A bill to amend the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users to modify the project description for a project for the city of Lake Charles, Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1298 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Washington, Representative Hastings.

All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 1298.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1298 provides for consideration of H.R. 2176, a bill which provides for, and approves, the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community.

In lieu of the substitute reported by the Committee on Natural Resources, the rule makes in order the substitute printed in the Rules Committee report. The Rules substitute consists of the text of H.R. 2176 with that same language and the text of H.R. 4115 as reported by the Committee on Natural Resources. That bill provides for, and approves, the settlement of certain land claims of the Sault Sainte Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.

This is a fair rule, and it gives the proponents and opponents of the two Michigan Indian land claims bills a straight up-or-down vote on the bills.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation seeks to settle a land claim agreement which was reached in 2002 by the then-Republican Governor of Michigan John Engler and the two tribes. The current Democratic Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, has also approved the deal.

Under these bills, both tribes have agreed to relinquish their claims to land in Charlotte Beach, located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula, in exchange for a parcel of land outside of Port Huron, Michigan. The agreement reached between the tribes and the State allows the tribes to conduct gaming on their new land.

If approved by Congress and the President, this agreement secures the private ownership rights of the Charlotte Beach land in question and will help to restore the fair market value of the land. It will also provide the two tribes with an opportunity to help create jobs and economic opportunities in Port Huron while further providing for their membership.

The underlying bill conforms with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the land being given to the two tribes was selected by the State of Michigan as appropriate places for economic development.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation is nothing new. Under the Constitution, only Congress--not the Department of the Interior or a Federal court--holds the power to settle Indian land title and claims. As such, Congress has taken similar action in at least 14 different instances in recent years when there have been disputed land claim settlements. Not once in those instances did Congress prohibit a tribe from conducting gaming on the tribal lands. We also never forced a tribe to jump through hoops to exercise its right to do what it wishes on its own land. I see no reason why we should start now.

Mr. Speaker, I have little doubt that today's debate on this issue will be both spirited and intense. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that the House will do the right thing and pass this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my friend from Washington--I understand his passion and the need to stay on message about gas prices, but we're here talking about House Resolution 1298, which is the Bay Hills Indian Community, the land settlement matter with the State of Michigan, and a bill that came out of Natural Resources.

My friend is insistent that we do something about oil. Well, when the Democrats on yesterday tried to pass price gouging, it was the Republicans that categorically rejected it. It's kind of hard to do something when people won't let you do nothing, particularly in the other body.

I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

I yield my colleague an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the dean of the House, my good friend, John Dingell, the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I am forever amazed, Mr. Speaker, at my colleagues' way of going about trying to assert something into measures

that we are dealing with, that, when all is said and done, don't have anything to do with the measure that we're dealing with.

I agree with my colleague that we have a serious crisis in this country having to do with energy policy. But I also would urge him to understand that the President's energy policies have failed this country and that when he and his party were in the majority and had an opportunity to do all the things they are talking about, that many of them were not done.

The fact is there are 68 million acres offshore and in the United States that are leased by oil companies. They are open to drilling and are actually under lease but are not developed. The fact is that if oil companies tapped the 68 million Federal acres of leased land, it could generate additional oil, six times what ANWR would produce at its peak. The fact is 80 percent of the oil available in the Outer Continental Shelf is in regions that are already open to leasing, but the oil companies haven't decided it's worth their time to drill there. And, when they are saying it's not worth their time, they are saying they don't have the equipment to do it. The fact is that drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge wouldn't yield any oil for a considerable period of time in the future, probably as many as 8 to 10 years, and then would only save the consumer less than 2 cents per gallon in 2025.

All of us know all the things to say here. We know to say ``switchgrass'' and ``shale'' and ``geothermal'' and ``solar,'' and we could go on and on and on with the number of potentials for alternative energy. But yesterday, when we tried to do something about price gouging, it was the minority party that defeated the measure, that was on the floor of the House, under suspension.

Now, Mr. Speaker, back to the bill. I support gaming in this country. I support the MGMs and the Harrah'ses of the world and their right to run a casino wherever legally they may be permitted to do so. I support the Seminole Indians and the Miccosukee Tribes in Florida that I am proud to represent. And I support and have supported continuously their right to run a casino. I also support Jai Lai in my community and their right to run a casino. I also support casinos in my community and their right to run a casino, just like I support these two tribes in Michigan as well. I also support competition and economic development and the job creation it can spur. And I take full exception to my colleague from Lansing, who is a dear friend of mine on the other side who spoke earlier. I can attest to job creation in the Seminole and Miccosukee Indian Tribe areas that were told that there would be no jobs created, and literally thousands of people, mostly not Native Americans, are working in those establishments.

