Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, it is with significant reluctance and reticence that I will vote yes, on final passage, of the Economic Recovery Act. In the State of Michigan, which is facing record high unemployment, failure of businesses, and increasingly tighter credit markets, we must do something, right now, to ensure that the citizens, businesses, and organizations of the city of Detroit, the State of Michigan and the United States of America survive. This is not a perfect bill. I would have preferred that Congress explore other options, most of which did not involve a single dime from taxpayers, as was utilized during the savings and loan crisis, in a more deliberate manner. The provisions in the bill that ``recommend'' and ``suggest'' that the Secretary of the Treasury protect senior citizens, working families and others facing foreclosure; that ensure the utilization of qualified ethnic minority and women owned businesses, among others, need monitoring and oversight. The provisions are woefully inadequate and need improvement.

My yes vote, and it is perhaps one of the most difficult votes I have made in my 30 years as a public servant, is a reflection of the fact that if Congress does not do something soon, we possibly face an economic Armageddon the likes of which we have not seen since the Great Depression. Since I voted against the first version of this bill, the stock market has dropped a net of over 500 points and over one trillion dollars in total value. Our labor market has lost over 200,000 jobs in the month of September. Inflation has risen to new highs. My office has been besieged with phone calls from hundreds of small- and medium-sized businesses that cannot purchase goods or services or meet their payroll because they cannot access their lines of credit. Parents in Michigan are concerned that they cannot secure student loans for their children. This inevitably hurts all Americans.

The Constitution of the United States, to which each and every Member of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, takes an oath to protect and defend at the beginning of each 2-year session of Congress. Article I, Section 9, clause seven, of the U.S. Constitution says ``no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law.'' The Constitution also establishes three separate and distinct branches of government: the legislative, judicial and executive branches. As an Appropriator and for our U.S. House of Representatives, I oppose this bill's unprecedented and unparalleled secession of the power granted to us by the people and the Constitution transferred to one appointed person from the executive branch of the Federal Government.

Households in Detroit, the State of Michigan, and America feel the rumblings of the financial earthquake beneath their feet. Unemployment has risen to all-time highs. Michigan is one of the leading States in unemployment, home foreclosures as well as business losses. The sudden, precipitous and dramatic slump in home values, retirement accounts and pensions is a prelude to worse things to come. I have fielded dozens of phone calls from businesses in my district from small convenience stores and automobile dealerships, to large corporations that are unable to access credit lines to make their payrolls. Without swift, immediate, and strong fiscal action and direction, America and Americans are in dire trouble.

Again, it is impossible for parents to get student loans for their children attending college. It is virtually impossible to get a mortgage with a rate that is reasonable. It is hard to find a decent, paying job. Again, it is tough for businesses to get loans to purchase those goods, items, and services that mean the difference between surviving and thriving, or even making their payroll. We have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in America this decade. This bill is not a cure-all, by any means. However, it is a start to stop the bleeding from which so many of our citizens and businesses suffer.

This bill does contain several provisions for which I fought and support. The bill will immediately increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's, FDIC, limit from $100,000 to $250,000, which will increase confidence citizens have in our banking system and prevent bank runs. The home foreclosure provision allows the Secretary, at his discretion, to lower the interest rate and, in some cases, the principal of home mortgages, ensuring that more citizens will stay in their homes and not on the streets this winter. This bill will provide property tax relief to up to 30 million homeowners--extending a new $1,000 property tax deduction for non-itemizing couples through the end of 2009. Finally, the bill provides that minority- and women-owned businesses, along with minority professionals, at the suggestion of the Secretary of the Treasury, will be included as contractors and analysts and will hopefully get a portion of the $700 billion that will be utilized by Secretary Paulson to stabilize our economy.

A key aspect of this bill that will become law is mental health parity for all Americans. Regrettably, too many private health insurers often provide less coverage for mental illnesses than for other medical conditions. Many insurers believe that mental health disorders are tough to diagnose, and that care for mental illness is ineffective, expensive and simply not worth the money. Thanks to this bill, all Americans will have access to mental health care. When mental health care is a part of our general health care, there is often little or no increase in cost to insurers. This is a most important aspect of the bill and is an aspect of which we all can be proud.

