Report text available as:

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

114th Congress   }                                        {      Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session     }                                        {      114-95

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




 
                      KEEP THE PROMISE ACT OF 2015

                                _______
                                

 April 29, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 308]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred 
the bill (H.R. 308) to prohibit gaming activities on certain 
Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming 
compacts, having considered the same, report favorably thereon 
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purpose of H.R. 308 is to prohibit gaming activities on 
certain Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain 
gaming compacts.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 308 would prohibit class II (bingo) and class III (Las 
Vegas-style) gambling activities regulated under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 within the Phoenix, Arizona, 
metropolitan area until January 1, 2027, when the compacts 
between the State of Arizona and tribes operating class III 
casinos expire.\1\ The immediate effect of the bill is to 
prohibit the operation of an off-reservation casino in 
Glendale, Arizona, by the Tohono O'odham Nation (TO Nation), a 
federally recognized tribe with approximately 30,000 members 
and a large reservation stretching from Tucson to the U.S.-
Mexico border. Below is an overview of the history and current 
status of the off-reservation gaming controversy; additional 
detailed background and justification for prior bills to block 
the Glendale casino may be found in House Report 112-440 
(accompanying H.R. 2938, Gila Bend Reservation Lands 
Replacement Clarification Act) and House Report 113-210 
(accompanying H.R. 1410, Keep the Promise Act of 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\H.R. 308 defines the Phoenix metro area as certain land north of 
a latitude line in Maricopa and Pinal Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The controversy resolved by H.R. 308 has its origins in 
ambiguous statutory law, the Department of the Interior's 
opaque regulatory procedures, and the propensity of federal 
courts to invent federal Indian law and policy, such as the 
doctrine of absolute tribal sovereign immunity.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\See Dissent of Justice Thomas et al. regarding ``judge-made 
doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity'' in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian 
Community, 572 U.S. ___ (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1986, Congress passed the Gila Bend Indian Reservation 
Lands Replacement Act (Public Law 99-503). This Act authorizes 
the TO Nation to purchase up to 9,880 acres of lands that, when 
placed in trust, would replace a reservation area flooded by 
the federally constructed Painted Rock Dam on the Gila River. 
These replacement lands had to be non-incorporated and within 
three Arizona counties (Pima, Pinal, or Maricopa).
    While there is no mention of gaming in this 1986 law, two 
years later Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 
1988 (IGRA). Under IGRA, gaming is prohibited on lands acquired 
in trust after October 1988 unless one of several exceptions is 
met. One of these exceptions 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)). There is no legislative history 
regarding the ``land claim exception'' under IGRA. Under rules 
developed by the Department of the Interior, when a tribe seeks 
to open a casino under the land claim exception, the Department 
must issue an opinion to determine whether the exception 
applies to the land in question. An opinion ``is not, per se, a 
final agency action under the Administrative Procedures 
Act.''\3\ Therefore, the merits of land claim exception 
opinions by the Department are difficult for an interested 
party to challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\See Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 98, May 20, 2008, p. 29358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2000, the Department granted the TO Nation's request to 
waive restrictions on where the tribe could acquire replacement 
lands through the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Replacement 
Lands Act. The tribe then secured a Departmental opinion 
allowing the tribe to open a casino on replacement lands under 
the land claim exception of IGRA.
    In 2002, Arizona voters passed Proposition 202, a 
referendum to approve a tribal-state compact under which 16 
Arizona tribes were granted a statewide casino monopoly with 
limits on the scope and location of the gambling facilities. In 
the campaign on ``Prop 202,'' the tribes (including the TO 
Nation) told voters that the compact would not allow additional 
casinos in Phoenix.\4\ This restriction was negotiated by all 
parties to the compact:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\Yes on 202/The 17-Tribe Indian Self-Reliance Initiative, 
``Answers to Common Questions'' Flyer.

          We negotiated in good faith with all Arizona tribes 
        and the Governor of Arizona to craft a tribal-state 
        gaming compact that preserved tribal exclusivity for 
        casino gaming, allowed for larger casinos and machine 
        allotments with the ability to expand machine 
        allotments through transfer agreements with rural 
        tribes, and limited the number of casinos in the 
        Phoenix metropolitan area. In order to reach a deal 
        with the Governor of Arizona all tribes, including the 
        [TO] Nation, had to agree that no more than seven 
        casinos could be located in the Phoenix metropolitan 
        area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Diane Enos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
Community, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska 
Native Affairs, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2938, October 4, 2011.

