[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
The Provisions in the 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act Which Removed The
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island From the Coverage of The
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
__________
MAY 1, 1997--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-25
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
41-432 WASHINGTON : 1997
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held May 1, 1997......................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Chafee, Hon. John H., a U.S. Senator from Rhode Island....... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Inouye, Hon. David K., a Senator in Congress from the State
of Hawaii, (prepared statement)............................ 68
Kennedy, Hon. Patrick, a U.S. Representative from Rhode
Island..................................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a U.S. Representative from Michigan....... 9
Miller, Hon. George, a U.S. Representative from California... 10
Pombo, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Representative from California... 1
Reed, Hon. Jack, a U.S. Senator from Rhode Island............ 15
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota...... 8
Weygand, Hon. Robert A., a U.S. Representative from Rhode
Island..................................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Statement of Witnesses:
Allen, W. Ron., President, National Congress of American
Indians.................................................... 62
Prepared statement....................................... 136
Almeida, Patricia, Spokesperson, The Alliance To Save South
County..................................................... 60
Almond, Hon. Lincoln, Governor, State of Rhode Island........ 33
Prepared statement....................................... 80
Boden, Gary, on behalf of Residents Against Gambling
Establishments (prepared statement)........................ 157
Ducheneaux, Frank, Attorney at Law........................... 64
Prepared statement....................................... 144
Hayes, David, Counselor, Secretary of the Interior........... 42
Prepared statement....................................... 92
Lally, Hon. Donald L., Jr., a State Representative in Rhode
Island..................................................... 58
Prepared statement....................................... 109
Noka, Randy, First Councilman, Narragansett Indian Tribe..... 43
Prepared statement....................................... 95
Platner, Ruth, citizen of Charlestown (prepared statement)... 167
Roche, Ann, resident of Charlestown (prepared statement)..... 171
Additional material supplied:
Excerpt from S.Rept. 100-446................................. 76
H. 5543 of State of Rhode Island General Assembly............ 114
H. 6023 as amended, Rhode Island General Assembly............ 117
Joint Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Settlement of
the Rhode Island Indian Land Claims........................ 151
Legal Analysis of High Stakes Bingo on Lands of the
Narragansett Indian Tribe.................................. 119
Resolutions of National Congress of American Indians in
support for tribal sovereignty and oppose riders which
negatively impact tribes................................... 140
List of names of persons and tribes who wrote letters........ 134
Map of the Indian Reservation................................ 159
Rhode Island Indian Claims Status............................ 130
Rhode Island Coalition Against Casino Gambling (list)........ 155
Communications submitted:
Babbitt, Bruce: Letter of September 12, 1996, to Hon John H.
Chafee..................................................... 78
Goodsell, Bruce N.: Letter of April 28, 1997, to Hon. Don
Young...................................................... 149
Joint letter from members of Rhode Island General Asembly
dated April 22, 1997, to Hon. Don Young and Hon. George
Miller..................................................... 112
Lytle, Karen (Town of Charlestown): Letter of April 28, 1997,
to Hon. Don Young.......................................... 147
NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1997,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Don Young
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Pombo. [presiding] I want to start off by apologizing
to everybody for not having enough room in the hearing room for
everyone. Obviously, this is a small hearing room. We tried to
fit as many people in as we possibly could. To start the
hearing this morning. I welcome you all here.
I will start off by reading Chairman Wayne Gilchrest's
opening statement: ``Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Today
we are conducting an oversight hearing concerning the
applicability of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to the
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island.
``A long and complicated series of events has led us to
this hearing. I do not pretend to understand all of the legal
intricacies of all of the laws which are applicable to the
Narragansett Tribe and its desire to conduct gaming.
``However, I do understand that in 1978 the Narragansett
Tribe acquired its lands pursuant to Public Law 95-395, which
provided that those lands would be subject to the laws and the
jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island. I understand that in
1988 Congress passed a law which gave all Indian tribes the
right to conduct gaming on their trust lands.
``In 1994 a U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the 1988 law
took precedence over the 1978 law as far as gaming conducted by
the Narragansett Indian Tribe is concerned. Then, in 1996,
Congress passed another law which amends the 1978 law so that
the 1988 law, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, does not apply
to the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
``We are here today because, in spite of all this
legislating, Congress has never held a hearing of the issue of
the Narragansett Tribe's rights to conduct gaming. This is a
very important issue to the Narragansett Tribe, the State of
Rhode Island, and the rest of the tribes throughout the nation.
I note that we have received letters on this issue from well
over one hundred Indian tribes.
``It is time to hear what the various interested parties
have to say. Our witness list includes the Rhode Island
congressional delegation, the Governor of Rhode Island, the
Administration, the tribe, and several other individuals who
bring different perspectives to this hearing.
``At this time I am hereby announcing that I will keep our
hearing record open until the close of business on Friday, May
16th. Anybody wishing to submit written testimony may do so
until that time. I would now like to recognize the gentleman on
my left from Rhode Island for his opening statement.''
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK KENNEDY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, colleague Richard Pombo, also co-
chair of the Portuguese-American caucus. I would also like to
acknowledge Governor Romero-Barcelo from Puerto Rico and
Congressman Dale Kildee and the co-chair of the Native American
caucus in the Congress of the United States.
Most of all, I would like to welcome my colleagues from the
Rhode Island delegation to this Committee and to this hearing
in addition to my former colleagues in the State legislature
and my friends in the Narragansett Tribe.
Almost 400 years ago the Narragansett Tribe lived in peace.
Before the European settlement of southern New England the
tribal government was the sovereign authority over their people
and their general welfare. They educated their children, cared
for their sick, and fished in the bay that now bears their
name.
In 1675 their way of living would come to an end with an
event known as the King Philip's War. The European colonists,
who had long coveted the lands of the Narragansetts, expanded a
feud they had with another tribe and attacked the
Narragansetts. The result for the colonists was a clear
victory. The result for the tribe was they lost most of their
land, many members were killed, and still more were sold into
slavery in the Caribbean.
In the 1800's while many of the tribes were being relocated
west, the Narragansetts successfully petitioned to remain on
their designated tribal territory that included the town of
Charlestown. By the end of the century, however, the State had
enough of the Narragansetts and summarily abolished the tribe
and sold off the remnants of the land to non-Indians.
That is how the State of Rhode Island took possession of
the land owned and governed by the Narragansett Tribe. I share
this bit of history because it is essential that when we
discuss the sovereign rights of the Narragansetts we understand
that for over 100 years these rights were denied without the
tribe's consultation or consent.
In 1975 the Narragansetts filed a land claim seeking
restoration of their aboriginal lands in and around
Charlestown. The State and Federal Government consented to the
proposal and codified this agreement in the 1978 Rhode Island
Indian Claim Settlement Act.
At this time the tribe consented to live by the laws of the
State because they lacked Federal recognition and status. In
1983, however, this would all change when the Narragansetts had
their sovereignty authority reaffirmed by the Federal
Government. It was at that time that the tribe would begin the
process of reclaiming their rights to govern and provide for
the welfare of their tribal population.
The tribal government was given the authority to codify
law, exercise regulatory power, and levy taxes on their
settlement land. Let me be clear: It is this federally
recognized sovereign authority that makes the tribe more than
just a corporation or a social club. Their lands are no longer
owned by the State but rather are held in trust by the Federal
Government.
That means that the Congress has the responsibility to
treat the tribe and its elected officials on a government to
government basis just as we treat States and municipal
authorities. Unfortunately, by the time the tribe regained its
sovereign status decades of discrimination had taken their
toll.
Today with an unemployment rank of almost 40 percent, poor
health care, and the lowest standard of living than any other
group in Rhode Island the tribe is desperately trying to
recover a sense of community and an opportunity for its
members. Before this panel addresses today's agenda the gaming
rights of the Narragansett Indians, we must also consider their
special relationship with the United States and their rights as
what Supreme Court Justice John Marshall called a domestic
dependent nation.
We must understand that the sovereign rights are all that
is left of what the tribe had prior to the European settlement.
These rights were reaffirmed in 1983 by an official
proclamation of the U.S. Government. This action took place
after the 1978 settlement agreement and from that point on
permanently changed the relationship between the tribe and the
State and the tribe and Federal Government.
To remove those rights now would be to abrogate the
sovereign standing of the tribe as in a similar fashion that
the State did in the Act of 1880. Yet that is exactly what has
happened with regard to the Narragansetts right to game under
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act when Senator Chafee passed his
rider last year.
In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled in the Cabazon decision
that tribes retain the exclusive right to regulate gaming on
Indian lands unless the State prohibits that type of gaming.
Deferring to the concerns of the State Congress passed the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, in 1988 to codify U.S. law
regarding the sovereign right of tribes to engage in gaming on
their lands.
Again, the Supreme Court said the tribes could have the
gaming rights. Congress and the States in a panic said, listen,
we got to do something about this so they passed IGRA to help
the States regulate what the Supreme Court had said those
tribes had a right to do. Before Senator Chafee acted last year
the Federal courts had conclusively asserted in two separate
decisions that the Narragansetts had a right to game under
IGRA.
The court argued that it was the Narragansetts' sovereign
and civil rights as a federally recognized tribe and that this
superseded any agreements that the 1978 Settlement Act
established. This does not mean, however, that the tribe could
do whatever it wanted because like I said IGRA was a means by
which the States had a say with the Federal Government to slow
down Native American rights to game on their tribal lands.
So there were provisions put within IGRA that helped check
the expansion in gaming per the State's requests and the
Narragansetts would be under those regulations as they fall
under IGRA, the Federal law. Let me be perfectly clear.
According to the law, the Narragansetts despite any rhetoric
you hear cannot open a casino without a compact with the State
and a voter referendum by the citizens.
This was true before Senator Chafee acted with his rider.
IGRA says that unless the tribe obtains consent from the State
through a compact it may not operate video slot machines,
simulcast racing or video poker as the State already does.
Incidentally, the State has allowed for and is considering the
expansion of video lottery machines at Lincoln Park and Newport
Jai Alai to include more than 1,000 new machines without voter
approval.
To me this is a double standard and it highlights the
hypocrisy of this rider. Let me say in no way can the citizens
of Rhode Island be in danger of a Las Vegas style casino before
Senator Chafee acted unless the Governor compacted and the
State of Rhode Island voted. Now if you have any question about
this we already have an example of this and the State turned
down by a 3 to 1 margin nearly Narragansetts Tribe's attempt to
ratify a compact with the State.
So we have already seen where the voters of the State had a
say with respect to a casino in Rhode Island. The only thing
that the Narragansetts could do legally before the Chafee Rider
is operate a bingo hall because under Federal law bingo is not
considered the same class as any form of video or Las Vegas
style gaming.
Yet for reasons unknown they are being held to a higher
standard, Narragansetts are being held to a higher standard
than the State of Rhode Island because now they are precluded
from even doing that. Further, the Narragansetts are required
under the law to spend the revenues from any gaming servicing
the general welfare to their tribal members.
In other words, they have to spend the money for the
benefit of their tribal members and God knows their tribal
members need those resources when you consider the fact there
is 40 percent unemployment and a deprived situation and
depressed economic circumstances that tribe has been living
under for so many years.
This is quite a different situation from the State
sanctioned gaming operations that, despite a payback to the
State, and by the way paid back to the State $90 million
roughly and I think the overall revenues from the gaming is
roughly half a billion dollars and they kick back $90 million
to the State. We wonder where that money is going.
But for the tribe the bulk of their money has to go back to
provide for their people. Let me say that I want to impress
upon my colleagues who support, and I might add I am the only
member of my delegation to carry this position so I respect my
colleagues' position on this. I think that they are clearly
obeying the wishes of the people of Rhode Island expressed in
the referendum.
My colleagues are clearly respecting the wishes of their
constituents as expressed in the referenda that we saw in the
compact with the Narragansetts. But let me make the point very
clear here. Despite the fact that the people with Rhode Island
disagree with gam-
ing as I do as I voted against gaming as a State representative
and a voter of the State, that does not entitle us to summarily
abolish the civil and sovereign rights of the Narragansetts
with respect to their rights to game.
I liken this to freedom of speech, you know, we do not like
many acts of free speech but does that mean we eliminate the
right to free speech? And under the rider, Chafee Rider, the
Congress last year in order to curry interest with the people
of Rhode Island who by and large are against Las Vegas style
casino because they voted that almost 3 to 1, despite their
being in disagreement with it there is a process by which we
have to follow here and that is a process that is going to
establish by the Supreme Court, is going to establish by
Federal law, and that says that despite the fact that we
disagree with gaming we do not have a right to take away their
rights to game, and that is the fundamental argument today in
my opinion.
So we look forward to having testimony by my colleagues in
the Rhode Island Federal delegation, members of the General
Assembly, and the tribe itself on these matters. And before I
conclude I would like to submit into the record testimony by,
let us see, Senator John McCain, former Chairman of the
Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Daniel Inouye, vice
Chairman of the same Committee, Secretary of Interior, Bruce
Babbitt, and as well I would like to submit the decisions by
the U.S. District Court and First Court of Appeals regarding
upholding the Narragansetts' rights as well as various letters
from tribal governments around our nation. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
Opening Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Kennedy, a U.S. Representative
from Rhode Island
Almost four hundred years ago, the Narragansett Tribe lived
in peace. Before the European Settlement of southern New
England, the tribal government was the sovereign authority over
their people and their general welfare. They educated their
children, cared for their sick, and fished in the Bay that now
bears their name.
In 1675, their way of living would all end with the event
known as King Philip's War. The European colonists, who had
long coveted the lands of the Narragansetts, expanded a feud
they had with another tribe and attacked the Narragansetts. The
result for the colonists was a clear victory. The result for
the Tribe was that they lost most of their land, many members
were killed, and still more were sold into slavery in the
Caribbean.
In the 1800's, while many other tribes were being
``relocated'' West, the Narragansetts successfully petitioned
to remain on their designated Tribal territory that included
the town of Charlestown. By the end of the century however, the
State had enough of the Narragansetts and summarily abolished
the Tribe and sold off the remnants of the land to non-Indians.
That is how the State of Rhode Island took possession of
the land owned and governed by the Narragansett Tribe. I share
this bit of history today because it is essential that when we
discuss the sovereign rights of the Narragansetts, we
understand that for over 100 years these rights were denied
without the Tribe's consultation or consent.
In 1975, the Narragansetts filed a land claim seeking
restoration of their aboriginal lands in and around
Charlestown. The State and Federal Government consented to the
proposal and codified the agreement in the 1978 Rhode Island
Indian Claims Settlement Act. At this time, the Tribe consented
to live by the laws of the State because they lacked Federal
recognition and status.
In 1983, however, that would all change when the
Narragansetts had their sovereign authority reaffirmed by the
Federal Government. It was at this time that the Tribe would
begin the process of reclaiming their rights to govern and
provide for the welfare of the Tribal population. The Tribal
government was given the authority to codify law, exercise
regulatory power, and levy taxes on their settlement land.
Let me be clear, it is this federally recognized sovereign
authority that makes the Tribe more than a corporation or a
social club. Their lands are no longer owned by the State but
are held in trust by the Federal Government. That means that
Congress has the responsibility to treat the Tribe and its
elected officials on a government-to-government basis just as
we treat States and municipal authorities.
Unfortunately, by the time the Tribe regained its sovereign
status, decades of discrimination had taken its toll. Today,
with an unemployment rate of almost 40 percent, poor health
care, and a lower standard of living than any other group in
Rhode Island, the Tribe is desperately trying to recover a
sense of community and opportunity for its members.
Before this panel addresses today's agenda--the gaming
rights of the Narragansett Indians--we must consider their
special relationship with the United States and their rights as
what Supreme Court Justice John Marshall called a ``domestic
dependent nation.''
We must understand that sovereign rights are all that is
left of what the Tribe had prior to the European settlement.
These rights were reaffirmed in 1983 by an official
proclamation of the U.S. Government. This action took place
after the 1978 settlement agreement and from that point on,
permanently changed the relationship between the Tribe, the
State, and the Federal Government.
To remove those rights now would be to abrogate the
sovereign standing of the Tribe in a similar fashion to the
State's act of elimination in 1880. Yet, that is exactly what
has happened with regard to the Narragansetts' right to game
under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act when Senator Chafee
passed his rider last year.
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled in the Cabazon Decision
that tribes retain the exclusive right to regulate gaming on
Indian lands unless a state criminally prohibits that type of
gaming. Deferring to the concerns of States, Congress passed
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in 1988 to codify U.S.
law regarding the sovereign right of Tribes to engage in gaming
on their lands. The legislation was enacted on a bi-partisan
basis to balance the rights of tribes and interests of states
and local communities.
Before Senator Chafee acted last year, the Federal courts
had conclusively asserted in two separate decisions that the
Narragansetts had a right to game under the IGRA. The Courts
argued that it was the Narragansetts' sovereign and civil right
as a federally recognized tribe and this superseded any
agreements that the 1978 Settlement Act established. This does
not mean, however, that the Tribe could do whatever it wanted.
The Narragansetts were still subject to the guidelines of IGRA
and all other Federal laws which were passed by Congress.
Let me be perfectly clear... According to the law, the
Narragansetts, despite any rhetoric, cannot open a CASINO
without a compact with the State and a voter referendum by the
citizens. This was true BEFORE Senator Chafee acted with his
rider.
IGRA says that unless the Tribe obtains consent from the
State through a compact, it may not operate video slot
machines, simulcast racing, or video poker as the state already
operates. Incidentally, the State has allowed for and is
considering the expansion of video lottery machines at Lincoln
Park and Newport Jai Alai to include more than one thousand new
machines without voter approval. To me this is base hypocrisy.
Let me say again, in no way were the citizens of Rhode
Island in danger of a Las Vegas style casino before Senator
Chafee acted unless they approved it with their vote. To say
otherwise is a complete falsehood and an attempt at deceiving
public opinion about what the Tribe is legally able to do.
The only thing that the Narragansetts could legally do
before the Chafee rider is operate a bingo hall, because under
Federal law, bingo is not considered in the same class as any
form of video or Las Vegas style gaming. Yet for reasons
unknown, they are being held to a higher standard than the
State of Rhode Island is held to. At every turn the Tribe has
complied with every law and regulation that applies to it.
Everything from Federal environmental statutes to building code
specifications, the Tribe has followed the law.
Further, the Narragansetts are required under the law to
spend the revenues from any gaming servicing for the general
welfare of the Tribal members. That means education, health
care housing, and other public initiatives. This of course is
quite different from the State sanctioned gaming operations
that, despite a pay-back to the state, are for-profit in
nature.
Let me say that I want to impress upon Senator Chafee my
utmost respect for him and all that he has done, and continues
to do, on behalf of the citizens of Rhode Island. Although I
concur with the Senator on many issues, I cannot agree with him
or any of his supporters, whether they are Republican or
Democrat, on this specific issue.
In my view, his rider, which was the result of a last-
minute political deal and which came without any hearings or
consent from the Tribe in the last session of Congress,
was unjust,
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution as it singles out one Tribe from every other,
and is discriminatory as it nullifies the civil
rights of an entire people in the name of political expediency.
Clearly, the political play here is to come to this
Committee, state that you oppose all kinds of gaming and that
the Narragansetts are trying to circumvent the law because they
say they are special. As I have indicated, the Tribe is only
looking to follow the law. This type of gamesmanship is wrong
and serves only to deny the Tribe its rights and opportunities
under the Constitution, which were affirmed by our Federal
judicial system.
I would like to ask everyone to consider what effect the
Chafee rider has on not only the Narragansett Tribe but all
citizens, Native American or otherwise. On September 30, 1996,
the governing authority and Constitutional rights of the Tribe
were removed because of a perceived popular opinion in the
State of Rhode Island. Further, this action was taken without
the due process or due respect owed to the Tribe.
Imagine...a civil rights law without a hearing or official
comment by the Tribe. Truly, if it can happen to one Tribe or
group, it can happen to anyone. I find this action
unconscionable with regard to a people's civil rights. I will
not agree to it because it is wrong and I will never support it
for political gain.
I have told the Narragansetts that I am against casino
gaming in Rhode Island. Further, I am opposed to the expansion
of gaming that already exists in Rhode Island. To that end, I
have written to the leaders of the state legislature, urging
them to reject any initiative to expand upon the existing or
proposed gaming infrastructure in the State. In my opinion,
Rhode Islanders can be against gaming and be for the civil
rights of the Tribe. Just as I would defend a person's right to
argue an issue that I wholly oppose, I now defend the Tribe's
Constitutional right to a bingo hall that I would rather not
see built.
Although I would be the first citizen of Rhode Island to
vote against a Casino, it is not my right or privilege to
legislate on the civil rights of a Tribe because it is popular
to do so. If other civil or Constitutional rights were subject
to the same capriciousness, there would be no way of protecting
the weak or less fortunate from the strong or politically
connected. This issue is about sovereignty and the law, not
gaming.
The tribes in this nation have been subject to years of
unconscionable discrimination because it was easy to do so.
Popular opinion in other states, at other times, have created a
painful history for Native Americans which has caused Indian
Country to now rank first in poverty and last in education and
health care. Is Rhode Island prepared to go down that same
road?
For my part, I do not have that luxury as a member of this
Committee to take Indian issues lightly. Oftentimes we are
Native Americans' last hope when it comes to protecting their
rights. Clearly, if it was my goal to take the ``political
action'' as opposed to the ``right action,'' I would be sharing
the position of Senator Chafee and his supporters.
If anything, I hope that this hearing will serve to educate
the public to learn that there is more to this issue than a Las
Vegas style casino that simply will not happen in Rhode Island
unless the people vote for it to happen.
If we choose not to listen to the rhetoric and scare
tactics, we will understand that the Narragansetts are a proud
people who have been discriminated by our own government.
We will find that they are just trying to pull themselves
up from their own bootstraps and move out of extreme poverty in
a way that will not hurt the lives of other Rhode Islanders.
We will determine that they are citizens like us who have
to abide by the rules and statutes of our Government.
And we will conclude that they have painfully earned their
sovereign status and that to take it away from them now would
be to once again break their spirit and any hopes that they
have for the future.
Again, let me say that I have the utmost respect for my
colleagues from Rhode Island and I want to thank each of them
for coming today. I am looking forward to hearing their
testimony and followup with questions that will take us beyond
the rhetoric and bring clarity to this issue.
I am also particularly interested to hear the testimony of
Frank Ducheneaux, who served as Counsel on the House Indian
Affairs Committee during the time of the 1978 Rhode Island
Settlement Act and the passage of IGRA in 1988. I believe that
his perspective on this issue will prove critical as he was
privy to the entire legislative process of both acts.
At this time, I would like to enter into the record
statements in support of the Narragansetts' sovereign rights by
the following people:
Senator John McCain, former Chairman of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs;
Senator Daniel Inouye, Vice Chairman of the same committee;
[May be found later in hearing.]
Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt; [Letter at end of
hearing.]
Decisions from U. S. District Court and First Circuit Court
of Appeals upholding the Narragansetts rights; [Placed in the
hearing record files of the Committee.]
And letters from Tribal governments throughout our nation.
[These letters were placed in the hearing record files of the
Committee and a list of names and tribes can be found at end of
hearing.]
Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Without objection they will be included. I have
to ask the audience to refrain from demonstrations during the
hearing. We have a very long hearing and it is against the
rules of the House to allow the audience to do so. Do any other
members have opening statements that they would like to make at
this time? Mr. Vento.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Vento. I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate the scheduling of this hearing which obviously is an
important issue with regards to the Native American Gaming
Regulatory Act which was passed. I think the burden or the
concern here, and I know that Senator Chafee and Congressman,
now Senator Reed, and Mr. Weygand and our colleague on the
Committee are able representatives and especially Senator
Chafee, you are given credit at least for this. Obviously, you
did not do it alone in terms of implementing this, what I think
is going to be a moratorium hopefully.
