Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I wish I had just come to Congress, because then I could believe what I'm hearing from the other side of the aisle. I could have total ignorance about the past and feel comfortable with what we're doing. The problem is I've been here 20 years, and I know what we're doing. We are returning to the old ways under the Democratic Party that bypassed the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and lots of people made lots of money in the process. This is not an open rule. This is not a restricted rule. This is a closed rule. And for a freshman Member of Congress to stand up and justify a closed rule and not even allow a debate on whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be involved blows me away. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, if it needs to be fixed, how are you going to know about it unless you have a debate? But you don't want a debate. You want a closed rule. You do not want a debate about this issue. And why? It's pretty obvious. If you look at the record, it's very different than what was described. If you talk about what happened, it's very different than what was described. When it came before the committee in the 1950s, the Member bringing it out, Mr. Carlyle, said, ``Now, I should like for you to recall that there's nothing in this bill that requests one penny of appropriation of any kind. There is nothing in this bill that would call for any upkeep or expenditure. It just simply relates to the name of these people of that county.'' And then we go on. The first question that was asked by Mr. Aspinall: ``What are the tribal origins of these Indians?'' And then he asks: ``I can understand that they may have some Indian blood to that effect, but surely they have some Indian blood in their veins from other acknowledged tribes of the day.'' ``Mr. Carlyle: `I think perhaps I have a member of that race here who would be able to answer that question.' ``Mr. Aspinall: `The next question would be: What benefit would they expect to get from this? Just purely the name Lumbee Indian Tribe does not appear to me to give too much importance to it, unless they expect to get some recognition later on as members of some authorized tribe and then come before Congress asking for the benefits that naturally go to recognized tribes.' ``Mr. Carlyle: `No one has ever mentioned to me any interest in that, that they had any interest in becoming a part of a reservation or asking the Federal Government for anything. Their purpose in this legislation is to have a name that they think is appropriate for their group. I do not know that they refer to themselves as a tribe. They are citizens who belong to the Indian race, and they were interested in having a name that would have, they think, some significance.' '' And then he goes on to say: ``Well, I just do not know of any particular tribe of Indians in this country that they claim to be associated with.'' That is the history of the debate. And then we go to the floor of the House: ``Mr. Ford: `Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I should like to ask the author of the bill, the gentleman from North Carolina, whether or not the bill, if enacted, would in any way whatsoever commit the Federal Government in the future to the furnishing of services or monetary sums.' ``Mr. Carlyle: `Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that the bill does not provide for that, nor is it expected that it will cost the government one penny.' ``Mr. Ford: `There is no obligation involved, as far as the Federal Government is concerned, if this proposed legislation is approved?' ``Mr. Carlyle: `None whatsoever.' ``Mr. Ford: `It simply provides for the change of the name?' '' That is all the bill did. It wasn't intended to do something else. It wasn't intended to make them a tribe with all the benefits. It was simply to give them a name. And to come before this Chamber and suggest that somehow this bill was to do more is an outrage. Now, what we are doing today is to bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has to see that there was a political, social, and economic association. That is what this tribe has to prove. But they don't want them to go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs because this is a tribe that had no name. It had no reservation. It had no language. Now, if I am wrong, then the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be the one to decide. But I would say as strongly as I can say--no one here has the capability to know if this is truly a tribe. Now, why would we want the Bureau of Indian Affairs to decide whether it is a tribe? Because they study it. They do the research on it. They determine that there is some legitimacy. If you create an Indian tribe that is truly not meeting the Federal standard, you make a mockery of every Indian tribe that exists today that can prove it. I would just like to close by saying that you are opening up a Pandora's box. You are letting the floodgate in. And the best proof is my colleague from American Samoa who said we just did it a few months ago or weeks ago for someone else. It's no different. Now we do this. And then the next Member is going to come in and say, You did it for them and you did it for them. How come not us? I know that former Representative Simmons, former Representative Johnson, and I have opposed tribes in our State of Connecticut bypassing the process. If they meet the standard, they should become a tribe. If they don't, they shouldn't. And I would just say to any of my colleagues who may have gotten elected in the meantime that if you allow this to happen you are going to allow a floodgate, and if you have a State-recognized tribe, they are going to come and say, I am a State-recognized tribe. Make me a Federal-recognized tribe. Make me a sovereign nation. Give me all the benefits that true tribes that are federally recognized have. I encourage my colleagues to vote down this rule, allow an honest debate about the Bureau of Indian Affairs. What are you afraid of? To have a debate about the need to have the Bureau of Indian Affairs look at it? What are you so concerned about? What don't you want the public to know? This is a closed rule. It is totally restricted, and it is an outrage.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding. The arguments we just heard, though, are what frightens me the most. Because my colleague has said the Bureau of Indian Affairs is broken; therefore, Congress should be the ones to decide. So will you tell me how Congressman Murphy opposes the Schaghticokes when they come and make that argument? Just come to Congress, and if he has the political clout, they become a federally recognized tribe. What do we say to my colleague, Joe Courtney, who has taken Mr. Simmons place, about the Eastern Pequots? We are saying, go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Now they are just going to come to him and say, you did it twice. What do they say to me with the Golden Hill Paugussetts, who want to build a casino in Bridgeport and want to be recognized as a federally recognized tribe because all three of these tribes have State recognition? We want to make sure they meet the standard. If they meet the standard, that is fine. But what you have done by your argument is just simply say, don't go through that process. It's broken. We are not going to fix the process. Just come to your Member of Congress and if they have the political clout, get it through. And that is what scares me more than I can express.

