[House Report 114-95]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
114th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 114-95
======================================================================
KEEP THE PROMISE ACT OF 2015
_______
April 29, 2015.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bishop of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, submitted
the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 308]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred
the bill (H.R. 308) to prohibit gaming activities on certain
Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming
compacts, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE BILL
The purpose of H.R. 308 is to prohibit gaming activities on
certain Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain
gaming compacts.
BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
H.R. 308 would prohibit class II (bingo) and class III (Las
Vegas-style) gambling activities regulated under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 within the Phoenix, Arizona,
metropolitan area until January 1, 2027, when the compacts
between the State of Arizona and tribes operating class III
casinos expire.\1\ The immediate effect of the bill is to
prohibit the operation of an off-reservation casino in
Glendale, Arizona, by the Tohono O'odham Nation (TO Nation), a
federally recognized tribe with approximately 30,000 members
and a large reservation stretching from Tucson to the U.S.-
Mexico border. Below is an overview of the history and current
status of the off-reservation gaming controversy; additional
detailed background and justification for prior bills to block
the Glendale casino may be found in House Report 112-440
(accompanying H.R. 2938, Gila Bend Reservation Lands
Replacement Clarification Act) and House Report 113-210
(accompanying H.R. 1410, Keep the Promise Act of 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\H.R. 308 defines the Phoenix metro area as certain land north of
a latitude line in Maricopa and Pinal Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The controversy resolved by H.R. 308 has its origins in
ambiguous statutory law, the Department of the Interior's
opaque regulatory procedures, and the propensity of federal
courts to invent federal Indian law and policy, such as the
doctrine of absolute tribal sovereign immunity.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Dissent of Justice Thomas et al. regarding ``judge-made
doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity'' in Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian
Community, 572 U.S. ___ (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1986, Congress passed the Gila Bend Indian Reservation
Lands Replacement Act (Public Law 99-503). This Act authorizes
the TO Nation to purchase up to 9,880 acres of lands that, when
placed in trust, would replace a reservation area flooded by
the federally constructed Painted Rock Dam on the Gila River.
These replacement lands had to be non-incorporated and within
three Arizona counties (Pima, Pinal, or Maricopa).
While there is no mention of gaming in this 1986 law, two
years later Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of
1988 (IGRA). Under IGRA, gaming is prohibited on lands acquired
in trust after October 1988 unless one of several exceptions is
met. One of these exceptions is when ``lands are taken into
trust as part of . . . a settlement of a land claim.'' (25
U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)(i)). There is no legislative history
regarding the ``land claim exception'' under IGRA. Under rules
developed by the Department of the Interior, when a tribe seeks
to open a casino under the land claim exception, the Department
must issue an opinion to determine whether the exception
applies to the land in question. An opinion ``is not, per se, a
final agency action under the Administrative Procedures
Act.''\3\ Therefore, the merits of land claim exception
opinions by the Department are difficult for an interested
party to challenge.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 98, May 20, 2008, p. 29358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2000, the Department granted the TO Nation's request to
waive restrictions on where the tribe could acquire replacement
lands through the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Replacement
Lands Act. The tribe then secured a Departmental opinion
allowing the tribe to open a casino on replacement lands under
the land claim exception of IGRA.
In 2002, Arizona voters passed Proposition 202, a
referendum to approve a tribal-state compact under which 16
Arizona tribes were granted a statewide casino monopoly with
limits on the scope and location of the gambling facilities. In
the campaign on ``Prop 202,'' the tribes (including the TO
Nation) told voters that the compact would not allow additional
casinos in Phoenix.\4\ This restriction was negotiated by all
parties to the compact:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Yes on 202/The 17-Tribe Indian Self-Reliance Initiative,
``Answers to Common Questions'' Flyer.
We negotiated in good faith with all Arizona tribes
and the Governor of Arizona to craft a tribal-state
gaming compact that preserved tribal exclusivity for
casino gaming, allowed for larger casinos and machine
allotments with the ability to expand machine
allotments through transfer agreements with rural
tribes, and limited the number of casinos in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. In order to reach a deal
with the Governor of Arizona all tribes, including the
[TO] Nation, had to agree that no more than seven
casinos could be located in the Phoenix metropolitan
area.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\Diane Enos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska
Native Affairs, Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2938, October 4, 2011.
