To amend the Act of June 18, 1934, to reaffirm the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust for Indian Tribes, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume in strong opposition to H.R. 312.

H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the Interior. It contradicts a Supreme Court decision and aims to reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to build a massive 400,000- square-foot, off-reservation gaming complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company.

H.R. 312 creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts:

One reservation will be the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical boundaries of the town of Mashpee.

The other reservation is, oddly, 50 miles away from Mashpee, in the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and Genting for a billion- dollar casino project because of its proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20 miles distant.

There is no reason for the second reservation, other than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from the Mashpee Tribe, where they currently reside. In fact, the new off-reservation casino will be only 20 miles from the New England Patriots' football stadium and, again, 50 miles from the Mashpees' historic reservation.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in

trust for the Mashpee Tribe for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312 creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with congressional intent. This is often called reservation shopping, and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a political headache, so they went to the bureaucrats within the BIA to obtain the two reservations through administrative action. RedState recently reported:

No one is more desperate for H.R. 312 to succeed than

Genting Malaysia. If the casino doesn't come through, the

Tribe doesn't have to pay Genting back the over half a

billion dollars it borrowed.

H.R. 312 is a financial bailout for Genting. The Tribe is swamped with a $500 million-plus debt to Genting, and there is no way the Tribe can ever pay this back and still make enough money to sustain itself. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe.

This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent tribally owned.

At the committee hearing on this bill, counsel for the Governor of Rhode Island testified that H.R. 312 will cause the State significant harm with regards to revenues for education, infrastructure, and social programs and is contrary to the limitations contained in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Moreover, the American Principles Project also reported on the ties between convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, stating:

The expansive Abramoff investigation uncovered major

corruption within the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe. Its chief,

Glenn Marshall, pled guilty in 2009 to multiple Federal

charges, including embezzling Tribal funds and campaign

finance violations committed while working with Abramoff to

secure the Federal recognition of the Tribe in 2007.

For my Republican colleagues: The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans during the committee markup, including the ranking member, Rob Bishop; President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged Republicans to do the same; House Minority Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members vote ``no'' on H.R. 312. Do you really want to vote for Elizabeth Warren's top Tribal priority?

For my Democratic colleagues: Representatives Cicilline and Langevin strongly oppose this bill, and it is opposed by the Democratic Governor of Rhode Island. The bill is also ``strenuously opposed'' by other federally recognized Tribes in Massachusetts.

For Members on both sides of the aisle: Do you really want your name tied to a Tribe that only received Federal recognition in 2007 as a result of shady lobbying by Jack Abramoff? Do you really want to vote for a $500 million bailout for a former gaming corporation?

In short, H.R. 312 authorizes an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation from major financial problems of its own making, reverses the judgment of a Federal court, and contradicts the Supreme Court ruling.

Wow, all in one breath.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members on both sides of the aisle to vote against H.R. 312, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues on the other side understand that, as the city of Mashpee, no one has any problems, but it is the city of Taunton that is part of the problem, and that is where we have the gist. So I caution them to watch their rhetoric.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island so that we may have a quick colloquy.

As the gentleman made mention, it was locals in Taunton that actually sued; is that true?

I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island.

Does the gentleman think that the court in which they sued had any of the information skewed in front of it, in front of their jurisdiction?

All this information that we are hearing, that is myth versus fact; is that true?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for engaging in the colloquy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

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

Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric coming from the other side is hot and heavy like I don't know what I am talking about with Native American Tribes when I have lived my whole life in association with Tribes. So let's get through some of the false myths that are out here that continually are being talked about.

Now, the myth is that Congress has done this for other Tribes, i.e, we have heard about the Gun Lake Tribe.

Fact: That is false. This will be the first time, as my colleague from Rhode Island said, that Congress would overturn a Federal Court decision where the court ruled that the Tribe did not meet the Federal standard to have land taken into trust, a State-recognized Tribe.

Myth: The Tribe is facing extinction unless Congress acts.

That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass. Further, if this is not solely about a casino, then my amendment should have been considered and adopted in committee. The amendment was a compromise that would have secured a reservation for the Mashpee for all purposes but not gaming.

Myth number three: H.R. 312 is not a casino giveaway nor a case of reservation shopping.

Fact: It is both. There is no reason for the second reservation other than to build an off-reservation casino 50 miles away from where the Mashpee Tribe currently resides. If this weren't solely about a casino, then my amendment would have also been adopted in committee.

