HEARTH Act of 2012

I thank Congressman Sablan for yielding and for his hard work in so many areas and his leadership.

I rise to express my opposition to the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act, H.R. 2362.

This bill is unnecessary and seeks to give special consideration to one country--Turkey.

As a country that has shown both negative and aggressive actions toward a number of our allies, Turkey should not be given investment preferences in Indian tribal lands through this bill. And they should not be given preference over 154 allies, members of the World Trade Organization. Nor should they be given preference over American businesses that wish to invest in Indian tribal lands. This bill would reward a country with a record of human rights and religious freedom violations. It has been on the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom's watch list for 3 consecutive years.

Just this last Friday, many of us marked the 38th anniversary of Turkey's illegal occupation of the northern third of the island Republic of Cyprus. Throughout this occupation, Turkey actively seeks to alter the heritage and demographics of Cyprus. It has systematically destroyed the island's Christian heritage and colonized the area with more than 200,000 settlers and 40,000 troops.

Furthermore, Turkey maintains an economic blockade against Armenia, sealing its borders to all trade, and continues to deny the Armenian genocide, during which over 1.5 million Armenians perished. I have with me the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian National Committee of America's letters in opposition to this legislation.

Also, Turkey has challenged Israel by arguing against Israel's right to develop energy sources. Turkey has also threatened American businesses by saying it would use force to stop a Texas-based company, Noble Energy, from drilling for oil and gas off the shores of Cyprus. Turkey has said it will blacklist any business that assists Cyprus and Israel in their efforts to jointly develop their country's natural resources.

The preferential treatment given to Turkey in H.R. 2362 is unnecessary given the previous passage of the HEARTH Act, which passed this body 400-0, passed the Senate, and is now awaiting the President's signature. That bill allows domestic and foreign companies to engage in leases for housing construction, clean energy, and business development. Unlike the HEARTH Act, the bill before us today does nothing to support these domestic businesses.

Last November, the director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Michael Black, testified before the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee, stating that the HEARTH Act ``fosters the same goals identified in this bill but on a broader, larger scale.'' Through the HEARTH Act, domestic and foreign entities have already been granted an expedited route to invest in Native American lands and help their economic development.

Given the redundancies in the bill and the favored treatment it gives to one country that has shown threatening and discriminatory action toward a number of American allies, I urge my colleagues to join Ranking Member Berman and Ranking Member Markey and vote ``no'' on H.R. 2362.

From: Andreas Akaras

Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012, 1:13 a.m.

To: Elizabeth Darnall

Subject: H.R. 2362 Tribal Trade Bill (AHEPA email blast)

On behalf of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive

Association (AHEPA), the largest and oldest membership-based

organization of American citizens of Greek heritage and

Philhellenes, we are outreaching to share AHEPA's position in

opposition to H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and

Investment Demonstration Project Act. We understand H.R. 2362

is expected to come to the Floor under Suspension of the

Rules this week--perhaps on Monday.

Position

AHEPA is opposed to H.R. 2362 for the following reasons:

1. Turkey's Recent Threats to U.S. Commercial Interests.

Why reward it?

Turkey's has issued threats to the actions of U.S. firm

Noble Energy, which is lawfully conducting oil and gas

exploration off the coast of Cyprus, in Cyprus's Exclusive

Economic Zone (EEZ) in the eastern Mediteranean. Noble Energy

is based in Houston, Texas.

During this same exploration, Turkey's threats have

directed at U.S. allies Cyprus and Israel as both countries

are working in cooperation via a signed agreement to develop

hydrocarbon reserves in their EEZs.

In response to these threats, House Foreign Affairs

Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stated, ``Turkey's decision to

escalate tensions by increasing its military presence in the

Mediterranean poses a clear threat to U.S. citizens and

interests in the region.''

Moreover, Turkey has threatened to blacklist international

companies willing to work on this particular exploration

project off the coast of Cyprus. This would include any U.S.

companies.