While these provisions are not as strong as I would like, my opposition to the overall bill, or to these provisions, is not strong enough to risk the enormous battering that continues to hammer our families and our economic system. The economic consequences of inaction are such that the citizens and businesses of our State and our Nation might not survive. That is a risk that I refuse to take. I will continue to fight for even stronger rules and regulations as we work in the wake of this bill, under a new Democratic President.

With the faith of God, with the support of the people of Michigan, and with the guidance and leadership of my ancestors, I will continue to work and fight to ensure that American families will be able to stay in their homes; that businesses will come back even stronger and employ, engage and ensure that more people have decent, fair paying jobs; and that Detroit and Michigan will rise to the heights that once

made it, and America, the world's manufacturing powerhouse. My support of this bill is a beginning step in that direction.

Madam Speaker, I have the highest respect for my chairman, Barney Frank, and your genius, thank you very much, as well as Speaker Pelosi for her leadership.

A week ago today we were sent a three-page bill, $700 billion, send it back to us and never ask us any questions. I am proud that the chairman and Speaker and leadership on both sides of the aisle have come to some agreement.

Contrary to popular belief, our financial crisis was not due to just people who couldn't afford the loans. It was Wall Street's problem, the people who managed this process over the years, with a lack of regulation from this administration. It was also predatory lending, lending from predators, banks in many instances, the very people we are going to give the money to, who took the loans, who made the loans, and didn't require the proper oversight. It is not the little people.

It is the loss of jobs. In America we have lost over 600,000 jobs over the last 8 years, good jobs, manufacturing jobs. The American Dream has slipped away, speculation from Wall Street, from developers. All of us have been affected by this crisis, and all of us believe there ought to be some end to this.

We must work as elected representatives of the people. Over 400 economists, as has been said earlier and we have the documentation, are opposed to the process and the way we are going about it. Three of them are Nobel Laureates who have come to this conclusion, and economists, professionals extraordinaire.

Unfortunately, there is no judicial review in this to protect the average citizen. We talk about the mortgages, but this helps the banks in their book of mortgages. It does not help the little person who needs it. There is no judicial review to come to her aid or his aid.

It is unfortunate that we are here today talking about $700 billion, and, as an appropriator, $1 trillion is probably what it will be and more. We do not yet know how much it will be.

We need to take our time on this. We have been talking about it now 7 days nonstop. We can do better. There is a better process. I hope that we can slow down this train.

We will probably vote in a few hours, less than an hour now. The Senate is not going to vote until later this week. We can do better, the American people deserve more, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this legislation.

Madam Speaker, as we prepare to vote on one of the most important pieces of legislation in history, I rise in opposition to the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP. While I have nothing but respect, admiration and trust in Speaker Pelosi and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, this legislation, which was forced upon Congress by the Bush administration, provides no judicial review of individual home mortgages for my senior citizens, single parents and working families; is opposed by over 400 of our Nation's top economists and three Nobel laureates; does not adequately protect the American taxpayer; was not considered under regular order and does nothing to stimulate our stagnant economy.

The state of Michigan is one of the states hardest hit by home foreclosures, unemployment, and the loss of jobs. For poor people and low income people and many ethnic minorities, the Court is the option of last resort when you are on the brink of losing your home. As Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, I sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi requesting that such language--that would allow a citizen under the threat of foreclosure--to go to court to have a non- partisan, objective judge review their financial circumstances and, if warranted, lower the principal of the mortgage. Under this legislation, judges do not have that option. Instead, this discretion is left up to the Secretary of the Treasury. While we are busy bailing out the financial markets, this bill does little for the folks on Main Street. This bill does not bailout my senior citizens who are behind on their mortgage. This bill does not help my working single parents who are facing foreclosure. This bill does not work for the majority of the people in the State of Michigan, who are staring down the barrel of losing their largest asset--their home.

