Limitation of Tribal Gambling to Existing Tribal Lands Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, as well as the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me my time.

This is about the law. This is about the law. This is about Michigan's law. In 1993, after 20 years of trying, the

Michigan legislature--I, a member at that time, and others--passed a law that, after many referendums in the City of Detroit, a referenda would be held throughout the State of Michigan that said who could have casinos. We were allowed that after 20 years of working on that.

In 1994, back to the people of the State of Michigan, there was a referenda that said if you are to have a casino you must come back to the people. This law circumvents that. There are 18 Native American tribes in Michigan. All but two who are getting this casino deal do not support this legislation, mainly because, in the Michigan compact, Native Americans share in the net profits. This bill would not allow the other 16 tribes to share in the profits, thereby putting their own reservation casinos in jeopardy, while at the same time rewarding 2 and not the other 16 sharing the profits.

There's a way to fix this. Go back to the ballot box, which is what the Michigan law says. Let the people of Michigan speak on this. Casinos are regulated by States, as IGRA gives them that authority, not by the Federal Government.

Much has already been said, and I will tell you who opposes this: The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Department of Interior, the National Indian Gaming Association, UNITE HERE, AFSCME, NAACP. We can fix this, but go through what everybody else went through to get gaming and casinos in their community.

The Native Americans asked for it. Over 60 tribes across this country oppose this legislation. Why must we circumvent them and come here? It's not about competition, as Americans love competition, and we support that. Go through the process. Respect the law.

Native American tribes deserve better, and we want to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind consideration and care when, in December of 2007, you agreed with me that both of these bills should not be brought to the floor without being considered under regular order. The House Natural Resources Committee and the House Judiciary Committee both had hearings on these bills, and while the Natural Resources Committee reported the bill favorably by a 21 to 5 vote, the House Judiciary Committee reported the bill unfavorably by a zero to 29 vote. Since that vote, both of these bills are opposed by 16 of the 18 tribes that are in the State of Michigan; and opposed by over 60 Native American tribes across the country; by both Michigan's AFSCME and the NAACP; and finally, the U.S. Department of Interior not only opposes the bills but questions the validity of the land claim that they purport to forward.

In essence, both of these bills will allow two Native American tribes located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to build casinos 350 miles from their reservations and near the city of Detroit and in Port Huron, Michigan. I vehemently oppose both of these bills.

My reasons for opposing these bills, which will allow land to be taken into trust for gambling purposes for the settlement of proposed land claims, are actually very simple. These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress; they contravene Michigan State law; they are very controversial among the tribes in Michigan and throughout Indian Country; it is not clear that these land swaps are valid; and finally, Congress has not had a comprehensive review of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, in nearly two decades. Furthermore, it is important to note that these land claims have never been validated by the U.S. Government or any court of law. In fact, the courts have ruled against the Bay Mills Tribe on their claim on two separate occasions.

The people of Michigan have spoken at the ballot box about gaming expansion in our State. In 1994, they voted to allow three casinos in the city of Detroit. In 2004, the people voted to limit any more expansion of gaming unless there was a statewide referendum. In addition, the Michigan Gaming Compact specifically prohibits off- reservation gaming unless all of the tribes in Michigan agree to a revenue-sharing plan. These two bills are simply an attempt to circumvent both the will of the people of Michigan and the compact the Michigan State Legislature has made with the tribes in Michigan.

Instead, these bills would have Congress mandate not one, but two off-site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away from the reservations of these tribes. Moreover, the disputed land is located near the two tribes reservations in the Upper Peninsula but yet the land they want for a ``settlement'' is located 350 miles away near the city of Detroit. If these bills were to become law, what would prevent other tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States for off-site reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?

It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress, the House Resources Committee, on a bipartisan basis, passed legislation by an overwhelming margin to restrict off-site reservation gaming. Yet today, it now seeks to expand Native American gaming in an unprecedented manner.

Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that allows tribes to conduct gaming on lands acquired before October 17, 1988. In 1993, former Governor John Engler negotiated a gaming compact with the seven federally-recognized tribes in Michigan, including the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes.

In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across the State, a provision was added to the compact that required any revenue generated by off-reservation gaining be shared among the tribes who signed the compact. This provision has worked well for over 15 years. The two bills before Congress today would simply nullify this critically important provision of the Michigan Gaming Compact. Both of these bills would allow the tribes to; (1) settle a land claim that has never been validated and is located near their reservations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and (2) acquire lands 350 miles from their reservation to build casinos. Furthermore, these bills actually include gaming compacts in them that were never approved by the Michigan State Legislature who has approved every other gaming compact. It is important to note that Congress has never passed a gaming compact in the history of Indian gaming. IGRA specifically grants that authority to the States.

