[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 96 (Thursday, June 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8729-S8732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 1342. A bill to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give 
the Secretary of the Interior discretion regarding taking land into 
trust; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the State of 
California and the local communities of Sonoma, Napa, and Marin 
counties the opportunity for input and review of the tribe's plan for a 
major casino in the Bay Area.
  I am offering this legislation because the Boards of Supervisors of 
the local communities impacted by this planned casino have asked me to 
amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. The Boards of Supervisors 
of Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties have each unanimously passed 
resolutions seeking a change in Federal law to restore the Secretary of 
Interior's discretion in approving land into trust and allowing the 
State and local government to have a voice in the process.
  Prior to today's introduction I have met with the Presidents of the 
Sonoma and Marin Boards of Supervisors, the Graton tribe, and Senators 
Campbell and Inouye the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian 
Affairs Committee.
  This week I had a very spirited and frank conversation with Graton 
Tribal Chairman Greg Sarris and representatives from the casino 
investors. During the meeting Chairman Sarris committed to work with 
the local Boards of Supervisors and he committed to look at alternative 
sites for the casino. Chairman Sarris also said the Tribe and the 
casino investors would conduct an environmental review based on the 
criteria laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, 
before a site is selected. These are positive signs and I have told 
both the Boards of Supervisors and the Tribe that I would like to see 
them continue to work together.
  This legislation guarantees that the local and State officials have a 
voice in the process. Without this change to the Graton Rancheria 
Restoration Act they do not have that voice.
  In 2000, Congress passed the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to 
restore Federal recognition to the 355 members of the Federated Indians 
of the Graton Rancheria.
  The Graton Tribe's original Rancheria was in the northern Sonoma 
County town of Graton on land purchased by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs, BIA, in 1920 for the ``village home'' of otherwise homeless 
Miwok and Pomo Indians. The Rancheria was terminated in 1958 when the 
BIA approved a plan to distribute the assets to resident Indians and 
remove the Rancheria from Federal trust.
  The original version of the Graton restoration bill, H.R. 946, 
sponsored by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey in the 106th Congress, passed 
the House of Representatives with a gaming restriction, to which the 
Tribe agreed.
  In testimony before the House Resources Committee in May 2000, and in 
other public comments, Graton Chairman Greg Sarris stated that the 
Tribe had no intention of conducting gaming.
  In fact, before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Sarris 
stated, ``Many may think our motives for restoration have been 
influenced by the opportunity gaming affords some other recognized 
tribes. Because our local political constituency, both democratic and 
republican has opposed any sort of development for environmental 
reasons, we agreed with these local political forces to not develop a 
gaming complex. So, as proof, we voted as a tribe to include a non-
gaming clause in our bill, stipulating that we will not be a gaming 
tribe.''
  Furthermore, in an article in the Marin Independent Journal on 
September 21, 2000, Chairman Sarris said, ``All we want is to be 
formally recognized as Indians and have the same rights that other 
Indians do for education and health care. We are not interested in 
gambling.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of this article in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

          [From the Marin Independent Journal, Sept. 21, 2000]

                 Gambling Dispute Threatens Miwok Bill

                        (By Gannet News Service)

       Washington.--Legislation to formally re-establish the 
     identity and standing of Marin's band of Coast Miwok Indians 
     appears all but dead in the face of a House-Senate dispute 
     over how tight guarantees must be that the tribe will never 
     allow casino gambling.
       ``This is insane, this is frustrating, and I just can't see 
     why we can't find a way out of this,'' said Greg Sarris, the 
     tribe's chief who is an English professor at UCLA.

[[Page S8730]]

       Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the Petaluma Democrat who authored the 
     original bill, said she shares the frustration but sees 
     little hope other than the fact that ``down the road there 
     will be other Congresses.''
       The problem is that the bill to restore the all-but-
     vanquished tribe, approved by the full House in June, 
     included specific language that waived in perpetuity any 
     right to establish gaming on the tribe's remaining one-acre 
     ancestral plot in the Sonoma County town of Graton.
       Woolsey sought that waiver in agreement with the tiny 
     tribe. In hearings last spring and summer, she and Sarris 
     said the tribe was happy to agree to the waiver. They were 
     not interested in gaming, and their acreage was too small 
     even if they were interested. Additionally, the fine print in 
     a state-passed referendum in California to divide gaming 
     resources among tribes prevents them from operating any kind 
     of casino.
       Adding a federal gaming ban on top of an existing state ban 
     was an easy and harmless layer of extra insurance to reassure 
     the community that the tribe would not be bringing high-
     stakes bingo to Marin.
       ``All we want is to be formally recognized as Indians and 
     have the same rights that other Indians do for education and 
     health care,'' said Sarris, one of some 300 descendants of 
     the tribe that the government declared extinct in the 1950s. 
     ``We are not interested in gambling.''
       But when the bill reached the Senate as an identical 
     version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-
     Calif., numerous Indian advocates and the government's Bureau 
     of Indian Affairs objected. The surrender of sovereignty by 
     the Miwoks, however well-intentioned, would set a precedent 
     that could be used against other tribes in other states--in 
     effect a means to pressure tribes on the sensitive issue of 
     gambling.
       ``It's not that we don't have sympathy with what the Miwoks 
     want to do, or in this case don't want to do. It's a question 
     of eroding the hard-won sovereignty that is the legal basis 
     for the gambling that has been an important resource of many 
     tribes,'' said John Sanchez, an expert on Indian sovereignty 
     at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the 
     Apache tribe.
       Boxer's spokesman, David Sandretti, said his bill was still 
     hopeful, but the key lawmaker on the issue is Sen. Daniel 
     Inouye of Hawaii, vice chairman of the Indian Affairs 
     Committee and long a powerful voice on behalf of American 
     Indians and native Hawaiians. Without his support, the bill 
     wouldn't survive in the Senate, Sandretti said.
       Inouye made it clear this week that the bill is dead unless 
     Woolsey agreed to drop the gambling ban in her legislation.
       ``If you set that precedent, that creates a lot of 
     problems,'' Inouye said. ``I would prefer to see a measure 
     without the waiver, and if I do I'd be likely to support 
     it.''
       Inouye added that it's a meaningless, symbolic waiver to 
     begin with, because the tribe is already prevented from 
     opening a casino by state law. ``I just don't think this is 
     something that the federal government should be involved 
     in,'' he said.
       Woolsey said she has no intention of agreeing to anything 
     that doesn't include the anti-gaming clause as written.
       ``I got it out of the House, and now it's in the Senate, 
     and I guess that's just where it is,'' Woolsey said. ``I've 
     heard some proposals for compromise, but I haven't seen 
     anything that would offer the level of protection against 
     gaming that the community and the 6th Congressional District 
     would be prepared to accept.''
       Gene Buvelot of Novato, vice chairman of the Federated 
     Indians of Graton Rancheria, said his group is disappointed 
     in Woolsey, because members believe she should allow the bill 
     to go forward without the clause.
       ``We're disappointed, deeply disappointed with Woolsey 
     because she seems to be the one who's dropped the ball on 
     this, not Barbara Boxer,'' he said. ``It's a shame that it's 
     getting this far and that Woolsey is letting it bog down like 
     this.''
       Coast Miwok tribal elder Joanne Campbell, a former Marin 
     resident now living in Daly City, said she often visited her 
     great aunt at the Miwok's Graton Rancheria in Sonoma County.
       ``I'm really steamed, I'm just so upset that this bill 
     maybe will not pass,'' Campbell said. ``I think it's a just 
     bill and it's about time we got some recognition because we 
     have all these other issues to deal with, Health issues, 
     education issues, and we need this recognition to move 
     forward.''
       The bill would make the tribe eligible for a wide range of 
     U.S. and California health, education and housing grants and 
     assistance from various federal agencies, give the tribe the 
     right to establish a reservation and exempt the tribe from 
     some local, state, or federal taxes and local zoning 
     ordinances on reservation land.
       If the bill is not passed by Oct. 5, when the Senate 
     recesses, a new restoration bill would have to wait until the 
     next Congress.
       Camobell described Woolsey's refusal to drop the redundant 
     anti-gaming clause from the Senate version as ``unrelenting'' 
     and ``unreasonable.''

