19–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–440 

GILA BEND INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS REPLACEMENT 

CLARIFICATION ACT 

APRIL 16, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 2938] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 2938) to prohibit certain gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as 

amended do pass. 

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

2 

(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 TribalState 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). 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 2938, as ordered reported, is to prohibit certain gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

H.R. 2938 addresses a ‘‘reservation shopping’’ controversy in the 

State of Arizona where the Secretary of the Interior is creating a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

3 

satellite reservation for a tribe to open a casino in the potentially 

lucrative gambling market near Phoenix, Arizona. Specifically, Interior has agreed—over the objections of the Governor of Arizona, 

a majority of recognized tribes in Arizona, and the affected city— 

to create trust lands for a casino in the City of Glendale, for the 

benefit of the Tohono O’odham Nation (TO Nation). The TO Nation 

is one of the largest recognized tribes in the United States, with 

a reservation stretching from the U.S.-Mexico border to the Tucson 

area. The tribe currently operates three casinos on its existing reservation lands, including in the Tucson market. 

H.R. 2938 prohibits the off-reservation casino in Glendale. As explained by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (Arizona): 

H.R. 2938 is necessitated by the [TO] Nation’s efforts to 

manipulate the Gila Bend Act in a manner that would directly violate their commitments made in the current Arizona compacts. The [TO] Nation is currently trying to utilize the 1986 Gila Bend Act to acquire lands more than 

100 miles from its existing reservation, in our tribe’s aboriginal lands, to develop a casino in the Phoenix metropolitan area. 

(Testimony of Diane Enos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community before the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska 

Native Affairs, October 4, 2011). 

As noted above, the Glendale casino project violates commitments made to Arizona. The TO Nation co-sponsored a tribal advocacy campaign to persuade Arizona voters to authorize exclusive 

gaming rights to tribes in exchange for certain limitations. One of 

these limitations was that ‘‘there will be no additional facilities authorized in Phoenix.’’ (See ‘‘Yes on 202—The 17-Tribe Indian SelfReliance Initiatives, Answers to Common Questions,’’ co-sponsored 

by the Tohono O’odham Nation, on file with the Committee on Natural Resources; also see Appendix I, joint announcement of the 

Governor of Arizona and Arizona Indian Gaming Association dated 

February 20, 2002). Arizonans subsequently voted against a competing ballot initiative to liberalize gaming rights for non-Indians, 

while voting to pass Proposition 202, granting tribes exclusive 

rights. Around the same time, however, the TO Nation was apparently maneuvering to purchase the Glendale property. 

H.R. 2938 simply enforces the commitments made to Arizona by 

the TO Nation and stops the Secretary of the Interior from setting 

a precedent that may lead to an expansion of off-reservation casinos in other states. As reported by the Committee, H.R. 2938 permits the TO Nation to use the Glendale land for any other purpose 

besides gaming. Moreover, the reported bill does not stop the tribe 

from opening a casino on lands acquired for its benefit south of 

Phoenix (provided such lands meet other criteria set forth in applicable law), nor does it change the tribe’s ability to seek land for 

gaming under another Act of Congress, such as the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. Finally, the bill has no affect on the TO Nation’s rights to conduct gaming on its existing reservation, where 

it currently operates three casinos, including two near the City of 

Tucson. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

4 

While there is an understandable argument that this matter can 

and should be resolved by the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Courts, Congress reserves the right to adjust its policy respecting 

Indian tribes, a power the Supreme Court has referred to as ‘‘plenary.’’ And this case so warrants it because the Secretary of the Interior’s handling of trust land actions and gaming policy have lately been opaque and the cause of numerous controversies. This one 

is no exception. 

The controversy stems from a peculiar application of two statutes 

enacted in the 1980s and a tribal-state compact ratified in 2002. In 

1986, Congress passed the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act. That Act authorizes the TO Nation to purchase up 

to 9,880 acres of replacement lands to compensate the Nation for 

years of consistent flood damage to its farming property caused by 

a federally-constructed project called the Painted Rock Dam on the 

Gila River (Public Law 81–516). Amendments to that Act directed 

the Secretary of the Interior to accept replacement lands into trust 

for ‘‘sustained economic use’’ (Public Law 99–503, Section 2(4)) and 

such lands shall be deemed an Indian Reservation for all purposes. 

