Mr. Speaker and colleagues, the bill before us now on the floor under suspension of the rules, I introduced on January 7 of this year, the first day of the 105th Congress. It is for me a very high personal legislative priority, because it would convey to the Hoopa Valley tribe in Humboldt County, CA, land to restore the tribe's reservation to its original intended, agreed-upon boundary. This boundary is intended to be a perfect square. This legislation is virtually identical to House Resolution 2710, which I sponsored in the last Congress. That bill passed the House by a voice vote on September 11, 1996. It was then cleared on a bipartisan basis for unanimous-consent approval by the Senate, and a representative of the Clinton administration wrote that the President would sign the bill. However, to my great regret, the Senate adjourned for the year and for the Congress before the legislation could be acted upon.
Frank Riggs: “Mr. Speaker and colleagues, the bill before us now on the floor under suspension of the rules, I introduced on January 7…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing legislation to restore the Hoopa Valley tribe's reservation boundaries.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
I am very comfortable with language that would say that a court order, Federal court order would take precedence over State and local law with respect to bilingual education or State local policy. But, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support an…
fundamentally this debate is about the refusal of my colleagues on the other side to give up their Band-Aid-- their fig leaf--their placebo for the failure of their great society social programs and the failure of the public education…
I believe affirmative action is outdated. Affirmative action, contrary to what several speakers have suggested, is no longer a black and white issue, certainly not in California, the largest, most diverse State in our Union. Because the…
Now, what did the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decide in the Hopwood case? Hopwood v. The University of Texas, I quote: ``The 5th circuit ruled that diversity does not justify preferential admissions based on race.''





