[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 831, TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND
CLAIMS OF THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY; AND H.R. 2793, TO PROVIDE
FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE SAULT
STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, June 24, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-100
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
94-455 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, June 24, 2004.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Carson, Hon. Brad, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oklahoma, Prepared statement of................... 84
Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 8
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 6
Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 5
Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 7
Pombo, Hon. Richard W., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
Letter submitted for the record.......................... 12
Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Michigan.......................................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 22
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Bennett, Hon. George, Tribal Councilor, Grand Traverse Band
of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Oral statement of.......... 62
Black, William, Legislative and Community Affairs Director,
Michigan International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Detroit,
Michigan................................................... 78
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Cummings, Richard, President, Michigan Machinists Council,
Port Huron, Michigan....................................... 75
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Falcon, Tribal Chief Audrey, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe,
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan..................................... 72
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Kewaygoshkum, Hon. Robert, Tribal Council Chairman, Grand
Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Suttons Bay,
Michigan, Prepared statement of............................ 63
Lambert, Hon. Alan R., Mayor, City of Romulus, Romulus
Michigan................................................... 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 52
Martin, Aurene, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.. 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Neal, Hon. B. Mark, Mayor, City of Port Huron, Port Huron,
Michigan................................................... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 44
Parker, Hon. Jeff, President of the Executive Council, Bay
Mills Indian Community of Michigan, Brimley, Michigan...... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Shagen, Paul W., Esq., Senior Tribal Attorney, Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan, Sault Ste.
Marie, Michigan............................................ 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Additional materials supplied:
Deuman, Leanne Barnes, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Thomas
J. Veum, P.C., Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, Statement
submitted for the record................................... 21
Engler, Hon. John M., Former Governor, State of Michigan,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 19
Kilpatrick, Hon. Kwame M., Mayor, City of Detroit, Michigan,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 85
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 831, TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE
SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY;
AND H.R. 2793, TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN
LAND CLAIMS OF THE SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS.
----------
Thursday, June 24, 2004
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:21 p.m., in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Richard W.
Pombo [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Pombo, Young, Duncan, Jones,
Gibbons, Hayworth, Flake, Rehberg, Cole, Pearce, Rahall,
Kildee, Faleomavaega, Pallone, Christensen, Inslee, and
Bordallo.
Also Present on Dais: Representative Stupak.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD POMBO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Resources will come to
order.
The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
831 and H.R. 2793. They are intended to settle land claims
asserted by the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. The bills are sponsored by
Michigan Representatives Candice Miller and John Dingell.
The Chairman. Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie have
reservations on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and the land
claims pertain to an area called Charlotte Beach, which is also
on the U.P. The premise of these bills is to extinguish the
land claims in exchange for placing lands in trust for the
purpose of gaming several hundred miles away from the tribes'
existing reservation. Casinos would be constructed on the trust
lands pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or as
specified in the terms of the bills and the Tribal-State
settlement agreements the bills ratify.
A few months ago, our distinguished former Chairman of this
Committee, Mr. Young of Alaska, added similar legislation on
H.R. 3550 during the Transportation Committee's markup of that
bill. Because such legislation is within the Resources
Committee's jurisdiction, at my request, the Gentleman from
Alaska was kind enough to withdraw the land claims language
from TLU when it reached the Floor.
As everyone should know by now, I made the request because
it is my policy to protect this Committee's jurisdiction in the
most aggressive manner possible. Because interest in these
bills remains strong among several members of this Committee,
among many others in the House, including the Ranking Democrat
Member, Mr. Rahall, it is appropriate to hold a hearing on
these bills.
Holding this hearing today accomplishes two purposes. It
upholds the regular order of the House, thereby discouraging
attempts by other committees to dabble in our jurisdiction--
[Laughter.]
The Chairman.--and it enables people on both sides of this
issue, including those riding the fence, to air out their
questions, concerns, and positions.
I look forward to hearing the testimony of our witnesses
today. It is my understanding that one of our colleagues from
the State of Michigan, after they are done testifying, want to
participate in the hearing. At this time, I ask unanimous
consent that the Gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak, be
allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the hearing.
Before anybody objects, I say that for those that are
interested in sitting on the dais, I want to point out that in
this Committee we operate with the understanding that we show
respect for the other members of the Committee and for our
witnesses. And if at any time--I know this is an emotional
issue for people, but if at any time you go beyond what I
consider the decorum of this Committee, I will ask you to be
removed.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pombo follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Richard Pombo, Chairman,
Committee on Resources
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 are intended to settle land claims asserted
by the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Sainte Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians. The bills are sponsored by Michigan Representatives
Candice Miller and John Dingell. Bay Mills and Sault Sainte Marie have
reservations on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and the land claims
pertain to an area called Charlotte Beach, which is also on the U.P.