Myth: The two tracts of land in the town of Mashpee and the city of Taunton both are sites within the Tribal historical territories. My colleague from Massachusetts actually alluded to this.

That would be false. The Mashpee Tribe will build a massive, 400,000- square-foot, off-reservation casino away from their Tribal land on the border. That would be Taunton, Rhode Island.

In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original reservations. By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton 50 miles away from the Tribe's historic reservation--he also brought that point up, that it wasn't their traditional land--what Congress intended in the Gaming Regulatory Act would be severely harmed.

Myth: This bill has nothing to do with approving a specific casino project.

Fact: We actually heard it again from the other side. If that were the case, then my amendment would have been made in order and received votes or deemed adopted at the committee level. The amendment would have secured a reservation for the Mashpee Tribe for any nongaming purposes.

These may include, but not be limited to, the construction and operation of Tribal government facilities and infrastructure, housing, a hospital, a school and library, a museum, a community center, assisted living for Tribal elders, business development, natural resources management, the Tribe's exercising its government jurisdiction over Tribal members, and many other Tribal uses.

The next myth is that H.R. 312 is not a bailout.

H.R. 312 is not a bailout? In fact, the Malaysian hedge fund, Genting Malaysia, that is underwriting the casino--yes, underwriting this casino.

The Mashpee Tribe will not receive a penny of revenue from the casino for many years, if ever, because of the massive size of the $500 million-plus debt they have incurred to Genting. Genting, therefore, will be the real owner of the project, not the Tribe.

This kind of arrangement where the creditor practically controls the financial future of a debtor Tribe is contrary to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which requires every Tribal casino to be 100 percent tribally owned.

The last myth: The Mashpee Tribe will go bankrupt if H.R. 312 does not pass.

Fact: The Mashpee Tribe will only be required to repay its debt to the Malaysian company underwriting the deal if H.R. 312 is enacted and the casino is approved.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address Congress' intent, under article I, section 8.

As I said before, the Mashpee reservation of the city of Mashpee is not of consequence. It is the area outside of their previous homeland of Taunton that is of discussion. That is only the aspect here. What has happened here is the bypassing of protocol and law that actually causes the problem.

So let me give you a little bit of background about why I have this problem.

We had seen previous abuse in the past where the off-reservation land was taken in a trust against the will of States, compacts, and local communities for the sole purpose of building new casinos.

This was certainly the case of the Tohono O'odham Nation right in Arizona when they acted against the fellow Tribes, the State of Arizona, and the general public to open an off-reservation casino in Glendale, despite agreeing to a voter-approved compact not to build any more casinos in the Phoenix metro area until the compact was renegotiated. Litigation discovery and audio recordings affirm this shameful conspiracy implemented by the Tohono O'odham.

I am concerned that this bill as written will encourage future abuse in that regard and allow for more off-reservation casinos to be built against the objections of local communities.

Furthermore, there is no CBO score for this bill. There is no committee report that I have seen. We are pushing this bill through that has no chance of being signed into law without amendment and without knowing the full ramifications of this legislation.

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

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

Let's go back to some more of the myths.

The Mashpee Tribe will lose its Federal recognition and benefits if H.R. 312 does not pass.

Once again, that is false. The Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition and will continue to receive Federal benefits and funding even if H.R. 312 does not pass.

Here is the next myth. It was the intent of Congress for all Tribes to have land and trust under the IRA of 1934 regardless of when the Tribes obtained Federal recognition.

Fact: That is not what the Supreme Court said in Carcieri v. Salazar. The Supreme Court said that the Tribal aspect of the IRA of 1934 does not authorize the Secretary of the Interior to place land in trust for Tribes that were not under Federal jurisdiction on the date of enactment of IRA, or 1934.

Fact: There is no evidence that Congress, in 1934, thought that off- reservation gaming would turn into the controversial mess it has become today.

Myth: After a Federal judge struck down the Obama administration's second definition of Indian analysis, the Trump administration chose not to defend the decision.

Fact: The Trump administration chose not to defend the decision because the judge said it was ``not even close,'' and the Obama administration had not used this analysis in any other Tribe's trust land case. It was used once only for the Mashpee. The Court remanded the matter back to Interior for an examination under the same ``first definition of Indian'' analysis used for all other Tribes.