Over 400 of our Nation's top economists, including three Nobel laureates in economics,

oppose this bill. The Washington Post reported on September 26, 2008, that over 200 economists ``have signed a petition organized by a University of Chicago professor objecting to the plan on the grounds that it could create perverse incentives, that it is too vague and that its long-run effects are unclear.'' While their reasons are many, Dean Baker of the Center on Economic and Policy Research, one of these economists, says that ``suppose the Paulson plan goes through. It is virtually certain that the economy will weaken further and the number of foreclosures and people without jobs will continue to rise. This is the fallout from a collapsing housing bubble . . . this bailout will make further stimulus much more difficult to sell.''

The Treasury Department admits that it has absolutely no factual basis for asking for $700 billion. We have asked the hard, tough and important questions of the Secretary and this administration, only to come up short.

This bill was not considered under Congress's regular order of conducting informational hearings from all sides, a mark-up of the bill in subcommittee bill in subcommittee and full committee, and finally, a floor vote. When we do not exercise the rules of this institution, we debase the rules, the regulations, and the standards we have to conduct the people's business. This deliberate process allows everyone to support, oppose, and amend legislation--an opportunity we did not have during this process. I have recommended that Congress establish a select committee, made up of the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the Committees with jurisdiction, including the administration, to arrive at legislation that addresses the problem of illiquidity of credit markets, insolvency of businesses, and the hardship of foreclosures. This Committee would meet for three weeks, or a time certain, and would guarantee that as representatives of the American people, we have done our job.

This bill does not adequately protect the American taxpayer. As an Appropriator, I am designated as the protector of the people's purse. While the administration does not have $35 billion to spend on the health care for the children of families of working women and men; while the administration does not have the money to provide for Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help my seniors, low- and middle-income families pay for their lights, gas and oil heat; while the administration does not have the money to extend unemployment benefits; while the administration does not have the money for a summer jobs program for teens, adults and senior citizens; while the administration has $10 billion per month and one trillion dollars to spend on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; when the Administration argues over $22 billion--less than 1 percent of the overall budget--on virtually every issue before the Appropriations--Committee, we do not have the money. However, we have $700 billion--and believe me, it will soon be $1 trillion--to bail out Wall Street. Something is wrong with this analysis, America.

We are being asked, once again, to ``trust'' the administration, when time is supposedly running out, and if nothing is done, the worse will befall all of us. Regrettably, as a Congress, we have been in this position before. Under duress, we were supposed to trust the administration that these tax cuts were going to save America. Under duress, we were told that if a bill that authorized wiretapping of law abiding, American taxpayers was needed as terrorists were at our door steps. Under duress, we were told that America was imminently under threat from Iraq. Now, again, at the last minute, we are being asked, under duress, to trust one trillion dollars to a Treasury Secretary who is out of office in less than three months?

Must we do something? Of course. There is a better way. We must ensure on regular order for this bill. We can use fewer American tax payer dollars--who did not get us into this problem in the first place--to ensure the stability of our financial markets. There are clearly better and safer alternatives. I am not an economics expert, but I do know that as the steward of the people's purse, I have a higher standard to which I am held accountable.

For the Members who have sat all night as we pay special homage to our friend, colleague, and very special woman, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Special Order for Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones.

I'd like to yield to the former chairman, my predecessor of the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressman Mel Watt.

Thank you very much.

Sister Sister, that is who she was to me. And to Mervyn too, and Barbara and the rest of the family, it has been said, this night is for you. She lives in this Chamber, and she always will.

I yield new now to a former U.S. Ambassador to Micronesia, the Congresswoman from California, Congresswoman Diane Watson.

I thank the gentlewoman from California.

I yield now to a young man from Newark, New Jersey, chairperson of our African Globalism Committee, the gentleman from Newark, Congressman Donald Payne.

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

Thank you, Congressman.

You know, you have heard it said tonight that she was a friend and a leader and intelligent and you could count on her when she gave you her word. We all felt that. And I think as Congressman Payne said, she is in this Chamber, and she will be in this Chamber, and it is our responsibility to carry her spirit and her dedication to building a new America for all of God's people.

The caucus has received many letters and congratulations, condolences and expressions of love for Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones. At this I would like to put some of them in the Record, from the South African Embassy, from the Embassy of Turkey, from the Black Women Lawyers' Association of Greater Chicago, and from the Embassy of Colombia. The list goes on and on, and we will be putting them in all week long. To you, Sister Sister, you live, and you always will.

