Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill that would amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to impose on the poorest tribes new onerous requirements before those tribes could obtain trust land for gaming.

The provision that is most troublesome represents a drastic change in Federal law and policy because it undermines tribal sovereignty by requiring certain tribes to enter into a memorandum of understanding with counties and if the memorandum of understanding is not signed in 1 year would subject those tribes and counties to binding arbitration.

I do not believe by adding this provision to his bill Chairman Pombo acted with ill intent. I think we are all concerned about the possible proliferation of off-reservation gaming, but this bill goes far beyond that issue because it subverts tribal sovereignty by requiring tribes to negotiate with counties which are not sovereign governments at all but are creatures of the State.

Under current law, tribes must negotiate casino-style gaming compacts with State governments. As creatures of the State, the counties' interests should be protected by their State, as is the case in Michigan and other States. Never before has a Federal law equated sovereign tribes with counties.

We can address the issue of off-reservation gaming without equating those sovereign tribes with counties. But suspension of the rules forbids any amendments. I oppose setting a bad precedent in Federal law that undermines our long-standing policy of protecting tribal sovereignty.

In addition, there are a number of Members' concerns that remain unaddressed by this bill. During committee markup of this bill, several Members were told that their issues would be resolved before the bill was scheduled for consideration on the floor. Their concerns remain unaddressed, and consideration of this bill under suspension of the rules does not allow for modification or amendment.

Mr. Speaker, there was wide opposition to this bill. I and other Members of Congress have received letters from the National Congress of American Indians which represents 250 tribes throughout the Nation, the National Indian Gaming Association, the National Indian Business Association, California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Arizona Indian Gaming Association, Washington State Indian Gaming Association, New Mexico Indian Gaming Association, tribes from North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Maine, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and my own State of Michigan.

Tribes and Indian organizations from all across the Nation overwhelmingly oppose this bill because it erodes tribal sovereignty. Therefore, in the interest of protecting tribal sovereignty and honoring our government-to-government relationship with tribes, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when we all took our oath of office, we pledged and took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution reads, ``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.'' That Constitution lists the three GPO's PDFsovereignties recognized by this Constitution.

I think we should be most careful when we diminish the sovereignty of one of those three by equating them with creatures of the State when those counties can have their interests protected by their own State government

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.