And I suppose that the concern is that this was something
done quickly because of confusion. I think the burden in this
issue lies in terms of demonstrating that there is some problem
with the operation of the basic law that was passed in the
early 1980's. We thought that in passing this and working with
Congressman Udall and others on it--and I know the staff
member, Frank Ducheneaux, is testifying today--that we were
avoiding exactly the type of event where we would have a policy
that would work disparities on various Native American groups
in various States.
My State obviously has gaming. We have formed a compact. I
do not know what broke down in Rhode Island in terms of this
issue, but I am hopeful that there will be a resolution that
you, I think, have a special responsibility and the other
Members to lead in looking for.
We certainly are very concerned about this as acting as a
precedent. We think that very often that Native Americans
should have this right as a sovereign nation and within our
State I can report to you that in Minnesota it is working. I do
not know if everyone is happy but it has not seemed to cause
economic disruption gen-
erally in terms of what has occurred with regard to other
business and industries.
We still raise a lot of money from the lottery and from
other activities in our State and I notice that Rhode Island
itself has a stellar record of raising money via the gaming
activities of the State. So I am hopeful that there will be
resolution. I think the burden, as I said, rests with the
sponsors of this moratorium with this provision to demonstrate
that there is somehow a problem that was not going to be worked
out in terms of a compact at the State level where I think the
proper safeguards were in place, were working as far as I can
see. But there is obviously opportunity at some time for a
Governor or a legislature to come to agreement with regards to
the providing an orderly means by which Native American gaming
could have occurred in Rhode Island as it has in some other
States where compacts have existed.
So knowing the work and the record of the delegation I am
optimistic that this can be resolved. I think the Committee
here obviously heard a venue that is not necessarily and is
very much concerned. As a member of the Resources Committee we
are very concerned about representing and being fair advocates
for Native Americans.
I and other members of this Committee I think generally are
so. We appreciate your being here today and I am going to shut
up so I can hear from you all and learn more by listening.
Thank you.
Mr. Pombo. Mr. Kildee.
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased we
are having this hearing today affecting the legislative rider
passed in the last Congress which I feel was a real attack
about sovereignty. Sovereignty is the basis of all our
discussions when we discuss the Indian tribes.
They do not have a sovereignty that was granted to them by
the U.S. Government. They have a sovereignty that they
retained. They have a sovereignty that they had before the
first European settlers came to this country. That sovereignty
is their most precious possession. I do not think anyone would
ever think to attach a rider effecting the lottery of the State
of Michigan and we have a big lottery in the State of Michigan.
Michigan is a big gaming State but no one would have tried
to attach a rider to a bill affecting the lottery of the State
of Michigan because the State of Michigan is a sovereign State.
We have representatives of a sovereign nation in this room
today and that sovereignty is something that we have to
recognize and we can live with and everyone can prosper with
it.
In my State of Michigan I have 11 sovereign Indian nations.
I helped five of them get their sovereignty restored. Let me
tell you the European settlers and the African settlers in
Michigan really respect that sovereignty. There is a great
mutual accord between the sovereign State of Michigan, the
sovereign tribes, and the European, Asian and African settlers
in the State of Michigan.
That can happen. It can happen if we provide leadership,
moral leadership. This is a legal problem, it is a moral
problem and it is a constitutional problem. The Constitution
says that this Constitution and all treaties entered into are
the supreme law of the land and that is very important. I think
that when we approach a sovereign nation we approach it with
the idea that they have sovereignty, we treat them as well as
we would treat the State of Michigan. Thank you very much. I
yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. The ranking member of the full
Committee, Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank Mr. Kennedy for prevailing on our Committee to hold these
hearings and to thank Congressman Young for agreeing to these
hearings. This is an important and very fundamental matter. As
Mr. Kildee has pointed out, sovereignty is the most fundamental
element of the relationship between this government and the
Native Americans of this country.
When we passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, what we
attempted to do was to provide a parity in terms of the ability
to negotiate between the Indian nations and the State
governments and that if the State government made a decision
that it wanted to engage in gambling then the Indian nations,
the sovereign nations, had the same right to do that.
As we all know, Indian nations come in different forms,
different sizes and different backgrounds. Since we have passed
the Act some have reestablished their lands, reestablished
their rights that were wrongfully taken from them, illegally
taken from them, and have been able to pursue gambling in a
number of different States.
Some have sued for the right to do that, some have
negotiated, many very successfully, with Governors throughout
the nation. In my own State, some have decided to push the
envelope and perhaps maybe go beyond where the State law
allowed them to go in terms of what the State permits in
gambling activities.
They now find themselves in court. That is the process.
That is the process by which these independent sovereign
nations engage in order to achieve their rights under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. What it really requires is good
faith negotiation. Good faith negotiation by the people of the
State and the Governor acting on their behalf with the Indian
nations.
But there is a very fundamental principle under this, and
that is once the State decides to engage in gambling then the
Indian nations have the same right to that same level of
gambling, the same types of games. But, for a State to have the
right to come and just unilaterally destroy that process is
such an incredible insult to the Indian nations of this
country.
And I think it is such an incredible insult to a law that
for all its troubles and all its tribulations and all its
difficulties, works. The fact is that in many, many States
where negotiations have been started, negotiations have been
successfully completed. In my own State we have seen people try
to unilaterally come in and disrupt good faith negotiations in
the process.
But those negotiations will continue. They are difficult. I
oppose parts of them and I support other parts of them. But
what we do not do in that process is simply disenfranchise an
Indian nation from participating in the national law that was
designed to allow them to participate in gambling activities
should a State make that determination.
There is a very easy answer for the many States that
somehow just cannot suffer Indian gambling but think that
gambling is good for everyone else. They can decide not to have
gambling within their borders, and then nobody can have
gambling within their borders. But if they decide to be a
little bit pregnant then everybody gets to be a little bit
pregnant.
Now sometimes those are tough political decisions because
you do not want to tell somebody ``no'' and somebody else
``yes,'' but this law is about parity. This law is about good
faith negotiations and this law should not be unilaterally
struck down with riders in the middle of the night. I thank you
for holding the hearing.
Mr. Pombo. Do any of the other members have opening
statements at this time? If not, I will turn to Mr. Kennedy to
introduce the first panel. They are all representatives.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
welcome my colleagues from Rhode Island once again. Although
this is one issue we differ on there are so many more that we
agree on so with that I would like to first introduce the
senior senator from the State of Rhode Island and former
Secretary of the Navy and former Governor of the State of Rhode
Island, and that is Senator John Chafee. Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Representative
Kennedy, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. First, I
appreciate this opportunity to testify before your Committee
today in strong support of the appropriations legislation we
enacted last year to preserve the integrity of the Rhode Island
Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978.
I think it is very important to follow through the history
of what took place. I am pleased to be joined this morning by
my colleagues, Senator Reed, Representative Weygand, and also
our Governor Lincoln Almond who will be on this next panel. As
Representative Kennedy has mentioned all members of the Rhode
Island congressional delegation, both Republican and Democrat
with the exception of Representative Kennedy support the
legislation enacted in 1996.
Importantly, Congressman Weygand, whose district includes
the proposed site for this gaming, supports the legislation.
Now a bit of history. In 1978 in exchange for 1,800 acres of
land in the town of Charlestown, Rhode Island, the Narragansett
Indian Tribe agreed that these lands ``shall be subject to the
civil and criminal laws and jurisdiction of the State of Rhode
Island.''
The other parties to the agreement including the State and
the representatives from Charlestown, a small rural community
in the southern part of our State, were all part of this
agreement. Importantly, later that year Congress codified this
very agreement into Federal law. The Rhode Island Indian Claims
Settlement Act, Public Law 95-395, is part of the law of the
nation.
Gambling did not become an issue until 1988 when Congress
enacted IGRA. During Senate action on that bill, former Senator
Pell and I worked with Senator Inouye, then Chairman of the
Select Committee on Indian Affairs, to ensure that the Rhode
Island Settlement law would not be disturbed by IGRA, and the
State jurisdiction would continue to apply.
At Chairman Inouye's urging, Senator Pell agreed to
withdraw this provision that we had, in other words the
provision providing for Rhode Island protections that were in
the bill. And in return a colloquy took place in which the
Chairman stated, and the colloquy is the last part of my
statement, the Chairman stated, ``The Narragansett Indian Tribe
clearly will remain subject to the civil, criminal and
regulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island.''
This colloquy as well as report language which accompanied
the bill appears at the conclusion of my testimony. In 1992 the
Narragansett Indian Tribe sought to commence compact
negotiations toward the establishment of Class III casino in
Charlestown. The State took the issue into the U.S. District
Court to uphold the terms of the Rhode Island Settlement law.
Regrettably, the District Court held that, notwithstanding
our legislative history ``the Gaming Act is applicable to the
tribe's settlement lands.'' In 1993, the Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit in a 2 to 1 decision upheld the lower court's
ruling on gaming, but concluded that State law jurisdiction
applied in all other respects.
In other words, the only part of this Rhode Island Indian
Claims Settlement Act that was affected was the gaming part,
not the balance of it dealing with State jurisdiction. This
decision left us no choice but to press for remedial action in
Congress to preserve the integrity of the 1978 agreement and
the associated Federal law.
Over the next few years members of our delegation presented
testimony before the Indian Affairs Committee and held numerous
meetings with the principals. Our efforts were to no avail. In
1994, despite protest from many quarters, Governor Sundlun
reversed direction, our Governor at the time, and negotiated a
compact with the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
In accordance with Rhode Island law, which requires local
and statewide voter approval of any proposal to expand gambling
the measure went before the voters in November. On election day
the citizens rejected the Narragansett casino proposal, as well
as four other proposals, gambling proposals, across the State.
The Narragansett proposal was rejected by 54.2 percent of
the State's voters and by an almost 2 to 1 margin in the town
of West Greenwich, one of our towns the tribe had selected over
the town of Charlestown. On the very same ballot the statutory
requirement for voter approval of gambling expansion was added
to the State constitution.
In other words, the State constitution was amended to
require any expansion of gambling to go before the people.
Previously that had been the law and now it was in the
constitution. The Narragansetts then amended the draft
management contract they previously had filed with the National
Indian Gaming Commission for a Class III casino.
The amended version provided only for the establishment of
Class II high-stakes bingo facility which does not require
State ap-
proval. At that stage, the National Indian Gaming Commission
approval would have occurred at any time. We then went to the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate to try and resolve our
dilemma. As a consequence of these efforts, our provision to
exempt the settlement lands from IGRA and to preserve the 1978
Rhode Island Settlement law, became part of the omnibus
appropriations law last September.
This law is now being challenged. As we sit here, there is
a court case on this very matter in the District Court here in
the District of Columbia. The Narragansetts have sued to
overturn the 1996 provision on the grounds that it violates the
equal protection clause of the Constitution.
I remain hopeful that the District Court will reaffirm the
clear purpose of the 1978 law by leaving this most recent
congressional enactment in place. To do otherwise in my
judgment would be a real injustice. If the Narragansetts want
gambling they can proceed just as other citizens have to do in
our State, go to a referendum in the community, go to a
referendum in the State likewise.
I remain firmly opposed to efforts to force gambling upon
Rhode Island without voter approval. My door is always open as
it has been to help members of the Narragansett Tribe who are
interested in pursuing other forms of economic development. We,
myself and my staff, have asked for suggestions from the tribe
for economic development proposals.
Our offer has clearly been made to the tribe. We cannot
dictate what they should have for economic development. We seek
their proposals. I thank the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
Testimony by the Honorable John H. Chafee, a U.S. Senator from Rhode
Island
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate testifying before your Committee
today in strong support of legislation, enacted last year as
part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, to preserve the
integrity of the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of
1978.
It pleases me to be joined by my colleagues Senator Reed,
Representative Weygand, and our Governor, Lincoln Almond. All
members of the Rhode Island congressional delegation, both
Republican and Democrat--with the exception of one--support the
appropriations provision we were able to enact last year.
Importantly, Congressman Weygand, whose district includes the
proposed site for an Indian gaming facility, supports this
legislation.
In exchange for 1,800 acres of land and an agreement that
those lands ``...shall be subject to the civil and criminal
laws and jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island,'' the
Narragansett Indian Tribe agreed to the extinguishment of all
aboriginal land claims in 1978. The other parties included
officials from the State of Rhode Island and representatives of
Charlestown, Rhode Island, the affected community--a small
rural town in the southernmost part of our State.
Importantly, later that same year, Congress codified this
very agreement into Federal law as the Rhode Island Indian
Claims Settlement Act (PL 95-395). Rhode Island became the
first of many states to have an Indian land claims settlement
agreement enacted by Congress.
The subject of gambling did not become an issue until a
decade later when Congress enacted IGRA. During Senate action
on that bill in 1988, former Senator Pell and I worked with
Senator Inouye, then Chairman of the Select Committee on Indian
Affairs, to ensure that the Rhode Island Settlement law would
not be disturbed by IGRA, and that state law jurisdiction would
continue to apply.
In fact, Senator Pell had secured language in the IGRA bill
to this very effect. However, at Chairman Inouye's urging, he
agreed to withdraw this provision in return for a colloquy
which provided verbal assurances from the Chairman that
``...the Narragansett Indian Tribe clearly will remain subject
to the civil, criminal and reg-
ulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island.'' That colloquy, as
well as report language which accompanied the bill, appear at
the conclusion of my testimony.
In 1992, the Narragansett Indian Tribe petitioned then-
Governor Sundlun to commence compact negotiations toward the
establishment of a Class III casino in Charlestown. Based upon
the Rhode Island Settlement law and the legislative history
surrounding IGRA, the State took the issue into U.S. District
Court to obtain a declaratory judgment that IGRA does not apply
with respect to these lands.
Regrettably, the court held that, despite our legislative
history, ``...the Gaming Act is applicable to the Tribe's
settlement lands. The State appealed that ruling to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, in 1993, a 2-1
decision was rendered. While upholding the lower court decision
on gaming, the appellate court concluded that state law
jurisdiction applied in all other respects.
The appellate decision clearly contravened the Rhode Island
Settlement law, despite all the assurances we were given during
Senate deliberations on IGRA in 1988. This situation left our
State and its congressional delegation no choice but to press
for remedial legislation in Congress to protect the integrity
of our 1978 land settlement agreement with the Tribe, as well
as the Federal law enacted that same year.
In 1993 Senator Pell and I, and other members of the Rhode
Island congressional delegation, began an intensive effort to
enact remedial legislation. Over the next few years, members of
our delegation presented testimony during IGRA reauthorization
hearings before the Indian Affairs Committee, and held numerous
meetings with the principals. Our efforts were to no avail.
A few other important developments bear mention.
In 1994, despite protest from many quarters, Governor
Sundlun reversed direction and negotiated a compact with the
Narragansett Indian Tribe. Because West Greenwich, an adjoining
town, offered a more favorable casino site than Charlestown, it
was designated as the location for the gaming facility. In
accordance with Rhode Island law, which requires local and
statewide voter approval to expand gambling in the state, this
measure was then placed on the ballot that same year.
When the citizens came to decide the fate of this and four
other casino referenda on election day in 1994, the answer was
a resounding ``no'' to all five. The Narragansett referendum
was rejected by 54.2 percent of the State's voters, and by an
almost 2-1 margin in the Town of West Greenwich.
Of note, on that very same ballot, Rhode Island voters
further solidified their rights to approve or reject gambling
expansions by adding the statutory requirement for a referendum
to the State Constitution itself.
Though West Greenwich had been rejected, the Sundlun
compact--as structured--provided for a fallback to the Tribe's
settlement lands in Charlestown. A final compact to that effect
was approved by the Department of Interior in December 1994.
However, the Sundlun compact was nullified by a U.S. District
Court in 1996 when it ruled the former Governor had exceeded
his authority under the Rhode Island Constitution by not
obtaining the General Assembly's consent to enter into compact
negotiations.
Given these developments, the Narragansetts then amended
the draft management contract they previously had filed with
the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) for a Class III
casino. The amended version provided only for the establishment
of a Class II high-stakes bingo facility, which does not
require state approval. At that stage, we believed NIGC
approval would soon be granted.
We then went to the Appropriations Committee in the Senate
to try and resolve our dilemma. As a consequence of these
efforts, our provision to exempt the settlement lands from IGRA
and to preserve the 1978 Rhode Island Settlement law, became
part of the omnibus appropriations negotiations toward the end
of fiscal 1996. During those discussions, White House Chief of
Staff Leon Panetta agreed to the inclusion of this provision in
the final package. Given the approaching elections, and the
desire to avoid another government shutdown, the White House
could easily have killed this amendment, but chose not to do
so.
This provision of law is now the subject of a legal
challenge in the U.S. District Court here in the District of
Columbia. The Narragansett Indian Tribe has sued to overturn
the provision on the grounds that it violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. We now await the
Court's decision.
It is our determined view that a deal is a deal, and we
have now taken the necessary steps to resolve a legal quagmire
which has caused considerable havoc for the citizens of our
State, and particularly those in the Charlestown area. The 1996
law has restored the integrity of the Rhode Island Indian
Claims Settlement Act and upheld the primacy of State
jurisdiction over the Tribe's settlement lands in Charlestown.
If the Narragansett Indian Tribe wants to bring casino
gambling to Rhode Island, it must first gain the approval of
local and state voters through the referendum process mandated
by Rhode Island's Constitution, as must any other individual or
entity with that objective.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACK REED, UNITED STATES SENATE
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to testify. Over the last several years, the Narragansett
Indian Tribe has sought authority to conduct gaming operations.
I have opposed those efforts as I have opposed other expansions
of gambling in Rhode Island.
In my 6 years as a member of the House, I had the privilege
of working closely with the tribe on many issues. I respect
their determination to secure economic progress for the tribe,
while maintaining their culture and traditions. However, I do
not share their sincere belief that gaming is the path to long-
term economic progress for the tribe or for the State of Rhode
Island.
Gambling is at the core of this hearing. I will be the
first to admit that the State of Rhode Island would have a more
compelling moral argument if it did not rely upon millions of
dollars of gambling revenues each year. But I would also add
that the tribe's arguments about sovereignty and fairness are
weighed down by the fact that the focus of their activities is
to secure permission to conduct gaming operations. In a very
real sense, gambling poisons the water on both sides.
I do not support gambling as the long-term solution to the
economic problems facing our communities, our States, or our
Indian tribes. Gambling simply takes too great a toll on the
people it engages and the areas it dominates. According to
Professor Robert Goodman, who has studied and written about
this subject at great length, gambling frequently leads to a
decline in jobs by diverting dollars away from consumer
products and other recreational activities.
In his thoughtful 1995 report to the Senate entitled, ``The
Explosive Growth of Gambling in the United States'', Senator
Paul Simon echoed this concern, stating, ``The promises of what
legalized gambling will do for a community or State almost
always are greatly exaggerated.''
This harsh reality differs sharply from the pictures put
forth by gambling proponents, who often present gaming
facilities as offering economic salvation. Gambling revenues
come disproportionately from lower income residents, who can
least afford such losses. Studies have shown that people
earning less than $10,000 per year spend twice as much money,
as a percentage of their income, on gambling as people making
between $30,000 and $40,000 per year. People earning less than
$10,000 per year spend four times as much money, as a
percentage of income, on gambling as people making more than
$80,000 per year.
In addition, gambling takes a very heavy toll on individual
Americans. It can be addictive, and every bit as painful and
costly as addiction to alcohol and drugs. Also, the costs of
gambling include increased crime. The American Insurance
Institute has estimated that 40 percent of all white-collar
crime has its roots in gambling.
Despite the historical legacy of gambling in Rhode Island
and the State's obvious dependence on gambling revenue, the
people of Rhode Island have endeavored throughout this decade
to limit the expansion of gambling by any proponent, including,
but not limited to the tribe. In 1990, for example, Rhode
Island voters rejected a proposal to establish off-track
betting in Pawtucket, Rhode Island. Within 4 years, the State
severely restricted charitable organizations' games of chance.
In 1994, Rhode Island voters passed an amendment to the
State Constitution, by a 2-1 margin, requiring that any future
expansion of gambling in the State win local and statewide
voter approval. Contemporaneously, voters rejected five
separate plans to establish gambling casinos in Rhode Island,
including a proposal by the Narragansetts.
These referenda clearly indicate the popular opposition in
Rhode Island to the expansion of gambling; opposition which is
not motivated by the identity of the promoter, but, I believe,
by the conviction that gambling will not lead to long-term and
widespread economic development.
In addressing these issues, the Narragansetts stress their
sovereignty. In point of fact, the tribe has sovereign powers.
But according to the controlling decision of the United States
First Circuit Court of Appeals, the Rhode Island Indian Claims
Settlement Act of 1978 still has effect, conferring concurrent
jurisdiction to the State and tribe in certain situations.
In its 1994 decision on these issues, the First Circuit
Court ruled that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act did not
extinguish this jurisdiction, but modified it with respect to
gaming. Thus, referring to the Settlement Act's provision that
the Narragansetts' ``settlement lands shall be subject to the
civil and criminal laws and jurisdiction of the State of Rhode
Island,'' the Court concluded, ``This means the State continues
to possess a quantum of regulatory authority.''
Even with tribal jurisdiction over certain categories of
gaming, there are other issues related to the development of
tribal lands, such as zoning and traffic control, where the
State could arguably claim jurisdiction. As a result, any
significant development, gaming or otherwise, would likely
touch upon issues of State control. Therefore, as a practical
matter, the State and the people of Rhode Island would need to
be involved in crafting any long-term solution to these issues.
Last year's Omnibus Appropriations Act included language to
ensure that the people of Rhode Island have the opportunity to
participate in this process. The Chafee amendment requires the
Narragansetts to win local and statewide approval before
pursuing gaming on their lands.
As I noted earlier, this requirement applies to any group
that wants to expand gambling in Rhode Island, under a 1994
amendment to the State Constitution. I supported the Chafee
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for this
opportunity to testify. I appreciate the Committee's
willingness to provide a forum to discuss these issues.
While I disagree with several of today's witnesses on
gambling, I believe that we have a common commitment to
promoting economic development, not only for the Narragansett
tribe, but for Indian tribes across the country. There has been
a great deal of interest in our differences on gambling.
I can only hope that this Committee, and all members of the
House and Senate, will demonstrate the same level of interest
in the budget process to ensure that the Federal Government
maintains its commitment to all Indian tribes, and that the
Narragansetts in particular have the resources they need to
meet their health care, education, and economic development
goals. I thank the Chairman and yield back my time.
Mr. Clinger. [presiding] Robert Weygand, please, you are
next, U.S. House of Representatives.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT A. WEYGAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Weygand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and my colleague,
Patrick Kennedy, and all of my colleagues here as well as the
Rhode Island delegation. I want to thank the Chairman and
particularly Congressman Kennedy for convening this hearing
today.
Regardless of our opposing viewpoints I think it is healthy
and wise for us to air the differences in this setting. As a
Congressman who represents the district in which the
Narragansett Indian Tribe is located, I am especially pleased
to be here to present my viewpoints and the viewpoints of the
constituents in my district.
As so eloquently stated by Congressman Kennedy, Congressman
Vento, Congressman Kildee, as well as Congressman Miller, there
has been a very long and important history determining the
sovereign rights of Native American Indian tribes throughout
this country.
I would like to quickly summarize the problem that we are
facing. It is really more of a legal and constitutional issue
than a moral issue. In 1975 the Narragansett Tribe of Indians
sued the State of Rhode Island. As a body, as Congressman
Kennedy said, they had existed for many hundreds of years
before they took that action in 1975.
They did not need the 1983 agreement with regard to being
federally recognized or the 1988 IGRA Act to allow them to do
this. They as a tribe, as a body, that was recognized by the
courts moved forward on a suit in 1975. That in 1978 was
consummated by a contract, a contract between the State of
Rhode Island and the Narragansett Indian Tribe.
Regardless of any other constitutional or State or Federal
law that passed, there was a contract that was agreed to that
is the basis of the argument before us today. In 1978, we also
codified that contract with the Indian Settlement Act. We then
inadvertently reversed the Indian Settlement Act in 1988 with
IGRA. We then reversed IGRA in 1996 with the Chafee amendment
to the Omnibus Appropriations Act.
