition 
process is almost impossible. We wouldn't want to wish it on our worst 
enemy, to have to go through what Native American tribes now have to go 
through. It is demeaning and deliberately frustrating. And they were 
told, well, you might get recognition, but certainly not in your 
lifetime. These Native Americans have been mistreated by this country.
  Now we have compromised. You could say we have unfairly treated them 
again, but it is the only way to get this recognition through in time 
for the celebration of the Jamestown settlement.
  We said, we are not going to treat you like other Native American 
tribes. You are not going to be able to have gambling, to have casinos, 
to even play bingo. We are going to prohibit it in this legislation, 
just to reassure people who are concerned about gambling, and 
understandably, given all of the corruption that has occurred, Jack 
Abramoff and so on. I don't have to get into all that. We made the 
compromise, and they reluctantly agreed to it.
  Then, even though they have 500 acres that everyone agrees is theirs 
that should be put into trust, we are going to hold back and require 
all of the environmental processes and so on to be gone through by the 
Department of Interior. Whatever that administrative process is, they 
have to wait and go through all of that in order just to have their own 
land put into trust. Another compromise.
  We have compromised in every way we could. That is the reason for the 
closed rule. We have talked to everyone that appeared to have any 
opposition.
  Mr. Wolf had legitimate concern about gambling. We tried to bring 
this to the floor before. He has blocked it. I can understand his 
concern. But this is a unique situation. We have addressed it. We have 
addressed that issue on gambling. Mr. Wolf now supports the bill, he 
has told me.
  Mr. Young supports the bill, because he has have looked at it 
extensively. I don't believe my good friend from Connecticut is on the 
Natural Resources Committee and may not have participated in those 
discussions, all of those compromises that have led us to this point.
  But I think if you look at the justice of this situation, if you look 
back at the truth of what has occurred to these Indians, you have to 
come to the conclusion that this is a unique situation. This is 
justified. In fact, this is urgent.
  There are some representatives of the tribes here today. They have 
been so frustrated, cynical even, disappointed that the Congress won't 
understand what they understand and what they would like to be able to 
pass on to their children.
  The only people that would ever educate them and their ancestors were 
Christian missionaries. They were forbidden to go to public schools. 
They were forbidden to have jobs. They couldn't get their children out 
of hospitals if they called them an American Indian because they would 
be subject to a year in prison.
  I don't want to go into all of this, because I would like to put this 
behind us, because it is a very sad chapter of American history. 
Hopefully that chapter is about to end and a new chapter will begin 
with this legislation.
  That is why I would ask my colleagues, approve this legislation. Do 
the right thing. Do it in time, so we can honestly celebrate with the 
people in Jamestown and with these tribes.
  These tribes deserve recognition. They deserve to be able to have the 
kind of pride that they have merited through their persistence. They 
are extraordinarily patriotic, loyal to this country, honest and 
obedient. They are good people. Let's pass this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from 
Virginia laying out his remarks on this and his arguments on this, but 
it seems to me if there is this much work done with it, we certainly 
should have an open process because of all the compromises made, rather 
than a closed process.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my 