Why would the United States Congress facilitate the unique

opportunity for private entities from Turkey to engage in

trade and financial investment with Indian tribal economies

when U.S. private entities and citizens are threatened by

Turkey?

2. Congress has already acted with the overwhelmingly

bipartisan-passed HEARTH Act.

H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act, passed the House 400-0 and the

Senate by UC. It will be signed into law by President Obama.

The HEARTH Act promotes trade and investment on Native

American lands without requiring the approval of the Bureau

of Indian Affairs.

As the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mike

Black, testified before the House Committee on Natural

Resources in November 3, 2011, H.R. 205 ``foster[s] the same

goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a broader scale.''

The HEARTH Act benefits all tribes; not a select few that

could benefit from H.R. 2362.

Simply stated, passage of H.R. 205 renders H.R. 2362

unnecessary.

3. Section 1(b) Findings (1)(2)(3) of H.R. 2362 displays

preferential treatment for the Republic of Turkey over other

WTO nations. Why?

Proponents state that no particular country is granted a

commercial advantage under the bill, yet the bill's Findings

section clearly single-out and champion Turkey.

If proponents were serious about amending H.R. 2362 to

provide all WTO countries with a level playing field, it

would not state ``Turkey and all other WTO countries.''

4. Turkish Entities Under Investigation in the United

States.

Mainstream U.S. media outlets have reported on the growth

of Turkish charter schools in America, as many as 120 of

them, and how the schools have come under federal

investigation for how they are administered.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on March 20, 2011, ``But

federal agencies--including the FBI and the Departments of

Labor and Education--are investigating whether some charter

school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a

Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service,

according to knowledgeable sources.''

In addition the New York Times in a June 6, 2011 article

raised the same concerns about how the schools spend taxpayer

money, ``And it raises questions about whether, ultimately,

the schools are using taxpayer dollars to benefit the Gulen

movement--by giving business to Gulen followers, or through

financial arrangements with local foundations that promote

Gulen teachings and Turkish culture.'' The article also

reports on federal investigations about abuse of a visa

program to bring in expatriate employees.

5. Turkey's Treatment of Minority Populations.

The U.S. House of Representatives must take into

consideration Turkey's treatment of minority populations.

The United States Commission on International Religious

Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal

government commission established by the U.S. Congress, has

recommended Turkey be designated a ``country of particular

concern'' (CPC) in its 2012 annual report. Prior to this

designation, Turkey was placed on its ``Watch List'' for

three consecutive years (2009-2011).

According to the Executive Summary of the 2011 U.S. State

Department Human Rights Report on Turkey, there is

``inadequate protection of vulnerable populations'' within

Turkey.

In addition to these reasons, AHEPA is dismayed the House

Committee on Foreign Affairs was not provided an opportunity

to vet H.R. 2362.

We note a concern with Turkey's foreign policy direction

and history that conflicts with the best interests of the

United States, including: the aforementioned belligerent

posture toward Israel, its vote against a UN resolution to

impose sanctions against Iran with regard to that country's

nuclear weapons program, its 38-year illegal invasion and

subsequent illegal occupation of the Republic of Cyprus, a

member of the European Union and current holder of the EU

presidency; its continued violations of Greece's sovereignty

in the Aegean Sea, a staunch NATO ally; and its blockade of

Armenia.

Hellenic Caucus Opposition

We also thought you would be interested to learn of AHEPA's

position because the congressman is a member of the

Congressional Hellenic Caucus.

The Congressional Hellenic Caucus is opposed to H.R. 2362

and has circulated a DC letter on the issue. Please contacts

Chairs U.S. Reps. Gus Bilirakis or Carolyn Maloney to sign

the DC letter.

Thank you also for consideration of AHEPA's position. We

hope the congressman will take all of the points presented

into consideration and will oppose H.R. 2362.

