Stigler Act Amendments of 2018

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1183 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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

Mr. Speaker, today the Rules Committee met and reported a rule for consideration of the Further Additional Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the fourth appropriations package to fully fund the government for fiscal year 2019. While the Congress has completed its work with respect to almost 75 percent of total discretionary spending, including, notably, the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Education, and Labor, roughly 25 percent of this discretionary spending remains outstanding. Today's bill will provide a short-term continuing resolution to February 8, 2019, to ensure that the entirety of the Federal Government remains open and operating while the Congress continues its work.

I have said on numerous occasions both on this floor and elsewhere that continuing resolutions are not the best way to fund the government, but allowing the government to shut down, even in part, is much costlier and much worse. It is our obligation to our constituents to keep all of the government open and operating to provide needed services to them.

Mr. Speaker, from an appropriations perspective, this year has been remarkably successful. Earlier this year, we sent 5 of the 12 appropriations bills to the President for his signature before the beginning of the fiscal year. That is the best record in 22 years.

With hard work from both sides of the aisle in both Houses of Congress, our earlier efforts represented a return to regular order and to the normal legislative process. For us to drop the ball now, at the end of the year and at the end of this Congress, would negate much of the good work that has already been done this year.

As I have said so often on this floor, the primary obligation of the Congress is to fund the American Government and to keep it open and operating. The American people deserve no less. With this package under consideration today, Congress will do just that with respect to 7 of the 12 main spending bills: Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies; Commerce, Justice, Science, and the Related Agencies; Financial Services and General Government; Homeland Security; Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies; State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs; and, finally, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

As my colleagues can see from this list, the group of bills covers a broad array of vital government programs the American people rely upon. It includes key departments like the Department of Homeland Security, the Food and Drug Administration, the Border Patrol, and the State Department.

It covers services like funding roads, operating security checkpoints at airports, passport services, food inspection services, importation and exportation of goods and services, banking services, and thousands of other important government functions.

Perhaps just as importantly, it covers approximately 800,000 employees, about half of whom would need to be furloughed and about half of whom would likely be deemed essential and be required to work without a guarantee of pay.

While continuing resolutions are in no way, shape, or form the best way to do business, the measure before us today will at least ensure that the government remains open and operating and will continue to provide the needed services for our Nation and our constituents. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the coming weeks to complete our work on funding the government for fiscal year 2019.

Importantly, this bill also includes funding for disaster relief and to secure the border. The American people have made their voices heard, and they have told us time and time again that they want additional border security. To that end, this bill appropriates $5 billion for the purpose of securing the border.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill also appropriates $7.8 billion for disaster relief. As we have seen time and again in places like New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, the East Coast after Hurricane Sandy, and my own hometown of Moore, Oklahoma, after devastating tornadoes, disasters require a helping hand. By appropriating these funds we offer our fellow Americans who have been afflicted by disasters the help that they need and require.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of comments before I yield to my friend from Alabama and fellow Rules Committee member for 3 minutes.

Let me just quickly point out that we are really talking about border security here. This clearly isn't simply a wall. Frankly, there is not enough money involved here. This is a matter of providing additional security.

It is important to note the Border Patrol union itself fully supports what the President is trying to do. This is the type of thing they have asked us to provide them so that they can provide us with the security that we tasked them to give to the American people.

The disaster relief is something I think probably both sides should be able to agree on. We know there is a genuine disaster. We have had fires, and we have got hurricane relief. I have a very detailed summary here of all the various items that would be taken care of. I would be more than happy to provide that to my friend. That is something that we should do before we go home. That is something, frankly, Americans have a right to count on.

I remember--and I was with my friends in this endeavor--during the Sandy debate and how desperately we needed aid at that point in time and how severe the reaction was when Congress went home without getting that done and came back in January. I

think the reaction was appropriate. So this disaster relief is extraordinarily important, and I hope that we focus on that in our debate as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a couple of comments with regard to the statement my good friend made.

We are actually talking, really, in a sense, not about not $5 billion. We are talking about $3.3 billion. The Senate bill that passed actually added $1.7 billion, which is a tacit admission that physical barriers do make a difference.