The premise of these bills is to extinguish the land claims in
exchange for placing lands in trust for the purpose of gaming several
hundred miles away from the tribes' existing reservations. Casinos
would be constructed on the trust lands pursuant to the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act, or as specified in the terms of the bills and the
tribal-state settlement agreements the bills ratify.
A few months ago, our distinguished former chairman of this
Committee, Mr. Young of Alaska, added similar legislation to H.R. 3550
during the Transportation Committee's mark-up of that bill. Because
such legislation is within the Resources Committee's jurisdiction, at
my request the Gentleman from Alaska was kind enough to withdraw the
land claims language from TEA-LU when it reached the Floor. As everyone
should know by now, I made the request because it is my policy to
protect this Committee's jurisdiction in the most aggressive manner
possible.
Because interest in these bills remains strong among several
Members of this Committee and among many others in the House, including
the Ranking Democratic Member, Mr. Rahall, it's appropriate to hold a
hearing on these bills. Holding this hearing today accomplishes two
purposes: It upholds the regular order of the House, thereby
discouraging attempts by other Committees to dabble in our
jurisdiction, and it enables people on both sides of this issue,
including those riding the fence, to air out their questions, concerns,
and positions.
______
The Chairman. With that, I will now recognize the Ranking
Democrat of the Committee, Mr. Rahall.
STATEMENT OF HON. NICK J. RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do thank you for
holding today's hearing and certainly look forward to welcoming
our colleagues to present their testimony.
We are going to hear about two extremely important and
worthy measures that have been brought to our attention by my
good friend, by the past and future Chairman of the Energy and
Commerce Committee, and the dean of the House of
Representatives, John Dingell; and our colleagues Candice
Miller and Bart Stupak.
There is, in my view, a compelling public interest in these
two bills being enacted into law. At issue are approximately
110 acres of land in an area known as Charlotte Beach.
Currently some 109 Indians reside in this area under a clouded
title to the land.
It is my understanding that this situation rose out of a
series of long and tortured events, but it fundamentally boils
down to the fact that these ancestral lands, while they were
supposedly to have been held in trust, were instead illegally
sold for unpaid taxes. I would suggest that this is not a
tenable situation. Those who reside in the Charlotte Beach area
are being robbed of their peace of mind, with no security in a
place they call home. At the same time, the two tribes are
being robbed of enjoyment and benefit of their ancestral lands.
Moreover, the issues addressed by these two bills have
already passed one public interest test. The legislation would
simply ratify a settlement agreement between the Bay Mills
Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
Indians and the State of Michigan.
So I again commend our colleagues, Representatives John
Dingell, Candice Miller, for bringing this legislation to our
attention. And I also thank my good friend Bart Stupak, who, as
I understand, supports enactment of this settlement agreement.
I look forward to their testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Nick Rahall, II, Ranking Democrat,
Committee on Resources
Mr. Chairman, today the Committee meets to receive testimony on two
extremely important and worthy measures that have been brought to our
attention by my good friend, the Dean of the House of Representatives,
John Dingell, and our colleague, Candice Miller.
There is, in my view, a compelling public interest in these two
bills being enacted into law.
At issue are approximately 110 acres of land in an area known as
Charlotte Beach. Currently, some 100 non-Indians reside in this area
under a clouded title to the land. It is my understanding that this
situation arose out of a long and tortured series of events, but
fundamentally boils down to the fact that these ancestral lands of the
Indians while supposedly to have been held in trust where instead
illegally sold for unpaid taxes.
I would suggest that this is not a tenable situation. Those who
reside in the Charlotte Beach area are being robbed of their peace of
mind, with no security in the place they call home. At the same time,
the two tribes are being robbed of the enjoyment and benefit of their
ancestral lands.
Moreover, the issues addressed by these two bills have already
passed one public interest test. The legislation would simply ratify a
settlement agreement between the Bay Mills Indian Community and the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the State of Michigan.
So again, I commend Representatives John Dingell and Candice Miller
for bringing this legislation to our attention, as well as to my good
friend Rep. Bart Stupak, who also supports enactment of this settlement
agreement.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Normally under the Rules of the Committee we limit opening
statements. But the former Chairman of the Committee has asked
to be recognized for a very, very brief statement. Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very frankly, I'm at a
little bit of a loss because I have never been called a dabbler
before.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. I've been called many things, but a dabbler
never. And I do recognize and respect the gentleman's fierce
defense of the Committee. As the former Chairman, I admire
that, and you are absolutely correct, and we did withdrawn the
provision in my bill.
But this is not new to me. Mr. Stupak actually came to me
with Mr. Bonior introducing these bills in 2002, with the
Government's support, the signing off by the tribes, and I
became interested. And we tried to move these bills, and of
course, as you recognized, we moved them through the House and
got over to the Senate side and they began to languish away
like many other pieces of legislation.