friend from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Moran, I totally trust and 
understand his sincerity, but everything he said there are significant 
answers to. And all he has done is raised even more questions. He is 
basically saying to pass this bill and rush it through the Senate real 
quickly so we can have this be part of the celebration.
  How clever were these six tribes to decide that this is the way they 
would get it through and bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs process. 
With this legislation we are going to create six independent nations 
within our Nation, and we are now going to go back to bypassing a 
process and just deciding here in this Chamber.
  I have no way of knowing if each of these are a legitimate tribe. 
There is no way for us in this Chamber to know it. We did that before 
Republicans were elected, and we stopped the process because we saw 
bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs process was corrupting. It was 
corrupting because it meant that if you had the influence, even if you 
didn't meet the standards of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you could 
become a tribe.
  The fact is that my colleague has said he has dealt with one of the 
objections. What you have done is dealt with the objection so the bill 
can pass. But gambling will be alive and well. First the prohibition 
will be tested in the courts, and the mere fact that my colleague said 
we are not treating them fairly by taking it out is his next argument 
to say we have to treat them fairly once they are tribes.
  The bottom line is gambling is a license to print money, and the 
financial instincts and pressures will be so great that to say they 
will not have gambling is patently laughable. They will have it, if 
they are a tribe.
  The bottom line to me is this: We have a process. We started to go 
around that process and we started to bring bills forward, and now 
every State is going to ask the same thing that Mr. Moran did. The 
process is too long.
  Well, if we don't like the process, fix the process. But we are not 
capable to decide what tribe should become independent nations within 
the confines of the United States. We don't have that capability. We 
have given that process to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we need to 
document it. The fact that these six tribes can't document that they 
have an historic economic, social and political continuity is 
significant. It is very significant. They don't even have reservations, 
a place where they were meeting.
  So I can't say how strongly I oppose this legislation. I fear that, 
however well intended my colleague from Virginia is, he has become the 
point of the spear that will result in a huge, huge pressure. The 
tribes in Connecticut, the tribes in Massachusetts, the tribes in New 
York, those that can't prove that they meet the Federal standard, like 
these tribes, will come to Congress and say they want the same thing. 
And our argument disappears, because when this passes, and I think it 
will, more than 50 percent of our Members will have voted for it, they 
will not be able to go and say to any tribe, follow the process. They 
will, in my judgment, have corrupted the process of the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs and now have no standing to say follow it.
  Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues, if you have a tribe, and I 
speak to all of my colleagues, those that are in this Chamber and those 
who are not, if you have a tribe that you think is trying to get around 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs and you vote for this legislation, you 
will have no standing whatsoever to oppose them. You will now have to 
be part of corrupting that process, going around and passing a bill on 
the floor, when we have no capability whatsoever to determine if they 
are a legitimate Federal tribe, not State tribe, a Federal tribe, 
proving social,

