Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 65) to provide for the recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for H.R. 65, legislation to grant the Lumbee Indians Federal recognition.

In the late 1500s, when English ships landed on the shores of Roanoke Island off the coast of North Carolina, the English discovered native Americans. Included among those native Americans were both the Cheraw and Pee Dee Indians, who were direct ancestors of the Lumbee Indians.

Later, in 1888, the Lumbees made their first effort at gaining Federal recognition. For at least 500 years, the Lumbee Indians have been inhabitants of this land; and for over half of that time that our country has been in existence, 119 of the 231 years of our country's history, the Lumbee Indians have been seeking the recognition and respect that they deserve.

As the largest tribe east of the Mississippi and the largest nonrecognized tribe in America, it is unfathomable that this tribe of 55,000 people has never been fully recognized by our government. H.R. 65 would provide equal treatment to the Lumbee tribe by correcting a half-measure that was adopted by this Congress in 1956, 51 years ago on this very day.

The 1956 half-measure acknowledged the Lumbees as Indians but cut off the tribe from the Federal statutes that apply to all other Federally recognized tribes. Every other tribe subjected by Congress to such a half-measure has since been fully recognized by a special act of Congress.

This would only apply to the Lumbees. It will not apply to the other tribes. You may hear arguments to the contrary, but this refers to correcting an injustice done by the Lumbee Act of 1956. So it is applicable only to this tribe.

H.R. 65 would do the same thing for the Lumbee tribe as it has done for two other tribes that were put in a similar circumstance. Thus, H.R. 65 is a long-overdue act of justice that would treat this tribe just like every other tribe in the same position has been treated. There is no question that the Lumbee Indians constitute an Indian tribe.

The State of North Carolina has consistently recognized that since 1885 under a series of State statutes, using different names for the tribe, until 1952, when the tribe held a referendum to decide upon its own name and not take a name imposed on it. They adopted the name Lumbee, drawn from the name of the river that the tribe was found at the time of the first white contact with these Indians in the 1730s.

The State amended its law to recognize the tribe under the name Lumbee in 1953, and that same bill was introduced in Congress to obtain Federal recognition under that same name. Before the Federal bill was enacted, though, Congress amended the bill to include termination language; and, as a result, Congress recognized the tribe in name only at the same time in 1956.

Because of this 1956 half-measure, the Solicitor General of the United States has ruled that the Lumbee tribe is not eligible for the tribal recognition process currently administered by the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Solicitor General has already ruled that the tribe has to come back to Congress to correct this injustice. Congress did it; Congress needs to correct it.

In any case, there's no need to send this back to the BIA. Why? Because the Department of Interior has already studied this tribe 11 separate times and each time has concluded that the Lumbees are indeed Indian, and they are descended principally from the Aboriginal Cheraw Tribe. The Department's own records also show that the modern day Lumbees are the same Indians first recognized by the State of North Carolina back in 1885 and by Congress by name in 1956. So Congress itself has put the Lumbee tribe in the Indian ``No Man's Land'' with the enactment of the 1956 half measure.

Congress has done this in the past to two other tribes, the Tiwas of Texas and the Pascua Yaqui of Arizona. In both cases, Congress has since gone back, passed special statutes extending full recognition to those tribes. So there is direct precedent for this action today, and it only is applicable to the Lumbees, and in all fairness, Congress should do the same for the Lumbees that they've done for other tribes that were in this unique position. This is all that we're asking, for the Lumbee tribe to be treated equally and fairly like every other tribe in this situation has been treated. If this is not done, the Lumbees will continue to be the only tribe in America left in this legal limbo, and that's fundamentally unfair to the Lumbee tribe. The recognition of an Indian tribe has always been done by the United States. Ultimately it's Congress's responsibility. More than half of the 565 tribes now federally recognized were recognized by Congress. And even after the Department of Interior established a separate procedure in 1978, Congress itself has still taken the effort to recognize nine tribes by special legislation when there were special circumstances, which is what we have here, special circumstances.

In 1935, D'Arcy McNickle, the Special Indian Agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, reported to Congress; this Special Indian Agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs back in 1935 concluded, ``that they are Indians cannot be doubted,'' and I quote.

So now, in 2007, I trust that you and my colleagues will agree it is time for discrimination to end and recognition to begin. Join me in finally rectifying this wrong. Vote for the rule and vote for recognition for the Lumbee tribe.

Madam Speaker, in answer quickly to the questions raised by my colleague from Connecticut when he says they don't want to go before the BIA because they do the research, that is absolutely incorrect. We have records of 11 studies that the BIA has done and every time concluded this was an Indian tribe.

Secondly, he says this is opening a Pandora's box; what do we say to the other tribes? This deals with one tribe

with a specific statute that the Congress of the United States passed 51 years ago today called the Lumbee Act of 1956. That is what we answer. We are dealing with that specific law dealing with this specific tribe, and we have a specific bill today to answer the injustice Congress has done to this specific tribe that only deals with the Lumbee Tribe.

