[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 110 (Monday, July 23, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H5088-H5096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDIAN TRIBAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT OF 2011
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules
and pass the bill (H.R. 2362) to facilitate economic development by
Indian tribes and encourage investment by Turkish enterprises, as
amended.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 2362
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Indian
Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of
2011''.
(b) Findings.--Congress finds that--
(1) the public and private sectors in the Republic of
Turkey have demonstrated a unique interest in bolstering
cultural, political, and economic relationships with Indian
tribes and tribal members;
(2) uneconomic regulatory, statutory, and policy barriers
are preventing more robust relationships between the Turkish
and Indian tribal communities; and
(3) it is in the interest of Indian tribes, the United
States, and the United States-Turkey relationship to remove
or ameliorate these barriers through the establishment of an
Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project.
(c) Purpose.--The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to remove or ameliorate certain barriers to facilitate
trade and financial investment in Indian tribal economies;
(2) to encourage increased levels of commerce and economic
investment by private entities incorporated in or emanating
from the Republic of Turkey or other World Trade Organization
member nations; and
(3) to further the policy of Indian self-determination by
strengthening Indian tribal economies and political
institutions in order to raise the material standard of
living of Indians.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Applicant.--The term ``applicant'' means an Indian
tribe or a consortium of Indian tribes that submits an
application under this Act seeking participation in the
demonstration project.
(2) Consortium.--The term ``consortium'' means an
organization of two or more entities, at least one of which
is an Indian tribe, that has the written consent of the
governing bodies of all Indian tribes participating in the
consortium pursuant to this Act.
(3) Demonstration project.--The term ``demonstration
project'' means the trade and investment demonstration
project authorized by this Act.
(4) Indian tribe.--The term ``Indian tribe'' has the
meaning given that term in section 102 of the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994 (25 U.S.C. 479a).
(5) Organization.--The term ``organization'' means a
partnership, joint venture, limited liability company, or
other unincorporated association or entity that is
established in order to participate in the demonstration
project authorized by this Act.
(6) Participating indian tribe.--The term ``participating
Indian tribe'' means an Indian tribe selected by the
Secretary from the applicant pool.
(7) Project; activity.--The terms ``project'' and
``activity'' mean a community, economic, or business
development undertaking that includes components that
contribute materially to carrying out a purpose or closely
related purposes that are proposed or approved for assistance
under more than one Federal program.
(8) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. INDIAN TRIBAL TRADE AND INVESTMENT DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall authorize Indian
tribes or consortia selected under section 4 to participate
in a demonstration project under this Act, which shall be
known as the ``Indian Tribal Trade and Investment
Demonstration Project''.
(b) Lead Agency.--The Department of the Interior shall be
the lead agency for purposes of carrying out the
demonstration project.
(c) Tribal Approval of Leases.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, and in the discretion of a participating
Indian tribe or consortium, any lease of Indian land held in
trust by the United States for a participating Indian tribe
(or an Indian tribe in a consortium) entered into under this
Act to carry out a project or activity shall not require the
approval of the Secretary if the lease--
(1) is entered into in furtherance of a commercial
partnership involving one or more private entities
incorporated in or emanating from the Republic of Turkey or
other World Trade Organization member nations;
(2) is entered into not later than 3 years after the date
of the enactment of this Act;
(3) is not for the exploration, development, or extraction
of any mineral resources;
(4) does not include lease of land or an interest in land
held in trust for an individual Indian;
(5) is executed under the tribal regulations approved by
the Secretary under this Act; and
(6) has a term that does not exceed 25 years, except that
any such lease may include an option to renew for up to 2
additional terms, each of which may not exceed 25 years.
(d) Activities To Be Conducted on Leased Lands.--Indian
land held in trust by the
[[Page H5089]]
United States for the benefit of a participating Indian tribe
(or an Indian tribe in a consortium) may be leased for
activities consistent with the purposes of this Act,
including business and economic development, public,
educational, or residential purposes, including the
development or use of natural resources in connection with
operations under such leases, for grazing purposes, and for
those farming purposes which require the making of a
substantial investment in the improvement of the land for the
production of specialized crops as determined by the
Secretary.
(e) Approval of Tribal Regulations.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary shall approve a tribal
regulation issued for the purposes of subsection (c)(4), if
the tribal regulation--
(A) is consistent with regulations, if any, issued by the
Secretary pursuant to the Act of August 9, 1955 (25 U.S.C.
415(a)); and
(B) provides for an environmental review process that
includes--
(i) the identification and evaluation of any significant
effects of the proposed action on the environment; and
(ii) a process for ensuring that--
(I) the public is informed of, and has a reasonable
opportunity to comment on, any significant environmental
impacts of the proposed action identified by the
participating Indian tribe or consortium; and
(II) the participating Indian tribe or consortium provides
responses to relevant and substantive public comments on
those impacts before the participating Indian tribe or
consortium approves the lease.
(2) Secretarial review.--
(A) In general.--Not later than 120 days after the date on
which the tribal regulations under this subsection are
submitted to the Secretary, the Secretary shall review and
approve or disapprove the regulations.
(B) Written documentation.--If the Secretary disapproves
such tribal regulations, the Secretary shall include written
documentation with the disapproval notification that
describes the basis for the disapproval.
(C) Extension.--The deadline described in subparagraph (A)
may be extended by the Secretary, after consultation with the
participating Indian tribe or consortium.
(f) Federal Environmental Review.--Notwithstanding
subsection (e)(2), if a participating Indian tribe or
consortium carries out a project or activity funded by a
Federal agency, the participating Indian tribe or consortium
may rely on the environmental review process of the
applicable Federal agency rather than any tribal
environmental review process under this subsection.
(g) Documentation.--If a participating Indian tribe or
consortium executes a lease pursuant to tribal regulations
approved under this section, the participating Indian tribe
or consortium shall provide the Secretary with--
(1) a copy of the lease, including any amendments or
renewals to the lease; and
(2) in the case of tribal regulations or a lease that
allows for lease payments to be made directly to the
participating Indian tribe or consortium, documentation of
the lease payments that are sufficient to enable the
Secretary to discharge the trust responsibility of the United
States under subsection (h).
(h) Trust Responsibility.--
(1) In general.--The United States shall not be liable for
losses sustained by any party to a lease executed under this
Act.
(2) Authority of secretary.--Pursuant to the authority of
the Secretary to fulfill the trust obligation of the United
States to an Indian tribe under Federal law, including
regulations, the Secretary may, upon reasonable notice from
the Indian tribe and at the discretion of the Secretary,
enforce the provisions of, or cancel, any lease executed by a
participating Indian tribe or consortium under this Act.
(i) Compliance.--
(1) In general.--An interested party, after exhausting
applicable tribal remedies, may submit a petition to the
Secretary, at such time and in such form as the Secretary
determines to be appropriate, to review the compliance of a
participating Indian tribe or consortium with any tribal
regulations approved by the Secretary under this Act.