In applying the Obama administration's analysis used for all other Tribes, the Trump administration determined the Mashpee did not qualify, and yet Tribes blame the Trump administration for something the Obama administration could have done years ago but chose not to.

Could the fate of a billion-dollar casino be the reason why the Obama administration bent the rules? I wonder.

H.R. 312 doesn't amend the IRA. It doesn't amend any law. Rather, H.R. 312 declares the Obama action struck down by the U.S. district court to be lawful and proper. The bill also orders the court to dismiss the lawsuit concerning the casino property and to prohibit the filing of any future lawsuit over it.

Mr. Speaker, we constantly see over and over again, the problem with H.R. 312 is it is once again being rushed to the floor.

I want to reference a letter from Eagle Forum and highlight, basically, their reservations.

``This bill is a deceptive plan to undermine the Federal Government's decision to deny the Mashpee Tribe land for a new casino. The Mashpee Tribe has previously engaged in questionable financial and lobbying dealings. They are currently $450 billion in debt to Genting, a foreign Malaysian gaming company, because of this project.

``The Tribe has no way of paying the company back, which means Genting will be the true owner of this project. Taxpayers should not be responsible for the bailout of their irresponsible dealings.''

Down further it goes:

``Just the issue of gambling alone has been devastating to families across the United States, especially among Native Americans.''

Further down it goes:

``For these reasons, we urge you to vote `no' on H.R. 312, Mashpee

Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act.''

I also want to reference Americans for Limited Government:

``The House of Representatives should reject H.R. 312, the Senator Elizabeth Warren-led attempt to punch piecemeal holes through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. This isn't about the ability of Tribes using land that is part of their long-established heritage for casino development, but, instead, it is about whether Congress should place gambling institutions on unrelated land based upon proximity to urban areas.

``If Senator Warren and her benefactors wish to change the Indian gaming laws, they should introduce wholesale reforms rather than turning the existing law into Swiss cheese for nothing more than investor pecuniary interests.

``Rick Manning, President, Americans for Limited Government.''

We actually have our opposition to 312:

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 312, the Mashpee

Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, when it comes

before the House today.

H.R. 312 is contrary to the view of the Department of the

Interior, contradicts a Supreme Court decision, and aims to

reverse Federal court decisions on this matter in order to

build a massive, 400,000-square-foot, off-reservation gaming

complex for the benefit of Genting, a foreign Malaysian

gaming company.

The bill forever strips the Federal Government of its

jurisdictions over this Tribal casino and overturns a well-

reasoned decision from a Federal judge.

H.R. 312 also provides a massive tax shelter for Genting by

shielding the land--and the casino on it--from taxation and

State regulation.

The bill creates two reservations for the Mashpee Tribe of

Massachusetts, one reservation which we have no problem with,

in the town of Mashpee, the Tribe's historic reservation

lands. No casino will be allowed within the geographical

boundaries of the town of Mashpee.

The other reservation will be 50 miles away from Mashpee in

the city of Taunton. This site is not part of the Tribe's

historic reservation and was selected by the Tribe and

Genting for a billion-dollar casino project because of its

proximity to the Providence, Rhode Island, casino market, 20

miles away.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act

with the intent to restrict casinos to Tribes' original

reservations.

By placing land in trust for gaming in Taunton, H.R. 312

creates an off-reservation casino, which is inconsistent with

congressional intent. This is often called ``reservation

shopping,'' and it is an abuse of the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act.

The Tribe's lawyers knew that reservation shopping was a

political headache, so they went to the previous

administration to obtain the two reservations through

administrative action.

Once again, the Federal judge, however, ruled that what the

previous administration did was unlawful, so now they need

legislation to authorize this off-reservation casino.

The bill was opposed by 10 of the 13 voting Republicans in

the committee markup. Ranking Member Rob Bishop was one of

those. These Members are joined by Americans for Limited

Government, the American Principles Project, the Coalition

for American Values, Eagle Forum, the Governor of Rhode

Island, Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head, Congressman David

Cicilline, Congressman James Langevin, and President Donald

Trump in opposing this bill.

President Trump tweeted that he opposed the bill and urged

Members of Congress to do the same last week. House Minority

Whip Steve Scalise also sent an email recommending Members

vote ``no'' on H.R. 312.

The bill is also strenuously opposed by the only other

Federally-recognized Tribe in Massachusetts.

All of this opposition was enough to have the bill pulled

from consideration by the House of Representatives under the

suspension of the rules procedures one week after it was

considered in committee with no bill report or score--

actually, there was a bill report but no score from the

Congressional Budgetary Office.

