Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

112th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     112-440

======================================================================



 
    GILA BEND INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS REPLACEMENT CLARIFICATION ACT

                                _______
                                

 April 16, 2012.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Hastings of Washington, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2938]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 2938) to prohibit certain gaming activities on 
certain Indian lands in Arizona, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
Replacement Clarification Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

  Congress finds the following:
          (1) In 1986, Congress passed the Gila Bend Indian Reservation 
        Lands Replacement Act, Public Law 99-503, 100 Stat. 1798, to 
        authorize the Tohono O'odham Nation to purchase up to 9,880 
        acres of replacement lands in exchange for granting all right, 
        title and interest to the Gila Bend Indian Reservation to the 
        United States.
          (2) The intent of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
        Replacement Act was to replace primarily agriculture land that 
        the Tohono O'odham Nation was no longer able to use due to 
        flooding by Federal dam projects.
          (3) In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
        Act, which restricted the ability of Indian tribes to conduct 
        gaming activities on lands acquired after the date of enactment 
        of the Act.
          (4) Since 1986, the Tohono O'odham Nation has purchased more 
        than 16,000 acres of land. The Tohono O'odham Nation does not 
        currently game on any lands acquired pursuant to the Gila Bend 
        Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act.
          (5) Beginning in 2003, the Tohono O'odham Nation began taking 
        steps to purchase approximately 134.88 acres of land near 91st 
        and Northern Avenue in Maricopa County, within the City of 
        Glendale (160 miles from the Indian tribe's headquarters in 
        Sells). The Tohono O'odham Nation is now trying to have these 
        lands taken into trust status by the Secretary of the Interior 
        pursuant to the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement 
        Act of 1986 (``Gila Bend Act''), and has asked the Secretary to 
        declare these lands eligible for gaming, thereby allowing the 
        Indian tribe to conduct Las Vegas style gaming on the lands. 
        The Secretary has issued an opinion stating that he has the 
        authority to take approximately 53.54 acres of these lands into 
        trust status, and plans to do so when legally able to do so.
          (6) The State of Arizona, City of Glendale, and at least 12 
        Indian tribes in Arizona oppose the Tohono O'odham Nation 
        gaming on these lands. No Indian tribe supports the Tohono 
        O'odham Nation's efforts to conduct gaming on these lands.
          (7) The Tohono O'odham Nation's proposed casino violates 
        existing Tribal-State gaming compacts and State law, 
        Proposition 202, agreed to by all Arizona Indian tribes, which 
        effectively limits the number of tribal gaming facilities in 
        the Phoenix metropolitan area to seven, which is the current 
        number of facilities operating.
          (8) The Tohono O'odham casino proposal will not generate 
        sales taxes as the State Gaming Compact specifically prohibits 
        the imposition of any taxes, fees, charges, or assessments.
          (9) The proposed casino would be located close to existing 
        neighborhoods and a newly built school and raises a number of 
        concerns. Homeowners, churches, schools, and businesses made a 
        significant investment in the area without knowing that a 
        tribal casino would or even could locate within the area.
          (10) The development has the potential to impact the future 
        of transportation projects, including the Northern Parkway, a 
        critical transportation corridor to the West Valley.
          (11) The Tohono O'odham Nation currently operates three 
        gaming facilities: 2 in the Tucson metropolitan area and 1 in 
        Why, Arizona.
          (12) Nothing in the language or legislative history of the 
        Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act indicates 
        that gaming was an anticipated use of the replacement lands.
          (13) It is the intent of Congress to clarify that lands 
        purchased pursuant to the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
        Replacement Act are not eligible for Class II and Class III 
        gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Such lands 
        may be used for other forms of economic development by the 
        Tohono O'odham Nation.

SEC. 3. GAMING CLARIFICATION.

   Section 6(d) of Public Law 99-503 is amended by inserting ``except 
that no class II or class III gaming activities, as defined in section 
4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703), may be 
conducted on such land if such land is located north of latitude 33 
degrees, 4 minutes north'' after ``shall be deemed to be a Federal 
Indian Reservation for all purposes''.

SEC. 4. NO EFFECT.