Third, there must be something, I guess, magical about going to the BIA. He asks, what are we afraid of? The answer is nothing. Not only have 11 studies already been done by the BIA, but the General Accounting Office itself says in conclusion in their own regulations under the law that authorized the BIA, the BIA's recognition process was never intended to be the only way groups could receive Federal recognition, and that is in statutory language itself.

So what are we afraid of? Nothing. They have been through 11 examinations. We are ready to rectify an injustice that occurred 51 years ago today. I believe it is long overdue that Congress do the right thing.

Madam Speaker, I would like to place in the Record at this point three letters which Mr. Rahall referred to from North Carolina's three governors over the last 31 years, both Democrat and Republican, including a former Member of this body, Congressman Jim Martin, who later became governor, as well as Governors Jim Hunt and Mike Easley, who support this effort for the Lumbees.

State of North Carolina,

April 18, 2007.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II,

Chair, Natural Resources Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Don Young,

Ranking Member, Natural Resources Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Congressman Rahall and Congressman Young: Thank you

for the opportunity to submit written comments about pending

legislation for federal recognition of the Lumbee Tribe of

North Carolina by the Congress of the United States of

America. I believe full federal recognition of the Lumbee

Tribe by Congress is long overdue.

Recognition of and interaction with the Lumbee people as a

unique, distinct Indian tribe began when settlers from

Virginia, South Carolina and Europe first arrived in the Cape

Fear and Pee Dee River Basins after the Tuscarora War (1711-

1715). There, the settlers encountered a well-populated,

cohesive American Indian tribal group situated mostly along

and to the west of what is now known as the Lumber River in

Robeson County. As early as 1890, the U.S. Department of

Interior acknowledged this fact among others as evidence that

the Lumbee people are American Indians.

A proclamation by colonial Governor Matthew Rowan on May

10, 1753 stated that Drowning Creek (Lumber River in Robeson

County) was ``the Indian Frontier.'' Other historical records

of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, including

Revolutionary War pensions for Lumbees who fought for

American independence, attest to the Lumbees as American

Indians.

In 1885, North Carolina's General Assembly passed a bill

recognizing and naming the Lumbee tribe ``Croatan.'' In 1911

the General Assembly changed their name to the ``Indians of

Robeson County'' and in 1913 to ``Cherokee Indians of Robeson

County.'' None of these names was chosen by the tribe. In

1953, the State officially changed the tribe's name to

``Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina'' following a 1952 tribal

referendum requested by the Lumbees and paid for by the State

in which this name was overwhelmingly chosen. These names all

apply to the same American Indian tribe.

For more than a century, North Carolina's Governors,

various state legislators and Members of the North Carolina

Congressional delegation have supported the effort by the

Lumbee Tribe to obtain federal recognition, beginning with a

petition to Congress in 1888. Enclosed are copies of letters

by former Governors James G. Martin (R) and James B. Hunt,

Jr. (D)--my immediate predecessors--attesting to the strong

bipartisan support for federal recognition that the Lumbee

Tribe has enjoyed during the last generation.

In the past, federal recognition has been denied because of

opposition by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of

Interior on budgetary grounds. Each of several federal

investigations into the Lumbees' history, genealogy and

ethnicity has concluded that the Lumbees are in fact American

Indians. It follows that federal recognition should be

authorized for this long-standing American Indian Tribe.

Personally and on behalf of North Carolina, I offer to our

fellow Lumbee citizens and to the Congress our full,

unqualified support for Congressional recognition of the

Lumbee Tribe. I encourage your support for the Lumbee Tribe

and for the adoption of this bill.

I thank the House and the Natural Resources Committee for

holding this hearing and for allowing me to offer written

comments about the Lumbee Tribe recognition bill.

With warm personal regards, I remain

Very truly yours,

Michael F. Easley,

Governor.

Mr. Speaker, just in reference to some of the comments that have been made by those who are hindering the efforts to move forward with recognition of the tribe, let me answer those, because I think it's only in fairness that all of our colleagues who are listening to this debate understand this.

Number one, there is an accusation of bypassing the process. This is not bypassing the process. There have been 11 investigations done, ordered through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe itself was ordered not to go any further with this process by the Solicitor General of the United States. The Solicitor General said to the Lumbees, because of the 1956 Lumbee Act, that specific act of Congress, you have got to specifically go back to Congress and get this situation corrected.

Secondly, there's been some comments about the name of the Lumbees. The name was chosen by the tribe prior to ever coming to Congress. The name was ratified by the State of North Carolina, after other names had been imposed upon the tribe. The tribe chose its own name, and when it came to Congress, it was the Lumbee, and that name was acknowledged by virtue of the very title, the Lumbee Act of 1956. So we're not hear today debating the name.

Third, in making any comment that the tribe is uncomfortable with going through the process and then there were comments about no reservation, no language. Well, those are not requirements, even under the BIA process. Those are not criteria. I mean, that's why the Lumbees have made such great contributions to our society. They have been fully integrated, as I outlined in my opening remarks. Medicine and law, banks and business, farms and factories, military, entertainment, athletic accomplishments, like the great Kelvin Samson, coach of the Indiana Hoosiers, who testified in a hearing about this.