Embassy of Turkey,

Washington, DC, August 21, 2008.

Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick,

Chairwoman, Congressional Black Caucus,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Kilpatrick, I learned with profound sadness

and regret the passing of Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs

Jones, Chairwoman of the House Committee on Standards of

Official Conduct and a valuable member of the Congressional

Black Caucus.

Chairwoman Jones took great personal interest in Turkey and

was dedicated to upholding the strong relations, friendship,

strategic partnership and alliance between our two great

nations. We will always feel her great loss in our hearts.

On this note, I would like to extend our deepest

condolences and sympathies to the members of the

Congressional Black Caucus.

Sincerely yours,

Nabi Sensoy,

Ambassador.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield the balance of my time to a young man who has taken this House by storm. He chairs our Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, one of Congresswoman Tubbs Jones' sons, also a member of the Ways and Means Committee. I yield the balance of my time to Congressman Kendrick Meek.

Madam Speaker, I rise in unequivocal, unapologetic, and unwavering support of one of the finest individuals who set the standard for statesmanship, excellence and principle in the U.S. House of Representatives, none other than the gentleman from the 15th Congressional District of New York, one of the founders of the Congressional Black Caucus, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Congressman Charles B. Rangel. Congressman Rangel, whom I am proud to count as not only one of my Congressional mentors, but also as a personal friend, has to take time from his schedule of, among other things, ensuring that all children have access to health care, ensuring that cigarettes are regulated, and that Congress figures out a way to pay for the education of the women and men who are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, to defend himself against a charge levied in a newspaper that questions his very integrity, dignity and honor.

I was unavoidably detained, and I did not vote on this motion. If I had been present, I would have voted ``aye'' in favor of the motion to table.

It is without a single scintilla of doubt these charges against the Chairman, charges registered by Chairman Rangel himself with the House Ethics Committee, will arrive at one conclusion--the conclusion of innocence. Chairman Rangel's record of almost four decades of service, of dedication, of devotion not only to his constituents, but of the integrity of the institution of Congress, has earned him the right to a fast and fair examination and I would add exoneration of these charges. Chairman Rangel, along with my fellow Michigan colleague John Conyers, Jr., is the remaining founders of the Congressional Black Caucus who serve with us today. For the remainder of the 110th Congress, Chairman Rangel will have my personal support and assistance as he wages what will be a victorious fight against these charges.

What describes Chairman Rangel? Here are a few: outstanding attorney. One of the finest politicians in the history of New York. Civil rights worker. Founder of the most influential political organization in the history of Congress. The first African American Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Husband. Father. Colleague. And finally, friend.

As I continue to pray for Chairman Rangel's continued good health, prosperity and fortune, I look forward to a fair and expeditious consideration of these charges by the House Ethics Committee. Chairman Rangel's importance to this body, as the leader of the Ways and

Means Committee, is far, far too valuable to both Congress and the nation to waste toward dilatory efforts to ruin his good name and bring him down. I know that, based upon the merit of the case, that the Chairman will be exonerated, the Chairman's innocence will prevail, and he will continue to handle the people's business in the manner that has brought honor, dignity and respect to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Mr. Chairman, in 2008, a year in which women have made unprecedented gains in public and private leadership--Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives; chairwomen of powerful committees and subcommittees; chief executive officers and chairwomen of Fortune 500 Companies, among many others--it is simply unforgivable and unacceptable that women, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, continue to make only 77 cents for every dollar earned by a man. Over a lifetime, this is anywhere from $400,000 to more than $2 million dollars that cannot be spent by a woman on food for her children, clothing for her grandparents, for decent housing for her and her family. In an era in heightened economic challenges, we should not, we cannot undervalue, underappreciate and marginalize the hard work that women do each and every day.

Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to attend several rollcall votes. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 558 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 559 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 560 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 561 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 562 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 563 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 564 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 565 I would have voted ``aye''; and on rollcall No. 566 I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, due to personal business in the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to attend several rollcall votes. Had I been present, on rollcall number 555 I would have voted ``no''; on rollcall number 556 I would have voted ``aye'' and on rollcall number 557 I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend several votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 1067--Recognizing the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the North Pole by the USS Nautilus, SSN 571, and its significance in the history of both our Nation and the world; ``yea'' on H. Res 1080--

Honoring the extraordinary service and exceptional sacrifice of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), known as the Screaming Eagles; and ``yea'' on H. Con. Res. 297--Recognizing the 60th anniversary of the integration of the United States Armed Forces.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H. Con. Res. 372, a resolution I introduced honoring June as Black Music Month. This bill honors the outstanding contributions that African American singers, composers, producers, and musicians have made to the United States and the world.

This resolution expresses our appreciation for and the value of the contributions of African Americans to various genres of music. The roll call of African Americans who have contributed to the uniquely American born but internationally acclaimed mode of music is stellar and stunning. This music, often created against incredible odds, has served as a chronicle of our time and enriches our Nation.

Civil rights demonstrators often marched to the cadence of ``People Get Ready'' or the numerous gospel or spiritual songs created in the fields by slaves. One of the most beloved gospel songs of all time is ``Precious Lord, Take My Hand'' by Hall of Fame composer and writer Thomas Dorsey. The music of African Americans is the music of America, and has historically transcended social, economic and racial barriers to unite people of all backgrounds. Young America danced to the rhythm of the sound that emanated from Stax Records of Memphis, Chess Records of Chicago, and from my home town of Detroit, Michigan, through Motown.

Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, The Four Tops, Diana Ross and the Supremes, Jackie Wilson, Marvin Gaye, Smokey Robinson and the Miracles, Anita Baker, and The Temptations are just a few of the tremendously talented artists that hail from the great city of Detroit. Detroit is the also the birthplace of music mogul Berry Gordy's great Motown empire. Motown ushered in a new wave of talent and music across the world. The Motown Sound was brilliantly and meticulously crafted in what is now Hitsville, USA, the original Motown studio located in my district. The impeccable standards of excellence in craftsmanship set Motown and Detroit apart as trailblazers in several musical genres, as recognized through their numerous Grammy Awards, NAACP Awards and other accolades. Motown did far more than produce music. It broke substantial barriers to help to unite the world across race, class and gender lines.

Although Motown has received the most international acclaim for the music produced during the infamous Motown era that spanned decades, Detroiters have also made other tremendous contributions to the musical world. The historical Black Bottom district was a hub for big bands and legendary jazz artists such as Ella Fitzgerald, Count Basie and Duke Ellington. Detroit is also well known for its immense contributions to gospel music. Reverend C.L. Franklin, Della Reese, The Winans and the Clarke Sisters all have roots in the City of Detroit.

Detroit's copious musical history and myriad of noteworthy, award- winning contributions have instilled a great sense of pride in all of its citizens and, hopefully, all Americans. Take some time during the month of June to exhibit said pride and honor all those Black artists that made indelible contributions to the soundtrack of our lives. Give honor to whom honor is due. Join me in spending this month immersing yourself and your loved ones of all ages in the rich array of music that African-Americans have contributed to our great Nation. I encourage all Americans to utilize the celebrations to honor the men and women who have created some of the most influential music our Nation has ever produced. I also want to honor the radio stations and the DJs, like Frankie Darcell, that play this timeless and wonderful music. As we spend time recognizing the contributions of these artists, let us remember that this music is not just African-American music. This music is American music--an integral part of all Americans' heritage.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, as well as the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me my time.

This is about the law. This is about the law. This is about Michigan's law. In 1993, after 20 years of trying, the

Michigan legislature--I, a member at that time, and others--passed a law that, after many referendums in the City of Detroit, a referenda would be held throughout the State of Michigan that said who could have casinos. We were allowed that after 20 years of working on that.

In 1994, back to the people of the State of Michigan, there was a referenda that said if you are to have a casino you must come back to the people. This law circumvents that. There are 18 Native American tribes in Michigan. All but two who are getting this casino deal do not support this legislation, mainly because, in the Michigan compact, Native Americans share in the net profits. This bill would not allow the other 16 tribes to share in the profits, thereby putting their own reservation casinos in jeopardy, while at the same time rewarding 2 and not the other 16 sharing the profits.