We all agree that the amount of money we are talking about here would not build an entire wall. Quite the opposite, it would just provide some physical barriers at points along the border that are weak and need additional security.

My friend says that nobody is interested in this. Frankly, the border security unions are. The Border Patrol has endorsed the President's proposal. The men and women we have tasked to defend our borders tell us this is something that they need. They have gone so far as to say they would support a government shutdown.

I hope we don't have that. I am not for a government shutdown. I never have been for a government shutdown. But this is not an extraordinary amount of money in a bill, frankly, that totals well over $250 billion, when you add up all the spending. And being able to put additional security there is important.

To my friend's point about Puerto Rico, I think that is a good point. I think that is a fair point to make. We should probably go back and take a look at that. I do know that Americans desperately need assistance in a variety of areas, Puerto Rico included. Agriculture help is necessary, as well as help for rebuilding military installations and schools that have been destroyed. Why can't we get that done?

This is a very substantial package. There is actually more money in this bill for disaster relief for American citizens than there is for additional border security. So I think this is an eminently sensible proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its adoption and the adoption of the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), my good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes, in the heat of debate, it is easy to miss what the real essence of the dispute is.

When I vote for the rule--and I don't expect my friend to vote for the rule; that is always a partisan exercise--but when I vote for the underlying legislation, I will actually be voting to fund the government. If my friends vote ``no,'' they will be voting not to fund the government. So if they are worried about funding the government, all they have to do is vote for this bill, because it funds the government.

The second thing I will be voting for is disaster relief. My friends have said that there are other areas that are worthy of relief. That is probably true. I don't have any quarrel with that. But I wouldn't vote against this disaster relief because it wasn't enough. I would

vote for this and then try to get additional in the time that we have remaining.

Finally, I will be voting for enhanced border security. We all know we have a problem. We all know that our border is not as secure as we would like. There is a debate over wall versus no wall. This really isn't a wall.

The wall would be $25 billion. Our friends have offered $1.7 billion. The President has been the one who has compromised, who has come back with $5 billion. So we are talking about $3.3 billion for various physical barriers at spots that we all agree would almost certainly work, done with the cooperation of our own people at Homeland Security.

Finally, we are talking about not paying border agents. Border agents have told us this is what they need. That is what their union has said. That is what their elected representatives said.

We want to do what the President has proposed. The President isn't shutting down the government. The President is willing to sign legislation that funds all the government. He has asked for disaster relief, something that should not be controversial in this Chamber, in my view, but sometimes is.

Finally, he has asked for an awfully modest amount of money to provide additional security along the border that the Border Patrol itself has asked for. That is really what is at issue.

So when you vote against this legislation, you will be the ones voting to shut down the government, not the President, not my colleagues in this Chamber, not the Senate and whatever they decide to do in their infinite wisdom, but a ``no'' vote on the underlying legislation is a vote to shut down the government.

A ``yes'' vote for the rule, which my friends would differ with, and that is fair enough, but a ``yes'' vote for the underlying legislation is the vote to keep the government open, take care of the disasters that we are faced with, and provide modest additional support for our border agents and Border Patrol.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close whenever my friend is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend. As always, it is a spirited debate, and I want to be the first to say he is exactly right on a point he made. He did, earlier today, actually help me on this side of the aisle. I was evidently much more persuasive this morning than I have been this afternoon. But my friend is exactly right. On many occasions we have worked together, and I want to thank him for that.

I also want to review just quickly what I see, at least, Mr. Speaker, as the main issues here.

Number one, we all say we agree we want to keep the government funded, and I believe we all do. We don't believe in government shutdowns. We all believe the government ought to be funded. The underlying legislation does exactly that.

I think all of us, on both sides of the aisle, care about Americans who have been hurt in disasters, and we have shown that time and time again. We have struggled on occasion, but we generally get aid to where it is needed; and if we overlook somebody, we try and come back and do that again.