While the tribes were informing voters the compact would
not allow additional casinos in Phoenix, the TO Nation was
undertaking confidential plans to build a new casino in the
Phoenix area. In 2003, using a shell company, the TO Nation
began purchasing 134 acres of unincorporated land in the
Phoenix area (located between the cities of Glendale, Peoria,
and Tolleson). On January 28, 2009, the tribe asked the
Department of the Interior to accept this parcel of land in
trust and deem it to be replacement lands under the 1986 Gila
Bend Act. The Secretary then issued a decision to take the land
in trust on August 26, 2010. The Gila River Indian Community,
the City of Glendale, and other plaintiffs challenged the
decision in federal court. However, federal litigation has been
largely resolved in favor of the Department of the Interior and
the TO Nation, except for one aspect to the controversy which
cannot be resolved unless the TO Nation waives its immunity
from suit.
On July 3, 2014, the Department of the Interior transferred
the land in trust. In August 2014, the City of Glendale secured
an agreement with the tribe that gives the city an average of
$1.3 million per year for 20 years. On August 28, 2014, the
tribe broke ground on construction of the $400 million casino
project.
Analysis of H.R. 308
H.R. 308 prohibits class II and class III gaming conducted
by any tribe within defined region in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. As mentioned above, the principal aim of the bill is to
block the operation of class II and class III gaming by the TO
Nation on off-reservation lands acquired in trust by the
Department of the Interior for the tribe's benefit, but the ban
applies to all tribes. The prohibition is not permanent and
thus any tribe (including the TO Nation) could potentially
bargain for new gaming rights in the Phoenix area when the
tribal-state compact is up for renewal.
The ability of a tribe to operate a casino is not absolute.
The regulatory framework for Indian gaming is subject to
modification by Congress in accordance with a foundational
principle of federal Indian law, which is that Congress
``possesses comprehensive power with respect to Indian
affairs.''\6\ This power is regarded as plenary. As explained
by the Supreme Court, this power ``has always been deemed a
political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial
department of the government.''\7\ While Congress may not
violate a constitutionally-protected right of a tribe, it may
freely adjust a tribe's powers, privileges, and immunities.
Accordingly, Congress may modify the federal regulatory power
governing the operation of gaming pursuant to IGRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Conference of Western Attorneys General, American Indian Law
Deskbook (Fourth Edition), 2008, p. 8.
\7\Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) at 565.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing record for prior legislation addressing the
controversy (H.R. 1410, 113th Congress) demonstrates the strong
sentiment of the State of Arizona and a majority of its
recognized tribes that the casino breaches a contract with
Arizona voters. In turn, the breach may upset a careful balance
of interests in which tribes agreed to limit the location and
number of Las Vegas-style casinos in exchange for the exclusive
right to operate class III gaming. This sentiment has been
heard in the House of Representatives, which has previously
demonstrated strong bipartisan support for prohibiting a new
casino in the Phoenix area.\8\ In addition, in a recent
bipartisan letter sent to members of the Natural Resources
Committee, five Arizona Members representing districts and
tribes directly affected by the controversy averred that the TO
Nation's ``actions represent a very real and 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.''\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Prior legislation on this issue passed the House in the 112th
Congress 343-78, 2 Present (vote on H.R. 2938, June 19, 2012) and by
voice vote in the 113th Congress (vote on H.R. 1410, September 17,
2013).
\9\March 24, 2015, letter to Natural Resources Committee Members
from Representatives Trent Franks, Ann Kirkpatrick, Paul Gosar, David
Schweikert, and Matt Salmon.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 308 preserves a balance struck among Arizona tribes,
voters, and elected State officials (including the Governor) to
grant tribes exclusive gaming rights in Arizona in exchange for
limits on the number and location Indian gaming facilities. The
bill advances a sound public policy respecting the federal role
in the regulation of Indian gaming and it best reflects how the
elected officials representing the Congressional districts most
directly touched by the controversy wish to resolve it.
