The situation with this legislation is that the land in question becomes part of the reservation, and when it becomes part of the reservation, we all know it's going to be turned into a gaming casino. So to argue that this only settles a land claim--the courts had their opportunity to settle the land claim, both the State court of Michigan and the U.S. Federal court, and that's why we're here. The people who are pressing this claim on the floor of this Congress didn't get the resolution that they had asked for. They weren't able to prevail in court, so now they come to Congress and say, set a precedent so that we can, essentially, confer this land title on the Native Americans. When they take that title, it comes in trust. The Governor then takes the land in trust, but as soon as it goes in trust, it says that any and all claims are hereby extinguished to that land. So we're abrogating decisions made by the Federal court here and by the State court.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing legislation related to land claims and gaming casinos during a House floor debate.
Share
More from Steve King
It is my honor to be recognized and address you here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I come before you this morning to remind this House and to speak about the procedure that is pending in the Senate and some…
I was unable to vote on August 22, 2020 due to not being in DC. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 179; ``no'' on rollcall No. 180; ``yes'' on rollcall No. 181; and ``no'' on rollcall No. 182. MEMBERS…
I was unable to vote on January 30, 2020, because of the need to travel back to Iowa. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 33; ``no'' on rollcall No. 34. Personal Explanation
I was unable to vote on December 3, and 4, 2020, due to not being in town. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: ``no'' on rollcall No. 230; ``no'' on rollcall No. 231; ``no'' on rollcall No. 232; ``no'' on rollcall No. 233…





