First Step to Redeployment Act of 2006

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4893) to amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to restrict off-reservation gaming, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill now under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a basic premise: Indian gaming should occur on Indian lands; and when a tribe is newly recognized, restored or landless, then it has to include the local community at the table for the simple purpose of signing a memorandum of understanding to address impacts. It is as simple as that.

Unfortunately, over the last 17 years, far too many tribes have drifted away from the original purpose and spirit of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and have sought to develop off-reservation casinos in whatever location seemed to be the most lucrative, often far from their tribal lands. Those who have pursued this course have turned the spirit of IGRA on its head. Instead of seeking to bring economic development to the Indian reservation, they have instead sought to bring the Indian reservation to wherever there is economic development. This is wrong, and it threatens

both the future of Native American economic development and the integrity of Indian tribal sovereignty itself.

When IGRA was written, it mandated that only lands held by tribes prior to October 17, 1988, or lands later acquired directly adjoining those lands, would be eligible for tribal gaming activities. It was a central principle of IGRA that, in general, lands acquired by tribes after enactment of IGRA would be ineligible for gaming.

However, IGRA provided for four exceptions, and it was expected that these would be used only rarely. Unfortunately, time has shown that the use of these four exceptions to IGRA's prohibition on gaming on after- acquired lands has been anything but rare. While opponents of reform make the oft-repeated claim that there have been only three off- reservation casinos since 1988, this claim is limited to only one of those exceptions, section 20. It ignores the fact that there are at least 38 casinos in operation today on land that was not held in trust in 1988, nearly 10 percent of the Nation's total number of tribal casinos.

Currently, there are at least 50 additional proposals for off- reservation casinos under those four exceptions. Beyond that, there have been dozens upon dozens of other projects announced or proposed over the last several years where paperwork has not yet been filed. Under the two-part determination of IGRA, virtually any land in the country could be targeted for gaming. Each one of those proposed casinos has had a very real and negative impact on public support for tribal gaming.

Over the last 2 years, the Committee on Resources has held nine hearings, heard from dozens of witnesses, and received thousands of communications documenting problems arising from off-reservation gaming. The committee has heard a compelling story and the heavy toll that off-reservation gaming proposals impose on local communities, and tribal sovereignty has become very clear.

Local citizens have told stories of waking up one day and being surprised to learn that a parcel of land in their community has been purchased by a developer who has announced that he intends to have that land declared a reservation where an Indian casino will be opened. This despite the fact that the community was hundreds of miles from the nearest existing tribal reservation land.

We have heard from private property and business owners about how the land-claims exception in IGRA has been abused by those seeking off- reservation casinos. Throughout the eastern United States, numerous land claims have been filed, resulting in costly litigation and the clouding of private property titles. These claims are filed in the hopes of forcing the State to settle the claim with an off-reservation casino. The current land claims exception in IGRA has become an incentive for this type of abusive lawsuit and must be brought to an end.

Local leaders have testified about the possibility of their community being significantly and permanently changed by the presence of a newly declared Indian reservation and tribal casino. They have told of their feelings of powerlessness to meaningfully participate and affect the process of the land being taken into trust. And they have spoken of their frustration that the impacts of the proposed casino facility will not be fully mitigated, because after the State's Governor and casino developer take their cut of the action, the tribe does not have enough revenue left to share to offset their impact on the community.

H.R. 4893 represents real reform of these abuses, while maintaining the opportunity for tribes to conduct gaming under IGRA on their tribal lands as per the original intent of the law. H.R. 4893 does away with the land-claim exception in the section 20 two-part determination. It reforms the procedures where newly recognized, landless and restored tribes can ask for lands to be placed in trust for an initial reservation. Tribes seeking these lands will now have to satisfy a three-part test to demonstrate that they have a primary historic, geographic, and temporal nexus to the land they wish to acquire for gaming. This will ensure that the initial reservation placement is determined by where the tribal people live and receive services, not by where the market for gaming seems best.

