[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6446-H6453]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      RESTRICTING INDIAN GAMING TO HOMELANDS OF TRIBES ACT OF 2006

  Mr. POMBO. 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.
  The Clerk read as follows

                               H.R. 4893

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Restricting Indian Gaming to 
     Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006''.

     SEC. 2. RESTRICTION ON OFF-RESERVATION GAMING.

       Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2719) is amended--
       (1) by amending subsection (b)(1) to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Subsection (a) will not apply when lands are taken 
     in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe that is newly 
     recognized, restored, or landless after the date of the 
     enactment of subsection (f), including those newly recognized 
     under the Federal Acknowledgment Process at the Bureau of 
     Indian Affairs, and the following criteria are met:
       ``(A) The Secretary determines that such lands are within 
     the State of such tribe and are within the primary 
     geographic, social, historical, and temporal nexus of the 
     Indian tribe.
       ``(B) The Secretary determines that the proposed gaming 
     activity would not be detrimental to the surrounding 
     community and nearby Indian tribes.
       ``(C) Concurrence by the Governor in conformance with laws 
     of that State.
       ``(D) Mitigation by the Indian tribe in accordance with 
     this subparagraph. For the purposes of the Indian tribe 
     mitigating the direct impact on the county or parish 
     infrastructure and services, the Indian tribe shall negotiate 
     and sign, to the extent practicable during the compact 
     negotiations described in section 11(d)(3), a memorandum of 
     understanding with the county or parish government. Such 
     mitigation requirements shall be limited to the direct 
     effects of the tribal gaming activities on the affected 
     county or parish infrastructure and services. If a memorandum 
     of understanding is not signed within one year after the 
     Indian tribe or county or parish has notified the other party 
     and the Secretary, by certified mail, a request to initiate 
     negotiations, then the Secretary shall appoint an arbitrator 
     who shall establish mitigation requirements of the Indian 
     tribe.''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsections:
       ``(e)(1) In order to consolidate class II gaming and class 
     III gaming development, an Indian tribe may host one or more 
     other Indian tribes to participate in or benefit from gaming 
     conducted under this Act and in conformance with a Tribal-
     State compact entered into by each invited Indian tribe and 
     the State under this Act upon any portion of Indian land that 
     was, as of October 17, 1988, located within the boundaries of 
     the reservation of the host Indian tribe, so long as each 
     invited Indian tribe has no ownership interest in any other 
     gaming facility on any other Indian lands and has its primary 
     geographic, social, historical, and temporal nexus to land in 
     the State in which the Indian land of the host Indian tribe 
     is located.
       ``(2) An Indian tribe invited to conduct class II gaming or 
     class III gaming under paragraph (1) may do so under 
     authority of a lease with the host Indian tribe. Such a lease 
     shall be lawful without the review or approval of the 
     Secretary and shall be deemed by the Secretary to be 
     sufficient evidence of the existence of Indian land of the 
     invited Indian tribe for purposes of Secretarial approval of 
     a Tribal-State compact under this Act.
       ``(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the 
     Indian tribes identified in paragraph (1) may establish the 
     terms and conditions of their lease and other agreements 
     between them in their sole discretion, except that in no case 
     may the total payments to the host Indian tribe under the 
     lease and other agreements exceed 40 percent of the net 
     revenues (defined for such purposes as the revenue available 
     to the 2 Indian tribes after deduction of costs of operating 
     and financing the gaming facility developed on the leased 
     land and of fees due to be paid under the Tribal-State 
     compact) of the gaming activity conducted by the invited 
     Indian tribe.
       ``(4) An invited Indian tribe under this subsection shall 
     be deemed by the Secretary and the Commission to have the 
     sole proprietary interest and responsibility for the conduct 
     of any gaming on lands leased from a host Indian tribe.
       ``(5) Conduct of gaming by an invited Indian tribe on lands 
     leased from a host Indian tribe under this subsection shall 
     be deemed by the Secretary and the Commission to be conducted 
     under the Act upon Indian lands--
       ``(A) of the invited Indian tribe;
       ``(B) within the jurisdiction of the invited Indian tribe; 
     and
       ``(C) over which the invited Indian tribe has and exercises 
     governmental power.
       ``(6) Notwithstanding the foregoing, the gaming arrangement 
     authorized by this subsection shall not be conducted on any 
     Indian lands within the State of Arizona.
       ``(7) Any gaming authorized by this subsection shall not be 
     conducted unless it is--
       ``(A) consistent with the Tribal-State compacting laws of 
     the State in which the gaming activities will be conducted;
       ``(B) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a 
     tribal-State compact of the invited Indian tribe approved by 
     an Act of the legislature of the State in which the gaming 
     will be conducted; and
       ``(C) specifically identified as expressly authorized in a 
     tribal-State compact of the invited Indian tribe approved by 
     the Governor of the State in which the gaming will be 
     conducted.
       ``(8) Host tribe compacts shall not be affected by the 
     amendments made by this subsection.
       ``(f) An Indian tribe shall not conduct gaming regulated by 
     this Act on Indian lands outside of the State in which the 
     Indian tribe is primarily residing and exercising tribal 
     government authority on the date of the enactment of this 
     subsection, unless such Indian lands are contiguous to the 
     lands in the State where the tribe is primarily residing and 
     exercising tribal government authority.''.