Now, the Democrat leadership is using a closed rule and not

allowing any amendments to get this controversial bill out of

the House of Representatives. Given that H.R. 312 authorizes

an off-reservation casino, bails out a foreign corporation

from major financial problems of its own making, and

reverses the judgment of a Federal court and contradicts

Interior and Supreme Court decisions, it is no wonder that

the majority had to resort to these drastic measures.

I urge everyone to vote ``no'' and to oppose this bill that

sets a dangerous precedent that will open the floodgates to

off-reservation Tribal casinos all over the United States if

enacted into law.

Once again, I want to reiterate, if you have a problem with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, let's do the wholesale changes on a massive scale, not do it one piece at a time, one Tribe at a time, not allowing lawful actions to occur.

So, I ask all my colleagues to vote ``no'' against this bill. Send a clear message that we have got to follow the law or change it wholesale for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, I ask a ``no'' vote from my colleagues, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 377, I call up the bill (H.R. 312) to reaffirm the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 312.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act, will reaffirm the trust status of Mashpee's Tribal land and protect the Tribe from further attacks on its land and its sovereignty.

The Mashpee relationship with the Federal Government is one of the oldest in the United States. In fact, their ancestors are the ones who welcomed the pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock, as well as the people who aided those pilgrims through hard times in 1621, in what we now refer to as the ``First Thanksgiving.''

Like many Tribes, the Mashpee were intentionally and systematically rendered landless, through no fault of their own. They fought long and hard over the years to reestablish both their Tribe and their land base.

The Tribe first petitioned the Federal Government for recognition in 1978. Finally, after 30 years, the Bush administration extended formal recognition to the Tribe in 2007. However, they still remained landless.

This was remedied in 2015, when the Department of the Interior took approximately 320 acres into trust to serve as the Tribe's reservation lands. The two parcels that compose the 320 acres are both within the Tribe's historic and ancestral homelands.

The Tribe constructed a government center on the land, which includes their schools, courtrooms and multipurpose room, as well as a medical clinic facility. And they broke ground on a gaming facility that would eventually bring in much-needed revenue for Tribal operations and programs.

However, in 2016, a group of Taunton residents, backed by an out-of- state commercial gaming company, filed a Carcieri suit in federal court to challenge the Department of the Interior's action.

Initially, the executive branch defended the decision to create the Mashpee reservation. However, in May 2017, the Department of Justice, under the Trump administration, inexplicably withdrew from the litigation and is no longer defending the status of the Tribe's land.

Then, in September 2018, the Department of the Interior issued its first Carcieri decision in which it refused to reaffirm its own authority to confirm the status of the Tribe's lands into trust. The effect of this decision cannot be overstated. For the first time in this century, a Tribe was stripped of its sovereign rights to its land. It would mark the first time since the dark days of the termination era that the United States acted to disestablish an Indian reservation and render a Tribe landless.

These attacks on the reservation and on the Tribe's very status have been devastating. The legal uncertainty that has been imposed by these events is forcing the Tribe to borrow thousands of dollars every day just to keep its government running, resulting in devastating cuts to essential services, and massive layoffs of Tribal members.

This is completely unacceptable. We cannot idly stand by as Tribal people are once again harmed by yet another action by the Federal Government. Let's be honest, the Federal Government has done a terrible job of living up to its moral and legal obligations to Indian Country.

Housing, education, healthcare, and basic needs often go unmet in Tribal lands. These are not extras or handouts to Tribal people. It is part of a trust responsibility, enshrined in numerous treaties, court rulings, and laws.

But the needs still need to be met, despite the Federal Government's failings. So how do Tribes attempt to make up for that shortfall? By utilizing their land for economic development, including gaming.

Economic development on Tribal lands is vital to the prosperity of a Tribe and the ultimate goal of self-determination and self-reliance. We have seen it numerous times across the Nation: Tribes using those dollars to fund their programs, construct housing and health clinics, and take care of the needs of their people.

The Mashpee Tribe should not be hindered from economic development on their land solely because the State of Rhode Island wants to protect its own State-run gaming interest.

H.R. 312 is widely supported in Indian Country, with letters of support from over 50 individual Tribes and pan-Tribal organizations.