Finally, I support all of us in this body coming to terms with what happened to Native Americans, Africans, and people of Caribbean descent and others after Columbus discovered America in 1492. I'm always reminded of Flip Wilson's comedy routine that he did that, if Columbus discovered America, then the Native Americans must have been running down the shoreline, saying, ``Discover me.''

So, before Members of this body start talking about Indian tribes unfairly swapping pieces of land, they should remember that the land wasn't ours in the first place. We took it from the tribes and then often relocated them to some far-off, remote, and undesirable place that we could find for them to be placed.

Mr. Speaker, this is not an ideal situation for any of us in this body. We all wish that a unanimous agreement would have materialized in Michigan. Yet, despite a land claims compact being reached by the State and the tribes, a Republican and Democratic governor, some just don't want this agreement to go through, and that is their prerogative. Thus, as it has done at least 14 times in the recent past, Congress must do what is right and settle this dispute. When an injustice has been done and there are efforts to perpetuate that injustice, something must be done. Someone must step in and stop it from happening again.

I urge my colleagues to do just that and to support the previous question, the rule, and the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Washington is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 1298 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution

the House shall, without intervention of any point of order,

consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5656) to repeal a

requirement with respect to the procurement and acquisition

of alternative fuels. All points of order against the bill

are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and any amendment thereto to final passage without

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

member of the Committee on House Oversight and Government

Reform; and (2) an amendment in the nature of a substitute if

offered by Representative Waxman, which shall be considered

as read and shall be separately debatable for 40 minutes

equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an

opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and namesake from Florida, the other Mr. Hastings, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, this bill deals specifically with Indian land claims settlements in Michigan and designating new tribal trust lands that will be used to open any new Indian casinos in two Michigan towns.

The Michigan delegation is split in their support and opposition to this legislation, with the two Representatives whose districts will become home to the new casinos being strongly in favor of this proposal.

Generally, Mr. Speaker, it has been my long-held view that when it comes

to matters that affect individual congressional districts that the House should give great consideration and deference to the views of the Representatives elected by the voters in those districts.

However, I know many of my colleagues join me in having various serious concerns about our Nation's broken Indian gaming law, as well as the troubling issue of Indian tribes seeking to acquire new, prime locations to open casinos where no business or interest would be allowed to do so otherwise, and doing this without the ability of the local community to have a say in the expansion of gambling in their community.

These aren't just matters affecting Michigan. They affect States across the Nation. Yet, this House is not being permitted to debate needed improvements to Federal Indian gaming law.

This totally closed rule blocks every single Member of this House from coming to the floor and offering an amendment to this bill. The House is being severely restricted and is spending its time refereeing a parochial Michigan dispute instead of addressing the larger, more serious matters confronting other States.

This violates the promises made by the liberal leaders of this House to the American people to operate in an open manner. This is not an open process, Mr. Speaker. It's a closed process. It's not open when debate is restricted only to Michigan when, in fact, there are very serious issues affecting many States all across this country.

Congress created the ability of Indian tribes to get special treatment in opening casinos, and we've got a duty to police this process.

The Federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is broken and needs improvement. The simple fact the House is spending several hours today debating this Michigan matter is evidence that the law is broken.

If the House is going to spend time debating this subject, we should be fixing the larger problem. And if Congress is going to spend its precious time resolving a Michigan dispute, then we could use some real help in the State of Washington, my home State, where the citizens are seeing a dramatic expansion of Indian gaming, more casinos, bigger casinos, higher betting limits, with big profits being collected, and yet our State doesn't get one dime in revenue sharing.

One of the reasons the proponents of this Michigan legislation, including the State's Governor, argue in favor of creating this new tribal land and two new casinos is because it will bring in millions of dollars in more revenue to the government of Michigan.

Yet, in my home State of Washington, our State government gets nothing from Indian casinos that generate over $1.3 billion a year in revenue. In fact, there was a proposed revenue sharing of $140 million a year that the Governor of Washington State rejected without input from the citizens of the State or a vote of the State legislature. Some would say, well, your Governor made a terrible deal, and I would, of course, wholeheartedly agree. But there is something seriously wrong if a law allows giveaways of this magnitude to Indian casinos.

But instead of allowing the House to discuss and consider amendment on the larger issues of revenue sharing, compact negotiations, and off- reservation gaming, today's debate is restricted just to Michigan.