In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a statewide referendum and overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that would restrict the expansion of gaming in the State of Michigan. This referendum would require local and statewide approvals for any private expansion of gaming in Michigan.

The people and the elected officials of Michigan already have a solution to this matter--the ballot box. There is nothing in the referendum that would prevent the two tribes and their non-Indian developers from initiating a statewide referendum to get casinos in Port Huron and in Romulus. In fact, both of those cities have already passed local referendums. But the tribes and their developers decided to short-circuit the vote of the Michigan people and come to Congress to get a casino on a proposed land claim that is located near the tribes' reservation lands in the upper peninsula of Michigan.

I am aware that the Governor of Michigan has sent the House Natural Resources Committee a letter supporting these bills. You should know that there is no legal basis for the State to support these agreements because, in fact, the State has already won this case in the Michigan Court of Claims and the Bay Mills Tribe appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the case.

The Governor ignored the fact that the city of Detroit will be the main victim of the State's largess in these casino deals. The city of Detroit will lose hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the competition of these new casinos and that will cause irreparable harm. Harm to whom? Harm to the current investors of the casinos in the city of Detroit, who have invested more than $1.5 billion in the construction of the three casinos in the city of Detroit. Harm to the thousands of jobs that have been created and the tax revenue that those jobs generate for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan. Ultimately, this will harm the State. When compared to their private counterparts, Native American gaming sites, because they are sovereign nations and must share their revenue with other Native American tribes, do not bring in the tax revenue of private investors.

In the end, these two tribes are seeking to do an end-run around two statewide referendums and the Michigan Gaming Compact of 1993. Rarely have voters in any State in this country spoken so clearly on gaming issues. In light of all of this, it would be a travesty for Congress to mandate two off-site reservation gaming casinos that would have such a negative impact on the people in Michigan.

But, for the moment, let us ignore the impact that these bills will have on the city of Detroit. Let us ignore the precedent that these bills will set, allowing any Native American tribe to claim any piece of land hundreds of miles away, as their native tribal land. Let us ignore the fact that IGRA has not been reauthorized in more than two decades, and clearly needs to be revisited and revised by Congress. What I cannot ignore is the strong possibility that the very integrity of Congress is in jeopardy.

On October 10, 2002, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Bernard Boushor, said ``the Bay Mills case was a scam from the start.'' In testimony and information provided to the House Natural Resources Committee in February of this year, Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu cited

Chairman Boushor's testimony, stating that the original lawsuit on the land claim was a collusive lawsuit.

The proponents of this legislation have repeatedly stated that these bills are simply to address the aggrieved landowners in Charlotte Beach. But according to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe ``the Charlotte Beach claim did not originate with Bay Mills. It was a product of a Detroit area attorney who developed it specifically as a vehicle to obtain an IGRA casino . . . the goal was never to recover the Charlotte Beach lands.''

How was this originally a collusive lawsuit? The Bay Mills Tribe sued Mr. James Hadley on October 18, 1996 who entered into a settlement in which he gave land to the Bay Mills Tribe 300 miles from their reservation to build a casino in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That plan was rejected by the Department of the Interior. The point is that Mr. Hadley was not an aggrieved landowner, he was an active participant in what the Sault Tribe described as ``a collusive lawsuit'' and ``a scam.''

I strongly encourage all of you to read the testimony of the former Sault Ste. Marie chairman before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the testimony of the Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu, and review the documents Chief Cantu provided to the Committee, which was provided to the House Natural Resources Committee at its hearing in February and to the House Judiciary Committee at its subsequent hearing.

There is a way to save the integrity of Congress. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has requested that the U.S. Department of the Interior investigate the land claims made by these tribes, and determine whether they are valid claims, worthy of Federal resolution. It is my understanding that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the validity of these land claims. I would urge the Committee to wait until this investigation is complete until it rushes into passing legislation that mandates off-reservation gaming.

Congress should not be in the business of handing out off-site reservation gaming casinos. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress is the rejection of both of these bills for the following reasons:

These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress by approving a compact which is a State, not a Federal, responsibility;

They contravene Michigan State law;

They are controversial among the Native American tribes in Michigan; indeed, nine out of Michigan's 12 tribes oppose these bills;

The city of Detroit would lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in the investments made by the three casinos currently operating in Detroit;

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already rejected a similar application for gaming in Romulus, Michigan;

These bills would involve the removal of valuable land from the tax rolls of the State of Michigan, resulting in the potential loss of even more revenue;

It is uncertain that these land swaps are legitimate, possibly jeopardizing the integrity of the U.S. Congress;

The Committee should allow the Department of the Interior the time to do their due diligence to determine if these are valid land claims; and

Congress needs to revisit, revise and reauthorize the IGRA, which has not had a comprehensive review in nearly two decades.