This bill makes a good-faith effort to provide billions of dollars in assistance to Americans who need it through no fault of their own, who have been ravaged by fire, who have been damaged by hurricanes, who face a variety of disasters, not just in the United States, but in the territories as well. If, again, we have overlooked something, we should go back and try and take care of that as well.

Finally, it provides a very modest amount of money. Remember, this package, together, is over $250 billion. The difference between the two sides--unless my friends object to disaster relief, which I doubt they do--to be fair, is really $3.3 billion. That is what the President thinks he needs, an additional expenditure along the border, or $5 billion if you want to characterize it that way. But the difference between the two sides is only $3.3 billion.

That doesn't build a wall. We have been told the President is uncompromising. He is not uncompromising. He has been, for 2 years, talking about an

elaborate border security of $25 billion. This is 5, not 25. This would not build a wall, but this would provide additional security.

We all know there are points along the way where physical barriers matter and make a difference. I think that is what the President is asking for.

My friends worry, and rightly so, about people not getting paid during a government shutdown, which I hope we avoid, quite frankly. But the men and women on the border have asked the President to do this. They support what he is trying to do.

When we send troops into combat, I listen to what they have to say and what they need. So does this Congress, and it tries to provide it.

We put people in a difficult situation along the border, and they tell us these are the sorts of tools they need. The President is trying to respond in this case, and I think we should support him in that effort.

So, Mr. Speaker, I want to encourage all Members to support the rule. Today's bill represents the next step toward fulfilling our primary obligation as Members of Congress to fund the government.

While continuing resolutions are never the best way to fund the government, today's measure will allow us to keep the entire government open and operating and providing needed services for our country and our constituents until February 8 of 2019. This measure will give Congress the time it needs to complete the rest of our work and fully fund the government through the end of fiscal year 2019.

I want to applaud my colleagues for their work.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Let me begin, Mr. Speaker, by again thanking my colleague from Oklahoma for the work that he and other appropriators did to try to keep the government running. We are here right now not because of the appropriators. We are here right now because Donald Trump has made a mess of things.

Mr. Speaker, it is surreal that we are here today, days before the end of a Congress, hours before one-quarter of the Federal Government runs out of money, scrambling to keep the lights on at the brink of the third Republican government shutdown this year, because we are not dealing with divided government. Republicans today control not only this Chamber, but also the Senate and the White House. They have been fighting among themselves for weeks over whether and how to keep the Government of the United States open for business. It would be comical if it weren't so serious.

This proposal that we are being given right now is not a solution. It is a political temper tantrum all to please one man: the person sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It doesn't solve the disagreements in this Chamber or the Senate, and it doesn't prevent the shutdown America is facing.

This President and this majority ran on fear during the last election: fear of immigrants, fear of those seeking asylum, and fear of anyone who doesn't look exactly like them.

What happened, Mr. Speaker? They were resoundingly rejected. The American people chose a different course. They don't want a government that reacts only to the wants of the President's ever-shrinking base, the small segment of society that actually supports his offensive border wall.

Let me remind my colleagues, according to polling, Americans, by a 2- to-1 margin, want the President to compromise on the wall to avoid a shutdown. This proposal is exactly what the President may want, but it is precisely what the American people rejected.

The Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution to keep the lights on. This House was prepared to pass it until the President's latest outburst. Governing by tweet isn't governing at all. If the President's most senior advisers are Fox & Friends and Rush Limbaugh, maybe we shouldn't be surprised when we find ourselves here today.

But this morning, this House came together to pass same-day authority so the majority could move quickly on a bipartisan, short-term continuing resolution. Democrats joined our Republican colleagues in this effort to provide the tools needed to keep the lights on. This is how you are using them?

This isn't a serious plan. To even vote for disaster relief, this bill requires you to support the President's offensive wall. Democrats and the American people have already rejected this false choice.

This wall is a medieval solution to a 21st century problem. What is next, Mr. Speaker, money for a moat around Mar-a-Lago?

This will not become law, what we are doing right now. This is a waste of time. If it even passes here--which is a big if--it is dead on arrival in the Senate. I say to my friend: The clock is ticking. Let's get to work on a clean bill that can make it to the President. This isn't that. This is just offensive.