Quite frankly, we have had a yo-yo bouncing back and forth
statutorily on Indian gaming. The fundamental issue we have is
that there is a contract between the Narragansetts and the
State of Rhode Island. As Senator Reed had mentioned, we must
fulfill our obligation to help the Narragansetts economically,
to help them through health care, to help them provide the kind
of opportunities they not only deserve but they most
emphatically require as part of their original Native American
rights.
But we also have another problem. The people of
Charlestown, the people of the second congressional district
have voted numerous times and said no to gambling. As
Congressman Miller says so aptly, if you are a little bit
pregnant you are fully pregnant. So if the State of Rhode
Island really wants to do away with gaming on the Indian
reservation they should take a movement to move gaming away
from the entire State of Rhode Island.
But one of the basic problems is we had a contract with the
Narragansett Indians that supersedes all others. In fact, this
should not be settled before this Congress, it should be
settled before a court of law because in fact what we have is a
tribe making an agreement outside of their sovereign rights
with the State of Rhode Island that said ``we will abide by
your laws.''
As a former lieutenant Governor and now as the Congressman
from this district, I think the proper forum is the Federal
court, and not this body. The people of our district, the
people of Rhode Island, have been emphatic. They feel that
their civil rights are being threatened. The Narragansetts feel
their sovereignty and civil rights are also being threatened.
The agreement that was passed in 1978 by representatives of
the Narragansett Indian Tribe and the representatives of the
people of Rhode Island, to me, still holds the stance that what
we should be doing is working for a mutual agreement and as
Congressman Miller said that in fact represents and agrees to
their sovereignty, their rights, and work something out.
I cannot stress that the contract must be recognized by
this body. It is a contract of law. It is not a moral contract.
It is far and away very constitutional and that is the crux of
the problem we have here. Statutes have come and gone. The 1978
Indian Settlement Act, the IGRA Act, and the Chafee amendment
have all bounced back and forth but the contract between the
Narragansetts and the State of Rhode Island still stands and
that is what we should abide by.
I want to thank my colleague from Rhode Island, Congressman
Kennedy, and you, Chairman Young, for allowing us to testify
here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weygand follows:]
Statement of the Honorable Bob Weygand, a U.S. Representative from
Rhode Island
Thank you, Chairman Young for convening this hearing on
Indian gaming issues in Rhode Island. I appreciate your
invitation and welcome this opportunity to present my views.
I'd also like to thank the other members of the committee,
especially my colleague from Rhode Island, Congressman Kennedy,
for being here this morning.
As the Congressman who represents the district in which the
Narragansett Indian Tribe's land is located, I am especially
pleased not only to present my views and the views of the
majority of my constituents in the second congressional
district on this contentious issue, but to hear the input of
the Narragansett Indians. I have always been a firm believer in
problem solving through open and honest communication--and this
hearing is another avenue to open the lines of communication
between our opposing viewpoints.
Although the history behind this hearing has been well
outlined throughout the hearing thus far, I believe it is
appropriate to briefly touch upon how that history shapes my
views. In 1978, a commission, comprised of a majority of
Narraganetts, signed an agreement with the State of Rhode
Island, which was later codified into Federal law by the Rhode
Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of 1978. As part of the
agreement, all parties, including the tribal representatives,
agreed that the tribe would be subject to the civil, criminal
and regulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island.
As you know, when gambling was seen as a profitable, yet
questionable, method to raise money for cash starved tribes,
Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 to
govern Indian gaming in our country. During debate on the floor
of the U.S. Senate on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
Senators Claiborne Pell and John Chafee of Rhode Island
received assurance from the bill's sponsor and Chairman of the
Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Daniel Inouye, that
the Narragansetts would still follow state laws and
regulations.
I would ask Mr. Chairman that a copy of this colloquy be
inserted into the record. [See Attachment A]
Unfortunately, in 1993 the United States District Court
ruled that despite clear legislative intent as presented in the
colloquy the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
superseded the Rhode Island Indian Claims and Settlement Act.
In an effort to clarify that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
did not supersede the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement
Act, Senator Chafee inserted legislative language into the
Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997. This language
clarified the intent of the Pell-Chafee-Inouye colloquy.
I feel the Narragansetts should live within the context of
the agreement tribal representatives signed in 1978 and feel
that if they wish to offer expanded gambling on their
reservation it should be done in accordance with the laws and
constitution of the State of Rhode Island.
My support for the Chafee amendment to the Appropriations
Act, in addition to my belief in the appropriateness of the
original agreement signed by the Narragansetts and the State of
Rhode Island, stems from my long held opinion that gambling is
an unhealthy manner in which to grow an economy. This stance on
expanded gambling has been repeatedly affirmed by the voters of
Rhode Island, who, since 1972 have consistently voiced their
intention to halt any further expansion of gambling within the
state's borders. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the voters of Rhode
Island voted against a proposal by the Narragansett Indian
Tribe to locate a gambling facility on their land in West
Greenwich in 1994.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the statewide results of eight separate statewide gambling
referenda be inserted into the record. [See Attachment B]
The voters of my state also amended their state
constitution in 1994 to make it more difficult to expand any
further gambling within our state. I would like to insert in
the record the results of that referenda to illustrate Rhode
Islanders aversion to any expansion of gambling. [See
Attachment C]
As you can see by both the separate gambling referenda and
the amendment to the state constitution--the voters of Rhode
Island and my district have stressed time and time again their
vehement opposition to any expansion of gambling.
While I respect the rights and responsibilities of Native
Americans to govern themselves within their sovereign nation,
expanded gaming transcends the tribe's borders and I believe an
expansion of gambling and its consequences affect everyone
within the larger community.
As the Congressman from the area surrounding the
reservation, let me clearly state my willingness to work
cooperatively with the Narragansetts as they strive to provide
the best quality of life for the members of their tribe.
Although the Narragansetts and I may not agree on this
particular issue, I hope we can work together on the many other
issues of mutual interest.
Again, thank you for providing us this forum today. Thank
you Mr. Chairman.
------
ATTACHMENT A
Colloquy of Senator Claiborne Pell, Senator Daniel Inouye,
and Senator John Chafee in relation to the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act
Mr. PELL, Mr. President, I would like to thank you the
managers of S. 555, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and
particularly the chairman of the Select Committee on Indian
Affairs (Mr. INOUYE), for their hard work and patience in
achieving a consensus on this important measure.
In the interests of clarity, I have asked that language
specifically citing the protections of the Rhode Island Indian
Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 95-395) be stricken from S.
555. I understand that these protections clearly will remain in
effect.
Mr. INOUYE. I thank my colleague, the senior Senator from
Rhode Island (Mr. PELL), and assure him that the protections of
the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act (P.L. 95-395),
will remain in effect and that the Narragansett Indian Tribe
clearly will remain subject to the civil, criminal, and
regulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I too would like to thank the
chairman (Mr. INOUYE) and members of the Select Committee on
Indian Affairs for their cooperation and assistance. The
chairman's statement makes it clear that any high stakes
gaming, including bingo, in Rhode Island will remain subject to
the civil, criminal, and regulatory laws of our State.
------
ATTACHMENT B
Rhode Island Gambling Referenda Results; 1972-1994
1972
Dog Racing--``Shall the act passed by the general assembly
at the January, 1972 session entitled ``An Act Authorizing dog
racing'' be approved?
Approved: 137,286 47 percent
Reject: 155,566 53 percent
1990
Establishment of Gambling Facilities Town of Burrillville--
``Approval of this question would authorize the Town of
Burrillville to establish a harness racing facility in the
Town.''
Approved: 100,145 34 percent
Reject: 194,064 66 percent
Off-Track Betting Facility in the city of Pawtucket--
``Approval of this question will authorize the Division of
Racing and Athletics to license an off-track betting facility
in the city of Pawtucket and will authorize payment of States
taxes and commissions from the off-track betting facility to
cities and towns to be used for the relief of local residential
property taxes.''
Approved: 115,968 37 percent
Reject: 200,767 63 percent
1994
city of Providence--Gambling--``Shall a gambling facility
and/or activity be established in the city of Providence?''
Approved: 73,868 23 percent
Reject: 249,159 77 percent
city of Pawtucket--Gambling--``Shall a gambling facility
and/or activity be established in the city of Pawtucket?''
Approved: 45,824 14 percent
Reject: 270,216 86 percent
Town of Lincoln--Gambling--``Shall a gambling facility and/
or activity be established in the Town of Lincoln?''
Approved: 90,658 28 percent
Reject: 232,493 72 percent
Town of Coventry--Gambling--``Shall a gambling facility
and/or activity be established in the Town of Coventry?''
Approved: 48,064 15 percent
Reject: 266,642 85 percent
Town of West Greenwich--Gambling--``Shall a gambling
facility and/or activity be established in the Town of West
Greenwich?''
Approved: 153,099 46 percent
Reject: 179,644 54 percent
------
ATTACHMENT C
Approved Amendment to the Rhode Island Constitution, 1994
Proposition to Amend the Rhode Island Constitution-Voter
Approval Required for Expansion of Gambling--``Shall Article 6
of the State Constitution be amended and approved to add the
following Section: Section 22. Restriction of Gambling.--No act
expanding the types of gambling which are permitted within the
state or within any city or town therein or expanding the
municipalities in which a particular form of gambling is
authorized shall take effect until it has been approved by the
majority of those electors voting in a statewide referendum and
by the majority of those electors voting in a referendum in the
municipality in which the proposed gambling would be allowed.
The secretary of state shall certify the results of the
statewide referendum and the local board of canvassers of the
city or town where the gambling is to be allowed shall certify
the results of the local referendum to the secretary of state.
Approved: 207,949 68 percent
Reject: 98,574 32 percent
Mr. Clinger. I want to thank the panel. I would like to
just make a few comments and I am going to show you how
bipartisan I am, I am going to let Mr. Kennedy chair the
meeting. I did not go to Hershey either. I do not know how many
else did. That is an inside joke for those that are not aware
of it.
The thing that strikes me because I was the author along
with Mo Udall and both of our pictures hang in this hall for
the Indian Gambling Commission and the Indian gambling
federally recognized ability for them to do so. One thing that
bothers me, Senator Reed, is this is not about the evil of
gambling.
If gambling was considered evil by all you would not have
bingo. You have bingo in Rhode Island, don't you, sanctioned by
the State?
Senator Reed. I do not believe we do. We have limited
bingo. I think the top prize----
Mr. Clinger. But it is like someone just said you cannot be
part pregnant, you are all pregnant. You do have bingo.
Mr. Weygand. We have games of chance.
Mr. Clinger. You do have video slots, by the way,
sanctioned by the State. What else do you have? Do you have a
lottery?
Senator Reed. We have a lottery. We have horse racing. We
have dog racing.
Mr. Clinger. You have dog racing. You have some kind of
racing, let us put it that way. Every time I go to one I lose
so I do not really like one. My wife always wins though. She
always picks a name. I try to win the books. But this is about
whether this tribe has a right, and I happen to agree with you,
Congressman, it is in court but what concerns me the most when
people cast gambling as an evil thing and when other people
participate in it if we could eradicate gambling across the
United States then that is what we ought to do.
Every State has passed a lottery. Every State that has
legalized gambling, every State that has some form of wagering
ought to eliminate it. And that be your wish, I do not know,
but this argument today is about a tribe that was recognized by
the State of Rhode Island, by the Federal Government and
Federal laws that were passed.
I think that is what the debate has to concentrate on and I
am not chastising you. I just want to stress that because it is
very difficult for me to have much sympathy for somebody that
says gambling is evil when they also condone it. And I am
concerned that we talk about the nice latitudes that were given
about taking care of this tribe by health care, welfare, all
these other things. It is out of the largess of the government
which is the problem we have with American natives today.
It has probably been the one group of people that have
been, I think, abused, misused, and misrepresented for many
centuries in the halls of this Congress and I am very concerned
that for the first time we see some progress in many areas.
Yes, there are some areas that have to be watched. That is up
to the Gaming Commission and the recent commission that has
been appointed to see if there is any evil, illegal, Mafia-type
activities occurring with Indian gambling.
If Indian gambling is being conducted according to Federal
and State law on an equal basis it is my understanding now with
the Senator's amendment that this tribe cannot even participate
in bingo, yet the State does. They cannot participate in slots,
yet the State does. They cannot participate in dog racing, yet
the State does. And that is not a fairness doctrine.
And so I am going to suggest that we keep to the issue of
the fairness doctrine of the law that was passed out of this
Committee by Mo Udall and I believe I am the only one else that
was here, and Mr. Kildee, that we implement that law correctly,
and that is what this hearing is about. Mr. Kennedy here is now
the Chairman.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might----
Mr. Clinger. Yes, please, Senator. I am sorry.
Senator Chafee. I think it is very, very important to
remember two things. One, that when the lands were turned over
to the Narragansetts back in 1978 an agreement was entered into
and the agreement said that the tribe would be subject to the
criminal and civil laws of the State of Rhode Island. That was
an agreement.
And subsequently that was amended by the IGRA provision
unbeknownst to both the Chairman at the time who presented it
as you recognized from the colloquy that we had at the time and
it was not known when IGRA was adopted that it eliminated the
provisions for the State having the civil and criminal control
of the lands. That was not known when that was done.
Mr. Clinger. Senator, can I ask a question? Has the State
lost the other parts of the agreement or only the gambling
agreement?
Senator Chafee. No, the Court of Appeals in the First
Circuit said that all the other provisions of the law apply,
Rhode Island civil and criminal jurisdiction still is there
except for the gambling provisions which were superseded--the
right to gamble which was superseded by IGRA. Some are saying
that the tribe has complete sovereignty over everything it
does. No, they are still bound by the agreement that took place
in 1978 except for the gambling provision.
And, furthermore, if the tribe wishes to have gambling,
casino or high-stakes bingo, we do not have high-stakes bingo
in our State, not sponsored by the State, but if they want it
they can do what everybody else in the State can do. Any
community, any entity can seek a referendum on the State level
and on the community level, the town level and get it if the
voters approve.
That is what we are battling for, Mr. Chairman. We are
fighting to retain the jurisdiction of the people of the State
of Rhode Island to approve all gambling if they wish it.
Mr. Clinger. OK, can I ask you a question though? I am
trying to get to this and then Mr. Gilchrest will have to take
over again as he is now here, but you say if the people agree
but how many people are in this tribe?
Senator Chafee. I do not know, about 2,500.
Mr. Clinger. How many people in Rhode Island?
Senator Chafee. A million.
Mr. Clinger. A million, OK.
Senator Chafee. Not a million voters, a million people.
Mr. Clinger. What I am saying is if in fact this tribe as a
community decides they want slots, video, horse or dog racing
they still have to come to you to get the approval to do so.
Senator Chafee. That is right.
Mr. Clinger. But that is not really fair because the fact
is you allowed it by State regulation already for other
communities. You cannot put this 2,500 people against 1
million.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, any expansion of gambling in
the State of Rhode Island, a new enterprise, would have to be
approved by a local community referendum and by a State of
Rhode Island referendum. I believe that would apply to high-
stakes bingo hall if a non-Indian promoter was seeking that.
That is the situation here and let me respond to your
comments. I recognize as you do very readily that the State of
Rhode Island depends upon gambling revenue, but I would like
the panel to recognize also that over the last several years
the State of Rhode Island and the people of Rhode Island
through popular votes have done a great deal to prevent the
expansion of gambling.
I think it is based not on any particular animus to any
promoter but by the concept that this is not healthy for the
economic development of the State and, in fact, by all the
other problems associated with gambling. I do not think you can
absolutely disassociate discussion of the nature of gambling
from the discussion today.
Now let me also respond to your legal points, which I agree
these are issues. The First Circuit decision interpreting not
just IGRA but also the Land Claims Settlement Act declared that
there is still residual sovereignty for the State of Rhode
Island and that sovereignty implicates any development of a
large scale enterprise of any kind on the tribal lands.
But let me also suggest, with respect to Senator Chafee's
argument in the colloquy with Senator Inouye, there was a 2 to
1 decision. The dissenting judge, Judge Coffin, read the
colloquy between Senator Pell and Senator Inouye and his
conclusion, an eminent jurist----
Mr. Clinger. Senator, with all due respect, colloquy means
very little. We have found that out recently in numerous
hearings we had because your administration has denied any
colloquy or any content in this Congress. We wrote the law, not
on this issue but other issues so colloquy don't stand up in
court. You are a lawyer, you ought to know that.
Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a
point that the dissenting judge gave entire credibility to the
colloquy and would have ruled that the State had full
jurisdiction over all types of operation. My point is that the
legal questions here are quite close, but the one issue that is
quite clear legally is that the State still has residual, a
quantum of authority over the tribe.
So we are not talking about, as I think some of these
people on the panel suggest, the absolute sovereignty of the
tribe versus the absolute sovereignty of the State. In fact, in
this situation neither one has absolute sovereignty.
Mr. Clinger. I feel little much like the time I got in a
argument in a saloon one time with a gentleman and lady and I
proceeded to punish the gentleman and lady who hit me in the
head with her high heel. It was her husband. I did not realize
that. So I am sort of mixed in between here but I want you to
know where I am coming from.
I am very reluctant to get involved in State's rights issue
but I am also very much in defense of a law passed out of this
Committee and I do not think we ought to be using a tribe as an
example when for the first time we have tribes that are now I
think benefiting immensely, yes, and sometimes jealously,
resentfully by other people immensely in other areas and have
done quite well.
And I do not like the largess of the government of keeping
them in the position as we have done in the past on the
reservation without any chance of going forth. I have been to
many of the reservations across this country and believe me, we
should not be proud of what we have been doing.
Our system is not working. The BIA is not working. This
Congress is not working and people ought to be able to make a
benefit to themselves if we give them an opportunity to do so.
We could argue this all day long but, Mr. Gilchrest----
Mr. Weygand. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add to your
comment. I think the key to this is what you mentioned a little
while ago and that is the contract that was signed. If they
signed a contract today after IGRA, after the Chafee amendment,
or after the Indian Settlement Act, it would be acknowledged as
well.
The Narragansett Indian Tribe existed 400 years ago, exists
in 1997, but in 1978 they signed a contract that is legal and
binding and that is really the key.
Mr. Clinger. And if the court rules against you then what
are you going to do?
Mr. Weygand. Then the court rules against you. You must
give them that right because they are then voiding the
contract. But, quite frankly, they would have a contract as you
and I could have a contract that would provide stipulations
that you place on me. As long as I agree to the terms as the
Narragansetts did with the State of Rhode Island.
Mr. Clinger. We passed the law that preceded your law that
did recognize them as a Federal tribe. They were recognized as
a Federal tribe and it did allow them certain advantages as
being a Federal tribe, and that is the argument in court, I
will agree with you on that.
Mr. Weygand. And in 1988 we recognized them but they
existed long before. They formally adopted an agreement in
which they had representatives of the tribe. That is the
biggest problem, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. [presiding] I would like to say one thing
for the record that the Chairman, Mr. Young, was in that saloon
collecting money for the Salvation Army. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. This is where the
argument hinges. The argument is that in 1978 there was an
agreement and barring everything else that is the agreement
that should be respected. The Federal Government supersedes
State, OK. The District Court recognized that, the Supreme
Court recognizes that.
I just do not understand how difficult it is to not
understand you do not get frozen in time in 1978. Plessy v.
Ferguson is no longer the law of the land. It was a contract,
if you will, at the time. But we had Brown come in after it and
superseded and overturned it because it was the latest.
We had IGRA come after the Indian Claims Settlement Act. It
was a Federal recognition. The Circuit Court of Appeals
recognized it. I mean I just--how, Senator Chafee, can you hold
on to this argument that 1978 can still----
Senator Chafee. Well, may I respond, Mr. Chairman? I think
it is very, very important that we recognize what the First
Circuit Court said. They said the following, and I refer to
page 2 of the decision. And this is the Circuit Court of the
United States, First Circuit. ``After careful reconnaissance of
a legal landscape we hold that Congress' grant of jurisdiction
to the State of Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act of
1978 remains valid.'' In other words, that law remains in
effect without--if I might finish, ``we also hold contrary to
the tribe's importuning that the grant includes civil
regulatory jurisdiction.''
Then it goes on. At that juncture the tide turns. ``We
conclude despite the State's vehement protest that the Gaming
Act does not specifically exempt the lands in question.'' In
other words, just as we have been saying right from the
beginning everything remained in effect except the gaming
provisions, the provisions dealing with gambling. And there we
have it.
And if you follow onto page 16 this just gets rid of the
suggestion that somehow the 1978 law is just washed away. Not
at all. I read now at the bottom of page 16. ``The tribe's
basic position is that even prior to the Gaming Act, Section
1708 of the Settlement Act did not constitute a valid conferral
of jurisdiction because, until Federal recognition occurred in
1983 the tribe had no jurisdiction to relinquish.''
What the court is saying the tribe is arguing is that when
they entered the deal in 1978 they were not entering into
anything. Nobody from the tribe was really doing it. It was not
a valid deal and when the tribe got Federal recognition in 1983
that supplanted everything. That seems to be your argument as I
understand it, Representative Kennedy.
This is what the court said. ``This resupinate (which I am
not sure what it means) reasoning stands logic on its ear. The
tribe did not surrender jurisdiction in 1978. Rather the tribe,
the State and the town came to an agreement, spelled out in the
Joint Memorandum of Understanding to ask Congress, among other
things to grant jurisdiction to the State. The tribe has
articulated no reason why regardless of its legal status,
Congress lacked the power to effectuate this jurisdictional
grant. In any event, the tribe is mistaken in its professed
belief that it lacked jurisdictional power at the time of the
Settlement Act.'' There you have it. The court says that was a
deal in 1978. It was not wiped away by any subsequent grant of
Federal recognition. That is the law.
Mr. Kennedy. But the Narragansetts are a federally
recognized tribe. After 1978 the Narragansetts became a
federally recognized tribe.
Senator Chafee. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Hence, the IGRA applies, and you said in that
court case that you cited to me that but for gaming the
agreement stands and I agree with you, OK? The case that we
have before us today is whether your rider can preempt the IGRA
and if it does then it carves out an exception to the
Narragansett Tribe from every other tribe under IGRA in this
whole country.
Senator Chafee. That is not accurate. If you look at the
Maine Settlement Act, for example, it confers jurisdiction on
the State and provides that no subsequent Federal law may
disturb the jurisdiction without specific reference. The South
Carolina Catawba Indian Settlement Act. Also see the
Massachusetts Settlement Act. It is going back and forth now as
you know. And the Florida Micasuki Settlement Act.
Mr. Kennedy. What I am asking you, with respect to IGRA----
Mr. Gilchrest. The time of the gentleman has expired. If we
have a little time after the other members--we do have to move
along. There is a number of other witnesses that need to
testify today. I recognize Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I will take some time now and yield some,
Congressman Kennedy. The Court of Appeals did say that the
provisions of IGRA apply with full force to the lands. Then it
was your rider that struck the effectiveness of that.
Senator Chafee. That is right.
Mr. Kildee. Then why should the Indians in Rhode Island
have less rights than the Indians of Michigan?
Senator Chafee. Well, because in Rhode Island they entered
into an agreement. We do not know----
Mr. Kildee. After your 1978 land settlement the
Narragansetts became a federally recognized tribe which gives
them a higher status recognition. I am just puzzled why you
feel that you cannot address the problems of Rhode Island as
the people of Michigan, the people of other States are doing
it. You have really put your Indians, Indians within the
borders of Rhode Island who are sovereign in a lesser status
than the Indians of Michigan or California or Arizona,
Minnesota. Why are they of less status?
Senator Chafee. I do not know anything about the Michigan
situation, Michigan and Minnesota and so forth. I do know that
there are a series of Land Settlement Acts and Rhode Island is
one of them. Rhode Island has a Federal law. It is not just a
State law. It was entered into and ratified by the Federal
Government. It is a Federal law, the Rhode Island Indian Claims
Settlement Act.