     SEC. 3. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) of 
     section 2 shall be applied prospectively. Compacts or other 
     agreements that govern gaming regulated by the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) on Indian lands that 
     were in effect on the date of the enactment of this Act shall 
     not be affected by the amendments made by paragraph (1) of 
     section 2.
       (b) Exception.--The amendments made by section 2 shall not 
     apply to any lands for which an Indian tribe, prior to March 
     7, 2006, has submitted to the Secretary or Chairman a fee-to-
     trust application or written request requiring an eligibility 
     determination pursuant to section 20(b)(1)(A) or clause (ii) 
     or (iii) of section 20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(A), 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii), 
     and 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii), respectively); provided that such 
     lands are located within--
       (1) the State where the Indian tribe primarily resides; and
       (2) an area where the Indian Tribe has a primary 
     geographical, historical, and temporal nexus.
       (c) Further Exception.--The amendments made by section 2 
     shall not affect the right of any Indian Tribe to conduct 
     gaming on Indian lands that are eligible for gaming pursuant 
     to section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2719), as determined by the National Indian Gaming 
     Commission, Secretary of the Interior or a Federal court 
     prior to the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 4. REGULATIONS REQUIRED.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate 
     regulations to implement section 20 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719). The regulations shall 
     require tribal applicants for any of the exceptions listed in 
     section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to have an 
     aboriginal or analogous historic connection to the lands upon 
     which gaming activities are conducted under the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POMBO. 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. 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

[[Page H6447]]

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.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. KILDEE. 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

[[Page H6448]]

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. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. 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. KILDEE. 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. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time and for his leadership on sovereignty in this 
country on behalf of Native Americans, our very first Americans, the 
people who had America before Europeans settlers came here to take 
their land.
  When the European settlers took their land, they took it and made one 
promise: We will give you what little land you have left, we will let 
you stay on that land and we will let you be in charge of it. And we 
will incorporate that into our various systems of government where we 
have a State government, we have city government, we have county 
government, and we will have tribal governments. But for purposes of 
tribal governments, they will have sovereignty that will surpass States 
so that the only relationship that these tribal governments will have 
will be the relationship between them and the Federal Government 
superseding States.
  This was a part of the Constitution. It was decided by the 
Constitution and this legislation undermines that premise and forces 
tribes to negotiate with local counties, which is undermining 200 years 
of Federal policy for tribal sovereignty.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on this because its substance is bad, and the 
fact that it is being rushed through is bad as well.
  Mr. KILDEE. 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. WU. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 4893 because 
of my opposition to a proposed Indian gambling casino in the Columbia 
River Gorge National Scenic Area in Oregon.
  We should not be considering a bill of this importance on the 
suspension calendar with only 40 minutes of debate, no opportunity to 
amend. This is completely inappropriate.
  Regardless of whether you are an opponent or proponent of off-
reservation gaming, Members should have an opportunity to bring their 
concerns to the floor and offer amendments. There are many reasons to 
oppose this bill, and I have the largest one of them of all: This, an 
80-mile long, 4,000-foot-deep gorge. It is our Yosemite. It is our 
Grand Canyon. It is a national treasure, and it is completely 
inappropriate to put a gambling casino smack-dab in the middle of this 
national treasure.
  Vote ``no'' on this suspension bill so we can protect the Columbia 
River Gorge and we can bring a real bill to the floor and have Members 
debate their concerns and amend this bill appropriately.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin).
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, proponents of this bill claim that it will 
guarantee greater local control. But for my constituents, nothing could 
be further from the truth.
  More than 5 years ago, the community of Beloit, Wisconsin, began 
working with the Bad River Band and the St. Croix Chippewa Indians to 
build a casino in their community. My constituents, through a 
referendum, expressed their very strong support for this project, and 
local governments have worked hand-in-hand with the tribes on a project 
that the community deems important to their economic development.
  For 5 years they have played by the rules and they are now in the 
last weeks of the approval process. Now, as the community anticipates a 
final decision on the tribe's application, this bill abruptly changes 
the rules, possibly denying the local community what they seek.
  The citizens of Beloit, the local governments in the area, and the 
tribes

