[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18108-18113]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      KEEP THE PROMISE ACT OF 2015

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and 
pass the bill (H.R. 308) to prohibit gaming activities on certain 
Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming 
compacts.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 308

       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 ``Keep the Promise Act of 
     2015''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) In 2002, the voters in the State of Arizona approved 
     Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming Preservation and Self-
     Reliance Act.
       (2) To obtain the support of Arizona voters to approve 
     Proposition 202, the Indian tribes within Arizona agreed to 
     limit the number of casinos within the State and in 
     particular within the Phoenix metropolitan area.
       (3) This Act preserves the agreement made between the 
     tribes and the Arizona voters until the expiration of the 
     gaming compacts authorized by Proposition 202.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act--
       (1) the terms ``Indian tribe'', ``class II gaming'', and 
     ``class III gaming'' have the meanings given those terms in 
     section 4 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     2703); and
       (2) the term ``Phoenix metropolitan area'' means land 
     within Maricopa County and Pinal County, Arizona, that is 
     north of latitude 33 degrees, 5 minutes, 13 seconds north, 
     east of longitude 113 degrees, 20 minutes, 0 seconds west, 
     and west of longitude 110 degrees, 50 minutes, 45 seconds 
     west, using the NED 1983 State Plane Arizona FOPS 0202 
     coordinate system.

     SEC. 4. GAMING CLARIFICATION.

       (a) Prohibition.--Class II gaming and class III gaming are 
     prohibited on land within the Phoenix metropolitan area 
     acquired by the Secretary of the Interior in trust for the 
     benefit of an Indian tribe after April 9, 2013.
       (b) Expiration.--The prohibition in subsection (a) shall 
     expire on January 1, 2027.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous materials 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act, introduced by a 
bipartisan group of Members from the Arizona delegation, would preserve 
an Arizona voter-approved gaming compact by prohibiting any Indian 
casino on land acquired in trust after April 9, 2013, in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area. This prohibition would expire on January 1, 2027, 
when the current gaming compact negotiated with the Arizona Governor 
expires.
  This bill helps to resolve public promises that were supposedly made 
in good faith to the voters in Arizona. In 2002, the voters supported 
the passage of Proposition 202, which limited the number of tribally 
owned casinos in the State, and it granted tribes exclusive rights to 
operate casinos in Arizona.
  During the Proposition 202 campaign, a public promise was made by a 
coalition of 17 Arizona tribes, including the Tohono O'odham Nation, to 
limit casino gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area.
  Unfortunately, one tribe is on the verge of breaking that commitment 
and more than a majority of the tribes in the State are upset.
  The immediate effect of the bill is to block the TO Nation from 
opening an off-operation casino in the Phoenix area. As I mentioned, 
the bill has bipartisan support, including a majority of the House 
delegation, the Governor of Arizona, and six of the tribes that took 
part in the Proposition 202 agreement.
  It is important to point out that it is not just Arizona tribes who 
support this bill. Tribes from other States are very concerned about 
what is happening in Arizona. They believe a dangerous precedent could 
be set if this legislation is not signed into law, leading to the 
expansion of off-reservation casinos.
  Today's deliberations are not about stopping one casino or gaming as 
a whole. The Keep the Promise Act is about protecting the integrity of 
the State's gaming compact, the future of gaming in Arizona, and, 
ultimately, the future of Indian gaming in this country.
  I would like to thank the gentleman, the cosponsor of this 
legislation, for his leadership on this bill and on this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

[[Page 18109]]