Let me state for the record, once again, that I am not opposed to more gaming in the State of Michigan. I am also not opposed to off-site reservation gaming. I have been opposed, am currently opposed, and will always be opposed to any measure, any bill, any regulation that says that the will of the people does not matter. The will of the people is tantamount. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress prevails and that the voice of the people matters in rejecting these bills on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, could I bring the temperature down somewhat from the speakers by pointing out to my good friend from Alaska that this matter is within the Judiciary Committee because the Parliamentarian said so? So for the gentleman to make this assertion that we have no claim of jurisdiction here is one of the errors that he has made in his presentation.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm so proud that nobody has mentioned casinos yet, because that means the casinos are not an issue, of course, in this matter. Or you mentioned gaming. Okay. Chairman Rahall concedes that he did mention gaming.

Well, let me tell you something. This is just like H.L. Mencken. When they say this is not about money, Mencken says that means it's about money.

Now, it just so happens that, on three occasions, these tribes have tried to get the Department of Interior, which is where this goes--and as for this business about its being in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, we don't sit around here, ruling on this business. We can override the established procedures if we want to, and here, we want to because the Department of Interior has turned down these claims three different times--in 1982, 1983, and 1992. They said ``no.'' The reason was they weren't meritorious.

And then an enterprising member of the bar--and I hate to tell you that that was his profession--said, Ah, I've got an idea. Wait until you see the charts that show how far Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills are from where they want to locate the casinos.

I said it was 350 miles away. It's 348 miles away. I'm sorry. So let's come clean, okay?

Now, the lady I supported for Governor, Governor Granholm, overrode the State legislature to send you that letter, and it's not going by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission rules or her own State's rules. The people in Michigan have voted down casinos already. And, the former Governor Engler, wow. He tried to stick it in bills coming over here. He never would have done what we are doing here today but for the same reasons of concern that those proponents of the bill have reason to be concerned right now.

So that's the story, folks. If you want to start a run on forum shopping for casinos, this is going to be the first bill that does it.

It is no joy for me to be before you opposing legislation reported by the Natural Resources Committee and my friend Nick Rahall, and supported so strongly by my friends John Dingell and Bart Stupak.

But this is bad legislation. I regret that the House is having to consider it. And I must strongly oppose it.

Those pushing this legislation on the House do not always like to emphasize the fact that it is about legalizing casino gambling where it would not otherwise be legal--pure and simple.

And not just in two corners of Michigan. This is not a local Michigan issue--leaving

aside that the Michigan delegation is sharply divided itself.

This would create a national blueprint for casino forum shopping, where no corner of the country would be safe from the designs of any developer or casino operator, working in league with any far-off Indian tribe.

They say it does not set a precedent--says so right in the bill: ``don't look for a precedent here.'' Who are they trying to kid?

This legislation is highly controversial, and with good reason. Earlier today I discussed the dubious origins of this supposed Indian land claim. Let me now turn to other major flaws in this proposal.

To begin with, it spurns every single procedure Congress established under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to balance the sovereign rights of Indian tribes to conduct their own affairs, on their own lands, with the legitimate concerns many of our citizens have with the potential spread of casino gaming into their communities.

It simply declares the process to be completed, and the two tribes to have succeeded.

The bill's proponents will tell you that the bill complies fully with the process set out in IGRA. But it does not; it simply jumps to the finish line and arbitrarily deems the process to be satisfied.

Section 102(a)(1) orders the Interior Department to take the lands into trust.

Section 102(a)(2) directs that the lands become part of the tribe's reservation.

Section 102(b) declares that the process complies fully with all the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for purposes of legalizing a casino on the new lands.

What could be simpler? Or more manipulative?

Let's not kid ourselves. That's not complying with process; that's doing a preemptive end run around it.

This bill shows absolutely no regard for the established process.

No regard for the usual review in the Interior Department, who opposes this bill.

Don't be fooled by rumors of some high-level private go-ahead. The Interior Department has testified against this legislation--publicly-- twice in the last 5 months--before the Resources Committee, and before the Judiciary Committee.

No regard for Michigan voters, who passed a referendum in 2004 restricting the expansion of casino gambling in their State. The bill does an end run around that process as well.

The proponents claim that there is an exemption in the referendum for casinos on Tribal lands.

Well, of course there is. That's required by tribal sovereignty under Federal law. That would be the case whether the referendum said so or not.

But no one in their wildest dreams ever imagined that someone would try to twist the common-sense concept of ``Tribal lands'' to sweep in lands 350 miles from the Tribe's ancestral homelands.