So I am here to say that this is not a new subject for me,
and one that does support this concept, and hope through the
hearing we will understand why those oppose. For those I would
suggest, respectfully, the Old Young Rule I hope still applies
to this Committee, whereby you do not do harm to another
Member's District. If you are not from that District, you are
not representing those people. And if you don't represent those
people, then you should be out of this issue. Because this is a
form of representative Government. And second, you know, when
one lives in glass houses, someone should be very careful
because someone may be caught up with shattered glass.
And so I am suggesting respectfully through the hearing
that we learn all the facts and information on this issue. And
as one of the original sponsors in passage of the original
gaming issue, with Mr. Udall, I want everybody, as long as they
play by the rules and requirements passed by this Committee,
then they should be entitled to attempting to do what they wish
to do, and that is settle their land claims settlement.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your kindness
in your recognition and the respect you show me, as I
respectively show you as Chairman. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would also like to recognize Mr.
Kildee of Michigan.
STATEMENT OF HON. DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Kildee. I thank the Chairman for recognizing me.
Mr. Chairman, as a member with an established and
unwavering record of being an advocate for protecting the
sovereign rights of Indian tribes, I find no pleasure in
stating my strong opposition to the land settlement bills of
the Bay Mills Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, two
tribes located in my State, the great State of Michigan. I have
such deep respect and admiration for my friends, Bay Mills
Chairman Jeff Parker and Sault Ste. Marie Chairman Bernard
Bouschor. Nor do I delight in objecting to the bills that my
colleagues have sponsored so that their Districts could enjoy
the economic benefits of Indian gaming.
Mr. Chairman, should Congress enact these bills, the
unintended consequences will be to set dangerous precedents
that would serve to undermine the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act,
IGRA, and would promote bad public policy regarding Indian Land
Claims Settlements.
First, legitimacy of these land claims has never been fully
adjudicated, and the Department of Interior was not involved in
the negotiations between the Governor and the tribes that led
to the settlement agreements, even though the Secretary would
be required to take land into trust for the tribes.
Second, never before has Indian Land Claims Settlement
legislation, such as we have before us today, expressly
permitted a tribe to use the Land Claims Settlement exception
of IGRA. Nor has Congress ever passed a law ratifying every
term of a gaming compact negotiated between a State and tribe,
as we would do today. Under IGRA, Congress delegated the
responsibility of taking land into trust as part of a
settlement of a land claim and also the approval of a
negotiated State-Tribal gaming compact to the Department of
Interior. While Congress may approve land settlement
legislation for claims that arise from U.S. Government dealings
with Indian tribes, controversial provisions that authorize
off-reservation gaming and approve gaming compact terms should
not be included in Indian land settlement legislation.
Third, the result of these bills, if enacted, could lead to
a proliferation of off-reservation Indian gaming on land where
Indian tribes have no historical tribes. Indian tribes could
open gaming facilities anywhere in any State where gaming is
permissible--downtown Chicago, New York City, Columbus, Ohio,
or Newark, New Jersey. The land that the Bay Mills Community
and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe seek to have taken into trust is
several hundred miles away from the tribes' reservation and the
sites are not a part of the tribes' ancestral homeland. For
those of us who have fought tirelessly against legislative
attacks that would serve to harm Indian gaming, we could expect
a flurry anti-Indian gaming riders, legislation, and court
battles to follow the enactment of these bills.
In the current political climate, could we really expect to
be successful in defending an action that so clearly abuses the
intent of IGRA by making virtually any place in America a
possible Indian gaming site? I have received several tribal
resolutions from tribes in Michigan opposing these bills. In
addition, the Chairman has received letters from bipartisan
groups of our colleagues that express opposition to these bills
and raise general concerns about off-reservation Indian gaming.
Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the previous attempts to
include these bills in an appropriation measure, and I hope
that you will continue to oppose any attempt to move these
bills, or any variation of these bills, in legislation that is
not before this Committee. We must maintain, as you have so
well in the past, the jurisdiction of this Committee.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I thank you again
for yielding.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Gibbons?
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I did
want to take a moment for thank you for recognizing me to make
a few remarks here. I do want to associate myself with the
remarks of my friend from Michigan, Mr. Kildee, on this and
briefly to express my reservations regarding the two bills that
are the subject of our meeting this afternoon.
My concern stems, Mr. Chairman, not from any opposition to
the institution of gaming, Native American or otherwise, as my
home State of Nevada owes much of its current economic
prosperity to its thriving gaming industry. My personal
apprehension is with legislation that seeks to circumvent the
Congressionally established process for establishing Native
American casinos in the United States, as outlined in the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, IGRA, that was passed by
Congress. In fact, I have a deep concern with any bill designed
to provide a certain unfair advantage to one business-seeking
group or entity over all others, who follow the letter of the
law in the pursuit of their business opportunity.
I am assured, Mr. Chairman, that many of my colleagues here
are also holding a similar opinion. I believe Congress would be
making a grave mistake if we were to approve these two bills.