Andreas N. Akaras,

Advisor,

Office of Congressman John Sarbanes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

H.R. 2362 is simply a bill to facilitate economic development in Indian Country and to expand the range of options open to some of the poorest and most disadvantaged of Americans, the first Americans.

Currently, as my friend Mr. Hastings pointed out, economic development is often hampered in Indian Country by restrictive leasing practices on Indian reservations. H.R. 2362 directs the Secretary of the Interior to create a demonstration project for up to six tribes engaged in economic development with foreign companies and foreign countries. Tribes will develop the guidelines for their own economic activity with these entities, the Secretary will approve them, and we will over time learn how to do business between Indian tribes and foreign countries. Frankly, that is something we know comparatively little about. One of the things that comes out of this is a development by the Secretary of the Interior of recommendations and best practices, something which needs to be done in this area.

We have tried in the course of this legislation to recognize the concerns raised by some people about it. There's no question that I was approached by the Turkish American Coalition, who have a deep interest in Turkey and American Indians. It has been for many hundreds of years. This goes back a long way. They're the only country that has actually sent a national delegation to an Indian economic development conference. There are scholarships for Native American students at the Istanbul Technical Institute. There's a constant movement of tribal citizens going back and forth. This interest, apart from these other disputes, is real and genuine and deep. We've accepted some of the concerns that were voiced in subcommittee. There is no preferential status for Turkey in this bill. All 155 World Trade Organization countries will have exactly the same opportunity.

It's important to note, I think, that this bill is strongly supported in Indian Country. Maybe we should listen to Indians about what's best for their own economic development. The National Congress of American Indians supports this bill, the National American Indian Housing Council supports this bill, the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development supports this bill. Numerous tribes support this bill. Perhaps they are the real experts here that we should be listening to.

Passage of this bill would normally be a routine matter in this House. Frankly, due to the strong Turkish interest and support for the bill, we have a number of ethnic communities in the United States that have voiced objections. I think that's always legitimate and always appropriate. But sadly, as I pointed out, some of these objections don't have much merit. Again, this is not special legislation for Turkey. All 155 World Trade Organizations can participate. That includes the folks that are so concerned about this.

Second, the idea that passing the HEARTH bill--which, by the way, I strongly supported, cosponsored, came down here and argued for. I think it's a wonderful piece of legislation. It's largely silent, save for one phrase. On foreign investment, we do not have a lot of experience here. It would be helpful to have demonstration projects. It would be good to have the Secretary of the Interior involved more deeply.

And third--and I hope this isn't the case. I have heard recently that there is even a sheet going around--perhaps not true; I hope not--that suggests this legislation will cost domestic manufacturing jobs. You've got to be kidding. Putting jobs on Indian reservations is going to take American jobs away? Who were the first Americans? So again, the arguments, I think, largely do not address the legislation.

I understand something about historical grievances and controversies. I'm the only Native American in this House right now. My great-great- grandfather, when he was 13 years old, was forced to move from Mississippi, where his people had lived for 500 years, to avoid being placed under State restriction. His lands were confiscated. They were guaranteed new land in Indian territory in the West. He arrived-- nothing. Started it up being, actually, the clerk of the Chickasaw supreme court. His son, my great-grandfather, was treasurer at the time of the Dawes Commission when--guess

what--those treaties that were going to last forever were revoked again by the United States Government. Indian territory was opened up, over the objection of the tribes, to white settlement, and Indian governments were ground down.

My family has spent much of the time since that time working with other Chickasaws and other Native Americans to see tribal sovereignty restored and those rights given back. That's why I cochair the Native American Caucus. That's why, when the tribal law and order bill came to this floor, where there were concerns on our side about process, I got the Republican votes that were necessary to pass it. That is why I was the Republican lead sponsor of the Cobell settlement. That's why I've worked with this administration--which, by the way, has a great record on Native American affairs--on the Carcieri bill.

So I understand grievances, and I understand the legitimacy of expressing them.

I thank the gentleman.