   The limitation on gaming set forth in the amendment made by section 
3 shall have no effect on any interpretation, determination, or 
decision to be made by any court, administrative agency or department, 
or other body as to whether any lands located south of latitude 33 
degrees, 4 minutes north taken into trust pursuant to this Act qualify 
as lands taken into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim for 
purposes of title 25 U.S.C. 2719(b).

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of H.R. 2938, as ordered reported, is to 
prohibit certain gaming activities on certain Indian lands in 
Arizona.

                  Background and Need for Legislation

    H.R. 2938 addresses a ``reservation shopping'' controversy 
in the State of Arizona where the Secretary of the Interior is 
creating a satellite reservation for a tribe to open a casino 
in the potentially lucrative gambling market near Phoenix, 
Arizona. Specifically, Interior has agreed--over the objections 
of the Governor of Arizona, a majority of recognized tribes in 
Arizona, and the affected city--to create trust lands for a 
casino in the City of Glendale, for the benefit of the Tohono 
O'odham Nation (TO Nation). The TO Nation is one of the largest 
recognized tribes in the United States, with a reservation 
stretching from the U.S.-Mexico border to the Tucson area. The 
tribe currently operates three casinos on its existing 
reservation lands, including in the Tucson market.
    H.R. 2938 prohibits the off-reservation casino in Glendale. 
As explained by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 
(Arizona):

          H.R. 2938 is necessitated by the [TO] Nation's 
        efforts to manipulate the Gila Bend Act in a manner 
        that would directly violate their commitments made in 
        the current Arizona compacts. The [TO] Nation is 
        currently trying to utilize the 1986 Gila Bend Act to 
        acquire lands more than 100 miles from its existing 
        reservation, in our tribe's aboriginal lands, to 
        develop a casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area.

(Testimony of Diane Enos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Indian Community before the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska 
Native Affairs, October 4, 2011).