And if we pass this legislation, we would be granting a
tremendous favor or advantage of one group of Native Americans
over others. And if Congress rolls out the red carpet for one
tribe or entity, who can say that we shouldn't roll it out for
all others in the same fashion? Where would we draw the line,
and why would we have regulations and controls in place that we
do?
More importantly, Mr. Chairman, if Congress were to move
forward with these proposals, we would be giving a tremendous
advantage to the Native American gaming community, leaving the
non-Native American gaming entities, like those in Nevada, to
operate at an unfair and biased business atmosphere and
disadvantage.
In 1988, Congress established a firm review and approval
process for all proposed Indian casinos through the IGRA
process. Congress intended the States, local Government, and
residents to work together with the tribes and the Federal
Government to establish Native American casinos only on tribal
lands and in areas mutually agreed upon by all sides. The bill
before us today seeks to usurp that well-founded procedure to
the detriment of other legal gaming entities and other tribes
who followed the letter of the law when conducting business.
I look forward to hearing our witnesses' testimony today
and hearing their response to my questions. And with that, Mr.
Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time, and thank
you for your courtesy.
The Chairman. Thank you. And for our last opening statement
on the Committee, Mr. Pallone.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to say, having read the background on these
two bills, I think that it is clear that the Bay Mills Indian
Community, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa, and the State of
Michigan and the local municipalities have all worked together
to reach a mutual agreement about the land claims in question
and the building of new gaming facilities. It is unfortunate
that, when it comes to Indian gaming, such cooperation is a
rarity rather than a norm. More often than not, we are used to
hearing about fierce legal battles that have pitted local
municipalities against tribes.
That is not the case in these two instances. As evidenced
by the local referendums that were passed, these communities
want Indian gaming and see it as an opportunity to spur
economic development and create jobs. Consider the level of
success the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and its neighbors have
already experienced from Indian gaming. Revenues from the
tribe's current five casinos have allowed the tribe to offer
critical services to its 29,000 enrolled members, including a
new health center and additional housing.
Additionally, these casinos have provided their host
communities with hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is my
understanding that through past casino revenues, these local
communities were able to purchase snow plows, fire trucks,
ambulances, and a number of other important items that they
could not have afforded otherwise. With the addition of another
gaming facility, I am sure the surrounding communities and the
State are sure to reap additional benefits.
So I think that this is an example of where, if people work
together, both tribes, the State, the local communities, I
think it is a great example of success in that respect. And for
that alone, I think that we should support the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. I would like to now introduce our
first witnesses, three of our distinguished colleagues from the
State of Michigan, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. Stupak.
Let me take this time to remind all of today's witnesses
that, under Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5
minutes. Your entire written statement will appear in the
record.
Mr. Dingell?
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Dingell. I thank you for calling this hearing today and
I thank the members of the Committee for being here to listen
to the merits of the issue.
I also thank the distinguished Mayor of Romulus, Mr. Alan
Lambert, Mr. William Black, of the Michigan Brotherhood of
Teamsters, and Mr. Paul Shagen of the Sault Tribe for being
here today to talk about the resolution of a land dispute that
has long plagued our State.
I would also like to thank my colleague, Congresswoman
Candice Miller, for her valuable work on this issue and for
introducing one of the two bills which are before the Committee
today.
I also want to thank my dear friend Mr. Stupak, who
represents the District in which the Indians interested in this
matter reside.
I am here to speak of economic development opportunities
that have arisen for my constituents. As you all know, we have
had significant job losses in Michigan. This will afford us a
fine opportunity for economic development and makes possible
the creation of about 6,500 well-paying union jobs that will
help our State recover from the difficulties that we have
confronted in the economy. It also is to be noted that this
will benefit the entirety of southeast Michigan in a very
specific way.
I sit before the Committee today to discuss Land Settlement
Agreements that were entered into with Michigan's former
Governor, Mr. John Engler. One agreement affects the citizens
in and around the Port Huron area, in Representative Candice
Miller's District, and while the other directly impacts
citizens within and surrounding the city of Romulus, it is a
part of my Congressional District.
I would like at this time to submit both of these Land
Settlement Agreements for purposes of the record, Mr. Chairman.
I believe they will be helpful.
[NOTE: The agreements have been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I would note that only with the
settlements of these two land claims will this issue go away
and cease in the State of Michigan. I will begin speaking about
why I became involved in this.
As you will note, Governor Engler came to this conclusion
with both the Bay Mills Community and the Sault Community over
a land dispute in which the Indians have been very grossly
unfairly treated. Land had been taken from them in spite of
their clear right under the treaty. This is, I think, a good
settlement in something which has created great difficulty
throughout the entirety of Michigan.
Two communities, I would note, in my District have
indicated their interest in locating a casino in the community,
and it is my purpose to try and see to it that they are heard
and that their concerns and your concerns with regard to what
they seek are properly addressed. Romulus, I note, passed a
referendum with 57 percent support, approval for the casino. At
Port Huron, the community also held a referendum that passed by
a margin of 55 to 45.