  Today, as all of us extend our condolences of support to the people 
of France, to the loss of life, to the friends and loved ones and 
families of those murdered by terrorism, we ask Congress that the 
administration have the resolve to defeat and deal with the horror that 
this terrorism has created not only in France, but in other parts of 
the world, and our condolences and prayers in support of the victims.
  Today is also a day on which we are debating a profit-driven 
monopoly-seeking piece of legislation under suspension, H.R. 308, that 
seeks to make null and void established law, 18 court and 
administrative decisions, and in a very real way expose the American 
taxpayers to at least $1 billion in liability.
  That CBO score has been again validated and affirmed in the same 
analysis that was done for S. 152, the companion legislation in the 
Senate. This liability is for an economic taking of the Tohono O'odham 
Nation.
  Why is this special interest earmark that we are talking about today 
for established human interest in the East Valley of Maricopa County in 
Arizona with us today on suspension? Because it is simply a piece of 
legislation to eliminate competition, to control the gaming market in 
the metro Phoenix area. The adages about let the market decide and let 
the consumers have choice does not apply to this piece of legislation.
  Again, why is H.R. 308 under suspension when very dangerous 
precedence can be set by H.R. 308 if it were to become law? It 
eliminates existing law that was passed in 1986. It overturns 18 
judicial State and Federal Court decisions and administrative 
decisions.
  It opens up a $1 billion taxpayer liability and creates a new 
category of selective sovereignty in terms of land taken into trust as 
a result of 1986 legislation. It nullifies the tribe's ability to yield 
the highest economic development from it.
  It is essentially creating a Federal law that established a no-
competition zone in that part of Maricopa County in the Phoenix metro 
area. So why not regular order, where amendments can be discussed and 
we can have a full debate?
  Today, Monday, under suspension leads one to the belief that there is 
a deadline involved here, that Congress must pass H.R. 308, and the 
President must sign H.R. 308 by December 20, when the Tohono O'odham 
Casino in the West Valley is scheduled to open.
  Hypothetically, it passes the House. Then it quickly passes the 
Senate. Then it goes to the President, is vetoed, as has been indicated 
by the administration. It comes back. The House overrides that veto, 
and the casino can't open.
  This scenario places H.R. 308 in national significance, above things 
like security and terrorism, tax extenders that need to come before 
this Congress, transportation--do we extend for additional time until 
the conference can come up with one package?--general government 
funding and appropriations, Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 
Land and Water Conservation Fund, and the TPP, the trade agreement.
  If H.R. 308 is of this vital national importance that it overrides 
other issues, why suspension and why not have a real debate on the 
issue?
  In terms of Indian Country priorities, where is the legislation of 
the Carcieri fix? Where is the legislation and funding appropriate for 
the Indian Health Service? Where are the tribal recognition reforms, as 
recommended by the administration? Where is the funding for BIA 
schools? Where is legislation to protect sacred sites? Where is 
government-to-government codification for consultation? Why not deal 
with these issues? Perhaps the lobbying influence and resources are not 
present to move these items so quickly to suspension.
  But H.R. 308, a special interest piece of legislation to protect game 
and market share in Maricopa County, Arizona, has this Congress' total 
attention. It makes one wonder why, but I think we really know why.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Young and also 
thank Chairman Bishop and the leadership of this House for bringing 
this bill to the floor today. I also want to thank the bipartisan group 
of cosponsors for their support. I especially want to thank the Members 
of the Arizona delegation who have been in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a budgetary impact by Michael 
Solon, the former senior adviser to the senior leadership; a report 
from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; and a letter 
from the mayors of Arizona regarding this legislation.

Former Senior Advisor to Senate Leadership Provides Budget Analysis of 
                                H.R. 308


                      Says ``No Budgetary Impact''

       The former budget advisor to Senator Mitch McConnell and 
     Trent Lott, Michael Solon of U.S. Policy Strategies, has 
     analyzed Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) most recent 
     score of H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act and its companion 
     bill in the Senate, S. 152.
       In the analysis, Mr. Solon finds that the ``the facts 
     strongly support CBO's past repeated positions that the Keep 
     the Promise Act will have no budgetary impact, and will not 
     increase spending or the deficit.''
       CBO recently expressed uncertainty on the budget score of 
     H.R. 308, stating that they had ``no basis for estimating'' 
     any potential cost from any future litigation. Yet, Mr. Solon 
     notes that previous CBO analyses of virtually identical 
     legislation found no significant impact on the federal 
     budget: ``As recently as September 2013, the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO) found that the Keep the Promise Act 
     upholding the Arizona Tribal-State Gaming Compact `would have 
     no significant impact on the federal budget' and `would not 
     affect direct spending or revenues.'
       That analysis mirrors the January, 2012 CBO report using 
     the identical term of ``no significant impact on the federal 
     budget'' in its assessment.''
       Additionally, Mr. Solon indicates that the specific facts 
     of the case make a significant monetary judgment extremely 
     unlikely: ``A full analysis of the legal and factual 
     background strongly supports CBO's original conclusion of no 
     budget impact. Under current law, there are tremendous 
     hurdles that the tribe would have to overcome in order to 
     expand gambling operations beyond the limits jointly 
     established by the state government, all the Tribes, and 
     voters through compacts, state laws and referendum. Even if 
     one assumed they would be successful absent the Keep the 
     Promise Act, the chances of obtaining a significant monetary 
     judgment against the government is extremely low, in 
     particular because other economic uses of the property would 
     not be barred.''
       Mr. Solon concludes: ``While CBO is right to inform 
     policymakers of information that introduces uncertainty in 
     its cost estimates, in this particular case the facts 
     strongly support the repeated previous positions of the CBO 
     that the Keep the Promise Act will have no budgetary impact, 
     and will not increase spending or the deficit.''
       CBO's recent analysis of the Senate version of the Keep the 
     Promise Act adds that it ``would not increase direct spending 
     or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year 
     periods beginning in 2026.''
       Michael Solon is a partner at U.S. policy strategies. He 
     spent two decades on Capitol Hill. In addition to Senators 
     McConnell and Lott, he also worked for Senator Phil Gramm, 
     and Congressman Dick Armey.
       A copy of the report is available upon request.