Mr. Kennedy. Senator, what other tribes in this country are
treated the same way the Narragansetts are? You said there are
a lot of other Indian Settlement Claims Act. Tell me one tribe
that is treated like the Narragansetts under IGRA?
Senator Chafee. I do not know what arrangements other
tribes entered into when they did their land settlement. I do
know what Rhode Island did.
Mr. Kennedy. But that is the preemption----
Senator Chafee. Let me just finish. Rhode Island and the
Indians entered into a deal. Now maybe they do not like it now,
apparently they do not, but there it was 1,800 acres of land
and some cash settlement likewise. A deal was entered into.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Kildee has the time.
Mr. Kildee. We had some State-recognized tribes in Michigan
and then they got Federal recognition. Federal recognition did
confer upon them a higher status. What really puzzles me is
that the court did say the provisions of IGRA did apply to the
Narragansetts and you took that away from them and that puzzles
me why you feel that the Indians of Rhode Island should be
treated less than other Indians in this country. Let me ask one
other question and then I will yield back to Mr. Kennedy.
Senator Chafee. Can I answer that question?
Mr. Kildee. Certainly.
Senator Chafee. As I say, Rhode Island entered into an
agreement and the court said that despite ensuing Federal
recognition that agreement was valid.
Mr. Kildee. But they said IGRA still applied.
Senator Chafee. In most respects except for IGRA. Now if
you look at the colloquy and what took place, it was our
understanding when we approved of IGRA, that is, when Senator
Pell and I voted for it, that pursuant to the Chairman's
statements it was clear that this did not apply, did not in any
way undermine the Rhode Island Land Claims Settlement Act. In
other word, Rhode Island jurisdiction----
Mr. Kildee. The court said you were wrong.
Senator Chafee. The court said we were wrong.
Mr. Kildee. Right, so you were wrong, you were wrong.
Senator Chafee. The court said we were wrong.
Mr. Kildee. The court said you were wrong and then you went
back to try to remedy your mistaken impression when you voted.
Let me ask this. Jack, you said that any group, that
requirement applies to any group, any group. Now is a sovereign
tribe just any group? Is a sovereign tribe the same as a Donald
Trump corporation? Are you trying to lump a sovereign tribe
into the Donald Trump corporation?
Senator Reed. Well, under the State law, Mr. Kildee, any
proponent, be it Donald Trump, the tribe, or local promoters
would have to use the same procedure for the expansion of
gambling.
Mr. Kildee. The Federal law which protects Indians because
we protect the sovereignty, we have an IGRA law. IGRA law does
not apply to Donald Trump corporations but it does apply for
the sovereign Indian nations and the court said IGRA applied to
the sovereign Indian nation in Rhode Island and you used the
late night provision to try to undo IGRA law which applies to
sovereign tribes and not to Donald Trump corporations.
Mr. Gilchrest. The gentleman's time has expired.
Senator Reed. Let me respond to Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Gilchrest. You may respond, Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Justice Holmes once
said a page of history is worth 1,000 pages of logic. The
history here begins with the Rhode Island Indian Claims
Settlement Act. The First Circuit Court, the controlling
authority in this matter, the decisive voice legally, said that
Act still applies. It has not been repealed by implication,
except for IGRA.
The presumption, though, and I think this is important, the
presumption that led to the agreement in 1978 between the tribe
and the State was that the civil and criminal laws of the State
would apply. The presumption when IGRA was being debated in the
Senate was that these civil and criminal laws of the State
would apply.
In fact, at the Circuit Court level, as I mentioned
previously, one of the judges, Judge Coffin who has been an
eminent jurist in the region for decades, concluded by reading
the colloquy that in fact IGRA would not affect the Settlement
Act, that in fact under the Rhode Island Settlement Act the
civil and criminal laws of the State would still apply.
I think we get back to this point. The meeting of the minds
in 1978 about the terms of this agreement and the status of the
tribe always included the civil and criminal application of
Rhode Island law.
Now the First Circuit said IGRA has carved that out but not
by a decisive margin, 2 to 1, and the language in the amendment
essentially restores what the presumption was in 1978. The
presumption was in 1988 that the civil and criminal laws of the
State of Rhode Island apply as they would apply to any, in this
case, promoter of gambling.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Reed. Ms. Green, do you have
any questions?
Ms. Green. I have no questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you. Mr. Kind.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest. I will yield my time to
Representative Kennedy for as much time as he desires.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I just want to followup with
respect to the State still has every opportunity to say no to
casino gambling. The people of the State can vote against it.
There has to be a compact with the State. Under Senator
Chafee's Rider they are preempted from even Class II gaming and
that circumvents IGRA.
Senator Chafee. This is absolutely right. That was the
intention.
Mr. Kennedy. Right, to circumvent IGRA.
Senator Chafee. That is right. We believed what we were
told when IGRA was adopted in 1988, that it did not preempt the
rights--the civil and criminal laws of the State of Rhode
Island in any respect, and subsequently the court decided that
indeed it did preempt the laws of the State of Rhode Island as
far as gaming goes, and that was not our original
understanding.
It certainly was not the understanding of Senator Inouye or
Senator Pell or myself and we had a provision in the law at the
time that would have clearly stated that Rhode Island was
exempt from the provisions in IGRA.
Mr. Kennedy. It never passed, Senator Chafee. IGRA passed.
Senator Chafee. We withdrew that amendment because in
return we got the assurances from the Senate in a way that that
was--there was no need for it.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, Senator Inouye has stated that
assurances do not carry legal water.
Senator Chafee. I know they do not.
Mr. Kennedy. So IGRA is the law of the land.
Senator Chafee. Absolutely.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Federal Circuit Court upholds this.
The Federal Circuit Court----
Senator Chafee. The District Court and the Circuit Court
subsequently, by a 2 to 1 decision, said that the settlement
law did not prevail.
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
Senator Chafee. And so there we were in a situation that
none of us anticipated and so we sought to correct it.
Mr. Weygand. OK, but Congressman, could I also respond to
that just very briefly? As you well know with all the
experience that you have had all of the statutes we pass here
are amendable as when the Congress passed the Indian Settlement
Act in 1988.
At that time that was an amendment to the 1978 Act, as was
the 1996 amendment an amendment. We can do that. This Congress
can go back and forth. That is what you did last year--to
approve what had been previously thought to be included.
Mr. Kennedy. OK, so you are basically saying to me it is
one upmanship because you got the last say on this because the
rider now takes precedence because----
Senator Chafee. No, I do not think that is correct. I do
not think that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, then what do you----
Senator Chafee. What I think is correct is that what we
codified the agreement of 1978 which everybody thought had
always been included in every act since then.
Mr. Kennedy. But you see the rub here is the Narragansetts,
that we had a Federal law. It was passed because of this
Congress' belief that under the Supreme Court of the United
States, the Supreme Court of the United States said Native
American tribes can use their sovereign rights to game, OK, so
IGRA came in and said so. We cannot allow this to happen. We
passed a Federal law. It affects all federally recognized
tribes. Narragansetts are a federally recognized tribe.
OK, so that supersedes. We used to have State's rights in
this country, OK. States used to be able to say you could
segregate against people, OK. Thank God for the Federal Civil
Rights Act because you had superseding, the Federal law came
and superseded State law. Now in the case of IGRA, IGRA
supersedes State agreements and Senator Chafee's amendment that
he believes wants to go back to 1978.
But what I am telling you is in doing that he carves an
exception out for the Narragansetts that denies them equal
protection from every other tribe under a Federal law passed by
the U.S. Congress.
Mr. Weygand. And I would say there are really two things in
response to that. No. 1, there are civil rights for the people
of the State of Rhode Island and the second congressional
district. The people of Rhode Island entered into a contract, a
legal and binding contract which they thought was going to be
fulfilled. After IGRA, it was reversed as you said so aptly by
the District Court of Appeals. Under the Chafee amendment it
was restored.
So the argument is, is the legal and binding contract legal
and binding? My point would be that it should really be settled
in a court of law or negotiated with the Governor because
tomorrow you could change the Chafee amendment and go back to
what it was before, Patrick.
Mr. Gilchrest. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr.
Markey, any questions?
Mr. Markey. I just need to make some inquiries here. Is all
that we are talking about here bingo? We are fighting over
whether or not the Indian tribes can engage in bingo. Is it
more or less than bingo?
Mr. Kennedy. No, you are absolutely right.
Senator Chafee. Well, one thing leads to another and as you
know it is not just bingo, it is what we call high-stakes
bingo. That is----
Mr. Markey. What is high-stakes bingo?
Senator Chafee. Well, I will have to get an exact
definition.
Mr. Markey. Are we talking about two bucks or $2,000?
Senator Chafee. No, you are talking considerable sums more
than that.
Mr. Markey. I am honestly in doubt here as to what the
discussion is. I am told that casino gambling and racetrack,
all of that is out. That is not really what we are debating
today. We are debating bingo. If that is accurate I would like
to have the debate on those grounds and if high-stakes bingo is
in question what is high-stakes bingo just so I can understand
it.
In other words, is high-stakes bingo something that looks
so much like real casino gambling that you are concerned about
it or is high-stakes bingo the way they do it at the Immaculate
Conception----
Mr. Weygand. I think it is a little bit different,
Congressman. I think it is really the Class II gaming, which is
a category which includes bingo amongst a number of other
things. I think the discussion is not on one type of gaming
although to their credit the Narragansett Tribe has said that
bingo is really all they are interested in doing.
Mr. Markey. But what else could they do under Class II
gaming besides bingo?
Mr. Weygand. The Governor is here in the next panel and I
am sure he will be able to testify more specifically to that.
Senator Reed. If I may respond.
Mr. Markey. Yes, please.
Senator Reed. The issue, the principal issue would be a
bingo hall, high-stakes or whatever the stakes. But that would
initiate a much more complicated discussion because of the
First Circuit holding that the State of Rhode Island still has
a quantum of jurisdiction, authority, sovereignty, if you will,
as to the tribe over other aspects which would be intimately
related to the development of any gambling facility, high-
stakes or otherwise, such as traffic control and zoning.
Most of these issues have been not clarified, let me say,
and in fact the court suggested in their opinion that any
application would engender all of these issues. Let me also
suggest because it has been discussed today several times about
the fact that the tribe might be the only one in this position.
Frankly, the Narragansetts' process of recognition, the
Settlement Act, all of the understandings on both sides are
unique. There is no other tribe that has the Rhode Island
Indian Claims Settlement Act. There is no other tribe that has
worked its way through the processes they have.
So the suggestion that there is disparate treatment here
also goes, I think, to the history of the whole process. And
the point that we return to again and again is that the very
understanding when this Act was agreed to, when the compact was
agreed to, when the lands were ceded, when the settlements were
made, when the payments were made, was that the civil,
criminal, and regulatory authority of the State would extend to
the tribe. Now that is where we are today. We are right back
where we were in 1978, I believe, when the deal was struck.
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to add----
Mr. Gilchrest. I think the gentleman----
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman would
yield. I would like to just followup. The tribe won Federal
recognition based upon their own process which they sought for
Federal recognition, OK. The Federal Government recognized the
Narragansetts as a tribe and hence that is what applies here.
It does not apply that they had the Indian Settlement
Claims Act before. That might have applied previous but the
Narragansetts were federally recognized and under the law if
they are being a federally recognized tribe they have the laws
of this Congress apply to them as applies to any other tribe so
the Narragansetts are being singled out because they are the
only tribe in this country that is being denied the rights
under IGRA.
And I might add IGRA puts a lot of provisions in there that
forces them to comply with the State law so this notion that
without the Chafee Rider the Narragansetts would be able to run
amuck in the State without obeying State law is just nonsense.
They have to comply with a lot of State laws and IGRA makes
sure they do.
So this notion that but for the Chafee amendment, thank God
for the Chafee amendment because they would be able to run
rampant. No way. IGRA states there are a lot of parameters
among them. The tribe cannot conduct any casino-style gaming
without the State's approval and without a voter--through a
compact and without voter approval.
Now the people of the State of Rhode Island have already
said that they did not want gaming in the State so we stopped
the Narragansetts from having a casino in the State so what----
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Markey's time has expired.
Senator Reed. I think I would like to respond. If you would
stop with the District Court opinion of Judge Pettine, who
effectively indicated that he felt that the Rhode Island Indian
Claims Settlement Act was implicitly repealed by IGRA, your
argument makes some sense.
But the First Circuit specifically rejected that line of
reasoning. They said that in fact the Rhode Island Indian
Claims Settlement Act still applied. The contours of the
application are very difficult to define now except for the
portion of IGRA----
Mr. Kennedy. Except for the portion of IGRA. Absolutely
right, Jack. Except for IGRA.
Senator Reed. But the point here is that I do not believe
the court decision said simply by having become federally
recognized that the Settlement Act was overthrown and thrown
out. Your argument even that the passage of IGRA does not
totally----
Mr. Gilchrest. All time has expired. Thank you, Senator. I
have one question of my own before we move to the next panel.
It does not necessarily deal with the specific legal
complexities of this particular issue. I am not sure if we are
going to resolve those legal issues here this morning.
However, the purpose of a democracy is to exchange these
ideas which we are doing thoroughly and fairly well this
morning. But my question is more of a curiosity question about
existing law right now. Could one or all of the witnesses
explain to me under existing law, under the law that now exists
in Rhode Island which we are following, what are the options
for the Narragansett Indians on this land as far as gambling is
concerned? Are there any options?
Senator Chafee. They have any option any citizen in the
State of Rhode Island has. They can petition for high-stakes
bingo. They can petition for casinos and like every other
citizen it goes before the State--it is a State referendum
statewide and also in the community.
Mr. Gilchrest. Has that happened--has that petition----
Senator Chafee. They sought once for casino gambling and
were rejected and now they have gone back and they seek the so-
called Class II, the high-stakes bingo that was referred to
before. And that is what went up before the Indian Gaming
Commission and was rejected.
Mr. Chairman, could I just ask if you might include in the
record some documents of 1987 where they turned over, finalized
the deeds that went to the Indians of some lands in Rhode
Island and the interesting point I make here is that the Bureau
of Indian Affairs in connection with all this clearly says that
the Rhode Island Land Claim Settlement Act still applies.
In other words, the suggestion from Representative Kennedy
that somehow Federal recognition wiped away all the Land Claims
Settlement Act of 1978, this clearly rejects this as did the
court in the First Circuit.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you,
Senator. Congressman.
Mr. Weygand. If I could just add on about what is the
present law in the State of Rhode Island. In 1994, Mr.
Chairman, the people of Rhode Island, as has been mentioned,
rejected five referendum with regard to various gaming
proposals for casinos--including the Narragansetts.
At that time, they also passed a constitutional amendment
which required that any expansion of gaming in the State of
Rhode Island had to be approved by two groups of voters: one,
the State as a whole, a majority of the voters had to approve
of it, and also a majority of the voters within the community
in which the facility was to be located. That is presently
within the constitution of the State of Rhode Island.
Mr. Gilchrest. Gentlemen, I thank you for testifying this
morning. We have a vote. What we will do right now, if you
would like the two Senators and the Congressman can sit up here
on the dias and question the other witnesses. Since we have a
vote, before we start the new panel we will take a recess and
be back here and restart the hearing in 15 minutes. We stand in
recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Kennedy. [presiding] I would like to begin the hearing
once again. On the second panel we have the Governor of the
State of Rhode Island, a representative from the Department of
Interior, and the Narragansett Indian Tribe being represented
by Randy Noka, First Councilman.
Now I would like to introduce the Governor of the State of
Rhode Island, former U.S. Attorney, Lincoln Almond, for his
opening statement. Governor.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GOVERNOR LINCOLN ALMOND, STATE OF RHODE
ISLAND
Governor Almond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As the
Governor of Rhode Island, I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before this Committee today to testify on behalf of the
people of our State in favor of preserving the Rhode Island
Indian Claims Settlement Act and the Chafee Amendment to that
Act passed as part of Congress' 1977 Omnibus Appropriations
Act.
Our position that the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act must not
apply to Settlement Lands of the Narragansett Indian Tribe is
based on ensuring the integrity of the deal struck between the
State and the Narragansetts with respect to State jurisdiction
over that land. It is also based upon the strong and steadfast
public opposition to the establishment of a casino by any
group, Indian or non-Indian, within the borders of Rhode
Island. It is not based on any animosity toward or prejudice
against the tribe.
In 1978, the Narragansett Indian Tribe expressly agreed to
be bound by the civil and criminal laws of the State of Rhode
Island with no exception for laws governing gambling.
Subjecting the tribe's Settlement Lands to the same laws which
apply to all other Rhode Islanders is not only just and fair,
it is precisely what the tribe agreed to in exchange for 1,800
acres of disputed land.
The Rhode Island Constitution does not allow any expansion
in the type or location of gambling in Rhode Island unless and
until the voters approve. Thus, with the Chafee Amendment, the
tribe, like all other Rhode Island interests, may only
introduce new types or locations for gambling if the people of
Rhode Island vote to allow it.
The tribe obtained the Settlement Lands agreeing to be
bound by Rhode Island law. The Chafee Amendment was thus
necessary to ensure that the good faith agreement among the
tribe, the State and the town in which the Settlement Lands are
located was not wrongly breached by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act.
My administration has reached out to the tribe to discuss
alternatives to casino gambling that would improve the tribe's
economic opportunities. Early in my administration I did meet
with the tribe. After passage of the Chafee Amendment, I sent
correspondence on October 7, 1996, and January 6, 1997, to
tribal leaders offering to work with the tribe on economic
development and issues of mutual concern outside of gambling.
Unfortunately, to date there has been no response. I am
hopeful, however, that the tribe may yet work with my
administration to attempt to find job opportunities and other
assistance for its members. My offer to meet remains open. The
Chafee Amendment was necessary to preserve the deal agreed to
by the tribe in 1978 and sanctioned by Congress.
Without it, a terrible wrong would have been inflicted on
the people of Rhode Island. Although Rhode Island entered into
a good faith agreement mandating that the Settlement Lands be
governed by Rhode Island law, without the Chafee Amendment, the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act would have unintentionally
subverted the Settlement Act's grant of jurisdiction to the
State, directly contrary to the intent of all involved in the
process.
The Chafee Amendment represents a sound, fair and necessary
public policy. If the tribe wishes to institute high stakes
gambling, it can seek approval of the people in the same way
that all other interests are required to do so under Rhode
Island law. Insisting that the tribe follows the rules
applicable to everyone else is not prejudice. It is fairness.
It is upholding the law.
It is not anti-tribe. It is anti-casino gambling. We should
help the Narragansetts achieve economic self-sufficiency, but
not through the siren song of gambling. The Chafee Amendment,
like the Settlement Act itself, must remain undisturbed.
This morning as I sat here, I heard statements that the
Supreme Court ruled relative to the sovereignty of Indian lands
and gambling which gave rise to the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act. That Supreme Court decision did not apply to the land of
the Narragansetts in Rhode Island because of the Settlement
Act.
I have heard conversations here relative to whether this
was going to be bingo and what type. The Narragansett Indians
right now could do charitable bingo just like any other
charitable organization in the State of Rhode Island. The issue
is whether they would be regulated under State law with respect
to high-stakes bingo.
The reason we talk about bingo is when I became Governor I
said I would not negotiate for casino. I litigated the issue of
the prior compact so they went back to the issue of bingo.
There is no question in my mind that the issue here is high-
stakes bingo unregulated by the State of Rhode Island on lands
of the Narragansetts with slot machines next and the issue of
litigation over gaming and casino gaming.
And there are people out there, in my judgment, who support
the Narragansetts and I think it is false support because they
see it as the door opener to casino gaming in other areas of
the State and they will compete once it is opened. The issue
here I think is one of fundamental fairness and I might also
add that there are other States right in New England including
Maine that have tribes that are subjected to Settlement Acts
that do not allow the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to apply.
I cannot speak for him but I think even the Attorney
General of Massachusetts feels the same way, James L.
Harshbarger, with respect to the Settlement Act of
Massachusetts so we even have situations, I believe, where
within the State there were some tribes who cannot have gaming.
There are some who cannot because those tribes willingly
negotiated that away as was done in Rhode Island.
I prepared much more detailed written comments, Mr.
Chairman, for inclusion in the record but I would be most happy
to answer any questions on this particular issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Almond may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. [presiding] I have been informed that the
Governor of Rhode Island needs to catch a plane so if it is all
right with everybody what we will do is we will ask him
questions first. He can be on his way and then we can hear from
the other two witnesses.
Governor Almond. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. I have no questions.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Yeah, I just want to followup with the idea
that the Indian Claims Settlement Act and the 1983 Federal
recognition of the Narragansetts were one and the same. The
Federal recognition in 1983 had to do with the process that has
its own set of criteria and hence the Narragansetts won Federal
recognition independent of the Indian Claims Settlement Act.
Still hanging over from the last panel is this notion that
we do not have any other way of stopping gambling in the State
but for the Chafee Rider. And I want to ask you under IGRA
there are provisions, would you not agree, to keep the
Narragansetts from establishing a casino in this State?
Governor Almond. I disagree with that wholeheartedly. I
feel that IGRA, I think everyone knows my position and the
Narragansetts have known my position on gaming since before I
became Governor when I was United States Attorney, I think as
strong as I may be with respect to my feelings on that issue
that if I refuse to negotiate there would be a court order
negotiation and there would be an agreement beyond my power and
in spite of the Florida case.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know that the Seminole decision says
that you do not have to compact and--in addition to that the
State has----
Governor Almond. I would not rely on that, Congressman.
Mr. Kennedy. In addition to that then the voters of the
State would have a right, am I----
Governor Almond. Oh, no.
Mr. Kennedy. To casino gamble, they would not have a
right----
Governor Almond. Once IGRA is in effect but for the Chafee
Amendment if you place IGRA back then I would be forced to
negotiate, I am sure, or there would be a compact approved by
or written for the State of Rhode Island without me and it
would give high-stakes bingo, it would give video poker, it
would probably give--there would be a legal issue as to whether
it would give coin drop slots.
And I think a good argument if I were representing the
Narragansett Indians I would take the position that the current
gaming in Rhode Island which we are trying to restrict would
give rights to a full casino. There is no question in my mind
about that.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, just to--I am sure I can get some other
people who can comment to the Supreme Court Seminole decision
but it says pretty clearly that barring a compact with the
Governor and when you did compact even after that you would
have to have voter approval of the State and----
Governor Almond. I disagree with that. I think it just
merely says that they cannot force me to negotiate but they can
force a compact upon the State of Rhode Island. They can do
that any time.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, in that case why don't tribes that
currently--why can't they just establish Class III casino
gaming if they can just override----
Governor Almond. Because the Governors enter into
negotiations because that is the best thing to do. If they
refuse to enter--I do not think a Governor can refuse to enter
into negotiations even though the Supreme Court says they can
refuse and eliminate gambling under IGRA in this State. I mean
that cannot be done.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, if this is the case and there was no
reason for everyone to support, Congress to support IGRA's
means to check the prior Cabazon decision because the whole
notion of IGRA was to put the brakes on the Cabazon decision by
allowing the States the authority to compact and to if they
wanted to eradicate gaming altogether in the State to do that
and make those--as IGRA points out, any law that is criminal
with respect to this gaming has to be adhered to by the tribes
that are seeking to game within the State.
Governor Almond. Oh, I disagree with that because, but for
the Chafee Amendment, no citizen of the State of Rhode Island
can have charitable bingo with limitations or I should say no
State can have high-stakes bingo. They are subject to the
charitable. But under IGRA you are not subject to the criminal
and civil regulatory of the----
Mr. Kennedy. All right, good point. I agree with you there.
I agree with you there but that is a different argument from
the casino case that you were just saying--it is different.
Governor Almond. I do not see that as different at all.
Mr. Kennedy. OK. All right, you may not, but they made a
distinction between the two classes and that was codified under
law.
Governor Almond. But you see we allow charitable bingo so
therefore you get the basis for going into bingo without the
regulation which then becomes high-stakes bingo but we have
more than bingo. We have other types of gaming which I think
was a terrible error in the State of Rhode Island.
