Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong opposition to H.R. 312, the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe Reservation Reaffirmation Act. This bill will allow the Mashpee Tribe to open a massive off-reservation casino right on the border of Rhode Island and Massachusetts, nearly 40 miles away from their historic Tribal lands in Cape Cod.

The Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe became federally recognized in 2007. Under the Indian Reorganization Act, the United States Department of the Interior is only allowed to take land into trust for Tribes recognized before 1934.

In 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed this Federal standard in the Carcieri v. Salazar decision. In 2015, the U.S. Department of the Interior ignored the Indian Reorganization Act and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling and took land into trust for the Mashpee Tribe.

A year later, the residents of Taunton, Massachusetts, sued and won in U.S. district court to stop the casino from being built in their town. The district court ruled that the Department of the Interior should not have taken land into trust for the Mashpee Tribe and instructed the Department to conduct a further review of the Tribe's eligibility.

After reviewing the Mashpee Tribe's application last year, the U.S. Department of the Interior rejected the Tribe's claim based on the finding that the Tribe was not under Federal jurisdiction in 1934, which meant the Department lacked authority under Federal law to take land into trust on their behalf.

Today's bill would reverse this final decision of the Federal court and the Department of the Interior and disregard the U.S. Supreme Court precedent in allowing the Tribe to build an off-reservation casino in Taunton, Massachusetts.

If H.R. 312 passes today, it would be the first time--I repeat, the first time--Congress ever reversed a final Federal court ruling that determined a Tribe did not meet the Federal standard to have land taken into trust by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

The impact of this bill would be disastrous and would open a floodgate for Tribes to come to Washington to hire the biggest lobbyists they can to get their carve-out from Congress.

Do we really want to go down this road? Does Congress want to be in the business of picking winners and losers? That is exactly what this bill does.

The Tribal land system shouldn't depend on which Tribes hire the most expensive lobbyists. Instead, it should be based on fairness under our law and applied equally.

Instead of this bill directly benefiting the Tribe, as some have suggested, the bill will bail out Genting, the Malaysian hedge fund that is financing this deal. Even if this bill passes today and the Mashpee build a casino, it is very unlikely, according to all the experts, that the Mashpee casino will ever be profitable for the Tribe because they owe Genting a half-billion dollars.

Proponents of this bill have argued that Congress is the last hope for the Mashpee Tribe and that they will go bankrupt without this casino, but Genting Malaysia has already written off the half-billion dollars it gave to the Tribe as a loss on its financial statements. If today's bill fails, the Mashpee Tribe does not need to pay back this money because, under the agreement with Genting, it is contingent on the casino being built. The debt is erased.

Regardless of what happens with this bill today, the Mashpee Tribe will still be a federally recognized Tribe and will continue to receive Federal benefits.

Mr. Speaker, I started off opposing this bill because of the damage it would do to Rhode Island's economy. The casino in Rhode Island generates over $300 million in economic activity and is responsible for thousands of jobs in Rhode Island. I am very proud of my fierce defense for my State, and putting an off-reservation casino on the border will have a significant, negative impact on Rhode Island.

But the more I learned about this legislation, the more I realized the dangerous precedent this bill would set if it became law. H.R. 312 would reverse a Federal court ruling, undermine the Indian Reorganization Act, ignore a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, and reject the 2018 decision by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Most perniciously, it is a special deal for a single Tribe, and that is just wrong.

I stand here in opposition to this bill not only because of the impact on my State, and not because I am unsympathetic to the challenges the Tribe faces, but this legislation will continue their exploitation by a powerful foreign entity.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CICILLINE. Will the gentleman yield?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CICILLINE. I am not aware of the information they had.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. CICILLINE. Again, I don't know about the legal proceedings. I know that the litigation was begun by the people in the local community.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source