One of the most important parts of the bill is that State and local communities will play a more meaningful role in the process and will have an opportunity to give greater input into a casino proposed by a newly recognized and restored tribe. This bill requires the tribe to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the local county for the purpose of providing direct mitigation of impacts from a casino project.

H.R. 4893 is a real reform that will solve, once and for all, the problems with off-reservation gaming. It is the responsibility of this Congress to act now to bring the practice of off-reservation gaming to an end and to prevent further damage in the relationship between tribes and local communities over off-reservation casinos and to restore the original intent and spirit of IGRA to today's Indian gaming practice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Mr. Speaker, over the last 2 years, we have attempted to address this issue in the Resources Committee. Two years ago I put out a draft legislation for discussion that all of the members of the committee, all the Members of Congress, and the interested public had an opportunity to comment on.

We got thousands of comments. We held hearings, we got thousands of comments on that draft. We changed that draft. We took all of the input that we got, the testimony that we got, and we put that into that draft, and we continued to work on it.

Mr. Kildee, from the very beginning, raised the issue of sovereignty; and it is an important issue to him, as it is to most of the members of the committee, that this is something that we wanted to protect, as it is our constitutional responsibility to protect the sovereignty of tribes and to negotiate with tribes, just as it is to negotiate with states in foreign countries.

We took all of that comment, and we came up with a new draft, and we put that out for additional comment. Finally, we introduced the underlying bill.

Mr. Kildee brought up the issue of sovereignty and how we dealt with that. We changed the bill we are actually voting on today substantially from that original draft. The original draft did give cities a veto power in essence over trust lands. Many members of the committee and different attorneys that we talked to felt that that would not stand up to a court challenge, and we took that out.

But what we did do, as Mr. Rahall pointed out, we gave local cities and counties the ability to negotiate with the tribes to come up with a memorandum of understanding so that they have the ability to make sure that if there is a major new development that is going to happen within their community that they are held harmless, that they have some input into that project going forward, that sewer and water and transportation needs and other things, just like if it was a private developer going in, would be met. That is the requirement that we put in. That somehow is now being deciphered as threatening sovereignty.

I will tell you though, and I want to make this perfectly clear, if you care about sovereignty of our Native American tribes in this country, then you better support this bill, because if we do not further regulate the expansion of off-reservation casinos, we will have an attempt made within this Congress to threaten that sovereignty, and we know that that is going to happen because we have seen it over the last few years. The proliferation of Indian gaming throughout the country is a threat to that sovereignty, and we need to do that.

Mr. Kildee also talks about in IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988. It took us years just to draft these amendments to it. This may have taken months, but it wasn't written on Mount Sinai.

When you helped to write that bill, it was a $200 million industry. Today it is a $23 billion industry. We have a responsibility to regulate that industry. We have a responsibility as Members of Congress and the Resources Committee to do what we have to do in order to ensure that that sovereignty continues, because if we don't that is a bigger threat to that sovereignty.

I would also say, Mr. Speaker, that the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) is a strong supporter of the bill. He asked

me to mention that in my closing comments. Unfortunately, he was not able to make it down here on the floor, but he will have a statement to add into the Record.

Having said that, I urge passage of the legislation

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill that would amend section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to impose on the poorest tribes new onerous requirements before those tribes could obtain trust land for gaming.

The provision that is most troublesome represents a drastic change in Federal law and policy because it undermines tribal sovereignty by requiring certain tribes to enter into a memorandum of understanding with counties and if the memorandum of understanding is not signed in 1 year would subject those tribes and counties to binding arbitration.

I do not believe by adding this provision to his bill Chairman Pombo acted with ill intent. I think we are all concerned about the possible proliferation of off-reservation gaming, but this bill goes far beyond that issue because it subverts tribal sovereignty by requiring tribes to negotiate with counties which are not sovereign governments at all but are creatures of the State.