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, why don't we take that up first before we go through this process?

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, they recognized name only. That is all the tribe asked for. They wanted nothing else. And it wasn't Congress that did it against their objection. They did exactly what they asked for.

Mr. SHAYS. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, particularly since he supports the bill. I appreciate the courtesy. Mr. Speaker, I don't speak on this House floor often, and usually it's about things that I can be a little less passionate about. But I feel this passion because I think the House of Representatives is doing something it will deeply regret. What it's doing is it's bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs process in the name of fairness when there is nothing fair about what we are doing. My colleague stood up and said, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing. I would like to say the same thing, may God grant us the courage and will to do the right thing. The right thing sometimes is standing up to your constituents and saying you may be a large group of people, but there is a process. If I bypass the process, then I open up every congressional district to this same political effort. Now, there are things that are said that are misleading, I won't say untrue, but very misleading. It's true that there were 11 reports or investigations. The problem was, they were never able to pinpoint that there was an historic Indian tribe called the Lumbee or anything else. They were never able to determine that. Now, this group of Indians, not a tribe, but a group, have basically backed off making requests to go through the process. What they did, in 1956, was they came and requested one thing and one thing only, and we established that in the rules debate. What they requested was to have a name, because they didn't have a name. They don't have a reservation, they don't have a language, they don't have a name. So Congress gave them a name that they wanted. That's what Congress did. They said, we don't want anything else. There was nothing unfair about what Congress did. Congress did something that they haven't done for other tribes. They gave a name to a tribe that was requesting a name. Indian tribes don't need to have a name. They have a name, they have a history. Now, we set up the process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs for a reason, because we are creating a sovereign Nation. I just made reference to the fact that there was testimony from the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs, the United States Department of Interior, on April 18, and he basically said, please follow the process. You, Congress, established this process. Now, they didn't say this part. They just said, follow the process, and they pointed out that there are seven criteria. Now, if they follow the process and they don't meet the seven criteria, then they don't become a federally recognized tribe unless Congress then says, you know what, they met six of them, and we think the one they didn't meet would have been hard for them to determine. But the amendment that we offered, because this is not an open rule, it's not even a restricted rule, it's a closed rule, we can't have this debate. There's a reason why we don't want to have this debate, I guess, and that is that it's uncomfortable to have and deal with the facts. The facts are, no tribe, no reservation, no language, no name. But Congress, because there are 50,000 people involved, is going to pass legislation creating a tribe. What my colleague has said in the past is, well, we just did it a few weeks ago. What's the big deal? Well, the big deal is, under the Republicans, we didn't do this, because we knew this is a corrupting process. I would like to know why there aren't more Democrats who are speaking out against this because they oppose their tribes not going through the process. How are we going to say to the Schaghticokes, how are we going to say to the Eastern Pequots, how am I going to say to the Golden Hill Paugusetts, go through the process. But if you are fortunate and you have someone who is articulate about making an argument and has visited 300 Members, and we all like, you know, that's what it takes. I know, I will say something I am not comfortable saying. I was asked, did the Republicans earn the right to regain Congress? I said, you know what? We didn't earn the right. I, frankly, thought that a new Congress would maybe be a cleansing process and we would get our act together. I just hope and pray that this new Congress does the right thing.