Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1357) recognizing the significance of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 by President Ronald Reagan and the greatness of America in her ability to admit and remedy past mistakes, as amended.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Born of war hysteria and racial prejudice, Executive Order 9066 would come to represent a stain on America's reputation for fairness and justice.

128,000 Japanese Americans were ordered to leave behind their entire lives and property and bring only the bare necessities to an unknown place with an unknown future, and they spent 3 long years in internment camps in Arizona, Northern and Central California, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arkansas. At the conclusion of World War II, they attempted to return home, but many found that their houses were looted and destroyed. They could not find jobs to feed and shelter their property. And, sadly, it took our government nearly 50 years to formally apologize for this serious Constitutional mistake and offer compensation to those who suffered through internment.

On February 19, 1976, President Ford rescinded Executive Order 9066. On July 21, 1980, Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate the internment of World War II. A few years later the Commission reported its finding and recommendations, and on August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act was signed into law authorizing reparations to each person wrongfully interned.

Although there is hardly anything that can replace 3 years lost to internment, an official apology and compensation provided some solace to those who suffered, and helped heal a Nation stained by this terrible mistake made during the Second World War. One of the leaders in that effort was the late Robert Matsui of California.

And so it is today that this resolution introduced by his widow, Doris Matsui, we have come to recognize the significance of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Civil Liberties Act and how America came to admit and remedy past mistakes. Let's hope that will help the Nation remember this mistake and to prevent similar occurrences like that from happening in the future.

We remember others who suffered similar internment or forced deportation in exchange for United States citizens held by axis countries. In its review, the commission also found our government financed relocation to the United States and internment of 2,300 Latin Americans of Japanese descent for the purpose of exchanging Latin Americans of Japanese descent for United States citizens held by axis countries.

I commend Xavier Becerra, our distinguished colleague from California, for working to bring this matter also before us today.

In addition, serious allegations have been made that our government also interned German Americans and Italian Americans during World War II. Our distinguished colleague on Judiciary, Robert Wexler of Florida, has worked for years to bring to light this forgotten group of people who also suffered the plight of internment.

This resolution also resolves that Congress will review these claims to determine whether they too should receive and be eligible for similar reparations and apology.

I, of course, urge strongly the support of this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I now recognize the distinguished gentlelady from California, Doris Matsui, who has picked up the baton from her late husband, who formerly represented California from the same district, for as much time as she may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to now recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who at the time was chairman of the Subcommittee on Judiciary that first reported out the measure that we consider today.

I yield him as much time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the remainder of our time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6083) to authorize funding for the National Advocacy Center, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6083, a measure that will fund a National Training Program for State and local prosecutors.

Since 1998, the Attorney General has provided funds to the National District Attorneys Association to offer specialized training for approximately 3,000 State and local prosecutors each year.

This valuable training improves the ability of prosecutors to investigate and try difficult crimes, such as child and elder abuse, identity theft, and gang-related activities. It also provides the latest guidance on complex evidentiary issues, such as the use of DNA in criminal investigations.

While this is a crucial initiative that our communities can ill afford to lose, funding shortages in recent years unfortunately place its future in doubt. Traditional funding sources, such as the Edward Byrne Memorial Grants, have been severely cut over the past several years.

The National District Attorneys Association recently submitted a grant application for the program, but it appears that it will again, at best, receive diminished funding. As a result, there have been significant staff reductions, jeopardizing the program's future.

H.R. 6083 addresses this problem by authorizing $4.75 million for each of fiscal years 2009 through 2012 for the Attorney General to fund a national non-profit organization such as NDAA to train State and local prosecutors.

I commend John Spratt of South Carolina for his leadership on this very important measure. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) be given the ability to manage the bill.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan ``Animal Cruelty Statistics Act of 2008'' along with Representatives Gallegly, Nadler, Van Hollen and Moran. This bill will direct the Attorney General to make changes to existing crime data bases so that data on animal cruelty crimes will be collected and made publicly available. I thank the bipartisan coalition of Representatives who have joined me in introducing this important legislation.