And then, fourth, again, the accusation was made, as it was during the Rules debate, that this would open up problems with other tribes. Well, no, my friends, it won't. And please hear this clearly to all those who are listening.

This is dealing with a specific act, the Lumbee Act of 1956. That's why other tribes will not come in here and open the flood gates and demand that we do for them. The Lumbees are the only tribe in America in this situation created because of the 1956 act which the Solicitor General has told them to go back to Congress to correct.

There were two other tribes in this situation, the Tiwas of Texas and the Pascua Yaqui of Arizona. They were in the same situation. They came back to Congress; Congress rectified it.

So what does that mean? Quite simply, the only tribe in America in this situation are the Lumbee tribe. It is high time for us to let this discrimination and injustice end. They've waited 51 years. Today is our opportunity to correct the injustice and proceed with recognition.

If the gentleman would yield.

Twice it passed the House, H.R. 334 on October 28, 1993; prior to that, H.R. 1426 on September 26, 1991. No action was taken in the Senate at that time. Senator Jesse Helms decided to block any passage. Senator Dole, to her credit, when she was elected, the first bill Senator Dole dropped as a U.S. Senator was to recognize this tribe, because she realized this bill had been held up for those 32 years over in the Senate, even though the U.S. House had passed it twice.

So that is why this is a bipartisan, bicameral effort. Senator Dole's bill tracks the same language that we have here in the House. This is an effort we all recognize to correct an injustice that should have never happened.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the proposed rule to bring this bill, H.R. 65, for consideration. And I certainly would like to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York, who's managing this legislation, and my good friend from Florida, the opposition, for their being here and to deliberate on the importance of this bill.

Madam Speaker, this is not a Republican or a Democratic piece of legislation. I say this because this bill has the absolute support of the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources, Mr. Rahall, and also the senior ranking member, the distinguished gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Don Young. So we have bipartisan support to this proposed bill. In fact, over 215 Members have already sponsored this proposed legislation.

And I would be remiss if I did not give special commendation for the outstanding job that the gentleman from North Carolina has put in trying to bring this legislation for the last 6 years I believe, the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. McIntyre. And I do commend him very much for his leadership and for his sensitivity in bringing this legislation out to the floor.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 65 would extend Federal recognition status to the Lumbee tribe of North Carolina. Several studies undertaken by the Department of the Interior have consistently concluded that the Lumbees are a distinct self-governing Indian community historically located on the Lumbee River in North Carolina.

This legislation is long overdue. Indeed, Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956. On its surface, one would deduce that this law was to provide Federal recognition to the Lumbee people. Instead, Congress perversely added a provision making the Lumbee Indian people ineligible for the services provided by the United States to other federally recognized tribes.

Today, we are simply here to rectify this injustice. This bill was reported by the Natural Resources Committee by a vote of 24-7. The tribe agreed to the provision that no gaming operation is ever to be part of their operations if they are ever to be recognized.

Madam Speaker, finally, I would note that the tribe has sought recognition through the current administrative procedure which was developed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which, by the way, was done through Federal regulation. It was not done by statutory mandate by the Congress. But this is not an option for them.

In 1989, the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior made the determination that the Lumbee Indian people are not eligible for the current process, and the fact that we have to go back to the provisions of the Lumbee Act of 1956. So there is no other option to obtain justice for these people, Madam Speaker.

And let me note that Congress is empowered to recognize Indian tribes, just as we have recently done for the Virginia Indian tribes. There are some 560 federally recognized Indian tribes in our country, and of those, Congress recognized 530 of them.

Madam Speaker, the times that I've met with the many members of this distinguished tribe, they noted to me, they say that many of them have fought, members of that tribe have fought in the defense of our Nation. And for a population of 53,000, and I believe six members of this tribe have already died from this terrible conflict that we're faced with now in Iraq. And to me, that is a way to show the patriotism, and we owe the people this recognition, I submit, Madam Speaker.

I urge my colleagues to support the proposed rule and pass this proposed bill, H.R. 65.

Madam Speaker, I do want to say I do have the highest respect for my good friend and colleague who has just taken the floor. In fact, I do want to commend him as a former Peace Corps volunteer for the islands of Fiji. And, as I said, I don't question some of the dialogue or the conversations or part of the Congressional Record that was taken from previous Congresses and other Members of Congress in the previous years in dealing with the issue. But let me share with my colleagues the situation of how we have dealt with the American Indians.

Madam Speaker, I submit our first policy, our first national policy, was to kill the Indians. Get rid of them.

Following that, our next policy was let's assimilate the Indians, make them all part of America.

And then, guess what? The next policy was to terminate the Indians. Don't give them any sense of recognition as a people.

These are our national policies in eras and periods of how we have dealt with Native Americans. So now the fourth policy that we now enunciated is let's find a system or procedure of how we can recognize them as Indian tribes.