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank all four of my colleagues, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Dent, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Israel. I wanted to be here simply for the novelty of Republicans and Democrats trying to talk about where we could find common ground. My basic view is that we made a mistake going in given that we didn't find weapons of mass destruction. But I tend to think it would be a mistake to leave precipitously. I think we went in on a bipartisan basis, and I think we could leave on a bipartisan basis. I just don't think we are as far apart in some ways as some may think. I do think there should be a Status of Forces Agreement instead of a U.N. resolution as an occupying nation. If the Iraqis don't want us there, we will leave. I feel we attacked them; they didn't attack us. And we have an obligation before we leave to replace their army, their police, and their border patrol. That is really one of your shared principles. But if they want us to leave before, then they are a sovereign nation. They could ask us to leave and we would. I will also close with this because I think it would be nice to have more of a dialogue rather than just speeches from us, but I think the Iraq Study Group is something that Democrats agreed to in principle and so did Republicans. And I agree that they left a little bit of discretion as to what they meant and we could each view it in the way that we want to, and so that would have to be worked out. But the basic principles of the Iraq Study Group, to my mind, should be voted on and supported by both sides of the aisle, specifically getting the Americans and the coalition forces out of doing police work. Secondly, getting the Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds to work out their differences. They said with consequence if they didn't. I think there should be a timeline. I just think it should be not by 2/08. And, thirdly, to get the nations around Iraq to dialogue and we should be dialoguing with them, including Iran and Syria.

Mr. SHAYS. And I might add a former Marine, and I guess always a Marine, who was wounded in battle in Vietnam and was left on the battlefield for 3 hours before he was brought to safety, and we will always be grateful for that service.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank you for your question. What was stunning about the 9/11 Commission was it was Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives all trying to find common ground for addressing what was really a frightening sea change in our society, and that was the recognition that there was a real threat. And they called it ``Islamist terrorism,'' which the Islamist community needs to deal with as well. I mean, it is not Islamists, it is these radical Islamist terrorists. But the Iraqi Study Group had that same approach, Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives making an assessment of the problem, and then recommending what needed to happen. I would like to suggest something. And I would be interested, Mr. Israel, how you would react to this, and that is, Mr. Petraeus and our ambassador are going to make a report in September. And I was thinking, you know, there could be a view they have a vested interest. So one of the things that I would like to promote is that this same Iraqi Study Group go back to Iraq and say, okay, this is what we found then, this is what we recommended. This is what General Petraeus is recommending and our ambassador. We either verify it or don't, or have subtle changes to it or maybe significant changes. But in other words, bring this third party back in to make an analysis since they already have credibility, and clearly General Petraeus does and our ambassador does as well. But I would be curious to know if any of you think there is merit to that idea.

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman will yield, when I was there this last time, what I found for the first time was that when the Iraqis got together to form a government last year, they were like someone described a sixth grade dance. The guys were there, the girls were there. Maybe once or twice there would be a little interaction, and they would go back. But nobody was dancing. Now you are starting to see Sunnis, Shias and Kurds trying to see some common ground, and they are coming back to us and saying, don't rush us. But one of them said to me, I thought it was interesting, he said, ``You are complaining about the fact that we may take a break in the summer. What about your monthly break?'' They said, ``You are asking Sunnis, Shias and Kurds to work together. How come you guys aren't working together?'' They are starting to come back and throw that at us. The difference is they are in an environment where they can get killed any day of the week, and yet we are telling them, find common ground. If they found common ground, probably some of that killing would talk. But I am sorry to take so much of the time. I am just trying to add to your point that they are saying why don't we practice what we preach?

Mr. SHAYS. To guarantee it would actually come to the floor of the House, maybe we could put your name first and mine second. But I would love to work with you on that.