Animal cruelty crimes exist on the books in the vast majority of states and in the federal system. Yet there is no established system to meaningfully collect data on these crimes. The collection of data is important in order to assess the effectiveness of the animal cruelty laws, identify trends and problem areas, and allocate resources efficiently. Social Service studies also have shown a relationship between animal cruelty crimes and family violence. Many domestic violence organizations support this bill because they believe data collection on animal cruelty crimes will also help address the critical problem of domestic violence. This bill will serve these important purposes.

Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Representatives who have joined me in introducing this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008,'' along with Representatives Burton, Rahall, Walter Jones, Moran, Chabot, Grijalva, Bobby Scott, Christopher Smith, Schakowsky, Wasserman Schultz, Nadler and Sutton. This bill criminalizes the possession, sale and transport of horses in interstate or foreign commerce for the purpose of slaughter for human consumption. I thank the bipartisan coalition of Representatives who have joined me in introducing this important legislation.

Horses have played an important role in the development of our country. They still fill the role of workhorses, racehorses, rodeo horses and pets. Unlike cattle and other livestock, horses in this country have never been raised as a human food source.

The United States does not have a single plant where horses are slaughtered for human consumption, but such slaughterhouses operate across our borders in Mexico and Canada. Horses are bought at auctions within the United States and then transported to these foreign slaughterhouses for hours in packed and hot trailers without water, food or rest. The slaughter process that awaits these horses in many of the foreign plants is cruel and barbaric, and exists beyond the reach of United States law.

The only way to prevent horses from suffering this fate is to stop the sale and transport of horses to these foreign slaughterhouses before they leave the United States. This bill will do that.

Again, I thank the bipartisan coalition of Representatives who have joined me in introducing this important legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the ``United States Parole Commission Extension Act of 2008'' with Ranking Member Lamar Smith and Representatives Bobby Scott, Louie Gohmert and Eleanor Holmes Norton. This legislation will extend the Parole Commissions' authority for another three years. This will be the fifth time since the elimination of Federal parole in 1987 that the Parole Commission has been reauthorized.

In the more than 20 years since the elimination of Federal parole, Congress has debated whether or not to phase-out the Parole Commission. Currently, the Commission has jurisdiction over all decisions regarding parole release for D.C. prisoners and decisions on mandatory release supervision and revocation for all persons serving D.C. felony sentences. The Commission also has jurisdiction over Federal and foreign transfer treaty offenders convicted before November 1987, some military code offenders and state defendants in the U.S. Marshals Service Witness Protection Program. According to the Parole Commission, at least 7500 people will fall into one of these categories by 2010. This is why in the 1996 extension of the Parole Commission, Congress finally recognized that there would be a need for the Commission through 2002 and beyond.

It is for these reasons that I am introducing this important legislation with my fellow Judiciary Committee Members and Representative Holmes Norton.

Madam Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for overriding the President's veto of H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. This important legislation amends titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend, for 18 months, expiring provisions under the Medicare program. This bill prevents the implementation of a scheduled 10.6 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for physicians and other health care professionals,

and extends the 0.5 percent payment update for 2008 and provides a 1.1 percent payment increase for physicians in 2009.

In addition to delaying reimbursement cuts, H.R. 6331 speeds up reimbursements for Medicare Part D claims and delays cuts to Medicaid generic prescription drug reimbursement. The bill also includes a delay in the flawed Medicare DMEPOS (durable medical equipment, prosthetics and supplies) competitive bidding program. H.R. 6331 also improves beneficiary access to preventive and mental health services by eliminating discriminatory co-payment rates for Medicare outpatient psychiatric services.

The reimbursement cuts that went into effect on July 1 have shaken the Medicare system to its very core. It boggles the mind to think that, with an aging population and a worsening physician shortage, this administration and congressional Republicans have turned their backs on hard-working physicians who care for millions of Medicare patients across the country.