Again, let me remind those in this Chamber the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came together by a voice vote and supported a continuing resolution, a clean CR, to keep the government running for 7 weeks. That is it. It is all we are proposing here today. This Chamber can't even do that. This is a disgrace.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject it, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, if I could just respond to my colleague, if I thought for one second building a stupid wall would somehow secure our borders, I would be for it. But every expert I have talked to, including people on the border, say they need more personnel and say we ought to invest more in electronic equipment to surveil our borders. I don't know of a wall that has ever been built that people haven't climbed over or dug under. This is ridiculous.

By the way, when the President campaigned, he said that he wanted to build a wall and that Mexico was going to pay for it. Now he wants to build a wall that by all accounts is going to be useless in terms of protecting our borders, and he wants the American taxpayers to pay for it.

Well, you have $5 billion. How about rebuilding our roads and our bridges that are crumbling in this country?

If you have got $5 billion that you don't care what you do with, how about investing it in affordable housing?

Or how about dealing with the issue of climate change?

Or how about making sure that some of the 40 million-plus Americans in this country who don't have enough to eat have food?

Wasting money on something so ridiculous is offensive.

So we want border security. We are happy to work with you on enhanced border security, but this isn't it. This is a campaign slogan. This is a waste of taxpayer money. It is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. For the President to want to shut down the government over this is disgraceful.

By the way, on the disaster package, just so my colleagues understand this, the disaster package in this bill does not include $600 million in nutrition assistance for Puerto Rico. So unless this Congress takes immediate action, 1.4 million of our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico stand to suffer deep cuts in food assistance, causing many of them to go hungry. That is shameful. Where is the help for them?

Of course, we should pass a clean CR to ensure that our government remains open. But my friend talked about disaster assistance, and I just wanted to point out that one thing that is missing in their disaster package is the nutrition money for our fellow citizens of Puerto Rico. I am sure there are others.

We are rushing this thing through. There is no transparency here. We thought we had a deal to keep the government open for 7 weeks. Then, all of a sudden, I guess the President tuned into ``Fox and Friends'' and changed his mind. You don't know where this President is going to be day-to-day or hour-to-hour or minute-to-minute. But he is the guy who said that he would be proud to own a shutdown.

Well, I think it would be a disaster for this country to have another shutdown. I think it would be expensive. I think we should to do everything we can to avoid it, and that is why we ought to send a clean CR back to the Senate.

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

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

I don't really want to prolong this debate much longer here. Every day with this administration is another self-made crisis, another demonstration of bad faith.

No one can trust what comes out of the White House, what the President says. His word is worthless. And here we are, as evidence of that fact.

Mr. Speaker, the government is set to run out of money tomorrow. We are running out of time to act. But, apparently, this is exactly what President Trump wants.

Last week, he said he would be ``proud to shut down the government.'' Today, he confirmed he wouldn't even sign a clean CR to keep our government open for just a few more weeks.

It is irresponsible and abhorrent to attach funding for his offensive border wall to a bill to keep the lights on.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up the Senate amendment to H.R. 695, which is the clean CR that has already passed the Senate by a voice vote. Every Democrat and every Republican stood together and passed the CR. It wasn't controversial over there. Somehow, it is controversial here.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just respond to the gentleman that we are all for compromise. This 7-week CR is a compromise. The clean CR is a compromise. In a bipartisan way, unanimously in the United States Senate, they accepted it. The President said he was for it. Then he changed his mind after watching ``Fox and Friends'' or listening to some right-wing radio host.

The gentleman talks about protecting the border. We want to protect the border. We want to invest money in things that will actually protect the border, not in a press release, not in a sound bite, not in something that is a total waste of money, like a wall.

But what about the fact that the President is going to shut the government down over a stupid wall and that means that the men and women who work for the Department of Homeland Security, the people who protect our borders, will not get paid, and we are not going to support them?

One of my Republican colleagues, when he was faced with that question, said: ``It's actually part of what you do when you sign up for any public service position.''