This bill does not honor the referendum. It blows a gaping hole through it, and utterly violates the spirit of the voters' decision to limit the spread of casinos in their State.

No regard for the other Indian tribes in Michigan, all of whom signed compacts in 1994 solemnly pledging, as a means of curtailing the impulse to build new casinos far and wide, that revenues from any off- reservation casino any of them built would be shared among them all.

This bill simply blesses a superseding compact for these two tribes that lets them off the hook, without going through any of the established process for negotiating and approving a new compact.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act rightly disfavors off-reservation casino gaming.

And as set forth in greater detail in the Interior Department guidelines, the greater the distance involved, the greater the risk of harm to tribal welfare, and the more tenuous the benefits.

The distance involved here--350 miles from the reservation--is a whole new order of magnitude. And the tribes involved have no known historical connection whatsoever to the lands they would acquire.

The proponents say there is a precedent. But what they are referring to is no precedent at all.

The Torres-Martinez case was brought by the Interior Department on behalf of the tribe, for reservation land that an irrigation district had placed under water.

Under the settlement, the tribe was allowed to acquire land in trust within 10 miles of its existing reservation--that land also had to be within its historical territory.

The tribe has not built a casino on that land, and has no plans to.

Furthermore, the land claims here being enlisted in the service of obtaining these off-reservation casinos have already been rejected by the courts.

And they are not even claims involving the United States. They are strictly private claims, against the State of Michigan, bearing no relation whatsoever to the kind of claims that could legally be settled under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

This legislation is supported by exactly two tribes in Michigan--the two who expect to get off-reservation casinos they could not hope to obtain under established legal process.

It is opposed by other Michigan tribes, who are joined by over 60 tribes across the country.

Not because they oppose Indian gaming. They all have their own interest in preserving their rights to build casinos on their own lands.

What they are opposed to is the free-for-all that would predictably ensue if this unprecedented effort to circumvent the law--a law they have all lived under for 20 years--were to pass.

This legislation is also opposed by the NAACP because of its lack of basic procedural fairness, due process, or any respect for voters in communities across the country who may understandably have concerns about casinos being built in their neighborhoods.

Let me also say a word about the view of organized labor. And I say this as someone who has a labor voting record in Congress, over almost 44 years, that is second to no one's.

This bill is supported by some in labor; it is opposed by others.

Labor is not united. And why would they be? If this legislation has any direct effect on jobs, it will be only to move them from one casino in Michigan to another.

For these and other reasons, the House Judiciary Committee, which received a sequential referral of this legislation, voted unanimously to oppose it.

By passing legislation favoring the narrow interests of the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribes and their private-sector allies, Congress would set a dangerous precedent for side-stepping the established review process for land claims, and create a shortcut for spreading casino gambling into every corner of the country.

We should not start down that path. The tribes should pursue whatever claims they may have through the normal procedures--and succeed or fail on the merits.

And so I strongly oppose this bill, and urge everyone else in this body to do likewise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).

I yield the gentlelady 15 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Can you ask that gentleman to sit down and to shut up up there? I don't care who he is.

I'm pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick from Michigan, and I would yield her 1\1/2\ minutes and would ask the ranking member of the Judiciary to do the same.

I've got to reserve. I've only got 1 minute left, Chairman Rahall.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas 25 seconds.

Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, the only reason we are here today, and I admire all of the devoted people to the cause of our Native Americans, is that these two casinos are located not 5 miles or 10 miles away but 345 miles and 348 miles away. That's why we are here. And by rationalizing that, guess what's going to happen? We are going to have the biggest casino forum shopping this country has ever known because we will have done it here listening to people explain to me about Abramoff's role and how important this is, so compelling.

So, please, vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, Chairman Rahall has summarized the settlement history of the Bay Mills land claim as well as the related and

commingled claim of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. Therefore, I will limit my remarks to why I believe this amended bill, which is championed by my good friends from Michigan, Chairman John Dingell, Chairman Bart Stupak, and Candice Miller, deserves the support of the Members of this House.

Before the House today are two bills combined to resolve a problem affecting two tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and a number of non-Indian landowners in an area of Michigan known as Charlotte Beach.

Let me point out the support for this bill in the districts that are affected by them. The Members representing Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribes support the bill. The two Members representing districts where lands will be placed in trust support the bill.

Finally--and this is very important--this settlement deal was negotiated by former Governor John Engler and is supported by Governor Granholm.