I want to reassure Michigan's Medicare doctors that I will never turn my back on those who care for our parents and grandparents. I am proud that, with this vote, the Democratic majority is standing up for Michigan's Medicare doctors--a group of physicians who regularly make financial sacrifices when they accept Medicare patients. Our support stands in sharp contrast to the administration's position. Instead of encouraging our best and brightest doctors to participate in the Medicare program, the administration would encourage doctors to turn needy seniors away from their waiting rooms.

Similarly, I will never play politics with health security of those in our society who survived the Great Depression and won two world wars.

Madam Speaker, at this time the passage of H.R. 6331 is a simple necessity. We must protect our seniors and Medicare doctors while we work to achieve a comprehensive solution to our Medicare problems. I encourage my colleagues to support this veto override effort.

Madam Speaker, on July 15, 2008, I was called away on personal business. I regret that I was not present to vote on H.R. 5803, H. Res. 1090, and the Motion to Refer Mr. Kucinich's Privileged Resolution Regarding an Article of Impeachment against the President to the Committee of Jurisdiction. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on all votes.

Mr. Speaker, it is with deep pride that I rise to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the integration of the Armed Forces. As I stand here today, our forces around the world are united in their efforts to preserve our liberty; however, it was not long ago that the men and women of the Armed Forces faced forced division, even while protecting our unity.

African Americans have been essential to the creation and preservation of our Nation. These valiant men and women fought abroad for freedom and security in segregated units, while their own families were subject to oppression and inequality on the home front. Despite this, African-American troops still honored the ideals of the United States and courageously defended the country; many of them would go on to earn top military honors.

Fortunately the United States military would not remain so divided. On July 26, 1948,

President Harry Truman signed Executive Order 9981, mandating the equal treatment of all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. In addition to beginning the process of immigration, Executive Order 9981 also established the President's Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. While it would take years for the integration of the armed services to be completed, it was Executive Order 9981 which began to pave the path to unity.

The Revolutionary War was spurred by a document, the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed, ``All men are created equal''. Many African Americans fought in the Revolution, while experiencing unequal treatment. Another document, Executive Order 9981, authored by President Truman, was able to begin the integration of the armed services, which ended this pervasive inequality and segregation. The signing of Executive Order 9981 was a pivotal moment in our history and I wholeheartedly support its commemoration.

I commend my colleagues, Representatives Mike Rogers and Kendrick Meek, for bringing this legislation to the floor.

Madam Speaker, I took a leave of absence the afternoon of July 10, 2008, as I was attending to personal business. The following list describes how I would have voted had I been in attendance this afternoon.

``Yea''--on Pearce (NM) amendment.

``Aye''--on Motion to Recommit H.R. 1286.

``Yea''--Final Passage H.R. 1286--Revolutionary Route National Historic Trail Designation Act.

``Yea''--Motion to Instruct Conferees on H.R. 1321--Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007.

Appointment of Conferees

Mr. Alcee Hastings, I salute you for bringing this bill to the floor from the Rules Committee. I support the rule, without qualification.

Ladies and gentlemen, why do so many people approve this bill if it has so many problems? Well, because it's a bit like a wolf in sheep's clothing; you don't know what's underneath it. And so reciting all of these folks--starting with the Governor of my State--don't know what's underneath this bill. When H.L. Mencken says it's not about the money, you can bet it's about the money. And when I hear my colleagues say-- and I'm going to count the times that it will happen today--``It's not about casinos. This is not about casinos, folks.''

Oh, no, that's what it's about. Okay?

Let's start off with something that we should try to get clear. The assertion that this is about getting justice for two tribes who have waited for all these many years to get justice and we finally were able to get it to the Congress. How charming. How disingenuous.

This so-called land claim--and we spent a good amount of time on it-- to the extent there really was ever a land claim, arose in the 19th century. It didn't have anything whatsoever to do with the tribe's historical lands or any treaty with the U.S. Government. The Charlotte Beach land in question apparently was a private gift to the tribe--and in those days it was one tribe--by individual members of the

tribe who had brought it. And rather than deed the land directly over to the tribe, the members evidently deeded it over to the Governor of Michigan--neither of the two that have been mentioned--to hold in trust for the tribe. That was back in the 1850s. It's not clear if the previous owner tribal members or anyone else ever told the tribe or the Governor about the gift. In any event, the lands were totally neglected by the tribe. About 30 years later, they were sold off by the State for a long-standing property tax delinquency.