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator Boxer sponsored legislation identical to 
Congresswoman Woolsey's in the Senate, but the gaming restriction was 
stricken when the bill was ultimately passed as part of the Omnibus 
Indian Advancement Act of 2000.
  The day the legislation passed on December 11, 2000, Senator Boxer 
stated on the Senate Floor that dropping the gaming restriction was 
necessary because of opposition to the no-gaming clause by the Senate 
Committee on Indian Affairs and the Clinton Administration and because, 
according to Senator Boxer, ``Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming 
clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of 
conducting gaming.''
  So what has changed one might ask?
  Well, even though the Gratons voluntarily and repeatedly took a no-
gaming pledge while their restoration bill was under consideration by 
Congress, on April 23, 2003, the Tribe and its partner, Stations 
Casinos of Las Vegas, announced plans to purchase approximately 2,000 
acres of land in Southern Sonoma County near Sears Point for the 
development of a casino.
  This site is located on environmentally sensative open space and San 
Francisco--North Bay tidelands which have been the subject of a 
decades-long conservation effort by environmentalists and local 
residents.
  This site is roughly 30 miles from San Francisco--along the gateway 
to Sonoma that leads thousands of travelers into the beautiful wine 
country each day.
  The Tribe's casino proposal has outraged local elected officials and 
residents who had sympathized with the Tribe's plight and supported 
their restoration on the condition that they not seek to develop a 
casino. The Sonoma and Marin County Boards of Supervisors have each 
passed unanimous resolutions objecting to the Graton casino proposal. 
In fact, even the Board of Supervisors of neighboring Napa has also 
passed a resolution against the casino proposal. I ask unanimous 
consent to print these resolutions and letters from the counties in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Marin County, San Rafael, CA and Sonoma County, Santa 
           Rose, CA,
                                                     May 29, 2003.
     Senator Dianne Feinstein,
     U.S. Senate,
     San Francisco, CA.
       Dear Senator Feinstein: We write this joint letter to 
     request your assistance with an urgent matter facing Marin 
     and Sonoma counties. As you are aware, the Graton Rancheria 
     Tribe has announced plans to acquire lands adjacent to the 
     San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge and to construct a 
     major casino in partnership with Stations Casinos of Las 
     Vegas. The proposal came as a shock to us since, at the time 
     it sought restoration in 2000, the Graton tribe represented 
     to Congress that it would not engage in gaming. It now 
     appears that the Secretary of the Interior believes she must 
     take into trust any land within our counties acquired by the 
     tribe, and that gaming will be permitted on these lands 
     without consultation with local governments or discretionary 
     review by the Secretary.
       We ask that you sponsor legislation to require that tribal 
     trust land acquisitions be subject to consultation with local 
     governments and an appropriate administrative review. We ask 
     that restored tribal land acquired for gaming be subject to 
     the two part test that it is not detrimental to the community 
     and is supported by the Governor. Finally, we ask that the 
     Secretary be given discretion with respect to accepting land 
     into trust for the benefit of the Graton tribe. County 
     Counsel from our two counties have prepared a letter to you 
     providing background and supporting details regarding our 
     proposals.
       We know that you share our concern about the proliferation 
     of casinos in California, especially those which are close to 
     metropolitan areas or have impacts on sensitive lands.
       We look forward to working with you to bring about changes 
     in the law which can advance the economic interests of tribes 
     without harm to the local community.
           Very truly yours,
     Annette Rose,
       President, Marin County Board of Supervisors.
     Paul Kelley,
       Chairman, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
                                  ____


                         Resolution No. 03-0512

       Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the 
     San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most 
     environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in 
     light of their proximity to and drainage directly into the 
     Bay;
       Whereas, the agricultural lands along Lakeville Highway 
     afford an invaluable agricultural and scenic resource, not 
     only to the people of Sonoma County but to the populace of 
     the entire Bay Area;

[[Page S8731]]