[[Page 11498]]

political and economic continuity through historic times.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I know 
this: I sure will.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I would ask my friend from Connecticut to 
listen to my response to the points that he just made because I know he 
is a fair man. And when he considers the fact that, first of all, the 
Narragansett Tribe was recognized in the 1990s with a similar 
prohibition, and they don't gamble.
  This particular tribe, they were raised by Christian missionaries. 
They believe gambling is a sin. They could be operating bingo parlors 
down the street today. They don't because they believe it is wrong to 
do so. They don't want to gamble.
  But they are unique, and I would say to my friend, in 1912 through 
1946, the Bureau of Vital Statistics in Virginia systematically erased 
all reference to Indians in all public records. That is unique. That 
hasn't happened in other States. The Governor of Virginia recognizes 
these tribes. They have been recognized for hundreds of years.
  And the fact is, we are not bringing this legislation up all of a 
sudden now. This legislation we have been trying for 8 years to get 
through; 8 years I have sponsored it. But these Indian tribes didn't 
have any money to influence the process.
  The Racial Integrity Act of 1924, and I go back to this, as 
embarrassed as I am about the fact that it passed the legislature of 
Virginia, required all persons to register as ``white'' or ``colored'' 
in the language of those days, and it made it a criminal offense for 
Indians not to so register. That is why they were eliminated in the 
State. It is what a historian called a paper genocide. That is why this 
is a very unique situation. It is not all of a sudden. For 8 years, we 
have been trying to pass this legislation. The Governor recognizes they 
exist, and it is not about gambling.
  It is understandable you would assume it is about gambling. It is 
not, and we have examples of other tribes that are not gambling today 
that have similar prohibitions. So I would say to the gentleman, please 
do the right thing. Read the bill carefully, and I trust you will 
support it as a result.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Could I ask the gentleman, he mentioned one tribe that he 
referred to as a Christian tribe, are we recognizing one tribe or six 
tribes?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. In this case, we are recognizing six. There 
was one tribe in the 1990s, the Narragansett Tribe, a similar 
prohibition against gambling was instituted. They don't gamble.
  This is about recognition.
  Mr. SHAYS. So your reference that one tribe would clearly not want 
gambling, it is a fact that these tribes did want gambling and the only 
way you could get this bill through the Chamber was to take it out, and 
you said on the floor, I think I heard you correctly, that it was an 
outrage to take it out and it took away their rights and so on.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I didn't use the term ``outrage,'' but I do I 
think it is unfair. If I were a Native American member of any of these 
six tribes, I would feel badly that I wasn't treated the way other 
Native American tribes have been treated. It is a matter of pride and 
sovereignty, so you can choose not to gamble, not to have Congress say, 
we don't trust you; we are going to prohibit you from gambling. But it 
is not their intent to gamble.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would just point out to my colleague that a number of 
tribes said they didn't want gambling, and then when they had the 
opportunity, they seized it in spite of the fact that they said they 
didn't want to.
  The precedent can be turned over by the court, and it can be changed 
simply by inserting language in some major appropriation that the tribe 
can have gambling, and it may not even see the light of day.
  The fact that the tribe has sought for years to bypass the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs only says that they have tried to bypass the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. The fact that you have introduced this bill continually 
only tells me that you have tried to bypass the process.
  If the process is not working, change the process.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I 
again thank my friend and thank you for being able to communicate in 
this fashion.
  The fact is that they have tried for 8 years to get recognition. But 
when you say that they are bypassing the process, the reason the 
process doesn't work is, in this case, the Commonwealth of Virginia 
made it legal to destroy all of the documentation that would have 
proved their existence. It was legal under the Racial Integrity Act. 
They went in and destroyed every reference to them.
  Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, as we keep talking about it, more 
warnings go off to me.
  The fact that they would have only tried for the last 8 years to go 
through this process, it strikes me as extraordinarily arrogant that 
this tribe, that has only tried for 8 years, should bypass tribes that 
have tried for much longer than that. And the fact that they are trying 
now as opposed to in the past tells me that they saw the kind of 
revenues that existed and said, hey, let's be part of this gravy train. 
That concerns me as well.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. First of all, it is six tribes. The Governor 
of Virginia recognizes them, and the Commonwealth of Virginia has 
recognized them since it did away with the Racial Integrity Act. 
Senator Allen when he was Governor recognized them because they do 
exist.
  Mr. SHAYS. Let me just point out that States do recognize. But if you 
establish as a precedent that all tribes recognized by States will get 
Federal recognition, then you have just included a whole number of 
Connecticut tribes that will have State recognition. State recognition 
is different than Federal. Federal has to prove that there is a 
socioeconomic and political continuity through historical times.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute in 
order to respond to the gentleman.
  And what would be wrong with that? I am reminded of the comedian Flip 
Wilson who said that when Christopher Columbus discovered America, the 
Native Americans must have been running down to the shoreline saying, 
``Discover me.''
  Enough already. We have abused these people continuously. We put them 
on reservations, and now we would stand here in this body and argue 
that they are not entitled to designation? This particular set of 
tribes, all six of them, have gone to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and 
sought recognition there. And since the 106th Congress, we have 
introduced measures here, whether or not they gamble or didn't gamble.
  They gamble in Connecticut, and they gamble in Florida. And this 
crazy Nation is going to gamble its brains out, but it ain't the 
Indians' fault. And if it is their fault, then they ought to have that 
right from what we took from them.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. This is an important dialogue to have, and I appreciate 
the candor of the gentleman. What he has basically said is: What's 
wrong with that?
  What is wrong with all of the State-recognized tribes getting Federal 
recognition in my State, for instance?
  I would like all of my State legislators and my senators and my State

[[Page 11499]]