But legislation must be relevant to the historical experience that we're talking about, and we ought to look for opportunities to turn old enemies into new friends. I try to do that on this floor every day.

This legislation has nothing to do with ancient or current disputes between Turkey and Armenia or Greece. This bill is about helping American Indians. We ought to put aside the disputes of the Old World and focus on helping the original inhabitants of the New World, which is exactly what this legislation will do.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for participating in the debate. I understand the passions here are high, and I actually respect that a great deal even when I disagree with the policy conclusions that may have led some of my colleagues to.

I do ask you to stop and think, there is a sort of a contradiction in your argument: It's both redundant and yet gives special preferences. Both those things can't be true. It suggests to me the real argument is fundamentally different from those two points. The reality is it gives no one special preferences. We tried to listen to that point.

I wish other countries were beating down my door to want to go do work on Indian reservations and to want to partner with Indians. They aren't. I know of one country that has really cared enough to do this.

Now, there are a range of disputes in other areas. Those are legitimate disputes, and those are matters that ought to be the subject of serious discussion and debate on the floor, but have nothing to do with this bill. They have nothing to do with this bill. They're about ancient and current acrimonies and differences that ought to be settled in other forums on other issues but not on this bill, and certainly not at the expense of the least advantaged, frankly, the most disadvantaged part of our own population. I wish I could get more American companies that wanted to go on reservations and sit down and work with people about creating jobs. That's all this bill is about.

To those of you that have other concerns, I recognize the legitimacy of those concerns. But I just ask you to focus on the nature of the legislation. The New World is supposed to be able to put some of the Old World's controversies behind us, and certainly on a topic like this.

So for those of you, again, that have a different opinion, I respect it. But I also point out that Turkey is an ally of the United States. It has been for decades and decades. It's an important regional partner for the United States. This strengthens that relationship, as well, and the interest and the commitment in this area is genuine.

The interest in this area is genuine and real. Shouldn't that be something we should take and build on and try and add to and encourage? There needs to be a competition here. Let's build a competition to help Indian Country. Other countries can step up. Foreign companies can step up. Let's get a blueprint on how to do it. It is more complex than we would like to admit or acknowledge. That's one of the reasons why there's not American investments in these places.

I can take you to some of the Indian reservations in North and South Dakota where the unemployment rate is 80 percent and the State unemployment is under 5. Should that tell you how serious the problem is? I'd like to get anybody interested in helping and doing it legitimately.

We now have a level playing field for everybody. There are no preferences in this bill. Let's encourage other people to join the competition. Have them come in, and maybe they've got a better idea and a better way. But in the

meantime, we should pass this bill, we should get about the business of putting Americans to work--the first Americans--and certainly Americans on Indian reservations that have every obstacle in the world against them. This bill will give one more tool in the toolbox. It's not a panacea, but it's a tool they ought to have.

Every word that's been spoken by the gentleman from Oklahoma, not only as the chief author and the sponsor of this legislation, but something that I think my colleagues in the House need to be reminded of, this has nothing to do with whatever current feuds are going on between Armenia and Turkey. That is totally irrelevant to the bill that we are discussing here this afternoon. If we talk about past criminalities and acts that were done against the American Indians, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleagues realize that the Government of the United States of America signed 389 treaties with the American Indians. And guess what. We broke every one of those treaties. So let's talk about fairness.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011.

First, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of our committee, and also the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their support. And I especially want to thank my good friend, the only American Indian that we have in this body, a proud member of the Chickasaw Nation of the State of Oklahoma, my good friend and buddy, Tom Cole. Not only is he the cochair of our American Indian Congressional Caucus, but he is also a real gentleman that knows what he's talking about.

Mr. Speaker, despite the recent success of some tribes in creating successful gaming enterprises, pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, to a large extent, Indian tribes still face extreme economic conditions. This is due in part to the perception by private lenders and investors that risky conditions prevail in Indian Country. Because of the Federal trust status, Indian lands and resources are perceived as risky for collateral, and even loans and burdensome regulations restrict and impede efforts to improve economic conditions on tribal lands.