Mr. Kennedy. I agree with you, Governor. I voted the same
way.
Governor Almond. But I am trying to reduce business taxes,
trying to reduce personal taxes, trying to build the economy of
the State of Rhode Island to create jobs. When we are
successful all those things will start taking away our reliance
on any gambling revenues but we have got to take one step at a
time. I understand the system. I live with it.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Ms. Green, any
questions?
Ms. Green. I am still trying--not being an attorney I am
still trying to figure out the legalese of this. I can say that
I truly have a question. I really--I am perplexed as to why
some sort of an agreement cannot be worked out between the
tribe and the administration in the State.
You said, Governor, your objection is to casino gaming but
it was my understanding from the prior testimony that casino
gaming was not the issue, it was the Class II gambling. Are you
willing to negotiate----
Governor Almond. I am in opposition to casino gaming.
Ms. Green. But it exists already, there is Class II gaming
in the State or Rhode Island?
Governor Almond. With severe limitations on it.
Ms. Green. Are you able to negotiate with the tribe on what
already exists in the State of Rhode Island?
Governor Almond. I do not have a right to that today with
the limitations on the criminal and civil laws of the State of
Rhode Island being applicable. They are on the same footing as
every citizen in the State of Rhode Island.
Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask the gentlelady to yield?
Ms. Green. I yield to my colleague to followup on that
question.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. The whole--I appreciate what has
been said by the former panel and you, Governor, with respect
to they have the same rights and we keep going back to that,
but the whole notion here unless you accept it or not is that
there is something called tribal sovereignty and they should
not be held simply to the same laws because they are their own
sovereign status.
Now they do not have all the sovereignty of the world but
they have more than not. They are here on a government to
government relationship just as you as the Governor of the
State is here and that is the rub here because we want to treat
them as if they are regular citizens of the State but yet they
are a federally recognized tribe with rights and privileges as
a federally recognized tribe that we are circumventing as a
result of the Chafee Rider and that is just that simple.
Governor Almond. But do not single out the State of Rhode
Island. Are you going to tell all the other States that have
valid Settlement Acts that were not preempted that you are
prepared to repeal them?
Mr. Kennedy. Governor----
Governor Almond. Are you going to tell the State of Maine
that even though they agreed in a settlement that there would
be no application of IGRA that you are prepared without the
wishes of the people of Maine to repeal it if that is what has
occurred in Rhode Island?
Mr. Kennedy. No.
Governor Almond. There was never an intention in Rhode
Island that IGRA preempt the Settlement Act of 1978 and I have
to assume although I was not present that everyone who agreed
in 1978 agreed to make an agreement that would subject the
tribe to the civil and criminal laws of the State of Rhode
Island well knowing that they could go one step beyond and go
to trust status. I mean everyone had to know that.
Mr. Kennedy. Right.
Governor Almond. I would be shocked if everyone at the
table did not know that could occur. The fact of the matter is
there was an agreement, a binding agreement approved by the
Congress just like it has been done for many other States. You
cannot single out the State of Rhode Island and say, hey, OK,
because of technicalities and false assurances on the Floor of
the Congress that it was not going to be preempted, that you
are now going to turn around and say, hey, you know, you are
going to have to reach this agreement with Congress.
Mr. Kennedy. OK, so they would be subject to the same laws
as the State of Rhode Island and retain some sovereignty as a
result of the Federal recognition. The State of Rhode Island
allows Class III gaming and Class II gaming and yet the
Narragansetts would not even be allowed to participate in any
kind of gaming as a result of the Chafee Rider. They would be
precluded so in essence they would not----
Governor Almond. And every other Rhode Islander as it has
been since the voters of the State of Rhode Island amended the
constitution of the State of Rhode Island because of their
problems with this particular issue.
Mr. Kennedy. OK, the whole point here is they are not
regular citizens. That is the thing we are trying to get across
here. By virtue of them being tribal members, by virtue of
their being a federally recognized tribe, I do not know what
you would give them if you took this away. What sovereignty do
you acknowledge they have if you are not going----
Governor Almond. I am willing to sit down with the
Narragansetts at any time that the Narragansetts----
Mr. Kennedy. Why, they are just a constituent?
Governor Almond. The Narragansetts and I--when I first met
with the Narragansetts it was not to discuss gaming because I
had to be very cautious about opening up negotiations under
IGRA but the Narragansetts were gracious enough to acknowledge
my opposition, strong opposition, to casino gaming and to meet
with me in an agreement not to discuss casino gaming.
I am willing to do that tomorrow. Let me say this, we need
the help of the Congress of the United States with respect to
this. I was the United States Attorney for 21 years. I know the
problems with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I know the problems
of this nation with respect to Indians. Let me say this, can I
give you solutions tomorrow? No, I cannot. I do not think
anyone on this panel can.
But I can tell you as the Governor of the State of Rhode
Island I am willing to do everything that I possibly can to
help the Narragansetts.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Governor. Ms. Green's time has
expired. Mr. Weygand. No questions. Mr. Kildee. Did you have
questions, Mr. Weygand?
Mr. Weygand. Just quickly. Governor, is it not also your
intent to try to minimize, reduce or even eliminate the
existing gaming within the State or Rhode Island?
Governor Almond. Since I have been Governor I have tried to
do my best to reform the lottery which was not being operated
in the best interests of the State of Rhode Island. I am
personally being sued for damages as a result of doing that. I
have litigated the issue of expansion of TV bingo and we won
that.
I have just written letters opposing the expansion of
gambling in two facilities in Newport and Lincoln Downs and I
write that not because of this hearing because I strongly
believe in it and I believed it all my life. I have voted
against greyhound racing in my own community which gives me
additional revenue and they can take it as far as I am
concerned.
I have seen the other side and I know the Chairman said he
did not want to debate the issue of gaming but I have to say
that I saw the other side for 21 years and it is not a pretty
picture.
Mr. Weygand. Also, Governor, is it not true that since the
Lincoln facility--for those who are not familiar, in Rhode
Island there are two facilities. One is in Lincoln, Rhode
Island, which is a dog track which has video slot machines. The
other is in Newport which has Jai Alai and since those two
facilities have existed, which goes back to the 1970's, no new
facilities have been approved by the voters or by the General
Assembly.
Governor Almond. One of them goes back to the 1940's. We
have one major track which is a greyhound track which started
as thoroughbred back in the 1940's, I believe. When the siren
song of gambling declined and horse racing went out, we had two
major tracks to rely on that went under and then it became
greyhound.
Let me say this. Greyhound racing in my judgment would not
even be sustained in the State of Rhode Island if it had not
been for the addition of video poker. It has been declining
that badly and neither would Jai Alai.
Mr. Weygand. And actually in 1990 the voters voted to
disapprove a new facility in Burriville, Rhode Island, with
regard to----
Governor Almond. And we have the lottery.
Mr. Weygand. So what I am getting to is that both your
executive policy, as a person of the other party as well as the
Democratic General Assembly for the last 20 to 25 years, has
been to reduce and minimize gaming in the State of Rhode
Island.
Governor Almond. With the exception of video poker which we
disagreed with but it has been. It has not been successful in
my judgment.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Governor, would you personally like to get rid
of all gambling in the State or Rhode Island?
Governor Almond. Yeah, I do not think it is good economic
development. I do not think it brings any money into the State.
I think it just reshuffles jobs and hurts jobs.
Mr. Kildee. Have you thought of Michigan--I watched the
legislature and I voted against it. I voted against the
Michigan lottery. But Michigan had all forms of gambling for
over 100 years and then they went into the lottery and lottery
commission.
Well, if that was still the case and the Indians in
Michigan could not game, have you--you personally would like to
see all gaming stopped in Rhode Island?
Governor Almond. When I say all gaming let me say this. I
used to play my father a game of cribbage once in a while for a
dime. He enjoyed the competition. The last game, a dollar. I do
not have a problem with, for instance, reasonable regulated
bingo where people use it for enjoyment. You know, I have seen
the other side. I have seen businesses go under as a result of
gaming.
Let me tell you this. In 21 years as United States Attorney
I cannot remember a major embezzlement case of a Federal bank
that was not caused by gambling. I cannot remember one. We used
to trace it.
Mr. Kildee. So you would not be prepared to propose an
amendment to the constitution banning all gaming?
Governor Almond. To the Rhode Island constitution?
Mr. Kildee. Yes.
Governor Almond. As soon as we can get the State
economically in order I would strongly move toward--first of
all, we do not want to expand one iota more than we got and I
would like to see the restrictions take place and start
shrinking it.
Mr. Kildee. You would like to get some other form of
revenue first and then get rid of the----
Governor Almond. Well, we got to make our choices. Right
now I am trying to put money into investment job credits,
research and development, high module income tax to get it down
to build jobs. I think we are being successful. The whole issue
here is building the economy. That is the issue.
But I am going to tell you that down in--when I look ahead
and my vision of Rhode Island does not depend upon gaming
revenues.
Mr. Kildee. I yield to Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Well, you know, Governor, the
Narragansetts have got to make some decisions too and their
people are 40 percent unemployed and so it is all fine and well
for the State to say, well, we will still collect the gaming
revenue till we end it but, you know, because we do not want to
give up the ability to fund a lot of the things that we want to
fund for our State citizens but you can see the double edged
sword here and they are not allowed to do gaming either.
And the fact is we grandfathered in Lincoln and Newport and
yet the Narragansetts have been around a lot longer than
Lincoln and Newport. If we were to grandfather anyone and I
think this is the spirit of the law in terms of respecting
sovereignty, we grandfather in the Narragansetts. They have
been around longer than we have in this area so it is just to
me we do have to recognize tribes as having some separate
standing. And I still have not----
Governor Almond. There is no doubt in my mind that at some
point if you repeal the Chafee Amendment you will have a casino
in that area and you will also have casinos in other areas.
There is no doubt in my mind about that. Absolutely none. And
you will have a State with several casinos. Whether the Indians
would ever succeed, whether the Indians would ever succeed
against that type of competition is very problematic. They may
not.
I do not think anyone, for instance, is ever going to
compete with Fox Woods because it would require a $1.6, $1.7
billion initial investment to even get on an even footing. But
the issue is that South County where the Narragansett Tribe is
located is doing very well economically right now and I think
we are going to do better but let us look to job training, let
us look at the issues of the relationship between the
Narragansetts and the town of Charlestown.
Let us look at some of the things that they would like to
do from the standpoint of economic development. Let us look at
the university. Let us look at the School of Oceanography. That
gets a lot of money. Let us look at a tone of things. I do not
know whether any of them would work but let us look.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Chafee, Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Governor, if I understand the line that
Representative Kennedy is pursuing here is that something very
significant happened when the tribe was given Federal
recognition and that in effect the agreement that was entered
into in 1978 was overridden. And I have great difficulty in
understanding that argument and wanted to get your thoughts
about what the Circuit Court said, what the BIA said.
And in the documents that it signed and that the
Narragansett Indian Tribe signed in 1978--long after the
recognition of 1983 went through--all these documents, which
are signed September 12, 1988, clearly say that this action
does not alter the applicability of State law conferred by the
Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act. Now do you agree
with that or do you----
Governor Almond. I would simply say that I think the
Settlement Act of 1978 was recognized as a model. I think that
everyone who went to the table and negotiated with open eyes, I
assume everyone at the table knew that you could take those
lands to other steps but I think they negotiated obviously--I
cannot imagine the State of Rhode Island negotiating to put
language in that they knew very shortly was going to be
nullified.
I cannot imagine anyone in good faith thought that any
further actions and that has been--whether we argue about that
or not that has been positively absolutely settled by the First
Circuit Court of Appeals with the exception of gaming and that
is the preemption. That is the preemption issue and we feel
that that was wrong.
It was not intended by IGRA and we feel that the State of
Rhode Island ought to go back to the deal we made. We made a
deal for 1,800 acres of land. The State of Rhode Island did,
the town of Charlestown did, and where I come from a deal is a
deal.
Senator Chafee. Governor, one correction I would make. You
indicated in your statement that there were false, I think you
used the word false inadvertently about the statements in
connection with the agreement as we understood it in 1988.
The statements that were made were not----
Governor Almond. Yeah, I do not intend to say that. I
suffice it that I misspoke. I think everyone has the best of
intentions and I think everyone has to take a look at the past
and take a look at the future but I do not think anyone here
acts in bad faith or anything like that.
Senator Chafee. I just wanted to correct that.
Governor Almond. I am sorry.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Senator Chafee. Governor, I just
have one quick question and we will let you fly off in safety.
Could you explain your feelings, the statements you made if
high-stakes bingo were to be approved it would lead to casino
gambling, can you explain that, sir?
Governor Almond. I think this all comes about because of
the uncertainty relative to the requirement to negotiate casino
gaming. They do not have to negotiate. So if you take me out of
the picture then you go into the Class II with respect to high-
stakes bingo. That of course would be permissible without the
Chafee Amendment in the State of Rhode Island without
regulation or not subject to the regulatory powers of the State
of Rhode Island so it would be unlimited. So I think we talk
about that as a given.
If you take away the Chafee Amendment high-stakes bingo is
a given. The next issue is what you do with respect to other
issues of gaming, whether the Governor negotiates or not and I
think I know where that would go, which road that would go
down.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Governor. We wish you
well on your journey.
Governor Almond. Thank you very much and I really
appreciate the opportunity to speak and answer questions first
so that I can get back for State business. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir. Our other two witnesses, David
Hayes and Randy Noka. Did I pronounce that correctly? I
appreciate your patience here this afternoon. Mr. Hayes, you
are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HAYES, COUNSELOR, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. My name is David Hayes. I am counselor to the
Secretary of the Interior and I am appearing today on behalf of
the Secretary. I have submitted a short written statement and I
understand it has been added to the record of the hearing.
I would like to supplement the written statement with a few
oral remarks. First, I would like to make it clear that the
Administration remains opposed to the provision of the 1997
Omnibus Appropriations Act which classifies Indian lands in
Rhode Island as non-Indian lands for purposes of the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act.
Secretary Babbitt stated his opposition to this provision
in the September 12, 1996, letter to the Senate and his
position remains the same today. The Administration's position
is based on two principal factors. First, the Administration
strongly supports full and even-handed implementation of the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Since 1988 Indian gaming regulated under IGRA has provided
substantial benefits to a large number of tribes. As required
by law, revenues have been directed to programs and facilities
to improve the health, safety and educational opportunities and
quality of life for Native American peoples. More than 100
tribes across the Nation participate in gaming activities. I
should note parenthetically that despite the importance of
gaming to the Native American community no more than 5 percent
of the overall gaming revenue generated in the United States is
attributable to Indian gaming.
Second, the Administration strongly supports the
sovereignty of Indian tribes and the special relationship
between tribes and both Federal and State governments. IGRA
reflects the principles of tribal sovereignty by recognizing
that Indian tribes have special rights as sovereign nations to
conduct gaming activities. IGRA also recognizes the legitimate
interest of States vis-a-vis gaming but it establishes certain
ground rules that apply across the board in governing the
Indian and State relationship.
Under IGRA, for example, if a State allows Class II gaming
within its borders it cannot deny Class II gaming rights to
Indian tribes. And if the State has made the policy choice to
allow Class III gaming activities it must negotiate in good
faith with tribes to allow tribes to also potentially take
advantage of Class III gaming activities under a tribal-State
compact. The compact process allows for extensive input from
tribes, States, Governors and other public officials.
Section 330 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act effectively
precludes the Narragansetts Tribe from enjoying the same
sovereign rights and benefits as other tribes. Indeed, this is
the case even though the State of Rhode Island allows a range
of gambling and gaming activities to non-Indians. Yet the
Narragansetts are not allowed as a matter of right to conduct
Class II gaming nor are they allowed to undertake the good
faith negotiation process laid out for Class III gaming
activities under IGRA.
The Administration believes that the withdrawal of the
Gaming Act's benefits and the singling out of the Narragansett
Tribe in this way is inappropriate. We recommend that the
provision be repealed.
I would like to make a final note regarding the interplay
between the 1978 Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act and
the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. We are mindful and
respectful of the views of the members of the Rhode Island
delegation regarding their views on the original intent of
certain language in the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement
Act. However, we must defer to the First Circuit's decision on
the question of whether the language of IGRA supercedes the
language of the Settlement Act. The First Circuit found that
the language of IGRA controls and that the tribe's rights as
sovereign to negotiate with the State on gaming issues
particularly in light of the State's current policies
permitting a wide range of gaming for non-Indians should not be
denied. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayes may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. We have a vote but we
will go to Mr. Noka before we leave. Mr. Noka.
STATEMENT OF RANDY NOKA, FIRST COUNCILMAN, NARRAGANSETT INDIAN
TRIBE
Mr. Noka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no problem if you
guys want to go vote and come back. I do not know if I put 5
minutes of testimony down for hundreds of years of atrocities.
I will defer to the Chairman if you want to go vote.
Mr. Gilchrest. I think we can begin with your testimony and
certainly when we come back if you have not completed you may
do so but you will certainly be given plenty of time to answer
questions from the members.
Mr. Noka. OK, well, I will make my testimony itself, sir.
OK.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Noka.
Mr. Noka. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
House Resources Committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is
Randy Noka. I am the First Councilman of the Narragansett
Tribe, federally recognized Narragansett Tribe, of Rhode
Island. I am testifying on behalf of our tribal government, the
Tribal Council, and the more than 2,000 men, women and children
who are today's Narragansett Tribe. I am joined here by Tribal
Medicine Man Lloyd G. Wilcox and tribal attorney Charlie Hobbs
of Hobbs, Straus, Dean & Walker.
I want to thank Chairman Young for holding today's hearing
on the Chafee Rider to the Omnibus Appropriations Act, passed
last September. I also want to again thank Congressman Patrick
Kennedy for his courage and determination in making today's
hearing a reality.
Had he not spoken out on our behalf and called attention to
the injustice perpetrated against us by our own Senator, we
would not be here today. We know that Congressman Kennedy does
not support gambling in Rhode Island, but he has shown to us
that he recognizes and supports the inherent sovereign rights
of the Narragansett Tribe and the rights of Indian country.
Last, I acknowledge and thank the many Narragansett members
and other Native Americans as well as our non-Native friends
that made the trip to be here today. Your presence is proof
that solidarity is alive in Indian country, that the spirit of
the Native American can never be squashed, that although they
have illegally taken our lands and continually trample on our
rights they will never be able to take away the essence of who
and what we are.
Any lesser people could not have survived as we have. Mr.
Chairman, we do have exhibits that we will be entering into the
record. I would like to mention particularly Exhibits K, Q, R,
and U. U in particular is a petition that has over 3,000
signatures signed by--almost 3,000 signatures signed by Rhode
Islanders in support of the Narragansett Tribe in support of
what we are trying to do and opposing Senator Chafee in his
attack, discriminatory attack, on the Narragansett nation.
It is important for me personally I think to point out that
some of the people that were signing the petition did not even
care what it said, they just supported the tribe and they
opposed what was done to us. They did not even have the time
but they did support the tribe and in that respect signed the
petition.
I will get right to the point, sir. We are here today to
talk about sovereignty and what it means to us and all Native
Americans. Particularly we are here to discuss how the
sovereign rights of the Narragansett Tribe were attacked last
year by what we termed the Chafee Rider. We are here to talk
about the total injustice that have been and are continually
perpetrated against the aboriginal people of this land.
We are here to talk about how our constitutional rights,
including the Equal Protection Clause, were abrogated last
year. A personal note is how Senator Chafee brought his
legislation last year. The fact is the courtesy you have given
here today, Mr. Chairman, to Senator Chafee and Representative
Weygand, my understanding is they are not members of this
Committee, but you gave them opportunity to listen to the
testimony we have and others and question the panel.
We did not get that chance last year. We never had the
chance. We never got the chance. He did not give it to us. His
colleagues on the Senate Floor over here and the House. If we
had that chance last year, if he brought it the way it should
have been brought, we would not be here today. We are confident
we would have had the votes to go in favor of the Narragansett
Tribe.
The aboriginal people of this land are a proud people. We
have never lost touch with our identity, our heritage and our
culture. We have survived efforts to assimilate us into non-
Native society. We have survived efforts to annihilate us.
Throughout history we have always persevered. Chief Justice
John Marshall once said, ``America is separated from Europe by
a wide ocean and was inhabited by a distinct people divided
into separate nations independent of each other and the rest of
the world, having institutions of their own and governing
themselves by their own laws. It is difficult to comprehend the
proposition that the inhabitants of either quarter of the globe
could have rightful original claims of dominion over
inhabitants of the other or over the lands they occupy or that
the discovery of either by the other should give the discovered
rights in the country discovered which are no pre-existing
rights of the possessors.''
Unfortunately, since these words there has been mostly
hardship, lies and inhumane treatment shown the aboriginal
people by the dominant society. Governor Almond spoke of a deal
as a deal. That is what Native Americans thought. Hundreds of
treaties have been signed by officials of the U.S. Government
supposed for the benefit of our people. All have been broken
and not honored by the U.S. Government.
To add insult to injury Senator Chafee expects us to honor
what is in essence a treaty that we--let me take that back, a
corporation, mind you, signed with the State of Rhode Island,
not the Narragansett Tribe, the 1978 Settlement Act. That is in
essence a treaty and Senator Chafee expects us to honor that
while at the same time accept the fact that each and every
treaty that the U.S. Government signed with native people were
broken and abrogated.
Selective memory serves only the owner of that and it
always has with it a blind eye and a deaf ear. Will the U.S.
Government ever fully acknowledge and honor the commitments and
obligation it has to the aboriginal people of this land? Will
the injustices and double standards ever stop? Will we finally
be treated with the respect due us but never truly get?
The cold war may be over but America continues to be at war
with its own people. The plight of the Narragansett Tribe is
not unique in this country. The aboriginal people have forever
been persecuted and paying the price for the wanton ways and
disregard for others that the dominant society continually
lives by.
The history of the Narragansetts is stained with the blood
of our ancestors that were killed or died trying to protect our
land and our way of life. The Chafee Rider holds that our
settlement lands, aboriginal lands, belonging to us before
first contact with Europeans and held today for us in trust
with the United States ``shall not be treated as Indian
lands.''
For Senator Chafee to indicate that our settlement lands
are not Indian lands flies in the face of history and shows his
disregard for us and the heritage that is ours. Our lands have
been the stamping grounds for the Narragansetts since time
immemorial. At no time within the memory of man have our lands
been anything but Indian lands regardless of how it may have
been taken from us or how it is defined in your law books.
More than 300 years ago our ancestors were massacred by
colonial militia during the King Philip's War. Their sole crime
was that they were Narragansett Indians. They were killed
because of suspicion, fear, bigotry and ignorance. Our
ancestors were killed with bullets. Today we are wounded with
pen and paper and convenient changes of your laws. Both are a
form of genocide.
We cannot help but wonder if these same unjustified courses
were driving the Chafee Rider. The simple truth is that Senator
Chafee uses political power and privilege to stop us from
opening a bingo hall on our trust lands after we had
established our right in a court of law to conduct gaming on
our tribal lands under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
A bingo hall, Mr. Chairman, not a Las Vegas, Atlantic City
or Foxwood-style casino as Senator Chafee and Governor Almond
and others keep repeating, but a plain bingo hall. But our
anger and dismay over this Chafee Rider is not so much about
gaming. Even more profoundly, it is about a disrespect for a
sovereign Indian tribe, disregard for the government-to-
government relationship that we have had with the United
States, and for the responsibilities with the United States
assumed, as a trustee, to protect Indian tribes.
It is about discrimination against Native Americans by a
Member of Congress. It is about fairness and responsibility,
and the obligation of this Congress to treat all people,
including Native Americans, with dignity and respect. We
Narragansetts were not treated with dignity and respect by the
104th Congress. We were not treated fairly.
In 1983 the Narragansett Tribe was acknowledged by the
United States as a federally recognized Indian tribe, possessed
with all the privileges and immunities of other federally
recognized tribes. Unfortunately, Federal recognition brings
with it many new problems that tribes must deal with to protect
our sovereign rights. The Narragansetts are no exception.