[[Page H6449]]

who seek to develop this project, are not seeking any special 
treatment. They simply want, and deserve, a fair decision on the merits 
of their application. After 5 years of following a fair process, this 
is no time to change the rules.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
  Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 4893, 
the Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act of 2006.
  The expansion of tribal casinos to lands whose connection to Native 
American culture is limited or attenuated at best. This is a growing 
problem throughout the United States. No one wants to deny Native 
Americans the right to pursue government recognition of their tribal 
connections and to celebrate their native cultures.
  Increasingly, however, groups anxious to promote casino gambling have 
aligned with some Native American groups for the sole purpose of 
utilizing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, to promote the 
establishment of casinos.
  In my district, the Delaware Nation, which is headquartered in 
Oklahoma, has filed suit in Federal court to establish title to a 315-
acre tract of land in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, so it can build 
a gambling facility. More than 25 families live on this property. It is 
also home to the Binney and Smith Company, on which it has placed a 
Crayola crayon manufacturing facility. The individuals trying to 
establish this casino, who all reside out-of-State, are not concerned 
about the area's homeowners, about the valuable manufacturing jobs 
potentially displaced by this casino, or about the fact that Binney and 
Smith's Crayola makes a useful product loved by children all over the 
world.

                              {time}  1230

  They are only interested in seeing working people and seniors gamble 
away their hard-earned dollars. H.R. 4983 would effectively end this 
kind of reservation shopping. It prohibits gambling on Indian lands 
outside of the State in which that tribe is primarily residing and 
exercising tribal authority as of the date of this law's enactment, 
unless those lands are contiguous to lands currently overseen and 
occupied by that tribe.
  This prevents a tribe with headquarters, in, say, California or 
Oklahoma from acquiring lands in places like Ohio, Illinois and 
Pennsylvania, where there are no federally recognized Indian tribes, 
for the sole purpose of putting a casino on those properties.
  Homeowners and business owners should not be held hostage to out-of-
state casino interests that are willing to throw people out of their 
homes and destroy local businesses in order to further the expansion of 
casino gambling.
  I would ask for all Members to support H.R. 4893.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Costa).
  Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. As you may 
know, some of you, earlier this year I introduced a bill, H.R. 5125, 
that would, in essence, require States to undertake planning for the 
siting of Indian gaming facilities, essentially developing a State 
master plan before a new class III gaming license could be granted.
  We have 22 States in the Nation that allow for class III gaming. 
Currently, if you look at those 22 States, take a snapshot, there are 
339 sovereign nations within those 22 States that could potentially 
have legalized gaming.
  What happens in the experience that I have determined in California 
over the last 15 years is too often Indian tribes are at the mercy of 
shifting political winds in State government. Negotiating a tribal-
State compact for the right to engage in class III gaming on their 
tribal lands is a process that is complicated by elections, changing 
attitudes towards the tribe, as well as an understanding that tribal 
gaming also can be a lucrative process and business, therefore, to the 
State.
  This process I call, or dubbed, is frequently understood as ``let's 
make a deal'' time. We have had three Governors in California in the 
last 15 years that have engaged in that process.
  My legislation would not prevent tribes from engaging in their 
application process or affect any of those that have already had 
approval of a compact. But what it would do is develop some common 
sense in terms how we look in the future for prospective gaming under 
class III licensing with the 22 States that have 339 sovereign nations 
that could, but yet do not have compacts, that would allow them to have 
class III gaming.
  I think it is time that we learned from the lessons of the last 15 
years and the 22 States across the country that do have class III 
gaming. Let us require the States to submit a master plan to the 
Secretary of the Interior so that we know how we will go forward 
prospectively as to the impact of that class III gaming.
  Common sense tells us that this makes, I think, the best process for 
planning future gaming in this country. Although my legislation isn't a 
part of this bill, I continue to work with Members on both sides of the 
aisle to try to put forth an effort to develop a master plan for those 
States that, in fact, do have class III gaming.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, a very 
valued member of our Resources Committee, for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of some on my side of the aisle 
that this amendment should have been brought to the floor under a rule 
so that amendments could be offered by interested Members.
  Indeed, during the Resources Committee's deliberations on this 