Mr. Speaker, we have unemployment as high as 80 percent among some of these tribes. In terms of any incentives given them to provide greater economic development, Mr. Speaker, this legislation solves this problem, and we need to give them these tools so that these tribes could better make economic improvements in their situation.

Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government has a trust obligation to our Indian brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago, I was pleased to work with Senator Inouye, my good friend from Hawaii, on legislation that will give Indian tribes access to many tools such as development capital, loans to Indian enterprises, and a host of other authorized activities, with the purpose of creating an environment that is conducive to Indian Country economic development. Today I continue to remain steadfast in my support and am willing to work with my colleagues in Congress to make improvements in this area.

Again, I commend my good friend Mr. Cole for his leadership. The bill before us today will create the Indian Tribal Trade and Investments Demonstration project within the Department of the Interior to include up to six Indian tribes for this pilot program. These tribes will be able to lease land currently held in trust by Federal land to conduct such activities including business and economic development; public, educational, or residential purposes; et cetera. Moreover, the bill will streamline the archaic and burdensome--you know, even just to get a lease agreement with the Federal Government, some of these tribes have had to wait for 10 years. They couldn't even get this done through the regulatory process. These are the problems that we're faced with.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, pass this legislation. And again, I commend and thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for his leadership and bringing this legislation before us for consideration and approval.

I rise today in support of H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011. First, I want to thank the gentleman from the State of Oklahoma, and my good friend, Mr. Tom Cole, for his authorship of this important piece of legislation that will facilitate economic development by Indian tribes and encourage investment by foreign companies.

Mr. Speaker, despite the recent success of some Indian tribes in creating successful gaming enterprises pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, to a large extent, Indian tribes still face extreme economic conditions. This is due in part to the perception by private lenders and investors that risky conditions prevail in Indian country. Because of the Federal Trust Status, Indian lands and resources are perceived as risky for collateral, and even loans and burdensome regulations restrict and impede efforts to improve economic conditions on tribal land.

Mr. Speaker, according to recent statistics from the U.S. Department of Commerce, the overall poverty rate for American Indians/Alaska Natives, including children, is higher than that for the total U.S. population. The fact is, many of our Indian brothers and sisters remain stuck in poverty. With unemployment rates of up to 80-percent in some tribal communities, Indian tribes must find creative ways to foster economic growth and generate jobs and economic prosperity in these struggling communities.

Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government has a trust obligation to our Indian brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago, I was pleased to work with the Senator from Hawaii, and my good friend, Senator Inouye on legislation that will give Indian tribes access to many tools, such as development capital, loans to Indian enterprises, and a host of other authorized activities, with the purpose of creating an environment that is conducive to Indian country economic development. Today, I continue to remain steadfast in my support and am willing to work with my colleagues in Congress, to ensure that our federal trust obligation to the Indian tribes is uphold.

Again, I commend Mr. Tom Cole for his leadership. The bill before us today will create the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project within the U.S. Department of the Interior to include up to six Indian tribes or consortia. These tribes will be able to lease land currently held in trust by the federal land to conduct such activities including business and economic development; public, educational, or residential purposes; development or use of natural resources in connection with operations under such leases; and grazing and farming activities.

Moreover, the bill will streamline the archaic and burdensome federal regulations in place for leasing, to make it easier for Indian Tribes to partner with foreign companies that engage

in economic development on tribal lands. While H.R. 2362 was initially developed because of Turkey's interest in working with Indian tribes, I am pleased to know that all 155 World Trade Organization countries will have the same investment opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, this bill embodies our federal government trust obligation to the economic condition of the Indian tribes and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2362.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to submit an article printed in the July 27th issue of The Hill that came to my attention. Entitled ``Native American tribal leaders: Indian Country shouldn't be hostage to far-off conflicts'' and written by Native American tribal leaders Eric Bruguier and Lloyd Irvine, the authors lament the fact that the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act (H.R. 2362) failed to secure the necessary votes to pass under a suspension of the rules.