Additionally, the bill has strong support, including from the cities of Taunton and Mashpee, the Chambers of Commerce of both cities, the State of Massachusetts, numerous Members of the Massachusetts State House and State Senate, the Mayflower Society, and many local businesses and business leaders.

Passage of H.R. 312 will protect the Mashpee Tribe's reservation lands and make clear that the Tribe is entitled to be treated the same way as other federally recognized Tribes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), the sponsor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address a point that was brought up during the debate on this bill, that the Mashpee Tribe will not lose its Federal recognition if H.R. 312 does not pass. That is true. We have never stated the Federal recognition was in jeopardy.

What we are talking about, which is fundamental to the survival of the Tribe, is destroying a Tribe's sovereign government. That is really what is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), another sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kansas (Ms. Davids).

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

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

Upholding the establishment of Tribal homelands should be, and is, one of the most important actions that this Congress can take. It is not just about tax-exempt status or economic development, both of which are vitally important to Tribal communities.

It is also about the construction of schools, housing, clinics, elder care facilities, things that are extremely vital to the quality of life and well-being of Tribal members.

It is also about recognizing a Tribe's historical, cultural, and spiritual connection.

It is not about protecting a market share. It is not about the tweets from the President. It is not about the scare tactics and hysteria of off-reservation gaming that is constantly used in trying to fight the self-determination and the ability of Tribes to take care of themselves.

And it is about identity.

I want to just follow up on the gentlewoman from Kansas' comment. To ensure Tribal sovereignty and self-governance, land is critical to the connection of people to their land. And the real-world decisions that we are making have real consequences.

To strip people of their land is to strip them of their identity, to strip them of their self-governance and their self-determination. It is a sad state that, nearly 400 years later, the Mashpee still have to fight for land that is rightfully theirs.

But we can remedy that today.

I want to thank our colleagues Mr. Keating and Mr. Kennedy, as well as the entire Massachusetts delegation, for spearheading this effort to save the Mashpee's land, preserve their way of life, and reestablish and not allow a precedent to stand where trust land that was given is taken away.

This is an important piece of legislation with implications across Indian Country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the swift adoption of H.R. 312, and I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I thank the chairman for all his hard work on this bill and so many others that are related to this.

I also want to thank the Natural Resources subcommittee chair and ranking member, Mr. Gallego and Mr. Cook.

I want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts who has worked so hard and is a cosponsor, Mr. Kennedy.

I also want to give particular thanks to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for his support and also voice my strong support for H.R. 375, the bill that was just debated that is well thought out, well worked through--over a decade--and well worth the support of everyone here.

Mr. Speaker, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has resided in southern New England for more than 12,000 years. To not have their land federally recognized is simply a disgrace.

We have seen them in our history books, in historical paintings, in iconic murals. They are the Tribes that welcomed the Pilgrims for the first Thanksgiving. This President even put them in his own Thanksgiving proclamation just last year. He recognized them.

Tragically, like so many Native Americans, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe has lived through centuries of injustice, the latest of which this House is debating today.

For years, I have worked personally with the Tribe as they have used hard-earned Federal recognition to provide adequate housing, jobs, job training, and essential services, including native language learning, early childhood education.

And this is important. We all know, in my region, the plague of the opioid epidemic, through Cape Cod, in that region. The incidence of overdose for the Wampanoag Tribe is 400 times. I will repeat that, 400 times more, the number of overdoses for that Tribe. I have worked with them and will continue to work with them, if they are in existence, to try and help them deal with this scourge.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is also a Tribe that, as you look at the landscape for Tribes around the country, is suffering so many things that other Tribes are--the uncertainty of their status.

And this is the Tribe, I think, that best shows the inequities that are involved in these types of recognition.

I will just say, I introduced this bill last Congress when we first heard rumors that the Department of the Interior was going to, for the first time, reverse the position of the previous administration and refuse to defend the Mashpee Wampanoag's right to their historic land. They are the only Tribe that has received recognition and then had it taken away from them.

Now the Tribe's reservation is hanging by a thread, and they have been left to defend their land on their own. This is an existential threat.

Without support from Congress, it will be nearly impossible for the Mashpee to engage in any kind of true self-government because they won't own their own land: no economic development, no Tribal headquarters, no elder housing, no pre-K programs. It means being treated as a second-class Tribe with no future.

Bipartisan legislation to help a Tribe like the Mashpee would normally pass the House without issue. Just 2 weeks ago, we passed a parallel Republican-led bill for a Tribe in California without a single Member objecting--not a peep from the other side. President Obama signed a bill like this into law in 2014, and, importantly, President Trump did the same just last year.