It has been my practice--and I hope most of you understand--to defer to the Members whose districts are affected by legislation because that Member best represents the views of his constituents and knows his district best. Of course, I can only wish that others would respect this practice when it comes to Alaska. If so, we would be enjoying 42 million gallons of oil a day from ANWR. Instead, we have Members whose districts are thousands of miles away and who are encasing this key to American oil independence and lower gas prices in crystal by declaring it a wilderness. That is something that even President Jimmy Carter, in his cardigan sweaters, refused to do during the height of our gas crisis.

Getting back to H.R. 2176, this bill settles two Indian land claims without costing any Federal or State dollars and without imposing taxes or fees on anyone. In fact, under the settlement deals, the tribes are going to share revenues with the State of Michigan and with local communities.

The bills are consistent with the compact agreed to by the tribes and by the Governors pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

In this Congress, we have passed bills that recognize some tribes on the condition that such tribes forego gaming. We made this condition a part of their recognition of the bills. This breaks with long-standing precedent and with treating Indian tribes on an equal footing with one another. But we did it out of deference to the Members who represent the tribes, out of deference to the Governors of the States affected, and out of deference to the wishes of local communities.

If we want to remain consistent in this policy, then we should agree to the request of the Members and of the Governors and of the local communities of Port Huron and Romulus.

I understand there is opposition to this bill. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I probably shouldn't say, but this bill should never have gone to Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, it should never have gone to Judiciary. This is not your jurisdiction. This is the jurisdiction of Natural Resources only, and for some reason, somebody tried to placate somebody and send it over to Judiciary. Judiciary has no jurisdiction over this bill. IGRA is under the jurisdiction of the Resources Committee.

I understand the opposition. On the one hand, we must defer to Governors and to Members who don't want gaming, but on the other hand, we are hearing we must not defer to Governors and to Members when they want to permit and to regulate gaming. This is confusing.

Most of the opponents of these bills don't live in the area affected by the legislation. I note that none of the amendments filed to this bill were from the Michigan delegation.

So why are they opposed? I believe it is fear of competition. The tribes whose lands are settled by H.R. 2176, as amended, have every right under the law to provide economically to their members. That they choose to do so by operating casinos is their choice, as well as that of the Governor of Michigan. These enterprises will supply jobs to the area, will provide funds for health care, and will provide better education for Native Americans, and they will do so by engaging the oldest American economic policies--good old-fashioned, competitive capitalism.

This is not the first time that Congress has taken lands into trust for tribes outside traditional reservation boundaries and has allowed the tribes the full economic benefit of these lands. As one example, I point to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act from the 106th Congress. That law directed the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for two tribes--the Lytton Rancheria and the Graton Rancheria--which may not have been part of the tribes' historical ranges. In each case, just like the bill being considered today, gaming was not barred. Certainly, this is a common result whenever Congress or the administration recognizes a landless tribe or restores land to a tribe.

In the meantime, the property owners in Charlotte Beach have watched the value of their property plummet, something like 90 percent in some cases. The cloud on the title to their land, resulting from the land claims, has made it nearly impossible for them to sell or to secure a mortgage. This isn't right, and it isn't right to leave them hanging when the Governors of Michigan, the legislature, the affected communities, and their Representatives want to move these settlements forward.

This bill will end this ordeal that they're all facing.

Once again, I do urge support of H.R. 2176, as amended, and urge passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very intently to this debate. The thing that bothers me the most is that this is about competition. That's all it is. Let's face it. It's competition.

I'm a little disturbed that the casinos in Detroit that are owned by Indian tribes now are objecting to their brethren, because it's about competition.

We have been over this time and time again. This is not a new bill. This is an attempt to settle a land claim by those who own land and who no longer have title of it because of a court ruling. This is not just about casinos.

And by the way, to the chairman of the Judiciary, I did mention ``casinos'' in my statement. It's there, I want you people to understand, and I did mention ``gaming,'' but I did say ``casinos,'' too. I'm not trying to hide anything. This is their prerogative under IGRA to have the title to this land.

This land was not voluntarily given away. This land was taken. The State of Michigan said it was taken. The courts have said it was taken. These tribes have a legal title to this land. And, until they get that land, the people who now have homes, who have stores that have been inherited from their parents, that title is not theirs.

But we have those in Detroit and those interests from outside of Michigan that don't want any more competition. Competition, apparently, is bad for the American way. I think it's good.

Again, let's go back to those people who represent the area. And the Governor and the community all support this bill.

I reserve my time.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I will yield the gentleman 15 seconds, too.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

At this time, I yield 8 minutes to the good lady of the district that's represented, not from California, not from any other area such as Nevada and California, again, that oppose this legislation. She represents this area, and we ought to listen to her as to why she is for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

How much time is left totally, Mr. Speaker? How much time does the Judiciary have, the majority and minority?