Meanwhile, the liberal leaders of this House continue to refuse to let Representatives consider and vote on solutions to lower the price of gas in our country.

Prices are skyrocketing. In Florida, the average price for a gallon of unleaded regular gasoline is $4.03. In Michigan, it's $4.07. In my State of Washington, it's $4.33. That's 31 cents higher than just a month ago and $1.20 higher than a year ago.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation needs to produce more American-made energy. We have the resources and technology to do it now. Now we just need to get the will of Congress here to allow it. For far too long, our Nation's reserves have been off limits. We can't afford these policies anymore, Mr. Speaker.

America has abundant reserves in Alaska, in the West and offshore. Let's produce more oil and natural gas here in our country.

But of course, this isn't the only answer. We need to invest in more nuclear power, hydropower, wind, solar, and other new energy sources. But all of this needs to happen in addition to tapping our own oil and gas reserves.

Gas prices just keep going up and the liberal leaders of this Congress just can't say ``no'' to American-made energy anymore.

Let the House debate proposals to generate more energy here in America. Stop blocking a House vote on tapping into America's oil and gas reserves while the price of gasoline climbs higher and higher.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that the House can right away debate solutions to our higher gasoline prices.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, after I made my opening remarks, my friend from Florida stood up and said that I was on message, and I thank him very, very much for the compliment because I was talking about something that the American people clearly, clearly are concerned about, and that is the high energy costs and particularly the high prices of gasoline. So I think, Mr. Speaker, it's time for the House to debate ideas for lowering prices at the pump and for addressing the skyrocketing price of gasoline.

By defeating the previous question, the House will have that opportunity. If the previous question is defeated, I will move to amend the rule, not rewrite the rule, just amend the rule, to make in order and allow the House to consider H.R. 5656, introduced by Representative Hensarling of Texas.

If this House has time to spend several hours debating Indian land claims and new casinos in Michigan, then it certainly has time to debate the high price of gasoline. It's time we start producing more American-made energy. Our country can't afford the knee-jerk, no-to- any-drilling-in-America approach that the liberal leaders of this House still cling to. The citizens of our country can't afford a Congress that does nothing. It's time for this House to act, and defeating the previous question will allow us to do so.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, then, to defeat the previous question so this House can get serious about rising gas prices and so we can start producing American-made gasoline and energy.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Alcee Hastings, I salute you for bringing this bill to the floor from the Rules Committee. I support the rule, without qualification.

Ladies and gentlemen, why do so many people approve this bill if it has so many problems? Well, because it's a bit like a wolf in sheep's clothing; you don't know what's underneath it. And so reciting all of these folks--starting with the Governor of my State--don't know what's underneath this bill. When H.L. Mencken says it's not about the money, you can bet it's about the money. And when I hear my colleagues say-- and I'm going to count the times that it will happen today--``It's not about casinos. This is not about casinos, folks.''

Oh, no, that's what it's about. Okay?

Let's start off with something that we should try to get clear. The assertion that this is about getting justice for two tribes who have waited for all these many years to get justice and we finally were able to get it to the Congress. How charming. How disingenuous.

This so-called land claim--and we spent a good amount of time on it-- to the extent there really was ever a land claim, arose in the 19th century. It didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the tribe's historical lands or any treaty with the U.S. Government. The Charlotte Beach land in question apparently was a private gift to the tribe--and in those days it was one tribe--by individual members of the

tribe who had brought it. And rather than deed the land directly over to the tribe, the members evidently deeded it over to the Governor of Michigan--neither of the two that have been mentioned--to hold in trust for the tribe. That was back in the 1850s. It's not clear if the previous owner tribal members or anyone else ever told the tribe or the Governor about the gift. In any event, the lands were totally neglected by the tribe. About 30 years later, they were sold off by the State for a long-standing property tax delinquency.

The so-called land claim lay moribund and forgotten for 100 years, as best we can tell. And in 1982 one of these tribes, the Sault, asked the Interior Department to review and pursue a claim for the loss of the Charlotte Beach land. The Interior Department declined, saying the case had no merit. They renewed the request in 1983 and in 1992, getting the same answer each time. The Interior closed the files on the matter, and that was the end of it.

Then one day an enterprising lawyer, a member of the bar doing land research, looking for an Indian land claim he could help engineer and do the authorization to build a new casino outside the established legal process, came across a record of the delinquency sale.

I thank my colleague.

By that time, the tribe had divided.