There's a way to fix this. Go back to the ballot box, which is what the Michigan law says. Let the people of Michigan speak on this. Casinos are regulated by States, as IGRA gives them that authority, not by the Federal Government.

Much has already been said, and I will tell you who opposes this: The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Department of Interior, the National Indian Gaming Association, UNITE HERE, AFSCME, NAACP. We can fix this, but go through what everybody else went through to get gaming and casinos in their community.

The Native Americans asked for it. Over 60 tribes across this country oppose this legislation. Why must we circumvent them and come here? It's not about competition, as Americans love competition, and we support that. Go through the process. Respect the law.

Native American tribes deserve better, and we want to see that happen.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your kind consideration and care when, in December of 2007, you agreed with me that both of these bills should not be brought to the floor without being considered under regular order. The House Natural Resources Committee and the House Judiciary Committee both had hearings on these bills, and while the Natural Resources Committee reported the bill favorably by a 21 to 5 vote, the House Judiciary Committee reported the bill unfavorably by a zero to 29 vote. Since that vote, both of these bills are opposed by 16 of the 18 tribes that are in the State of Michigan; and opposed by over 60 Native American tribes across the country; by both Michigan's AFSCME and the NAACP; and finally, the U.S. Department of Interior not only opposes the bills but questions the validity of the land claim that they purport to forward.

In essence, both of these bills will allow two Native American tribes located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to build casinos 350 miles from their reservations and near the city of Detroit and in Port Huron, Michigan. I vehemently oppose both of these bills.

My reasons for opposing these bills, which will allow land to be taken into trust for gambling purposes for the settlement of proposed land claims, are actually very simple. These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress; they contravene Michigan State law; they are very controversial among the tribes in Michigan and throughout Indian Country; it is not clear that these land swaps are valid; and finally, Congress has not had a comprehensive review of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, in nearly two decades. Furthermore, it is important to note that these land claims have never been validated by the U.S. Government or any court of law. In fact, the courts have ruled against the Bay Mills Tribe on their claim on two separate occasions.

The people of Michigan have spoken at the ballot box about gaming expansion in our State. In 1994, they voted to allow three casinos in the city of Detroit. In 2004, the people voted to limit any more expansion of gaming unless there was a statewide referendum. In addition, the Michigan Gaming Compact specifically prohibits off- reservation gaming unless all of the tribes in Michigan agree to a revenue-sharing plan. These two bills are simply an attempt to circumvent both the will of the people of Michigan and the compact the Michigan State Legislature has made with the tribes in Michigan.

Instead, these bills would have Congress mandate not one, but two off-site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away from the reservations of these tribes. Moreover, the disputed land is located near the two tribes reservations in the Upper Peninsula but yet the land they want for a ``settlement'' is located 350 miles away near the city of Detroit. If these bills were to become law, what would prevent other tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States for off-site reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act?

It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress, the House Resources Committee, on a bipartisan basis, passed legislation by an overwhelming margin to restrict off-site reservation gaming. Yet today, it now seeks to expand Native American gaming in an unprecedented manner.

Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that allows tribes to conduct gaming on lands acquired before October 17, 1988. In 1993, former Governor John Engler negotiated a gaming compact with the seven federally-recognized tribes in Michigan, including the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes.

In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across the State, a provision was added to the compact that required any revenue generated by off-reservation gaining be shared among the tribes who signed the compact. This provision has worked well for over 15 years. The two bills before Congress today would simply nullify this critically important provision of the Michigan Gaming Compact. Both of these bills would allow the tribes to; (1) settle a land claim that has never been validated and is located near their reservations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and (2) acquire lands 350 miles from their reservation to build casinos. Furthermore, these bills actually include gaming compacts in them that were never approved by the Michigan State Legislature who has approved every other gaming compact. It is important to note that Congress has never passed a gaming compact in the history of Indian gaming. IGRA specifically grants that authority to the States.

In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a statewide referendum and overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that would restrict the expansion of gaming in the State of Michigan. This referendum would require local and statewide approvals for any private expansion of gaming in Michigan.