I would note that in response to the requests of my people
in Romulus, I introduced legislation to ensure that the
citizens of Romulus received complete and proper representation
and that they have a seat at the table regarding legislation
regarding not only our affairs, but Port Huron. And I note that
I support both bills and believe that they are both in the
interest of settlement of a difficult problem in Michigan which
has long plagued us.
The legislation that I introduced would extinguish land
claims in the area of the Sault Tribe. In exchange, the
legislation will grant the Sault Tribe alternative lands in
Otsego, Michigan, and Romulus, Michigan, as outlined in the
settlement agreement. I would note, just yesterday I introduced
new legislation to perhaps modernize this by dropping
Vanderbilt from this, which has expressed no interest to me in
participating in the provisions of the legislation of which I
am particularly interested.
Settlements of these land claims, I note, will provide
6,500 badly needed well-paying jobs in Michigan, and the Sault
Tribe would bring to our people in Romulus some $350 million
worth of world-class casino, conference center, and hotel. And
they would bring in not only gamblers, but also those who would
provide an additional boost to the surrounding economy by
creating opportunities for conferences and other things which
are important to us. Similar opportunities would occur in Port
Huron, which is a city suffering significant economic problems
at this particular time. About $11 million will be added in
revenues to western Wayne County, and some $30 million in tax
receipts will be received by reason of this.
Romulus, I believe, and Port Huron deserve the passage of
these bills to provide jobs and revenues to their people and to
the State of Michigan. After more than 3 years, we are here
today to discuss the merits of legislation concerning two
communities in Michigan which have great need.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, to your consideration to
me and to us for holding these hearings today and for giving me
an opportunity to bring you the concerns of these two
communities, particularly my city of Romulus, where a fully
integrated community has great difficulties in terms of
providing the necessary jobs to the people that reside there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will ask that my entire
statement be included in the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]
Statement of The Honorable John D. Dingell, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Michigan
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for calling this important
hearing today. I would also like to thank the members of the Committee
that are here to listen to the merits of this issue. I would like to
thank The Mayor of Romulus, Alan Lambert, William Black of the Michigan
Brotherhood of Teamsters, and Paul Shagen of the Sault Tribe for coming
here to speak today to talk about how the resolution of this land
dispute would benefit their respective communities. I would like to
thank Representative Candice Miller for her valuable work on this issue
and introducing one of the bills before the Committee today. Finally, I
would like to thank Rep. Bart Stupak for his long and dedicated work on
helping to resolve the land dispute issue in his district.
I am here to speak of the economic development opportunities that
have arisen for my constituents in the 15th Congressional District of
Michigan; an opportunity that would bring 3,500 well paying jobs to my
district. Like all of Michigan in the last few years, my district has
seen its share of job loss. We have lost many well paying manufacturing
jobs. To that end, local governments are looking for new ways to bring
dollars to their communities. When the constituents of my district
approached me and said, ``Dingell, we want to be considered for an
economic development opportunity based on gaming.'' I told them I would
be here to do all that I can to help.
Some may say enough is enough, and that the State does not need
another casino. Others will express strong opposition based on the fact
that it is just too far away from the original reservation. While still
others may say that the Southeastern Michigan gaming market is
saturated. To those opposed to these pieces of legislation, I simply
say, let's not create a battle between those communities that have
casinos versus those communities that do not. Rather, let us work
together to help extinguish land disputes that have been around for
generations while at the same time allowing investment in our
communities and our State. Let us build a brighter Michigan that
creates 6,500 well paying, union jobs that will help our state recover
from the recent job loss we have experienced.
I sit before the Committee today to discuss two land settlement
agreements that were entered into by Michigan's former Republican
Governor, John Engler. One agreement affects the citizens in and around
the City of Port Huron in Representative Candice Miller's district,
while the other directly impacts the citizens within and surrounding
the City of Romulus that is a part of my Congressional district. I
would like to submit both of these settlement agreements for the
record. Since I represent the 15th Congressional District, it is to
that bill that I will mainly speak about today. I must stress that only
with the settlement of both land claims will this issue cease in the
State of Michigan.
I will begin by speaking about how I came to be involved in this
effort. I will then explain why I introduced H.R. 2793. Finally, I will
talk about how this legislation would help my constituents in Romulus,
Michigan.
We are here today to discuss legislation that was introduced as a
result of agreements reached by former Michigan Governor John Engler
with both the Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Bay
Mills Indian Community.
As you will hear from the other panelists, the settlement
agreements stem from a dispute by both tribes over land in Charlotte
Beach, Chippewa County, Michigan. To end this long running dispute,
Governor Engler signed agreements with both the Bay Mills Indian
Community and the Sault Tribe. In order to execute the agreements, Rep.
Miller introduced legislation with regards to the Bay Mills tribe and
Port Huron, Michigan while I introduced legislation with regard to the
Sault Tribe and Romulus, Michigan as well as to Otsego County,
Michigan.