Let me share with my colleagues what happened on that specific day when we held a hearing on the Lumbee Indians. This was years ago. One of the tribal chiefs of the Lumbee Indians testified before our committee and said they had to examine their teeth, their teeth, to see if they looked like Indians and having a certain structure of their facial features to make them look like Indians.

I must submit, Madam Speaker, the process that my good friend talks about was not developed until 1975 and thereafter. And the very person who wrote the regulation where these Indian tribes had to meet seven criteria in order for this Indian process to be completed and they would say now you are federally recognized, well, the person who wrote that regulation made a submission before our committee and said, even I would not have been able to submit an application if this is what we have to go through as the process. It is the most expensive process that we have had to burden Indian tribes to come up with.

And I must say, Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my good friend from Connecticut, I don't doubt his sincerity in terms of what he said. The process has failed. There is no question. But we have just recognized four or five Indian tribes from the State of Virginia. So how does that make it different in the State of North Carolina for this tribe, the Lumbee Indians? Over 100 years these people have been fighting for recognition, and they deserve that recognition, Madam Speaker.

Let me give a bit of history to my colleagues. We held 389 treaties with the American Indians, and guess what? We broke every one of them. That is the kind of history that we have had in dealing with Native Americans. They deserve better, Madam Speaker.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Speaker, I just want to say to my good friend that I did submit proposed legislation to rectify the process that has failed. But, unfortunately, we have still not taken up the legislation, so I want to try it again.

I will submit to my good friend, Madam Speaker, the situation that, dealing with the Lumbee Indians, the Congress did formally recognize them in 1956 and there was no process in place.

I want to thank the distinguished chairman of our committee and also the distinguished senior member, senior ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska, for their bipartisan support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 65, the proposed legislation to federally recognize the Lumbee Indian tribe of North Carolina. I commend my good friends and colleagues from North Carolina, especially my good friend, Mr. McIntyre, for his perseverance, his leadership and his determination to provide this long-overdue Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe. This is a bipartisanship bill. This is not a Republican or a Democratic bill.

Specifically, H.R. 65 extends Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe and specifies that tribal members will be eligible for Federal benefits. The bill expressly prohibits the Lumbee Tribe from conducting gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or any Federal law. The bill also provides the State of North Carolina with jurisdiction over all civil and criminal matters on land owned by or held in trust for the Lumbee Tribe.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is long overdue. The existence of the Lumbee Tribe as a distinct Indian community is beyond question. They are descended from the Cheraw and related tribes in North Carolina, and they have lived along the Lumber River since the first white settlers lived in the area. Even today, the tribal members live in a tightly knit community, mostly in Robeson County, North Carolina. Lumbees have been recognized by the State of North Carolina since 1885, and the tribe has been seeking Federal recognition for nearly 120 years.

This legislation is necessary to remedy the inequity created by this very institution. The Congress of the United States of America passed a law in 1956 which federally recognized the Lumbee Tribe but at the same time prohibited the application of Federal programs available like it has done for other American Indian tribes. This act has been interpreted in the courts as conveying Federal recognition and termination of the tribe at the same time but has prevented the Department of Interior from providing Federal recognition to the Lumbee Tribe through the administrative process. As a result, the only recourse available for this tribe is to seek relief from the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that the authority to deal with all matters affecting the welfare and needs of the first Americans or American Indians is expressly stated under provisions of clause 3, section 8, article 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

I want to share with my colleagues some questions, perhaps, that may have been raised concerning the proposed legislation.

``Question: Is this the first time the Lumbee Tribe has sought Federal recognition?

``Answer: No. This tribe first sought Federal recognition through a petition submitted to Congress in 1899 and in 1956. Congress formally recognized the Lumbee Tribe. However, it effectively terminated its relationship with the tribe at the same time by denying them access to the benefits and privileges that accompany Federal recognition. Since that time, the tribe has had substantial interaction with the Congress. The tribe has also petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognition through its administrative process. The Bureau denied this petition, indicating that the tribe is not eligible for the process because of Congress' prior action.

``Question: Why is the tribe not going through the administrative process,'' as it was argued earlier by some of our colleagues?

``Answer: The administrative process is for those groups where it needs to be determined whether or not the group is an Indian tribe.''

I submit to my colleagues, we have not done a very good job in dealing with the first Americans, and I sincerely hope that this proposed legislation will rectify the situation that this tribe has been seeking for over 100 years.

I want to share this proposed bill, which will provide us with an opportunity to address this long-standing injustice that has been done to the Lumbee Indians. I support the Lumbee recognition bill because I believe it is consistent with our responsibility as Members of this great institution to give the members of the Lumbee Tribe their right to be recognized as truly an American Indian tribe.

Let's correct this inequity that has existed now for over 100 years and as a tribute to the six Lumbee Indian soldiers who died recently in the war in Iraq, for which they made the ultimate sacrifice and have given their lives in defense of our Nation. After 100 years, these people have been tortured enough.