Sadly, although the substance of H.R. 312 is noncontroversial, the tactics employed by the bill's few opponents are not. Throughout this process, we have seen gross mischaracterization and outright lying for personal and financial gain.

My Republican colleague, ranking member in the Rules Committee, a member of the Chickasaw Nation, a Republican from Oklahoma and an expert on these issues, said last night at the Rules meeting, never has he seen such misinformation about a simple bill, to the point of being scurrilous.

This is not about gaming. It is not about picking winners and losers. It is simply about a Tribe's rightful place in its native land. That is all.

Mr. Speaker, I believe in the best in this institution. I believe that many of us in Congress are here to lead. We are here to debate issues on their merits; we are here to find common ground when we might otherwise disagree; and we are here to set an example to show the American people what is right. Yet what we have seen happen to the Mashpee bill in the past week reflects the worst. No low seems too low.

Where is the bottom?

We have seen the President, through his tweets, trying to sink an entire Native American Tribe in the name of special interests, dirty lobbying, and outright bigotry.

The cast of characters behind the scenes spewing information is revealing: a rightwing lobbyist, Trump loyalist; a Trump campaign operative who worked for convicted felon and Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort; individuals with financial interests that

are counter to the Tribe, including two former Trump Plaza Casino officials and a major financier with both casino and National Enquirer interests.

Cultural warfare to benefit bank accounts, corrupt intent for personal gain, all in the form of a racist tweet. And some Members of this body are eager to let him get away with it. But not me, not my cosponsors, and not the majority of this House.

I still believe this House has an opportunity today to do what is right. We can show the Native American people that we will stand up for them, that after nearly 250 years since our country's founding we would not be where we are without them. They deserve that dignity; they deserve that respect; and they deserve that sovereignty for their historic homeland.

Mr. Speaker, let's be on the right side of history today. Vote ``yes'' and save the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe.

Mr. Speaker, I have been around here a little while, and I have never heard so many people from Arizona really concerned about anything that is going on in Rhode Island. For that matter, I haven't heard many people in Rhode Island that concerned about what is happening in Massachusetts.

But this is what it is about, I guess. It is not what it is about to me. It is not what it is about to our cosponsors. I know it is not what it is about to Mr. Kennedy. I know it is not what it is about to the chairman of this committee.

I am puzzled. People are saying this is a circumvention dealing with gaming. This bill isn't about gaming. Let me bring it back into focus, but let me just address one thing first.

I am puzzled because this Tribe went through the State process. This wasn't a circumvention. They went through the Commonwealth of Massachusetts' process for deciding gaming institutions. The State decided this. Congress isn't deciding this. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts decided this. They created an area in southeastern Massachusetts along with two other areas in the State where this would be located.

So I have got news for the people in Rhode Island: They can do their best to kill this bill and destroy this Tribe, but it is still going to get a casino because the State of Massachusetts said so.

So now that I am through just pointing out what this bill isn't about, let me just make the last point about what it is about.

It is about justice. It is about doing the right thing. It is about taking a Tribe that, through its whole history, has lost all of its land even though it did occupy that land where it is in Taunton, where it occupies it now.

This is about doing the right thing, and it is a disgrace in this Congress that politics, special interests, lobbying, and conflicts have taken over this debate. Let's do the right thing. This is part of our history. We wouldn't be here where we are without this Tribe. Let's respect that. Let's pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the sponsor of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire, first of all, if the gentleman from Arizona has any speakers. I do have several.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to be here. I also appreciate Mr. Cole for his work on this particular issue and the time he has put in over the last decade in trying to find a Carcieri fix.

That 2009 Supreme Court made the decision, but it actually opened up more questions than it provided solutions and answers in the process.

In the years since that decision, the Democrats, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, did not find a solution. Republicans, when we were in the same situation, didn't find a solution either, probably because there is even a bigger question than what was decided in this particular case. That bigger question is one that is extremely complex and grave, and it indicates the complexity of this particular issue.

Lands taken into trust by Tribes definitely have a benefit and an advantage to the Tribe, but it also has an impact on the counties and local governments where this trust issue is taking place.

Let's be clear that, prior to Carcieri, the fee-to-trust process was broken and fraught with conflicts. In fact, many will still argue that even today, the current Bureau of Indian Affairs process provides very limited incentives for any community or stakeholder to be partners in this process. As a result, we are often left with conflict and political turmoil and accusations and recriminations on the local level.