There were two possible candidates for reasserting the claim. The first tribe he contacted, the Sioux, was not interested. But the other one, Bay Mills, was very interested. And so this wonderful lawyer began preparing a case to file based on the delinquency sale he had uncovered and its connection to the tribe he had interest in.

A bare week before the lawsuit was filed, another enterprising gentleman purchased some land within the Charlotte Beach claim area. Coincidental. And within a few months, he had entered into a so-called settlement with the tribe regarding the so-called land claim in which he agreed to give the tribe a parcel of land he already owned near Detroit.

Now, all the other off-reservation casinos are 10 miles away, 20 miles away, not 350 miles away.

He also agreed to sell the tribe some additional land adjacent to the parcel. Enough land for a new casino--and not too far from Detroit.

But the settlement was conditioned on the Interior Department taking the land into trust, a necessary step to its being eligible for an Indian casino.

That part didn't work out like they'd planned, so that settlement was eventually scrapped in favor of Plan B, back to the courts in an attempt to get a favorable court ruling to take to Interior.

As we know, Plan B also failed. So then came Plan C, which brings us here today.

But the three plans are not that different. They all share the same objective. The difference is just means to an end. Apparently, any means.

And who was backing Mr. Golden? The details are still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

But we do know that the principal stakeholders in this off- reservation Indian casino venture are Michael Malik and Marian Illich, wealthy casino developers from the State of Michigan, who have opened casinos from coast to coast and in Hawaii, bankrolling legislation and referenda as needed to open the way.

And they have also been quite active politically in Washington in recent years as well. I won't go into the details of that now, but I think you get the idea.

Many of the facts I have just recited are in the public record. The essence of the rest were laid out in testimony by one of the two tribes, the Sioux Tribe, the tribe that initially wouldn't take the bait, back before they were persuaded to go after their own short-cut to getting an off-reservation casino.

That statement can be found in the printed hearing of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, held on October 10, 2002, on the bill S. 2986, a precursor bill to the one we are considering today.

That was 5 long years ago, of course. And the chairman, or chief, of that tribe at the time, Bernard Bouschor, who gave that testimony, who had held that elected position for 17 years at the time he testified, no longer holds that position.

And his tribe, who now stands to gain an off-reservation casino that could take in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is now busy doing what they can to disown his testimony.

But if my colleagues find Chief Bouschor's testimony credible, as I do, it certainly lays out the course of events in a way that some were quite likely not aware of before. And any assertion that this is a legitimate Indian land claim just won't stand up to those facts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 2176.

I believe this bill will lead to an unprecedented expansion of off- reservation Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian tribe that wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.

And let me show you, Mr. Speaker, what I'm talking about. We are looking at the two Indian reservations that have requested this special interest legislation. The land they are talking about is hardly an ancestral part of their reservation. It is 350 miles away from their ancestral lands where they already have a casino.

As a Las Vegas Representative in Congress, I do not oppose gaming. I can attest to the positive impact that gaming can have on a community. I have no problem with other communities trying to replicate the Las Vegas experience, and I support the right of tribes to participate in gaming on their reservations, as both of these tribes already do.

But the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, using a bogus land claim, a bogus land claim that has already been tossed out of State court and Federal court, and the result if this bill passes will be two new off- reservation casinos more than 350 miles from the lands of these two tribes.

Now, why are they coming to Congress? Because they have lost in State court. They have lost in Federal court. They do not comply with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. So what do you do if you want a casino 350 miles away from your reservation? You find a friendly Congressman to introduce special interest legislation in Congress.

How do we know this land claim is bogus? In his testimony before Congress in 2002, the chairman of the Sault Saint Marie Tribe called this land deal ``shady,'' ``suspicious'' and ``a scam,'' until his tribe partnered up with the shady, suspicious land deal, and all of a sudden switched his position.

But more than 60 tribes across this country have announced their opposition to H.R. 2176, in which Congress for the first time would allow a tribe to expand its reservation into the ancestral lands of another tribe for the express purpose of gaming.

This bill is opposed by the Department of the Interior, the NAACP, UNITE HERE, and a unanimous House Judiciary Committee. To sum up the issue: Congress is being asked to pass special interest legislation benefiting two tribes, each of which already has

gaming, based on a suspect land claim that has already been thrown out of court, so they can open casinos hundreds of miles from their ancestral lands, in direct competition with existing facilities.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to be here today with Chairman Conyers and Congresswoman Kilpatrick to share my opposition to H.R. 2176. I believe this bill will result in an unprecedented expansion of off-reservation Indian gaming by offering a blueprint to any Indian tribe that wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.

