Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has a basic premise: Indian gaming should occur on Indian lands; and when a tribe is newly recognized, restored or landless, then it has to include the local community at the table for the simple purpose of signing a memorandum of understanding to address impacts. It is as simple as that.

Unfortunately, over the last 17 years, far too many tribes have drifted away from the original purpose and spirit of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and have sought to develop off-reservation casinos in whatever location seemed to be the most lucrative, often far from their tribal lands. Those who have pursued this course have turned the spirit of IGRA on its head. Instead of seeking to bring economic development to the Indian reservation, they have instead sought to bring the Indian reservation to wherever there is economic development. This is wrong, and it threatens both the future of Native American economic development and the integrity of Indian tribal sovereignty itself.

When IGRA was written, it mandated that only lands held by tribes prior to October 17, 1988, or lands later acquired directly adjoining those lands, would be eligible for tribal gaming activities. It was a central principle of IGRA that, in general, lands acquired by tribes after enactment of IGRA would be ineligible for gaming.

However, IGRA provided for four exceptions, and it was expected that these would be used only rarely. Unfortunately, time has shown that the use of these four exceptions to IGRA's prohibition on gaming on after-acquired lands has been anything but rare. While opponents of reform make the oft-repeated claim that there have been only three off-reservation casinos since 1988, this claim is limited to only one of those exceptions, section 20. It ignores the fact that there are at least 38 casinos in operation today on land that was not held in trust in 1988, nearly 10 percent of the Nation's total number of tribal casinos.

Currently, there are at least 50 additional proposals for off-reservation casinos under those four exceptions. Beyond that, there have been dozens upon dozens of other projects announced or proposed over the last several years where paperwork has not yet been filed. Under the two-part determination of IGRA, virtually any land in the country could be targeted for gaming. Each one of those proposed casinos has had a very real and negative impact on public support for tribal gaming.

Over the last 2 years, the Committee on Resources has held nine hearings, heard from dozens of witnesses, and received thousands of communications documenting problems arising from off-reservation gaming. The committee has heard a compelling story and the heavy toll that off-reservation gaming proposals impose on local communities, and tribal sovereignty has become very clear.

Local citizens have told stories of waking up one day and being surprised to learn that a parcel of land in their community has been purchased by a developer who has announced that he intends to have that land declared a reservation where an Indian casino will be opened. This despite the fact that the community was hundreds of miles from the nearest existing tribal reservation land.

We have heard from private property and business owners about how the land-claims exception in IGRA has been abused by those seeking off-reservation casinos. Throughout the eastern United States, numerous land claims have been filed, resulting in costly litigation and the clouding of private property titles. These claims are filed in the hopes of forcing the State to settle the claim with an off-reservation casino. The current land claims exception in IGRA has become an incentive for this type of abusive lawsuit and must be brought to an end.

Local leaders have testified about the possibility of their community being significantly and permanently changed by the presence of a newly declared Indian reservation and tribal casino. They have told of their feelings of powerlessness to meaningfully participate and affect the process of the land being taken into trust. And they have spoken of their frustration that the impacts of the proposed casino facility will not be fully mitigated, because after the State's Governor and casino developer take their cut of the action, the tribe does not have enough revenue left to share to offset their impact on the community.

H.R. 4893 represents real reform of these abuses, while maintaining the opportunity for tribes to conduct gaming under IGRA on their tribal lands as per the original intent of the law. H.R. 4893 does away with the land-claim exception in the section 20 two-part determination. It reforms the procedures where newly recognized, landless and restored tribes can ask for lands to be placed in trust for an initial reservation. Tribes seeking these lands will now have to satisfy a three-part test to demonstrate that they have a primary historic, geographic, and temporal nexus to the land they wish to acquire for gaming. This will ensure that the initial reservation placement is determined by where the tribal people live and receive services, not by where the market for gaming seems best.

One of the most important parts of the bill is that State and local communities will play a more meaningful role in the process and will have an opportunity to give greater input into a casino proposed by a newly recognized and restored tribe. This bill requires the tribe to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the local county for the purpose of providing direct mitigation of impacts from a casino project.

H.R. 4893 is a real reform that will solve, once and for all, the problems with off-reservation gaming. It is the responsibility of this Congress to act now to bring the practice of off-reservation gaming to an end and to prevent further damage in the relationship between tribes and local communities over off-reservation casinos and to restore the original intent and spirit of IGRA to today's Indian gaming practice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.