Some areas of local government, especially the California State Association of Counties, have been repeatedly asking us to try to come up with a reform to the overall process because the process impacts taxes and zoning in communities where these trust lands are acquired.

Local governments, States, and stakeholders who have some kind of role to play in this area, should they have a seat at the table? Should they be consulted? Should they have some kind of input? Yes, obviously.

Should they have a veto in the process? I don't think so.

Where we draw that line to ensure that there is consultation, so you ensure that people have a voice in the process, that is the underlying question. That is the complex question.

During markup of this bill, Mr. Huffman from California and Mr. Gosar from Arizona entered into a colloquy. They actually had a discussion, one of the few times a committee did what a committee is supposed to do, talking about the need to come up with some kind of variance to this underlying issue that is not necessarily the crux of the 2009 decision. But how do we come up with this process?

If this bill is going to go all the way to the Senate and ultimately become law, we need some help in finding a solution to the bigger issue of how much

consultation should take place and who should have their voices heard in the overall process, a process that does not happen right now.

There is a pathway to solve these problems. We can address Carcieri or we can move forward to prevent future litigation that has plagued the land-in-trust process. The Tribes and every stakeholder in this process deserve as much.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

If we, indeed, are going to be serious about a legislative solution to Carcieri, then we need to work out some kind of compromise that could pass both Houses of Congress and be signed by the President.

I have been encouraged by the debate not only on the floor here, but also in our committee, regarding the need to consult with affected parties before land is taken into trust.

Mr. Speaker, I ask Mr. Grijalva whether he will commit to work with us on this type of legislation to solve this underlying problem as this bill moves forward?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's commitment and I appreciate the comments that he will be there.

There is this bigger question that needs to be answered. Where we draw the line is a matter that still needs some kind of discussion, I recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a brilliant letter from me to Chairman Grijalva on this particular issue'

House of Representatives,

Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC, May 6, 2019.

Hon. Raul Grijalva,

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: It is frustrating that the Democrat

Leadership has scheduled H.R. 375, legislation to reverse

Carcieri v. Salazar, under suspension one week after the

committee markup of the bill. It disregards what I believe

was a bipartisan agreement to work on an amendment to the

bill to improve consultation between the Bureau of Indian

Affairs (BIA) and states and counties to mitigate the impacts

of taking land in trust in their jurisdictions. The Carcieri

decision created vast uncertainty over the fee-to-trust

process for tribes and impacted stakeholders. I voted for

H.R. 375 in committee as a display of my support for

resolving Carcieri. My support for the bill's advancement is

contingent upon the inclusion of reasonable safeguards on

BIA's powers.

During markup on H.R. 375, Messrs. Huffman and Gosar

discussed a mutual, bipartisan desire to respond to long-

standing state and local concerns. The California State

Association of Counties (CSAC), in a letter submitted for the

markup record, reiterated the counties' ``longstanding, valid

concerns'' they have with a fee-to-trust process conducted

under a ``fundamentally flawed regulatory framework'' and

they also submitted proposals to resolve these problems. I

can attest that many counties in Utah share these same

concerns.

Mr. Huffman explained that he found himself in partial

agreement with CSAC's position, and that there should be

``meaningful good faith consultation'' with local

governments. While saying the Gosar amendment went too far,

Mr. Huffman expressed a willingness to ``continue

collaborating on this issue'' to ``come up with something

that would at least codify that good faith consultation part

of a better process.''

Bringing the bill to the Floor this Wednesday is not a sign

that such collaboration is being taken seriously by Democrat

Leadership nor is it a pragmatic approach to resolving

Carcieri for the benefit of Indian Country.

The fee-to-trust system is broken because of a provision of

a 1934 law that has not been updated since that law's

enactment. Realistically, H.R. 375 offers an opportunity

through which to fix it. Moving forward without reasonable

consultation safeguards on BIA's authority will undermine

successful resolution of Carcieri.

It was our hope that after debate on the bill during markup

you'd allow Messrs. Huffman and Gosar, and other interested

Members (on and off the Committee), an opportunity to explore

solutions with H.R. 375's sponsor, Mr. Tom Cole. We need to

work on a compromise bill that solves the underlying issues

and can become law.

Sincerely,

Rob Bishop,

Ranking Member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for moving this critical piece of legislation forward and for shepherding it to the House floor today.

