Josh Brecheen

Mr. BRECHEEN

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Lumbee Fairness Act because of the three-quarters of a billion dollars that is unpaid for in cost and how it undermines Tribal designation based on merit, a 100-year history where merit drives and not politics. While I respect the hard work of my colleagues from North Carolina and I have no doubt about their intentions with this legislation, the Lumbee Fairness Act would represent a lack of fairness for all historically recognized Native Americans and a lack of fairness for the merit-based process for Federal Tribal recognition. I am a card-carrying member of the Choctaw Nation. My family can trace its lineage to the time of the Indian Removal Act and the Choctaw Trail of Tears. Oklahoma is a Choctaw word. I am one of only four current Native-American Members in the House of Representatives. I harbor no ill will toward any people who seek Federal recognition for themselves and appreciate the hardship of going through the Federal recognition process. However, we must also acknowledge that Tribal-Federal relations have a near 250-year history, rooted in our Constitution. It is found in Article I and Article VI of the Constitution. There are two centuries of tradition showing how the founding generations and those following after dealt with the issue of Federal treaties with Tribes. The recognition process is robust. It is designed to ensure only people who can prove themselves as historical Tribes are designated as such. The Lumbee people have attempted to gain recognition via this process for 130 years, and each time rebuffed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Proponents of this bill argue the Lumbee are not eligible for the merit-based Tribal recognition process. However, the latest ruling on this from the Department of the Interior 2016 says that the Lumbee are eligible to go through the merit-based recognition process. We should let that merit-based process go forward instead of replacing that time-honored process with a vote on this floor and what is popular. Congressional passage of this sends a subliminal message to historically recognized Tribes all over the country that politics trumps what we should be looking at within this situation, which is merit. That is why 141 Tribes alongside the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Cherokee, Muscogee, Seminole Nations, et cetera, have opposed this effort going back many years. Mr. Speaker, with that in mind, I include in the Record a resolution from the Five Civilized Tribes opposing the goal of this bill and a news article detailing the opposition of 141 recognized Tribes, to the same effect. The INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL of the FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES A Resolution Opposing Federal or State Recognition of Groups That Claim to be Tribal Nations by Circumventing the Office of Federal Acknowledgement Resolution No. 22-14 Whereas, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes (ITC) is an organization that unites the tribal governments of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), and Seminole Nations, representing approximately 815,000 Indian people throughout the United States; and Whereas, our tribes maintain a historic and continual government-to-government relationship with the United States and exercised the sovereign rights of self-government; and Whereas, our tribes have distinct histories, languages, cultures and identities that have been fiercely protected despite government policies intended to eradicate our ways of life; and Whereas, fraudulent groups that appropriate our culture and erroneously claim to be legitimate tribal governments threaten the foundation of tribal sovereignty; and Whereas, the federal government is granted authority by the U.S. Constitution to regulate matters relating to Indian tribes, which includes the process of obtaining federal recognition; and Whereas, these groups often seek state recognition and other means to bolster their legitimacy and bypass the Department of the Interior's Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA); and Whereas, the OFA currently manages a fair and measured process for attaining federal recognition, which includes a number of important steps that a petitioner must complete before being granted this status; and Whereas, it is irresponsible for any governmental body, including the United States Congress, to bypass this process in favor of certain groups claiming to be tribal governments. Now therefore let it be Resolved that, the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes opposes efforts by any group attempting to gain federal or state recognition that circumvents the Office of Federal Acknowledgement (OFA). Be it further Resolved, the Inter-Tribal Council opposes current efforts by the ``Lumbee Tribe'', ``Chickamauga Tribe'', ``Wolf Creek Cherokee'', and any other groups illegitimately claiming tribal recognition without following the outlined process of the OFA