The so-called land claim lay moribund and forgotten for 100 years, as best we can tell. And in 1982 one of these tribes, the Sault, asked the Interior Department to review and pursue a claim for the loss of the Charlotte Beach land. The Interior Department declined, saying the case had no merit. They renewed the request in 1983 and in 1992, getting the same answer each time. The Interior closed the files on the matter, and that was the end of it.

Then one day an enterprising lawyer, a member of the bar doing land research, looking for an Indian land claim he could help engineer and do the authorization to build a new casino outside the established legal process, came across a record of the delinquency sale.

I thank my colleague.

By that time, the tribe had divided.

There were two possible candidates for reasserting the claim. The first tribe he contacted, the Sioux, was not interested. But the other one, Bay Mills, was very interested. And so this wonderful lawyer began preparing a case to file based on the delinquency sale he had uncovered and its connection to the tribe he had interest in.

A bare week before the lawsuit was filed, another enterprising gentleman purchased some land within the Charlotte Beach claim area. Coincidental. And within a few months, he had entered into a so-called settlement with the tribe regarding the so-called land claim in which he agreed to give the tribe a parcel of land he already owned near Detroit.

Now, all the other off-reservation casinos are 10 miles away, 20 miles away, not 350 miles away.

He also agreed to sell the tribe some additional land adjacent to the parcel. Enough land for a new casino--and not too far from Detroit.

But the settlement was conditioned on the Interior Department taking the land into trust, a necessary step to its being eligible for an Indian casino.

That part didn't work out like they'd planned, so that settlement was eventually scrapped in favor of Plan B, back to the courts in an attempt to get a favorable court ruling to take to Interior.

As we know, Plan B also failed. So then came Plan C, which brings us here today.

But the three plans are not that different. They all share the same objective. The difference is just means to an end. Apparently, any means.

And who was backing Mr. Golden? The details are still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

But we do know that the principal stakeholders in this off- reservation Indian casino venture are Michael Malik and Marian Illich, wealthy casino developers from the State of Michigan, who have opened casinos from coast to coast and in Hawaii, bankrolling legislation and referenda as needed to open the way.

And they have also been quite active politically in Washington in recent years as well. I won't go into the details of that now, but I think you get the idea.

Many of the facts I have just recited are in the public record. The essence of the rest were laid out in testimony by one of the two tribes, the Sioux Tribe, the tribe that initially wouldn't take the bait, back before they were persuaded to go after their own short-cut to getting an off-reservation casino.

That statement can be found in the printed hearing of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, held on October 10, 2002, on the bill S. 2986, a precursor bill to the one we are considering today.

That was 5 long years ago, of course. And the chairman, or chief, of that tribe at the time, Bernard Bouschor, who gave that testimony, who had held that elected position for 17 years at the time he testified, no longer holds that position.

And his tribe, who now stands to gain an off-reservation casino that could take in hundreds of millions of dollars a year, is now busy doing what they can to disown his testimony.

But if my colleagues find Chief Bouschor's testimony credible, as I do, it certainly lays out the course of events in a way that some were quite likely not aware of before. And any assertion that this is a legitimate Indian land claim just won't stand up to those facts.

Mr. Speaker, the middle class is hurting. They are facing tough decisions over rising gas, food, and health care prices. Adding to their economic dilemma, the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT, may reach many of them this coming year. Today, we will vote on H.R. 6275, the Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008, which would provide relief to middle class taxpayers by avoiding the AMT.

The original intent behind the AMT was to guarantee that the wealthiest Americans paid their fair share of taxes. However, the AMT was not adjusted for inflation and hard-working Americans were lumped into this tax. Today, the Congress must act to prevent 25.6 million middle income Americans being liable for paying thousands of dollars in additional taxes.