(2) Violations.--If, after carrying out a review under
paragraph (1), the Secretary determines that the tribal
regulations were materially violated, the Secretary may take
any action the Secretary determines to be necessary to remedy
the violation, including rescinding the approval of the
tribal regulations and reassuming responsibility for the
approval of leases of Indian lands.
(3) Documentation.--If the Secretary determines under this
paragraph that a violation of tribal regulations has occurred
and a remedy is necessary, the Secretary shall--
(A) make a written determination with respect to the
regulations that have been violated;
(B) provide the applicable participating Indian tribe or
consortium with a written notice of the alleged violation
together with such written determination; and
(C) prior to the exercise of any remedy, the rescission of
the approval of the regulation involved, or the reassumption
of lease approval responsibilities, provide the applicable
participating Indian tribe or consortium with--
(i) a hearing that is on the record; and
(ii) a reasonable opportunity to cure the alleged
violation.
SEC. 4. SELECTION OF PARTICIPATING INDIAN TRIBES.
(a) Participants.--The Secretary may select not more than
12 Indian tribes or consortia from the applicant pool
described in subsection (b) to submit an application to be a
participating Indian tribe or consortium.
(b) Applicant Pool.--The applicant pool described in this
subsection shall consist of each Indian tribe or consortium
that--
(1) requests participation in the demonstration project
through a resolution or other official action of the tribal
governing body or, in the case of a consortium, a resolution
or other official action of each Indian tribe that is a
member of the consortium; and
(2) demonstrates, for the 3 fiscal years immediately
preceding the fiscal year for which participation is
requested, financial stability and financial management
capability as demonstrated by a showing by the Indian tribe
or consortium that there were no material audit exceptions in
the required annual audit of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act contracts or Tribal Self
Governance Act compacts of the Indian tribe or consortium.
SEC. 5. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL.
(a) Requirements.--An Indian tribe or consortium selected
under subsection (a) may submit to the Secretary an
application that--
(1) identifies the activities to be conducted by the Indian
tribe or consortium;
(2) describes the revenues, jobs, and related economic
benefits and other likely consequences to the Indian tribe or
consortium, its members, the investors, and the surrounding
communities to be generated as a result of the activities
identified in paragraph (1); and
(3) is approved by the governing body of the Indian tribe
or consortium, including, in the case of an applicant that is
a consortium of Indian tribes, the governing body of each
affected member Indian tribe.
(b) Review and Approval.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
receipt of an application under subsection (a), the Secretary
shall inform the applicant, in writing, of the approval or
disapproval of the application.
(2) Disapproval.--If an application is disapproved, the
written notice shall identify the reasons for the disapproval
and the applicant shall be provided an opportunity to amend
and resubmit the application to the Secretary.
SEC. 6. REPORT TO CONGRESS.
Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of
this Act, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress
a report that includes--
(1) a description of the economic benefits and other
consequences to participating Indian tribes, their members,
and surrounding communities as a result of the economic
activities and financial investment engendered by the
demonstration project; and
(2) observations drawn from the implementation of this Act
and recommendations reasonably designed to improve the
operation or consequences of the demonstration project.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from the Northern Marianas
(Mr. Sablan) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
General Leave
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
H.R. 2362 is authored by our colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
We continue to be reminded that it takes months and years for the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to approve simple lease agreements. For years,
many tribes have pleaded with Congress to let them manage their lands
with less Federal supervision. The bureaucratic redtape is often cited
as the main culprit for the lack of economic development on
reservations.
Last week, the Senate passed H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act. The HEARTH Act
promotes greater tribal self-determination by allowing tribes to govern
their own regulations governing certain leasing of their lands. H.R.
2362, as amended, would give tribes additional options in attracting
economic development. The Indian Tribal Trade and Investment
Demonstration Project Act would allow any Federally recognized tribe to
engage in business with companies of any World Trade Organization
member country. It's a good start. It is something that we should be
addressing more aggressively.
[[Page H5090]]
With that, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member.
I rise to oppose H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment
Demonstration Project Act. To put it quite simply, there is no good
reason for passage of this legislation. In fact, there are a whole
bunch of reasons why this legislation should fail today.
First, I would like to say that I strongly support efforts to bring
economic prosperity to Indian Country. I've been a longtime advocate of
Indian Country's right and power to exercise their sovereignty and
pursue economic development in the ways they choose. That is why I was
glad to vote for H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act.
The HEARTH Act permits all tribes, not just a select few, to engage
in leasing activities without Federal oversight under certain
circumstances. Under the HEARTH Act, tribes can engage in these
activities with both domestic and foreign entities. Furthermore, the
HEARTH Act enjoys strong bipartisan support and passed this body on May
15 by a vote of 400-0. The bill then passed the Senate by unanimous
consent, and it now only awaits the President's signature.
In contrast, H.R. 2362 singles out the Republic of Turkey for
preferential treatment. Anyone who questions this just needs to turn to
the bill itself which states its purposes as ``to facilitate economic
development by Indian tribes and encourage investment by Turkish
enterprises.'' If this bill didn't give Turkey special preference, what
would be the point? It would be entirely duplicative to what will be
law in just a few days.
The Republic of Turkey, Mr. Speaker, acts increasingly hostile to
U.S. interests and has a long history of human rights violations.
Turkey is not a country that should be receiving preferential treatment
in any sense, and certainly not explicitly approved by this Congress.
Turkey has yet to acknowledge the fact of the Armenian genocide and
reconcile itself with its own history. The Armenian genocide is the
first genocide of the 20th century. It's a dark chapter in history, but
it must be remembered and reaffirmed. That's why we must not stand by
as the Republic of Turkey continues their policy of denying the 20th
century's first genocide.
It is also very appropriate to remember that this past Friday marked
the 38th anniversary of the illegal occupation of northern Cyprus by
Turkey. On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus in violation of
international law, and at great cost to the citizens of Cyprus. Turkish
troops continue to occupy Cyprus illegally, and the invasion forced
nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots to flee their homes.
The EU member Cypriot government has made strong efforts to bring
this ongoing occupation to a peaceful settlement. However, the Turkish
government from afar continues to push against such peace negotiations.
In fact, Turkey has used its bases in northern Cyprus to harass Israeli
merchant vessels peacefully engaged, in cooperation with the Cypriot
Government, on oil and gas exploration. It has even threatened U.S.
companies.
I have just presented a couple of examples as to why Turkey's
policies fly in the face of solid moral standing and threaten U.S.
interests abroad. Legislating preferential treatment for Turkey would
be a mistake and only signal that genocide denial, illegal occupation
of U.S. allies, and other anti-U.S. policies will be tolerated.
I'm proud to say that this Congress has passed legislation that gives
tribes more flexibility in entering into lease agreements that will
promote economic development and future vitality. Today's bill does not
advance this cause. It would simply put Turkey on a pedestal, and I
urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and vote ``no.''
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5
minutes to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
H.R. 2362 is simply a bill to facilitate economic development in
Indian Country and to expand the range of options open to some of the
poorest and most disadvantaged of Americans, the first Americans.