I am reminded of the words echoed by a retired Marine general and former colleague from this body, the former gentleman from Guam, Congressman Ben Blaz, a good Republican and a very dear friend of mine. He said, also, this is a statement this gentleman made, his observation also of the unfair treatment of his people in some past history, and this is about sending all the tribes that we have here in America and I know are great warriors, because that's the inherent character of the first Americans. They are warriors.

This is what Congressman Ben Blaz says. ``We are equal in war, but not in peace.''

Give the Lumbee Indians what they deserve, recognition as they should get from this great institution.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to do a dialogue here.

I'm quite sure that our good friend, the senior ranking member from Alaska, as well as our chairman, previously, this House has passed recognition of the Lumbee people, the Indians, I think twice already in the time when even former Congressman Charlie Rose was a Member of this great institution. And if I recall, I would like to ask the gentleman, it did pass the House of Representatives. But what happened afterwards? Twice. And then it was referred to the Senate. Maybe my colleagues, our colleagues need to know, to

find out what happened when it went to the Senate. Twice we've passed this legislation and when it was referred to the Senate, what happened?

Absolutely, I yield.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I wish I had just come to Congress, because then I could believe what I'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. I could have total ignorance about the past and feel comfortable with what we're doing. The problem is I've been here 20 years, and I know what we're doing. We are returning to the old ways under the Democratic Party that bypassed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lots of people made lots of money in the process.

This is not an open rule. This is not a restricted rule. This is a closed rule. And for a freshman Member of Congress to stand up and justify a closed rule and not even allow a debate on whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be involved blows me away.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs, if it needs to be fixed, how are you going to know about it unless you have a debate?

But you don't want a debate. You want a closed rule. You do not want a debate about this issue. And why? It's pretty obvious.

If you look at the record, it's very different than what was described. If you talk about what happened, it's very different than what was described.

When it came before the committee in the 1950s, the Member bringing it out, Mr. Carlyle, said, ``Now, I should like for you to recall that there's nothing in this bill that requests one penny of appropriation of any kind. There is nothing in this bill that would call for any upkeep or expenditure. It just simply relates to the name of these people of that county.''

And then we go on.

The first question that was asked by Mr. Aspinall: ``What are the tribal origins of these Indians?''

And then he asks: ``I can understand that they may have some Indian blood to that effect, but surely they have some Indian blood in their veins from other acknowledged tribes of the day.''

``Mr. Carlyle: `I think perhaps I have a member of that race here who would be able to answer that question.'

``Mr. Aspinall: `The next question would be: What benefit would they expect to get from this? Just purely the name Lumbee Indian Tribe does not appear to me to give too much importance to it, unless they expect to get some recognition later on as members of some authorized tribe and then come before Congress asking for the benefits that naturally go to recognized tribes.'

``Mr. Carlyle: `No one has ever mentioned to me any interest in that, that they had any interest in becoming a part of a reservation or asking the Federal Government for anything. Their purpose in this legislation is to have a name that they think is appropriate for their group. I do not know that they refer to themselves as a tribe. They are citizens who belong to the Indian race, and they were interested in having a name that would have, they think, some significance.' ''

And then he goes on to say: ``Well, I just do not know of any particular tribe of Indians in this country that they claim to be associated with.''

That is the history of the debate.

And then we go to the floor of the House:

``Mr. Ford: `Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina, whether or not the bill, if enacted, would in any way whatsoever commit the Federal Government in the future to the furnishing of services or monetary sums.'

``Mr. Carlyle: `Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the bill does not provide for that, nor is it expected that it will cost the government one penny.'

``Mr. Ford: `There is no obligation involved, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, if this proposed legislation is approved?'

``Mr. Carlyle: `None whatsoever.'

``Mr. Ford: `It simply provides for the change of the name?' ''

That is all the bill did. It wasn't intended to do something else. It wasn't intended to make them a tribe with all the benefits. It was simply to give them a name. And to come before this Chamber and suggest that somehow this bill was to do more is an outrage.

Now, what we are doing today is to bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has to see that there was a political, social, and economic association. That is what this tribe has to prove. But they don't want them to go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs because this is a tribe that had no name. It had no reservation. It had no language.

Now, if I am wrong, then the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be the one to decide. But I would say as strongly as I can say--no one here has the capability to know if this is truly a tribe.

Now, why would we want the Bureau of Indian Affairs to decide whether it is a tribe? Because they study it. They do the research on it. They determine that there is some legitimacy. If you create an Indian tribe that is truly not meeting the Federal standard, you make a mockery of every Indian tribe that exists today that can prove it.

I would just like to close by saying that you are opening up a Pandora's box. You are letting the floodgate in. And the best proof is my colleague from American Samoa who said we just did it a few months ago or weeks ago for someone else. It's no different. Now we do this. And then the next Member is going to come in and say, You did it for them and you did it for them. How come not us?

I know that former Representative Simmons, former Representative Johnson, and I have opposed tribes in our State of Connecticut bypassing the process. If they meet the standard, they should become a tribe. If they don't, they shouldn't. And I would just say to any of my colleagues who may have gotten elected in the meantime that if you allow this to happen you are going to allow a floodgate, and if you have a State-recognized tribe, they are going to come and say, I am a State-recognized tribe. Make me a Federal-recognized tribe. Make me a sovereign nation. Give me all the benefits that true tribes that are federally recognized have.