Furthermore, the replacement lands must be non-incorporated and 

within three counties (Pima, Pinal, or Maricopa) in Arizona. 

Though the Congress intended to make lands of any character 

available to the tribe, the intent was to replace primarily agricultural lands with an equal number of acres. Since 1986, the TO Nation has reportedly purchased more than 16,000 acres of land. 

Two years later, on October 17, 1988, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) (25 U.S.C. 2071 et seq.) to provide a federal framework for tribes to conduct gaming on Indian 

lands in existence as of the date of enactment of that Act. Section 

20 of IGRA (25 U.S.C. 2719) prohibits gaming on lands acquired in 

trust for a tribe after October 17, 1988, except in certain (supposedly rare) circumstances. One of these circumstances 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)). This is sometimes called the ‘‘land 

claim exception.’’ The Act did not define ‘‘land claim’’ for the purpose of the gaming exception. It is generally understood that Indian land claims historically arose when non-Indians acquired Indian lands in violation of the Trade and Intercourse Acts, a series 

of related laws prohibiting the sale or transfer of Indian lands 

without authorization from Congress. The Gila Bend Act of 1986 

was not a redress of a violation of the Trade and Intercourse Acts. 

In 2003, the TO Nation—using a non-tribal entity—began quietly 

purchasing 134 acres of non-incorporated land near the Phoenix 

metropolitan area (located between the cities of Glendale, Peoria, 

and Tolleson). On January 28, 2009, the TO Nation asked the Secretary of the Interior to accept this parcel of land in trust. Though 

the tribe had by then purchased lands exceeding its 9,880-acre 

limit, in July 2010, the Secretary determined that the Glendale 

property met the requirements of the Gila Bend Indian Reservation 

Land Replacement Act of 1986 and that the Secretary had an obligation to take the land into trust. In effect, the Secretary allowed 

the tribe to determine which of the over 16,000 acres of land it had 

purchased would count against the 9,880-acre limit in the 1986 

Gila Bend Act. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

5 

On August 26, 2010, the Secretary issued a decision to hold the 

land in trust (75 Fed. Reg. 52,550). Believing it to violate the law, 

the Gila River Indian Community, the City of Glendale, and other 

plaintiffs challenged this decision in U.S. District Court. The Court 

upheld the Secretary’s decision and the plaintiffs have filed an appeal, which is currently pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is important to note that, because of the litigation, the 

Glendale property is not actually held in trust, yet. 

If the land is finally placed in trust, the record strongly suggests 

the TO Nation will conduct gaming in Glendale without the need 

for further agency action. And the question whether the land claim 

exception is being correctly applied will not be subject to a legal 

challenge because under the Department of the Interior’s gaming 

regulations, an ‘‘opinion’’ on a land claim exception requested by a 

tribe regarding its newly acquired lands ‘‘is not, per se, a final 

agency action under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)’’ (see 

Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 98/Tuesday, May 20, 2008, p. 29358). 

The foregoing history of the controversy demonstrates the 

lengths to which the prospect of a lucrative urban casino is turning 

what Congress in 1988 regarded as a tribal government power—the 

regulation of gaming on an Indian Reservation—into a commercial 

venture in targeted urban markets, a practice that some say should 

be subject to State regulation. Indeed, in 2006 a majority of Members of the House voted to eliminate the Indian land claim exception altogether and to impose additional restrictions on off-reservation (see H.R. 4893, the Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands 

of Tribes Act of 2006). 

Tribal regulation of gaming has been extraordinarily successful 

for many tribes that were previously impoverished. In most States 

where it is conducted, citizens understand and respect a tribe’s 

right to regulate gaming as a core function of government and for 

funding tribal government services. Reservation shopping, however, 

is changing the complexion of tribal gaming, causing local political 

strife (as in Arizona) and leading to expensive litigation benefiting 

no one. 