Really? That is how we treat and respect the men and women who are charged with protecting our borders? We turn our backs on them during the holiday season? Merry Christmas. We are not going to pay you.

What they need, if you go to the border and talk to them, are more personnel. They want us to invest in more electronic equipment to help them surveil the border. They will tell you that this idea of a wall is dumb. It doesn't work. It is not going to protect this country. It is a waste of money.

We had a deal to move this CR forward, and the President changed his mind. He reneged on his word. He didn't keep his promise. And here we are.

So, as Republicans fight with Republicans here in the House, thankfully, the Senate, in a bipartisan way, came up with a solution. There was a compromise. Democrats are willing to support that compromise. But, somehow, it is not enough.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I just need to correct the Record on a few things here.

It was the President who said he would be proud to shut the government down. My colleague may recall not too long ago the President had a meeting with Speaker-designate Pelosi and Leader Schumer over in the Senate. He bragged about it on camera.

The President invited the cameras in, and he said: I would be proud to own a shutdown. That is what he said.

So we know where the President stands on this. He doesn't care about shutting the government down. We should.

The gentleman said that votes on rules are always partisan. Well, for the most part they are, but not this morning--not this morning.

My Republican friends brought a martial law rule to the floor, which we don't really like because it basically condenses the process and we don't have a lot of time to look at things. But nonetheless, we said we would vote for it.

Almost every Democrat voted with Republicans to move this so-called martial law rule forward so that we could bring up the Senate-passed continuing resolution today and keep the government running and be able to pay the men and women who protect our borders. So we came in good faith, and we did that.

We want border security. We just think wasting billions of dollars on a stupid wall that doesn't do anything to protect our country is the wrong way to go.

So if you want to vote to keep the government open, then you should vote with us to defeat the previous question because, if we defeat the previous question, then I will bring up the Senate-passed continuing resolution, and we can all vote for it. We can all keep the government running. We can all go home and have a merry Christmas and a happy new year. That is how simple it is.

My Republican friends are bringing a rule to the floor that says that, if you vote for this rule, there is no separate vote on the border wall. It is all together.

They know what is going to happen. If it passes the House, it will go over to the Senate, and they are not going to accept this. They have already had a bipartisan compromise. They had a deal with the President until he changed his mind.

So if you want to keep the government open, then vote with the Democrats on defeating the previous question, and we will bring up a clean CR and we will do the right thing. We will do what we thought we were going to be doing this morning until the Republicans got into a fight with one another, and here we are.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many more speakers he has.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am looking at a headline here today. It says: ``U.S. stocks clobbered, with Dow losing nearly 500 points, amid White House drama over government shutdown.''

Mr. Speaker, creating chaos in the stock market is how a drama queen might act, but it is not how any President should behave. This is totally manufactured by the White House crisis. This is ridiculous that we are at this point, after all the agreements that have been reached in the Senate and, we thought, here in the House.

The President turned the TV set on and started watching FOX News and got carried away and now is reneging on his agreement. That is unfortunate.

But I would again say to my colleagues: Let us defeat the previous question, and we will bring up a clean CR. We will keep this government open, and we will do the right thing by the American people. And most importantly, we will make sure that the men and women who are protecting our border get paid during this Christmas holiday. It is the right thing to do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2606 seeks to amend the 1947 Stigler Act by removing the arbitrary blood quantum levels it established for Indian land ownership. This will ensure that lands currently owned by the citizens of the Five Tribes of Oklahoma will remain in restricted fee status, regardless of their blood quantum levels or that of their heirs.

The House has already passed this measure once, and I am happy to agree to the changes that the Senate made to Mr. Cole's bill.

Upholding the sanctity of a Tribe's land base should be of utmost importance to Congress and the Federal Government as a whole. A tribal land base is not just about tax-exempt status or economic development, both of which are vitally important to tribal communities. It is also about construction of housing, schools, clinics, and eldercare facilities, things that are extremely vital to the health and the well- being of tribal members.

It is also about recognizing a tribe's historical, cultural, and spiritual connection to the land, land that they called their own until it was forcibly or wrongly taken from them.