I encourage my colleagues to vote down this rule, allow an honest debate about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What are you afraid of? To have a debate about the need to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs look at it? What are you so concerned about? What don't you want the public to know?

This is a closed rule. It is totally restricted, and it is an outrage.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.

The arguments we just heard, though, are what frightens me the most. Because my colleague has said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is broken; therefore, Congress should be the ones to decide.

So will you tell me how Congressman Murphy opposes the Schaghticokes when they come and make that argument? Just come to Congress, and if he has the political clout, they become a federally recognized tribe.

What do we say to my colleague, Joe Courtney, who has taken Mr. Simmons place, about the Eastern Pequots? We are saying, go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now they are just going to come to him and say, you did it twice.

What do they say to me with the Golden Hill Paugussetts, who want to build a casino in Bridgeport and want to be recognized as a federally recognized tribe because all three of these tribes have State recognition?

We want to make sure they meet the standard. If they meet the standard, that is fine. But what you have done by your argument is just simply say, don't go through that process. It's broken. We are not going to fix the process. Just come to your Member of Congress and if they have the political clout, get it through. And that is what scares me more than I can express.

I yield to the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, why don't we take that up first before we go through this process?

Reclaiming my time, they recognized name only. That is all the tribe asked for. They wanted nothing else. And it wasn't Congress that did it against their objection. They did exactly what they asked for.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, particularly since he supports the bill. I appreciate the courtesy.

Mr. Speaker, I don't speak on this House floor often, and usually it's about things that I can be a little less passionate about. But I feel this passion because I think the House of Representatives is doing something it will deeply regret.

What it's doing is it's bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs process in the name of fairness when there is nothing fair about what we are doing. My colleague stood up and said, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing. I would like to say the same thing, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing.

The right thing sometimes is standing up to your constituents and saying you may be a large group of people, but there is a process. If I bypass the process, then I open up every congressional district to this same political effort.

Now, there are things that are said that are misleading, I won't say untrue, but very misleading. It's true that there were 11 reports or investigations. The problem was, they were never able to pinpoint that there was an historic Indian tribe called the Lumbee or anything else. They were never able to determine that. Now, this group of Indians, not a tribe, but a group, have basically backed off making requests to go through the process.

What they did, in 1956, was they came and requested one thing and one thing only, and we established that in the rules debate. What they requested was to have a name, because they didn't have a name. They don't have a reservation, they don't have a language, they don't have a name.

So Congress gave them a name that they wanted. That's what Congress did. They said, we don't want anything else. There was nothing unfair about what Congress did. Congress did something that they haven't done for other tribes. They gave a name to a tribe that was requesting a name. Indian tribes don't need to have a name. They have a name, they have a history.

Now, we set up the process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a reason, because we are creating a sovereign Nation. I just made reference to the fact that there was testimony from the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, the United States Department of Interior, on April 18, and he basically said, please follow the process. You, Congress, established this process. Now, they didn't say this part. They just said, follow the process, and they pointed out that there are seven criteria.

Now, if they follow the process and they don't meet the seven criteria, then they don't become a federally recognized tribe unless Congress then says, you know what, they met six of them, and we think the one they didn't meet would have been hard for them to determine.

But the amendment that we offered, because this is not an open rule, it's not even a restricted rule, it's a closed rule, we can't have this debate. There's a reason why we don't want to have this debate, I guess, and that is that it's uncomfortable to have and deal with the facts. The facts are, no tribe, no reservation, no language, no name.

But Congress, because there are 50,000 people involved, is going to pass legislation creating a tribe. What my colleague has said in the past is, well, we just did it a few weeks ago. What's the big deal? Well, the big deal is, under the Republicans, we didn't do this, because we knew this is a corrupting process.

I would like to know why there aren't more Democrats who are speaking out against this because they oppose their tribes not going through the process. How are we going to say to the Schaghticokes, how are we going to say to the Eastern Pequots, how am I going to say to the Golden Hill Paugusetts, go through the process. But if you are fortunate and you have someone who is articulate about making an argument and has visited 300 Members, and we all like, you know, that's what it takes.

I know, I will say something I am not comfortable saying. I was asked, did the Republicans earn the right to regain Congress? I said, you know what? We didn't earn the right. I, frankly, thought that a new Congress would maybe be a cleansing process and we would get our act together. I just hope and pray that this new Congress does the right thing.

I thank my colleague from Alaska for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to my friend and colleague from North Carolina's bill, the Lumbee Recognition Act.

My position on this bill is very straightforward and fair. All groups seeking Federal acknowledgment as Indian tribes should go through the administrative process of the Department of the Interior's Office of Federal Acknowledgment.

This office is staffed with expert historians, anthropologists and genealogists. Their focus is to evaluate data provided by petitioning groups and determine the merits of a group's claim that it is an Indian tribe. This includes whether the group existed since historical times as a distinct political entity.