measure, several members issued concerns, and both the chairman and 
myself assured them that they would be considered as the process moved 
forward. Yet the Republican leadership chose to schedule this bill as a 
suspension, and as such amendments are not made in order.
  With that said, the bill before the body today is the product of a 
negotiation which took place between Chairman Pombo and myself as the 
ranking member on the Resources Committee.
  The original introduced version bill went too far in my opinion in 
interfering with tribal sovereignty. As a result of our negotiations, 
the version reported by the committee, which is pending before us, has 
a great deal more respect for tribal sovereignty while still achieving 
the goal of reining in off-reservation casino shopping.
  Let me be very clear on this point. The letter the National Congress 
of American Indians has sent in opposition to this bill must be in 
reference to the original introduced version, not what is before us 
today. That letter alleges that a tribe would have to seek approval of 
a local government before gaming could commence. It alleges the bill 
would subordinate tribes to local governments. This is just plain 
false.
  What the bill does require is that a tribe seeks to establish an 
agreement with a local community concerning the costs of mitigating the 
impact from public services that could arise from a new casino. That is 
nothing less and nothing more than good business practice. It is what 
most tribes do today.
  On the broader issue, there should be no doubt that this legislation 
is necessary. According to United South and Eastern Tribes, which 
represents 24 federally recognized tribes in the east, this bill is 
critical on tracking down reservation-shopping abuses which are often 
funded by shadowy developers.
  The president of the organization, Keller George, in a letter to 
Congress states: ``This kind of reservation shopping runs counter to 
the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and well-established 
Indian policies.'' He urges the favorable approval of the pending 
legislation.
  So while I remain concerned about the process, I am in support of the 
bill. I urge Members to vote in favor of it
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. I think 
it is important to note that before we do violence to the existing 
situation here that there has been substantial success. In the existing 
relationships, we have had only three essential tribes, all of which 
have been done with largely local jurisdictions' approval. To do 
significant changes to upset that balance would erode, and I do believe 
this bill

[[Page H6450]]

as currently written does erode, to a degree, tribal sovereignty in 
this regard. For that reason, I don't believe it is necessary at this 
time, and there can be and should be improvements.
  It is disappointing again that democracy isn't functioning here in 
this body in that we are not allowed to offer amendments on the floor 
to a very critical issue involving tribal sovereignty. We have seen 
tribes abused historically in this country. I think that is happening 
again today where this bill is not allowed to be subject to the 
amendment process on the floor that it should.
  But I also want to note that I believe that somehow the gaming 
process has not assisted folks in these tribes. I just want to attest, 
having seen boys and girls clubs established, in fact, first boys and 
girls club on a reservation in the Toledo reservation in the State of 
Washington, as a result of this economic activity, there are a lot of 
good economic activities happening in these communities. I think this 
bill will not foster them and we should oppose it.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan has 4\1/2\ 
minutes. The gentleman from California has 9 minutes.
  Mr. KILDEE. Who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California
  Mr. KILDEE. 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. UDALL of New Mexico. I very much appreciate the honorable 
gentleman from Michigan in his yielding to me, and his leadership on 
this issue. There is nobody in this Congress that respects tribal 
sovereignty more than Dale Kildee. I am very proud to stand here today 
with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today against passage of H.R. 4893 under 
suspension of the rules. My district in northern New Mexico is home to 
more than 16 tribes. I have heard from many of my constituents, and 
they are strongly opposed to this bill. In fact, I do not know of a 
single tribe in the entire State of New Mexico who wants to see these 
changes. I know there are some States that have serious concerns 
surrounding tribal gaming issues, and I respect those concerns.
  But my State of New Mexico and the tribes I interact with have 
approached gaming and the responsibilities related to this industry 
with the utmost integrity and transparency. I am afraid that this one-
size-does-not-fit-all legislation will have the serious consequence of 
undermining 200 years of tribal sovereignty.
  I ask that we take another look at this legislation and then bring it 
up for consideration under the regular order so that amendments are 
allowed. Members deserve a chance to amend this important legislation, 
and, sadly, once again the leadership is stifling debate
  Mr. KILDEE. 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. POMBO. 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.