Every project that we have attempted on our reservation was
met with opposition from either local, State or on occasion
Federal officials. Some examples would include the tribe's
elderly housing project, our Indian health clinic, our Four
Winds Community Center, and of course our gaming project.
Senator Chafee's Rider, though a blatant attack on our
sovereignty sets a terrible precedent by which other Members of
Congress could follow, does target and impact our gaming
rights, rights under the IGRA that were affirmed by the Federal
District Court of Rhode Island and the First Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Your court decisions held that the Narragansett Tribe had
the right to bring gaming to our reservation under Federal law.
That, however, mattered little to Senator Chafee. Unemployment
among our members is nearly 39 percent, six times the rate of
Rhode Island's. According to the 1990 Census, Indians in Rhode
Island have a per capita income of about $9,000, which is 44
percent less than the average in Washington County, Rhode
Island where the tribe's reservation is located.
25 percent of the State's Indian population live at or
below the poverty level, compared to 6.8 percent for Washington
County, Rhode Island. Roughly 30 percent of the tribe's
potential labor force earn an income of less than $7,000. Under
the IGRA, the tribe's gaming facility would have provided the
mechanism by which we could better provide government services
and jobs to our members.
Gaming, by the way, is pervasive in Rhode Island and this
government benefits as ours would under the IGRA. Our written
testimony will show you that. I spoke earlier about our bingo
plans. What I did not mention was that despite what has been
said or will be said today by the other side the good citizens
of Rhode Island endorsed our bingo plans by Charlestown Council
Resolution, a copy of which is submitted. Hardly opposition, is
it?
The fact is the tribe met every challenge raised regarding
our bingo plans, including environmental concerns. An expert is
available to testify if the Committee desires. Incidentally,
the courts have decided the issue of sovereignty and gaming in
the State of Rhode Island and the Narragansett Tribe and we
won. We won in District Court, we won in the appellate court.
The Constitution of the United States gives Congress
plenary power over the field of Indian affairs, wherein the
United States has taken a trust responsibility, a
responsibility which the United States and this Congress cannot
disregard whenever it is politically expedient to do so. There
exists a unique government-to-government relationship between
the United States and all federally recognized Indian tribes
which should not be trampled upon simply because one powerful
Member of Congress wishes to do so.
We are distressed that this Congress, by enacting the
Chafee Rider, could act so contrary to these principles,
principles which form the foundation of Federal Indian law as
we know it today and the obligation of the United States to
protect and preserve tribal sovereignty.
The Chafee Rider, and the manner in which it was passed,
was ill-conceived legislation and it is a throw back to the
dark chapter of this nation's history in the treatment of
Native Americans. Our interests were not considered and only
the interests of the governing elite and their friends and
cohorts mattered. Is this how the U.S. Congress wants to act
toward Native American people?
We fought for many years to establish our legal right to
exercise our sovereign rights on our lands, lands wrongly taken
from us many years ago. The State of Rhode Island, its
Governor, attorney general, and Senator Chafee were given every
opportunity to make their case to the Federal courts. We
prevailed, fairness prevailed, decency prevailed.
The nation made a policy decision more than a generation
ago to encourage tribal self-determination and self-sufficiency
to end the cycle of Federal dependence. Congress recognized it
when it passed the IGRA that the revenues from gaming often
means the difference between an adequate governmental program
and the skeletal program that is totally dependent on Federal
funding.
One last point about Senator Chafee to once again show why
we feel justified in how we feel we were discriminated against.
In September 1996 just before his prejudicial rider was passed,
he very briefly met with tribal representatives. During the
meeting Senator Chafee looked directly at me and stated, and I
quote, ``I will do whatever I have to do to keep you people
from gaming.''
He certainly did not care about our rights or was he
concerned as he has argued about the rights of Rhode Islanders.
When you consider these issues now explained to you for the
first time you can only conclude that the Chafee Rider goes too
far, that it reflects poorly on the honor of the United States
and this Congress, that it should never have been passed, and
that it should be repealed as soon as possible.
Do not permit this dark stain of this nation's treatment of
Native Americans to remain. Rather, treat us with the same
dignity and respect you would afford any other American. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Noka may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Kennedy. [presiding] Thank you. I first would like to
ask Mr. Hayes representing counsel from the Department of
Interior what your feeling is on the discriminatory nature of
this rider with respect to singling out one tribe from all the
others and thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause of the
Constitution. Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. I guess, Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer
the question by going back to IGRA and the concept of IGRA
which was to establish some ground rules that would be applied
across the board for Indian gaming issues. The legislation was
a compromise and reflects a balancing of the sovereignty of
Indian nations and the legitimate interest of States. The
Department of Interior is concerned whenever IGRA is not
applied equally across the board.
Mr. Kennedy. So this is not--this rider circumvents IGRA
because it does not apply IGRA across the board, it singles out
the Narragansetts for an exception?
Mr. Hayes. That is correct. That is our position.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very, very much. Mr. Noka--and I
would also like anyone else and maybe perhaps Medicine Man
Lloyd Wilcox to speak on the justice of this issue. Mr. Wilcox.
Mr. Wilcox. Yes, I would like to speak on that but I would
first like to say that what we are doing here today, we are
talking about gaming pretty much, but actually the real issue
is control. Within one generation of the strangers coming to
our shores they made a determination to dispossess the
Narragansetts of their lands and of their rights and hopefully
to deprive them of their existence as a people.
And the history is replete with this. And this has
continued right on up to this date. This is about control in
the sense that there is a necessity somehow in the power
structure of Rhode Island that the Narragansetts should have no
hand in controlling their own destiny. That much I will say.
Now about justice. These issues that any loyal antagonist
here, any issue they lay out have been laid out before the
District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the
rulings came down from the First Circuit Court of Appeals
indicating that full force in effect with IGRA with the
Narragansett Tribe and certainly concurrent jurisdiction on the
rest of the issues of their land.
Now I can understand Congress having the power if there is
a law that exists wherein it allows a court to make an unjust
ruling or the law is unjust and I can understand Congress
taking the extreme action of either repealing or adding an
amendment to that law like the Chafee Rider.
But with a study of the Chafee Rider and we have pondered
this for hours and days, I would like Congress to explain to me
what ends of justice was served by voting the Chafee Rider into
law? It is a question that has not been answered.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I would like to followup with a
question that seems to have hung over a lot of these questions,
and that is when the tribe agreed to abide by State law when
this land claim was settled there was a deal and it should be
enforced. Can I ask the tribe or its counsel to respond to that
because that seems to be the issue here with respect to we
ought to enforce the deal that was made in 1978. Why should we
not be enforcing that? I mean that was the deal that was made,
right?
Mr. Noka. Certainly, and if Lloyd or Charlie want to answer
part they certainly have that right but it is important to
point out as I did in my testimony that the Settlement Act, the
1978 Settlement Act, was signed on behalf of the tribe by a
corporation, by a State-chartered corporation, not the tribe
itself and certainly not a federally recognized tribe which we
obtained in 1983.
There is a big distinction there and those people who
choose to keep referring to the Settlement Act and what it did
to the tribe, the tribe did not agree--the tribe was not held
to the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Rhode Island in that
Settlement Act. A corporation for the benefit of the tribe
which again was not federally recognized, they signed that
contract.
Mr. Wilcox. It must be understood that the settlement lands
were held and managed by a State-chartered land management
corporation which obviously was subject to State law but when
those lands came into the possession of the Narragansett Indian
Tribe the tribe was federally recognized and any attempt to
transfer Rhode Island corporate law onto the federally
recognized Narragansett Tribe is rather an extension of powers
that the State did not have, if you want to know the truth.
Mr. Kennedy. So what you are saying is the tribe, it is
absurd to say that the tribe agreed that its land would be
under State jurisdiction once the tribe land was recognized by
the Federal Government?
Mr. Wilcox. Well, once the land came into the possession of
the tribe--everyone must understand that the laws consistent
with jurisdiction of a State, those laws were imposed upon a
State-chartered land management corporation that held and
managed the land for the benefit of the Narragansett Tribe.
When the tribe owned the land, the tribe was already
federally recognized and that agreement, that 1978 agreement
required an amendment to reflect our different status. We are
dealing with a honest issue if I must bring up gaming which it
is really not the issue of gaming, it is gaining of control
that the State does not want to yield up to the sovereign
Narragansett Tribe.
We have dual citizenship. You are talking about a federally
recognized tribe on Federal trust lands and if we yield to the
pacifying offers immediately that Chafee or Almond offer then
we are giving up the inherent rights of a federally recognized
tribe and the powers and the immunities that come with a
federally recognized tribe.
Mr. Kennedy. And the Circuit Court and the Federal courts
uphold that?
Mr. Wilcox. Of course they do. The 1978 agreement should
have long since been amended to reflect that. And incidentally
in the 1988 colloquy I understand the Senate Committee was not
informed of our status as a federally recognized tribe so by
omission or something some information did not get to them.
And I am also understanding that no Narragansett testified
at those hearings, that the congressional delegation from Rhode
Island claimed to be testifying on behalf of the Narragansetts.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you for making that point because
Senator Inouye has since stated that if he had known that it
was a federally recognized--in the event of a federally
recognized tribe Federal law would have superseded any State
agreement that was made by a corporation with the Rhode Island
State Indian Settlement Claims Act.
Mr. Wilcox. But of course. But of course. One last thing
from me. This is personal now. You cannot hold the Narragansett
Tribe responsible. I just want to read a definition of a bigot
and it says one obstinately and unreasonably witted to a
particular belief or creed, and creed says any statement of
principle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to follow by asking the
Department of Interior, had this bill come through the process,
the legislative process, it would have been the position of the
Administration and Department of Interior to oppose this rider,
if you will, had it come before the Committee's jurisdiction,
it never would have gotten the support of the Administration,
am I correct in saying that?
Mr. Hayes. That is correct, Congressman. Secretary Babbitt
said as much in his September 1996 letter.
Mr. Gilchrest. [presiding] Mr. Kennedy's time has expired.
We will rotate. Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Chairman, I must say Representative Kennedy just continues to
come back to a point that has been established clearly by the
First Circuit Court and I would like to ask the representatives
from--and others, you referred yourselves to the First Circuit
Court and the language there is very, very clear that the
Congress' grant of jurisdiction to the State in the Rhode
Island Indian Claims Settlement Act remains valid. And, Mr.
Hayes, do you agree with that?
Mr. Hayes. If I can, Senator, that is the first step but
the court further clarified that the State's civil jurisdiction
is not paramount as to gaming. The court explained that there
is concurrent civil ju-
risdiction, which is not unusual as a matter of Indian law. I
think the court is clear on that point.
Senator Chafee. The point seems to continually be made
here--or attempted to be made--that once Federal recognition
came to the tribe that the agreement that was entered into in
1978 was just blown away--and that just is not true. The First
Circuit Court has so found and, indeed, I submitted for the
record here deeds that were entered into in 1988 and signed by,
I cannot read the names because they are all in writing, but
Mr. Hazard, Mr. Thomas, representing the Narragansett Indian
Tribe, a whole series of individuals.
And they signed a document that just before it had written
``Pursuant to the delegation from the Assistant Secretary-
Indian Affairs to the Eastern Area Director, the undersigned
hereby accepts the lands conveyed by this deed. . . . This
action does not alter the applicability of State law conferred
by the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, Public Law
95-395, 25 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq.''
So the point I keep coming back to that Representative
Kennedy seems to ignore is that the agreement was valid that
was entered into and was altered by the IGRA which we all agree
to. I would just like to ask you, Mr. Hayes, quickly, if I
might, again stressing this point, my amendment was designed to
preserve the 1978 grant of jurisdiction which included criminal
and civil law jurisdiction.
You say that this is a bad precedent but what about all the
other Federal settlement laws? Maine, for example. Why do you
say that this is so unique? It is not unique. The settlement
laws really apply just to eastern tribes.
Mr. Hayes. The reason it is unique, Senator, is the reason
why the First Circuit did not find the 1978 Settlement Act
dispositive, i.e., that Congress did not clearly enunciate in
IGRA an intention to except this tribe from the sovereign
rights and privileges granted to the other tribes under IGRA.
The First Circuit relied heavily on the fact that denying
the benefits of IGRA to the tribe would be a major decision,
and as the court put it, the 1978 Settlement Act was at the
best unclear in terms of whether it should supercede IGRA. The
court concluded that the Settlement Act did not because of the
concurrent civil jurisdiction concept that is a prevalent
concept in Indian law.
It is true that post-IGRA, there have been on a few rare
occasions explicit congressional judgments that IGRA will not
apply to certain lands. That is not what the First Circuit
faced. The First Circuit faced a situation where IGRA was
silent on the question, Senator, and the First Circuit
concluded that it could not take away IGRA's rights as to the
Narragansett and we rely on that decision.
Senator Chafee. One quick question to you, Mr. Noka, and
that is, you say you want high-stakes bingo. Are you prepared
today to commit that you would not seek a casino if granted the
high-stakes bingo?
Mr. Noka. Well, first of all, Senator, we are here today
about the sovereign attack that you led against us but we point
out in our testimony that according to IGRA and other Federal
law and what the State allowed we could have high-stakes bingo
before your rider was passed. That is what I mentioned in my
testimony.
I am not individually--I do not have the authority to
commit to anything on behalf of the Narragansett Tribe without
the authorization of the tribe.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Was there a further comment on that? Was
there something else you wanted to say?
Mr. Noka. The Medicine Man said if Senator Chafee withdraws
his amendment we can deal with that.
Mr. Wilcox. We will talk about it.
Mr. Gilchrest. That is an interesting scenario. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both as a member of
this Committee and as co-chair of the congressional Native
American caucus I really want to find a remedy to the treating
of the Indians of Rhode Island, the Narragansett Indians,
differently than the other tribes in this country. I just think
it is unfair to single out one tribe and treat them
differently.
I helped write IGRA. I was not sure we needed it. I thought
the Cabazon decision gave under your sovereignty rights to you
but finally after I consulted with the various Indian leaders
throughout the country they felt IGRA would be something that
would work well. So at first I just thought let us go with the
Cabazon decision.
But at least you should be treated under IGRA as the other
nations are treated under IGRA. I really feel very strongly on
that. Apparently you are appealing in court that the Chafee
Rider--does the Interior Department through the Justice
Department take any position on that appeal in the courts?
Mr. Hayes. I do not believe so, Congressman. I do not think
we are involved.
Mr. Kildee. In your trust responsibility you are supposed
to uphold the sovereignty of the various tribes including the
Narragansett Tribe. It would seem to me that there is a
position for the Department of the Interior working through the
Department of Justice to join with the Narragansett Tribe to
make sure they are not singled out. And I would hope that the
Department of Interior would reevaluate its position.
Mr. Hayes. I certainly will, Congressman. I am not sure we
have a position but we will look into it. You make an excellent
point.
Mr. Kildee. Your trust responsibility, among the various
things you have your trust responsibility, and the trust
responsibility resides with the entire U.S. Government. The
Interior Department and the BIA has got a point person on that
but the entire U.S. Government. But part of that trust
responsibility very often has been to protect the Indian
sovereign tribes from intrusion by State government, is that
not correct?
Mr. Hayes. That is correct, Congressman.
Mr. Kildee. And I really would hope that you would join and
go back and report to those you report to that it would seem to
me that it would be really good if the executive branch of
government which is part of that trust responsibility would
join the tribe in saying, hey, this is unfair, you are singling
this tribe out, treating them different than hundreds of other
tribes in this country and why?
I think they come up and use--you got a battery of
attorneys over there in the Justice Department that might help
them out in their case.
Mr. Hayes. We will followup on that, Congressman.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. Thank you. I yield to Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. I would just like to ask First
Councilman Noka to comment about how he feels and felt last
year with respect to this issue and not having had an
opportunity in the hearing to voice your opinion before this
rider, so to speak, was put on the Omnibus Budget
Appropriations Bill.
I want to read Senator McCain who said on the Floor of the
Senate, ``This past January I met with Senators Pell and Chafee
at their request to review their concerns and discuss what they
could do with regard to the tribe's ability to game under IGRA.
At that time I made it clear to them that although I oppose
them on the merits, I would not use my position as Chairman of
the Committee of jurisdiction to block a bill that they would
introduce to amend the Narragansett Land Claims Settlement Act
to gain the clarity they sought against the tribe.
``Indeed, I told them I would schedule a hearing and I
would allow the bill to move to the Senate Floor for
consideration. I was surprised to see that he did not take any
such action during this entire session. Had they done so, we
would have long ago voted on authorizing legislation with the
benefit of a full and fair hearing and record.'' Would you
comment on that, Mr. Noka?
Mr. Noka. I appreciate the opportunity to more or less ask
Senator Chafee the same thing but I will give my opinion on
that. I think it is a total obligation of the sovereign rights
of the Narragansett Tribe, the total obligation of Indian
country and what we are and what we stand for. I think it is a
total abrogation of the senatorial process what Senator Chafee
did and how he did it last year.
Particularly, it is bad enough what he did to us but how he
did it is adding insult to injury. I mentioned briefly in my
testimony before and I thank you again for the opportunity to
expound more. Senator Chafee, it is my understanding, the
tribe's understanding, that he was invited by then Chairman
McCain, Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman, to address
that very issue, the rider issue.
And for whatever reason, and maybe Senator Chafee can
enlighten us all at once, for whatever reason he chose not to
take the invitation from Senator McCain to heart. He waited
till the 11th hour of the 104th Congress and he submitted his
legislation despite the fact of having the whole 104th Congress
to do this deed, he waited till the last hour to do this deed.
On top of that, he was invited by Senator McCain to come
before the Committee. If Senator Chafee was so proud of what he
did and felt it was so right then why didn't he do it the right
way as far as what senatorial process requires?
Mr. Gilchrest. I thank Mr. Noka and the gentleman's time
has expired. I will take the prerogative of the Chair to let
the Senator respond.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Chairman, I would point out the hearing
before the Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, 103d
Congress, July 19, 1994, who testified? Senator Chafee
testified at that hearing. That was a hearing before the
Committee on Indian Affairs. That was on July 19. Previous to
that on May 17, 1994, before the Committee on Indian Affairs,
who testified before there? Senator Chafee.
So this suggestion that I had an opportunity to appear and
testify ignores what had taken place before, and I want to get
that very clear. I also want to get clear, Congressman Kildee
has said several times that Rhode Island was treated
differently from other States. But it seems to just skip over
the fact that we had a Land Claims Settlement Act and it was
not just some Rhode Island law, it was a Federal law. It was a
Federal law that had been enacted here in 1978, and so that
makes the difference.
And that law inadvertently was overridden by portions of
IGRA which none of us--and you have read the colloquy--none of
us thought occurred at the time, so it is not about
discrimination, which has been thrown around here rather
casually, but I think it is important to remember what the
situation was. Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Senator. Congressman Weygand.
Mr. Weygand. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want
to thank you for your indulgence in allowing us to sit up here
and allowing this testimony to go forward. This has been very
gracious of you and I appreciate that.
I have just a couple of questions of David. I think the
first question would be as I understood it back in 1996 there
were various amendments that were being proposed to the Omnibus
bill, the Clinton Administration--and some of them had to do
with various gaming proposals. And excuse me if this has
already been discussed while I was over voting.
There were very many amendments that were proposed but the
Clinton Administration only agreed to one and that was the
Chafee Amendment. Yet, your testimony today here indicates that
the Secretary disagreed with it, yet my understanding was there
was agreement by the Clinton Administration. Can you clarify
that?
Mr. Hayes. I can, Congressman. The Secretary stated very
clearly in a letter to the Senate that the Department disagreed
with this specific rider and explained why, for much the same
reasons that I explained today. It was a rider to an omnibus
funding bill that had broad significance. The bill was not
vetoed by the President. That does not mean that the
Administration supported this rider.
Mr. Weygand. Well, I understood to the contrary. I thought
there was negotiations with the Administration, that in effect
there had been agreement on this rider. But the other question
has to do with something that my colleague, Congressman Kildee,
had mentioned. Clearly, if the Secretary feels this strongly
about it why haven't you acted before this point or even have
it enacted in the first place?
Mr. Hayes. The rider was just passed in July--at the end of
the last session, Congressman.
Mr. Weygand. But there has been already court action. Why
haven't you done anything this far?
Mr. Hayes. Congressman Kennedy specifically focused this
hearing on this issue and it seems appropriate for the Congress
to take the lead. As my testimony explains, we are fully
supportive of the repeal of the rider.
Mr. Weygand. Does that also mean that you will be going to
court as a party to the----
Mr. Hayes. We are going to look into that. I apologize for
my complete lack of knowledge about the fact that that case had
even been filed. I should clarify that, Congressman. That was
news to me today. So we are going to look into that, certainly.
Mr. Weygand. One other question. There was different
testimony given today by a number of people about various
agreements that have been made at other States after IGRA that
in fact have some sort of restriction or mitigation with regard
to IGRA. Are you familiar with those States? Maine was
specifically mentioned. And how would you differentiate,
legally, I guess, between post-IGRA Indian Settlement Act
agreement versus pre-IGRA Indian Settlement Act agreement?
Mr. Hayes. The difference, Congressman, is very simple. In
those acts, I believe there are only two, I may be wrong about
that, there are explicit provisions by Congress that explicitly
override IGRA. I do not think there is any question,
Congressman, that Congress has the ability to amend IGRA in any
way it sees fit.
In this case, though, the First Circuit determined that
there was nothing in the language of IGRA which supported an
interpretation that the 1978 Land Settlement Act limited the
Tribe's right under IGRA.
On the other hand, the appropriations rider is such a clear
statement and we are here today because we object to it.
Mr. Weygand. That you object to it. Do you object to the
two other Indian Settlement Acts that supersede or circumvent
IGRA?
Mr. Hayes. I cannot speak to that personally, Congressman,
just because my lack of personal knowledge. I know that the
Department takes a very careful view any time that there is any
limitation on what would otherwise be rights of tribes, but I
cannot speak to the specifics of those land settlement claims.
Mr. Weygand. I truly appreciate your testimony here today
and I appreciate Congressman Kennedy asking you to come here
but if in fact you happen to disagree with this particular
Settlement Act versus IGRA why in fact aren't we taking then
equal action against those other States that may have in fact
the same kind of policy or philosophy behind them?
I am at a loss to say that the Federal Government is doing
one thing in Maine and in other States they are doing something
separate. Forgive my ignorance, I am new to the Congress,
certainly not new to Rhode Island but new to the Congress. I
hope that the Secretary himself could provide me with some of
that information.
Mr. Hayes. Certainly, Congressman. Process is very
important in these issues. It is my understanding that in those
acts there was full consideration of the implications of an
explicit repeal, if you will, of IGRA and a full airing of it.
In that context, it is for the Congress to decide what will and
will not apply to Indian lands.
We have a different situation here where as an
Administration we feel it necessary to heed the dictates of the
First Circuit, a decision that was appealed to the Supreme
Court and appeal denied. The ruling of the First Circuit was
that IGRA supercedes the Rhode Island Settlement Act as it
applies to the issues raised here today. We agree with that
ruling, particularly in the absence of an explicit statement in
IGRA that it was meant to overturn the 1978 Rhode Island Indian
Land Settlement Claims Act.
There is no question though, Congressman, that this body
has the right to determine policies on Indian lands. We are
concerned, however, that in the absence of clarity which is
what the First Circuit determined was the case here, there
should not be implied repeals of IGRA.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr.
Weygand. Ms. Green, any questions?
Ms. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield my time to my
colleague from Rhode Island, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you very much. I would like to just
underscore that because it goes right to the issue here. And
you stated it really clearly. It does not need to be repeated.
But IGRA applies. It is the only tribe, the only tribe to be
carved out for an exception under IGRA, the only tribe, so the
argument about other land settlement claims and the like has
clearly been delineated by you right now just so we clear that
air with respect to previous agreements.
I might ask--I know First Councilman Noka had some other
comments with respect to a previous question that he never got
a chance to answer.
