H.R. 2656House108th Congress (2003-2005)In Committee

To amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the Secretary of the Interior discretion regarding taking land into trust.

Legislative Activity

Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action

2 earlier actions

HouseCommittee Latest Action

Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

Natural Resources Committee

July 16, 2003

View full timeline

HouseIntro Referral

Introduced in House

June 26, 2003

HouseIntro Referral

Referred to the House Committee on Resources.

Natural Resources Committee

June 26, 2003

HouseCommittee

Executive Comment Requested from Interior.

Natural Resources Committee

July 16, 2003

Floor Debate

1 member

What members said about H.R. 2656 on the floor

1 Democrat

Rep. Lynn C. WoolseyD-CA-6 · Nov 21, 2003

Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting for the Record resolutions in support of H.R. 2656 from cities in the California Bay Area. The resolutions are regarding the planned casino in my congressional…

Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting for the Record resolutions in support of H.R. 2656 from cities in the California

Bay Area. The resolutions are regarding the planned casino in my congressional district. The communities surrounding the proposed site are doing all they can to ensure that their voices are heard on this controversial issue and it is extremely important that all sides of the issue are given a platform to do so. I hope that H.R. 2656 is brought before the House for a vote in the near future.

Resolution No. 2003-220 N.C.S.

Whereas, the Petaluma City Council respects the rights of

Native Americans to establish and have recognized tribal

sovereignty, and to secure lands under their jurisdiction;

and,

Whereas, under the existing federal legislative

requirements, there is no provision for coordination of

gaming proposals or associated major tribal enterprises with

established and approved off-reservation local or regional

planning law and General Plans in any timely and meaningful

way; and,

Whereas, developments of great magnitude are being proposed

which are dependent upon local and regional public

infrastructure, including highways, streets, transit systems,

water, wastewater and energy systems and resources,

affordable housing, and emergency services, both built and

yet to be built; and,

Whereas, without appropriate mitigation, the developments

proposed are very likely to have substantial negative impacts

and place substantial burdens on the public infrastructure

with a substantial burden falling upon existing and future

taxpayers, residents, visitors and businesses; and,

Whereas, with the rapid construction of tribal gaming

facilities, local governments are experiencing serious,

adverse impacts related to off-reservation economic,

environmental, health and safety issues; and,

Whereas, the current conditions placed on Indian gaming to

achieve and preserve the environmental, public safety, and

public health objectives of both state and local government

have been insufficient to prevent such adverse impacts; and,

Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A

(Indian Gaming) in March of 2004 as a means of supporting the

laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-

sufficiency, they were not aware that such approval would

allow Nevada developers to seize prized off-reservation

environmental resources for intense development without

regard to locally approved general plans or any meaningful

environmental review or protection; and,

Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the

Tribal-State Compact, local communities have not been granted

effective input into the development of proposed

tribal casinos that threaten their rights and the State

appears to have no effective redress for significant

environmental impacts these gambling casinos impose on

local communities; and,

Whereas, on February 6, 2003, the California State

Association of Counties has adopted a policy document that

includes seven principles of critical concern to counties,

including a principle that tribes and local governments enter

into binding and enforceable local agreements for the

mitigation of off-reservation impacts that arise from a local

gaming project; and,

Whereas, approximately 360 acres of prime agricultural

lands west of Rohnert Park are presently in imminent danger

of being withdrawn from County land use control and placed

into trust for the purposes of casino development--including

an extensive gaming complex, with a 300 room hotel, spas,

restaurants, a 2000 seat entertainment venue, parking and

other support services, by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-based

developer and the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria

(Graton Tribe); and,

Whereas, Station Casino and the Graton Tribe's gaming

proposal will have substantial negative impacts upon the

federal highway system (US Highway 101), upon which it is

dependent for bringing its customers into and out of the

region; on local and regional roads; to the Santa Rosa Plain

groundwater aquifer, to water quality, along with unknown

local and regional fiscal impacts; and,

Whereas, the proposed Graton Tribe casino site is proposed

on property whose zoning is inconsistent with the Sonoma

County General Plan (on prime agricultural land, in the

community separators and outside Rohnert Park's Urban Growth

Boundary), within the Laguna de Santa Rosa's flood plain and

within critical wetland habitat for several federally

endangered species; and,

Whereas, the proposed Graton Tribe casino proposal is not

subject to a thorough CEQA-like process that identifies

fiscal and environmental impacts then to be mitigated by the

Graton Tribe, nor is administrative consideration by the

Department of the Interior required to determine if the use

of this land, sought for gaming, will have significant

detrimental impacts on the neighboring communities which

outweigh the benefits to the tribe; and,

Whereas, the Graton Tribe was restored in 2000 based, in

part, on its promise not to engage its Indian casino gaming:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council strongly supports

the revisions in federal legislation [HR 2656/S1342]

introduced by Representative Woolsey and Senator Feinstein.

The Petaluma City Council also urges all members of the

Senate and House of Representatives to support these

important statutory changes and immediately move for their

passage; and be it further

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council supports the

California State Association of Counties policy document

regarding compact negotiations for Indian Gaming; and

requests that the Graton Tribe follow the principles

contained therein; and be it further

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council, based on the

information currently available, strongly opposes the

creation of a gambling casino resort on any site that is

inconsistent with the local land use planning and zoning

policies; and be it further

Resolved, That the Petaluma City Council calls on the Board

of Supervisors of the County of Sonoma, in all negotiations

with the Tribe concerning creation of a gambling casino

resort, to safeguard the vital and legitimate interests of

all Sonoma County citizens by requiring that the following

minimum standards be included in a binding, legally-

enforceable Memorandum of Understanding with the Tribe:

1. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject, at a

minimum, to the same level of environmental review as would

be required by the pending Federal legislation; and

2. The proposed casino/resort project must be subject to

the principles of the California State Association of

Counties policy document regarding compact negotiations for

Indian Gaming; and

3. Even though the pending federal legislation does not

require environmental mitigation, in order to ensure that the

citizens of Sonoma County do not bear the costs associated

with the impacts of the casino/resort, the Tribe must agree

to mitigate, and must in fact mitigate, all environmental

impacts caused by its project; and

4. In order to prevent Sonoma County cities from having

land within their jurisdiction exempted from local land use

control by reason of future acquisition by the Graton Tribe,

the Tribe must agree that it will take NO OTHER LAND anywhere

in Sonoma County or in any adjacent county into tribal trust

Bill Text

Latest available legislative text

Reading Mode

Raw Text PDF

Introduced in HouseIssued June 26, 2003

        [Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2656 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 2656

To amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the Secretary of
the Interior discretion regarding taking land into trust.

_______________________________________________________________________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

June 26, 2003

Ms. Woolsey (for herself and Mr. Thompson of California) introduced the
following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

A BILL

To amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the Secretary of
the Interior discretion regarding taking land into trust.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO GIVE SECRETARY AND STATE DISCRETION CONCERNING
TRUST LANDS.

(a) Review.--Section 1404 of the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act
(25 U.S.C. 1300n-2) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subsection:
``(f) Review.--No land taken into trust for the benefit of the
Tribe shall be construed to satisfy the terms for an exception under
section 20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C.
2719(b)(1)(B)) to the prohibition on gaming on lands acquired by the
Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after October 17,
1988, under section 20(a) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(a)).''.
(b) Land Into Trust.--Section 1405(a) of the Graton Rancheria
Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n-3(a)) is amended by striking ``shall''
and inserting ``may''.
<all>