[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 92 (Monday, June 18, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H3725-H3729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    GILA BEND INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS REPLACEMENT CLARIFICATION ACT

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 2938) to prohibit certain gaming activities on 
certain Indian lands in Arizona, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 2938

       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 ``Gila Bend Indian Reservation 
     Lands Replacement Clarification Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) In 1986, Congress passed the Gila Bend Indian 
     Reservation Lands Replacement Act, Public Law 99 503, 100 
     Stat. 1798, to authorize the Tohono O'odham Nation to 
     purchase up to 9,880 acres of replacement lands in exchange 
     for granting all right, title and interest to the Gila Bend 
     Indian Reservation to the United States.
       (2) The intent of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
     Replacement Act was to replace primarily agriculture land 
     that the Tohono O'odham Nation was no longer able to use due 
     to flooding by Federal dam projects.
       (3) In 1988, Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
     Act, which restricted the ability of Indian tribes to conduct 
     gaming activities on lands acquired after the date of 
     enactment of the Act.
       (4) Since 1986, the Tohono O'odham Nation has purchased 
     more than 16,000 acres of land. The Tohono O'odham Nation 
     does not currently game on any lands acquired pursuant to the 
     Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act.
       (5) Beginning in 2003, the Tohono O'odham Nation began 
     taking steps to purchase approximately 134.88 acres of land 
     near 91st and Northern Avenue in Maricopa County, within the 
     City of Glendale (160 miles from the Indian tribe's 
     headquarters in Sells). The Tohono O'odham Nation is now 
     trying to have these lands taken into trust status by the 
     Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Gila Bend Indian 
     Reservation Lands Replacement Act of 1986 (``Gila Bend 
     Act''), and has asked the Secretary to declare these lands 
     eligible for gaming, thereby allowing the Indian tribe to 
     conduct Las Vegas style gaming on the lands. The Secretary 
     has issued an opinion stating that he has the authority to 
     take approximately 53.54 acres of these lands into trust 
     status, and plans to do so when legally able to do so.
       (6) The State of Arizona, City of Glendale, and at least 12 
     Indian tribes in Arizona oppose the Tohono O'odham Nation 
     gaming on these lands. No Indian tribe supports the Tohono 
     O'odham Nation's efforts to conduct gaming on these lands.
       (7) The Tohono O'odham Nation's proposed casino violates 
     existing Tribal-State gaming compacts and State law, 
     Proposition 202, agreed to by all Arizona Indian tribes, 
     which effectively limits the number of tribal gaming 
     facilities in the Phoenix metropolitan area to seven, which 
     is the current number of facilities operating.
       (8) The Tohono O'odham casino proposal will not generate 
     sales taxes as the State Gaming Compact specifically 
     prohibits the imposition of any taxes, fees, charges, or 
     assessments.
       (9) The proposed casino would be located close to existing 
     neighborhoods and a newly built school and raises a number of 
     concerns. Homeowners, churches, schools, and businesses made 
     a significant investment in the area without knowing that a 
     tribal casino would or even could locate within the area.
       (10) The development has the potential to impact the future 
     of transportation projects, including the Northern Parkway, a 
     critical transportation corridor to the West Valley.
       (11) The Tohono O'odham Nation currently operates three 
     gaming facilities: 2 in the Tucson metropolitan area and 1 in 
     Why, Arizona.
       (12) Nothing in the language or legislative history of the 
     Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act indicates 
     that gaming was an anticipated use of the replacement lands.
       (13) It is the intent of Congress to clarify that lands 
     purchased pursuant to the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
     Replacement Act are not eligible for Class II and Class III 
     gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Such 
     lands may be used for other forms of economic development by 
     the Tohono O'odham Nation.

     SEC. 3. GAMING CLARIFICATION.

        Section 6(d) of Public Law 99 503 is amended by inserting 
     ``except that no class II or class III gaming activities, as 
     defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2703), may be conducted on such land if such land is 
     located north of latitude 33 degrees, 4 minutes north'' after 
     ``shall be deemed to be a Federal Indian Reservation for all 
     purposes''.

     SEC. 4. NO EFFECT.