    As noted above, the Glendale casino project violates 
commitments made to Arizona. The TO Nation co-sponsored a 
tribal advocacy campaign to persuade Arizona voters to 
authorize exclusive gaming rights to tribes in exchange for 
certain limitations. One of these limitations was that ``there 
will be no additional facilities authorized in Phoenix.'' (See 
``Yes on 202--The 17-Tribe Indian Self-Reliance Initiatives, 
Answers to Common Questions,'' co-sponsored by the Tohono 
O'odham Nation, on file with the Committee on Natural 
Resources; also see Appendix I, joint announcement of the 
Governor of Arizona and Arizona Indian Gaming Association dated 
February 20, 2002). Arizonans subsequently voted against a 
competing ballot initiative to liberalize gaming rights for 
non-Indians, while voting to pass Proposition 202, granting 
tribes exclusive rights. Around the same time, however, the TO 
Nation was apparently maneuvering to purchase the Glendale 
property.
    H.R. 2938 simply enforces the commitments made to Arizona 
by the TO Nation and stops the Secretary of the Interior from 
setting a precedent that may lead to an expansion of off-
reservation casinos in other states. As reported by the 
Committee, H.R. 2938 permits the TO Nation to use the Glendale 
land for any other purpose besides gaming. Moreover, the 
reported bill does not stop the tribe from opening a casino on 
lands acquired for its benefit south of Phoenix (provided such 
lands meet other criteria set forth in applicable law), nor 
does it change the tribe's ability to seek land for gaming 
under another Act of Congress, such as the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934. Finally, the bill has no affect on 
the TO Nation's rights to conduct gaming on its existing 
reservation, where it currently operates three casinos, 
including two near the City of Tucson.
    While there is an understandable argument that this matter 
can and should be resolved by the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Courts, Congress reserves the right to adjust its policy 
respecting Indian tribes, a power the Supreme Court has 
referred to as ``plenary.'' And this case so warrants it 
because the Secretary of the Interior's handling of trust land 
actions and gaming policy have lately been opaque and the cause 
of numerous controversies. This one is no exception.
    The controversy stems from a peculiar application of two 
statutes enacted in the 1980s and a tribal-state compact 
ratified in 2002. In 1986, Congress passed the Gila Bend Indian 
Reservation Lands Replacement Act. That Act authorizes the TO 
Nation to purchase up to 9,880 acres of replacement lands to 
compensate the Nation for years of consistent flood damage to 
its farming property caused by a federally-constructed project 
called the Painted Rock Dam on the Gila River (Public Law 81-
516). Amendments to that Act directed the Secretary of the 
Interior to accept replacement lands into trust for ``sustained 
economic use'' (Public Law 99-503, Section 2(4)) and such lands 
shall be deemed an Indian Reservation for all purposes. 
Furthermore, the replacement lands must be non-incorporated and 
within three counties (Pima, Pinal, or Maricopa) in Arizona. 
Though the Congress intended to make lands of any character 
available to the tribe, the intent was to replace primarily 
agricultural lands with an equal number of acres. Since 1986, 
the TO Nation has reportedly purchased more than 16,000 acres 
of land.
    Two years later, on October 17, 1988, Congress enacted the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (25 U.S.C. 2071 et seq.) to 
provide a federal framework for tribes to conduct gaming on 
Indian lands in existence as of the date of enactment of that 
Act. Section 20 of IGRA (25 U.S.C. 2719) prohibits gaming on 
lands acquired in trust for a tribe after October 17, 1988, 
except in certain (supposedly rare) circumstances. One of these 
circumstances is when ``lands are taken into trust as part of a 
settlement of a land claim'' (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(i)). This 
is sometimes called the ``land claim exception.'' The Act did 
not define ``land claim'' for the purpose of the gaming 
exception. It is generally understood that Indian land claims 
historically arose when non-Indians acquired Indian lands in 
violation of the Trade and Intercourse Acts, a series of 
related laws prohibiting the sale or transfer of Indian lands 
without authorization from Congress. The Gila Bend Act of 1986 
was not a redress of a violation of the Trade and Intercourse 
Acts.
    In 2003, the TO Nation--using a non-tribal entity--began 
quietly purchasing 134 acres of non-incorporated land near the 
Phoenix metropolitan area (located between the cities of 
Glendale, Peoria, and Tolleson). On January 28, 2009, the TO 
Nation asked the Secretary of the Interior to accept this 
parcel of land in trust. Though the tribe had by then purchased 
lands exceeding its 9,880-acre limit, in July 2010, the 
Secretary determined that the Glendale property met the 
requirements of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Land 
Replacement Act of 1986 and that the Secretary had an 
obligation to take the land into trust. In effect, the 
Secretary allowed the tribe to determine which of the over 
16,000 acres of land it had purchased would count against the 
9,880-acre limit in the 1986 Gila Bend Act.
    On August 26, 2010, the Secretary issued a decision to hold 
the land in trust (75 Fed. Reg. 52,550). Believing it to 
violate the law, the Gila River Indian Community, the City of 
Glendale, and other plaintiffs challenged this decision in U.S. 
District Court. The Court upheld the Secretary's decision and 
the plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which is currently pending 
in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is important to note 
that, because of the litigation, the Glendale property is not 
actually held in trust, yet.
    If the land is finally placed in trust, the record strongly 
suggests the TO Nation will conduct gaming in Glendale without 
the need for further agency action. And the question whether 
the land claim exception is being correctly applied will not be 
subject to a legal challenge because under the Department of 
the Interior's gaming regulations, an ``opinion'' on a land 
claim exception requested by a tribe regarding its newly 
acquired lands ``is not, per se, a final agency action under 
the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)'' (see Federal 
Register/Vol. 73, No. 98/Tuesday, May 20, 2008, p. 29358).
    The foregoing history of the controversy demonstrates the 
lengths to which the prospect of a lucrative urban casino is 
turning what Congress in 1988 regarded as a tribal government 
power--the regulation of gaming on an Indian Reservation--into 
a commercial venture in targeted urban markets, a practice that 
some say should be subject to State regulation. Indeed, in 2006 
a majority of Members of the House voted to eliminate the 
Indian land claim exception altogether and to impose additional 
restrictions on off-reservation (see H.R. 4893, the Restricting 
Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006).
    Tribal regulation of gaming has been extraordinarily 
successful for many tribes that were previously impoverished. 
In most States where it is conducted, citizens understand and 
respect a tribe's right to regulate gaming as a core function 
of government and for funding tribal government services. 
Reservation shopping, however, is changing the complexion of 
tribal gaming, causing local political strife (as in Arizona) 
and leading to expensive litigation benefiting no one.
    H.R. 2938 restores the status quo as understood by Arizona 
voters, the Governor of Arizona, the Legislature of Arizona, 
and all but one tribe in Arizona when Prop 202 was passed and 
non-tribal casino gaming prohibited. The bill is sponsored by 
the Representative for the City of Glendale, and supported by 
most of the Arizona House Delegation. It does not amend IGRA or 
effect wide-ranging tribal policy: it addresses one instance 
where the State, the Members representing the affected area, 
and most tribes seek to ensure a delicate, negotiated 
compromise benefiting all sides is maintained.
    During markup of the bill, the Natural Resources Committee 
adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) 
which minimizes the reach of the legislation in prohibiting 
gaming on trust lands acquired under the 1986 Gila Bend Act in 
the Phoenix Metropolitan area, while allowing it on trust lands 
in the aboriginal region of the TO Nation. It also represents a 
good faith compromise to the concerns raised in the hearing by 
the Department of the Interior.