       
                                  ____
                                      Council For Citizens Against


                                             Government Waste,

                                Washington, DC, November 16, 2015.
     Hon. Thomas E. Price, M.D.,
     Chairman, Committee on the Budget,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman, Today, the House of Representatives will 
     consider H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act of 2015, 
     introduced by Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) on January 13, 
     2015.
       The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) 
     is aware of the legislative history of this bill, to include 
     similar bills from previous Congresses: H.R. 2938, the Gila 
     Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act 
     (2011), and H.R. 1410, the Keep the Promise Act of 2013. For 
     each of the previous bills, which are virtually identical to 
     H.R. 308, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) determined 
     that those bills ``would have no significant impact on the 
     federal budget'' and that they ``would not affect direct 
     spending or revenues.''
       However, CBO has failed to provide a definitive score for 
     H.R. 308, due to a virtually unprecedented factor: the risk 
     of potential litigation. Of particular concern, CCAGW 
     understands that CBO may have been pressured by opponents of 
     the legislation to inject uncertainty into the final score. 
     Regardless of the merits of the underlying legislation, CCAGW 
     finds these circumstances to be troublesome.

[[Page 18110]]

     Furthermore, CCAGW understands that, when asked to use 
     litigation risk as a scoring factor for other legislation, 
     CBO indicated that such an approach was inconsistent with 
     their established procedures.
       Therefore, without reference to the merits of the 
     underlying legislation, CCAGW believes that, in the absence 
     of a definitive score for this bill and given the precedent 
     of two previous estimates that indicated ``no significant 
     impact'' of virtually identical legislation, thus rendering 
     CBO's latest scoring statement an outlier, passage of H.R. 
     308 should not reasonably be considered to increase spending.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Thomas Schatz.


     
                                  ____
                                                November 12, 2015.
     Hon. Paul Ryan,
     Office of the Speaker of the House,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Office of the Democratic Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Ryan and Leader Pelosi: As the elected leaders 
     of towns and cities in the State of Arizona, we are writing 
     to you to convey our support for H.R. 308, the Keep the 
     Promise Act of 2015, and urge you to pass this bill as soon 
     as possible.
       In 2002, the people of Arizona voted to approve a tribal-
     state compact, which, among other things, prohibited 
     additional casinos from being built in the Phoenix area 
     through 2027. In exchange for this prohibition, tribes were 
     granted the exclusive authority to conduct gaming within the 
     state. H.R. 308 simply preserves and codifies the will of the 
     Arizona people.
       For us, this issue is about more than public policy. It is 
     about preserving the integrity of our communities by keeping 
     casinos from opening across the street from our schools, 
     churches, and homes. It's also about maintaining the trust 
     and integrity that was forged over a decade ago between 
     tribes and our governments.
       In 2002, a representative for a coalition of 17 Arizona 
     tribes testified to the State Senate that the tribal-state 
     gaming compact would not permit the construction of 
     additional casinos in the Phoenix area beyond the number that 
     existed at the time.
       This promise--that there would be ``no additional casinos 
     in the Phoenix metropolitan area''--had the full and complete 
     backing of the Tohono O'odham Nation and other tribes and was 
     widely publicized to Arizona voters who were asked to approve 
     the compact in a state-wide referendum. Now, the Tohono 
     O'odham Nation is building a new casino near Phoenix, in 
     direct opposition to the promises it made, and which voters 
     relied on when they went to the polls.
       The Tohono O'odham Nation has purchased land across the 
     street from a high school and is building a Las Vegas style 
     casino 100 miles from its primary reservation. This is not 
     what the Arizona voters and other tribes intended when they 
     approved the State-tribal gaming compacts. And, more 
     importantly, it is contrary to the statements that Tohono 
     O'odham made to persuade the voters of Arizona to support 
     tribal exclusivity for gaming in Arizona.
       That's why this legislation has the support of the 
     Governor, the State Legislature, numerous tribal governments, 
     and almost the entire Arizona congressional delegation. 
     Congress is the only entity that can address this issue. We 
     ask that you move quickly to enact this legislation.
           Sincerely,
     Linda Kavanagh,
       Mayor, Fountain Hills, Arizona.
     John W. Lewis,
       Mayor, Town of Gilbert.
     Gail Barney,
       Mayor, Town of Queen Creek.
     John S. Insalaco,
       Mayor, City of Apache Junction.
     Tom Schoaf,
       Mayor, City of Litchfield Park.
     Mark W. Mitchell,
       Mayor, City of Tempe.
     John Giles,
       Mayor, Town of Mesa.
     W.J. ``Jim'' Lane,
       Mayor, City of Scottsdale.
     Jay Tibshraeny,
       Mayor, City of Chandler.