        The limitation on gaming set forth in the amendment made 
     by section 3 shall have no effect on any interpretation, 
     determination, or decision to be made by any court, 
     administrative agency or department, or other body as to 
     whether any lands located south of latitude 33 degrees, 4 
     minutes north taken into trust pursuant to this Act qualify 
     as lands taken into trust as part of a settlement of a land 
     claim for purposes of title 25 U.S.C. 2719(b).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the author of 
the bill, Congressman Franks from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Young 
and Chairman Hastings and the House leadership for bringing this bill 
to the floor today, as well as the bipartisan group of cosponsors for 
their support.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
Replacement Clarification Act, seeks to prevent Las Vegas-style casino 
gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area on lands purchased by the 
Tohono O'odham Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, the Tohono O'odham Nation has tried to manipulate the

[[Page H3726]]

Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act of 
1986 to acquire lands for gambling which are more than 100 miles from 
the Tohono O'odham's existing reservation. This ``reservation 
shopping'' for casino gambling purposes is contrary to the express and 
public commitments that the Tohono O'odham made between 2000 and 2002 
to the other 16 Indian tribes in Arizona, the State, and the voters of 
Arizona when it openly and definitively supported passage of 
Proposition 202, a State referendum to limit casino gambling in the 
Phoenix metropolitan area.
  Indeed, while the Tohono O'odham was in negotiations with the other 
tribes to craft a gaming compact agreement, they were simultaneously in 
the process of covertly purchasing attractive land in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area for casino gambling purchases. Thus, the bipartisan 
cosponsors of H.R. 2938 are simply trying to keep the Tohono O'odham 
Nation to its publicly stated commitment not to engage in casino 
gambling in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
  Mr. Speaker, during the subcommittee hearing on this bill, witnesses 
made it clear that there is a problem and a serious threat to existing 
gaming structure in Arizona if the Tohono O'odham Nation is able to 
develop a Las Vegas-style casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
  The passage of H.R. 2938 will prevent an ominous precedent that could 
lead to an expansion of off-reservation casinos and dangerous changes 
to the complexion of tribal gaming in the other States across the 
country in which Indian tribes can use front companies to buy up land 
and declare it part of their sovereign reservation for gaming purposes.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, even if the casino weren't in violation of 
Federal law--which it is--but if it weren't, claims that the operation 
would create jobs and benefit the economy of the surrounding area are 
woefully misinformed at best and shamefully dishonest at worst. The 
most frequently cited job creation numbers that have been thrown about 
during this debate come almost without exception from a study 
commissioned by the Tohono O'odham tribe themselves. The study was 
conducted by the Spectrum Gaming Group. Tellingly, multiple 
organizations asked the tribe to release the data and the methodology 
supporting this so-called ``study,'' which was released roughly 3 years 
ago. To this day, the tribe continuously to steadfastly refuse. In 
other words, the tribes released a slew of numbers extolling the 
supposed amazing economic benefits of their casino, then refused to 
tell anybody how they came up with the numbers.
  Far from economically benefiting the West Valley, one recent well 
documented study found that casino operations would ultimately provide 
$172,500 of revenue annually for the city of Glendale--keep in mind the 
surrounding areas would not benefit from the normal sales taxes, bed 
taxes, and property taxes because the casino, being on tribal land, 
would be exempt from all three. Meanwhile, Glendale estimates an added 
cost of $3.6 million per year just for the additional cost of public 
safety services necessary to such a large operation. Of course, it 
should always be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that casino revenues are 
primarily comprised of gambling losses that would otherwise have found 
their way into the economy in more productive sectors.
  Mr. Speaker, my bill would not seek to take any lands away from 
Tohono O'odham. Consistent with the intent of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, my bill merely prevents the Tohono O'odham from 
building a gambling casino on certain lands, as it previously agreed it 
would never do.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me and the members of 
Arizona's delegation in supporting this bill.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me thank my good friend, Mr. Lujan from New Mexico, 
for his time.
  H.R. 2938 is named the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement 
Clarification Act. However, do not be misled by this bill's benign 
sounding title. It does not aim to clarify anything. Rather, it seeks 
to unilaterally abrogate an Indian land claim and water rights 
settlement, and it would also interfere with pending litigation in 
Federal court.
  In 1986, the United States enacted Federal legislation specific to 
this tribe and this situation. The Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands 
Replacement Clarification Act, Public Law 99 503, was to implement a 
settlement reached between the United States and the Tohono O'odham 
Nation. In this settlement, the nation released claims against the 
United States for flooding and loss of its land, as well as water 
rights of 36,000 acre feet per year. In exchange for releasing the 
claims, Congress guaranteed, via statute, that the nation could obtain 
replacement reservation lands within three counties without restriction 
as to the use of that land.