                            Committee Action

    H.R. 2938 was introduced on September 15, 2011, by 
Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the 
Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. On October 4, 
2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On November 
17, 2011, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the 
bill. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was 
discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ) 
offered amendment designated .986 to the bill; the amendment 
was adopted by a bipartisan record vote of 33-10, as follows:


    The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported 
to the House of Representatives by a bipartisan record vote of 
32-11, as follows:


            Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.

                    Compliance With House Rule XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the 
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:

H.R. 2938--Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification 
        Act

    H.R. 2938 would prohibit gaming (gambling other than social 
games for prizes of minimal value) activities on certain lands 
owned by the Tohono O'odham Nation (hereafter referred to as 
the Nation) and placed in trust with the federal government in 
Arizona. CBO estimates that the bill would have no significant 
impact on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 2938 would not 
affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures do not apply.
    H.R. 2938 would prohibit the Nation from conducting gaming 
activities on some land in Arizona. That prohibition would be 
an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Based on information from the 
Nation about when, absent enactment of this bill, it expects to 
begin collecting revenue from a proposed casino and the 
uncertainty of future legal challenges to the project, CBO 
estimates that the cost of the mandate in the first five years 
after enactment would not exceed the annual threshold 
established in UMRA ($73 million in 2012, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    H.R. 2938 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von 
Gnechten (for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for 
intergovernmental costs). The estimate was approved by Theresa 
Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
    2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required 
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget 
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget 
authority, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase 
or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. CBO estimates that 
the bill would have no significant impact on the federal 
budget. Enacting H.R. 2938 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or 
objective of this bill, as ordered reported, is to prohibit 
certain gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona.

                           Earmark Statement

    This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined 
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.

                    Compliance With Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is 
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

           GILA BEND INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS REPLACEMENT ACT


(Public Law 99-503)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS; ACQUISITION OF LANDS