Restructuring the tax code will more fairly distribute the tax burden. H.R. 6275 will tax private equity managers, who actually pay lower taxes on carried interest and repeal unnecessary Government subsidies for the big five oil companies reaping record profits and on multinational corporations who offshore their businesses for the express purpose of tax avoidance. It is unconscionable that our tax code allows these corporations to avoid taxes while hard-working Americans get hit with a stern tax and pay extremely high gas prices at the pump. This legislation closes these major tax loopholes.

H.R. 6275 restores America's tradition of giving a helping hand to those in need. We need to stop the giveaways to Big Oil and Wall Street brokers and begin to focus on the needs of average working Americans. This is a commonsense piece of legislation and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, could I bring the temperature down somewhat from the speakers by pointing out to my good friend from Alaska that this matter is within the Judiciary Committee because the Parliamentarian said so? So for the gentleman to make this assertion that we have no claim of jurisdiction here is one of the errors that he has made in his presentation.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I'm so proud that nobody has mentioned casinos yet, because that means the casinos are not an issue, of course, in this matter. Or you mentioned gaming. Okay. Chairman Rahall concedes that he did mention gaming.

Well, let me tell you something. This is just like H.L. Mencken. When they say this is not about money, Mencken says that means it's about money.

Now, it just so happens that, on three occasions, these tribes have tried to get the Department of Interior, which is where this goes--and as for this business about its being in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, we don't sit around here, ruling on this business. We can override the established procedures if we want to, and here, we want to because the Department of Interior has turned down these claims three different times--in 1982, 1983, and 1992. They said ``no.'' The reason was they weren't meritorious.

And then an enterprising member of the bar--and I hate to tell you that that was his profession--said, Ah, I've got an idea. Wait until you see the charts that show how far Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills are from where they want to locate the casinos.

I said it was 350 miles away. It's 348 miles away. I'm sorry. So let's come clean, okay?

Now, the lady I supported for Governor, Governor Granholm, overrode the State legislature to send you that letter, and it's not going by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission rules or her own State's rules. The people in Michigan have voted down casinos already. And, the former Governor Engler, wow. He tried to stick it in bills coming over here. He never would have done what we are doing here today but for the same reasons of concern that those proponents of the bill have reason to be concerned right now.

So that's the story, folks. If you want to start a run on forum shopping for casinos, this is going to be the first bill that does it.

It is no joy for me to be before you opposing legislation reported by the Natural Resources Committee and my friend Nick Rahall, and supported so strongly by my friends John Dingell and Bart Stupak.

But this is bad legislation. I regret that the House is having to consider it. And I must strongly oppose it.

Those pushing this legislation on the House do not always like to emphasize the fact that it is about legalizing casino gambling where it would not otherwise be legal--pure and simple.

And not just in two corners of Michigan. This is not a local Michigan issue--leaving

aside that the Michigan delegation is sharply divided itself.

This would create a national blueprint for casino forum shopping, where no corner of the country would be safe from the designs of any developer or casino operator, working in league with any far-off Indian tribe.

They say it does not set a precedent--says so right in the bill: ``don't look for a precedent here.'' Who are they trying to kid?

This legislation is highly controversial, and with good reason. Earlier today I discussed the dubious origins of this supposed Indian land claim. Let me now turn to other major flaws in this proposal.

To begin with, it spurns every single procedure Congress established under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to balance the sovereign rights of Indian tribes to conduct their own affairs, on their own lands, with the legitimate concerns many of our citizens have with the potential spread of casino gaming into their communities.

It simply declares the process to be completed, and the two tribes to have succeeded.

The bill's proponents will tell you that the bill complies fully with the process set out in IGRA. But it does not; it simply jumps to the finish line and arbitrarily deems the process to be satisfied.

Section 102(a)(1) orders the Interior Department to take the lands into trust.

Section 102(a)(2) directs that the lands become part of the tribe's reservation.

Section 102(b) declares that the process complies fully with all the requirements of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for purposes of legalizing a casino on the new lands.

What could be simpler? Or more manipulative?

Let's not kid ourselves. That's not complying with process; that's doing a preemptive end run around it.