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise 
Act, seeks to prevent Las Vegas-style gaming in the Phoenix 
metropolitan area until the gaming compact, to which the Arizona tribes 
agreed and the Arizona voters approved, expires in 2027.
  One Tucson area tribe is trying to build a major casino on lands that 
were deceptively purchased in the Phoenix metropolitan area at the very 
time that they were in negotiations with other tribes in the State to 
craft this gaming compact duly passed by the voters.
  These actions are contrary to the public commitments that this 
particular tribe made between 2000 and 2002 to the other 16 Indian 
tribes in the State of Arizona and also to the State voters of Arizona.
  This legislation was then publicly supported by the passage of 
Proposition 202, this compact, a State referendum to limit casino 
gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area. All parties knew what we were 
agreeing to, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan cosponsors of H.R. 308 are simply trying 
to hold all the parties to their publicly stated commitment to the 
people of Arizona not to engage in gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan 
area.
  Contrary to the opposition's position, Congress does have a role in 
supervising tribal gaming. Congress has a long-established history of 
regulating, managing, and working with the tribes relative to tribal 
trust land.
  Most astonishing, Mr. Speaker, is the opposition's argument that the 
courts have ``upheld'' the tribe's right to operate a casino on that 
parcel of land. Indeed, the court raised serious questions about the 
tribe's misconduct, but dismissed the litigation under the doctrine of 
sovereign immunity. This is not a ruling on the merits in favor or 
against any side, Mr. Speaker. It simply means the court could not or 
would not issue a ruling.
  This bill passed the House twice before and it had a zero CBO score. 
In CBO's analysis of this exact bill last Congress, they acknowledged 
the uncertainty of future legal challenges, but did not score those. 
This is the standard practice. Today any ruling by them to the contrary 
is a precedent and sets the CBO up for being politically impacted in 
the future, politically driven in the future.
  Astonishingly, the CBO recently scored an addition to the exact same 
bill this Congress of zero dollars to $1 billion. Let me say that 
again, Mr. Speaker. The CBO added a score now to this same bill from 
zero last time to now zero to $1 billion.
  Now, of course, they were lobbied to do that in an unprecedented way 
while admitting it had no basis to issue any conjecture about a 
possible lawsuit resulting from the passage of this bill.
  CBO admits it had no basis to score litigation. The CBO has never 
scored potential litigation on other bills. This score should be 
ignored as useless and harmful if allowed as a precedent, Mr. Speaker.
  This bill does not impact any tribe's ability to have any lands taken 
into trust, nor does it impact any water or land claims. Consistent 
with the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and Proposition 
202, this bill merely restricts the ability of tribes to game on the 
very lands on which they themselves agreed they would not game.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that my colleagues join 
with me today and the Members of Arizona's delegation supporting this 
bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand with thousands of 
community voices and jobs in opposition to H.R. 308.
  This legislation not only shortchanges our commitments to our tribal 
brothers and sisters, but it will do so at exorbitant costs to 
taxpayers according to the Congressional Budget Office.
  Construction of the West Valley project has been an immense and 
welcome addition to communities across Phoenix and beyond. Once fully 
completed, the project will employ 3,000 people and support their 
families, jobs we need in our community as we continue to reel as one 
of the hardest hit areas in the Nation from the Great Recession.
  Millions of dollars have flowed into the region. More than 45 
companies have been retained for the construction of this project both 
within Arizona and nationally. 1,300 construction workers are currently 
under contract, and those 1,300 jobs are just the beginning.