The people and the elected officials of Michigan already have a solution to this matter--the ballot box. There is nothing in the referendum that would prevent the two tribes and their non-Indian developers from initiating a statewide referendum to get casinos in Port Huron and in Romulus. In fact, both of those cities have already passed local referendums. But the tribes and their developers decided to short-circuit the vote of the Michigan people and come to Congress to get a casino on a proposed land claim that is located near the tribes' reservation lands in the upper peninsula of Michigan.

I am aware that the Governor of Michigan has sent the House Natural Resources Committee a letter supporting these bills. You should know that there is no legal basis for the State to support these agreements because, in fact, the State has already won this case in the Michigan Court of Claims and the Bay Mills Tribe appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the case.

The Governor ignored the fact that the city of Detroit will be the main victim of the State's largess in these casino deals. The city of Detroit will lose hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the competition of these new casinos and that will cause irreparable harm. Harm to whom? Harm to the current investors of the casinos in the city of Detroit, who have invested more than $1.5 billion in the construction of the three casinos in the city of Detroit. Harm to the thousands of jobs that have been created and the tax revenue that those jobs generate for the city of Detroit and the State of Michigan. Ultimately, this will harm the State. When compared to their private counterparts, Native American gaming sites, because they are sovereign nations and must share their revenue with other Native American tribes, do not bring in the tax revenue of private investors.

In the end, these two tribes are seeking to do an end-run around two statewide referendums and the Michigan Gaming Compact of 1993. Rarely have voters in any State in this country spoken so clearly on gaming issues. In light of all of this, it would be a travesty for Congress to mandate two off-site reservation gaming casinos that would have such a negative impact on the people in Michigan.

But, for the moment, let us ignore the impact that these bills will have on the city of Detroit. Let us ignore the precedent that these bills will set, allowing any Native American tribe to claim any piece of land hundreds of miles away, as their native tribal land. Let us ignore the fact that IGRA has not been reauthorized in more than two decades, and clearly needs to be revisited and revised by Congress. What I cannot ignore is the strong possibility that the very integrity of Congress is in jeopardy.

On October 10, 2002, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Bernard Boushor, said ``the Bay Mills case was a scam from the start.'' In testimony and information provided to the House Natural Resources Committee in February of this year, Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu cited

Chairman Boushor's testimony, stating that the original lawsuit on the land claim was a collusive lawsuit.

The proponents of this legislation have repeatedly stated that these bills are simply to address the aggrieved landowners in Charlotte Beach. But according to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe ``the Charlotte Beach claim did not originate with Bay Mills. It was a product of a Detroit area attorney who developed it specifically as a vehicle to obtain an IGRA casino . . . the goal was never to recover the Charlotte Beach lands.''

How was this originally a collusive lawsuit? The Bay Mills Tribe sued Mr. James Hadley on October 18, 1996 who entered into a settlement in which he gave land to the Bay Mills Tribe 300 miles from their reservation to build a casino in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That plan was rejected by the Department of the Interior. The point is that Mr. Hadley was not an aggrieved landowner, he was an active participant in what the Sault Tribe described as ``a collusive lawsuit'' and ``a scam.''

I strongly encourage all of you to read the testimony of the former Sault Ste. Marie chairman before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the testimony of the Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu, and review the documents Chief Cantu provided to the Committee, which was provided to the House Natural Resources Committee at its hearing in February and to the House Judiciary Committee at its subsequent hearing.

There is a way to save the integrity of Congress. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe has requested that the U.S. Department of the Interior investigate the land claims made by these tribes, and determine whether they are valid claims, worthy of Federal resolution. It is my understanding that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the validity of these land claims. I would urge the Committee to wait until this investigation is complete until it rushes into passing legislation that mandates off-reservation gaming.

Congress should not be in the business of handing out off-site reservation gaming casinos. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress is the rejection of both of these bills for the following reasons:

These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress by approving a compact which is a State, not a Federal, responsibility;

They contravene Michigan State law;

They are controversial among the Native American tribes in Michigan; indeed, nine out of Michigan's 12 tribes oppose these bills;

The city of Detroit would lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in the investments made by the three casinos currently operating in Detroit;

The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already rejected a similar application for gaming in Romulus, Michigan;

These bills would involve the removal of valuable land from the tax rolls of the State of Michigan, resulting in the potential loss of even more revenue;

It is uncertain that these land swaps are legitimate, possibly jeopardizing the integrity of the U.S. Congress;

The Committee should allow the Department of the Interior the time to do their due diligence to determine if these are valid land claims; and

Congress needs to revisit, revise and reauthorize the IGRA, which has not had a comprehensive review in nearly two decades.