Under current law, tribes must negotiate casino-style gaming compacts with State governments. As creatures of the State, the counties' interests should be protected by their State, as is the case in Michigan and other States. Never before has a Federal law equated sovereign tribes with counties.

We can address the issue of off-reservation gaming without equating those sovereign tribes with counties. But suspension of the rules forbids any amendments. I oppose setting a bad precedent in Federal law that undermines our long-standing policy of protecting tribal sovereignty.

In addition, there are a number of Members' concerns that remain unaddressed by this bill. During committee markup of this bill, several Members were told that their issues would be resolved before the bill was scheduled for consideration on the floor. Their concerns remain unaddressed, and consideration of this bill under suspension of the rules does not allow for modification or amendment.

Mr. Speaker, there was wide opposition to this bill. I and other Members of Congress have received letters from the National Congress of American Indians which represents 250 tribes throughout the Nation, the National Indian Gaming Association, the National Indian Business Association, California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Arizona Indian Gaming Association, Washington State Indian Gaming Association, New Mexico Indian Gaming Association, tribes from North Dakota, Montana, Oregon, Maine, Oklahoma, Wisconsin and my own State of Michigan.

Tribes and Indian organizations from all across the Nation overwhelmingly oppose this bill because it erodes tribal sovereignty. Therefore, in the interest of protecting tribal sovereignty and honoring our government-to-government relationship with tribes, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, when we all took our oath of office, we pledged and took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution reads, ``The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States and with the Indian tribes.'' That Constitution lists the three

sovereignties recognized by this Constitution.

I think we should be most careful when we diminish the sovereignty of one of those three by equating them with creatures of the State when those counties can have their interests protected by their own State government

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Again, I would hope that we would not suspend the rules today and I look forward to continuing to work with Mr. Pombo, my chairman. From the very beginning I told him he was taking on a very important task, but I think we do have a poison pill, not put in with ill-will but a poison pill in this bill.

I would be most happy to continue to work with him to try to find a solution to the possible proliferation of casinos

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).

(Mr. WU asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I was here in 1988 as a Member of the Interior Committee, and I helped write IGRA. I am very familiar with it. All laws here are written on Capitol Hill, not Mount Sinai, so I know that they are not perfect bills. But this has been a good bill.

As I said, from the very beginning, I told Mr. Pombo that I admired his courage to address this situation, but I do think that it has not been addressed properly, particularly with equating sovereign tribes with counties. I would be glad to work with him, bring this bill out on regular order where people could offer amendments on a very, very important bill.

This bill took us a long time to write in 1988. We had great debate in 1988 and great input. We wrote a good bill.

So I date back to those, probably one of the few who were here when we wrote that law, and I think that to amend it in this fashion, particularly on suspension, and, secondly, treating sovereign tribes as if they were like counties which are creatures of States, treat them as two equals. The Constitution does not say, Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations, the several States, the Indian tribes and the various counties. It mentions the three sovereignties here. That is very, very important to me, and we bore that in mind when we wrote this bill back in 1988.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will be able to defeat this today, and Mr. Pombo knows. I have talked to him repeatedly on this. We should sit down and see if we can bring a bill out with some of the provisions, especially the one treating as equals, two entities that are not equals, included in a rule where we can offer amendments on the floor

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Speaker, again, I wish we had a longer time to debate this very important bill, a bill that took us months to put together back in 1998. I regret that. I do look forward to, however, if we defeat this bill, which I hope we do, to sit down with Mr. Pombo. He knows that I recognize that there are some things that we can agree upon in this bill, then bring the bill out under regular order and let the House speak its mind

Mr. Speaker, I yield back my last second.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4893 and want to thank Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall for their hard work on behalf of this important bipartisan legislation. The practice of Indian tribes acquiring lands outside the borders of their tribal homelands for the purposes of opening casinos--often called reservation shopping--is a problem that is spreading throughout the country. In most cases, it forces states and local governments into protracted and costly legal battles. This is especially true in the State of Illinois where off-reservation claims have affected thousands of landowners.

When Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988, they did not intend to authorize reservation shopping by Tribes. In fact, IGRA prohibits gaming on all after-acquired lands and only permits off-reservation gaming under extremely limited circumstances. However, some Tribes are attempting to take advantage of IGRA's provisions and move into lucrative casino markets far from their reservations and lands where they have a historical connection.

This legislation puts an end to reservation shopping by prohibiting attempts to establish off-reservation casinos outside the state where the tribe currently resides. Most importantly, this legislation prevents tribes from filing lawsuits and land claims against private property owners in hopes of getting a casino in the settlement.

One example is in my district where the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indian Tribe, based in Kansas, has laid claim to 1,280 acres of land in DeKalb County. Their claim is based on an 1829 Treaty between the United States and United Tribes of the Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatomi that granted the DeKalb acreage for the ``use'' of a chief named Shab- eh-nay and ``his band.'' Shab-eh-nay left the land in the 1830's and moved to Kansas with his band. In fact, on December 1, 1845, Shab-eh- nay sold 640 acres of the property for $1200--a deed which I have a copy of right here--and federal agencies determined that the land had been reverted to federal ownership when he moved west.

Nonetheless, the Tribe asserts that the 1829 Treaty granted a permanent title to the land that could only be taken away by an Act of Congress. Their claim is based solely on a letter written on the final day of the Clinton Administration by U.S. Department of Interior Solicitor John Leshy that the Tribe had a ``credible'' claim to the land.

However, instead of requesting that the Department of Interior formally recognize that claim and have the land taken into trust, the Tribe made an open-market purchase of 128 acres of land and declared through a Tribal Council Resolution their sovereign authority and jurisdiction over the property.

It should be noted that according to the Department of Interior, the Tribe has never officially contacted the Department about their claim to this land. Not to mention that another tribe, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, has made a competing claim to the same land.

Shortly after presenting the resolution to the County, the Tribe attempted to begin work on construction of a satellite office on the property, which the land is not currently zoned for. As a result, the County was forced to issue a stop work order on the project. Subsequently, the Tribe scheduled a public hearing regarding their proposed change in land use. Ultimately, the Tribe's intention is to construct a $715 million ``first class gaming, entertainment and resort complex on 1,280 acres of land'' according to their proposal issued in 2003. This is despite the fact that tribal gaming is not allowed under State law.

Rather than take the steps outlined by IGRA, and apply to have their land taken into trust by the Department of Interior, the Tribe has instead chosen to force costly legal action by the County for the purpose of having their claim heard in court. This is clearly an attempt to circumvent the review process by the Department of Interior.

Mr. Speaker, even the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that an Indian Nation cannot regain the sovereignty of lands through open market land purchases. Nonetheless, these claims persist and put private landowners and local governments at risk. Without congressional action, these claims could establish a dangerous precedent whereby tribes could, and would, locate casinos in any state where gaming is allowed.

Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that H.R. 4893 is especially important for the sake of protecting private landowners who have a legitimate right to their land, while providing fair and reasonable treatment for Indian Tribes. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this important and commonsense legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4893, a bill amending section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

Mr. Speaker, I know this bill has been forged in the cauldron of Indian country, and speaking from experience, I know Native American passion can be as powerful as any constituency in America. That is why I rise, first and foremost, to voice my utmost respect for the chairman of the Resources Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who has attempted to address casino-style gaming outside tribal reservations in a fair and balanced fashion. I particularly want to thank him for working to accommodate many of my concerns in particular areas of this bill. Frankly, I wish we had had the opportunity to continue our discussions on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, the chairman is a tremendous ally of Indian country and anyone who doubts this to any degree need only to look to his record and to his committee's priorities. He has always had nothing but the best interest of tribes in mind from a policy perspective, and he understands their issues as well as anyone in Congress. Unfortunately, on this issue we simply disagree.