Currently, as my friend Mr. Hastings pointed out, economic
development is often hampered in Indian Country by restrictive leasing
practices on Indian reservations. H.R. 2362 directs the Secretary of
the Interior to create a demonstration project for up to six tribes
engaged in economic development with foreign companies and foreign
countries. Tribes will develop the guidelines for their own economic
activity with these entities, the Secretary will approve them, and we
will over time learn how to do business between Indian tribes and
foreign countries. Frankly, that is something we know comparatively
little about. One of the things that comes out of this is a development
by the Secretary of the Interior of recommendations and best practices,
something which needs to be done in this area.
We have tried in the course of this legislation to recognize the
concerns raised by some people about it. There's no question that I was
approached by the Turkish American Coalition, who have a deep interest
in Turkey and American Indians. It has been for many hundreds of years.
This goes back a long way. They're the only country that has actually
sent a national delegation to an Indian economic development
conference. There are scholarships for Native American students at the
Istanbul Technical Institute. There's a constant movement of tribal
citizens going back and forth. This interest, apart from these other
disputes, is real and genuine and deep. We've accepted some of the
concerns that were voiced in subcommittee. There is no preferential
status for Turkey in this bill. All 155 World Trade Organization
countries will have exactly the same opportunity.
It's important to note, I think, that this bill is strongly supported
in Indian Country. Maybe we should listen to Indians about what's best
for their own economic development. The National Congress of American
Indians supports this bill, the National American Indian Housing
Council supports this bill, the National Center for American Indian
Enterprise Development supports this bill. Numerous tribes support this
bill. Perhaps they are the real experts here that we should be
listening to.
Passage of this bill would normally be a routine matter in this
House. Frankly, due to the strong Turkish interest and support for the
bill, we have a number of ethnic communities in the United States that
have voiced objections. I think that's always legitimate and always
appropriate. But sadly, as I pointed out, some of these objections
don't have much merit. Again, this is not special legislation for
Turkey. All 155 World Trade Organizations can participate. That
includes the folks that are so concerned about this.
{time} 1610
Second, the idea that passing the HEARTH bill--which, by the way, I
strongly supported, cosponsored, came down here and argued for. I think
it's a wonderful piece of legislation. It's largely silent, save for
one phrase. On foreign investment, we do not have a lot of experience
here. It would be helpful to have demonstration projects. It would be
good to have the Secretary of the Interior involved more deeply.
And third--and I hope this isn't the case. I have heard recently that
there is even a sheet going around--perhaps not true; I hope not--that
suggests this legislation will cost domestic manufacturing jobs. You've
got to be kidding. Putting jobs on Indian reservations is going to take
American jobs away? Who were the first Americans? So again, the
arguments, I think, largely do not address the legislation.
I understand something about historical grievances and controversies.
I'm the only Native American in this House right now. My great-great-
grandfather, when he was 13 years old, was forced to move from
Mississippi, where his people had lived for 500 years, to avoid being
placed under State restriction. His lands were confiscated. They were
guaranteed new land in Indian territory in the West. He arrived--
nothing. Started it up being, actually, the clerk of the Chickasaw
supreme court. His son, my great-grandfather, was treasurer at the time
of the Dawes Commission when--guess
[[Page H5091]]
what--those treaties that were going to last forever were revoked again
by the United States Government. Indian territory was opened up, over
the objection of the tribes, to white settlement, and Indian
governments were ground down.
My family has spent much of the time since that time working with
other Chickasaws and other Native Americans to see tribal sovereignty
restored and those rights given back. That's why I cochair the Native
American Caucus. That's why, when the tribal law and order bill came to
this floor, where there were concerns on our side about process, I got
the Republican votes that were necessary to pass it. That is why I was
the Republican lead sponsor of the Cobell settlement. That's why I've
worked with this administration--which, by the way, has a great record
on Native American affairs--on the Carcieri bill.
So I understand grievances, and I understand the legitimacy of
expressing them.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman an additional 2
minutes.
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman.
But legislation must be relevant to the historical experience that
we're talking about, and we ought to look for opportunities to turn old
enemies into new friends. I try to do that on this floor every day.
This legislation has nothing to do with ancient or current disputes
between Turkey and Armenia or Greece. This bill is about helping
American Indians. We ought to put aside the disputes of the Old World
and focus on helping the original inhabitants of the New World, which
is exactly what this legislation will do.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, may I inquire of the time
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana
Islands has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from American Samoa, a member of the committee.
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Every word that's been spoken by the gentleman from
Oklahoma, not only as the chief author and the sponsor of this
legislation, but something that I think my colleagues in the House need
to be reminded of, this has nothing to do with whatever current feuds
are going on between Armenia and Turkey. That is totally irrelevant to
the bill that we are discussing here this afternoon. If we talk about
past criminalities and acts that were done against the American
Indians, Mr. Speaker, I don't know if my colleagues realize that the
Government of the United States of America signed 389 treaties with the
American Indians. And guess what. We broke every one of those treaties.
So let's talk about fairness.
I rise in strong support of H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and
Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011.
First, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington, the chairman of
our committee, and also the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey)
for their support. And I especially want to thank my good friend, the
only American Indian that we have in this body, a proud member of the
Chickasaw Nation of the State of Oklahoma, my good friend and buddy,
Tom Cole. Not only is he the cochair of our American Indian
Congressional Caucus, but he is also a real gentleman that knows what
he's talking about.
Mr. Speaker, despite the recent success of some tribes in creating
successful gaming enterprises, pursuant to the 1988 Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, to a large extent, Indian tribes still face extreme
economic conditions. This is due in part to the perception by private
lenders and investors that risky conditions prevail in Indian Country.
Because of the Federal trust status, Indian lands and resources are
perceived as risky for collateral, and even loans and burdensome
regulations restrict and impede efforts to improve economic conditions
on tribal lands.
Mr. Speaker, we have unemployment as high as 80 percent among some of
these tribes. In terms of any incentives given them to provide greater
economic development, Mr. Speaker, this legislation solves this
problem, and we need to give them these tools so that these tribes
could better make economic improvements in their situation.
Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government has a trust obligation to our
Indian brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago, I was pleased to
work with Senator Inouye, my good friend from Hawaii, on legislation
that will give Indian tribes access to many tools such as development
capital, loans to Indian enterprises, and a host of other authorized
activities, with the purpose of creating an environment that is
conducive to Indian Country economic development. Today I continue to
remain steadfast in my support and am willing to work with my
colleagues in Congress to make improvements in this area.
Again, I commend my good friend Mr. Cole for his leadership. The bill
before us today will create the Indian Tribal Trade and Investments
Demonstration project within the Department of the Interior to include
up to six Indian tribes for this pilot program. These tribes will be
able to lease land currently held in trust by Federal land to conduct
such activities including business and economic development; public,
educational, or residential purposes; et cetera. Moreover, the bill
will streamline the archaic and burdensome--you know, even just to get
a lease agreement with the Federal Government, some of these tribes
have had to wait for 10 years. They couldn't even get this done through
the regulatory process. These are the problems that we're faced with.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, pass this legislation. And again, I
commend and thank my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, for his
leadership and bringing this legislation before us for consideration
and approval.