                              {time}  1920

  H.R. 2938 seeks to renege on Congress' solemn promise and change the 
material terms of the settlement; this while Congress contemplates in a 
very real way breaking its word to Indian Country one more time. The 
legislation will reopen and change the terms of a 1986 bipartisan land 
settlement authored by Congressman Mo Udall, then-Congressman John 
McCain, then-Senator Dennis DeConcini, and then-Senator Barry Goldwater 
that compensated the Tohono O'odham Nation for 10,000 acres of land 
destroyed by the Army Corps of Engineers in the 1950s. By violating an 
existing settlement, this legislation will create new liabilities for 
the Federal Government, as taxpayers will have to provide more 
compensation to the nation as a result of prohibiting the purchase of 
replacement lands, as provided in the original settlement act.
  Enactment of this legislation would also set a dangerous precedent in 
which Congress could unilaterally alter the terms of a Federal 
settlement years later. If this is the case that would stop Congress 
from revisiting any settlements over the years, then all settlements 
are open for review.
  H.R. 2938 is job-killing special interest legislation. The primary 
advocates for this legislation are wealthy gaming entities, tribal 
entities trying to protect their monopoly on a gaming market. If they 
get their way, they will prevent the Tohono O'odham Nation from 
creating thousands of new jobs, permanent and construction.
  It reneges on the United States' promise to replace the reservation 
lost, and it vastly diminishes the Tohono O'odham settlement by 
imposing new restrictions on the land replacement provided for in the 
1986 settlement.
  It creates new liabilities for the United States. If this were to 
become law, H.R. 2938, it will breach the settlement act, and it will 
leave the United States liable for untold millions of dollars in land 
and taking claims for the land and water rights that the nation 
relinquished under the original settlement act.
  And it undermines ongoing litigation. The same interests that support 
H.R. 2938 have brought various lawsuits to stop the nation from 
exercising its rights. But so far, both State and Federal courts have 
fully upheld the Tohono O'odham Nation's rights. The proponents of H.R. 
2938 want Congress to change the law in order to legislate a victory 
that they cannot get through legislation.
  In addition, misinformation, distortion, and outright lies have been 
spread through congressional offices by a major lobbying firm in D.C. 
in the employment of a gaming entity that is opposed to the original 
law and is promoting this law.
  This has nothing to do with ``reservation shopping.'' In no way would 
defeating this bill allow tribes to start buying up plots of land 
outside of, say, New York City and open up casinos. The original act 
was specific only to the Tohono O'odham. The replacement land could be 
only purchased in one of three Arizona counties. In fact, the land in 
question is in the exact same county, Maricopa, where the flooded land 
of Gila Bend reservation was located.
  So I think it's time to stop this. This land was purchased legally by 
the Tohono O'odham Nation, all in accordance with the Gila Bend 
Reservation Land Replacement Act, to replace reservation land the U.S. 
Government flooded and destroyed, to be used by

[[Page H3727]]