This bill shows absolutely no regard for the established process.

No regard for the usual review in the Interior Department, who opposes this bill.

Don't be fooled by rumors of some high-level private go-ahead. The Interior Department has testified against this legislation--publicly-- twice in the last 5 months--before the Resources Committee, and before the Judiciary Committee.

No regard for Michigan voters, who passed a referendum in 2004 restricting the expansion of casino gambling in their State. The bill does an end run around that process as well.

The proponents claim that there is an exemption in the referendum for casinos on Tribal lands.

Well, of course there is. That's required by tribal sovereignty under Federal law. That would be the case whether the referendum said so or not.

But no one in their wildest dreams ever imagined that someone would try to twist the common-sense concept of ``Tribal lands'' to sweep in lands 350 miles from the Tribe's ancestral homelands.

This bill does not honor the referendum. It blows a gaping hole through it, and utterly violates the spirit of the voters' decision to limit the spread of casinos in their State.

No regard for the other Indian tribes in Michigan, all of whom signed compacts in 1994 solemnly pledging, as a means of curtailing the impulse to build new casinos far and wide, that revenues from any off- reservation casino any of them built would be shared among them all.

This bill simply blesses a superseding compact for these two tribes that lets them off the hook, without going through any of the established process for negotiating and approving a new compact.

The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act rightly disfavors off-reservation casino gaming.

And as set forth in greater detail in the Interior Department guidelines, the greater the distance involved, the greater the risk of harm to tribal welfare, and the more tenuous the benefits.

The distance involved here--350 miles from the reservation--is a whole new order of magnitude. And the tribes involved have no known historical connection whatsoever to the lands they would acquire.

The proponents say there is a precedent. But what they are referring to is no precedent at all.

The Torres-Martinez case was brought by the Interior Department on behalf of the tribe, for reservation land that an irrigation district had placed under water.

Under the settlement, the tribe was allowed to acquire land in trust within 10 miles of its existing reservation--that land also had to be within its historical territory.

The tribe has not built a casino on that land, and has no plans to.

Furthermore, the land claims here being enlisted in the service of obtaining these off-reservation casinos have already been rejected by the courts.

And they are not even claims involving the United States. They are strictly private claims, against the State of Michigan, bearing no relation whatsoever to the kind of claims that could legally be settled under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

This legislation is supported by exactly two tribes in Michigan--the two who expect to get off-reservation casinos they could not hope to obtain under established legal process.

It is opposed by other Michigan tribes, who are joined by over 60 tribes across the country.

Not because they oppose Indian gaming. They all have their own interest in preserving their rights to build casinos on their own lands.

What they are opposed to is the free-for-all that would predictably ensue if this unprecedented effort to circumvent the law--a law they have all lived under for 20 years--were to pass.

This legislation is also opposed by the NAACP because of its lack of basic procedural fairness, due process, or any respect for voters in communities across the country who may understandably have concerns about casinos being built in their neighborhoods.

Let me also say a word about the view of organized labor. And I say this as someone who has a labor voting record in Congress, over almost 44 years, that is second to no one's.

This bill is supported by some in labor; it is opposed by others.

Labor is not united. And why would they be? If this legislation has any direct effect on jobs, it will be only to move them from one casino in Michigan to another.

For these and other reasons, the House Judiciary Committee, which received a sequential referral of this legislation, voted unanimously to oppose it.

By passing legislation favoring the narrow interests of the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribes and their private-sector allies, Congress would set a dangerous precedent for side-stepping the established review process for land claims, and create a shortcut for spreading casino gambling into every corner of the country.

We should not start down that path. The tribes should pursue whatever claims they may have through the normal procedures--and succeed or fail on the merits.

And so I strongly oppose this bill, and urge everyone else in this body to do likewise.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas (Ms. Berkley).

I yield the gentlelady 15 more seconds.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

Can you ask that gentleman to sit down and to shut up up there? I don't care who he is.

I'm pleased now, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick from Michigan, and I would yield her 1\1/2\ minutes and would ask the ranking member of the Judiciary to do the same.