       Whereas, such lands provide one of the Bay Area's most 
     cherished community separators, and represent an important 
     scenic gateway to Sonoma County;
       Whereas, these bay, agriculture and wet lands have been the 
     focus of preservation and conservation efforts by 
     environmentalists and local communities for many years;
       Whereas, based upon press reports, approximately 2,000 
     acres of such lands are presently in imminent danger of being 
     withdrawn from County land use control and placed into trust 
     for the purposes of casino development--including the 
     potential of an extensive gaming complex, including a hotel, 
     parking and other support services as well as possible 
     residential development, by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-
     based developer and the Federated Indians of the Graton 
     Rancheria (``Tribe'');
       Whereas, the Tribe was restored in 2000 based, in part, on 
     its promise not to engage in Indian casino gaming;
       Whereas, the federal legislation restoring the Tribe 
     contains language that could be used to circumvent the 
     normally required environmental review and administrative 
     regulatory process for taking land into trust by the United 
     States government on behalf of the Tribe;
       Whereas, the Tribe's gaming plans were announced in the 
     media without any government to government consultation with 
     affected local communities;
       Whereas, the Board and Tribe have initiated communication 
     regarding the proposed casino but details regarding the 
     project and siting have not yet been made available;
       Whereas, the proposed project could overwhelm the local 
     infrastructure in the area in which the casino project is 
     proposed;
       Whereas, the environmental impacts of the prosed project 
     have the potential of being are reaching and of such a 
     magnitude that they would negatively affect a significant 
     portion of the North Bay, including grossly aggravating 
     existing traffic problems along State Highways 37 and 101 (as 
     well as County roads in the project vicinity), pose severe 
     water quality risks, and have profound negative visual 
     impacts in the scenic area;
       Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A 
     (Indian Gaming) in March of 2000 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 of intense development without 
     regarding to locally approved general plans or any meaningful 
     environmental review or protection;
       Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the 
     Tribal-State Compact, local communities have been granted no 
     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: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Sonoma County Board of supervisors, 
     based on the information currently available, strongly 
     opposes the creation of a gambling casino on the site 
     proposed by the Tribe; and be it further
       Resolved, That County staff is directed to enter into good 
     faith discussions with tribal representatives for the 
     purposes of facilitating government to government 
     communications, exploring casino development and reviewing 
     alternative sites, as well as minimizing and mitigating 
     environmental impacts of any casino project; be it further
       Resolved, That County staff is authorized to take all 
     reasonably required action, including submitting comments to 
     agencies involved in considering the trust application and 
     casino proposal, requesting assistance from State and Federal 
     elected representative, proposing legislation, participating 
     in administrative proceedings, and initiating litigation to 
     insure that any proposed gaming project in Sonoma County 
     complies with the county General Plan and meets all federal 
     and state environmental, public health, and public safety 
     requirements that otherwise would apply to a non-Indian 
     development project, and to require that any land proposed to 
     be taken into trust goes through a thorough regulatory and 
     environmental review process.
                                  ____


                         Resolution No. 2003-70

       Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the 
     San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most 
     environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in 
     light of their proximity to and drainage directly in to the 
     Bay; and
       Whereas, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria have 
     announced their intention to acquire 2000 acres of land along 
     Highway 37 and develop a casino, hotel, housing and related 
     development on this precious natural resource; and
       Whereas, the impact on traffic of a development of this 
     magnitude will be felt throughout the North Bay, with this 
     single development jeopardizing all traffic capacity with 
     local jurisdictions have husbanded for purposes consistent 
     with their respective General Plans; and
       Whereas, when Congress passed the Graton Rancheria 
     Restoration Act, the Federated Indians of Graton had pledged 
     not to engage in gaming on any lands placed in trust by the 
     federal government; and
       Whereas, the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria take 
     the position that under the provisions of the Graton 
     Rancheria Restoration Act, and the tribal state compact, 
     local residents have no effective input into the development 
     of the proposed tribal casino, yet these residents 
     nevertheless bear the resultant environmental, societal, 
     traffic, infrastructure, public safety, and other burdens 
     which these gambling casinos impose on their communities: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of 
     Marin calls on its elected members of the United States 
     Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and its elected 
     member of the House of Representative, Lynn Woolsey, to 
     assist the residents of Marin and the entire North Bay to 
     preserve their environment by introducing legislation that 
     would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/or the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation 
     of tribal lands and to subject any development of tribal 
     lands in the newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act.
                                  ____