I. TWO COMMUNITIES IN MY DISTRICT EXPRESSED INTEREST IN LOCATING A
CASINO IN THEIR COMMUNITY.
My role in this process began when Governor Engler signed a land
settlement agreement at the end of December 2002 with the Sault Tribe
that would provide land for gaming in Otsego County, Michigan as well
as one of three other areas, the city of Flint, Michigan, the city of
Romulus, Michigan, and Monroe County, Michigan, south of the River
Raisin.
Both the City of Romulus and Monroe County, Michigan are in my
Congressional District. For almost 6 months the two communities in my
district discussed whether or not they wanted to be considered for a
casino. Eventually Monroe County fell out of the running while the City
of Romulus expressed continued support for a casino. In fact, voters in
Romulus passed a referendum with 57% support approving a casino to be
built in that city. As for Port Huron, that community also held a
referendum that passed with a margin of 55% to 45% in favor of pursuing
gaming.
To answer the call I received from Romulus, I introduced
legislation, helping ensure that the citizens of Romulus receive
complete and proper representation in the House and that they have a
seat at the table should legislation regarding Port Huron begin moving.
Since both bills derive from land settlement agreements that originate
from the same land dispute it is important that both bills move
together so this matter may be resolved completely and in a timely
manner.
The legislation I introduced would extinguish the land claims in
the area of the Sault Tribe. In exchange, the legislation will grant
the Sault tribe alternative lands in Otsego County, Michigan and
Romulus, Michigan as outlined in the settlement agreement. These
alternative lands would become part of the reservation of the Sault
Tribe community. I would note, just yesterday, I introduced new
legislation that would limit the alternative lands solely to Romulus,
Michigan. In addition, the Sault Tribe has voluntarily elected to
pursue only the possibility of alternative land in Romulus.
In addition, my legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior
to take these lands into trust as land obtained in a settlement of a
land claim under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
II. SETTLEMENT OF THESE LAND CLAIMS WILL PROVIDE 6,500 BADLY NEEDED,
WELL PAYING JOBS IN MICHIGAN.
Approval of these land claims will create 3,500 new jobs in Western
Wayne County and 3,000 in Port Huron. Many would be high paying, union
jobs in two communities where unemployment is high.
The Sault tribe would build a $350 million world-class casino,
conference center and hotel, bringing in not only gamblers, but also
conferences that would provide an additional boost to the surrounding
economy.
Furthermore, it will add up to another $11 million in revenue to
Western Wayne County, and provide more than $30 million in tax revenue
to the State of Michigan annually.
III. ROMULUS AND PORT HURON DESERVE THE PASSAGE OF THESE BILLS TO
PROVIDE JOBS AND REVENUE TO THEIR COMMUNITIES AND THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN.
After more than three years, we are here today to discuss the
merits of legislation concerning both Romulus and Port Huron. It is
important that we work toward passage of these bills in a timely manner
to help these communities. In this struggle of the haves versus the
have nots, it is important to give these communities the opportunity to
pursue economic development.
I want to thank the Chairman for calling this legislative hearing
on both my legislation and Rep. Miller's legislation. It is important
to settle both claims at the same time so we can allow the State and
these communities the prospect of job creation. During these difficult
economic times, we must give our communities the tools with which to
prosper. I look forward to working with this Committee and you Mr.
Chairman in making these economic development opportunities a reality.
NOTE: Attachments to Mr. Dingell's statement have been retained in
the Committee's official files.
______
The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rogers?
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rahall,
the distinguished members from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, Mr.
Stupak. I thank you for convening this important hearing on an
issue that will have a profound impact on the citizens
throughout my home State of Michigan.
Others today will discuss the flawed policy of the two
bills before you, but I will focus my testimony on Michigan's
opposition to two new casinos, and any new casinos, and the
inaccurate notion that new casinos bring economic development
without significant consequences.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, without objection I would
ask to submit for the record a letter that was circulated by
myself and Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick, and is signed by
35 of our colleagues, opposing each of these bills. I would
note that the first six signatures on this letter are members
from Michigan, both Republicans and Democrats.
[The letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.005
Mr. Rogers. Michigan residents have said clearly that
enough is enough with regard to new casinos in our State.
Michigan already has more casinos, at 20, than public
universities, at 15. In a recent survey, only 6 percent of
Michigan voters favored opening a new casino in our State.
Newspapers from Detroit to Flint to Washington, D.C. have
opposed the authorization of these new casinos. In fact, the
Flint Journal stated in opposition to these bills, and I quote:
Flint is a likely next target expecting to benefit from an
advisory voter referendum this year. Such referenda passed in
Romulus and Port Huron were, in typical misleading fashion,
misleading voters, were fed the lie that gambling is a means of
economic development. End quote.