the nation at their discretion for economic development. The innuendo 
of reservation shopping or the idea that its defeat will cause rampant 
reservation shopping is absurd, and it needs to stop.
  I also want to address the idea that compact guaranteed no new 
casinos in the Phoenix area. If this was the case, the only casinos 
that would exist in the Phoenix area are the ones that were in 
existence in 2003. But lo and behold, the very tribes supporting this 
legislation have built two additional casinos since then. In fact, one 
of these tribes is about to break ground on a new $135 million Las 
Vegas-style casino and hotel right outside of southwest Phoenix.
  And, finally, let's stop the lies about the administration being 
``neutral'' on this bill. They have testified against it. I have spoken 
to them. Their position hasn't changed, and the administration does not 
support this legislation.
  This legislation is causing disparate treatment of one tribe for the 
sake of protecting a market. The market should be competitive. This is 
not a violation of the Arizona Gaming Compact, but it is an abrogation 
of a law this Congress passed in 1986 that is now being changed due to 
the whims of those afraid of a competitive market.
  I thank the gentleman from New Mexico for yielding.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my friend Trent Franks' 
legislation, H.R. 2938.
  Ten years ago, stakeholders from across the State of Arizona gathered 
together to come up with a 21st-century plan to manage gaming activity. 
As part of that final agreement, many tribes agreed to forgo building a 
casino to share revenues as a whole. Gaming revenues were set aside for 
education, health care, and other measures to improve the lives of 
average tribal members.
  The key part of that compact was a tribal agreement that no new 
additional casinos would be permitted in the Phoenix metropolitan area. 
The Tohono O'odham Nation agreed to those terms; but as they agreed to 
one thing publicly, they were preparing privately to undermine the 
entire agreement. The tribe has since acquired land in Glendale and has 
made it clear they intend to break their agreement and establish a 
casino on that land. This legislation ensures the Tohono O'odham Nation 
must keep the promise they made in 2002 to the other tribes, the State, 
and our constituents.
  Additionally, the small, but vocal, opposition to this legislation 
claims the bill before us seeks to unilaterally nullify an Indian water 
rights settlement. I assure my House colleagues that statement is 
false. Water rights associated with the Gila Bend reservation were 
settled in the Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act of 2004, not the 
Gila Bend Act.
  The passage of H.R. 2938 would not affect the State adjudication of 
water rights. Any claims to water rights based on aboriginal occupancy 
that Tohono might have claimed were also waived in the tribe's separate 
water rights settlement, an act that provided for a complete and total 
waiver of all such water rights in exchange for substantial 
consideration and payments. Last fall, the Department of the Interior 
testified on this bill, and water rights were not mentioned. The 
committee resolved any concerns during the markup of the bill.
  Today's debate is not about jobs or Native American water rights. It 
is about protecting the integrity of Arizona's gaming compact and 
preventing a dangerous precedent that could lead to the expansion of 
off-reservation casinos in other States.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 2938.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman from New Mexico.
  H.R. 2938 should not have been brought to the House floor under 
suspension of the rules. This legislation doesn't name a post office or 
authorize a park study. H.R. 2938, instead, is a highly controversial 
piece of legislation that will amend a settlement agreement between the 
United States and an Indian tribe, impose restrictions on a tribe's 
authority to use its own land, and circumvent years of Federal and 
State court rulings.
  During consideration by the Natural Resources Committee, members from 
both sides of the aisle expressed concern with this measure. House 
Members have heard from tribes across the country, Arizona State 
legislators, local mayors, small business owners, and community leaders 
on both sides of this issue. The number of stakeholders with strong 
feelings on both sides of this issue is plain evidence that the bill 
does not belong on suspension.