Let me state for the record, once again, that I am not opposed to more gaming in the State of Michigan. I am also not opposed to off-site reservation gaming. I have been opposed, am currently opposed, and will always be opposed to any measure, any bill, any regulation that says that the will of the people does not matter. The will of the people is tantamount. It is my hope that the wisdom of Congress prevails and that the voice of the people matters in rejecting these bills on the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, due to personal reasons, I was unable to attend several votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on final passage of H. Res. 1242, Honoring the life, musical accomplishments, and contributions of Louis Jordan on the 100th anniversary of his birth; ``yea'' on final passage of my bill, H. Con. Res. 372, supporting the goals and ideals of Black Music Month and to honor the outstanding contributions that African American singers and musicians have made to the United States, and ``yea'' on final passage of H. Res. 1051--Congratulating James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 100 years of service and leadership to the United States.

I rise today to congratulate the Detroit Hockey Red Wings. The Detroit Red Wings, the 2008 National Hockey League champions for the Stanley Cup. We are most proud of you. To the coaches, the players, the Ilitch family, thank you for a wonderful, exciting season.

The Detroit Red Wings, the Stanley Cup champions for 2008. You have brought joy and cheer and adventure to all of us. Good luck to you. Enjoy your time off. And have another wonderful season as we march to the 2009 Stanley Cup.

Congratulations, Red Wings.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to attend to several votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H. Res. 952-- Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Teacher Day to honor and celebrate teachers in the United States National Teacher Day; ``yea'' on H. Res. 1011-- Calling on the United States Government and the international community to promptly develop, fund, and implement a comprehensive regional strategy to protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian operations, contain and reduce violence, and contribute to conditions for sustainable peace and good governance in Chad, as well as in the wider region that includes the northern region of the Central African Republic and the Darfur region of Sudan; and ``yea'' on H. Res. 1109-- Honoring the memory of Dith Pran by remembering his life's work and continuing to acknowledge and remember the victims of genocides that have taken place around the globe.

Madam Speaker, due to official business in the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, I was unable to attend several rollcall votes. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 111 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 112 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 113 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 114 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 115 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 116 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 117 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 118 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 119 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 120 I would have voted ``nay''; on rollcall No. 121 I would have voted ``aye''; on rollcall No. 122 I would have voted ``nay''; and on rollcall No. 123 I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Congressional Black Caucus will present our 2009 budget for the fiscal year: Tough Choices, Right Priorities.

The Federal budget is $3.1 trillion. Of these four main entitlements: Medicare, programs for over 40 million Americans, disabled children, low-income; Medicaid, 40 million children, low-income, disabled; Medicare, 44 million seniors' health program; and veterans, who have worked to build our country's security over these many years.

The budget we have before us invests in American families. It invests in our children, in our families, and it secures us at the same time.

There is no tax increase in this budget. And you will hear over and over from the other side that we're increasing taxes. We are not. We are rolling back those permanent tax cuts, for any American citizen who earns over $200,000 will have the regular tax procedure. What we're rolling back and increasing the revenue so that we invest in America's families are incomes over $200,000, that we might ensure all of America's children, that we might invest and save Medicare, as well as Medicaid.

We will increase the funding for No Child Left Behind, our premier education program that has never been properly funded. Education is the equalizer. America now falls behind the major nations of the world because our education system is crumbling, and our Congressional Black Caucus budget invests in education. We also offer money

in our Justice Department for having safer communities across America.

We will present to you our 2009 Congressional Black Caucus budget. It is fair, it reduces the deficit, and it invests in America's children and in America's families.

It is my opportunity, as we move on and present the various Members who will speak, that we will show you that this budget is a budget that America needs: tough choices, right priorities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the chairperson of our House Congressional Black Caucus Budget Task Force, as well as a proud member of the House Democratic Budget Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Virginia be permitted to control the balance of my time.