Mr. Chairman, that brings me to my second point. During my
service as an FBI agent working organized crime in the city of
Chicago, I saw first-hand how casinos would introduce a whole
host of unintended consequences to a community. One study shows
that States face an additional $6 billion per year in total
increased costs related to gambling--for bankruptcies,
addiction treatment centers, and in increased costs to the
judicial system. A news report last month stated that the city
of Detroit, this year, had to pay in excess of $1.2 million in
additional unaccounted for police, fire, and emergency services
directly related to the three new casinos currently operating
there. Bankruptcy filings in the Eastern District of Michigan
have risen 60 percent since the opening of those three casinos.
I am going to repeat that: 60 percent increase in personal
bankruptcy filings since the three Detroit casinos were
approved.
Though Mayor Kilpatrick's leadership is helping revitalize
the city of Detroit, the three Detroit casinos have not panned
out to be the savior for the city the supporters of it
originally claimed. Five years after a ballot proposal that I
strongly opposed was approved, Detroit faces a $65 million
budget shortfall, is losing more people than any other large
city in America, and has been ranked as the Nation's most
dangerous city for four out of the past 5 years. Casinos
haven't saved Detroit, and casinos won't save Romulus or Port
Huron, either.
Studies have shown that counties that host new casinos, and
this is the entire population of the county, face an additional
$219 per adult per year in direct costs and indirect costs.
Thirty-seven percent of that, which is based on Government
services, an increase in Government services and a tax on those
services caused by the casino. Crime, bankruptcies, suicide,
family costs, and abuse all account for the increase.
More than two-thirds of all compulsive gamblers--also borne
out in Canadian casinos as well--turn to crime to finance their
addiction. There are 350,000 addictive compulsive gamblers in
Michigan today. A recent research project by the University of
Nevada-Reno found that cities hosting new casinos had sharp
increases in theft, domestic abuse, drug crimes, personal
bankruptcies, and suicides. A 2001 study by the University of
Illinois and Georgia found that 8 percent of property crime and
10 percent of violent crime in counties that had casinos was
due directly to the presence of a casino. There is no place in
Michigan where a casino is more than one hour's drive.
Mr. Chairman, our citizens are saying enough is enough, and
I ask your Committee to stand with them today. Thank you again
for convening and allowing me to testify on this very important
matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Chairman Pombo and Ranking Member Rahall, I thank you for convening
this important hearing on an issue that will have a profound impact on
the citizens throughout my home state of Michigan. Others today will
discuss the flawed policy of the two bills before you. I will focus my
testimony on Michigan's opposition to new casinos, and on the
inaccurate notion that new casinos bring economic development without
significant consequences.
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, without objection I ask to submit
for the record a letter that was circulated by Congresswoman Carolyn
Kilpatrick and myself that is signed by thirty-five of our colleagues
opposing both of these bills. I would note that the first six
signatures on this letter are Members from Michigan, Republicans and
Democrats.
Michigan residents have said clearly that enough is enough with
regards to new casinos in our state. Michigan already has more casinos
at twenty than public universities at fifteen. In a recent survey, only
6% of Michigan voters favored opening a new casino in the state, 66%
were opposed and 28% were undecided. Newspapers from Detroit to Flint
to Washington, DC have opposed the authorization of these new casinos.
In fact, the Flint Journal stated in opposition to these bills that:
``Flint is a likely next target, expecting to benefit from an advisory
voter referendum this year. Such referenda passed in Romulus and Port
Huron where in typical misleading fashion voters were fed the lie that
gambling is a means of economic development.''
Mr. Chairman, that brings me to my second point. During my service
as an FBI Special Agent working organized crime in the City of Chicago,
I saw first-hand how new casinos would introduce a whole host of
unintended consequences to a community. One study shows that states
face an additional $6 billion per year in total increased costs related
to gambling, bankruptcies, addiction treatment centers and the judicial
system. A news report last month stated that the City of Detroit this
year had to pay in excess of $1.25 million in additional, unaccounted
for, police, fire and emergency services directly related to the three
casinos that currently operate there. Further, bankruptcy filings in
the Eastern, Michigan District Court have risen nearly 60% since the
three Detroit casinos were approved. Though Mayor Kilpatrick's
leadership is helping revitalize the City of Detroit, the three Detroit
casinos have not panned out to be the savior for the city the
supporters of it originally claimed. Five years after a ballot proposal
that I strongly opposed was approved, Detroit faces a $65 million
budget shortfall, is losing more people than any other large city in
America and has been ranked as the Nation's most dangerous city for
four out of the past five years. There are no movie theaters in the
city and no major shopping malls. Casinos haven't saved Detroit and
casinos won't save Romulus or Port Huron.