Parliamentary inquiry.

Who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman, not for closing, but I will yield him 2 minutes of my time.

Mr. Speaker, with my remaining time, I hope everybody recognizes again that what this is about is competition. That's all it is. In the meantime, there are two Native tribes, American Indians, that have a right under IGRA to, in fact, have these lands that they negotiated with the Governors, the State legislature, the communities, and reached a deal; yet this is the last body that has the ability and the responsibility of settling disputes on lands owned by or not owned by American Natives. Not the courts, no one else. And that's why we are here today.

It does disturb me, when I see other tribes that actually have the backing of other institutions outside the State of Michigan, the city of Detroit, that oppose their brethren from achieving the same goals they did. I'm also disturbed because we have those that are non-Native that have their title in question that will never, in fact, unless we act, have that title cleared up. And that's our responsibility in this body.

There is justice, there should be justice, for American Indians. And, by the way, I believe I am the last one on that committee that voted for the original gaming legislation for American Natives. Chairman Udall and I passed that legislation. I believe Mr. Dingell probably voted for it, and maybe Mr. Conyers voted for it at that time because we thought there was an opportunity there to improve the economic base of the American Indian, and we approved correctly.

Now, those that oppose gaming, I understand that. I don't gamble. That's not my thing. But I also will tell you I don't disrespect those who do gamble. And as the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) said, I could even hit a golf ball across that river to that gaming place in Canada, and I want some of that Canadian money to come down to America instead of its going from America to Canada.

In the fairness of this bill, we should vote ``yes.'' In fairness to the American Indians, we should vote ``yes.'' This legislation should become a reality. The State of Michigan Senators support it. The Governors support it. The legislature supports it. The communities support it. The police officers support it. And only those that oppose it have another interest.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1298, I call up the bill (H.R. 2176) to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2176.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today, the Committee on Natural Resources is continuing our effort to bring justice to Indian country. Last year, the committee brought to the full House legislation to finally provide Federal recognition to the long suffering Lumbee Tribe in the State of North Carolina.

We also brought to the floor legislation to grant Federal recognition to six Virginia tribes 400 years after the founding of the Jamestown settlement. These were the very tribes that greeted the English settlers when they landed on our shores.

Today, we are considering legislation to end a 153-year odyssey involving two federally recognized tribes in the State of Michigan--the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

This bill seeks to settle legitimate land claims of these two Indian tribes. I would note that the resolution of Indian land claims is something that is vested with the Congress, and Congress has taken this type of action on numerous occasions. No precedent is being set by these bills.

The genesis of the pending legislation dates back to 1807 when the Chippewa ceded much of what is now the State of Michigan in a treaty with the Governor of the Michigan Territory. Subsequent treaties ensued in 1817, 1820, 1836, and in 1855.

In the case of both the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie, the 1855 Treaty of Detroit set aside land, in what is now known as Charlotte Beach, for their exclusive use. However, shortly after the treaty was concluded, that very land was sold to non-Indian speculators.

This is hardly the first time something like this was done to Native Americans, but it is another indictment in the long and sad chapter of their past treatment by those with wealth and power.

At present, some 100 non-Indian landowners reside on the Charlotte Beach land, under a clouded title, due to the legitimate land claims filed by the Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie. This makes it impossible for the residents of Charlotte Beach to receive title insurance--depressing land values and making it difficult to obtain mortgages, among other issues.

The Interior Department has testified to the legitimacy of the land claims in question. Their legitimacy has also been recognized by two Governors of the State of Michigan--Republican John Engler and current Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm.

Indeed, Jennifer Granholm stated in a letter addressed to me: ``The Federal courts have held that both the Bay Mills Tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe trace their ancestry to the two Chippewa bands named in the deed to the disputed Charlotte Beach lands and that both tribes, accordingly, share in any potential claim based on those lands.''

To be clear then, that is what is at issue with the pending legislation--the settlement of these land claims. There is no administrative process available to accomplish this. It is something that is solely vested with the Congress.

The pending measure would implement a settlement agreement entered into by the Governor of Michigan, the Bay Mills and the Sault, and in doing so, it would clear the land title cloud that has hung over the residents of the Charlotte Beach area.

Under an agreement reached with the Bay Mills and with the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, initially with Governor Engler and subsequently with Governor Granholm, the tribes would relinquish their land claims at Charlotte Beach, and instead, would be able to take into trust land at, in the case of the Bay Mills, Port Huron, Michigan, and in the case of the Sault Ste. Marie, either Flint, Monroe or Romulus, Michigan.

Under this settlement agreement, gaming is authorized on the new reservation lands at Port Huron and at either Flint, Monroe or Romulus.