I've got to reserve. I've only got 1 minute left, Chairman Rahall.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman 15 additional seconds.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Las Vegas 25 seconds.

Mr. Speaker and members of the committee, the only reason we are here today, and I admire all of the devoted people to the cause of our Native Americans, is that these two casinos are located not 5 miles or 10 miles away but 345 miles and 348 miles away. That's why we are here. And by rationalizing that, guess what's going to happen? We are going to have the biggest casino forum shopping this country has ever known because we will have done it here listening to people explain to me about Abramoff's role and how important this is, so compelling.

So, please, vote ``no.''

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

It is a pleasure to join the Education and Labor Committee. I would like to begin by recognizing the chairman of the Constitution Committee on Judiciary which held the hearings on the bill in the Judiciary Committee. I yield, therefore, to the gentleman from New York, Jerry Nadler, for 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize the distinguished majority leader, who was an original sponsor of the bill some 18 years ago, for 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This measure raises some very interesting questions from the point of view of the Judiciary Committee. I begin by noting that the chairman emeritus of the Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, had always had a very abiding interest in this matter. But we have a curious problem. Somebody is going to ask, how could a United States Supreme Court--a bill passed overwhelmingly bipartisan in 1990--and then in 1999 simultaneously give not one or two, but three decisions slamming some very fundamental interests that we had when the bill was passed? There wasn't anything complicated or ambiguous about the bill that was passed in this Congress in 1990. And we are now here fixing the three problems that these decisions brought forward.

``We prohibit the consideration of measures that might lessen the impact of an impairment--medication, insulin, a hearing aid.''

What kind of persons are on the Supreme Court of the United States that have some difficulty understanding that if you have to use a hearing aid, that does not lessen the nature of the disability? That's earlier than first year law school. I mean, what was going on in the majority of the members' minds?

Second, ``substantially limits'' they've transferred to mean ``materially restricts'' and instructs the court that these words must be interpreted broadly and not restrictively.

Now the history of civil rights and voter rights law in this Congress in the 20th and 21st century deals with the understood directive that the law in these cases is to be interpreted generally and liberally, and here they did just the opposite. This disability law is essentially a civil rights matter, and they chose to ignore that. And so we had to correct it. We had to say, Supreme Court, your attention, please. This is civil rights law, and so it's not to be interpreted as narrowly as you can, but as liberally as you can.

And then the third thing we chose to correct was the entire notion that the disability law covers anyone who either experiences discrimination because someone believes them to be disabled, whether they are not or whether they actually are. It doesn't make any difference. In other words, it is to be liberally interpreted.

And so we go into a very challenging period of American history with an election coming up, and we've got a Supreme Court that we have to constantly remind how to interpret civil rights laws. This is not a comforting circumstance for your chairman of Judiciary--I don't think for the ranking member of Judiciary either, if I might add.

There are those writing about the Supreme Court these days, and one such commentator, Professor Rosen of Georgetown--``Today, however, there are no economic populists on the Court, even on the liberal wing. Ever since John Roberts was appointed Chief Justice in 2005, the Court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of the cases the Court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years.''

I thank the chairman of Education and Labor.

The closing example:

``While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year on average, the Roberts Court has heard seven antitrust cases in the first two terms, and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.''

Now, look. They must know that some people over here read and review their decisions. It means that we have to be even more alert on the questions that have brought this measure before the House today for its disposal.

I'm very proud of the bipartisan aspect. I don't want to give too much praise to the chairman emeritus of the committee, but he did a very good job in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my strong support for H.R. 6331, the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. This important legislation amends titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act to extend, for 18 months, expiring provisions under the Medicare Program. This critical bill prevents the implementation of a scheduled 10.6 percent cut in Medicare reimbursements for physicians and other health care professionals, and extends the 0.5 percent payment update for 2008 and provides a 1.1 percent payment increase for physicians in 2009.