    While the tribes were informing voters the compact would 
not allow additional casinos in Phoenix, the TO Nation was 
undertaking confidential plans to build a new casino in the 
Phoenix area. In 2003, using a shell company, the TO Nation 
began purchasing 134 acres of unincorporated land in the 
Phoenix area (located between the cities of Glendale, Peoria, 
and Tolleson). On January 28, 2009, the tribe asked the 
Department of the Interior to accept this parcel of land in 
trust and deem it to be replacement lands under the 1986 Gila 
Bend Act. The Secretary then issued a decision to take the land 
in trust on August 26, 2010. The Gila River Indian Community, 
the City of Glendale, and other plaintiffs challenged the 
decision in federal court. However, federal litigation has been 
largely resolved in favor of the Department of the Interior and 
the TO Nation, except for one aspect to the controversy which 
cannot be resolved unless the TO Nation waives its immunity 
from suit.
    On July 3, 2014, the Department of the Interior transferred 
the land in trust. In August 2014, the City of Glendale secured 
an agreement with the tribe that gives the city an average of 
$1.3 million per year for 20 years. On August 28, 2014, the 
tribe broke ground on construction of the $400 million casino 
project.

Analysis of H.R. 308

    H.R. 308 prohibits class II and class III gaming conducted 
by any tribe within defined region in the Phoenix metropolitan 
area. As mentioned above, the principal aim of the bill is to 
block the operation of class II and class III gaming by the TO 
Nation on off-reservation lands acquired in trust by the 
Department of the Interior for the tribe's benefit, but the ban 
applies to all tribes. The prohibition is not permanent and 
thus any tribe (including the TO Nation) could potentially 
bargain for new gaming rights in the Phoenix area when the 
tribal-state compact is up for renewal.
    The ability of a tribe to operate a casino is not absolute. 
The regulatory framework for Indian gaming is subject to 
modification by Congress in accordance with a foundational 
principle of federal Indian law, which is that Congress 
``possesses comprehensive power with respect to Indian 
affairs.''\6\ This power is regarded as plenary. As explained 
by the Supreme Court, this power ``has always been deemed a 
political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial 
department of the government.''\7\ While Congress may not 
violate a constitutionally-protected right of a tribe, it may 
freely adjust a tribe's powers, privileges, and immunities. 
Accordingly, Congress may modify the federal regulatory power 
governing the operation of gaming pursuant to IGRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\Conference of Western Attorneys General, American Indian Law 
Deskbook (Fourth Edition), 2008, p. 8.
    \7\Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) at 565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing record for prior legislation addressing the 
controversy (H.R. 1410, 113th Congress) demonstrates the strong 
sentiment of the State of Arizona and a majority of its 
recognized tribes that the casino breaches a contract with 
Arizona voters. In turn, the breach may upset a careful balance 
of interests in which tribes agreed to limit the location and 
number of Las Vegas-style casinos in exchange for the exclusive 
right to operate class III gaming. This sentiment has been 
heard in the House of Representatives, which has previously 
demonstrated strong bipartisan support for prohibiting a new 
casino in the Phoenix area.\8\ In addition, in a recent 
bipartisan letter sent to members of the Natural Resources 
Committee, five Arizona Members representing districts and 
tribes directly affected by the controversy averred that the TO 
Nation's ``actions represent a very real and serious threat to 
existing gaming structure in Arizona if the Tohono O'odham 
Nation is able to develop a Las Vegas-style casino in the 
Phoenix metropolitan area.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Prior legislation on this issue passed the House in the 112th 
Congress 343-78, 2 Present (vote on H.R. 2938, June 19, 2012) and by 
voice vote in the 113th Congress (vote on H.R. 1410, September 17, 
2013).
    \9\March 24, 2015, letter to Natural Resources Committee Members 
from Representatives Trent Franks, Ann Kirkpatrick, Paul Gosar, David 
Schweikert, and Matt Salmon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 308 preserves a balance struck among Arizona tribes, 
voters, and elected State officials (including the Governor) to 
grant tribes exclusive gaming rights in Arizona in exchange for 
limits on the number and location Indian gaming facilities. The 
bill advances a sound public policy respecting the federal role 
in the regulation of Indian gaming and it best reflects how the 
elected officials representing the Congressional districts most 
directly touched by the controversy wish to resolve it.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 308 was introduced on January 13, 2015, 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, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On March 24, 
2015, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. 
The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. 
Congressman Rauul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment 
designated .024. It was not adopted by a roll call vote of 10 
to 21, as follows:


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    No additional amendments were offered and the bill was 
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by 
voice vote.

            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. 308--Keep the Promise Act of 2015

    Summary: H.R. 308 would prohibit gambling (other than 
social games for prizes of minimal value) on property near 
Glendale, Arizona that is owned by the Tohono O'odham Nation 
and held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the 
tribe. That prohibition would last until 2027. The Tohono 
O'odham Nation is currently constructing a resort and casino on 
this property and expects to begin operations within a year.
    Based on information from the Tohono O'odham Nation, CBO 
expects that if H.R. 308 were enacted, the tribe would pursue 
litigation against the federal government to recover its 
financial losses caused by the prohibition on gambling. Whether 
the tribe would prevail in such litigation and when those 
proceedings might be concluded are both uncertain. The basis 
for any judicial determination of the tribe's financial losses 
is also uncertain. CBO estimates that possible compensation 
payments from the government could range from nothing to more 
than $1 billion; however, we have no basis for estimating the 
outcome of the future litigation. Because enacting H.R. 308 
could increase direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. 
Enacting H.R. 308 would not affect revenues.
    By prohibiting gambling on land that the tribe is currently 
planning to use for such a purpose, the bill would impose an 
intergovernmental mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act (UMRA). Absent the bill, CBO estimates that the 
tribe will collect more than $100 million annually once the 
casino it is building begins operations, probably in 2016. 
Those costs would exceed the annual threshold established in 
UMRA ($77 million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation) in 
at least one of the first five years after enactment of the 
bill.
    H.R. 308 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 
UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO expects that 
the Tohono O'odham Nation would pursue litigation against the 
federal government if H.R. 308 is enacted. CBO has no basis for 
judging the outcome of that litigation. It is possible that the 
federal government would incur no compensation costs, or that 
it would pay the tribe a settlement or be ordered to pay 
compensation by a court. Any such payment would increase direct 
spending, and the amount could exceed $1 billion. The federal 
government also would incur discretionary costs, which are 
subject to appropriation, to defend itself in the expected 
litigation. The amount of such costs would depend on the length 
and extent of the legal challenges.
    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bill will be enacted in 2015 and that under current law the 
Tohono O'odham Nation will probably commence gambling 
operations and begin generating gambling revenue in 2016.
            Outcome of Future Litigation
    CBO expects that enacting the legislation would probably 
result in litigation against the federal government by the 
Tohono O'odham Nation. Based on information from the tribe, CBO 
expects the tribe would seek compensation for financial losses 
caused by H.R. 308. To date, the tribe has prevailed in 
disputes with Arizona and other tribes about its planned gaming 
operations on the property. A 2013 district court decision on 
whether gambling on the site is consistent with current federal 
law concluded that ``the Glendale-area land acquired by the 
Nation with LRA\1\ funds qualifies for gaming under IGRA\2\ 
Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(1). The land also qualifies for gaming under 
Sec. 3(j)(1) of the Compact, which specifically authorizes 
gaming on after-acquired lands that qualify for gaming under 
Sec. 2719.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, Public Law 
99-503.
    \2\Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Public Law 100-497.
    \3\State of Arizona, et al. v. Tohono O'odham Nation, 944 F. Supp. 
2d 748, 756 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That decision is now under appeal at the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals. Although the tribe has been successful in 
litigation thus far and construction of its resort and casino 
is underway, it may be more difficult for the tribe to prevail 
in a claim brought after enactment of H.R. 308 because of the 
types of claims available to it and the facts of this 
particular situation. The outcome of such litigation is 
uncertain. CBO expects the tribe would argue that the 
legislation caused either a regulatory taking of the tribe's 