                              {time}  1515

  If you want proof, look no further than the job fair the tribe 
recently held on September 28. It drew over 3,000 applicants from the 
community, 400 of

[[Page 18111]]

whom were hired on the spot. That number will rise to 500 employees 
when phase one of the project opens in December, and it will eventually 
climb to 3,000 full-time employees when the project is completed and 
staffed. These are new, permanent, good-paying jobs that are badly 
needed in the West Valley. This bill will unnecessarily put these 
hardworking men and women out of work while costing American taxpayers 
as much as $1 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, our community supports these jobs and this project. We 
cannot afford to play politics when it comes to the bottom lines of our 
families and of our local economies.
  I urge my colleagues to stand up for local jobs and join me in 
opposing this job-killing legislation.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), one who has been involved in this issue for 
many, many years.
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, for several years, I have been actively involved in a 
troubling, off-reservation gaming issue in my home State of Arizona 
regarding the Tohono O'odham Nation. TO has been attempting to open a 
Las Vegas-style casino--more than 60 miles from its ancestral lands and 
reservation in Tucson and in another tribe's former reservation in the 
Phoenix metropolitan area--for the sole purpose of gaming.
  This comes after TO and 16 other Arizona tribes adopted a compact, 
approved by Arizona voters, which expressly promised there would be no 
additional casinos or gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area until 
2027. TO alone spent $1.8 million in urging Arizona voters to rely on 
this limitation. In exchange for this promise, the voters granted the 
tribes a statewide monopoly on gaming, and other tribes gave up 
significant rights.
  Shockingly, a few months after Arizona voters approved Proposition 
202, TO finalized a multiyear effort to violate this compact and used a 
shell organization to purchase land in Glendale for a casino. TO's 
dismissal of their promise to build no additional casinos in Phoenix is 
not something that Congress can ignore when the result will be so 
harmful to what has been a national model.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to call attention to critical evidence 
obtained from the litigation discovery in the State of Arizona v. 
Tohono O'odham Nation. Here are a few of the important quotations from 
tribal council meeting transcripts and minutes that were included in 
the underlying discovery:
  5-18-01: VDI, a TO chartered and owned corporation, included in their 
meeting notes a description of a presentation delivered by Mark Curry, 
TO's lead negotiator in the gaming compact negotiations. The notes 
reflect ``107th Avenue-Stadium,'' ``gaming compact--unsure what will 
happen,'' ``put in a shell company--need to keep it quiet, especially 
when negotiations of compact are at stake.''
  6-26-01: VDI meeting with TO's San Lucy District Council. ``We are 
also looking at another project . . . based on discussions we had and 
continue to have about a casino on the west end of Phoenix, and part of 
that discussion that we've had was that--we didn't want to publicize 
that because of the confidentiality in terms of that issue . . . and 
that's how we're holding it--as confidential--because we don't want, 
you know, people to know we are seriously considering this, because, if 
you do, I'm sure that there's going to be a lot of resistance from, you 
know, the general public.''
  8-22-02: VDI meeting transcript discussing the West Phoenix casino 
project and whether Governor Hull's successor would also oppose 
additional Phoenix area casinos. The meeting transcript states:
  ``Max: Because, if that's going to be the position of the State, that 
they don't want any more casinos around the Phoenix area, then they're 
going to fight it, whoever the new Governor is, if he's going to go 
along--he or she go along with Jane Hull regarding taking a position.
  ``Jim: Which is why we really want to wait until the initiative 
passes before it gets out.''
  2-23-03: VDI meeting transcript discussing potential political 
problems with the proposal:
  ``Male voice: I just hope that . . . in terms of the political--
that's going be to coming--that some of the metro tribes over there 
don't come back and jump on us, too . . .
  ``Male voice: Might Gila River and Salt River indicate that it's a 
violation of Proposition 202--metropolitan area?
  ``Male voice: Well, that's what I said in terms of political impact, 
is that even--even those metro tribes, particularly those three that 
are right there, might--might say something.''
  Shamefully, TO has falsely been claiming a victory in court. Let's be 
clear. TO won nothing in court. In fact, the U.S. District Court stated 
there was evidence that TO made false promises, but, unfortunately, 
TO's sovereign immunity barred the court from ruling on this case. In 
other words, the court ruled that the tribe cannot be sued in court 
because ``it can't be sued in court.'' Any ruling could not consider 
anything claimed under sovereignty by the tribe, i.e., the tribal 
minutes, notations in meetings.
  That is the fundamental reason that H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise 
Act, is necessary. Only Congress has the authority to hold TO 
accountable for their shameful, deceitful, and criminal actions. This 
was confirmed again by the Supreme Court in 2014 in the case of 
Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, when the Court stated that only 
Congress can act when a tribe raises sovereign immunity. TO acted 
immorally and covertly against its fellow tribes, the State, and the 
general public. We can't let TO get away with these horrific actions 
that violate a voter-approved compact and that could upend tribal 
gaming compacts throughout the Nation.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 308.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There have already been 18 court and Federal agency rulings favoring 
Tohono O'odham Nation on this issue, and we can dismiss those court 
decisions by Federal judges--the Ninth Circuit--State judges, 
administrative hearings with the Interior. We can dismiss them as not 
meaning anything. Obviously, the state of the law that was passed in 
1986 means nothing. Obviously, these court cases and judicial decisions 
mean nothing because this legislation, H.R. 308, seeks to usurp the law 
in 1986 and to overrule judicial decisions that have been made.
  We keep hearing about the fact that there is no standing in those 
decisions. The latest was a unanimous decision by the Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals that confirmed, once again, the legality of the 
tribe's West Valley project.
  We keep hearing the same myths about what the numerous legal outcomes 
actually mean for the nation. For instance, we heard just now that the 
nation won nothing on the merits and that all of the cases had merely 
been dismissed on the draconian doctrine of sovereign immunity.
  It doesn't take a law degree to realize that, while the court 
dismissed some claims for this reason, the courts have, in fact, ruled 
on the merits of several of the claims in favor of the nation. For 
example, Judge David Campbell, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled:
  ``The parties did not reach such an agreement, and the nation's 
construction of a casino on the Glendale area land will not violate the 
compact.''
  He ruled: ``No reasonable reading of the compact could lead a person 
to conclude that it has prohibited new casinos in the Phoenix area.''
  He ruled: ``The Glendale area land acquired by the nation qualifies 
for gaming under the Indian Game and Regulatory Act.''
  Judge Campbell also ruled: ``No other agreements or promises are 
valid or binding.''
  The latest unanimous ruling from the Ninth Circuit found that Arizona 
State law, designed to block the Federal Government from taking land it 
purchased into trust on behalf of the nation, was unconstitutional and 
would frustrate the purpose of the law Congress passed to secure 
replacement lands for the nation.
  The rulings further confirmed that, if H.R. 308 is enacted--the land 
that is