As Las Vegas's representative in Congress, I do not oppose gaming. I can attest to the positive impact that gaming can have on a community. I have no problem with other communities trying to replicate the Las Vegas experience, and I support the right of tribes to participate in gaming on their reservations, as both of these tribes already do. But the bill we are considering today is an attempt to circumvent the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act using a bogus land claim that has already been tossed out of both Federal and State court, and the result if the bill passes will be two new off-reservation casinos more than 350 miles from the lands of these two tribes. And beyond that, if this bill becomes law, any one of the more than 500 recognized Native American tribes can argue that they have the right to sue private landowners in an attempt to bargain for gaming somewhere else.

How do we know the land claim is bogus? In his testimony before Congress in 2002, the chairman of the Soo Saint Marie tribe called it ``shady,'' ``suspicious,'' and ``a scam.'' Soon thereafter, his tribe became a party to the deal and switched its position. But more than 60 tribes across the Nation have announced their opposition to H.R. 2176, in which Congress for the first time would allow a tribe to expand its reservation into the ancestral lands of another tribe for the express purpose of gaming.

This bill is also opposed by the Department of the Interior; the NAACP; UNITE HERE; and a unanimous House Judiciary Committee. To sum up the issue: Congress is being asked to pass special interest legislation benefiting two tribes, each of which already has gaming, based on a suspect land claim that has already been thrown out of State and Federal court, so they can open casinos hundreds of miles from their ancestral lands, in direct competition with existing facilities that have helped revitalize a major American city.

If this bill is brought to the floor, I will strongly urge my colleagues to oppose it.

I certainly appreciate the gentleman yielding time to me.

This rule allows us to proceed, and I wish to speak in strong support of the underlying bill, and I rise in very strong support of H.R. 2176, which is sponsored by Mr. Bart Stupak of Michigan and cosponsored by myself and also the companion bill, H.R. 4115, sponsored by Mr. Dingell, because these bills impact only three congressional districts in this House, only three, period. And those districts are Mr. Stupak's and my district and Mr. Dingell's.

These bills are offered in the spirit of bipartisanship, and they are offered to settle a land claim that has existed in our State of Michigan, actually, for well over 100 years, about 150 years, when the State literally stole land from the Indians.

And after the Indians spent decades seeking justice, the land claim settlement was negotiated by former Governor John Engler, and here is what he had to say about it, Mr. Speaker.

He said: ``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 . . . In December of 2002, I signed the agreement with the Sault Tribe. 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.''

I think it is important to note that these bills are supported by every elected official who represents the City of Port Huron, including the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, both United States Senators, myself, the State senator there, the State representatives, all of the county commissioners, the entire city council, and most importantly, the citizens themselves who voted ``yes'' on a city-wide referendum.

It is supported by civic groups. It is supported by educational leaders, by labor leaders like the UAW, by every law enforcement officer in the county, including the county sheriff, the county prosecutor, and the police chiefs.

It is about fairness and opportunity for one of the most economically distressed areas in the Nation, where the current unemployment rate, by best estimates, is somewhere between 14 to 16 percent.

And it has been very unfortunate, in my opinion, that the opponents have been so untruthful about their opposition to these bills.

For instance, they say that it is precedent setting, and yet the truth is in this bill. In section 3(b), the bill 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 it allows for off-reservation gaming. Yet the truth is in section 2(a)(2) of the bill. It states: ``The alternative lands shall become part of the Community's reservation immediately upon attaining trust status.''

And they also say it violates a 2004 Michigan referendum.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The truth is that it actually, the referendum--and as a former Secretary of State, I understand what ballot language actually says--it says, ``Specify that voter approval requirement does not apply to Indian Tribal gaming.''

So clearly, most of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, to these bills comes from those who already have theirs, and they don't want anybody else to have it.

They don't want competition. And I think that is un-American. This bill is about fairness and opportunity for an area that desperately needs it. It is about justice.

The city of Port Huron is home to the Blue Water Bridge, which is the second busiest commercial artery on the Northern Tier. It is the only international crossing where there is a gaming facility on the Canadian side and there is not one on the U.S. side. And if you were a very good golfer--maybe not me, but a good golfer--you could hit a golf ball and hit that Canadian casino facility right now where 80 percent of the revenues comes from America. Those are U.S. dollars and U.S. jobs that are being sent right across the river.

I urge my colleagues to be fair.