Mr. Noka. Yes, not that I want to be guilty of abrogating
congressional policy that others may have but the question you
previously asked me, Congressman Kennedy, how I felt personally
anyway and Senator Chafee did answer it in part but let me just
say this. I believe the tribe would certainly be more
comfortable if his rider was brought the route it should have
been brought, the regular process requires.
If it had been brought as legislation instead of a rider
through the Omnibus Appropriations Bill, if it had been brought
with hearing opportunity and all the rights that are usually
given to people that are going to be affected by legislation,
if it had been brought that way and it was voted down and we
were voted out as far as IGRA goes, then we could have lived
with that more comfortably than the insulting way that it was
brought.
Mr. Kennedy. With that Congress, by the way, with the 104th
Congress, each Congress is a new Congress. So hearings that
happened in the 103d, all fine and well, but you got new people
who come in in each Congress. They have the responsibility of
voting based upon a new Congress.
That is why we have new Congresses because you have
elections in between and when you have elections in between you
have new people elected. Many times you change the makeup of
the Congress in order to follow the will of the people. So what
happened in some hearing in the 103d is not the answer for why
there was not any hearing in the 104th.
Mr. Noka. Well, Congressman Kennedy, I am not sure what
Senator Chafee was referring to anyway in those previous
Congresses. I know what he did in the 104th Congress and what
he did to the Narragansett Tribe and how he did it and I find
it insulting and very offensive. And we could have--again, my
point is I believe the tribe could have lived with it had we
been defeated going the normal route, going the route that is
brought with honor and conviction as opposed to back door, 11th
hour on the last days of Congress.
Mr. Kennedy. I would just like to ask you finally, would
you comment with respect of if this can be done to the
Narragansetts----
Mr. Gilchrest. If I would just--I want to take one
exception. Can we confine our testimony to the legal questions
at hand and not refer to what are actually legitimate practices
here in Congress as back door or insulting maneuvers. They are
actually legitimate. And I understand the emotion in this whole
entire issue and I have strong feelings about people's
sovereignty, independence and justice and those issues but if
we can confine our testimony to the legitimate legal questions
at hand I would appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Noka. Mr. Chairman, I certainly will but he asked how I
felt and that is personally how I felt.
Mr. Kennedy. I would yield to Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Chairman, I just briefly want to get on
the record if I might for Mr. Hayes, Congressman Kennedy
constantly stresses that the Rhode Island situation is
something very, very unique but am I not correct in that the
main Settlement Act is exempt from the IGRA?
Mr. Hayes. Yes, Senator.
Senator Chafee. Now is it not--may I finish? Is it not also
true that the South Carolina Catawba Indian Settlement Act is
exempt from IGRA?
Mr. Hayes. Yes, Senator, and I believe those are the only
two and they are explicit overrides of IGRA. In the case of
South Carolina, for example, the tribe specifically requested
that as part of their agreement with the State.
Senator Chafee. And I think, and you will have to check on
this, but I think the Micasuki Settlement Act is likewise.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to reclaim my time.
I would like to reclaim my time. The Rhode Island Indian
Settlement Claims Act is different from the two acts you just
cited, Senator Chafee, and Mr. Hayes has testified to that
already three times in the last 20 minutes. In giving them
their sovereign rights there was an explicit exception for
IGRA. That was not the case with the Rhode Island Indian
Settlement Claims Act.
Mr. Gilchrest. The time of the gentlelady has expired. All
time has expired for this panel. Gentlemen, we appreciate your
testimony here. It will be taken into very serious
consideration and we thank you for coming to Washington to give
that testimony. Thank you very much.
Mr. Noka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. The next panel is going to change slightly,
the Honorable Donald Lally, Ms. Patricia Almeida, Mr. Ron
Allen, and Mr. Frank Ducheneaux will all be on this final
panel. If you will all please come forward. Donald Lally, Jr.,
State of Rhode Island House of Representatives, Ms. Patricia
Almeida, Spokesperson, The Alliance to Save South County, Mr.
Ron Allen, President, National Congress of American Indians,
and Frank Ducheneaux, Attorney at Law. Mr. Lally, you may
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD LALLY, JR., STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Lally. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
Committee, Representative Kennedy. It is good to see you again.
Senator Chafee. I have with me today three separate statements.
The first statement is from the Rhode Island House of
Representatives signed by 16 different representatives.
As a member of the Rhode Island General Assembly I want to
first of all congratulate and commend you for reestablishing
the regular legislative procedure regarding the sovereign
rights of the Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island. As you
know regrettably, in the final hours of the 104th Congress a
legislative rider was included in the 1997 Omnibus
Appropriations Act that singled out Rhode Island's only
federally recognized tribe for separate treatment from all
other Native American tribes.
We regret that this legislative rider sponsored by Senator
Chafee was never introduced in the form of legislation in the
last Congress. We regret that no public hearing was held on the
rider. We regret that no congressional report was ever issued
on the rider. We regret that the Narragansett Tribe was never
even consulted on the rider despite its impact on the tribe.
So we applaud you for conducting an open oversight hearing
concerning this fundamental matter that the Narragansetts lost
last year of basic sovereign rights. We respectfully request
that our letter be made part of the public record at this May
1, 1997 hearing.
We in Rhode Island pledge to work with you in
reestablishing the full government relationship with the
Narragansett Tribe that every other tribe enjoys throughout the
United States. In that regard, you should note that we support
pending legislation in our General Assembly to create a joint
Committee whose duties would be as liaison with tribal
government, consult and counsel with all State agencies,
municipalities and the Federal Government and any other groups
or organizations that the Committee deems necessary to fulfill
its goal in addressing those social and economic issues which
specifically impact the State and its relations with the tribe.
It shall investigate the feasibility of cooperative social
and economic undertakings including, but not limited to, tribal
small businesses, housing, employment, gaming and educational
alternatives. It shall promote negotiation and open channels of
communication between the two sovereigns.
I now have a letter from Senator Paul Kelly, Senate
Majority Leader that I would like to read into the record.
``Dear Congressman. I would like to take this opportunity to
express my opinions before the members of the House Resources
Committee regarding the sovereign rights of the Narragansett
Indian Nation within the State of Rhode Island.
``Native Americans, including the Narragansetts, have long
retained the status of a sovereign nation within the United
States of America. It is imperative that these people be
afforded opportunities to provide mechanisms allowing better
health and educational services, as well as continuing to
improve their overall quality of life.
``If the Narragansetts are precluded from their entitled
due process, as codified under Federal regulations, it will be
construed as another example of discriminatory practices that
have long befallen this proud nation. The Narragansett's
proposals for tribal land usage should be handled in a manner
that appropriately embraces the reality of a sovereign nation,
and in a manner consistent with the law governing every other
recognized tribe in America.
``In closing, the Narragansett people's rich culture and
heritage are part of our history. Ensuring an objective process
will not only preserve this history, but is the fundamental
right of the Narragansett Indian Nation. I trust the Committee
will view these matters in a fair and impartial nature.''
I have a short statement of my own. I am here today to
testify on behalf of the Narragansett Indian Tribe. The
Washington Delegation and the Governor are speaking for
themselves and only a small, vocal minority. The recent polls
and earlier polls show that the Narragansetts have the
overwhelming support of the majority of Rhode Islanders.
Presently there are two bills pending in the Rhode Island
General Assembly. I have included copies of these bills with my
testimony.
The bill to establish a permanent Joint Committee on Indian
Affairs would set up a Committee to act as a liaison with
tribal government, consult and counsel with all State agencies,
municipalities and the Federal Government. It would investigate
the feasibility of cooperative social and economic undertakings
including, but not limited to, what I stated before, the tribal
small business, housing, employment, gaming and educational
alternatives.
To date, the State of Rhode Island and the Narragansett
Indian Tribe have primarily communicated through the Federal
court system. Many of us in the Rhode Island House of
Representatives feel that the time has come to openly
communicate. This permanent Committee will go a long way to
opening those lines of communication.
The 1994 referendum for a gaming facility for the tribe is
not an accurate reflection of the opinion of Rhode Islanders.
The Referendum questions relating to the tribe did not identify
the tribe as owners of the facility, but rather only identified
the location of the facility. As the facility was not on tribal
land or tribal property, voters did not identify the Referendum
question with the tribe. Further, the Referendum question was
one of six similar questions which further confused voters and
created the perception of a small State overrun with gaming
facilities.
The issue before you today is one of sovereignty. Indian
tribes, including the Narragansetts, have retained the
attributes of a sovereign, or independent nation. These rights
pre-date the birth of this republic and essentially place the
Narragansett Indian Tribe in a government-to-government
relationship with the United States of America and the State of
Rhode Island.
It is also an issue of discrimination. Rhode Islanders
overwhelmingly believe that the tribe has been discriminated
against in the past and continues to be discriminated against
today.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Lally, are you nearly done?
Mr. Lally. Yes. I have one paragraph to go. Certain Rhode
Island leaders have chosen to ignore the issue of fundamental
fairness. Rhode Island has two casinos and derives enormous
revenue from its State-run lottery system. Governor Almond and
Senator Chafee believe that the State can use gaming as
economic development but the tribe cannot.
I do not want to reduce this hearing to one on gaming. I
felt that I should deal with that issue because it was being
discussed by the opponents. What I want to do today is
hopefully convince you to restore the sovereign rights of the
Narragansett Indians and help end the discrimination that the
Narragansetts have suffered for centuries. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lally may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Lally. Ms. Almeida.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA ALMEIDA, SPOKESPERSON, THE ALLIANCE TO
SAVE SOUTH COUNTY
Ms. Almeida. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Resources Committee. It is an honor and a privilege to testify
here today and I would like to thank Senator John Chafee and
Jack Reed as well as Representative Robert Weygand for their
invaluable testimony in defense of the civil rights of the
people of Rhode Island.
Thanks also to Governor Lincoln Almond who steadfastly has
opposed casino gambling in Rhode Island. My name is Patricia
Almeida and I am here to represent the majority voice of the
people of Rhode Island who in November 1994 resoundingly
rejected five separate casino gambling proposals which appeared
on the ballot. Everyone was well informed that the referendum
question to which Mr. Lally just spoke did belong to the
Narragansetts. It was all over the State.
I speak on behalf of The Alliance To Save South County, a
grassroots organization established in 1991 in opposition to
unregulated development like the proposed Narragansett Indian
casino. The Alliance is dedicated to protecting the natural
historic, scenic, coastal and cultural character of our
community. Quality of life is why people live in South County.
The Alliance is also a member of the Rhode Island Coalition
Against Casino Gambling which battles the expansion of gambling
in Rhode Island as well as around the nation. Five years ago
almost to the day the Narragansett Tribe announced its
intention to build a casino on tribal land at Charlestown.
Previous witnesses have explained the chronology of events
which bring us here today.
I want to make a few key points. The basis of our 1978
agreement was a document called the Joint Memorandum of
Understanding which all parties voluntarily signed and I would
like to submit to you for the record. This is basically the
scratch paper that was used to create the Settlement Act. It is
very clear in here what everyone's intent was signed by all the
parties.
No one is impeding the Narragansetts' right to self-
government. The people of Rhode Island are just saying that
casino gambling is not the way to finance it. Casino gambling
is illegal in Rhode Island. I would like to explain to you what
concerns the people of Rhode Island and especially the town of
Charlestown have about the Narragansetts' position.
When the tribe announced its intention to build a casino in
Charlestown my personal reaction was one of dread. What was the
type of development going to do to the rural character of our
community. This could turn our town into another Atlantic City.
The Magatucket Pequats were already opening one in Connecticut
less than 20 minutes away. What about the water supply, what
about the traffic, what about this effect on our children. The
roads would never bear all the traffic.
Would our volunteer fire department be adequate? The
proposed facility is surrounded by Rhode Island's most
important conservation areas, private and Federal wildlife
preserves. The Gray Swamp and Carolina Management areas, the
Burlingame State Park, natural salt ponds, barrier beaches,
freshwater beaches, and the North-South Hiking Trail. It also
lies atop a sole source aquifer. Charlestown, like most Rhode
Island coastal communities, relies heavily on tourism for
economic base. Tourism is the second largest industry in the
State.
Our natural resources are our source of income. We need to
protect our environment. Westerly, a slightly larger community
to our west, has already experienced the negative effects of
surviving in the shadows of casino development. The Magatucket
Pequats Foxwood Casino and the Mohican Sun Casino have devoured
many small businesses in the area. Just over the border in
Connecticut a small mill village of 18th century origin has had
the traffic count more than triple since the opening of these
casinos.
The winding roads see so much traffic that the residents
fear for their safety. Fixtures on the walls of the homes
rattle as traffic flies by. Help preserve our village, cries
Carol Collett. I emphasize having resided in a historic mill
village for 21 years my village would be a corridor from Route
95 to the proposed Narragansett facility.
When I recently asked citizens of South County if you would
testify in Washington what would you say to the Resources
Committee? The following thoughts were expressed, just a few.
Charlotte Brofy is concerned about the town's rural character
being destroyed. Martha Rice and Richard Holliday have been
relying upon the application of local and State zoning laws to
tribal lands to protect their home investments from
uncontrolled development.
Leona Kelby said that we are not big enough for any kind of
a casino. It would ruin the life of us. As early as 1994
attempts were made by the Alliance to Save South County to
reach Representative Patrick Kennedy regarding his position on
the Narragansett casino proposal. Individuals requested
meetings or the courtesy of a return phone call. Promises by
his staff to send position papers if requested by residents.
We are still waiting. Another resident after several
unsuccessful attempts to contact the representative was told
that there was no time available for people outside his
district. The first we saw Pat-
rick Kennedy's face was in the Narragansett Indian News. I have
included some copies.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Almeida, are you nearly done?
Ms. Almeida. Yes, I am. After several unsuccessful
attempts--I have done that, sorry. Failing to get an
appointment with him, we were forced to rely on newspaper
articles quoting his stance on the casino issue. He publicly
repudiated the validity of the Rhode Island Land Claims
Settlement Act. The language in the Settlement Act seems as
clear as any provision ever included in a Federal law.
Senator Chafee's reputation has been viciously maligned by
Representative Kennedy. The Senator was simply representing the
majority of Rhode Islanders when he fought to uphold the Rhode
Island Settlement Act. When Patrick Kennedy criticizes Senator
Chafee, I find it curious that he does not also criticize
former Senator Pell and then Congressman Reed who also felt
that the 1996 amendment clarifying the original intent was
necessary.
The tribe's own Washington attorneys agreed with the
senators in their own legal analysis of high-stakes bingo on
Narragansett tribal land dated June 1991, which I will submit.
They state the tribe should seek an amendment of the 1978
Settlement Act to add words to the effect except with respect
to activities under IGRA. The lawyers were concerned that the
senators would move to close an unintended loophole in the
Gaming Act.
The Narragansett Indian Tribal Resolution Number TA91-427
dated April 27, 1991, states that the tribal legal advisors
informed the tribe of the need of amending Federal legislation
intended to restore tribal jurisdiction over economic
development affairs, notably Class II high-stakes gaming.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Almeida, would you----
Ms. Almeida. Just two more sentences?
Mr. Gilchrest. Two more sentences.
Ms. Almeida. Everyone agreed that a clarifying amendment
was necessary. Thank you again for affording me this
opportunity to appear before you and voice for the people of
Rhode Island. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, ma'am.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Allen.
STATEMENT OF W. RON ALLEN, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF
AMERICAN INDIANS
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also honored and
privileged to be here before you and the Committee to talk
about this very important item. I am the president of the
National Congress of American Indians. I am also the Chairman
for the Charlestown S'Klallam Tribe, a small tribe located in
western Washington and I am here to provide you some views of
our organization that represents over 200 tribes across the
Nation, with regard to this concern over how the Congress
handled this issue with the Narragansett Tribe.
Our organization has been fighting suppression and
termination efforts for the last 50 years and it goes way
beyond that but we organized in order for the tribes across the
Nation to deal with the Congress. We were here with you not too
awful long ago to talk about the ICWA Act and talking about the
concerns we have over undermining of the tribe's sovereignty
rights with regard to child welfare issues.
Today we are talking about the elimination of the sovereign
authority of a tribe, the Narragansett Tribe, to be able to
move forward with advancement of its self-sufficiency goals.
When we think about the self-sufficiency and self-determination
and self-government initiatives and policies of this Congress
and the Administration since the Nixon Administration they have
been quite a challenge.
And as has been noted earlier in the dialog here it is an
ongoing dialog with the congressional leadership with regard to
what America's responsibilities are to the American Indian
tribes in our communities. We have a great challenge. It is
very frustrating for us when we listen to dialog that talks
about support for the tribes' self-governance and self-
determination and right to pursue self-sufficiency but then put
up all these obstacles for us to achieve that.
Now gaming happens to be an opportunity that is used by
some tribes. There are 557 tribes. There are only about 184
tribes that are actually engaged in gaming. Many of the other
tribes are not going to ever be able to pursue this opportunity
but the ones that can pursue it, it is a very viable option.
What we want to reference is the fact that historically the
Federal Government and the State governments have not lived up
to the needs of the Indian communities to advance our progress
economically, socially, culturally. They have not done that. So
when they asked us to pursue other ventures, other options,
they do not step forward and provide us meaningful, useful
assistance.
And there is no track record anywhere in the United States
where that has occurred. So we are really concerned about where
the Congress is going with this technique. We think it is
wrong. We absolutely objected to the use of a rider to modify
existing commitments to Indian nations and to modify our
sovereignty. We saw a number of them last year.
We were pleased that the Administration absolutely objected
to it. We were disappointed that there was such adamancy by the
Congress that the Administration had to agree to this one. Now
they recognize that we need to fix it and we are very pleased
that that has taken place. We are very delightful that the
Chairman, Don Young, and Congressman Kennedy are helping to
advance this issue. We think we can right this wrong and we
think it is very important.
We think America understands that there is a very unique
relationship between the tribes and the United States and the
States and it is a co-existent, a co-jurisdictional
relationship that can work if they have the will and the
willingness and the attitude to make that happen.
The Supreme Court has made it very clear that the Congress
when it is legislating its plenary authority must take into
consideration the tribe's unique independent sovereign rights
and we urge you to recognize that and we urge you in resolving
problems and conflicts within the States and within the
communities in America that you need to also be very respectful
of the tribes and also conscious of our conditions and our
problems.
There is no one out there who is going to solve our
problems but us. Now when you talk about gaming issues it seems
to have taken on a real high profile and that is very
disappointing to us. There are people who like gaming and there
are people who do not like gaming. That is a fact of life.
There are people who like abortion. There are people who do not
like abortion. That is a fact of life and we have to work out
our differences here.
The Indian gaming industry began way before IGRA, IGRA was
enacted in 1988, Indians had gaming long before 1988. In 1988
there was an agreement, a reluctant agreement, with the tribes
and the Federal Government regarding how they are going to
manage this co-jurisdictional issue and that created an
opportunity for the States to be involved in working with the
tribes.
Now the issue here is the Narragansett tribe is being
eliminated from that opportunity and they should not be
eliminated from that opportunity. We have problems and we will
resolve our problems if the U.S. Government will give us the
right to pursue these opportunities and diversify our economy
using whatever resources are available to us and gaming happens
to be one of them.
We do not have a tax base, so we have to generate
businesses to make it work. So I would like to make it real
clear that the tribes want to work with the Federal Government,
they want to work with the State government, they want to work
with their communities. The issues that I have heard in the
previous panels and in this panel we have resolved and we can
resolve.
And so what we are saying to you is that as was mentioned
earlier this morning, this Congress would never pass a rider
that would eliminate a State's right to pursue gaming for its
purposes whether it is education or whatever they use their
moneys for. Tribal governments are governments and you must
treat us as governments with the same respect. That is a bottom
line fundamental principle and we think it is imperative.
So we ask you in good conscience and moral obligation to
the tribes and the Narragansetts, we must repeal this rider and
we must look for a better more appropriate resolution to this
issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Mr. Ducheneaux.
STATEMENT OF FRANK DUCHENEAUX, ATTORNEY AT LAW
Mr. Ducheneaux. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is
Franklin Ducheneaux. I am a partner in the consulting firm of
Ducheneaux, Taylor & Associates. I would like to correct the
record. While I am an attorney, I am not an attorney at law and
our firm does not practice law. I would ask that my written
statement be accepted for the record and I will summarize.
I have been asked to testify today because of my prior
service on the staff of this Committee during the consideration
of legislation enacted as the 1978 Rhode Island Indian Claims
Settlement Act and the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I
served as Counsel on Indian Affairs to this Committee, when it
was the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, from 1973
through 1990.
The last 14 years of that service was directly under former
Chairman Morris K. Udall when the Indian affairs jurisdiction
was held in the Full Committee. My brief statement today will
relate to the relevant history of the enactment of IGRA.
Gaming by tribes became a hot political issue as early as
1983, and by the time of the convening of the 100th Congress,
the issue had become extremely controversial in the Congress,
with a growing polarization of the interests. On February 25,
1987, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in the case of
California v. Cabazon Band, which fully upheld the right of
Indian tribes, under certain circumstances, to engage in or
regulate gaming on their lands free of State regulations.
This decision for the tribes shocked both sides, and
created an atmosphere in the Congress for eventual legislative
agreement. Legislative efforts proceeded in both Houses
throughout the first session of the 100th Congress without much
success. There were strong forces operating in both Houses
supporting legislation to ban gaming by Indian tribes and there
are still those forces.
Chairman Udall's position, however, was strong, continuing
and unequivocal. Mo made clear that he was strongly opposed to
gambling, and, in particular, he opposed government gambling
such as State lotteries. However, he was equally strong in his
support for tribal sovereignty and the right of tribal self-
government. He fully agreed with the Cabazon decision.
Early in the second session of the 100th Congress, Mo
advised me that, while he felt he could still control the issue
in the Committee, he probably could not control matters on the
Floor if his bill, H.R. 2507, was reported from the Committee.
As a consequence, an informal agreement of the parties was
reached which contemplated negotiations on a Senate bill.
If the parties could agree on a bill passed by the Senate,
Mo agreed that he would hold it at the desk and pass it under
suspension of the rules. If not, he would insist upon referral
to the Committee in the normal course under the rules of the
House.
Negotiations went on for the first part of 1988. Parties
included various House and Senate staff, representatives of
Indian tribes, the State, the Administration, non-gaming
industry officials and others. Chairman Udall authorized me,
subject to his general direction, to represent him in those
discussions.
On May 13, the Senate Committee marked up S. 555 and
ordered it reported. Chairman Udall did not find the bill, as
marked up, acceptable. Further negotiations went on and by late
July we had arrived at language which with few exceptions was
acceptable to Mr. Udall. The Senate Committee filed its report
on this compromise bill on August 3. Despite Chairman Udall's
explicit objection, this bill in the Senate report contained
Section 23 which was unfavorable to the Narragansett.
On September 15, the Senate passed the bill with
amendments, including one striking out Section 23. With these
amendments, the bill was acceptable to Mr. Udall. Pursuant to
the general agreement, Mr. Udall had the bill held at the desk
without referral while interested House Members reviewed the
Senate-passed bill. On September 26, S. 555 passed the House
under suspension of the rules, and was signed into law on
October 17, 1988.
Mr. Chairman, I would close my testimony with a quote from
Chairman Udall's Floor statement at the time of House passage.
I quote, ``S. 555 is the culmination of nearly 6 years of
congressional consideration of this issue. The basic problem
which has prevented earlier action by Congress has been the
conflict between the right of tribal self-government and the
desire for State jurisdiction over gaming activity on Indian
lands.
``On July 6, I inserted a statement in the Record which set
out my position on this bill. I stated that I could not support
the unilateral imposition of State jurisdiction over Indian
tribal governments. I did state, however, that I remained open
to reasonable compromises on the issue.
``S. 555 is such a compromise, hammered out in the Senate
after considerable debate and negotiations. It is a solution
which is minimally acceptable to me and I support its
enactment. While the Interior Committee did not consider and
did not report S. 555, certain members and Committee staff did
participate very actively in negotiations in the Senate which
gave rise to the compromise of S. 555.''