I rise today in support of H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and
Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011. First, I want to thank
the gentleman from the State of Oklahoma, and my good friend, Mr. Tom
Cole, for his authorship of this important piece of legislation that
will facilitate economic development by Indian tribes and encourage
investment by foreign companies.
Mr. Speaker, despite the recent success of some Indian tribes in
creating successful gaming enterprises pursuant to the 1988 Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, to a large extent, Indian tribes still face
extreme economic conditions. This is due in part to the perception by
private lenders and investors that risky conditions prevail in Indian
country. Because of the Federal Trust Status, Indian lands and
resources are perceived as risky for collateral, and even loans and
burdensome regulations restrict and impede efforts to improve economic
conditions on tribal land.
Mr. Speaker, according to recent statistics from the U.S. Department
of Commerce, the overall poverty rate for American Indians/Alaska
Natives, including children, is higher than that for the total U.S.
population. The fact is, many of our Indian brothers and sisters remain
stuck in poverty. With unemployment rates of up to 80-percent in some
tribal communities, Indian tribes must find creative ways to foster
economic growth and generate jobs and economic prosperity in these
struggling communities.
Mr. Speaker, our Federal Government has a trust obligation to our
Indian brothers and sisters. A couple of years ago, I was pleased to
work with the Senator from Hawaii, and my good friend, Senator Inouye
on legislation that will give Indian tribes access to many tools, such
as development capital, loans to Indian enterprises, and a host of
other authorized activities, with the purpose of creating an
environment that is conducive to Indian country economic development.
Today, I continue to remain steadfast in my support and am willing to
work with my colleagues in Congress, to ensure that our federal trust
obligation to the Indian tribes is uphold.
Again, I commend Mr. Tom Cole for his leadership. The bill before us
today will create the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration
Project within the U.S. Department of the Interior to include up to six
Indian tribes or consortia. These tribes will be able to lease land
currently held in trust by the federal land to conduct such activities
including business and economic development; public, educational, or
residential purposes; development or use of natural resources in
connection with operations under such leases; and grazing and farming
activities.
Moreover, the bill will streamline the archaic and burdensome federal
regulations in place for leasing, to make it easier for Indian Tribes
to partner with foreign companies that engage
[[Page H5092]]
in economic development on tribal lands. While H.R. 2362 was initially
developed because of Turkey's interest in working with Indian tribes, I
am pleased to know that all 155 World Trade Organization countries will
have the same investment opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, this bill embodies our federal government trust
obligation to the economic condition of the Indian tribes and I urge my
colleagues to support H.R. 2362.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentlelady from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
Ms. FOXX. I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding time.
I want to associate myself with the words of my very capable and
articulate colleague from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the author of this
legislation. As he said, this should be a routine bill to be passed on
suspension on the basis of his comments alone. However, some have
chosen to try to divert, to take us away from the subject at hand of
this bill.
I support H.R. 2362, an important bill designed to bolster global
economic cooperation by making it easier for Native American tribal
communities to strengthen ties with foreign trading partners.
Even though Native American communities suffer from the highest
unemployment rate in the United States, economic development on tribal
lands is stifled by a restrictive and archaic leasing system, requiring
applicants to succumb to a multilayered review process, taking up to 6
years to complete.
These unnecessary hurdles have compromised important tribal economic
development in the past. For example, the Round Valley Indian Housing
Authority continues to wait, after 9 years, for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to process a lease for a large housing project. And in 2006,
the Swinomish and Walmart agreed to build a store on the reservation
while the BIA regional office stalled for 2 years before Walmart
withdrew from the deal following the 2008 financial crisis.
This bill helps correct these problems by authorizing select tribes
to develop guidelines for leasing land and services to both foreign and
domestic companies for economic development purposes. The bill further
provides for only one approval of the land leasing guidelines by the
Interior Secretary, thereby reducing current multilayer, prohibitive
land leasing laws.
Without imposing any new costs, these changes will promote tribal job
growth and economic empowerment, encourage foreign and domestic
investments in Indian Country, all the while, inviting foreign and
domestic companies to explore commercial opportunities with tribes.
It's for these reasons that I urge my colleagues to support this
legislation.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to inquire as to
the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana
Islands has 13 minutes remaining.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 4 minutes to the
gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I thank Congressman Sablan for yielding and for his
hard work in so many areas and his leadership.
I rise to express my opposition to the Indian Tribal Trade and
Investment Demonstration Project Act, H.R. 2362.
This bill is unnecessary and seeks to give special consideration to
one country--Turkey.
{time} 1620
As a country that has shown both negative and aggressive actions
toward a number of our allies, Turkey should not be given investment
preferences in Indian tribal lands through this bill. And they should
not be given preference over 154 allies, members of the World Trade
Organization. Nor should they be given preference over American
businesses that wish to invest in Indian tribal lands. This bill would
reward a country with a record of human rights and religious freedom
violations. It has been on the U.S. Commission on International
Religious Freedom's watch list for 3 consecutive years.
Just this last Friday, many of us marked the 38th anniversary of
Turkey's illegal occupation of the northern third of the island
Republic of Cyprus. Throughout this occupation, Turkey actively seeks
to alter the heritage and demographics of Cyprus. It has systematically
destroyed the island's Christian heritage and colonized the area with
more than 200,000 settlers and 40,000 troops.
Furthermore, Turkey maintains an economic blockade against Armenia,
sealing its borders to all trade, and continues to deny the Armenian
genocide, during which over 1.5 million Armenians perished. I have with
me the Armenian Assembly and the Armenian National Committee of
America's letters in opposition to this legislation.
Also, Turkey has challenged Israel by arguing against Israel's right
to develop energy sources. Turkey has also threatened American
businesses by saying it would use force to stop a Texas-based company,
Noble Energy, from drilling for oil and gas off the shores of Cyprus.
Turkey has said it will blacklist any business that assists Cyprus and
Israel in their efforts to jointly develop their country's natural
resources.
The preferential treatment given to Turkey in H.R. 2362 is
unnecessary given the previous passage of the HEARTH Act, which passed
this body 400-0, passed the Senate, and is now awaiting the President's
signature. That bill allows domestic and foreign companies to engage in
leases for housing construction, clean energy, and business
development. Unlike the HEARTH Act, the bill before us today does
nothing to support these domestic businesses.
Last November, the director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Michael
Black, testified before the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs
Subcommittee, stating that the HEARTH Act ``fosters the same goals
identified in this bill but on a broader, larger scale.'' Through the
HEARTH Act, domestic and foreign entities have already been granted an
expedited route to invest in Native American lands and help their
economic development.