COMMITTEE ACTION
H.R. 308 was introduced on January 13, 2015, by Congressman
Trent Franks (R-AZ). The bill was referred to the Committee on
Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee
on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On March 24,
2015, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill.
The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent.
Congressman Rauul Grijalva (D-AZ) offered an amendment
designated .024. It was not adopted by a roll call vote of 10
to 21, as follows:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
No additional amendments were offered and the bill was
ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by
voice vote.
COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee on Natural Resources' oversight findings and
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.
COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII
1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the
Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B)
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted
cost estimate of the bill prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the following cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
H.R. 308--Keep the Promise Act of 2015
Summary: H.R. 308 would prohibit gambling (other than
social games for prizes of minimal value) on property near
Glendale, Arizona that is owned by the Tohono O'odham Nation
and held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the
tribe. That prohibition would last until 2027. The Tohono
O'odham Nation is currently constructing a resort and casino on
this property and expects to begin operations within a year.
Based on information from the Tohono O'odham Nation, CBO
expects that if H.R. 308 were enacted, the tribe would pursue
litigation against the federal government to recover its
financial losses caused by the prohibition on gambling. Whether
the tribe would prevail in such litigation and when those
proceedings might be concluded are both uncertain. The basis
for any judicial determination of the tribe's financial losses
is also uncertain. CBO estimates that possible compensation
payments from the government could range from nothing to more
than $1 billion; however, we have no basis for estimating the
outcome of the future litigation. Because enacting H.R. 308
could increase direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply.
Enacting H.R. 308 would not affect revenues.
By prohibiting gambling on land that the tribe is currently
planning to use for such a purpose, the bill would impose an
intergovernmental mandate, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA). Absent the bill, CBO estimates that the
tribe will collect more than $100 million annually once the
casino it is building begins operations, probably in 2016.
Those costs would exceed the annual threshold established in
UMRA ($77 million in 2015, adjusted annually for inflation) in
at least one of the first five years after enactment of the
bill.
H.R. 308 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in
UMRA.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: CBO expects that
the Tohono O'odham Nation would pursue litigation against the
federal government if H.R. 308 is enacted. CBO has no basis for
judging the outcome of that litigation. It is possible that the
federal government would incur no compensation costs, or that
it would pay the tribe a settlement or be ordered to pay
compensation by a court. Any such payment would increase direct
spending, and the amount could exceed $1 billion. The federal
government also would incur discretionary costs, which are
subject to appropriation, to defend itself in the expected
litigation. The amount of such costs would depend on the length
and extent of the legal challenges.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted in 2015 and that under current law the
Tohono O'odham Nation will probably commence gambling
operations and begin generating gambling revenue in 2016.
Outcome of Future Litigation
CBO expects that enacting the legislation would probably
result in litigation against the federal government by the
Tohono O'odham Nation. Based on information from the tribe, CBO
expects the tribe would seek compensation for financial losses
caused by H.R. 308. To date, the tribe has prevailed in
disputes with Arizona and other tribes about its planned gaming
operations on the property. A 2013 district court decision on
whether gambling on the site is consistent with current federal
law concluded that ``the Glendale-area land acquired by the
Nation with LRA\1\ funds qualifies for gaming under IGRA\2\
Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(1). The land also qualifies for gaming under
Sec. 3(j)(1) of the Compact, which specifically authorizes
gaming on after-acquired lands that qualify for gaming under
Sec. 2719.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act, Public Law
99-503.
\2\Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Public Law 100-497.
\3\State of Arizona, et al. v. Tohono O'odham Nation, 944 F. Supp.
2d 748, 756 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
That decision is now under appeal at the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals. Although the tribe has been successful in
litigation thus far and construction of its resort and casino
is underway, it may be more difficult for the tribe to prevail
in a claim brought after enactment of H.R. 308 because of the
types of claims available to it and the facts of this
particular situation. The outcome of such litigation is
uncertain. CBO expects the tribe would argue that the
legislation caused either a regulatory taking of the tribe's
property interest in gaming on that land, or a breach of the
settlement agreement that permitted the tribe to acquire the
land for nonagricultural economic development purposes. In
either circumstance, the federal government could be required
to compensate the tribe. Any such compensation would probably
be paid from the Judgment Fund (a permanent, indefinite
appropriation for claims and judgments against the United
States).