                              {time}  1245

  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

[[Page H6451]]

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. HASTERT. 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.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the proposition that it makes no 
sense to allow tribes to establish gambling casinos in territories that 
have no relationship to the tribe. But, I am voting against this bill 
because I believe that people who disagree with me ought to have the 
right to offer an amendment--for example, those who want to limit 
Indian tribes' ability to establish off-reservation casinos but would 
make an exception if the effort is supported by local officials--county 
board, city council, mayor--or if it is approved by referendum. But, 
this bill is arrogantly presented in a take it or leave it fashion 
which would not allow amendments to accomplish that.
  Without amendments such as that, this bill is going nowhere. It is 
simply a cynical effort by the Committee Chairman and the House 
Republican leadership to pose for political holy pictures by pretending 
that they are doing something by pushing a bill that is going nowhere.
  Even though I am troubled by some provisions of the bill, I could 
vote for it

[[Page H6452]]

after the House has had an opportunity to consider legitimate 
amendments to it. But, I will not accept something that is arbitrarily 
presented on a take it or leave it basis.
  One problem in dealing with this issue is that people on both sides 
of the question have abused the process. Some tribes have abused 
existing law and have established casinos in territory totally 
unrelated to their own territorial base and have attempted to run 
roughshod over local officials in the process. And, on the other side, 
the committee and the House leadership have abused the process by 
refusing to allow amendments to the bill.
  If this bill were the product of negotiations, I could even accept 
that. But, the committee has chosen to arbitrarily bring this take it 
or leave it proposal to the House floor and has not even had the 
courtesy to provide a committee report to explain and help analyze the 
bill.
  Mr. REYES. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 4893. 
This legislation seeks to make drastic changes to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act without the option to offer amendments or have a full 
debate on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Instead of offering legislation that would weaken tribal sovereignty, 
Congress should be working hard to ensure American Indians are 
protected from corrupt lobbyists and given the means to care for their 
members.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to take a stand for 
millions of American Indians throughout the country by voting against 
H.R. 4893.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4893. 
All nine sovereign Tribes in South Dakota have asked me to oppose this 
legislation. I take my responsibility to consult with Tribes very 
seriously and share their concerns that this bill will create an 
unnecessary and unprecedented infringement on Tribal sovereignty.
  Though gaming has transformed tribal economies in many places, the 
harsh reality is that Native Americans remain the poorest people in our 
country. This was confirmed only a few weeks ago in the Census Bureau's 
annual poverty report. Gaming alone has not--and will not--fix this 
problem.
  The right of Tribes to conduct gaming is a manifestation of tribal 
sovereignty and one of its many benefits. Sovereignty allows tribes to 
move forward with economic development opportunities and to draw 
strength from their rich history. Sovereignty, and not gaming, is the 
most valuable tool to lift Indian Country out of poverty. I urge my 
colleagues to support sovereignty and vote against H.R. 4598.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from 
Michigan, Mr. Kildee, for all of his efforts to defend the rights of 
the first people to inhabit our great Nation.
  I strongly oppose H.R. 4893, which would amend the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act to restrict Indian gaming and subject Indian tribes to 
the whims of local governments.
  The United States Constitution recognizes Indian Tribes as sovereign 
governments, equal to States and Foreign Nations. H.R. 4893 would force 
Indian Tribes to enter into agreements with counties in order to 
operate gaming facilities. Tribes are already required to negotiate 
gaming compacts with State governments. Requiring Tribes to negotiate 
with local governments is a blatant violation of their sovereignty.
  The California Nations Indian Gaming Association, which represents 
many tribes in my home State of California, is firmly opposed to this 
bill.
  Never before in the history of our Nation have tribes been required 
to negotiate with local governments. I urge my colleagues to oppose 
this bill and protect the sovereign rights of American Indian Tribes.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, extreme care should be exercised when 
Congress legislates in areas affecting tribal sovereignty and issues 
important to Native Americans.
  It is troubling that H.R. 4893 comes to the House floor under a 
suspension of the rules, which implies the bill is non-controversial 
and is one which has consensus support and no need of extensive debate 