Given the redundancies in the bill and the favored treatment it gives
to one country that has shown threatening and discriminatory action
toward a number of American allies, I urge my colleagues to join
Ranking Member Berman and Ranking Member Markey and vote ``no'' on H.R.
2362.
From: Andreas Akaras
Sent: Monday, July 23, 2012, 1:13 a.m.
To: Elizabeth Darnall
Subject: H.R. 2362 Tribal Trade Bill (AHEPA email blast)
On behalf of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive
Association (AHEPA), the largest and oldest membership-based
organization of American citizens of Greek heritage and
Philhellenes, we are outreaching to share AHEPA's position in
opposition to H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and
Investment Demonstration Project Act. We understand H.R. 2362
is expected to come to the Floor under Suspension of the
Rules this week--perhaps on Monday.
Position
AHEPA is opposed to H.R. 2362 for the following reasons:
1. Turkey's Recent Threats to U.S. Commercial Interests.
Why reward it?
Turkey's has issued threats to the actions of U.S. firm
Noble Energy, which is lawfully conducting oil and gas
exploration off the coast of Cyprus, in Cyprus's Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) in the eastern Mediteranean. Noble Energy
is based in Houston, Texas.
During this same exploration, Turkey's threats have
directed at U.S. allies Cyprus and Israel as both countries
are working in cooperation via a signed agreement to develop
hydrocarbon reserves in their EEZs.
In response to these threats, House Foreign Affairs
Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen stated, ``Turkey's decision to
escalate tensions by increasing its military presence in the
Mediterranean poses a clear threat to U.S. citizens and
interests in the region.''
Moreover, Turkey has threatened to blacklist international
companies willing to work on this particular exploration
project off the coast of Cyprus. This would include any U.S.
companies.
Why would the United States Congress facilitate the unique
opportunity for private entities from Turkey to engage in
trade and financial investment with Indian tribal economies
when U.S. private entities and citizens are threatened by
Turkey?
2. Congress has already acted with the overwhelmingly
bipartisan-passed HEARTH Act.
H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act, passed the House 400-0 and the
Senate by UC. It will be signed into law by President Obama.
The HEARTH Act promotes trade and investment on Native
American lands without requiring the approval of the Bureau
of Indian Affairs.
As the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mike
Black, testified before the House Committee on Natural
Resources in November 3, 2011, H.R. 205 ``foster[s] the same
goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a broader scale.''
The HEARTH Act benefits all tribes; not a select few that
could benefit from H.R. 2362.
[[Page H5093]]
Simply stated, passage of H.R. 205 renders H.R. 2362
unnecessary.
3. Section 1(b) Findings (1)(2)(3) of H.R. 2362 displays
preferential treatment for the Republic of Turkey over other
WTO nations. Why?
Proponents state that no particular country is granted a
commercial advantage under the bill, yet the bill's Findings
section clearly single-out and champion Turkey.
If proponents were serious about amending H.R. 2362 to
provide all WTO countries with a level playing field, it
would not state ``Turkey and all other WTO countries.''
4. Turkish Entities Under Investigation in the United
States.
Mainstream U.S. media outlets have reported on the growth
of Turkish charter schools in America, as many as 120 of
them, and how the schools have come under federal
investigation for how they are administered.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on March 20, 2011, ``But
federal agencies--including the FBI and the Departments of
Labor and Education--are investigating whether some charter
school employees are kicking back part of their salaries to a
Muslim movement founded by Gulen known as Hizmet, or Service,
according to knowledgeable sources.''
In addition the New York Times in a June 6, 2011 article
raised the same concerns about how the schools spend taxpayer
money, ``And it raises questions about whether, ultimately,
the schools are using taxpayer dollars to benefit the Gulen
movement--by giving business to Gulen followers, or through
financial arrangements with local foundations that promote
Gulen teachings and Turkish culture.'' The article also
reports on federal investigations about abuse of a visa
program to bring in expatriate employees.
5. Turkey's Treatment of Minority Populations.
The U.S. House of Representatives must take into
consideration Turkey's treatment of minority populations.
The United States Commission on International Religious
Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal
government commission established by the U.S. Congress, has
recommended Turkey be designated a ``country of particular
concern'' (CPC) in its 2012 annual report. Prior to this
designation, Turkey was placed on its ``Watch List'' for
three consecutive years (2009-2011).
According to the Executive Summary of the 2011 U.S. State
Department Human Rights Report on Turkey, there is
``inadequate protection of vulnerable populations'' within
Turkey.
In addition to these reasons, AHEPA is dismayed the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs was not provided an opportunity
to vet H.R. 2362.
We note a concern with Turkey's foreign policy direction
and history that conflicts with the best interests of the
United States, including: the aforementioned belligerent
posture toward Israel, its vote against a UN resolution to
impose sanctions against Iran with regard to that country's
nuclear weapons program, its 38-year illegal invasion and
subsequent illegal occupation of the Republic of Cyprus, a
member of the European Union and current holder of the EU
presidency; its continued violations of Greece's sovereignty
in the Aegean Sea, a staunch NATO ally; and its blockade of
Armenia.
Hellenic Caucus Opposition
We also thought you would be interested to learn of AHEPA's
position because the congressman is a member of the
Congressional Hellenic Caucus.
The Congressional Hellenic Caucus is opposed to H.R. 2362
and has circulated a DC letter on the issue. Please contacts
Chairs U.S. Reps. Gus Bilirakis or Carolyn Maloney to sign
the DC letter.
Thank you also for consideration of AHEPA's position. We
hope the congressman will take all of the points presented
into consideration and will oppose H.R. 2362.
Andreas N. Akaras,
Advisor,
Office of Congressman John Sarbanes.
____
From: Andreas Akaras
Monday, July 23, 2012 11:16 AM
To: Elizabeth Darnall
Subject: email blast from Armenian Assembly sent this morning
On behalf of the Armenian Assembly of America, I am writing
to urge a ``NO'' vote on H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade
and Investment Demonstration Project Act of 2011 when it is
considered today.
H.R. 2362 is not necessary as a more comprehensive measure,
H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act has already been adopted by the
House and Senate.
The HEARTH Act unlike H.R. 2362 allows all Indian tribes,
not just a select few to engage in economic development
projects with foreign entities.
H.R. 2362 undermines the HEARTH Act because it seeks to
endorse and offer special consideration to one country--
Turkey--over every other WTO member country. With respect to
the WTO, numerous complaints ranging from restrictions on
imports of textile and clothing products to anti-dumping
duties on steel have been lodged against Turkey.
The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) has highlighted
several areas of concern regarding Turkey's trade policies
and practices in its 2012 National Trade Estimate Report on
Foreign Trade Barriers, including its import policies and
exports subsidies, yet H.R. 2362 specifically highlights
Turkey.
Given Turkey's lack of respect for human rights its ongoing
blockade of landlocked Armenia and its illegal occupation of
the Republic of Cyprus, passage of H.R. 2362 would send the
wrong message to the international community that the United
States is not committed to human rights, democracy and the
rule of law.