[[Page 18112]]

now in trust--the nation's contractual and statutory right to sue to 
use its land would be violated, and the U.S. taxpayer would be on the 
hook to pay the nation up to $1 billion in compensation.
  We can't dismiss those decisions because it serves the narrative of 
those who want to keep a ``no competition'' zone in the Phoenix area.
  With regard to the West Valley--and I represent a part of that area 
up in Maricopa--it is in deep need of stimulus and economic 
development. This would be a huge shot in the arm as evidenced by the 
support of the mayors and city councils of Peoria, Tolleson, and 
Glendale, which is where the casino would be located, representing 
670,000 people in that West Valley area. So I would say that there is 
support in the area, and one cannot merely dismiss it as if there is 
not any.
  I want to address the claim of reservation shopping head-on. The 
proponents of this bill love to throw around the term ``reservation 
shopping.'' They like to suggest the bad images associated with it. 
They invoke the ``boogeyman of tribal megacasinos'' outside of major 
cities, but that cannot be further from the truth for the Tohono 
O'odham Nation. This has nothing to do with reservation shopping, and 
the term is offensive at best. The Tohono O'odham Nation didn't ask for 
their land to be flooded and their economic resources to be destroyed. 
They didn't ask for their agricultural way of life to be taken away. 
They aren't looking to expand their land base. They are simply trying 
to replace the land that was destroyed by the Federal Government.
  The Gila Bend Act, which authorized the land, is specific only to the 
Tohono O'odham Nation. The replacement land can only be purchased in 
one of three counties. In fact, the land in question is in the exact 
same county, Maricopa, where the flooded land was located, and the 
replacement land was to be specifically used--and I am quoting from the 
original Gila Bend Act here of which Senator McCain was a cosponsor--
``. . . for sustained economic use which is not principally farming and 
do not require Federal outlays for construction, and promote the 
economic self-sufficiency or the self-sufficiency of the O'odham Indian 
people.''
  Nothing in this situation is off-reservation. This tribe simply has 
reservation lands in two places, thanks to being flooded by a Federal 
project. So let's please stop talking about ``reservation shopping'' 
and ``Las Vegas-style casinos'' when the casinos in these valleys are 
not Las Vegas-style casinos but something less than--maybe Reno-style 
casinos, maybe Atlantic City-style casinos.
  The fact remains that this act and the land that we are talking 
about--for the O'odham and the Gila Bend Act--was a replacement to 
their losing 10,000 acres due to the Painted Hills Dam that was 
constructed by the Federal Government. All of the rights have been 
affirmed by the courts, and the right for use has been affirmed by the 
court. We can't dismiss those judicial decisions as merely 
inconveniences to some. They are legal decisions; they are binding; the 
land is in trust. For all intents and purposes, the reservation land 
and the complication of passing this bill and the complication of 
future liability for the Federal Government is very much part of the 
decision that is being made today.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  Mr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Arizona makes my exact point.
  The discovery in the case of the State of Arizona v. TO prohibited 
the discovery of those minutes and tribal minutes in meetings from 
being allowed in the court. That is why the court said they had to find 
on behalf of TO, but they knew something was wrong.
  As cited earlier in my testimony, the Supreme Court ruled once again 
that Congress--and only Congress--has the jurisdiction over tribal 
treaties and tribal entities when they claim sovereign immunity. Once 
again, for 2014, the gentleman from Arizona mis-cites that.
  Last but not least, jobs have been utilized here, but they should not 
be utilized by criminal extortion and in violation of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. This has consequences far beyond that, not just for 
Arizona but across the country. When we passed the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, we expected good faith and to follow the proceedings 
and to not enhance criminal activity. Obviously, just by my citations 
in the record, it shows that there was a conspired, extortive extent to 
which the TO conspired to violate the compact that the voters of 
Arizona expected to be honored exactly.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am not going to get into the points that were made about extortion 
and immorality.
  What is going on here is that this piece of legislation, H.R. 308, 
seeks to target just one tribe, the Tohono O'odham Nation, in order to 
retroactively prohibit a specific casino which is on their reservation 
land and which is almost completely constructed and will soon be 
operational. Other wealthy special interests don't want the 
competition. It is as simple as that.
  We have talked about the court cases, the agency's ruling, and the 
land's being taken into trust. The tribe is right in that their West 
Valley casino is well within the conditions of the Arizona Gaming 
Compact, and it has been upheld by the courts; but that hasn't stopped 
the special interests and the wealthy lobbyists from pushing this 
reckless bill year after year.