Mr. SHAYS. I would just like to thank you again for getting us together. This has really been a pleasure. I just admire all of you here tonight, and thank you for including me.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House and three-quarters of the Senate, and we need to leave on a bipartisan basis enabling the Iraqis to stand on their own. And what I feel in these two resolutions and legislation that we are passing is, it is still Democrats basically saying this is the way we are going to structure the debate. This is the way we are going to do it. Take it or leave it. So we end up with this bifurcated piece of legislation that, frankly, I don't think does justice to the process. And I want to be on record on that. I also want to say to my colleague on the other side of the aisle you say, ``I predicted and I have been right 100 percent of the time,'' you know what? That is debatable. Frankly, it is very debatable. And when you talk about there are incidences here, and there will be incidences there, if that is how we are going to judge this war, then we might as well leave now. But why don't we judge it on economic, political, and military efforts, not on incidences? Why not judge it on the fact that in December we gave up on Anbar Province and now we are winning Anbar? And it is clearly one of the most important provinces. It is totally Sunni. It connects Syria to Baghdad. This is the route to which insurgents have been coming from Syria. They follow the river, and now we have tribes all along the way, Sunni tribes, not Shia tribes, Sunni tribes that are saying, hey, who are you? What are you doing here? And they are calling a stop to it. And they are saying to us every time we meet with them ``Do not leave us. You came here unwelcomed, but now do not leave us until you help us stand on our own.'' And I fear, Mr. Murtha, that what we are going to do if your predictions are right, and it is almost like you want to be right instead of want to be wrong, if your predictions are right, and we will leave too soon because of incidences, then we will have only ourselves to be shameful of, not that we went in there, but because we deserted them before we gave them a chance. The political process, it is moving forward. Is it doing as well as I would like? Some have described it to me this way: It is like a sixth- grade dance. You had Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, and they were all there, but nobody danced. And now they are starting to interact with each other. Now Sunnis and Shias and Kurds are saying to us collectively, Please give us more time to work out our differences. It is not Shias saying the Sunnis are doing this or the Sunnis saying the Shias are doing this. Collectively they are saying, give us more time. I think, they are at a point where if we give them time, you will see, Mr. Murtha, that your predictions will be wrong. But if you don't give them enough time, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your predictions will be right because you didn't give them a chance. Let me conclude by saying we attacked them; they didn't attack us. And I believe we have an absolute moral obligation to replace their army, to replace their police, to replace their border patrol. I think we have a moral obligation to give this political process a chance.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Murtha, they are not going to take 2 months off. They will probably take less time off than this Congress has taken.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, on May 16 and 17, 2007, I was participating in the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed 14 recorded votes. I take my voting responsibility very seriously. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on recorded vote number 364; ``no'' on recorded vote 365; ``no'' on recorded vote 366; ``yes'' on recorded vote number 367; ``no'' on recorded vote 368; ``yes'' on recorded vote 369; ``yes'' on recorded vote number 370; ``no'' on recorded vote 371; ``yes'' on recorded vote 372; ``yes'' on recorded vote number 373; ``no'' on recorded vote 374; ``no'' on recorded vote 375; ``no'' on recorded vote number 376; and ``no'' on recorded vote 377.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 385, which supports the goals and ideals of National AmeriCorps Week. This week AmeriCorps celebrates its 500,000th member and we celebrate the achievement of all the members of AmeriCorps from around the country who have given 637 million hours of their time and energy to their communities. AmeriCorps members have made important contributions addressing our Nation's most pressing needs and set an example of selfless service and giving in support of our country's most vulnerable residents--the homeless, hungry, elderly, at-risk youth and disabled. Their work not only supports their communities, but encourages others to do the same. I still remember how I felt as a 14-year-old watching the 1960 Presidential election between Vice President Richard Nixon and Senator John Kennedy. I felt energized listening to Senator Kennedy when he spoke of the Peace Corps and making the world a better and safer place. I wanted to be part of his vision--I wanted to give to the world community. Years later, that dream was fulfilled when my wife Betsi and I served 2 years in the Peace Corps. The same powerful emotion--the same sense of energy and eagerness we felt in the sixties--is alive today and expressed through those who give back to their communities. In my own state of Connecticut, over 7,000 resident have served in AmeriCorps. Those members serving in AmeriCorps in Connecticut have earned over $17 million in Segal AmeriCorps Education Award scholarships to use for college or to pay off student loans. Nationwide, over $1.2 billion has been earned. Over 8.5 million hours of service have been performed by the residents of Connecticut to assist community nonprofits groups. Those hours equate to nearly $200 million in value. I am grateful we are considering this resolution and urge its adoption.