In this case, the Department of the Interior said the 1956 Lumbee Act prevents the Lumbee from going through this process. Congress should act and lift that restriction. Like other groups, the Lumbees should have the opportunity to attain Federal recognition as a tribe. I agree with that.

However, I cannot support this legislation which will allow the Lumbee or any other group for that matter to circumvent the process. This would be unfair to already existing tribes like the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in western North Carolina who have a significant historical and cultural impact on my region of the State. They don't want to see their cultural identity undermined by legislation such as this.

Prominent genealogists have also raised serious questions about the tribal identity of the Lumbee.

Paul Heinegg, award-winning genealogist and author, whose work is recognized by the American Society of Genealogists, has concluded that the Lumbee are ``an invented North Carolina Indian tribe.''

Dr. Virginia DeMarce, former chair of the National Genealogical Society, has published her research on the history of the Lumbee, with findings that contradict H.R. 65, the bill we're debating today. Her research finds that many Lumbee families migrated to Robeson County, North Carolina, from other areas prior to 1,800.

Her research has been corroborated by other notable genealogists who refer to other self-identified Lumbee families as residing in other areas prior to any colonial settlement in Robeson County.

In fact, the name Lumbee is based, as the chairman mentioned earlier, on this group's proximity to the Lumbee River and is a modern creation that the group selected as its name in 1952. In fact, this Lumbee group has petitioned Congress numerous times under the names Cherokee, Siouan, Croatan and Cheraw, among others.

I, along with members of the North Carolina delegation, in bipartisan fashion, have sponsored legislation in this Congress and sponsored legislation in the last Congress that would fix this problem. They could actually have the Lumbee go through the normal process.

In fact, my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has authored legislation this time, which I'm a cosponsor of, that his predecessor sponsored as well, that would clear the way for the Lumbee to go through the normal process. I think we should accept that. In fact, Mr. Shuler, Mr. Walter Jones, as well as Mr. Shays and I offered the amendment that was ruled out of order by the Rules Committee. In fact, the Rules Committee would not let us offer that as an amendment here on the floor today. In fact, that's a responsible way to deal with the Lumbee issue.

Federal recognition matters get caught up in emotion, and let's face it, politics. So, rather than going through this legislative body, I think we should go through the regulatory process for the longstanding government-to-government relationships the United States has established with tribes.

We should take the politics out of Federal recognition and allow the experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs. I think that's a responsible way to deal with this issue.

And I would ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill so we can deal with this in a responsible and reasonable manner, going through the longstanding process that we have established as a Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Yes, in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very fair and simple motion to recommit. This takes the emotion of politics out of the Federal recognition process and allows the experts at the Office of Federal Acknowledgment to do their jobs.

This amendment, Mr. Speaker, is something very familiar to the chairman as well as all of the members of the Interior Committee. They've seen it before. It's very familiar to the members of the Rules Committee as well because they've seen it as well. It's the very same form and shape that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has filed, along with myself as a cosponsor, with me as a cosponsor I should say, and a number of our colleagues from North Carolina. It's a bipartisan bill as originally constructed.

And what this motion to recommit does is allow us to have a vote on this issue here on the House floor. It's the very same text as the amendment, I said that Mr. Shuler offered, as well as Mr. Jones and Mr. Shays, that we offered through the Rules Committee, and it was not allowed by the majority party through the Rules Committee process. In fact, there was a partisan vote on that issue, eight Democrats voting ``no,'' two Republicans voting ``yes,'' even though it was a bipartisan amendment to the bill.

In simple terms, this motion will put the Lumbees in the front of the Federal recognition process, in the front of that line, and it removes the bar on the Lumbees and other groups described in the 1956 Lumbee Act from petitioning for recognition through the administrative process.

It extends recognition to the Lumbees under the terms and restrictions of H.R. 65, this bill, only when the Secretary makes a final positive determination on the Lumbee petition. It's a very fair and balanced way to allow the Lumbees to be recognized as a tribe.

The Lumbees oppose the motion because it does not allow them to circumvent the process. But it is fair to the other 561 federally recognized tribes, including the Eastern Band of Cherokee in western North Carolina; all of whom went through the proper rigors of the recognition process.

Now, what is important about this is that we have a vote on it. My colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Taylor, originally wrote this bill that my colleague, Mr. Shuler, has refiled again in this Congress.

This bill is bipartisan, as I said. And this motion to recommit is the very same language of that bipartisan bill.

Now, what was wonderful is that, over the last 10 years, Congressman Taylor, my friend and former colleague here in this body, was able to prevent this Lumbee recognition bill from being put forth and, in essence, made sure that the Lumbees went through the Federal process.

It's unfortunate this bill has come to the floor today. It's even more unfortunate that this motion to recommit was not allowed as an amendment to this bill. And so what this bill does is allow it to go back to committee so that the committee can actually go through the normal process of marking up this bill and to hear from outside groups as well but ensures that we go through the normal process that my colleagues from North Carolina, many of my colleagues from North Carolina, on a bipartisan basis, seek.