                              {time}  1930

  So we're here tonight, and the implications for local, regional, and 
national gaming industry precedents are quite significant. We should 
only bring suspension-worthy bills out here on the floor. I say that 
because Mr. Grijalva from Arizona, whose tribal constituents are the 
sole target of this legislation, is being denied this opportunity and, 
therefore, any chance to address his constituents' needs. And I think 
that since it does affect his district, his tribe, he's on the Natural 
Resources Committee, he deserves the right to be able to make 
amendments that can improve this legislation, and he is not going to be 
allowed to do that.
  So that is my view on this bill, that it's under the wrong process. 
Suspensions are really meant for bills that do not bring the level of 
complexity and the level of controversy that a bill like this brings to 
the House floor, and as a result, I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I 
have one more speaker.
  Mr. LUJAN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
McClintock).
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) stated the 
facts very clearly. In the 1950s, the Federal Government condemned and 
seized land and water rights owned by the Tohono O'odham Indian Nation. 
In 1986, Congress settled the tribe's outstanding claims by agreeing, 
in part, to take into trust replacement land that the Tohono O'odham 
might acquire under specific conditions. The tribe has acquired a 
particular parcel meeting all of the conditions set forth in the law 
and asserted its rightful claim under that law. This bill retroactively 
and fundamentally alters that settlement, breaking the promises the 
Tohono O'odham have relied upon as they've spent many years and 
millions of dollars acquiring this parcel and planning the project.
  Now, why in the world would we want to do such a thing? Well, it's 
obvious. Like many tribes, the Tohono O'odham want to build a casino on 
this land. This casino would compete with another tribe's casino in the 
region, and that tribe doesn't want the competition. Competition is so 
annoying and inconvenient. It requires offering your customers a better 
service at a lower price. Tohono O'odham seeks to do that. The other 
tribe doesn't want to.
  So that other tribe, which has a monopoly on gaming in the Phoenix 
area, created a front made up of antigambling pressure groups and NIMBY 
activists to try and stop them. They have been defeated in the courts 
at every turn. So what to do? What to do? They don't want to compete 
for customers. They don't have a leg to stand on in court. What is 
left? Well, of course. Get Congress to break its promise, which is why 
we're all here tonight.
  Let's be very clear about what passing this bill would mean. Many in 
this House have widely criticized the President for killing thousands 
of jobs to satisfy his ideological opposition to the Keystone pipeline. 
Well, this bill does exactly the same thing. It kills 6,000 
construction jobs and 3,000 permanent, ongoing service jobs by blocking 
this project on ideological grounds. But the damage only begins there. 
Federal taxpayers will become liable for hundreds of millions of 
dollars of economic damages to compensate the Tohono O'odham for lost 
profits, for the devaluation of their property, and for years of 
planning suddenly rendered worthless by this act.
  So what's the balance sheet here? On the plus side, we satisfy the 
ideological itch of antigaming busybodies and antigrowth zealots, and 
we protect a gambling monopoly in Phoenix from any competition. On the 
minus side, we

[[Page H3728]]

destroy 6,000 construction jobs, 3,000 service jobs, and we open our 
constituents to hundreds of millions of dollars of damages that we are 
certain to lose in court.
  I would suggest that this bill ought to be laughed off the floor, but 
there's nothing in it to laugh about.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I come to this with a somewhat unique view, because I 
was actually there 19 years ago as the majority whip in the Arizona 
State House when this was originally being negotiated. I sat in the 
room hour after hour after hour for months with many of these Native 
American communities and these very discussions about what would happen 
in this type of scenario and assurances that were given to those of us 
who were in the legislature who were having to make the decision that 
this would never happen.
  And I've listened to a little bit of this testimony, even from my 
good friend here from California, and the facts don't line up. First 
off, in the gaming agreements, in the compacts, there's the language 
about the distance from the base aboriginal territories and how far 
things could move away from that. This is outside that. The jobs 
numbers are an absolute fantasy for the construction. And I think Mr. 
Franks actually went over that in his discussion earlier.
  But why do I stand here so passionately supporting Trent's bill? If 
this happens, it's going to destroy the nature of my State because, 
understand, the compacts go kaboom, the cascade begins. And this isn't 
just for Arizona. It will be all over the country. I promise you, in a 
few years you will wake up and my State will be a statewide gaming 
State. And then when this becomes precedent, understand, all your 
States are now in play.
  This is more than just us having a dispute with the Tohono O'odhams. 
That isn't what this is about. This is about keeping the promises that 
were made for many of us who were embattled in building these compacts 
years ago.
  Let's have everyone keep their promise, and let's keep the deal we 
made.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Will the gentleman yield for a moment? If he 
doesn't have the time, I will yield him additional time.
  Does the tribe in question have a casino on their own property?
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Oh, yes. I think they have multiple casinos.
  There's another fact that bounced up here, Mr. Speaker. There's 
actually, I think, one, two, three, four, five casinos in the urban 
area by, I think, three different Native American communities. This 
isn't about defending one tribe versus another. This is about there's 
21 tribes in Arizona and the agreements that have been put together. 
Heaven forbid what you're going to do to these communities, 
particularly the rural ones that get some of the sharing, if we blow up 
the compacts through my State.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have any more 
speakers?
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, yes, I do.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUJAN. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Lujan.
  Just, I think, important points to clarify. One is that the Tohono 
O'odham Nation's proposed gaming facility in this land that was 
authorized by Congress would violate its tribal-State gaming compact, 
or Prop 202. The Department of the Interior has spoken clearly on this 
issue and confirmed in section 3(j) of the tribal-State gaming compact 
clearly allows the nation to develop a gaming facility on the land. 
Nothing in Proposition 202 would disallow the nation from gaming in the 
Phoenix metropolitan area, as the other five to six casinos show that 
there were gentlemen's agreements for no additional casinos in Phoenix.
  Well, there was no such side deal. The line of argument is, I think, 
an after-the-fact rationalization for a position that is entirely 
unsupported by the letter of the law. The compact has stated all 
elements of tribal-State gaming agreements must be embodied in the 
compact and must be approved by the Department of the Interior.
  I think that we have to look at what has not been said. The United 
States' breach, if this becomes law, will void the nation's release of 
its original land claims and open the United States to a liability that 
was valued at $100 million in 1986 dollars. The breach will also open 
the portion of the nation's original water claims settlement. This 
settlement is key to the negotiations going on now with the Salt River 
Project, the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the State of 
Arizona, the Maricopa-Stanfield Water District, and the Central Arizona 
Irrigation District, all affecting the very precious commodity in 
Arizona, which is water.
  So at the expense of those liabilities, that breach could cause not 
only the State of Arizona, but the United States taxpayer, millions and 
millions of dollars and loss in settlements that are so vitally needs 
around the water issues affecting Arizona and the West.
  Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1940