Examples of Turkey's record:
The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom in
its 2012 Annual Report has recommended that Turkey be
designated as a ``country of particular concern'' due to
``the Turkish government's systematic and egregious
limitations on the freedom of religion . . .''
According to the 2011 Freedom House report, ``Turkey
struggles with corruption in government and in daily life.''
In addition, according to an April 2012 Freedom House
article, ``the number of journalists imprisoned in Turkey has
nearly doubled'' from 57 in 2011 to 95 journalists in 2012.
Turkey also continues to deny the Armenian Genocide (New
York Times Op-Ed--July 19, 2012), while at the same time
accuses Israel of committing genocide and has defended the
genocidal regime of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir even
after Bashir's indictment (BBC News--November 6, 2009) for
war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Armenian
Assembly strongly opposes H.R. 2362 and urges a ``NO'' vote.
Sincerely,
Bryan Ardouny,
Executive Director.
____
From: [email protected] on behalf of Kate Nahapetian
[K[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 4:09 PM
To: Kate Nahapetian
Subject: VOTE NO ON H.R. 2362
On behalf of the Armenian National Committee of America, I
am writing to express our opposition to H.R. 2362, the Indian
Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project Act of
2011.
1. H.R. 2362 is redundant and unnecessary
The House and Senate have already passed the HEARTH Act
(H.R. 205), which has already accomplished the aims of H.R.
2362 to promote trade and investment on Native American lands
without requiring the approval of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. As the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs
testified before the House in November 2011, H.R. 205
``foster[s] the same goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a
broader scale.'' Turkey and other countries have already been
granted an expedited route to invest in Native American
lands. This bill will not create any new jobs or investment
opportunities that have not already been provided by H.R.
205.
2. H.R. 2362 creates an implied preference for Turkey
By singling out the Republic of Turkey in its findings
section, the bill will create confusion around the granting
of an actual preference for Turkey during the drafting of
regulations or their implementation, should this bill become
law. Other nations, including those, such as Canada, which
already have leases in place are not mentioned at all, which
leaves the impression that Turkey is somehow more deserving
of favorable treatment.
3. This measure is morally wrong
The U.S. Congress should not extend special economic
benefits to a country that remains an unrepentant perpetrator
of genocide against millions of its own indigenous
minorities, including Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, and
others. At a time when Turkey continues to oppress its
indigenous minorities, confiscates Christian churches and
properties, denies the Armenian Genocide and threatens the
United States if we merely commemorate this crime, occupies
our ally Cyprus, and both threatens and excludes our ally
Israel from international initiatives, promoting Turkey in
the findings section is misplaced and does not reflect the
values of American citizens.
Today, it is criminal to even discuss Turkey's genocidal
policies and these indigenous minorities continue to face
persecution in Turkey. The U.S. Commission for International
Religious Freedom has documented that the Turkish
government's continued limitations on religious freedom are
``threatening the continued vitality and survival of minority
religious communities in Turkey.'' In its 2012 report, the
Commission recommended that, Turkey be designated as a
``country of particular concern,'' along with Iran, Sudan,
and Saudi Arabia, due to ``the Turkish government's
systematic and egregious limitations on the freedom of
religion. . .'' Moreover, just r few weeks ago Turkey ordered
the expropriation Mor Gabriel, one of the oldest Christian
monasteries in the--world.
As Nina Shea, a Commissioner, recently wrote:
Turkey's Christian minorities struggle to find places in
which they can worship, are denied seminaries in which to
train future leaders, are barred from wearing clerical garb
in public, see the trials of the murderers of their prominent
members end with impunity, and, above all, lack the legal
right to be recognized as churches so that their members can
be assured of their rights to gather freely in sacred spaces
for religious marriages, funerals, and baptisms, and
otherwise carry out the full practice of their respective
religions.
We do not believe providing trade preferences, even if just
implied, to a country that exhibits such a disdain for
religious freedom and its minorities, is a message that
reflects the values of our country.
[[Page H5094]]
4. Turkey prohibits trade with Armenia, a U.S. ally which
has tripled its troop deployment to Afghanistan
We should not be providing trade preferences to Turkey, a
country that has been blockading landlocked Armenia for
nearly twenty years. Close to a quarter of Armenia's
population--has been forced from their homeland over the past
decade, largely as a result of the economic dislocation
caused by Turkey's blockade, the last closed border of
Europe.
Sincerely,
Kate Nahapetian,
Government Affairs Director.
____
Sent to Issue(s): Foreign Affairs, Natural Resources
Subject: The Truth About H.R. 2362
From: The Honorable Tom Cole
Sent By: [email protected]
Bill: H.R. 2362
Date: 7/23/2012
Dear Colleague, I want to highlight my responses below to
recent criticism of my legislation, H.R. 2362, which will be
considered under suspension of the rules this afternoon.
1. H.R. 2362 is redundant and unnecessary
Leasing on tribal lands is an overly complicated system
that requires extensive review and Secretarial approval. This
legislation may be operationally the same as the HEARTH Act,
which passed the House and Senate and is waiting for the
President's signature, but tribes want both programs to give
them the flexibility to address lease reforms using which
program best suits their needs, which is why the National
Congress of American Indians and the National American Indian
Housing Council strongly support this legislation in addition
the HEARTH Act.
2. H.R. 2362 creates an implied preference for Turkey
I authored H.R. 2352 in response to Turkish entities
expressing interest in doing business with American Indians.
The findings reflect that interest. Despite this, the
legislation gives no preference to Turkey over any of the 155
other WTO countries. This legislation does not alter any
leases already in place. I applaud our trading partners
engaged in economic development with Tribes and look forward
to this legislation encouraging expansion of those
partnerships.
3. This measure is morally wrong
American Indians across the United States face unimaginable
poverty. Unemployment on Indian reservations is unfathomably
high. Economic development on tribal lands is hampered
because of overly complicated and archaic regulations. It is
morally wrong not to do everything in our power to give
tribes, and American citizens, every opportunity to succeed.
While not as sweeping as the HEARTH Act, H.R. 2362 provides
tribes with additional tools they need to help them succeed.
4. Turkey prohibits trade with Armenia, a U.S. ally which
has tripled its troop deployment to Afghanistan
Turkey is a NATO ally and a critical and willing partner in
the War on Terror. Turkish troops have fought alongside
American soldiers as far back as the Korean Conflict. The
United States maintains Incirlik Air Force base in Turkey.
While Turkey and Armenia have a long history of conflict,
that history is irrelevant to this legislation. This
legislation will economically empower Indian tribes and help
the most disadvantaged Americans while providing no special
treatment for Turkey over any other WTO member country.
Sincerely,
Tom Cole,
Member of Congress.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this Indian Tribal Trade
and Investment Demonstration Project Act.
Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate on American Indian reservations
averages between 40-50 percent, and it is intergenerational. Income,
employment, and educational attainment are all well below the American
average. As a member of the Interior Appropriations Committee, I am
very much aware of that, as Mr. Cole is. But the fact is every Member
of this body should be as intensely aware as Mr. Cole and those
supporting this legislation are, of the immense needs in Indian country
and the serious shortfall the Federal Government confronts in meeting
its obligations to Native Americans and Native Alaskans.
Some have suggested that private enterprise on reservations may help
substantially in alleviating that poverty. And with rising income, many
of the social and health-related ills that Native Americans confront in
disproportionate numbers will decline. That ought to be a national
responsibility, and, really, an obligation. The fact is that this act
would test the theory by enabling foreign investors to partner with
Native Americans on reservations to create new businesses and generate
income where little to none exists today.
The legislation complements other legislation that Congress has
already passed, allowing tribes to simplify leasing arrangements to
address their housing needs. Go to a reservation and see the housing
needs. This bill will bring new capital into reservations and simplify
the arrangements under which long-term leases with private investors
can be executed. While the proposal may initially have focused on
foreign investment from one country, Turkey, it has been amended to
include all 155 World Trade Organization countries.
I applaud the government of Turkey for coming up with this original
proposal and for what is a genuine offer of assistance and friendship.
I understand the objections that have been raised that really have
very little to do with this legislation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman from Virginia an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman very much. I appreciate the
additional time to make a further point.
Turkey and Israel have long enjoyed amicable relations. Turkey was
the first Muslim country to recognize the State of Israel. The two
states remain active trade partners. Their bilateral trade volume is
almost $3 billion. It is Israel's sixth-largest trading partner. Israel
exports chemicals, agriculture products, and high-tech manufacturing
machinery to Turkey. And Turkey exports textiles and transport
equipment to Israel. Israel needs Turkey as a trading partner.
The fact is that, according to the Israel-Turkey Business Council,
bilateral trade between the two nations increased 35 percent between
2010 and 2011 despite the diplomatic tensions that emerged in 2009. The
reality is that they are working together. They want to work together
and transcend politics. Bilateral trade is in the interest of both
nations.
This is in the interest of the Native American nations. Gosh sakes,
they deserve this kind of help after we turned our back on one treaty
after another, as has already been said. This is a unique opportunity.
We ought to seize it.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 4 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
Mr. SARBANES. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in
opposition to H.R. 2362 because I don't believe that the preferential
consideration which it gives to the interest of one country, Turkey,
can be justified.
There is no dispute over what many of our colleagues have said today,
which is that there are tremendous needs on the part of Native American
tribes, and a desire I think shared widely here for economic
development opportunities on tribal lands. We all know the statistics.
But that goal of achieving enhanced economic development on tribal
lands has been achieved through the HEARTH Act. As Congresswoman
Maloney just indicated a minute ago, Michael Black, director of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, testified that the HEARTH Act ``fosters the
same goals identified in H.R. 2362 on a broader scale.'' We don't need
this legislation to accomplish all of the important things that have
been articulated here.
I have tremendous respect for Congressman Cole, and he just gave a
very powerful articulation of the legacy that he carries in his DNA and
why he is so passionate about these issues, and we share his
perspective on the important need to develop tribal lands, but this
particular piece of legislation is redundant at best, and it gives this
unjustified preference to Turkish interests.
This presents a number of issues. First of all, there are some
concerns on the trade front. Now, I understand the bill was amended
because originally it would have given exclusive opportunity to Turkish
enterprises without regard to the rest of the WTO nations. Now that's
been changed so other the WTO nations can participate.
{time} 1630
But if you look at the bill, Turkey's interests are discussed all
through it. It's infused with language about Turkey. The findings
section is about Turkey. And frankly, a Turkish enterprise could take
this bill, once it passed, and
[[Page H5095]]
use it as a passport to get preferential consideration with respect to
these economic opportunities. So I think it does present some continued
concern with respect to trade concerns.
But on the foreign policy front, even if you felt it were important
to give preferential consideration for purposes of a demonstration
project or a pilot project to one nation's interest over others, why
would you select the country of Turkey given its record? That's why
Ranking Member Berman has sent a Dear Colleague letter around urging
opposition to this bill, because he knows from a foreign policy
standpoint the record of Turkey.
I have to mention a few of these things because they're compelling.
Increasingly, Turkey has become hostile to our ally, Israel, recently
threatening to mobilize its air and naval assets to escort ships to
Gaza and to stop Israel from developing energy sources in its Exclusive
Economic Zone in the eastern Mediterranean.
Secondly, in June of 2010, NATO member Turkey voted against the
United Nations resolution imposing sanctions against Iran to thwart its
nuclear weapons program.
Thirdly, Turkey has just now been put on the U.S. Commission on
International and Religious Freedom watch list for its widespread
discrimination of minority religious communities.
Fourthly, Turkey has threatened the use of force to stop Texas-based
Noble Energy--this is an American company--from drilling for oil and
gas off the shores of Cyprus and Israel and to blacklist any businesses
that work with Cyprus or Israel for natural resource extraction.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SABLAN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
Mr. SARBANES. We've heard the discussion of how Turkey has
continually denied the Armenian genocide of 1915 to 1923 during which
1.5 million Armenians perished and since 1993 has maintained a
destabilizing blockade of Armenia.
Now some would say these are irrelevant issues. They're very
relevant. If you're going to choose a country to which you're going to
extend some preferential consideration, these kinds of activities and
this kind of legacy ought to be part of your consideration.
Finally, for more than 38 years, Turkey has illegally occupied the
northern third of the island Republic of Cyprus, which is a member of
the European Union. In fact, as of July 1, Cyprus assumed the
presidency of the European Union, but Turkey refuses to recognize this.
These are all relevant to the question of whether a preferential
consideration ought to be extended to one country. It's not justified,
and it's not warranted. I join Ranking Member Markey and Ranking Member
Berman in urging opposition to H.R. 2362.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield the remainder of my
time to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Boren).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 4 minutes.
Mr. BOREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong--very strong--support
of H.R. 2362, the Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration
Project Act of 2011.
In an effort to reduce unemployment and incentivize investment, H.R.
2362 allows--again, we have said this all along the debate--all 155
World Trade Organization countries to participate in a trial trade
program directly with sovereign Native American tribes in the United
States. Specifically, it would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to select up to six tribes to participate in a program that would allow
them to use their land for economic development.
In addition to creating jobs, H.R. 2362 would provide a path for
economic empowerment of tribes and encourages foreign and domestic
investment in Indian Country. With this bill, we can give tribes the
means and the authority to address specific issues plaguing Indian
Country.
I want to also, as Mr. Moran and many other members on our side of
the aisle have done, commend my good friend, Mr. Cole, for his
diligence on this issue, for his persistence and for all that he has
done for Indian Country. Mr. Cole mentioned in his debate earlier that
there are a lot of different organizations that are supporting this
legislation. He talked about NCAI and a whole list of others.
Again, if you ask Indian Country, ``Do you support this bill?''
they're saying, ``Yes.'' The other people that are saying, well, we're
opposed to it, it's not coming from Indian Country. It's not coming
from places like my home State of Oklahoma.