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be
happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ducheneaux may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Ducheneaux. We will start the
questioning with Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make
an observation here because I do agree, we have been back and
forth arguing the merits of the legal positions and I think
that we have made that case clear but I just want to step back
for a second because I think one of this country's greatest
disgraces and shames is the way it has treated its Native
Americans.
I mean the fact that in America today there is 93,000
homeless American Indians, that Indians have the highest rate
of diabetes, tuberculosis, fetal alcohol syndrome of any other
group. The suicide rate for teenagers is four times what it is
for everyone else. Unemployment in the case of the
Narragansetts is 40 percent.
OK, we came over here, we took all their land, and what do
we give them in return? Some idea of sovereignty. We said we
take all your land, what are we going to give you? Some idea of
sovereignty, OK? So there is some notion we got to give them
economic empowerment. Gaming was one of the things. States are
gaming, Rhode Island is gaming, and now we are saying we are
going to take back that.
I mean albeit but I--I mean when the State is gaming like
it is and I can have pro or con, whatever you would like, the
fact is there would not be this issue if the Narragansetts
still had this land. They would be providing for their people
through a myriad of other economic sources that the State and
Federal Government took away from them.
They would be providing for their people. Their people
would not be in the economic situation they are in today. But
for us taking away that, we ought to be having a hearing on us
taking--the U.S. Government taking away all their economic
means of sufficiency. OK, so now we give them gaming and now we
are going to say, well, you know, I guess we do not like that,
you know, even though under IGRA, and I just finally want to
say, there are provisions for it.
And as Ms. Almeida said, you know what, the State of Rhode
Island, they do not support gaming, two-thirds of the people
voted against it, OK. Under IGRA you have to vote--you have to
have voter approval, you have to compact with the Governor. OK,
there are provisions because if this was a case where the
State--the Narragansetts could get that casino gaming as
everyone, Senator Chafee, Ms. Almeida, everyone else has
asserted they would, then why spend 6 years on IGRA if that was
such an accepted notion.
Well, they will have gaming anyway so who knows after big
Class II and big bingo hall, that is fast track to casino
gambling. Well, guess what, if it was such a fast track to
casino gambling why would you ever have IGRA to begin with? If
it was such a fast track to Indian gaming, why are you having
so many court decisions all across this country about that?
The reason you have so many court decisions is guess what,
it is not a fast track for gaming because now the States have
authority and there are a number of safeguard provisions put in
there to keep the brakes on it but it is put within a legal
framework that can be hashed out. And now we are going to
circumvent the framework that was hashed out where, you know,
people would come to a meeting of the minds on this.
We are going to scrap that because we want to have it our
way and no way. This is a one-way street is what this is about.
We do not like gaming so we will do it but we will prevent you
from doing it. Circumvent the whole thing. And we acknowledge
tribes separate from individuals as Narragansetts still have
citizenship. We acknowledge their sovereign status as a tribe
because we know that this country has some price to pay for the
shameful way that it has treated Native Americans in this
country.
That is why you have a sovereignty. Now if you want to
start redefining sovereignty then you destroy the whole notion
of sovereignty. Let me say I will allow you government but let
me tell you what I will allow you to govern. I mean am I
missing something here? I mean there is no sovereignty if you
have to, you know, keep saying, well, you have sovereignty
under IGRA but wait a second, that does not include this.
I mean we passed a law. It was clear. It was
straightforward. And because some people would rather have--
politically it is more advantageous to be against gaming, let
us be honest about it, in the State of Rhode Island. Because of
that you are going to circumvent the civil and sovereign rights
of the Narragansett Indians. I think it is wrong and I think
that as, Mr. Ducheneaux, you pointed out, you would have
never--this bill never would have passed if you had had Section
23 in the law, am I right?
Mr. Ducheneaux. Congressman, obviously I could not say what
would have happened, but as I said in my written and oral
statement, Mr. Udall's position at that time--and it was
perfectly clear to all those who were involved in the
negotiations--was that unless the bill from the Senate was
acceptable to him he would request that it be referred back to
this Committee where given the time, September, it probably
would have died here because he would have been opposed to it.
In addition, it was made perfectly clear by myself to the
Democratic and Republican staff of the Indian Affairs Committee
over in the Senate that Mr. Udall was opposed to the provision,
and that it would not be acceptable if it came to the House. I
have reason to believe that Mr. Udall's position was made very
clear to Senator Pell's office and my understanding at that
time was that Senator Pell, through his staff, approached the
Senate Committee staff and asked them to accept an amendment on
the Floor deleting the language. This resulted in the colloquy.
It is my understanding that the amendment was dropped from
the Senate bill on the Senate Floor by an amendment because of
the clear understanding that Mr. Udall would not accept it in
the House. Now what might have happened had the Senate passed
it with Section 23 in it, I really could not say, but my
recommendation to Mr. Udall had been not to accept it and he
had indicated to me that he would not.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Senator Chafee.
Senator Chafee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
Carol Lytle, who is a member of the town council of the town of
Charlestown where all this activity is taking place is with us
and she has a statement and, Mr. Chairman, I would ask
permission to put that statement into the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without exception, so ordered.
[Letter from Ms. Lytle may be found at end of hearing.]
Senator Chafee. And I wanted to thank her very much for
taking the trouble in coming down and paying her own way from
Rhode Island today. Mr. Chairman, as you can see, we have got a
fundamental difference here and while it is a Rhode Island
issue, there is no question about it, but Representative
Kennedy, under the guise of reducing unemployment, bad health,
and all the problems we are concerned with in the Indian
tribes, and in connection especially with Narragansetts, is
just dead set to ensure that the Narragansetts have high-stakes
bingo, the second tier gambling in the State of Rhode Island
and circumventing a Rhode Island law that provides that any
extension or new gambling enterprise has to be approved by the
people of this State.
Now that is where we are and we believe very strongly that
they should be subject to the laws of the State and that this
is not something that can be just brushed aside by saying,
``Oh, IGRA is going to take care of everything.'' It is not. It
is certainly not going to permit people of the State of Rhode
Island to determine whether or not we have high-stakes bingo.
That would not be the case under those provisions. Thank you.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, if it is not
already in the record, I would like to submit a statement of
Senator Daniel Inouye in the record.
Mr. Gilchrest. So ordered.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inouye follows:]
Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, a U.S. Senator from Hawaii; Vice
Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, before the Oversight Hearing of
the Committee on Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, on the
provision in the 1997 Omnibus Appropriations Act relating to the
Narragansett Tribe of Rhode Island
Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Committee on
Resources, I regret that I cannot be with you today to present
my testimony in person, but as Chairman of the Franklin Delano
Roosevelt Memorial Commission, I have had long-standing
commitments associated with the events surrounding this week's
formal dedication of the memorial.
I have been asked to address section 330 of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, which amends the Rhode
Island Indian Claims Settlement Act to preclude the
Narragansett Indian Tribe of Rhode Island from conducting
gaming on tribal lands under the authority of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act.
Mr. Chairman, contained in the general provisions of the
bill relating to appropriations for the programs Administered
by the Department of the Interior and the narrative which
accompanies section 330, is a colloquy that I engaged in with
Senators Pell and Chafee on September 15, 1988.
Mr. Chairman, should the inclusion of this colloquy in the
measure be perceived today or in years to come as an indication
of my support for this provision, I feel that I must set the
record straight.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the record should show that at
the time of our colloquy, there was an underlying premise upon
which our discussion was based, which I have since learned, was
erroneous.
That underlying premise was that there had been no
intervening events of legal significance that would warrant any
change in the provisions of the Rhode Island Indian Claims
Settlement Act.
At the time that the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement
was agreed to in 1978, the Narragansett people were organized
as a state-chartered corporation. Given that status, it is
perhaps understandable that the settlement act provided for the
extension of state criminal, civil and regulatory laws to the
settlement lands.
But in 1983, the Narragansett Indian tribe achieved
federally recognized status, and in 1988, a few days before the
September 15, 1988 colloquy, the tribe's settlement lands were
taken into trust by to United States.
These two intervening events are important because
federally recognized status generally confers upon tribes
exclusive jurisdiction over their lands, and when their lands
are taken into trust, the protections of Federal law are
extended to the lands, and the combination of Federal ad tribal
law and jurisdiction over the lands acts to pre-empt the
application of state laws to such lands.
Indeed, the legal significance of these intervening events
was of such import, that in 1994, the First Circuit Court of
Appeals concluded that the provisions of the Rhode Island
Indian Claims Settlement Act were affected by the two events,
and that the state no longer has exclusive jurisdiction over
the settlement lands. The First Circuit held, instead, that the
state's jurisdiction was concurrent with that of the
Narragansett Tribe.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that we should be clear about what
section 330 of the Omnibus Appropriations measure has as its
objective--it effects a return to the state of the law as it
was in 1978, notwithstanding the fact that the tribe is now
federally recognized and would otherwise enjoy the status of
other federally recognized tribes, and notwithstanding the fact
that the tribe's settlement lands are now held by the United
States in trust for the tribe and would otherwise not be
subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State of Rhode
Island.
Some might question why this extraordinary action was
taken--why this provision was so important that the
jurisdiction of the authorizing committees was circumvented and
this amendment to substantive law, which by the way, had
absolutely nothing to do with the appropriation of funds in
Fiscal Year 1997--was included in the Fiscal Year 1997 spending
bill. The answer, as I understand it, is to prevent the tribe
from operating a bingo hall on tribal lands.
Mr. Chairman, in my eighteen years of service on to Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs, in my 8 years of service as the
Committee's Chairman, and for the last two and a half years, as
the Committee's Vice-Chairman, I have, for the most part, been
proud of the manner in which the United States has dealt with
the Indian Nations on a government-to-government basis.
We have attempted to reverse or at a minimum address the
effects of some of the darker chapters of our history as a
Nation when it comes to our treatment of indigenous people of
this land. We have resolved to consult with them on any law or
policy which will affect their lives or their governments, and
indeed, Federal law requires that we do so.
But near the conclusion of the last session of the
Congress, Mr. Chairman, over the strenuous and adamant
objections of this tribe, there was enacted into law a
provision that holds the potential to forever change their
lives, without the benefit of hearings, in the absence of any
record that would serve to justify the action taken by the
Congress, and without any consultation with the affected tribe.
At that time, Mr. Chairman, I advised my colleagues from
Rhode Island that I could not support this provision. I also so
advised the President of the United States, the minority leader
of the Senate, and the Members of this House and Senate
Appropriations Committees. And so, Mr. Chairman, I believe that
it came as no surprise to my colleagues, when I stated my
intention, as I did last October, to call for hearings early in
the 105th Session of the Congress on this matter--and it is for
that reason that I commend my colleagues in the House for
holding this hearing today.
It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that as long as I continue to
serve in the U.S. Senate, section 330 of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1997, will not serve as a
precedent for similar action affecting other tribes, nor will
it define the manner in which the U.S. Congress deals with the
Indian people.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, our Constitution
establishes a distinctively different framework for our
relations with the Indian Tribes, and 200 years of Federal law
and policy have been built upon that foundation. We are a
Nation which prides ourselves on our honor and integrity in our
dealings with all people. We owe no less to this Nation's first
Americans.
Mr. Kildee. Also, I would like to just talk in general----
Mr. Kennedy. If I can interrupt you just for a minute----
Mr. Kildee. Just for a minute, OK.
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to point out I am not for--I am
for respecting the fact that we have tribal trust. We have a
federally recognized tribe. There are certain responsibilities
we as Federal officials have. If every tribe was subject to
every State law you would not have a special tribal trust,
Federal trust relationship with tribes. So I just want to
correct Senator Chafee's position that I am--the reason why you
have tribal sovereignty, it is granted by the Federal
Government, it is not granted but it is recognized by the
Federal Government, is because you want to acknowledge there is
a different sovereignty here, governing authority.
If it were simply the case where everything would recede
back to the States then we would not be here right now. I grant
you that, Senator Chafee. If this was simply a matter of them
complying with State laws if they are like every other citizen
I grant you that, Senator Chafee. But that is not the issue
here.
Narragansetts, aside from being citizens of the State of
Rhode Island, they are also members of a federally recognized
tribe and have certain rights and privileges as a sovereign
tribe recognized by the Federal Government. I just want to--
yield back.
Mr. Kildee. This chipping away at Indian sovereignty really
concerns me. The 104th Congress had a terrible record in
chipping away at Indian sovereignty, a pathetic, pitiful
record. First of all, out of the Ways and Means Committee came
the attempt to tax the gaming, 35 percent, Indian gaming. They
never would have thought of putting a bill out to tax
Michigan's gaming. Michigan has a lottery because Michigan is a
sovereign State.
Some of those people do not really understand that
sovereignty is something that the Indian people had before my
ancestors ever landed here and they retained that sovereignty.
Read John Marshall's decision. Andrew Jackson did not follow
them but read John Marshall's decision. That is an inherent
sovereignty and the attack in the 104th Congress was
despicable.
First of all, the attempt to tax your gaming, the attempt
to weaken your Indian Child Welfare Act. The nation has a right
to have some concern and care for its children and yet the
House passed the bill to weaken Indian Child Welfare Act.
Despicable act. I voted against it. It passed but thank God the
Senate in that instance showed some wisdom and the bill died
over at the Senate.
Now the Chafee Rider too, I think, is three of the--I think
really attacks on sovereignty and that is really what it comes
down to. You know, you do not have to like gaming. You do not
have to like gambling. But I think we are sworn to uphold the
Constitution of the United States and that recognizes the
sovereignty of the Indian tribes.
This Constitution and all treaties entered into are the
supreme law of the land. And I took an oath to uphold that
Constitution and I as long as I am a Member of Congress am
going to uphold the sovereignty of the Indian nations in this
country. I do not have to be for gaming or against gaming. That
is secondary. It is the sovereignty that is very important.
I am glad that Mr. Allen is here today because I think you
recognize that when the sovereignty of one Indian nation is
under attack that the sovereignty of all Indian nations are
under attack and you have to really pull together and I am very
happy to see that the National Congress of American Indians is
deeply involved in this because you cannot stand alone. The
sovereignty was under attack in the 104th Congress and could be
under attack for many Congresses and standing together will
help protect that sovereignty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. Mr. Weygand.
Mr. Weygand. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I just have a
couple clarifications I think of my dear friend, Representative
Donald Lally. I noticed in his statement, unfortunately I did
not catch all of his statement but in a letter to the
Committee, Mr. Chairman, he has indicated a couple things that
are very much wrong.
He said that recent polls and earlier polls showed that the
Narragansetts have overwhelming support of the majority of
Rhode Islanders. Well, Donald, as you and I know polls taken
today change tomorrow and change the next day. Most of the
polls that were taken about me would have said I would never
have been elected lieutenant Governor or never elected to the
U.S. Congress.
The only real poll is the one that is taken on election
day. In 1994 the people of Rhode Island clearly and
emphatically voted for a referendum that said they wanted to
restrict gambling. They wanted to be sure that if there was
going to be expansion of gambling it would be placed before
referendum, that the voters of the town and the State would
approve.
I would not want the Committee, Mr. Chairman, to be led to
believe that in fact there is overwhelming support for this
issue within the State of Rhode Island at this point in time.
While I am sure that there have been polls taken, I know there
are, as you and I both know, it depends upon how it is worded,
what is said, and what is within the question.
So I would say the only thing that we can only stand upon
is the vote of the people of Rhode Island on election day. The
second thing I would say is that with regard to Donald's
comments on the referendum questions of 1994, he is correct. On
the questions they never identified, unfortunately I think it
would have been more appropriate for them to identify the
Narragansett Indian Tribe referendum question. I think that
would have been fair.
I think that would have been a fair and honest way for
people to evaluate what was before them. There was a lot of
advertising so that people of Rhode Island knew what was going
on but I think that the Secretary of State should have
identified it in a different way. That did not come about. But
in 1994 clearly the people also voted in a separate referendum
to change our State constitution, to change it to in fact
restrict gambling and in fact make it so difficult that they
had to become before all of the people.
I think that it is unfortunate that we are actually at this
point because clearly there is a difference amongst us. This is
a question of balance and fairness versus one of contract and
the contract is really the crux of the problem that is before
us today.
There is a contract that is legal and binding upon the
Narragansett Indians in the State of Rhode Island. They are OK
in the other States, they say, but not here in Rhode Island.
Well, I think that has to truly be questioned in court.
I want to thank all of the panelists and all the people
from Rhode Island who have come here today. On either side of
the issue I think it shows tremendous political and public
involvement and whether we agree or disagree, this is what
should be happening before the Congress and this is what
America was built upon, being able to voice your concerns and
getting out and argue about them even if we have to disagree on
the issue.
Let me end, Mr. Chairman, by only suggesting to my dear
friend from Narragansett that with regard to the legislation
that has been submitted before the State General Assembly, you
should probably send it back to the counsel. They have
misspelled the words sovereign nation. I hope they would change
that for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there anyone on the panel that would want
to respond to the Congressman's words?
Mr. Lally. I would just like to respond briefly. As far as
the 1978 contract I think that IGRA overruled that with respect
to gambling so that any expansion in Rhode Island I do not
think would pertain to the Narragansett Indian Tribe because
they are a separate sovereign nation. I also found it
interesting to hear the Governor say today that he is relying
on gaming to rebuild the Rhode Island economy but the sovereign
nation of the Narragansett Indian Tribe cannot use the same
type of gaming to rebuild their economy for its people. Thank
you.
Ms. Almeida. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gilchrest. Ms. Almeida.
Ms. Almeida. Thank you. I would like to make one point. It
has been said here today that the Narragansetts entered into a
form of a treaty and that was the Settlement Act and because
the Federal Government and the people that moved into this
country did not hold up the end of their treaties, then they do
not really feel they have to hold up theirs.
I would like to make a point in a Joint Memorandum of
Understanding which I have submitted if you will turn to page
four you will see that when the Narragansetts signed this Joint
Memorandum of Understanding in order to acquire the land that
met one of the criteria to receive Federal recognition in the
first place it was the Narrangansett Tribe of Indians. It does
not say incorporated.
I do not see how they were a corporation when they received
the land and when they made the deal. I just wanted to make
that point. And I also would like to address the fact that it
seems that you feel that we are kind of crazy that we think
that high-stakes bingo might lead to casinos but we see it
right across the border in Connecticut. That is what happened
there.
It is not odd that the Narragansetts might be considering
casino gambling when the NGIC sent letters responding to the
fact that they had a two-phase program, phase one and phases
two, and that phase one of the high-stakes bingo hall was the
first phase. So, you know, to think that to make it sound like
we are kind of silly because we think that casinos might be
next is really not there.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much, Ms. Almeida. I would
like to close today's hearing by thanking--I am about an hour
late from my previous engagement and I think just about
everything that was said although I would leave the record open
for any additional testimony. We certainly, I am sure without a
doubt, revisit this issue before there will be any vote taken.
And I want to thank the members for their interest in this
issue. I want to thank all those people who have traveled great
distances to be here to express their heartfelt feelings and
opinions. I would like to say that, Mr. Kennedy, his statement
about past practices understanding the history of this
country's dealing with Native Americans and many other peoples
to a large extent has been sad and has caused great despair and
great distrust.
We have passed through many generations of peoples who have
fought very courageously so that their children could have a
better future and we are the recipients of the courage of our
ancestors and we should not forget that because it is now our
responsibility not to so consider the devastation of the past.
We cannot forget that.
But it is our clear responsibility to do what we can at
this time while it is in our hands to make sure the future
children, our children, our neighbor's children, this nation's
children, have a positive outlook, have an optimistic outlook.
We cannot pass up an opportunity to solve a problem for self-
centered purposes whether you are for gambling or whether you
are against gambling, whether you have a difference of opinion
about sovereignty versus State's rights versus Memorandums of
Understanding.
It is important for us as adults to look to the future,
remember the past but we cannot use the past as an excuse for
what we are doing right now. We are in 1997 in the United
States in a global marketplace. One hundred years is not a very
long period of time. We are creating the future for our
children through our dialog and our understanding and our
relationship with other people.
The principles of democracy is an exchange of information
with a sense of tolerance for someone else's opinion. I think
if we have that and we keep our children's future in mind we
will find some resolution to this problem. Thank you all very
much for coming. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned; and
the following was submitted for the record:]
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
Due to the high cost of printing and the large number of
letters received it was not possible to reproduce them here,
but the names of those submitting material follows:
Anderson, Curtis F., Jr., Robinson Rancheria Citizens
Council
Anderson, Marge, The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians
Andrew, Tommy J., Native Village of Kwigillingok
Bear, Nancy, Kickapoo Tribe
Bearskin, Leaford, Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma
Bennett, Phillip, Hung-A-Lel-Ti Woodfords Washoe Community
Council
Burdette, Vivian, Tonto Apache Tribe
Butler, Raymond, Otoe-Missouria Tribe
Darden, Ralph C., Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana
Dasheno, Walter, Santa Clara Indian Pueblo
Diamond, Margaret, Lac Courte Oreilles Tribal Governing
Board
Doyle, Richard M., Pleasant Point Reservation
George, Lyle Emerson, The Suquamish Tribe
Gonzales, Raymond E., Sr., Elko Band Council
Gurnoe, Rose M., Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
Hess, Mervin E., Bishop Paiute Tribe
Hess, Vineca, Bridgeport Indian Reservation
Hodshon, William & Margaret
Hunter, Vernon, Caddo Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
Jim, Gelford, Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone
Katchatag, Stanton, Native Village of Unalakleet
Kelly, Paul S., Senate Majority Whip, State of Rhode Island
Levi, Nathan, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe
Lopez, Carl, Soboba Band of Mission Indians
McGeshick, John C., Sr., Lac Vieux Desert Bnd of Lake
Superior Chippewa Tribal Government
Mike, Rodney, Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
Miller, Leslie A., Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians
Miller, William, Dot Lake Village Council
Moyle, Alvin, Fallon Paiute-Shoshone Tribe
Muktoyuk, Gabriel L., King Island Native Community
Nenema, Glen, Kalispel Tribe of Indians
Padilla, Nicolas J., Susanville Indian Rancheria
Pete, David, Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation
Pico, Anthony R., Viejas Indian Reservation
Pinto, Tony J., Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians
Ramirez, Peter R., Mechoopda Indian Tribe
Ruby Tribal Council
Sampson, Donald G., Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation
Shields, Caleb, Fort Peck Tribes, Assiniboine & Sioux
Shipley, Priscilla A., Stillaguamish Indian Tribe
Smagge, Rita, Kenaaitze Indian Tribe I.R.A.
Stansgar, Ernie, Coeur D'Alene Tribe
Stephan, Lee, Native Village of Eklukna
Sterud, Bill, Puyallup Tribe of Indians
Stockbridge-Munsee Band of Mohicans (Virgil Murphy)
Stone, Wanda, Kaw Nation
Tallchief, George E., Osage Nation
Torres, Elmer C., Pueblo De San Ildefonso
Wallace, A. Brian, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California
Whitefeather. Bobby, Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians
Willams, Leona L., Pinoleville Indian Reservation
Wynne, Bruce, Spokane Tribe of Indians
------
SAMPLE PETITION
Petition Supporting the Sovereign Rights of the Narragansett Indians
We, the undersigned, support the Narragansett Indians in
their efforts to fully restore the tribe's sovereign rights.
The Narragansett, Rhode Island's only federally recognized
Indian tribe, have been discriminated against for years by
state and Federal legislation that severely restricts the
tribe's political authority to enforce Indian laws on Indian
land. Among the approximately 550 federally recognized tribes
in the United States, no other tribe in the country suffers the
same unfair restrictions of its sovereignty. In America, the
land of the free, we believe that the Narragansetts' sovereign
rights should be reinstated in order to preserve the tribe's
Native American culture and storied heritage. We advocate the
tribe's freedom to pursue economic development on its lands to
ensure the health, education, safety and welfare of the tribe's
2,500 men, women and children.
[The petitions were signed by over 2,750 residents and 700
non-residents.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1432.097