                              {time}  1530

  By supporting H.R. 308, I think the Members are setting a dangerous 
precedent. You are saying that no matter what the obligations are to 
our Native Nations by a previous Congress, no matter what was promised 
to them and agreed in law, no matter what was decided and ruled upon by 
a court, no matter the process undertaken by the administration--you 
are opening up a very, very dangerous area--that you can unilaterally 
undo, by the request of outside interests for one tribe, their ability 
to take full advantage of the law that was passed in 1986 and to make 
them whole again economically.
  You are opening up an era of selective sovereignty where Congress can 
dictate the terms for how and when a tribe can assert its own self-
determination and self-governance. That is akin to Congress being the 
sole determiner of recognizing who is a Native tribe and who isn't.
  I believe that this bill, H.R. 308, is going to have serious 
ramifications for this Congress if it is passed and ever were to become 
law. The precedent set here is a dangerous precedent that extends 
beyond the one tribe that is being targeted now. It's the O'odham 
Nation being targeted now. What would prevent this same kind of 
situation in a different light, under different circumstances on a 
different issue from another tribe being targeted and limited as to the 
use of their land and under law?
  Mr. Speaker, let me close by saying that this controversial and 
potentially costly legislation really has no place on the suspension 
calendar. At the very least, Members deserve the opportunity to fully 
debate H.R. 308 and to offer amendments to address the serious concerns 
raised by the legislation.
  For example, the bill should be amended to guarantee that any Federal 
liability resulting from litigation sparked by H.R. 308--liability that 
the CBO estimates could be as high as $1 billion--shall not result in a 
reduction in funding for any Bureau of Indian Affairs programs. We 
should not punish the rest of Indian country for the greed of a few.
  Second, the legislation should be amended to clarify that this 
prohibition on gaming should not apply to land specifically authorized 
by Congress as compensation for trust lands destroyed by the Federal 
agency action. If the bill is designed to stop so-called off-
reservation gaming and reservation shopping, it should clearly exempt 
reservation lands provided to a tribe to replace land that the Federal 
Government destroyed.