Amount of Compensation
To estimate the amount of compensation that might be due to
the tribe, CBO reviewed the outcome of other cases involving
regulatory takings, tribal land settlements, and gaming
disputes. We also consulted with the Tohono O'odham Nation,
other Arizona tribes, and federal and state agencies that
regulate tribal gaming to estimate the net receipts that the
tribe may realize from the casino operations of the resort now
under construction.
CBO concluded that:
Regulatory taking claims are often unsuccessful
and usually do not lead to significant economic awards when (as
in this case) the taking does not fully diminish the economic
value of the property;
The outcomes of disputes about tribal gaming and
land settlement agreements vary and are generally dependent on
the specific facts of each dispute, making it difficult to use
past disputes to predict the outcome of new cases;
Prohibiting the tribe from operating gambling
activities at the resort and casino near Glendale could result
in a loss of net income to the tribe of more than $1 billion
over the next decade; and
Whether gaming was among the nonagricultural
economic development activities envisioned under the tribe's
land settlement agreement is unclear because the property was
acquired as a result of a land settlement agreement with the
federal government that was enacted two years before the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act, which authorized gambling on tribal
lands under certain circumstances.
CBO estimates that possible awards to the tribe following
litigation could range from no monetary award to more than $1
billion. After considering the uncertainties about whether the
tribe would prevail in a future lawsuit against the federal
government, and the unpredictability of the amount of any
award, CBO concluded that there is no basis to predict the
amount of monetary award or settlement, if any, that the tribe
would receive as a result of the enactment of H.R. 308.
Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go
Act of 2010 establishes budget reporting and enforcement
procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
revenues. Enacting H.R. 308 could increase direct spending over
the 2015-2025 period; however, CBO has no basis for estimating
the amount or timing of such spending, if any.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
By prohibiting gaming on land that the tribe is currently
planning to use for such a purpose, the bill would impose an
intergovernmental mandate, as defined in UMRA. Absent the bill,
CBO estimates that the tribe will net more than $100 million
annually once the casino begins operations, probably in 2016.
That estimate is a probabilistic assessment based on
information from the tribe about projected revenues, accounting
for uncertainty of projected revenues, operating expenses, and
payments the tribe is required to make from gaming revenue,
which all may be higher or lower than expected. It also
accounts for the possibility that already pending legal actions
could delay or prohibit gaming activities on the land. The cost
of that mandate on the tribe would exceed the annual threshold
established in UMRA ($77 million in 2015, adjusted annually for
inflation) in at least one of the first five years after
enactment of the bill, CBO estimates.
If the bill is enacted and the tribe submits a successful
claim for damages against the federal government, such
settlement amounts would benefit the tribe.
Estimated impact on the private sector: H.R. 308 contains
no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Martin von Gnechten;
Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa
Merrell, Impact on the private sector: Amy Petz.
Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required
by clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974, this bill does not contain any new budget
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures. The Congressional Budget Office
estimates that the bill could result in possible compensation
payments from litigation (direct spending) but it has ``no
basis for estimating the outcome of the future litigation.''
3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by
clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or
objective of this bill is to prohibit gaming activities on
certain Indian lands in Arizona until the expiration of certain
gaming compacts.
EARMARK STATEMENT
This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks,
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined
under clause 9(e), 9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives.
COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104-4
This bill would impose an intergovernmental mandate as
defined by Public Law 104-4.
COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5
Directed Rule Making. The Chairman does not believe that
this bill directs any executive branch official to conduct any
specific rule-making proceedings.
Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not
establish or reauthorize a program of the federal government
known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was
not included in any report from the Government Accountability
Office to Congress pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139
or identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program
Information Act (Public Law 95-220, as amended by Public Law
98-169) as relating to other programs.
PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW
This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or
tribal law.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing
law.
DISSENTING VIEWS
H.R. 308 will breach an agreement between the United States
and the Tohono O'odham Nation (Nation), in order to protect a
gaming monopoly and will be an ugly mark on Congress' relations
with all Indian tribes. This legislation not only upsets
settled law, subjecting the United States to significant
liability, but also creates a dangerous precedent for hundreds
of tribal-state compacts and land and water rights settlements
nationwide. Moreover, it will kill thousands of jobs and
millions in economic development already underway in the West
Valley. The House should reject this legislation.