However, in my view, the primary concern of Congress is the settlement of the land claims. What then occurs is a matter that is up to the State of Michigan, its political subdivisions, and the affected tribes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that all Representatives of the House of Representatives whose congressional districts contain either the lands where the existing land claims rest or the areas where the new reservation lands would be created support these two bills--the dean of our House, Chairman John Dingell; Representative Bart Stupak; Representative Dale Kildee, and Representative Candice Miller. I would also note that the municipalities involved support this settlement.

I have set out the facts, Mr. Speaker, the historical record regarding these two tribes and their Charlotte Beach land claims. I do believe that the deliverance of justice is on the side of these two tribes and of the legislation we are considering today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, would you tell us how much time is left for all Members.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished member of our Committee on Natural Resources, a member of my class as well, and from the State of Michigan, Mr. Dale Kildee.

I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to yield to the distinguished dean of the House of Representatives--the gentleman from Michigan, a dear friend to all of us regardless of our position on this issue-- Chairman John Dingell, 5 minutes.

(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

May I have the time that is left?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a dear colleague of ours from Michigan as well, to a gentleman who has been very tenacious for many, many years in seeing this bill to its fruition, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).

Mr. Speaker, I plan to close with that time; so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as we conclude this debate, I would like to take this opportunity to implore the other body to act upon the Lumbee and the Virginia Tribe bills that this body had sent over for its consideration last year. The magnitude of injustice that has befallen these Indian people is almost beyond comprehension.

To the matter at hand. One hundred fifty-three years ago, ladies and gentlemen, that is when these tribes were robbed of their land. The historic record shows they were swindled out of their promised land. This has been their version, their own version of the Trail of Tears. We must not continue to condone that.

We have a higher calling in this body. This is a matter about rising above the petty differences, it's about making restitution and making the tribes involved whole, making the tribes involved whole, and as well clearing title to land where the good people of Charlotte Beach reside.

So I would say to those of my colleagues with concerns over this measure, look into your souls. There, it is my hope, that you will find justice to this cause, to this land claim settlement. The pending legislation, I might add, is supported by the United Auto Workers, the International Union of Operating Engineers, and the International Union of Machinists.

As I conclude, let me say again that it is time we move on so that we can address other issues of importance to Indian country, such as the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, reported out of the Committee on Natural Resources; self-governance issues; other land and economic development issues, such as with the Catawba in South Carolina.

There are many other Indian tribes in Indian country around our country that have many injustices yet to be addressed by the Congress of the United States. We have to look into our souls and decide that it is time to move above these petty differences, to realize that it is incumbent upon us in the Congress to address these issues when others will not.

So I implore my colleagues to support the pending legislation as well as ending many other injustices to our first Americans, our native Indians.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I insist on my point of order.

Mr. Speaker, certainly after listening to the gentleman's diatribe, or whatever it was he was talking about, it's certainly not related to the pending legislation. Never once did I hear the word ``Indian.'' It's a further example of the petty politics the minority is trying to play with the serious problems confronting the American people.

I insist on my point of order, and I raise a point of order that the motion to recommit contains nongermane instructions, in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI. The instructions in the motion to recommit address an unrelated matter to the pending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman, my distinguished colleague from Alaska, for yielding and for his complimentary remarks.

Mr. Speaker, this issue has been waiting for a congressional vote for many, many years but not for as long as our Nation's history of sometimes mistreating Native Americans.

This case settles a land claim from over 100 years ago, at a time when our country treated Native Americans terribly and at a time when the State of Michigan, as has been said, literally stole this land from the Indians.

Throughout the decades that followed, Native Americans sought justice. Finally, former Michigan Governor John Engler negotiated a settlement that was agreed to by everyone involved. Let me just read briefly a section from his letter.

``As Governor of Michigan, it was my duty to negotiate the land settlement agreements between the State of Michigan and Bay Mills and the Sault Tribe in 2002 . . . I am proud that every concerned party involved in this settlement supports this agreement. This is a true example of a State and the tribes promoting cooperation rather than conflict.''

This land claim settlement is unique to Michigan, and it does not impact any other congressional district other than the three congressional districts of the people who are supporting it here who have spoken today, as have been mentioned. That is myself, Mr. Stupak, and Mr. Dingell. I would point out that, in a time of hyper partisanship, this is a wonderful example, I believe, of bipartisanship.

I would note that much of the opposition to this bill comes from Members of Congress who already have gaming in their districts, districts like Las Vegas or like the city of Detroit, and that their opposition is not based on ideology but on, rather, their not wanting any honest competition. I reject this on its face because I believe in the free market, and I believe in free market principles.