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, if a Tribe cannot prove the necessary documentation to receive Federal recognition, they should not receive it by Congress' action. If the Lumbee have a historical record of being a formal Tribe, if they have evidence of lineage to any particular Tribe, if they had a formal claim to the land that they now occupy, why would the BIA repeatedly refuse to formally recognize them as a Tribe? Whatever Tribe may have occupied the land near the Lumbee River has long since dissipated. In fact, the 1956 bill that acknowledged the Lumbee as a people stated that the Tribe around the Lumbee River had fully assimilated into the surrounding European communities during the colonial era before the Constitution was written. The Lumbee agreed to the language in that bill in 1956 as a compromise. In return for the Federal Government referring to them as a distinct people, they promised they would not seek formal Federal recognition. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a copy of the 1956 hearing on the Lumbee bill where a representative of the Lumbee stated they would rather leave the county than accept the Federal recognition status. That is a strong statement of promise. They could look us up and find we are in the law; in the books at Raleigh, and therefore we are honest in their sight. That is No. 1. Mr. Aspinall. Do you or any members of your organization anticipate that after you might receive this designation you would come to Congress and ask for any of the benefits that otherwise go to Indian Tribes? Reverend Lowery. No, sir. We would leave the county before we would come under a reservation or anything like wards of the government. We are citizens and always have been citizens. We would leave before we would come on this reservation. The transcript of the hearing record makes clear that the Lumbee Indians were not expecting to receive any federal benefits or privileges as a result of the 1956 law. Nonetheless, the Department of the Interior objected to the bill because the United States has no treaty or other obligation to provide services to these Indians. Because of this, the Secretary of the Interior stated: We are therefore unable to recommend that the Congress take any action which might ultimately result in the imposition of additional obligations on the Federal Government or in placing additional persons of Indian blood under the jurisdiction of this Department. The persons who constitute this group of Indians have been recognized and designated as Indians by the State legislature. If they are not completely satisfied with such recognition, they, as citizens of the State, may petition the legislature to amend or otherwise to change that recognition. Except for the possibility of becoming entitled to Federal services as Indians, the position of this group of Indians would not be enhanced by enactment of this bill. Ultimately, the Congress amended the bill as requested by the Department of the Interior by including the following language: ``Nothing in this Act shall make such Indians eligible for any services performed by the United States for Indians because of their status as Indians, and none of the statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall be applicable to the Lumbee Indians.'' Thus, the Indians of Robeson and adjoining counties were designated as Lumbee Indians, but not granted any eligibility for services or benefits. The Department of the Interior has interpreted the 1956 law as preventing the Lumbee Indians from utilizing the Federal Acknowledgment Process to become a federally-recognized Indian tribe. In 1989, the Solicitor for the Department of the Interior concluded that the 1956 law forbids a government-to-government relationship with the Lumbee Indians.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, this bill undermines that verbal promise. Constitutionally sound agreements to the Federal Government must be adhered to. I think we should all agree to that. Nations fall apart when people walk back commitments to one another. The entire foundation of Tribal-Federal relations today is premised on both sides upholding commitments, agreements, and treaties made two centuries ago by our ancestors and our Founding Fathers. Why do we uphold agreements? Why do we uphold treaties? It is about trust. The cornerstone to Tribal law is the adherence to promises made hundreds of years ago. The Lumbee must be held to that standard, that commitment from 70 years ago. Granting the Lumbee Tribal recognition sets a dangerous precedent. Granting them recognition by going around this 100-year-old process opens the floodgates for anyone who claims themselves a Tribe to receive specific benefits through politics not merit. This will lead to a vast and irresponsible increase in Federal spending.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, this will lead to a vast and irresponsible increase in Federal spending. I would like to respectfully refute the claim that this does not increase spending. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the CBO report from the 117th Congress scoring the exact same bill at a cost of $726 million over 10 years.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Speaker, just because CBO this time around didn't score it, doesn't mean it doesn't have a cost. It just means they didn't score it. The score from it 2 years ago was three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Mr. BRECHEEN

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment prohibits the IHS, Indian Health Services, from providing sex change surgeries at their hospitals, clinics, or reimbursing providers who perform those sex change surgeries. IHS is receiving $5.2 billion in appropriations from the bill we are debating. We cannot allow that money to go toward mutilation of individuals, turning them forever into patients of the pharmaceutical industry. If you don't believe this is happening, look no further than the main website for IHS. It has a host of resources for individuals seeking surgery and guidance for so-called care providers. Their website tells you how to acquire surgery, how to pay for it, and where to go on the day of surgery. The IHS has the gall to refer to this as ``gender-affirming care,'' which according to them, ``helps transgender and nonbinary people live as their true selves.'' Cutting off healthy body parts and furthering mental instability is not care. In 2020, a Portland, Oregon, based affiliate of IHS developed a plan to provide sex change surgeries to its patients. It is publicly available online and you can read it. They stated unequivocally their right to provide sex change surgeries to Tribal citizens utilizing Indian Health Services. As of fiscal year 2024, that group is on its second cohort of individuals being operated on. I am one of, I believe, two Republican Members that carry a CDIB card. I am a member of the Choctaw Nation. I find this practice abhorrent. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, just in closing, this is not a historical practice as it relates to Tribal peoples. This is a recent cultural fad that defies the face of hundreds of years of established norms. A dark cloud of confusion is gripping this country. It is over our Federal Government. It has led to IHS inflicting this harm on Tribal citizens. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces funding for the National Endowment for the Arts back to 2019 levels. It is a modest cut at $49 million, an overall cut of less than 0.13 percent of the entire bill. This leaves $155 million for the program on which to operate. There is nothing inherently wrong with artistic programs, but there is something wrong about continuing to increase Washington's deficit spending on unnecessary programs when our national debt is at $35 trillion and climbing. This commonsense amendment simply returns us back to pre-COVID spending levels. To help my colleagues understand how bad Washington's spending problem is, the CBO projects a deficit of $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2025. That will grow to $2.9 trillion in another 10 years by 2034. This excessive spending is going to drive our national debt to record levels. It is going to exacerbate the inflation crisis that all Americans are feeling. We all know the average family of four is struggling to afford the same goods and services as compared to January 2021, spending $1,300 per month more to afford those goods because of devaluation of their currency. That is $16,000 over the course of a year. According to Zillow, Americans are also now having to earn $106,000 in order to comfortably afford a home. That is an 80 percent increase from the suggested income of $59,000 just in 2020. How can we, in good conscience, continue to contribute to the economic crisis being felt around the country because of deficit spending and currency devaluation driving inflation? I ask my colleagues, can we not go back to 2019 spending levels? Was that not enough government? If Republicans are truly going to be fiscally responsible, each one of us has to check our conscience on what we say and support commonsense amendments that are truly in line with fiscal sanity. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, this amendment reduces funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities back to 2019 levels. Just as with the previous amendment, this is a modest cut of $49 million that represents 0.13 percent of the entire bill, leaving $155 million for the program to operate. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with humanities programs, but Congress can't continue to steadily increase programs year after year as we watch our national debt continue to climb. While this is a small cut, Congress must start cutting. If we are going to fight to make sure that the blessing of liberty is preserved for the next generation, we are going to have to get serious about the things that are absolutely necessary, compared to those things that we have a choice over. If we had taken the time to look at what is happening to us as a country, we have gone from a country that was ascribing to 18 enumerated powers when this grand experiment in self- governance was setup. Those 18 enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 list out those things that Congress is supposed to be responsible for, and yet it leaves the States programs like this. So as much as I philosophically believe that we are in violation of the 10th Amendment that leaves all these authorities back to the States, I am not going that far. My hope is to have a tug of war, to pull my colleagues along to my line of thinking to say, if we can't make a determination that our Founders ever intended for the Federal Government to be doing this type of operation, can we at least agree that we can go back to the government that we had in 2019 which since then we have increased total discretionary spending by 30 percent? We increased discretionary spending by 30 percent during COVID. We increased it with the thought we needed to spend more as a Band-Aid to get through it, but we never returned back to normal. We have a $2 trillion deficit ahead of us. I am asking, on programs that our Founders listed out and said these are the things you can do, 18 listed, everything else is left to the States--can we not go back to 2019 spending levels? Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment defunds the self-reported nonpartisan Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I purposely am using the air quotes for ``nonpartisan'' given what I am about to relay. This think tank publishes articles and hosts events centered around foreign policy to advise policymakers on how to best tackle global issues. However, the Wilson Center is not nonpartisan. It is a far-left organization dedicated, much like President Wilson, to far-left values around the world. What do I mean by that? In January 2019, the center hosted an event where they promoted ``safe abortion'' access around the world, claiming that denying abortion is violence. In June 2021, at an event with White House Press Secretary Jean- Pierre, the center called for, again, ``those in power . . . to understand and advocate for the queer liberation necessary to achieve equity for all genders and sexual orientations.'' They publish articles like this from June 2024 that suggest Europe should accept unfettered mass immigration, claiming that blocking illegal immigration is ``far right.'' They say it is ``far right'' and ``perpetuating harmful stereotypes that are deeply ingrained in European consciousness, fostering fear and hostility.'' Apparently, the Wilson Center considers it to be, again, ``far right,'' their words, to believe in borders and not want your country filled with an infinite number of illegal aliens. The center advances radical ideas like its Maternal Health Initiative, which is dedicated to ensuring countries around the world have access to legal abortion. This radical group receives $12 million in appropriations from the bill we are debating. Congress must not give to those who are using their nonpartisan purposes for very blatant partisan ends. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I will end by saying that this is a center that is utilizing taxpayer funds to push an agenda in a very partisan manner. It is very much in opposition to many of the things that many of us believe, and the power of the purse must speak. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, diversity, equity, and inclusion is antimerit. It is designed to exclude people from opportunities they might otherwise receive through merit, but it is replaced by, through DEI, melanin percentage or sexual preference. America promises equality of opportunity and fair treatment, but we have to ask ourselves: Are we betraying our values by encouraging discrimination against people who have a fairer complexion at the same time? This amendment adds a commonsense DEI prohibition like others that we have seen in appropriation bills that we have advanced. Each of the departments and agencies we are funding, we see the DEI initiative and the involvement. For instance, the Department of the Interior has a DEI office and DEI officers who train their staff on how to be racist toward White people. The National Endowment for the Arts has an equity officer, Nicole Phillips, whose job is dedicated to advancing racism. This shouldn't be. Congress has the power of the purse under Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. We need to exercise it and stop blatant racism. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits the Department of Energy from issuing licenses to export nuclear materials to China, closing a loophole that currently allows for the export of some of those products. Last year, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission rightly suspended the general license for export of nuclear material to China. However, this action left open the possibility that nuclear exporters could be granted a specific license to continue sending nuclear materials to China. This commonsense amendment is something that should be put forward, as no one wants the United States to give one of our greatest adversaries access to nuclear materials. For years, the People's Republic of China has engaged in a campaign of aggressive economic and political competition with the United States. China steals our intellectual property; engages in dishonest trade practices; spies on U.S. citizens, to include balloons; and constantly attempts to spread its influence across the United States. China is openly aggressive in the Asia-Pacific region, making clear its desire for regional dominance. We should never reward this behavior by giving them dangerous nuclear materials. We cannot allow these materials with a potential for dual use to be sent to our most powerful global adversary. We are engaged in competition with them. With a People's Republic of China that is not friendly, we cannot allow our trade policies to work to the detriment of our national security. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is going to reduce funding for educational and the cultural exchange programs back to the 2019 levels. This is a modest cut that will reduce spending by less than 3 percent, back to 2019 spending levels. It leaves $700 million for these programs. There is nothing inherently wrong with exchange programs. However, there is something wrong about continuing to increase Washington's spending on unnecessary programs when our national debt continues to climb $34 trillion-plus. This commonsense amendment simply returns spending for these programs back to pre-COVID levels. With this appropriations bill, we have already reduced 28 accounts to 2019 levels, with strong Republican support. I encourage my colleagues to continue this trend of returning to those pre-COVID spending levels and curbing unnecessary spending increases. To help my colleagues understand how bad Washington's spending problem is, the CBO projects our Federal deficit to be $1.9 trillion, an uptick of $400 billion. That had to be modified, if Members paid attention to what happened this last week with the CBO. It is going to grow to $2.9 trillion by 2034. An annual deficit of almost $3 trillion is facing us less than 10 years away. This excessive spending is going to drive the national debt to record levels and continue to exacerbate the inflation crisis that everybody in America is feeling. The devaluation of our currency because of excessive spending all ties together. The average family of four is spending $1,300 more a month to afford the same goods and services as compared to January of 2021, which amounts to $16,000 lost to devaluation of the currency because of what we are doing with excessive spending. We can fix this. I will add one more little tidbit to this. According to Zillow, Americans are having to earn $106,000 to be able to afford a home. That is an 80 percent increase, according to Zillow, from what they saw in 2020, which was $59,000 in 2020. How can we, in good conscience, continue to contribute to this economic crisis by excessive spending being felt around the country. Mr. Chair, I encourage my colleagues to support returning to pre- COVID on this, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BRECHEEN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.