[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 100 (Monday, July 19, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H5921-H5922]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   ALLOWING BINDING ARBITRATION CLAUSES TO BE INCLUDED IN CONTRACTS 
   AFFECTING LAND WITHIN SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN RESERVATION

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 4115) to amend the Act of November 2, 1966 (80 Stat. 1112), 
to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts 
affecting the land within the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian 
Reservation.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 4115

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

     SECTION 1. BINDING ARBITRATION FOR SALT RIVER PIMA-MARICOPA 
                   INDIAN RESERVATION CONTRACTS.

       (a) In General.--Section 2(c) of the Act of November 2, 
     1966 (25 U.S.C. 416a(c)), is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence--
       (A) by striking ``Any lease'' and all that follows through 
     ``affecting land'' and inserting ``Any contract, including a 
     lease, affecting land''; and
       (B) by striking ``such lease or contract'' and inserting 
     ``such contract''; and
       (2) in the second sentence, by striking ``Such leases or 
     contracts entered into pursuant to such Acts'' and inserting 
     ``Such contracts''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect as if included in the Indian Tribal 
     Economic Development and Contract Encouragement Act of 2000 
     (Public Law 106-179).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) and the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).


                             General Leave

  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4115.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4115 is a bill I have sponsored along with my 
friend and colleague, the gentleman from the State of Arizona (Mr. 
Flake), to resolve a problem affecting an Indian tribe in my district.
  It is basically a technical correction to a provision in existing law 
pertaining to leases and contracts on the Salt River Pima-Maricopa 
Reservation which is located in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
  The Committee on Resources ordered the bill reported by unanimous 
consent on May 19, 2004.
  The need for this bill originates in the Act of November 2, 1966, and 
in subsequent amendments to related leasing laws affecting Indian 
lands. The Act of November 2, 1966, authorizes the Salt River Pima-
Maricopa Indian community to put binding arbitration clauses into 
leases and contracts for business development on its reservation.
  Without such binding arbitration clauses, many investors would not be 
interested in doing business with the tribe because there would be no 
means of enforcing contracts. Unfortunately, an amendment to a related 
provision of law has made it unclear whether the tribe may put the 
binding arbitration clauses into all of its contracts and leases. This 
bill clarifies that the tribe may include binding arbitration clauses 
in all contracts for business developments on its reservation.
  There are sometimes concerns expressed over passing bills that affect 
tribal land rights without securing the consent of the affected tribe. 
In this case, H.R. 4115 was specifically requested by the Salt River 
Pima-Maricopa Indian community which has informed me and my colleagues 
who join me on the Committee on Resources that it stands to lose major 
economic development opportunities on its reservation unless this bill 
is enacted. According to the tribe's attorneys, the language of the 
bill will solve the tribe's problem.
  The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian community should be applauded for 
its aggressive pursuits of economic development and diversification. It 
is taking advantage of its location in a major metropolitan area to 
attract investors and create jobs and prosperity for the tribe, its 
members, and also for the surrounding communities.
  Enacting H.R. 4115 enables the tribe to execute leasing contracts 
that will benefit the tribe and its members far into the future.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation may seem like just a minor fix to a 
technical leasing issue, but in fact there is much at stake for the 
tribe's economic future in the passage of the bill. I urge adoption of 
the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4115 would allow binding arbitration 
clauses to be included in all contracts that affect the lands within 
the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Reservation.
  The idea behind this legislation is to provide a comfort level to 
those wanting to enter into business agreements with this particular 
tribe. Should a conflict arise in any business contract, this 
legislation would allow both the tribe and the business partner to 
avoid the normal channel of the tribal court system.
  Mr. Speaker, I support adoption of H.R. 4115 by the House today.
  Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr.

[[Page H5922]]

Hayworth) that the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 
4115.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________