representatives to hear what you just said because that is what 
concerns us. There is a lot wrong with that because some of the State-
recognized tribes don't meet the standard that we say of a social, 
political and economic continuity. There were times when they didn't 
even exist for awhile, but we recognize them on the State level.
  I can't emphasize enough that what you are doing is you are opening a 
huge Pandora's box; and however well intended you are, you have heard 
the basic argument. Every Member of Congress who has a State-recognized 
tribe but not a federally recognized tribe, be well aware of what this 
new Congress is coming from: What's wrong with that? There is a lot 
wrong with that.
  Go through the process. And if the process is not working, change the 
process. Don't start overriding the Bureau of Indian Affairs and doing 
it just for a select few.
  I want to point out to my colleague, I am not impressed that it was 
from the 106th Congress. That is just a few years ago. There are others 
that are going through the process fairly, working hard, and now they 
are going to say we have been trying since the 103rd and the 105th and 
99th.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the 
gentleman from Washington through the Chair if he has any remaining 
speakers. I'm the last speaker for this side and I'm prepared to 
reserve until the gentleman has closed.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I have no more requests for time, so I'll 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just suggest that the exchange that we have had 
here back and forth between the gentleman from Virginia and the 
gentleman from Connecticut and the gentleman from Florida begs to a 
process that should be much more open. Clearly there are some issues 
that were raised.
  My friend from Connecticut talked about the process and the fact that 
this may be bypassing the process. Maybe an open process would have 
allowed us to pursue that, but we don't have that opportunity. We have 
a closed rule dealing only with six tribes. I think that is 
significant.
  So, Mr. Speaker, as a majority member of the House Rules Committee in 
the last Congress, I just want to point out that nearly 16 percent of 
the rules by that committee in the last Congress were open rules and 84 
percent were restrictive or closed.
  Thus far in this Congress, the 110th Congress, only 2.5 percent of 
the rules brought forth by the new Democrat majority on the Rules 
Committee have been open, while a staggering 97.5 percent have been 
restricted or closed.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the trend we see before us today with 
yet another closed rule denying Members an opportunity to try to 
improve legislation does not continue for much longer. However, I must 
comment that I am more disbelieving with each restrictive and closed 
rule brought to the floor.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this 
closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would remind my good friend, I have served 
with him on the Rules Committee in the minority and in the majority, 
and he is obviously in his statistics not taking into consideration the 
preprinting requirements that have been offered.
  I would also remind you that no one came to the Rules Committee with 
reference to any amendment as it pertains to this particular matter 
that was noticed last week that it was going to be up.
  And now I yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I appreciate my friend for yielding.
  First of all, if there is a preprinting requirement, that means that 
once that deadline is done and debate starts on the floor, no one can 
come down and amend the rule. Therefore, it's a closed rule.
  Secondly, I can't say for certain, but the exchange that we had down 
here, a very good exchange, may have brought forward some idea by a 
Member wanting to come down and at least discuss an amendment. We don't 
have that opportunity. That is simply the point that I am making. This 
is a closed rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, in closing now, on 
behalf of the six tribes that I believe we have a great opportunity 
today to finally bringing closure to their injustice. Indeed, in my 
view, Congress has a duty to end the suppression and provide these six 
Native American Indian tribes with recognition long overdue.
  Number one, they were not recognized by the Federal Government. And 
if they didn't exist for a very long time, it was because of the 
Federal Government. And then when they tried to come back and say that 
we are going to meet all of these exacting requirements under the 
petition, who had destroyed their records, the Virginia government had 
destroyed their record.
  What part of that don't you all understand, that these people can't 
make something out of whole cloth in a situation where their records 
have been destroyed?
  How vicious can one situation be when you destroy the records of 
individuals and then ask them to corroborate and prove they exist? That 
is a virtual impossibility.
  In this particular case, if there is one group of Native Americans 
that deserve an exception, and I might add they would be all six of 
these in light of the fact that systematically at every courthouse in 
Virginia every one of their records were burned or destroyed, and that 
was under the aegis of the authority of the Virginia government.
  Give these people a break, if no one else. Now they have made it very 
clear that they do not intend, they forgo the right to gamble. And all 
things considered, I don't see my colleague from Connecticut and I 
don't see any colleagues from California and Nevada and me and others 
from Florida around turning the revenue back that is being produced. 
The State of Florida, for example, is about the business of trying to 
come up with better formulas so they can get more of the revenue that 
is coming into the Seminole and Miccosukee tribes. I suggest to you 
that Connecticut probably would be near bankrupt if it hadn't been for 
the Indian tribes and the revenue that comes into that State.
  Somewhere along the line when you have taken from people, you ought 
to at least give them an opportunity to have the playing field level. 
And we are talking about in this case only 3,175 members, 562 Federal 
tribes have already been recognized. And yes, Mr. Shays, I think every 
other one of them ought to be recognized, including my ancestors that 
are Creek Indians.
  I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adopting 
House Resolution 377 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adopting 
House Resolution 370.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 186, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 305]

                               YEAS--228

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney

[[Page 11500]]


     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--186

     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Brown, Corrine
     Doyle
     Engel
     Fattah
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Harman
     Hulshof
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Marchant
     Markey
     McCotter
     McMorris Rodgers
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Souder
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt

                              {time}  1338

  Mr. WELLER of Illinois and Mr. HALL of Texas changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. HOOLEY, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska and Mr. WELDON of Florida changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________