H.R. 2938 restores the status quo as understood by Arizona voters, the Governor of Arizona, the Legislature of Arizona, and all 

but one tribe in Arizona when Prop 202 was passed and non-tribal 

casino gaming prohibited. The bill is sponsored by the Representative for the City of Glendale, and supported by most of the Arizona 

House Delegation. It does not amend IGRA or effect wide-ranging 

tribal policy: it addresses one instance where the State, the Members representing the affected area, and most tribes seek to ensure 

a delicate, negotiated compromise benefiting all sides is maintained. 

During markup of the bill, the Natural Resources Committee 

adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Paul Gosar (R–AZ) 

which minimizes the reach of the legislation in prohibiting gaming 

on trust lands acquired under the 1986 Gila Bend Act in the Phoenix Metropolitan area, while allowing it on trust lands in the aboriginal region of the TO Nation. It also represents a good faith 

compromise to the concerns raised in the hearing by the Department of the Interior. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

6 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 2938 was introduced on September 15, 2011, 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 and Alaska Native Affairs. On October 4, 

2011, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill. On November 

17, 2011, the Natural Resources Committee met to consider the 

bill. The Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs was 

discharged by unanimous consent. Congressman Paul Gosar (R– 

AZ) offered amendment designated .986 to the bill; the amendment 

was adopted by a bipartisan record vote of 33–10, as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

7 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 7 HR440.001
8 

The bill, as amended, was then ordered favorably reported to the 

House of Representatives by a bipartisan record vote of 32–11, as 

follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

9 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert graphic folio 9 HR440.002
10 

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. 2938—Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act 

H.R. 2938 would prohibit gaming (gambling other than social 

games for prizes of minimal value) activities on certain lands 

owned by the Tohono O’odham Nation (hereafter referred to as the 

Nation) and placed in trust with the federal government in Arizona. CBO estimates that the bill would have no significant impact 

on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 2938 would not affect direct 

spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not 

apply. 

H.R. 2938 would prohibit the Nation from conducting gaming activities on some land in Arizona. That prohibition would be an 

intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA). Based on information from the Nation about 

when, absent enactment of this bill, it expects to begin collecting 

revenue from a proposed casino and the uncertainty of future legal 

challenges to the project, CBO estimates that the cost of the mandate in the first five years after enactment would not exceed the 

annual threshold established in UMRA ($73 million in 2012, adjusted annually for inflation). 

H.R. 2938 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Martin von 

Gnechten (for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for intergovernmental costs). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy 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, spending authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or 

tax expenditures. CBO estimates that the bill would have no significant impact on the federal budget. Enacting H.R. 2938 would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

11 

not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

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, as ordered reported, is to prohibit certain gaming activities on certain Indian lands in Arizona. 

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 contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

GILA BEND INDIAN RESERVATION LANDS 

REPLACEMENT ACT 

(Public Law 99–503) 

* * * * * * * 

USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS; ACQUISITION OF LANDS

SEC. 6. (a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(d) The Secretary, at the request of the Tribe, shall hold in trust 

for the benefit of the Tribe any land which the Tribe acquires pursuant to subsection (c) which meets the requirements of this subsection. Any land which the Secretary holds in trust shall be 

deemed to be a Federal Indian Reservation for all purposes 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. Land does not meet the requirements of 

this subsection if it is outside the counties of Maricopa, Pinal, and 

Pima, Arizona, or within the corporate limits of any city or town. 

Land meets the requirements of this subsection only if it constitutes not more than three separate areas consisting of contiguous tracts, at least one of which areas shall be contiguous to San 

Lucy Village. The Secretary may waive the requirements set forth 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

12 

in the preceding sentence if he determines that additional areas 

are appropriate. 

* * * * * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

(13) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 2938 will retroactively amend the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Act (‘‘Gila Bend Act’’)—approved and 

enacted by Congress 25 years ago—between the United States and 

the Tohono O’odham Nation (the ‘‘Nation’’) to prohibit the Nation 

from conducting class II or III gaming activities pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (‘‘IGRA’’) on certain lands rightfully 

acquired by the Nation. The legislation not only upsets settled law, 

potentially subjecting the United States to new liability for breach 

of trust, breach of contract, and takings claims valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, it also creates uncertainty respecting 

the finality of tribal legislative settlements and impugns the federal trust responsibility. The House should reject this irresponsible 

legislation. 

The Gila Bend Act entitled the Nation to acquire non-reservation 

land anywhere within three Arizona counties, under enumerated 

conditions, in order to replace its original reservation lands that 

were rendered economically useless by the flooding caused by the 

United States’ construction of the Painted Rock Dam ten miles 

downstream from the Nation’s reservation. H.R. 2938, as amended, 

targets property in the Phoenix metropolitan area that the Nation 

legally acquired in 2003 for gaming purposes—property that, if 

taken into trust by the United States and deemed eligible for gaming activity under IGRA, threatens to carve into the market share 

of two other tribes with lucrative, existing gaming facilities in the 

area. 

H.R. 2938 is an obvious attempt to legislatively prevent the Nation from exercising a right it otherwise would have to compete in 

the open market alongside its tribal neighbors for gaming revenue. 

In fact, established tribal gaming interests and others have challenged the Nation’s interpretation of the Gila Bend Act in federal 

court. The suit’s proponents have repeatedly failed to succeed on 

the merits in federal court and now seek, through enactment of 

H.R. 2938, to change the underlying land claims settlement law between the Nation and the federal government in order to prevail. 

Congress should not be in the business of amending existing settlement legislation without the consent of the settling tribe, especially 

when amendment would benefit special interests and undermine 

ongoing litigation. 

Mr. Franks’ bill would break the legally enforceable promises 

that the United States made to compensate the Nation for nearly 

10,000 acres of reservation land lost due to federal error. Repudiation of these promises under H.R. 2938 would not only void the 

Nation’s release of its original land claims, but could also reopen 

the portion of the Nation’s original water rights claims that were 

also settled by the Gila Bend Act, amounting to as much as 32,000 

acre-feet per year and valued in excess of $100,000,000 (in 1986 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

14 

dollars, the year of enactment of the settlement legislation). H.R. 

2938’s potential retroactive effect on the Nation’s water settlement 

is troublesome, but the legislation’s prospective impact on current 

settlement negotiations relating to water rights claims, such as the 

Nation’s Sif Oidak water rights claims with the Salt River Project, 

the Central Arizona Water Conservation District, the State of Arizona, the Maricopa-Stanfield and the Central Arizona irrigation 

districts, and the United States, is utterly ill-advised. If the Gila 

Bend Act settlement unravels due to H.R. 2938, the 32,000 acrefeet per year appurtenant to the Gila Bend Reservation may have 

to be added to the Sif Oidak water rights claims, thus severely 

complicating that water rights negotiation for the Nation and putting non-Indian parties in an untenable negotiation position. 

As a policy matter, legislative settlements between the United 

States and tribal sovereigns are congressional affirmations of the 

federal trust responsibility that underpin the relationship between 

two sovereigns. Federal Indian law scholars have recognized that 

most, if not all, modern legislation dealing with Indian tribes contains a statement reaffirming the trust relationship between tribes 

and the federal government as a reflection of this responsibility. 

Congress thus routinely does, and should, take the federal trust responsibility seriously. In the case of H.R. 2938, however, Congress 

would renege on its word by unilaterally amending a land and 

water claims settlement entered into with the Nation for the benefit of tribal competitors who only stand to gain financially from 

legislatively restricting the Nation’s lawful access to gaming under 

the IGRA. This is simply bad policy and a poor reflection of our nation’s solemn oath to honor its legal commitments and uphold the 

federal trust responsibility in settlement agreements with the First 

Americans. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. RUSH HOLT. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO. 

NIKI TSONGAS. GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO

SABLAN. JOHN GARAMENDI. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGS

15 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 17 here HR440.003
16 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 18 here HR440.004
17 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 19 here HR440.005
18 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with HEARINGSInsert offset folio 20 here HR440.006