or modification.
  This is not the case with this attempt to amend the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. The National Congress of American Indians, the National 
Indian Gaming Association, and several tribes in the State of Oregon 
have expressed their opposition. The rules suspension does not permit 
Congress to debate potential changes and indeed all debate is severely 
limited.
  I am deeply concerned that any changes to the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act be carefully considered and fair and balanced for all 
parties involved. Sadly, this proposal does not meet that test.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, today the Republican leadership decided to 
consider legislation that would substantially revise the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act (IGRA)--the first time we have been allowed to address 
our concerns with IGRA since it was enacted in 1988. The bill we are 
voting for today, while it does much to stop the most egregious forms 
of reservation shopping allowed by IGRA, is not wholly adequate. 
Suspending the House rules to vote on this bill forces my colleagues 
and me to settle for a makeshift and inadequate solution to the 
proliferating problem of off-reservation gaming. Since Mr. Pombo's bill 
fails to thoroughly address the gaming issues facing my constituents, I 
would have liked the opportunity to offer an amendment that reflects 
the concerns of the people in Marin and Sonoma Counties. I sincerely 
hope that the Republican Majority will allow for a full debate that 
includes the opportunity for Members to amend this bill, as we should 
not shortchange our constituents in the process of passing this 
important piece of legislation. Circumventing traditional House 
procedure, obstructing debate, and forcing us to vote on inadequate 
legislation is wrong, and I will be voting ``no'' on H.R. 4893.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4893, the 
Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act. The bill before 
us improves upon the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) by restricting 
the interstate expansion of Indian gambling and including states and 
local communities in the application review process at the Department 
of Interior. I intend to vote in favor of this bill as it does improve 
upon the existing law, however I believe IGRA is deeply flawed and in 
need of more far-reaching reforms in the future.
  Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 in reaction 
to an ongoing expansion of casino-style gambling on reservations. 
Following the Supreme Court's Cabazon ruling that states did not have 
the authority to regulate tribal casinos, Congress elected to establish 
a framework for Indian gambling in an effort to control its growth. 
Despite IGRA's passage, or some would say because of it, annual Indian 
gambling revenues exploded from $100 million in 1988 to over $23 
billion in 2005 alone. Today, there are over 410 tribal gaming 
operations in 32 states.
  IGRA requires states to negotiate compacts with tribes wishing to 
establish casinos. If a state refuses to negotiate, the tribe can sue 
or the Secretary of Interior can unilaterally grant a casino license to 
the tribe. In other words, tribes are free to operate casinos in states 
or communities that do not desire such enterprises. H.R. 4893 attempts 
to address this problem by requiring tribes applying for a casino 
license to enter into a memorandum of understanding with local 
communities regarding shared infrastructure needs, such as roads or 
utilities, and by requiring the concurrence of a state's governor. 
However, these provisions only apply on a prospective basis, exempting 
23 pending casino applications from the additional requirements. I 
believe the bill should have applied to these applications as well. 
Furthermore, the underlying IGRA requirement on states to negotiate 
compacts or else have a compact dictated by federal officials raises 
serious constitutional and federalism concerns as a possible violation 
of the 10th Amendment.
  I strongly support the RIGHT Act's ban on so-called ``reservation 
shopping,'' preventing a tribe that already has land in trust from 
acquiring non-contiguous lands for gaming purposes. I also applaud the 
bill's ban on out-of-state off-reservation casinos.
  Mr. Speaker, the RIGHT Act is a good bill. While I would like to have 
seen a stronger bill that undertook more basic reforms of IGRA, the 
RIGHT Act does take several steps forward by involving local 
communities and states and installing limits on the expansion of tribal 
gaming off-reservation and across state lines. I urge my colleagues to 
support the bill, and continue to work toward further reform in the 
future.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I have always opposed using the suspension 
process for consideration of controversial legislation. Once again, the 
Republican leadership is abusing the suspension process to limit debate 
by bringing H.R. 4893 to the floor as a suspension item. Accordingly, I 
cannot vote to suspend the rules.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) that the House suspend the rules 
and pass the bill, H.R. 4893, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the

[[Page H6453]]

Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________