property interest in gaming on that land, or a breach of the 
settlement agreement that permitted the tribe to acquire the 
land for nonagricultural economic development purposes. In 
either circumstance, the federal government could be required 
to compensate the tribe. Any such compensation would probably 
be paid from the Judgment Fund (a permanent, indefinite 
appropriation for claims and judgments against the United 
States).
            Amount of Compensation
    To estimate the amount of compensation that might be due to 
the tribe, CBO reviewed the outcome of other cases involving 
regulatory takings, tribal land settlements, and gaming 
disputes. We also consulted with the Tohono O'odham Nation, 
other Arizona tribes, and federal and state agencies that 
regulate tribal gaming to estimate the net receipts that the 
tribe may realize from the casino operations of the resort now 
under construction.
    CBO concluded that:
      Regulatory taking claims are often unsuccessful 
and usually do not lead to significant economic awards when (as 
in this case) the taking does not fully diminish the economic 
value of the property;
      The outcomes of disputes about tribal gaming and 
land settlement agreements vary and are generally dependent on 
the specific facts of each dispute, making it difficult to use 
past disputes to predict the outcome of new cases;
      Prohibiting the tribe from operating gambling 
activities at the resort and casino near Glendale could result 
in a loss of net income to the tribe of more than $1 billion 
over the next decade; and
      Whether gaming was among the nonagricultural 
economic development activities envisioned under the tribe's 
land settlement agreement is unclear because the property was 
acquired as a result of a land settlement agreement with the 
federal government that was enacted two years before the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act, which authorized gambling on tribal 
lands under certain circumstances.
    CBO estimates that possible awards to the tribe following 
litigation could range from no monetary award to more than $1 
billion. After considering the uncertainties about whether the 
tribe would prevail in a future lawsuit against the federal 
government, and the unpredictability of the amount of any 
award, CBO concluded that there is no basis to predict the 
amount of monetary award or settlement, if any, that the tribe 
would receive as a result of the enactment of H.R. 308.
    Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go 
Act of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement 
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or 
revenues. Enacting H.R. 308 could increase direct spending over 
the 2015-2025 period; however, CBO has no basis for estimating 
the amount or timing of such spending, if any.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
By prohibiting gaming on land that the tribe is currently 
planning to use for such a purpose, the bill would impose an 
intergovernmental mandate, as defined in UMRA. Absent the bill, 
CBO estimates that the tribe will net more than $100 million 
annually once the casino begins operations, probably in 2016. 
That estimate is a probabilistic assessment based on 
information from the tribe about projected revenues, accounting 
for uncertainty of projected revenues, operating expenses, and 
payments the tribe is required to make from gaming revenue, 
which all may be higher or lower than expected. It also 
accounts for the possibility that already pending legal actions 
could delay or prohibit gaming activities on the land. The cost 
of that mandate on the tribe would exceed the annual threshold 
established in UMRA ($77 million in 2015, adjusted annually for 
inflation) in at least one of the first five years after 
enactment of the bill, CBO estimates.
    If the bill is enacted and the tribe submits a successful 
claim for damages against the federal government, such 
settlement amounts would benefit the tribe.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 308 contains 
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Martin von Gnechten; 
Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa 
Merrell, Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, 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, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in 
revenues or tax expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that the bill could result in possible compensation 
payments from litigation (direct spending) but it has ``no 
basis for estimating the outcome of the future litigation.''
    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 is to prohibit gaming activities on 
certain Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain 
gaming compacts.