We need to ensure that tribal sovereignty and self-governance are more than just talking points. There are real-world decisions that we make that have very real consequences, so it is shameful that a dark chapter in history is now repeating itself. I am referring to the dire situation that is facing the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts.

The Mashpee have inhabited present-day Massachusetts and eastern Rhode Island for more than 12,000 years. Their ancestors are the ones who welcomed the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock, as well as the people who aided these Pilgrims through the hard times of 1621 that we now refer to as our First Thanksgiving.

Like many tribes, the Mashpee were intentionally and systematically rendered landless through various actions by the States and the Federal Government.

They have fought long and hard since that time to reestablish that which was taken from them: their homeland. They fought first for Federal recognition, which they finally received in 2009 after a 30- year struggle. They then fought to establish a homeland for their people, which they finally did in 2015, when Interior approved their application to take 320 acres into trust for the Tribe.

Things were looking optimistic for the Mashpee people. They constructed a government center, which includes a school, courtrooms, and multipurpose rooms, and they established a medical clinic facility. They were planning to embark on economic development opportunities that would help sustain the Tribal people and ensure their prosperity for future generations. Then the rug was cruelly pulled out from beneath them.

In 2017, the Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, inexplicably refused to continue to defend the status of the Tribe's reservation in court.

Then on September 7, 2018, the Department of the Interior issued its first Carciary decision, in which it refused to reaffirm its own authority to confirm the status of the Tribe's reservation. Interior rejected clear evidence that the Mashpee were indeed under Federal jurisdiction, evidence that was accepted as sufficient in prior agency decisions.

This decision is devastating and unprecedented. It would mark the first time since the dark days of the termination era that the United States acts to de-establish an Indian reservation and make a Tribe landless.

On our side of the aisle, we have been sounding the alarm for some time that this would come to pass if we did not address the Carciary issue, and yet the majority has refused to address that issue for almost a decade.

Many other Tribes also face frivolous lawsuits on land that they have had in trust for years, sometimes decades. These attacks on sovereignty eat up valuable Tribal resources and funds, funds that could be instead used on housing, healthcare, economic development, and a myriad of other Tribal needs and concerns.

As a result of this, the Trump administration's decision, the Mashpee and the Tribal government is on the brink of total dissolve. The legal limbo that has been imposed by the decision is forcing the Tribe to have to borrow thousands of dollars every day to keep its government running. This has resulted in devastating cuts to essential services and massive layoffs.

The majority of Tribal members are employed with the Tribe. Due to this, the Tribal unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 49 percent. They have had to essentially dissolve their police force except for one patrol officer; they have laid off all Tribal court staff; they are in the process of shutting down their elder services and addiction treatment programs; and they are having to shut down their language immersion school serving preschool and school-age children. This is completely unacceptable and, sadly, avoidable.

If this were occurring with a State or a local government, my colleagues across the aisle would have already remedied the situation, and we could do just that. We could address this issue head-on by simply reaffirming the trust status of Mashpee land. We could overturn the misguided agency decision and give stability and sovereignty back to the Mashpee people.

This is exactly what many of us on both sides of the aisle have strongly advocated for months; however, the silence from Republican leadership of the House is deafening. Legislation to affirm the Mashpee homeland has existed for months, even before the Interior decision, yet the majority has refused to move it.

Inaction is complacency, and the inaction of this body sets a dangerous precedent moving forward for other Tribes that are having their sovereignty challenged.

Many of us have worked diligently over the years to right the wrongs of the past and rightfully return land back to Tribes. Mr. Speaker, I implore our Republican majority to work with us now to ensure Mashpee culture and its way of life survives.

Congress must affirm its Federal trust responsibility and ensure Tribal sovereignty remains intact. We must not idly stand by as Tribal people are on the losing end of another heinous wrongdoing--not on this watch.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly thank the gentleman from Montana for yielding, and I want to thank him for moving this legislation through his committee and onto the floor.

