-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULLIN. Madam President, for 8 years, beginning with my time in the House, I have worked on the Miami-Illinois Land Claim Settlement Act, which is now S. 2796.
I want to thank Chief Lankford of the Miami Tribe for his assistance to move this bill forward and to help lay out a solid, factual background before the Indian Affairs Committee, which is why it uniquely came out of the committee.
This is a unique piece of legislation. The Miami Tribe is not seeking a settlement for their treaty claim or an appropriation from Congress. This is zero cost to Congress. The Miami Tribe--or ``My-am-uh'' Tribe-- is not seeking a settlement. The Tribe is simply asking Congress to do what only Congress can: to extinguish the Tribe's treaty title claim to the land in Illinois.
First, this bill will remove a cloud on the title for non-Indian landowners in eastern and central Illinois, benefiting the Tribe and non-Tribal members alike. Second, the bill will allow the Tribe the opportunity to plead their case before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
This is a straightforward bill, cosponsored by both of my colleagues from Illinois, Senator Durbin and Senator Duckworth. The Miami Tribe has waited long enough to get this done, and it is time to act.
489, S. 2796; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULLIN. Madam President, I appreciate my colleague from Utah in his fine arguments. Obviously, you can tell he is a great attorney.
What frustrates me is that I am literally down the hall. My colleague could have, at any time, picked up the phone and called me. The Senator could have simply talked to me. He could have even called me back today when I called him on the phone, and we could have discussed this. At any given time, we could have had this discussion not here on the floor, but we could have actually taken the time and walked through this.
I do understand his concerns, but his argument is that, since the statute of limitations has been looked at, we should not deal with any Indian issues--which I live in and always have lived in Indian Country, which I know my colleague from Utah has not and may not always understand the complexity which we live with consistently. But, under the Senator's argument, the court should never look at anything inside the treaty because it has been done; it is over with. So why should we even look at it? Yet the court always looks into it, and that is why we have the court. We also have the separation of powers. We are the legislative branch, and the Senator is quoting the judicial branch.
In this case, the only people who can solve this issue is Congress. The court can't. This is unique. Only Congress can do this--no one else. And there is a dispute because my colleague is from Utah. He is not from Illinois, and he doesn't understand the title issues that there is a dispute on, which is why Congress has looked at this over and over and over again. That is why we have had hearings in the House and in the Senate in the committees that have jurisdiction over this. And both committees have spoken and said, yes, this is something that needs to move forward and that Congress does need to act on.
I would have loved to have had this debate not in public but in private, and we could have discussed this. But the Senator didn't give me that opportunity; so now, we are here.
So, if Congress isn't going to solve this issue, that means we just throw our hands up and leave the Tribes in limbo? I think we have walked away from the Tribes enough, and I take it personal because, when the Tribes do need assistance, where else are they supposed to go? They can't go back and litigate this in the courts until Congress acts, which is why this legislation is in front of us. And then the Congress--once we act, it can be referred to the court, and then the court can decide if the statute of limitations has already run out on it or not or if they have the right to go back and look at it.
Just recently, there was what is called the McGirt decision that went back in and completely changed what was going on in Indian Country inside Oklahoma and uprooted something that was settled a long time ago, we thought, especially considering that the ruling came out and said that they believed the reservation lines still exist inside Oklahoma, under the McGirt decision.
Now, the statute of limitations had run out on that before because, actually, Congress had acted and ended it in 1906 by giving title to the landowners, who in this case would be Indian Country, which would be my relatives, and we still own the land that was given to us at that time before we achieved statehood in 1906, because Congress said, before we can actually become a State, we have got to settle this issue with the Tribes. So we did it. Yet the court still picked up that decision and went back and looked at it and made changes.
So, under my colleague's argument, that can't happen because it is done. And I will say this again: I would have loved to have had this conversation in private, but the Senator didn't give me that opportunity. So here we are.
I would ask the Presiding Officer: If we don't work this out and Congress is the only entity that can handle this, then where is the Tribe supposed to go?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULLIN. Well, if there wasn't a cloud, then this wouldn't be an issue. So, obviously, there was, and there is.
You can say what you want to, but there is. That is why we are here today. That is why we are trying to solve the issue.
This is why the gentleman from Utah isn't from Indian Country; he is not from Illinois; and he doesn't understand the issue, which is why we should have had a conversation one-on-one, not just your staff--because I promise you, if there was an issue that I had with the gentleman from Utah, I would have simply just said: Hey, Mike, let's talk.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULLIN. That is your staff's problem.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULLIN. That is just not right.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. MULLIN. Eight years. This was filed at the beginning of this Congress. Just because your staff didn't make you aware isn't my fault. That is not my fault. To say 8 years, which I opened with--maybe if you would have listened to what I said. We have been working on this for 8 years. This bill has been around for a long time. To accuse me of saying that I am waiting until the last minute, until the last day, at the last hour to do it is just absolutely wrong.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source