In the 1950s, the United States Army Corps of Engineers
constructed the Painted Rock Dam in Arizona, which caused
repeated flooding and eventual destruction of nearly 10,000
acres of the Nation's Gila Bend Reservation. In 1986, Congress
enacted legislation to compensate the Tohono O'odham Nation for
this loss, authorizing the Nation to acquire new land to
replace the destroyed land, and specifying that the new land
would have the same legal status as the destroyed land--that it
would be treated ``as a federal reservation for all purposes.''
In 1987 the Nation signed a settlement agreement forgoing its
claims against the United States and relinquishing its land and
water rights at Gila Bend.
A generation later, the Tohono O'odham Nation has done what
Congress authorized it to do--acquire replacement land in
Maricopa County--and the Department of the Interior has done
what Congress mandated--put that replacement land in trust and
make it part of the Tohono O'odham Nation's reservation. H.R.
308 would undo all of this in order to create a no-competition
zone in the Phoenix metropolitan area for the benefit of two
tribes that currently operate 5 tribal casinos in Maricopa
County south and east of Phoenix.
The arguments in favor of H.R. 308 have been litigated in
federal court and rejected on their merits. Bill proponents
allege that the Nation's reservation replacement lands were not
eligible for gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(IGRA). The district court ruled that ``the Glendale-area land
acquired by the Nation . . . qualifies for gaming,'' and that
``gaming on that land is expressly permitted by the federal
statute [IGRA] that authorizes Indian gaming.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\State of Arizona v. Tohono O'odham Nation, 944 F. Supp. 2d 748,
753, 756 (D. Ariz. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill supporters claim that the Arizona tribal-state gaming
compact prohibited the Nation from opening a gaming facility in
the Phoenix area. The district court found that ``no reasonable
reading of the Compact could lead a person to conclude that it
prohibited new casinos in the Phoenix area.''\2\ Ranking Member
Grijalva offered an amendment during Committee consideration of
H.R. 308 to specify that the Nation could only pursue gaming in
the Phoenix area if allowed by the Compact. Despite the fact
that this would appear to accomplish the stated goal of the
bill proponents, the amendment was rejected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Tohono O'odham Nation, 944 F.Supp.2d at 768.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These parties also argue that the Nation promised other
tribes and the State of Arizona that the Nation would not game
in the Phoenix area. The district court rejected this argument
as well; not on sovereign immunity grounds, but by holding that
``the parties did not reach such an agreement.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tohono O'odham Nation has not been engaged in
``reservation shopping.'' Rather, the Nation has simply
acquired new land to replace that which was destroyed, just as
was intended by the 1986 settlement act. Further, the Tohono
O'odham Nation has acquired its West Valley property pursuant
to legislative authority that is unique to the Nation and is
therefore inapplicable to any other tribe in any other state.
Acquisition of the Nation's West Valley property has no bearing
on off-reservation land acquisition or off-reservation gaming
in any other part of the United States.
H.R. 308 would unilaterally amend the Arizona tribal-state
gaming compact by inserting a new restriction that the tribes
and the State never negotiated, and one that Arizona voters did
not approve. Such actions undermine Congress' intent in IGRA
when it formulated the tribal-state gaming compact process and
puts all tribal-state compacts at risk of collateral attack by
Congress.
Enactment of H.R. 308 would harm not just the Tohono
O'odham Nation and local communities, but also the American
taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office has found that
enactment of this legislation could subject the United States
to as much as a billion dollars in liability for breach of
contract and taking private property. According to CBO, ``any
such payment would increase direct spending, and the amount
could exceed $1 billion. The federal government also would
incur discretionary costs, which are subject to appropriation,
to defend itself in the expected litigation. The amount of such
costs would depend on the length and extent of the legal
challenges.''
H.R. 308 is bad Indian policy and bad fiscal policy, and it
should be rejected.
Rauul Grijalva.
Madeleine Bordallo.
Tom McClintock.
Grace Napolitano.
Ruben Gallego.
[all]