I thank my colleague and friend, Congressman Keating, for his advocacy on behalf of the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe, which calls both of our districts home.

Nearly four centuries ago, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe opened their homes and their lands to the Pilgrims who sailed to our shores. That same welcoming spirit survives in their ancestors who live in Massachusetts today.

That is why I am proud to have the Wampanoag people call my district their home. They have planted their roots deeply in Massachusetts, and they see a future of self-determination and prosperity in the city of Taunton.

But I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated them in the 398 years since they shared their precious resources with those strangers, not to mention the generations before them that called the region home for nearly 12,000 years.

I am ashamed of how our Nation has treated many Native people throughout our history and how we have taken their land, silenced their voices, poisoned their water, and disrupted their culture. We have dismissed their very humanity.

It is that shame that leaves us here today with a decision to make. Today, as this House debates this bill, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe is on the verge of dissolution. An unjust Supreme Court decision, followed by a reversal by the Department of the Interior to take the Tribe's land into trust, has left the Tribe with no other options. They are without access to critical Federal funds to support their public services, including health centers and schools.

The question today is, do we allow this to become a closing chapter in the story of an indigenous people who put their faith and trust into strangers? Do we allow a legal loophole to define American citizens out of existence?

Or do we begin to right the wrongs of our past? Do we begin to march down a path of justice and equality and hope for the Native people whose dreams for this country outlive our very democracy?

To me, that choice is simple. It is a matter of right and wrong, of correcting a historical injustice that has perpetrated for far too long. It would simply put the Mashpee Tribe on equal footing with all other federally recognized Native American Tribes.

I want to take a minute, Mr. Speaker, to rebut some of the arguments made by our colleagues.

One, that this is an off-reservation development: There is no reservation. There is nothing to be off-reservation. I cannot imagine that the argument actually is that, for a Tribe that called thousands of acres home, you are going to say they can only represent one small portion of that and not have two facilities. That can't possibly be how the U.S. Government is dictating what Tribal lands can be today of an area they called home for 12,000 years.

Two, my colleagues argued that this overrules a court decision. The last time I checked, that is what Congress does. We write laws. The courts interpret them. They strike down laws all the time. We write them again. That is in the Constitution. That is inherent in our responsibilities, in our obligation. The actual court decision, if you read it, indicates that Congress has the inherent power to do exactly what we are doing, 100 percent.

Three, our colleagues referenced the Gun Lake decision and the Gun Lake legislation. Gun Lake was a response to a decision by the Supreme Court as well, 100 percent.

We have heard allegations of lobbyists. The lobbyist for our colleagues in Rhode Island for their casinos is married to a communications official in the White House. You can't possibly be saying that there is some issue here with Federal lobbying that is not directly and 100 percent in line with lining their own pockets for the opposition to this bill.

They said that the Tribe is about to go bankrupt. The Tribe is about to go bankrupt, but all of a sudden, the Tribe doesn't owe the financiers money. Which one is it?

Next, Federal benefits, they are saying that all the Federal benefits will remain. That ignores the Federal benefits that come with Federal recognition of reservations: the Indian Business Development Program, Financial Assistance and Social Services, employment assistance for adult Indians, vocational training for adult Indians, educational contracts under the Johnson-O'Malley Act, food distribution programs on the Indian reservation, Tribal transportation programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance Tribal justice system grants, treatment as a State under the Clean Water Act, treatment as a State under the Clean Air Act, exercise of Special Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction. All of those are contingent on this bill today.

A dangerous precedent is going to be set. The dangerous precedent that is going to be set is that Massachusetts residents legalized gambling. The Tribe went through a compact with the State that was approved. They went through a referendum with the people of Taunton that was approved nearly 60-40 that townspeople in Taunton want this bill. They want this development.

It is a billion dollars for a working-class community. The folks who don't are, yes, a few residents of that community whose lawsuit has been financed by a rival casino developer to end this project so they can build a different one down the road.

They say that this is too close to the Rhode Island border. There is an existing casino in Rhode Island that recently started 500 yards from the Massachusetts border. You cannot be serious about this.

There is no argument, other than greed, that comes back to why anyone should vote against this bill. This is about the recognition of a sovereign nation that welcomed strangers to their land 400 years ago and helped us celebrate our first Thanksgiving, and the ability of our Federal Government to recognize them for who they are. If nothing else, this Tribe deserves that.