So I ask my colleagues that are watching this debate to give their
deepest consideration and to support this legislation. Again, I want to
say ``thank you'' to Mr. Cole, to the chairman and to all the other
Members who are supporting this legislation.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2
minutes again to the author of this legislation, the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. COLE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I want to thank my friends on the other side of the aisle for
participating in the debate. I understand the passions here are high,
and I actually respect that a great deal even when I disagree with the
policy conclusions that may have led some of my colleagues to.
I do ask you to stop and think, there is a sort of a contradiction in
your argument: It's both redundant and yet gives special preferences.
Both those things can't be true. It suggests to me the real argument is
fundamentally different from those two points. The reality is it gives
no one special preferences. We tried to listen to that point.
I wish other countries were beating down my door to want to go do
work on Indian reservations and to want to partner with Indians. They
aren't. I know of one country that has really cared enough to do this.
Now, there are a range of disputes in other areas. Those are
legitimate disputes, and those are matters that ought to be the subject
of serious discussion and debate on the floor, but have nothing to do
with this bill. They have nothing to do with this bill. They're about
ancient and current acrimonies and differences that ought to be settled
in other forums on other issues but not on this bill, and certainly not
at the expense of the least advantaged, frankly, the most disadvantaged
part of our own population. I wish I could get more American companies
that wanted to go on reservations and sit down and work with people
about creating jobs. That's all this bill is about.
To those of you that have other concerns, I recognize the legitimacy
of those concerns. But I just ask you to focus on the nature of the
legislation. The New World is supposed to be able to put some of the
Old World's controversies behind us, and certainly on a topic like
this.
So for those of you, again, that have a different opinion, I respect
it. But I also point out that Turkey is an ally of the United States.
It has been for decades and decades. It's an important regional partner
for the United States. This strengthens that relationship, as well, and
the interest and the commitment in this area is genuine.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield the gentleman 1 additional
minute.
Mr. COLE. The interest in this area is genuine and real. Shouldn't
that be something we should take and build on and try and add to and
encourage? There needs to be a competition here. Let's build a
competition to help Indian Country. Other countries can step up.
Foreign companies can step up. Let's get a blueprint on how to do it.
It is more complex than we would like to admit or acknowledge. That's
one of the reasons why there's not American investments in these
places.
I can take you to some of the Indian reservations in North and South
Dakota where the unemployment rate is 80 percent and the State
unemployment is under 5. Should that tell you how serious the problem
is? I'd like to get anybody interested in helping and doing it
legitimately.
We now have a level playing field for everybody. There are no
preferences in this bill. Let's encourage other people to join the
competition. Have them come in, and maybe they've got a better idea and
a better way. But in the
[[Page H5096]]
meantime, we should pass this bill, we should get about the business of
putting Americans to work--the first Americans--and certainly Americans
on Indian reservations that have every obstacle in the world against
them. This bill will give one more tool in the toolbox. It's not a
panacea, but it's a tool they ought to have.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to inquire if the
other side has any additional speakers.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I would tell my friend I
have no more requests for time, and I am prepared to close if the
gentleman is.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Speaker, then, at this time, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge adoption
of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Native American
Caucus and co-sponsor, I rise today in support of H.R. 2362, ``The
Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstrations Project Act of
2011.'' This bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to select up
to six Indian tribes or consortia of Indian tribes to participate in an
Indian Tribal Trade and Investment Demonstration Project that
facilitates trade and financial investment in Indian tribal economies
by private entities from Turkey.
Tribes selected for the program are to develop their own guidelines
for leasing land and services to both foreign and domestic companies
for economic development purposes. This act requires that the Secretary
of Interior approve land leasing guidelines only once, reducing current
multi-layer prohibitive land leasing laws. H.R. 2362 is a demonstration
project, and if successful it would be expanded. This bill has been
amended to expand the period of the demonstration project from one to
three years to allow reasonable time for Tribes to draft leasing
regulations, attain approval by the Secretary of Interior, and enter
into a lease.
Economic development on tribal lands is hampered by a restrictive and
archaic leasing system that requires applications to go through
multiple levels of review and can sometimes take up to six years.
Examples of projects delayed by this application process: Round Valley
Indian Housing Authority has been waiting for nine years for BIA to
process a lease for a large housing project. In 2006, the Swinomish
made a deal with Wal-Mart to build a store on the reservation. The BIA
regional office sat on the lease for two years and Wal-Mart pulled out
of the deal after the 2008 financial crisis.
During a hearing on the bill held in the Subcommittee on Indian and
Alaska Native Affairs, a tribal witness explained that Turkey has a
long track record of promoting good relations and trade between its
private business community and Indian tribes in the United States. The
intent of the bill is to further such relations to increase private
business development in Indian Country where economic diversification
is greatly needed. This bill also allows all 155 members of the World
Trade Organization (WTO) an equal opportunity to invest in Indian
tribal economies.
Mr. Speaker, the major purpose and dominant aim of this bill is to
promote economic development is Indian Country and not to reward or
show favoritism to Turkey. The reason Turkey is directly recognized in
this legislation is to acknowledge its helpful role in developing this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, Native Americans suffer from the highest unemployment
and social illness rates reported in the United States. This
legislation will be the first step to ameliorating those ailments and
begin to diversify Indian Country.
That is why this legislation is strongly supported by the National
Congress of American Indians and the National American Indian Housing
Council two of the nation's leading advocacy organizations on behalf of
Native Americans. I will continue support legislation that invests in
our economy and our Indian tribes. I urge my colleagues to support this
demonstration so that we can expand this much needed project.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, nothing in H.R. 2362 can't be accomplished
by H.R. 205, the HEARTH Act, which passed the House unanimously in May
and was just last week passed by the Senate without change. The
President is expected to sign H.R. 205 into law any day now.
Unlike H.R. 2362, the HEARTH Act authorizes all tribes to engage in
leasing activities with any nation--foreign or domestic--for economic
development purposes on tribal lands. It does not discriminate based on
world geography, or benefit a select few tribes who qualify under
strict requirements for a time-limited demonstration project.
In light of H.R. 205, there is simply no need for H.R. 2362. It is
redundant and unnecessary and should be rejected by the House on this
basis alone.
But there are serious reasons to oppose H.R. 2362.
By acknowledging Turkey's ``unique interest'' in developing tribal
economies and in building ``robust'' relationships between it and
tribal communities, this legislation rewards a country with a terrible
history of human rights and religious freedom violations, threats to
U.S. commercial interests in Cyprus, and--most importantly--its refusal
to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide which resulted in the deaths of
1.5 million people.
The manager's amendment to include WTO countries does not change the
fact that Turkey is singled out for preferential treatment and will
benefit through increased investment opportunities in Indian country.
Congress should not be in the business of rewarding countries with
appalling records on human rights to develop economic ties to Indian
country on a preferential basis.
I urge a ``no'' vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that the House suspend the
rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2362, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________