Some have said that this is stuffing a tribal land claim down the throat of a community that doesn't welcome it. Actually, the opposite is true. This legislation is supported by every elected official who represents the city of Port Huron in any capacity and at any level of government. As has been mentioned, there is the former Governor, John Engler; the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm; both United States Senators; myself, as a Member in the U.S. House here; the State senator; the State representatives; the county commissioners, and the entire city council.

Additionally, it has the support of civic groups, of business groups like the Chamber of Commerce, of educational leaders, and of labor unions like the UAW.

For those who might be concerned about what law enforcement thinks, we have letters here of support from the county sheriff, from the county prosecutor and from all of the police chiefs. Most importantly, it has the support of the citizens of the city, as evidenced by a citywide referendum vote in support.

The opponents of this legislation have said, first of all, that they don't want any competition. Therefore, they hope this bill will die. They have said, even though their communities and their districts have economic development, they need to protect that and that the citizens-- the good Americans of a community like mine--cannot have fairness or economic opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, this is un-American, and I would hope that my fair- minded colleagues would reject that out of hand.

The opponents of this have also stated several outright untruths about this bill. They say that this bill will set a precedent, and that is false. In fact, in section 3(b) of this bill, it states the following: ``The provisions contained in the Settlement of Land Claim are unique and shall not be considered precedent for any future agreement between any tribe and State.''

The opponents also say that this bill will allow for off-reservation gaming. This is also false. In fact, section 2(a)(2) of the bill states the following: ``The alternative lands shall become part of the community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status.''

In fact, this site was not reservation shopping, as Mr. Stupak has pointed out. It was specifically chosen because it is the only community with an international border crossing where there is already casino gaming on one side and not on the U.S. side.

They have also said that this legislation violates the process under the National Environmental Policy Act, also known as NEPA. Yet the legislation makes it very, very clear that the land cannot be taken into trust until it is determined that the land complies with NEPA.

They also say that this bill would violate the will of the people of Michigan because of a referendum that was passed in 2004, which required statewide voter approval for any expansion of gaming. This is completely false. As a former Secretary of State, I know a little bit about ballot language, and this is what the ballot language actually says: ``Specify that voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian tribal gaming,'' which is exactly what this bill does.

I would offer as proof of this that, since the referendum passed in Michigan, several tribal casinos that are operated by some of the richest tribal opponents of this bill have actually opened facilities. Now, apparently, they didn't violate the will of the voters as long as they could make money. Yet they want to stop our communities, again, from fair competition. I would say please spare me the righteous indignation.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that my beautiful State of Michigan, that our beautiful State of Michigan, is suffering terrible, terrible economic challenges. We have the highest unemployment in the Nation. We have the lowest personal income growth in the Nation. We have the highest foreclosure rate in the Nation. We have the largest exodus of our young people. Our population is moving to other States to seek economic opportunity.

The city of Port Huron, that I represent, actually has one of the highest unemployment rates, not only in the State but in the entire Nation.

By the best estimates right now, it's anywhere from 14 to 16 percent. Some have said it could be even higher. And yet we try to pay our taxes. We educate our children. We always legitimately think of ourselves as patriotic Americans. We are proud, and we have never asked for a handout, and today we are only asking for Congress to ratify the compacts of our Governors so that we can help ourselves.

For those who think that a vote today against this bill will stop gaming in this community, let me just point out this photo here behind me, which is of a Canadian casino, which is about 282 yards away. Now, a good golfer, not me, but a good golfer could hit this Canadian casino. It's right across the St. Clair River, a short trip over the Blue Water Bridge, and about 80 percent of all of their revenues comes from American citizens. Mr. Speaker, I would say that those dollars should be spent in an American facility to help Americans get jobs.

This bill is all about fairness and opportunity, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''; ``yes'' for private property rights, ``yes'' for the rights of States to negotiate in good faith and for the good of their State, and ``yes'' for Americans to have fairness and opportunity to compete with our wonderful Canadian neighbors for jobs in a community where the jobs are desperately needed.

And I would just close on a note: I have heard that there is a number of family values-type groups who are opposed to this. Let me just show you an example of a recent mailing ostensibly from a group called Michigan Family Alert.

This is a so-called Michigan Family Alert, and, of course, it's saying that they are opposed to these casinos, and, if you're a family values person, you had better to be opposed too. And yet from Business Week what they have said is: ``As it turns out, Gambling Watch is a tiny operation financed by MGM Mirage, one of the world's largest gaming companies, locked in a bitter dispute with two Native American Indian tribes that hope to open casinos in Michigan. The Las Vegas company inaugurated a new $800 million casino in downtown Detroit in October and is not in the mood for any competition.''

And I close on that note.