[[Page 18113]]

  If the aim of H.R. 308 is to enforce Arizona's tribal-State gaming 
compact, this legislation should be amended to be clear that gaming can 
take place as long as it is conducted pursuant to the compact.
  Bringing H.R. 308 to the floor under suspension is unfair, and it 
only serves the interests of those who would rather not discuss the 
issues highlighted by these and other amendments.
  Finally, let me reiterate that regardless of how you voted the last 
time around, this is a completely different situation. As of July 2014, 
the land is now in trust. It is now part of the Tohono O'odham 
Reservation. This casino is set to open for business next month. If 
this legislation was unfair before, it is now just shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, there was only one promise that was made that needs to 
be kept; the solemn promise this government made to the Tohono O'odham 
Nation with the passage of the Gila Bend Act in 1986. H.R. 308 will 
break that promise. It will set a dangerous precedent for settled land 
claims and will forever be a black mark on the dealings with Indian 
nations.
  I urge Members to oppose H.R. 308. I remind my colleagues that this 
piece of legislation, while tempered and promoted for interests, 
carries with it extensive liability, dangerous precedents, and deserves 
a full, regular order debate, which we are not going to have today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walker). The gentleman has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This has been a good debate. Of course, I brought this bill to the 
floor on behalf of the mostly unanimous Arizona delegation. My role in 
this is that I am, in fact, the prime author of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act itself.
  I would suggest that what is being proposed here and the opposition 
to it, H.R. 308 does not affect land into trust and is a temporary 
halt. All this bill does is stop the opening of this casino, which they 
did, I believe, under the guise of dishonesty to the general public. 
Promises made, promises kept.
  When the Governor and all the tribes, including the Tohono O'odham 
Tribe, agreed and signed a compact not to expand gambling in the State 
of Arizona, as they were doing so, in signing the compact, they were in 
preparations to buy this land, not telling anybody, not acknowledging 
or thinking of another casino. At least they should have had the 
courage and the guts not to sign the compact.
  It went to the public. Promises made to the public. It would never 
have passed. Gambling in Arizona would not be there if they did not 
have this understanding there would be no expansion.
  Now we have a group--and don't talk about greed, et cetera. There are 
people in that group who are just as greedy, trying to take and 
establish a gambling place where they said they wouldn't do it. That 
was the compact. That was the understanding with the State. That was 
the State legislative body.
  Then we hear on the other side we can't vote for this because it is 
going to take jobs away. Away from whom? Other Natives. Other American 
Indians.
  Remember, these casinos were built on a platform, a model of how many 
people go in and how many people come out. That is how you make these 
casinos pay, and that was the understanding and the plan that all the 
tribes agreed to. They all signed it, and we have documentation of 
that.
  It was voted on by the general public because the general public did 
not want an expansion of gambling within the State of Arizona. It 
passed in good faith, but the faith was not that good. It was not the 
spirit and intent of the Indian Gaming Act at all. It broke the compact 
with the State and the people of the State. That is what we have to 
think about.
  There is a factor here that was not exposed during the conference and 
in negotiating with the State and with the tribes. It was not exposed 
yet. It was taking place, not in sincerity but, in fact, in dishonesty.
  I don't like to get involved in these tribal wars, but what is being 
encouraged here is wrong with that compact. The promise made by the 
people for the people and with the people and with the tribes, and you 
are asking us not to stop that.
  This is a good piece of legislation to make sure a dishonest act does 
not take place. A breaking of a promise while you are holding your hand 
behind your back with your fingers crossed when you have the other hand 
up swearing, that is what occurred.
  So I am asking my colleagues to listen to the Arizona delegation and 
the Governor. I am asking my colleagues to think about a promise made 
should be kept and only the Congress will make sure it is kept.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 308, the Keep the Promise Act is a 
close call on the merits. However, as I have stated in the 
Congressional Record before (for example on September 25, 2012), when a 
bill is controversial and a close call on the merits, we should not be 
considering it under suspension of the rules. Accordingly, I cannot 
vote to suspend the rules.
  Mr. TOM PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, today the House is scheduled 
to consider H.R. 308, the ``Keep the Promise Act of 2015'' which would 
prohibit gaming on property near Glendale, Arizona that is owned by the 
Tohono O'odham Nation and held in trust by the United States. The 
Tohono O'odham Nation is currently constructing a resort and casino on 
this property and expects to begin operations within a year.
  The Congressional Budget Office expects that if this legislation were 
enacted, the tribe would pursue litigation against the federal 
government to recover its financial losses from foregone gaming 
revenue. For this reason, the Congressional Budget Office estimates 
that possible compensation payments from the government could range 
from nothing to more than $1 billion. However, the Congressional Budget 
Office concludes that it has no basis for estimating the outcome of the 
future litigation.
  Budget enforcement is among my top priorities for the 114th Congress. 
It is my intention to ensure compliance with the Congressional Budget 
Act and House Rules as they apply to budget enforcement on the floor. 
However, given the considerable uncertainty of the budget impact of 
this legislation as concluded by the Congressional Budget Office, it is 
my position that a definitive score for this legislation cannot be 
determined.
  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. 308.
  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 motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________