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this is one of those debates that you just have to take a deep breath and say, is this our finest hour or one of our worst, or somewhere in between? With this new Democratic majority, I thought there would be a reaching out to both sides of the aisle. I thought, on something so important, they would say, we went into Iraq on a bipartisan basis, two-thirds of the House, including Mr. Murtha and others, and three-quarters of the Senate voted to go into Iraq. We did not find weapons of mass destruction. And this administration made some terrible mistakes early on in disbanding the army, the police and the border patrol and allowing the looting. I understand the tremendous discontent. And this war has not turned out the way many had hoped. And certainly when we look back we can say a lot of it was predictable. But we attacked them; they did not attack us. I want to say it again: We attacked them; they did not attack us. We abolished their entire security force. I think of New York State. New York State had 19 million people. Imagine if a hundred thousand prisoners had been let out from Rikers Island and Attica, and then we said, no police in New York City, no police in Albany, no police in Syracuse, no police in Buffalo, no police in any of the towns in between. But do not worry, we are going to have 150,000 Arabic speakers spread out across all of New York, and they will keep the peace. Well, we did that to Iraq, but it is much larger than New York, and it has 26 million people instead of 19 million. So a lot of what has happened is predictable. But now, when you talk with the Iraqis and you talk with the neighbors of Iraq, they say, we did not want you to go in, but we sure as heck do not want you to leave until you leave this a better place. We could, on a bipartisan basis, work this out. And there will be a point where bills like this will not be considered because we will come up with a bill that says, well, there are some of you on this side of the aisle that do believe in timelines, but timelines that actually work, not timelines that guarantee defeat of any chance of success. We expect that maybe you would say to us, well, we call you an occupying Nation, that is what you say we are. Well, fine. Then let's negotiate with the Iraqis like we negotiated with the South Koreans. That is a possibility. Why aren't we negotiating with them? The Iraqis, if they want, could ask us to leave. They have their own government. They have their own leadership. Why not have a plebiscite in that Nation? Why not have the Iraqi Council of Representatives vote? Why aren't we talking about those things? Why aren't we talking about the Iraqi Study Group, which Republicans and Democrats have both agreed have merits to it? We could potentially have a resolution that many of us could support. Why aren't we having an approach on the other side of the aisle that says, we need to find common ground and work it out together? I believe this: I believe two-thirds of the Iraqis want us to leave, and I believe two-thirds want us to stay. That is what the polls say. They do not want us to leave until we leave it a better place. I believe the Iraqis are a proud people, and they want to be treated with dignity. What this resolution does is simply pull the rug out from under our new Secretary of Defense, which all of you said you wanted, pulls the rug out from General Petraeus, who received 100 percent support in the Senate. Our general has said, give me a chance to show that we can win back Baghdad. That is what he has asked. What this resolution does is say that one part of the equation, the military, disappears. And we all have agreed you cannot win it militarily, but you cannot win it without the military. You cannot win it just with a change in politics, but you cannot win it without it. You cannot win it just with economics, but you cannot win it without it. It takes all three. And it is almost like, in a way, you want us to lose. It is almost like we are going to tie one hand behind our back and then say there is a failure because we have not given them all three parts. I cannot tell you how objectionable I find this. I find it objectionable that we would not allow the Iraqis to stand up on their own. They need us to train their military, their police and their border patrol. They need our troops embedded in there because they do not have any sergeants and corporals. We are embedded in there to help identify who among all those privates that we are training can be leaders among those troops. This is an unwise resolution. It is a partisan resolution. It is a bad message for us to send the Iraqi people. They do not know what to think about this Congress, but they do know this: We are more divided than they are, and we do not even have bombs blowing up.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am proud to be part of the Homeland Security Committee. It has been a committee that under Chairman King has functioned in a nonpartisan way and I think under Chairman Thompson as well. And so I have deep regret that so many parts of this bill were taken out that were parts that were put in by Republicans. I understand jurisdictional issues, but it seems to me some of these could have been left in. I am particularly amazed to think that an amendment that I was offering, supported by Interpol, and I would like to submit this letter from Ron Noble, the Secretary General, addressed to me from Interpol. It is one page. In this letter, he says, ``Your initiative would allow DHS and Interpol to work together to identify and apprehend terrorists that use lost, stolen or fraudulent passports to travel internationally in all of Interpol's 186 countries. ``In addition, by facilitating the secondment of DHS officers to Interpol, you are enabling the United States to play a leadership role in shaping Interpol's current and future efforts to enhance travel document security and to deploy its connection technology that allows border officers to make instant passport searches against Interpol's Stolen and Lost Travel Documents database.'' There was no reason not to allow this amendment to be offered except for partisan purposes. I happen to be a Republican, and I happen to be targeted by the Democrats, but, other than that, there was no reason not to allow this amendment. I am strongly against this rule. Unlike my colleagues, I didn't think long about it. I couldn't wait to get here to oppose what is now becoming a very partisan bill. I just can't express strongly enough we are going to endanger Americans by not allowing this debate. There are 14 million documents Interpol has. The United States doesn't have access to hardly any of them because we are not participating. We need to participate. I would end by just pointing out that Ramzi Yousef had used a stolen passport to enter the U.S. He is a terrorist.