Cutting funds to Medicare, in any way, threatens to up heave the very system that millions of Americans rely upon to provide life saving medical care and services. It boggles the mind to think that, with an aging population and a worsening physician shortage, we would even consider cutting reimbursement rates to our hard-working physicians who care for millions of Medicare patients across the country. If these cuts were allowed to go into effect, many physicians would opt out of accepting Medicare, and would therefore be unable to provide necessary medical services to our seniors.

Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a bona fide health care crisis. One-in-three Americans either have either no health insurance whatsoever, or have insurance that is so inadequate that it can potentially lead to financial ruin. For those lucky enough to have survived these misadventures in our fragmented non-system of care, Medicare and Medicaid is their singular saving grace.

Allowing Medicare to unravel before our eyes is unacceptable. It, along with Medicaid, represents a lone island in a sea of broken services representative of our fragmented, non-system of health care. We must not only keep Medicare afloat, but improve and expand its ideals and principals if we are to ever truly provide quality health care to all.

Mr. Speaker, passage of H.R. 6331 is simply a necessity. However, we as a Congress must confront head-on the looming health care crisis and make the difficult decisions our constituents expect us to make. Revising the Sustained Growth Rate Formula, which is used to set Medicare's physician payment rate, represents only a portion of reforms which are needed to ensure that our seniors are cared for in the sunset of their lives. Patch-work fixes and temporary solutions are no substitution for real answers to difficult problems. After all, what we put off today must be dealt with tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4044) to amend the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 to exempt from the means test in bankruptcy cases, for a limited period, qualifying reserve-component members who, after September 11, 2001, are called to active duty or to perform a homeland defense activity for not less than 60 days, as amended.

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

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

Members of the House, the National Guard and Reservists Debt Relief Act is a part of the idea of improving the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Act signed into law by President Bush 3 years ago. It effectuated a comprehensive overhaul of bankruptcy, especially with regards to consumers. These consumer bankruptcy amendments included the establishment of a means testing mechanism to determine a debtor's ability to repay debts. Under this test, a chapter 7 bankruptcy case is presumed to be an abuse if it appears that a debtor has income in excess of certain thresholds.

The measure before us today would exempt certain qualifying National Guard members and Reserve members from the means test presumption of abuse. Come to think of it, I would like to exempt some other people as well.

But this legislation addresses the issue of fundamental fairness. Those who find themselves in financial difficulty as a result of service in the National Guard or being activated into it or the aftermath of their service, particularly overseas, should not face the additional burden of the means test.

Since September 11, 2001, almost one-half million members of the National Guard and Reserves have been called to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of them have even served multiple tours of duty. And so it is easy to understand that these unanticipated deployments disrupt their lives and their family members and leads to financial hardship. So we are happy for the gentlelady from Chicago, Illinois, Jan Schakowsky, who has included an effort that has attracted our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I am very happy to report this from the Judiciary Committee.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield the gentleman 1 minute.

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

First of all, I think that this bill might appropriately be renamed the Schakowsky-Rohrabacher provision because of the hard work that our colleague has done on the matter. I appreciate the fully bipartisan spirit that this committee, the Judiciary Committee, had in much evidence when we took this measure up.

And I close by asking my friends, the Blue Dogs on this side of the aisle and most of the Republicans, my Republican colleagues on the other side, that we might want to take a look at this means test which presumes you did something wrong if you are broke and in trouble. I mean, it occurs to me that under the economic circumstances we find ourselves in as a nation, anybody could flunk the means test and then be presumed to be irresponsible or not upstanding citizens. Credit ratings would be damaged profusely.

And so maybe we can look at this. We don't want to offend the banking lobby, don't get me wrong, but let's just take a peek at what we have wrought here in the name of improving the bankruptcy law which I was not in support of when it came forward.

Madam Speaker, with that I conclude my remarks, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I want to thank my colleague for yielding.

I thought for a minute I was on a Special Order about ``drill drill drill.''

Has the leadership on your side instructed everybody to insert this subject into all of the debate this week because I would love to get into this. You didn't mention shale to coal. There's a whole range of opportunities for discussion here.

But I yield back, and I thank my colleague for his support.