Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill that would amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to impose on the poorest tribes new onerous requirements before…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill that would amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to impose on the poorest tribes new onerous requirements before those tribes could obtain trust land for gaming.
The provision that is most troublesome represents a drastic change in Federal law and policy because it undermines tribal sovereignty by requiring certain tribes to enter into a memorandum of understanding with counties and if the memorandum of understanding is not signed in 1 year would subject those tribes and counties to binding arbitration.
I do not believe by adding this provision to his bill Chairman Pombo acted with ill intent. I think we are all concerned about the possible proliferation of off-reservation gaming, but this bill goes far beyond that issue because it subverts tribal sovereignty by requiring tribes to negotiate with counties which are not sovereign governments at all but are creatures of the State.
Under current law, tribes must negotiate casino-style gaming compacts with State governments. As creatures of the State, the counties' interests should be protected by their State, as is the case in Michigan and other States. Never before has a Federal law equated sovereign tribes with counties.
We can address the issue of off-reservation gaming without equating those sovereign tribes with counties. But suspension of the rules forbids any amendments. I oppose setting a bad precedent in Federal law that undermines our long-standing policy of protecting tribal sovereignty.
In addition, there are a number of Members' concerns that remain unaddressed by this bill. During committee markup of this bill, several Members were told that their issues would be resolved before the bill was scheduled for consideration on the floor. Their concerns remain unaddressed, and consideration of this bill under suspension of the rules does not allow for modification or amendment.
Mr. Speaker, there was wide opposition to this bill. I and other Members of Congress have received letters from the National Congress of American Indians which represents 250 tribes throughout the Nation, the National Indian Gaming Association, the National Indian Business Association, California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Arizona Indian Gaming Association, Washington State Indian Gaming Association, New Mexico Indian Gaming Association, tribes from North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Maine, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and my own State of Michigan.
Tribes and Indian organizations from all across the Nation overwhelmingly oppose this bill because it erodes tribal sovereignty. Therefore, in the interest of protecting tribal sovereignty and honoring our government-to-government relationship with tribes, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, when we all took our oath of office, we pledged and took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution reads, ``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.'' That Constitution lists the three
sovereignties recognized by this Constitution.
I think we should be most careful when we diminish the sovereignty of one of those three by equating them with creatures of the State when those counties can have their interests protected by their own State government
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I would hope that we would not suspend the rules today and I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Pombo, my chairman. From the very beginning I told him he was taking on a very important task, but I think we do have a poison pill, not put in with ill-will but a poison pill in this bill.
I would be most happy to continue to work with him to try to find a solution to the possible proliferation of casinos
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
Who has the right to close?
Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1988 as a Member of the Interior Committee, and I helped write IGRA. I am very familiar with it. All laws here are written on Capitol Hill, not Mount Sinai, so I know that they are not perfect bills. But this has been a good bill.
As I said, from the very beginning, I told Mr. Pombo that I admired his courage to address this situation, but I do think that it has not been addressed properly, particularly with equating sovereign tribes with counties. I would be glad to work with him, bring this bill out on regular order where people could offer amendments on a very, very important bill.
This bill took us a long time to write in 1988. We had great debate in 1988 and great input. We wrote a good bill.
So I date back to those, probably one of the few who were here when we wrote that law, and I think that to amend it in this fashion, particularly on suspension, and, secondly, treating sovereign tribes as if they were like counties which are creatures of States, treat them as two equals. The Constitution does not say, Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations, the several States, the Indian tribes and the various counties. It mentions the three sovereignties here. That is very, very important to me, and we bore that in mind when we wrote this bill back in 1988.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to defeat this today, and Mr. Pombo knows. I have talked to him repeatedly on this. We should sit down and see if we can bring a bill out with some of the provisions, especially the one treating as equals, two entities that are not equals, included in a rule where we can offer amendments on the floor
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. Speaker, again, I wish we had a longer time to debate this very important bill, a bill that took us months to put together back in 1998. I regret that. I do look forward to, however, if we defeat this bill, which I hope we do, to sit down with Mr. Pombo. He knows that I recognize that there are some things that we can agree upon in this bill, then bring the bill out under regular order and let the House speak its mind
Mr. Speaker, I yield back my last second.
Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.