                           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 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as 
defined by Public Law 104-4.

                       COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

    Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that 
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any 
specific rule-making proceedings.
    Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not 
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government 
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was 
not included in any report from the Government Accountability 
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139 
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program 
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law 
98-169) as relating to other programs.

                PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

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

                        CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    H.R. 308 will breach an agreement between the United States 
and the Tohono O'odham Nation (Nation), in order to protect a 
gaming monopoly and will be an ugly mark on Congress' relations 
with all Indian tribes. This legislation not only upsets 
settled law, subjecting the United States to significant 
liability, but also creates a dangerous precedent for hundreds 
of tribal-state compacts and land and water rights settlements 
nationwide. Moreover, it will kill thousands of jobs and 
millions in economic development already underway in the West 
Valley. The House should reject this legislation.
    In the 1950s, the United States Army Corps of Engineers 
constructed the Painted Rock Dam in Arizona, which caused 
repeated flooding and eventual destruction of nearly 10,000 
acres of the Nation's Gila Bend Reservation. In 1986, Congress 
enacted legislation to compensate the Tohono O'odham Nation for 
this loss, authorizing the Nation to acquire new land to 
replace the destroyed land, and specifying that the new land 
would have the same legal status as the destroyed land--that it 
would be treated ``as a federal reservation for all purposes.'' 
In 1987 the Nation signed a settlement agreement forgoing its 
claims against the United States and relinquishing its land and 
water rights at Gila Bend.
    A generation later, the Tohono O'odham Nation has done what 
Congress authorized it to do--acquire replacement land in 
Maricopa County--and the Department of the Interior has done 
what Congress mandated--put that replacement land in trust and 
make it part of the Tohono O'odham Nation's reservation. H.R. 
308 would undo all of this in order to create a no-competition 
zone in the Phoenix metropolitan area for the benefit of two 
tribes that currently operate 5 tribal casinos in Maricopa 
County south and east of Phoenix.
    The arguments in favor of H.R. 308 have been litigated in 
federal court and rejected on their merits. Bill proponents 
allege that the Nation's reservation replacement lands were not 
eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
(IGRA). The district court ruled that ``the Glendale-area land 
acquired by the Nation . . . qualifies for gaming,'' and that 
``gaming on that land is expressly permitted by the federal 
statute [IGRA] that authorizes Indian gaming.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\State of Arizona v. Tohono O'odham Nation, 944 F. Supp. 2d 748, 
753, 756 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bill supporters claim that the Arizona tribal-state gaming 
compact prohibited the Nation from opening a gaming facility in 
the Phoenix area. The district court found that ``no reasonable 
reading of the Compact could lead a person to conclude that it 
prohibited new casinos in the Phoenix area.''\2\ Ranking Member 
Grijalva offered an amendment during Committee consideration of 
H.R. 308 to specify that the Nation could only pursue gaming in 
the Phoenix area if allowed by the Compact. Despite the fact 
that this would appear to accomplish the stated goal of the 
bill proponents, the amendment was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Tohono O'odham Nation, 944 F.Supp.2d at 768.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These parties also argue that the Nation promised other 
tribes and the State of Arizona that the Nation would not game 
in the Phoenix area. The district court rejected this argument 
as well; not on sovereign immunity grounds, but by holding that 
``the parties did not reach such an agreement.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Tohono O'odham Nation has not been engaged in 
``reservation shopping.'' Rather, the Nation has simply 
acquired new land to replace that which was destroyed, just as 
was intended by the 1986 settlement act. Further, the Tohono 
O'odham Nation has acquired its West Valley property pursuant 
to legislative authority that is unique to the Nation and is 
therefore inapplicable to any other tribe in any other state. 
Acquisition of the Nation's West Valley property has no bearing 
on off-reservation land acquisition or off-reservation gaming 
in any other part of the United States.
    H.R. 308 would unilaterally amend the Arizona tribal-state 
gaming compact by inserting a new restriction that the tribes 
and the State never negotiated, and one that Arizona voters did 
not approve. Such actions undermine Congress' intent in IGRA 
when it formulated the tribal-state gaming compact process and 
puts all tribal-state compacts at risk of collateral attack by 
Congress.
    Enactment of H.R. 308 would harm not just the Tohono 
O'odham Nation and local communities, but also the American 
taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has found that 
enactment of this legislation could subject the United States 
to as much as a billion dollars in liability for breach of 
contract and taking private property. According to CBO, ``any 
such payment would increase direct spending, and the amount 
could exceed $1 billion. The federal government also would 
incur discretionary costs, which are subject to appropriation, 
to defend itself in the expected litigation. The amount of such 
costs would depend on the length and extent of the legal 
challenges.''
    H.R. 308 is bad Indian policy and bad fiscal policy, and it 
should be rejected.
                                   Rauul Grijalva.
                                   Madeleine Bordallo.
                                   Tom McClintock.
                                   Grace Napolitano.
                                   Ruben Gallego.

                                  [all]