And I think, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important that my colleagues vote for this motion to recommit because it is fair. It will be a bipartisan vote, I believe, and I'm very hopeful that it will be. And I think it's going to be the best thing for the Lumbees and the best thing for this process of Federal recognition of Native American tribes.

And I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit because it's the right thing to do. And it's the right thing to do on a bipartisan basis.

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.

I thank my good friend from New York for the time.

Madam Speaker, the State of North Carolina formally recognized the Lumbee tribe in 1885. Since 1888, the Lumbee tribe has been waiting for full Federal recognition.

Over the years, many bills were introduced in Congress to provide the Lumbees with Federal recognition, but these bills never reached the President's desk for signature. Finally, the Lumbee Act of 1956 recognized the Lumbee as a Native American tribe but denied them the Federal aid that comes with full status as a federally recognized tribe.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process is reserved for tribes whose legitimacy must be established. This, however, is not the case with the Lumbees.

The Department of the Interior since 1913 has studied the identity of the Lumbee Indians 11 times, and each report has concluded that the Lumbees are a Native American tribe descended from the Cheraw Indians.

Furthermore, the Lumbee Act of 1956 actually prohibited the tribe from going through the Bureau of Indian Affairs' recognition process. Congressional action is thus needed for Federal recognition so the Lumbee tribe can be eligible for the full benefits that they are entitled to.

I wish to express my thanks to Mr. McIntyre for his strong leadership really on many issues affecting Native Americans as well as other important issues before this Congress and specifically for his perseverance and the brilliance that he has shown in bringing this bill to the floor today.

Even though I support the underlying legislation, Madam Speaker, I must oppose the closed rule under which the majority brings forth this bill. One of the central tenets of our friends in the majority of their campaign in 2006 was that they would run Congress in a more open and bipartisan manner.

On December 6, 2006, the distinguished Speaker reiterated her campaign promise. She said, ``We promised the American people that we would have the most honest and open government and we will.''

Here we are 6 months later, 6 months later, considering the second closed rule of the day. It seems that the campaign promise was just that, a hollow promise. But this closed rule, the second of the day, is not an isolated incident, obviously. So far in the 110th Congress, we have considered a total of 25 closed rules, 25 closed rules in about 5 months. Compare that to the 109th Congress where at this point we had considered six closed rules.

Now, my friends on the other side of the aisle like to refute this fact by claiming that they have offered a number of open rules, but that's not the case. The former very distinguished chairman of the committee, Mr. Moakley, a Democrat, said, and I quote, ``Open rules are silent on the amendment structure.''

By that definition, the Democrats have offered only one open rule this Congress. The majority on the Rules Committee had the opportunity to increase the number of open rules to two yesterday. However, they denied a motion that I made to amend this rule and allow an open rule. Not only did they deny our proposal for an open rule, they even denied an attempt to allow a bipartisan amendment offered by Representative Shuler, that even though I opposed that amendment on the merits, it came to the Rules Committee where Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays sat for a long, long period of time, and then they very diligently and respectfully explained their amendment.

I happened to disagree with it, but as I stated in the Rules Committee, as strongly as I disagree with their amendment, I think they should have the right to present it. Yet not only did our friends, the majority in the Rules Committee, decide to close the rule absolutely, they even disallowed the bipartisan amendment by Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays from being considered today by the full House. I think the Democrats should live up to their campaign promises and offer a more open process.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this closed rule, while, again, on the underlying substance of legislation, expressing my support for it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it's my pleasure at this time to yield as much time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier.

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

Madam Speaker, in a few minutes I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule to allow the House to consider a change to the Rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Now, by defeating the previous question, we wouldn't be derailing consideration of this important legislation today. But we would be fixing an unfairness, rectifying an unfairness in the House Rules. And we believe very strongly in this.

At this time, Madam Speaker, and I had an opportunity in the Rules Committee yesterday to point out to Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays that, as I've stated before, on the floor of this House today, I oppose the substance of the amendment that they brought before us, but I certainly support it and support, at this time, their right to be heard.

It's unfortunate that the rule, the closed rule bringing the legislation to the floor today, has closed out all of the Members of the House, including Mr. Shuler and Mr. Shays.

Madam Speaker, at this time I'd like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Madam Speaker, before closing, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, who would like to make some other remarks.

Madam Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman or sponsor of a bill, joint resolution, conference report, or manager's amendment includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or report or a statement that there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic majority Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule. This was most recently discovered on the question of the Murtha earmark on the Intelligence authorization bill.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule to where it was at the end of the 109th Congress and provide Members with an opportunity to bring the question of earmarks before the House for a vote. Without these changes, the new earmark rule is nothing more than a fig leaf.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous material into the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, at this time, while reiterating my support for the underlying legislation, which I think is worthy legislation and has been thoroughly studied, I think it is most unfortunate that it has been brought forth with a totally closed rule.

I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating the previous question so that we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.