The Resources Committee has crafted this bill with the best of intentions. I recognize its members are trying to address a complex challenge. However, as the only enrolled member of a tribe in Congress, the Chickasaw Nation, I take my obligation to defend the concept of tribal sovereignty very seriously. This bill, however well-intentioned, in my opinion violates and erodes the sovereignty of all American Indian tribes. As a result, tribal governments in my State and all across the country have urged me to oppose this legislation. And most tribal organizations, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) has pointed out, also oppose the legislation.

Our Constitution recognizes three types of sovereign entities beyond our own country: First, foreign governments; second, the States; and third, Indian tribes. Existing law requires that to enter into gaming activities, tribes must negotiate agreements with the Federal Government and the State government.

Under this bill, for the first time in United States history, Indian tribes would be required to negotiate directly with local governments in order to engage in lawful activity. That diminishes the power of tribes and raises local governments to the level of sovereign entities.

This is wrong for two reasons. First, local governments are not sovereign units. They are the creation of State governments and it is the responsibility of State governments to look after their interests. Second, it is the responsibility of State governments to negotiate for and represent the interests of local governments in their dealings with tribes. To shift this burden from the States to the tribes is both wrong and irresponsible.

Mr. Speaker, as currently written, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act works. It has provided tribes the opportunity to recapitalize, diversify their economies, and raise their voices in national politics. It reinforces the tribes' constitutional right to negotiate as a sovereign entity with the Federal Government and with State governments, and it protects the interest of local governments by ensuring they work with their State governor and legislature in the State compacting process.

Mr. Speaker, all things considered, I see no upside in subjecting tribes to local governments. Therefore, I see it as Congress' responsibility to continue the tradition enshrined in the Constitution, embedded in our laws, and reinforced by countless judicial decisions, and that is to preserve and protect Indian sovereignty. I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 4893

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4893, amending section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to restrict off-reservation gaming.

This bill amends the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for the first time since 1988. The bill would require Tribes to enter into compacts with local government entities, in addition to State governments, to conduct casino-style and non-casino-style gaming (such as bingo).

The U.S. Constitution article 1, section 8 acknowledges Indian Tribes as governments, equal to states and foreign nations. H.R. 4893 includes a provision that forces Tribes to enter into binding negotiations and arbitration with counties and parishes. This is directly counter to the constitutional provision recognizing Tribal governments as sovereign nations equal to Federal and State governments.

I oppose this bill because it is inconsistent with and dismissive of current law and policy. The National Indian Gaming Association, National Congress of American Indians, Native American Rights Fund, and the National Indian Business Association have all expressed concern that this bill requires Indian tribes to negotiate financial arrangements with local municipalities and counties, rather than the arrangement of government-to-government interactions, which is the current precedent.

Indian tribes are sovereign entities, and as such negotiate in government-to-government settings. The provision in this bill to require Indian tribal governments to negotiate with municipalities and counties in effect replaces the state government partner with a sub- government entity. This intrusive action violates the constitutional principle of tribal sovereignty.

A bill with consequences this far-reaching deserves thorough consideration and debate. The fact that this bill has been placed on the suspension calendar, and thus is not subject to amendment, is irresponsible. Tribal sovereignty is a bedrock principle of American law. It should not be dismissed without proper debate that allows every concerned and affected Member of Congress to participate.

The Department of the Interior is presently reviewing Section 20 in order to publish regulations pertaining to the economic opportunities, liability and jurisdictional issues, and policy implications for the greater American Indian community. In March, the Committee on Resources heard Mr. James Cason, Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior, give testimony in which he expressed the need to review and work on certain elements of the bill. To my knowledge, the issues have not been resolved to the satisfaction of all of the Members of the Committee, let alone Members of Congress who are not on the Resources Committee.

This bill does not belong on the suspension calendar, and should instead be open to review and amendment by all Members of Congress.

I urge my colleagues to speak up for proper procedure in this House, as well as respect the precedent that this bill ignores.