Keep the Promise Act of 2015
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source