As a cosponsor of this measure, I am also disappointed this measure failed to pass. With the unemployment rate on American Indian reservations averaging between 40 percent and 50 percent, with poverty that transcends generations and incomes and educational attainment all well below the national average, this bill would have enabled foreign investors to partner with Native Americans on reservations to create new businesses and generate income where little to none exists today.

Native American Tribal Leaders: Indian Country Shouldn't Be Hostage to

Far-Off Conflicts

(By Eric Bruguier and Lloyd Irvine)

Being able to conduct business easily internationally is

the lifeblood of the American economy. Trade provides new

markets for American products and know-how, providing choices

to foreign consumers and growth and prosperity at home. Yet

apparently Congress does not feel that Native Americans

deserve to participate.

This week, the House voted on H.R. 2362, a simple yet

important piece of legislation that would have allowed Native

Americans to do business with foreign companies from any of

the 155 countries that are members of the World Trade

Organization.

Despite earning the support of 58 percent of House

members--and the backing of the National American Indian

Housing Council, the National Congress of American Indians,

and the National Center for American Indian Enterprise

Development--the bill failed to meet the two-thirds majority

needed to pass under the expedited process known as

suspension. It failed not because of any substantive

arguments against the bill's merits but because of pressure

from two ethnic lobbies with a history of grievances against

Turkey. And once again, Native Americans are left to suffer.

Current regulations and red tape prevent Native Americans

from taking control of their own economic development. If a

business wants to lease property to open a store or a

factory, that business must first go through a multilayer,

multiyear review process required by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, a process that can take up to six years--six years

to complete paperwork that takes a week to complete in the

rest of the country. Business cannot operate under these

conditions. This bill would have changed that.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the only Native American member of

Congress, introduced this legislation with the sole intention

of creating economic sovereignty for Native Americans. He has

firsthand experience of the challenges faced by tribes.

Native Americans suffer from the highest poverty and

unemployment rates in the country. Compared with the rest of

the United States, they are

more likely to suffer from drug and alcohol addiction and

have less access to quality healthcare.

It was a shock to see a positive and seemingly

noncontroversial bill fall short. After all, the bill would

provide a clear avenue for foreign investment in Indian

Country, streamline archaic and incredibly inefficient

regulations that add years of delays to potential business

deals, and for the first time allow tribes to enter into

business deals as sovereign entities, much like every state

in the country can already do. It would do all of these

things at no additional cost to the federal government.

H.R. 2362 was also designed to complement H.R. 205, the

HEARTH Act, which easily passed the House and Senate and will

soon be signed into law. The bills are complementary but

different. H.R. 205 was specifically designed to address

housing needs on tribal lands but makes no mention of

investment from foreign companies. H.R. 2362 invites

companies from all 155 WTO countries to invest in Indian

Country. It establishes a demonstration project that will

help us learn best practices for future business deals. Once

we work the kinks out, we would open it up to all tribes.

So why the opposition? One word: Turkey. Turkey and Turkish

Americans helped bring this bill to fruition through years of

business exchanges and negotiations on how to best facilitate

trade and investment with Indian Country. Turkey was the

first and only country to send an official delegation to the

Reservation Economic Summit, the premiere tribal business

conference. Turkey is the only WTO country that has

demonstrated an active economic interest in tribal lands.

Turkey was mentioned in the text of H.R. 2362 in recognition

of these efforts.

But the word ``Turkey'' in a tribal economic development

bill turned into a call to action for special interests.

Rather than focusing on the bill's many economic benefits for

tribes and all WTO countries, these communities focused on

the word ``Turkey''. In the process, they hijacked a bill

that has nothing to do with their centuries-old grievances

and put an end to promising new economic opportunities for

some of the most impoverished people living within America.