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I can say that this is somewhat 
difficult for me because I have a rule about laws that are being passed 
in Members' districts, and I usually support. Mr. Franks represents 
that district.
  And I will say, Mr. Grijalva has made some statements. I would 
suggest Congress makes laws, and Congress can remake laws. Lawsuits, 
that's a scare tactic. They can sue all they want. One of the problems 
we have in America today is we have too many lawyers, so you can sue 
anything and anybody, anytime, anywhere.
  This is a battle about a State and a large group of American Natives 
that reached an agreement. Mr. Gosar said this very clearly. He was 
there, and they reached an agreement and they are signatories. We had a 
hearing on this legislation. We had a quite intensive hearing, and that 
was brought up. And, of course, they can cite all the arguments they 
want, but they also understand that when a State is involved under 
Native gaming laws, which I and Mr. Udall sponsored, the State had to 
be directly involved; otherwise, you wouldn't have gambling anyplace in 
Arizona because the State would not have agreed to that if there hadn't 
been an agreement between all of the tribes, there would be no more 
than was established in the compact. And I think we have to consider 
the State's belief in this because that does affect the State. They 
probably wouldn't have any gambling at all.
  This money from those five existing casinos is shared, even by the 
tribe requesting this casino outside their territory where they have 
their own casinos, they want it in the Phoenix area, and we all know 
that. This is about money. There's no doubt about that. But what 
concerns me the most is the compact. When I listen to this, when you 
make an agreement and you're a tribe and you agree to something, don't 
try to go around and change that later on by asking some lawyers. We 
talk about finances and where the finances are coming from. We can find 
that out, too, later on.
  So with the understanding that this is an Arizona battle, but as 
chairman, I have to listen to both sides, and right now I come down on 
the side that Arizona, the State of, has an agreement, and we ought to 
live by it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend 
Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act.
  I support this important legislation because I believe we should all 
be bound by the agreements we make.
  In the late 1990s, Arizona tribes' gaming ventures were being 
threatened by litigation and anti-Indian gaming interests.
  As a response, a number of tribes formed a coalition to create a 
joint negotiating position before entering into tribal compact 
discussions with state officials.
  One of these tribes was the Tonoho O'odham Nation.
  Following this agreement, proposition 202 was passed, limiting 
Phoenix area casinos to seven.
  Through all this time, the Tonoho O'odham Nation never expressed any 
hesitation to the agreement they signed with other tribes or 
Proposition 202, until now.
  I ask my colleagues to support this important measure because it 
upholds the good

[[Page H3729]]

faith negotiations that were conducted to reach this joint power 
resolution between the Arizona Tribes.
  I ask my colleagues to support it because it upholds the integrity of 
all the other tribes who have and still are living up to their word.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 2938, as amended.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________