  Sec. 6. (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (d) The Secretary, at the request of the Tribe, shall hold in 
trust for the benefit of the Tribe any land which the Tribe 
acquires pursuant to subsection (c) which meets the 
requirements of this subsection. Any land which the Secretary 
holds in trust shall be deemed to be a Federal Indian 
Reservation for all purposes except that no class II or class 
III gaming activities, as defined in section 4 of the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703), may be conducted on 
such land if such land is located north of latitude 33 degrees, 
4 minutes north. Land does not meet the requirements of this 
subsection if it is outside the counties of Maricopa, Pinal, 
and Pima, Arizona, or within the corporate limits of any city 
or town. Land meets the requirements of this subsection only if 
it constitutes not more than three separate areas consisting of 
contiguous tracts, at least one of which areas shall be 
contiguous to San Lucy Village. The Secretary may waive the 
requirements set forth in the preceding sentence if he 
determines that additional areas are appropriate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 2938 will retroactively amend the Gila Bend Indian 
Reservation Lands Replacement Act (``Gila Bend Act'')--approved 
and enacted by Congress 25 years ago--between the United States 
and the Tohono O'odham Nation (the ``Nation'') to prohibit the 
Nation from conducting class II or III gaming activities 
pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (``IGRA'') on 
certain lands rightfully acquired by the Nation. The 
legislation not only upsets settled law, potentially subjecting 
the United States to new liability for breach of trust, breach 
of contract, and takings claims valued in the hundreds of 
millions of dollars, it also creates uncertainty respecting the 
finality of tribal legislative settlements and impugns the 
federal trust responsibility. The House should reject this 
irresponsible legislation.
    The Gila Bend Act entitled the Nation to acquire non-
reservation land anywhere within three Arizona counties, under 
enumerated conditions, in order to replace its original 
reservation lands that were rendered economically useless by 
the flooding caused by the United States' construction of the 
Painted Rock Dam ten miles downstream from the Nation's 
reservation. H.R. 2938, as amended, targets property in the 
Phoenix metropolitan area that the Nation legally acquired in 
2003 for gaming purposes--property that, if taken into trust by 
the United States and deemed eligible for gaming activity under 
IGRA, threatens to carve into the market share of two other 
tribes with lucrative, existing gaming facilities in the area.
    H.R. 2938 is an obvious attempt to legislatively prevent 
the Nation from exercising a right it otherwise would have to 
compete in the open market alongside its tribal neighbors for 
gaming revenue. In fact, established tribal gaming interests 
and others have challenged the Nation's interpretation of the 
Gila Bend Act in federal court. The suit's proponents have 
repeatedly failed to succeed on the merits in federal court and 
now seek, through enactment of H.R. 2938, to change the 
underlying land claims settlement law between the Nation and 
the federal government in order to prevail. Congress should not 
be in the business of amending existing settlement legislation 
without the consent of the settling tribe, especially when 
amendment would benefit special interests and undermine ongoing 
litigation.
    Mr. Franks' bill would break the legally enforceable 
promises that the United States made to compensate the Nation 
for nearly 10,000 acres of reservation land lost due to federal 
error. Repudiation of these promises under H.R. 2938 would not 
only void the Nation's release of its original land claims, but 
could also reopen the portion of the Nation's original water 
rights claims that were also settled by the Gila Bend Act, 
amounting to as much as 32,000 acre-feet per year and valued in 
excess of $100,000,000 (in 1986 dollars, the year of enactment 
of the settlement legislation). H.R. 2938's potential 
retroactive effect on the Nation's water settlement is 
troublesome, but the legislation's prospective impact on 
current settlement negotiations relating to water rights 
claims, such as the Nation's Sif Oidak water rights claims with 
the Salt River Project, the Central Arizona Water Conservation 
District, the State of Arizona, the Maricopa-Stanfield and the 
Central Arizona irrigation districts, and the United States, is 
utterly ill-advised. If the Gila Bend Act settlement unravels 
due to H.R. 2938, the 32,000 acre-feet per year appurtenant to 
the Gila Bend Reservation may have to be added to the Sif Oidak 
water rights claims, thus severely complicating that water 
rights negotiation for the Nation and putting non-Indian 
parties in an untenable negotiation position.
    As a policy matter, legislative settlements between the 
United States and tribal sovereigns are congressional 
affirmations of the federal trust responsibility that underpin 
the relationship between two sovereigns. Federal Indian law 
scholars have recognized that most, if not all, modern 
legislation dealing with Indian tribes contains a statement 
reaffirming the trust relationship between tribes and the 
federal government as a reflection of this responsibility. 
Congress thus routinely does, and should, take the federal 
trust responsibility seriously. In the case of H.R. 2938, 
however, Congress would renege on its word by unilaterally 
amending a land and water claims settlement entered into with 
the Nation for the benefit of tribal competitors who only stand 
to gain financially from legislatively restricting the Nation's 
lawful access to gaming under the IGRA. This is simply bad 
policy and a poor reflection of our nation's solemn oath to 
honor its legal commitments and uphold the federal trust 
responsibility in settlement agreements with the First 
Americans.
                                   Edward J. Markey.
                                   Rush Holt.
                                   Madeleine Z. Bordallo.
                                   Grace F. Napolitano.
                                   Niki Tsongas.
                                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan.
                                   John Garamendi.
                                   Raul M. Grijalva.