Native Americans have too few--not too many--tools for

economic development. We need to give them as many options as

we can. Tribes should have the power to choose which tools

they wish to use to grow their economies.

H.R. 2362 is a good bill that would have spurred economic

development on tribal lands. Instead, it was killed by

special interests that chose this opportunity to advance

their own agenda. An agenda that has nothing to do with

tribal sovereignty.

(Eric Bruguier is the chairman of economic development for

the Fort Peck Tribes. Lloyd Irvine is a councilman for the

Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.)

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in opposition to H.R. 2362 because I don't believe that the preferential consideration which it gives to the interest of one country, Turkey, can be justified.

There is no dispute over what many of our colleagues have said today, which is that there are tremendous needs on the part of Native American tribes, and a desire I think shared widely here for economic development opportunities on tribal lands. We all know the statistics. But that goal of achieving enhanced economic development on tribal lands has been achieved through the HEARTH Act. As Congresswoman Maloney just indicated a minute ago, Michael Black, director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, testified that the HEARTH Act ``fosters the same goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a broader scale.'' We don't need this legislation to accomplish all of the important things that have been articulated here.

I have tremendous respect for Congressman Cole, and he just gave a very powerful articulation of the legacy that he carries in his DNA and why he is so passionate about these issues, and we share his perspective on the important need to develop tribal lands, but this particular piece of legislation is redundant at best, and it gives this unjustified preference to Turkish interests.

This presents a number of issues. First of all, there are some concerns on the trade front. Now, I understand the bill was amended because originally it would have given exclusive opportunity to Turkish enterprises without regard to the rest of the WTO nations. Now that's been changed so other the WTO nations can participate.

But if you look at the bill, Turkey's interests are discussed all through it. It's infused with language about Turkey. The findings section is about Turkey. And frankly, a Turkish enterprise could take this bill, once it passed, and

use it as a passport to get preferential consideration with respect to these economic opportunities. So I think it does present some continued concern with respect to trade concerns.

But on the foreign policy front, even if you felt it were important to give preferential consideration for purposes of a demonstration project or a pilot project to one nation's interest over others, why would you select the country of Turkey given its record? That's why Ranking Member Berman has sent a Dear Colleague letter around urging opposition to this bill, because he knows from a foreign policy standpoint the record of Turkey.

I have to mention a few of these things because they're compelling. Increasingly, Turkey has become hostile to our ally, Israel, recently threatening to mobilize its air and naval assets to escort ships to Gaza and to stop Israel from developing energy sources in its Exclusive Economic Zone in the eastern Mediterranean.

Secondly, in June of 2010, NATO member Turkey voted against the United Nations resolution imposing sanctions against Iran to thwart its nuclear weapons program.

Thirdly, Turkey has just now been put on the U.S. Commission on International and Religious Freedom watch list for its widespread discrimination of minority religious communities.

Fourthly, Turkey has threatened the use of force to stop Texas-based Noble Energy--this is an American company--from drilling for oil and gas off the shores of Cyprus and Israel and to blacklist any businesses that work with Cyprus or Israel for natural resource extraction.

We've heard the discussion of how Turkey has continually denied the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923 during which 1.5 million Armenians perished and since 1993 has maintained a destabilizing blockade of Armenia.

Now some would say these are irrelevant issues. They're very relevant. If you're going to choose a country to which you're going to extend some preferential consideration, these kinds of activities and this kind of legacy ought to be part of your consideration.

Finally, for more than 38 years, Turkey has illegally occupied the northern third of the island Republic of Cyprus, which is a member of the European Union. In fact, as of July 1, Cyprus assumed the presidency of the European Union, but Turkey refuses to recognize this.

These are all relevant to the question of whether a preferential consideration ought to be extended to one country. It's not justified, and it's not warranted. I join Ranking Member Markey and Ranking Member Berman in urging opposition to H.R. 2362.

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