I rise in support, Mr. Speaker, of H.R. 2606, the Stigler Act Amendments of

2018, and on behalf of the citizens of the Cherokee Nation; my own tribe, the Chickasaw Nation; the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma; the Muscogee Creek Nation; and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, commonly known as the Five Civilized Tribes.

The bill before us only addresses and affects these Five Tribes and the lands owned by their citizens within the State of Oklahoma. The passage of this legislation is critical to maintaining the inherited land of the citizens of the five aforementioned tribes.

The infamous Dawes Act of 1887 authorized the Federal Government to survey tribal lands and divide them into allotted parcels for individual Native Americans. Title to these allotment parcels was set forth in the Stigler Act of 1947.

The Stigler Act provided that, upon probate, if the heirs and devisees of an original allottee from the Five Tribes had passed out of one-half Native American blood quantum, the allotment loses its restricted fee status.

Restricted land is not subject to State taxation, and Federal law does not dictate a minimum Native American blood degree requirement to any other tribe.

The original Stigler Act itself was an egregious violation of tribal sovereignty and previous agreements between the Five Civilized Tribes and the government. The provisions of the Dawes Act that protected individual Native allottees, frankly, were effectively neutered by the passage of the Stigler Act.

This legislation seeks to amend the original Stigler Act and remove the one-half degree requirement of Native American blood. In doing so, it would provide the opportunity for heirs and devisees to take title to the land and allow the parcel to maintain its restricted status.

This legislation will also create parity in Federal law in the treatment of Native American allotted land by removing the minimum blood degree requirement, which only applies to the citizens of the Five Civilized Tribes.

As Native Americans, we take great pride in our heritage and the land that our ancestors maintained before us. The Stigler Act would allow Natives to pass on their restricted land to future generations who may not meet the one-half degree blood requirement. Many of Oklahoma's citizens have passed out of the one-half blood lineage but remain vested in their Native American heritage and citizens of their respective tribal governments.

This bill will help preserve the rights and legacy of Native American tribes and their inheritance in the State of Oklahoma.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support and pass H.R. 2606 to remove this outdated and discriminatory law and to preserve what Native American land is left in Oklahoma's Indian Country.

Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my friend for moving this through the committee. Also, obviously, I want to thank the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Bishop, for his help in this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2606, the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018.

This legislation would end a discriminatory blood quantum requirement for members of the Five Civilized Tribes: the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muskogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations.

The Stigler Act of 1947 mandated that restricted land owned by a member of the Five Tribes must have \1/2\ blood quantum in order for it to remain restricted. If the land is handed down to a relative with less than \1/2\ blood quantum, the land is no longer restricted.

No other Native American tribe in the United States is subject to the Stigler Act, and in no other tribe in the United States do the lands of tribal citizens lose their restricted status due to the blood quantum of an individual Native American.

H.R. 2606 would do away with the blood quantum requirement so restricted fee land owned by citizens of the Five Tribes could remain restricted, regardless of blood quantum. By removing the blood quantum requirements in the Stigler Act, native land could remain within families and heirs despite individual Native American landowners falling below \1/2\ blood quantum.

Tribes are sovereign nations and H.R. 2606 would treat them as such. This bill would create parity in federal law so that the government would not be able to unfairly dictate a minimum blood quantum requirement for certain tribes.

It would also bring equality to members of the Five Tribes. For decades, their members have lived under a law so that applied to only their lands.

As Native Americans, we take great pride in our heritage and the land that our ancestors maintained before us. The Stigler Act Amendments of 2018 would allow Natives to pass on their restricted land to future generations who may not meet the \1/2\ blood degree requirement.

Members of the Five Tribes who seek to carry on their ancestors' heritage should be able to and this legislation ensures that members of the Five Tribes can continue to preserve restricted status of their land and reap all of the benefits that come along with it.

The Five Tribes held more than 15 million acres of restricted land a century ago. Today, they hold just 380,000 acres.

While H.R. 2606 will not reverse 70 years of land loss, it will certainly help prevent additional tribal land from falling out of restricted status.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Stigler Act Amendments of 2018 and am honored to speak in support of the legislation before the United States House of Representatives today. I urge its passage.