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Representative Maloney; and it is really a privilege to be with you and both Jerry Nadler. I know that both of you have been at the forefront of this issue and clearly have been championing it, both of you. But I particularly want to thank Mrs. Maloney. Because you were the one who, serving on my subcommittee at the time, said we needed to get at this issue. And you're the reason why we ended up having these hearings. During the last 2 years, as chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, we held four oversight hearings on the federally funded medical monitoring and registry programs that were established following the September 11 terrorist attacks. And you, obviously, and Mr. Nadler, were major participants. The witnesses' testimony at the subcommittee clearly demonstrated the significant health challenges faced by the Ground Zero responders, as well as the need for their continued health monitoring. You know, nearly 6 years after the cataclysmic attacks on the World Trade Centers, shock waves still emanate from Ground Zero. Diverse and delayed health problems continue to emerge in those exposed to the contaminants and psychological stressors unleashed on September 11, 2001. Firefighters, police, emergency medical personnel, transit workers, construction crews and other first responders, as well as volunteers, came to Ground Zero knowing there would be risks but confident their community would sustain them. These individuals did not just go to work on that day. They went to war. However, as we know, Federal, State and local health support has not provided the care and comfort they need and rightfully deserve. After the 1991 war in the Persian Gulf, veterans suffering a variety of unfamiliar syndromes faced daunting official resistance to evidence linking multiple low-level toxic exposure to subsequent chronic ill health. In part due to our subcommittee, long-term registrants were improved and an aggressive research agenda was pursued and sick veterans now have some of the benefits, in law, of presumption that wartime exposures cause certain illnesses. When the front line is not Baghdad but now lower Manhattan, occupational medicine and public health practitioners still have much to learn from that distant Middle East battlefield. Proper diagnosis, effective treatment and fair compensation for the delayed casualties of toxic attacks require vigilance, persistence and a willingness to admit what we do not yet know and might never know about toxic synergies and syndromes. Health surveillance has to be focused and sustained and new treatment approaches have to be tried to restore damaged lives before it is too late. And I fear it really is becoming almost too late. Still today, it appears the public health approach to lingering environmental hazards remains unfocused and halting. The unquestionable need for long-term monitoring has been met with only short-term commitments. Screening and monitoring results have not been translated into timely protocols that could be used by a broader range of treating physicians. Valuable data sets compiled by competing programs may atrophy as money and vigilance wane. Both the executive and legislative branches of our Federal Government are failing those who were on the front lines nearly 6 years ago. Many responders, workers, residents and schoolchildren are getting sick from the toxins that they were exposed to in the area around Ground Zero. We are not providing those affected with satisfactory treatments and care. We need to know how many people are sick or how many become sick or how they may become sick and if they are receiving proper medical care. We also need to talk to the doctors who are treating them to determine if they are aware of how best to care for these victims. I just have two more points I want to make. We have spent billions of dollars improving our method to defend the United States against another terrorist attack, and we are certainly safer than we were in 2001. But we are still not completely safe. I believe we need to use oversight hearings to help prepare for a similar attack in another city, to determine how large an area the government should be monitoring for health effects, and what some of these of the best practices are to minimize the impact and treat future victims in these catastrophic situations. It is our duty to care for the victims who continue to live with illnesses caused by the events of that fateful day, to monitor, track and treat their symptoms and to ensure they have knowledge of and access to services available to them. Congress and the administration also have a duty to make sure we as a Nation have learned from their experiences so we can effectively and expeditiously respond to a similar horrendous event in the future, and I think that's what both of you are trying to do and trying to highlight. My constituents don't live in New York City. But I had a number who came and spent every day at Ground Zero, and I just know what they're dealing with. And we know so many others. There are thousands of others of individuals, and they need our attention. I thank our colleague, and I hope we have a chance to have a little bit of a dialogue about this.