                          Resolution No. 03-94

       Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the 
     San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most 
     environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in 
     light of their proximity to and drainage directly into the 
     Bay; and
       Whereas, the agricultural lands along Lakeville Highway 
     afford an invaluable agricultural and scenic resource, not 
     only to the people of Sonoma County but also to the populace 
     of the entire Bay Area; and
       Whereas, such lands provide one of the Bay Area's most 
     cherished community separators, enjoyed and remembered by all 
     who traverse Highway 37; and
       Whereas, these agricultural lands, bay and wetlands have 
     been the focus of preservation and conservation efforts by 
     environmentalists and local communities for many years; and
       Whereas, such land are presently in imminent danger of 
     intense development--including an enormous casino, a high-
     rise hotel, an amphitheater, a residential development, and 
     acres of parking--by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-based 
     developer, and
       Whereas, the impact on traffic of a development of this 
     magnitude will be felt throughout the North Bay, with this 
     single development jeopardizing all traffic capacity, which 
     local jurisdictions have husbanded for purposes consistent 
     with their respective General Plans; and
       Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A 
     (Indian Gaming) in March 2000 as a means of supporting the 
     laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-
     sufficiency, they had no way of knowing that such approval 
     would allow Nevada developers to seize our most prized 
     environmental resources for intense development in violation 
     of all local zoning controls and health and safety 
     ordinances; and
       Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the 
     tribal state compact, local residents have been granted no 
     effective input into the development of proposed tribal 
     casinos that threaten their civil and property rights, yet 
     these residents must nevertheless bear the resultant 
     environmental, societal, traffic, infrastructure, public 
     safety, and other burdens that these gambling casinos impose 
     on their communities: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of 
     Napa strongly oppose the creation of a gambling casino along 
     highway 37 or Lakeville Highway; and be it further
       Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of 
     Napa calls on Governor Davis, the California State 
     Legislature, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Department of 
     the Interior to take any and all steps within their powers 
     and prerogatives to block the creation of new tribal land 
     bases that are intended for gambling casinos and other 
     development inconsistent with local zoning and controls and 
     to require that all commercial development on new and 
     existing tribal lands comply with federal, state, and local 
     laws and regulations intended to safeguard the environment 
     and to protect public health and safety.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just read one part of the Resolution from 
Marin County which will give you an idea of the opposition to the 
Graton tribe's proposed casino:
  RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin calls 
on its elected members of the United States Senate, Dianne Feinstein 
and Barbara Boxer, and its elected member of the House of 
Representatives, Lynn Woolsey, to assist the residents of Marin and the 
entire North Bay to preserve their environment by introducing 
legislation that would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/
or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation of 
tribal lands and to subject development of tribal lands in the Marin 
and Sonoma Counties at a minimum to the regulatory and approval 
processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act.
  While the counties acknowledge that the Graton have a right to be 
recognized, they object to the site selected by the tribe and they 
especially object to language in the Restoration Act

[[Page S8732]]

that precludes the local community, the Governor, or the Secretary of 
the Interior from providing input on the suitability of this location 
for land taken into trust for gaming purposes.
  There is a problematic section of the Restoration Act that states, 
``Upon application by the Tribe, the Secretary shall accept into trust 
for the benefit of the Tribe any real property located in Marin or 
Sonoma County . . .'' According to the Department of the Interior, this 
language removes any discretion by the Secretary as well as any tribal 
obligations for consultation with the surrounding community or 
environmental review, as required by the normal process under the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for newly acquired land taken into trust 
for gaming purposes.
  According to the Department of the Interior, the tribe must only 
conduct a hazardous materials review and show title to the land for 
land to be taken into trust. This could be completed in 9 months--and 
it is an inadequate review in my opinion.
  Since the local communities are seeking a remedy which would restore 
the Secretary's discretion in approving its land trust application and 
allow local government to provide input in the process, I am 
introducing this legislation today that will change the ``shall take 
land into trust'' to ``may take land into trust.'' This legislation 
will also require the two-part test that is standard under the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to apply so that the State and local 
communities have input in the process.
  There is precedent for this change. In 1994, legislation was passed 
restoring the United Auburn Tribe with the same directive to the 
Secretary of the Interior, requiring that land ``shall'' be taken into 
trust for the Tribe. One of the restoration act's sponsors, Congressman 
John Doolittle sponsored an amendment to change ``shall'' to ``may'' 
after it had been passed, thereby affording the Secretary of Interior 
discretion in accepting particular parcels of land into trust and local 
government officials an opportunity to weigh in on the Tribe's proposed 
site.
  The result of that change was that the Auburn Tribe and Placer County 
officials successfully cooperated in not only identifying a mutually 
agreeable site, but they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to 
mitigate potential impacts from the proposed Thunder Valley Casino. And 
earlier this month, the tribe opened its casino.
  Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 61 
tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal 
casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and 
approximately 23 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the 
Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are 
expected to surpass Nevada's by the end of the decade.
  The dramatic growth in tribal gaming in California has the potential 
to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of 
healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California 
voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be 
permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions were asked and 
answered in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, IGRA. But without 
the modest change made by this legislation, the Graton tribe will be 
allowed to develop an off-reservation casino outside the requirements 
established in IGRA, the first time such an exception has ever been 
made for a California tribe. Allowing this to happen would set a 
dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where 
tribal gaming is permitted.
  The changes we are seeking today are extremely modest. We are not 
reversing any restoration of the tribe. We are not infringing on Native 
American sovereignty. We are not even blocking the casino proposal. We 
are only seeking to give the State and the local communities a voice in 
the process. They were promised the tribe would not open a casino. That 
promise was broken, so the least we can do is ensure a normal review 
will take place.
  I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward 
to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs 
Committee to pass this legislation quickly.
  I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1342

       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 DISCRETION CONCERNING 
                   LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST.

       (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''.
                                 ______