Mr. SHAYS. I would add to that but also make the point that this won't be the first city that will have to deal with this kind of issue. I mean, we want to be able to protect and prevent a terrorist attack, but there may be some other event. And what we also need is a protocol that makes sure that future first responders are never put in this condition and that residents around wherever an event takes place are notified and given good information. The bottom line is, no one was ever given good information from day one.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, my Democratic colleagues talk about the great activity in the House. We had great activity in the House before. You didn't have a do- nothing Congress last year. You had a do-nothing Senate. And you're going to have a do-nothing Senate again this year. You're going to stack up all your bills and you're going to be waiting just like we did. The other outrage that is happening is there is a bill, H.R. 1294, that is going to recognize six Indian tribes, bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Corruption is alive and well in this place again because that's what we did a few years ago. We stopped it. There is a process that should be followed. Go before the Bureau of Indian Affairs. How do we know what's a tribe? How do we know if there's economic, social, and political continuity of these tribes precolonial time? The Democrats are bringing back a corrupt practice. I urge you to pay attention to this.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to Mr. Moran, I totally trust and understand his sincerity, but everything he said there are significant answers to. And all he has done is raised even more questions. He is basically saying to pass this bill and rush it through the Senate real quickly so we can have this be part of the celebration. How clever were these six tribes to decide that this is the way they would get it through and bypass the Bureau of Indian Affairs process. With this legislation we are going to create six independent nations within our Nation, and we are now going to go back to bypassing a process and just deciding here in this Chamber. I have no way of knowing if each of these are a legitimate tribe. There is no way for us in this Chamber to know it. We did that before Republicans were elected, and we stopped the process because we saw bypassing the Bureau of Indian Affairs process was corrupting. It was corrupting because it meant that if you had the influence, even if you didn't meet the standards of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, you could become a tribe. The fact is that my colleague has said he has dealt with one of the objections. What you have done is dealt with the objection so the bill can pass. But gambling will be alive and well. First the prohibition will be tested in the courts, and the mere fact that my colleague said we are not treating them fairly by taking it out is his next argument to say we have to treat them fairly once they are tribes. The bottom line is gambling is a license to print money, and the financial instincts and pressures will be so great that to say they will not have gambling is patently laughable. They will have it, if they are a tribe. The bottom line to me is this: We have a process. We started to go around that process and we started to bring bills forward, and now every State is going to ask the same thing that Mr. Moran did. The process is too long. Well, if we don't like the process, fix the process. But we are not capable to decide what tribe should become independent nations within the confines of the United States. We don't have that capability. We have given that process to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we need to document it. The fact that these six tribes can't document that they have an historic economic, social and political continuity is significant. It is very significant. They don't even have reservations, a place where they were meeting. So I can't say how strongly I oppose this legislation. I fear that, however well intended my colleague from Virginia is, he has become the point of the spear that will result in a huge, huge pressure. The tribes in Connecticut, the tribes in Massachusetts, the tribes in New York, those that can't prove that they meet the Federal standard, like these tribes, will come to Congress and say they want the same thing. And our argument disappears, because when this passes, and I think it will, more than 50 percent of our Members will have voted for it, they will not be able to go and say to any tribe, follow the process. They will, in my judgment, have corrupted the process of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and now have no standing to say follow it. Mr. Speaker, I just urge my colleagues, if you have a tribe, and I speak to all of my colleagues, those that are in this Chamber and those who are not, if you have a tribe that you think is trying to get around the Bureau of Indian Affairs and you vote for this legislation, you will have no standing whatsoever to oppose them. You will now have to be part of corrupting that process, going around and passing a bill on the floor, when we have no capability whatsoever to determine if they are a legitimate Federal tribe, not State tribe, a Federal tribe, proving social, political and economic continuity through historic times. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. I know this: I sure will.

Mr. SHAYS. Could I ask the gentleman, he mentioned one tribe that he referred to as a Christian tribe, are we recognizing one tribe or six tribes?

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SHAYS. So your reference that one tribe would clearly not want gambling, it is a fact that these tribes did want gambling and the only way you could get this bill through the Chamber was to take it out, and you said on the floor, I think I heard you correctly, that it was an outrage to take it out and it took away their rights and so on.