Studies have shown that counties which host a new casino face an
additional $219 per adult per year in direct costs, 37% of which are
increased taxes. Crime, bankruptcies, suicide, family costs and abuse
all account for the increase. More than two-thirds of compulsive
gamblers turn to crime to finance their addiction and there are 350,000
compulsive gamblers in Michigan. In fact, a recent research project by
the University of Nevada-Reno found that cities hosting new casinos had
sharp increases in theft, domestic abuse, drug crimes, personal
bankruptcies and suicides. A 2001 study by the Universities of Illinois
and Georgia found that 8% of property crime and 10% of violent crime in
counties that had casinos was due directly to the presence of the
casino.
There is no place in Michigan where a casino is more than an hour's
drive. Mr. Chairman, our citizens are saying enough is enough and I ask
your Committee to stand with them. Thank you again for convening this
hearing.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Stupak?
STATEMENT OF HON. BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, and
members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify.
I have been working on this land transfer problem for
years. I first introduced legislation back in 1999 in an effort
to resolve this issue. As you can see from the size of my file,
it has been a long road.
I hope that my testimony on these two bills will help to
finally resolve the land dispute between the Bay Mills Indian
Community--Bay Mills Tribe, the Sault Ste. Marie Band of
Chippewa Indians--Sault Tribe, and most importantly, the
property owners along Charlotte Beach on Michigan's eastern
Upper Peninsula, all of which reside in my District.
Currently, the two tribes claim rights to the land along
Charlotte Beach, creating a cloud on the land-holder's title by
the property owners. I first became involved in this land issue
at the request of the property owners, not the tribes. With a
cloud on their title, the Charlotte Beach property owners have
been sued, have had a difficult time trying to secure real
estate loans, cannot get title insurance, have experienced lost
real estate values as well as significantly lower property
values.
In order to resolve this land issue, an agreement was
reached in September of 2002 and again in December 2002 with
the former Governor, John Engler, between the two tribes. In
the settlement agreements, the tribes agreed to extinguish
their property claims on the Charlotte Beach in exchange for
land in two Michigan communities, Romulus and Port Huron. Under
Federal law, these parcels of land would be taken into trust on
the tribes' behalf by the Federal Government.
You will hear today that the measures are also supported by
local elected officials in Port Huron and Romulus. In addition,
the voters in these communities have signaled their approval.
It is crucial that Congress ratify the two settlement
agreements reached by the Bay Mills and Sault tribes and former
Governor Engler. The tribes have worked with the State of
Michigan and with each other, but without Congressional
approval the land exchange cannot be completed.
By ratifying these two land transfer settlements, Congress
has an opportunity we can't afford to miss--an opportunity to
right a wrong and bring an end to a land dispute that has been
going on far too long. This wrong has been inflicted upon all
three of the parties involved--the two tribes, who have a
legitimate claim to more than 100 acres along Charlotte Beach,
and 180 innocent homeowners along Charlotte Beach. And that is
all that these two bills really do. They simply ratify a land
exchange and put an end to a longstanding land dispute. This is
a specific solution to a localized problem that has been
arrived at only after extensive negotiation between all the
parties and the State of Michigan.
If I can get one point across to you in my testimony today,
it is that the parties involved have worked together to come to
an agreement to end a land dispute. Congress has the
opportunity, the power, and the obligation to finally settle
this dispute.
Finally, the Charlotte Beach landowners support this
legislation, and their attorney, Leanne Barnes Deuman, has
drafted testimony to submit for this hearing, so I ask, Mr.
Chairman, it be included in the record. I would also like to
submit a letter written by former Michigan Governor John Engler
recently on this issue. I would like that letter to be also
submitted for the record.
It is my hope that the rights of all parties involved will
be addressed during the discussion of this bill and that an
agreement will be reached. I remain committed to addressing
this issue and will continue to work with everyone, including
our colleagues Mr. Dingell and Ms. Miller, and this Committee
to bring about a final resolution to this land dispute, no
matter how long it takes.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my testimony. I
will be happy to answer any questions you may have. I would ask
unanimous consent that the letter dated June 23, 2004, from
former Governor John M. Engler, and the testimony drafted by
the attorney, Lee Barnes Deuman, Attorney at Law, on behalf of
the landowners be submitted for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The Engler letter and Deuman statement submitted for the
record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.007
Statement submitted for the record by Leanne Barnes Deuman, Attorney at
Law, Law Offices of Thomas J. Veum, P.C., 216 Ashmun Street, P.O. Box
516, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783
I am Leanne Barnes Deuman, an attorney in private practice in Sault
Ste. Marie, Michigan. I am pleased to submit this testimony for the
record in support of both H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793.
I represent 149 individuals who own very small parcels of land in
an area known as Charlotte Beach, Michigan. My clients innocently
acquired their land parcels in an area that later became the subject of
a land claim by Indian tribes in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan,
including the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Bay
Mills Indian Community. My clients' story is very sad; their resources
are extremely meager; and without the help of Congress, the lands which
constitute their most precious assets, will be rendered worthless
forever. The following is their story.
The Charlotte Beach lands are located on the southern shore of what
is now known as Lake Nicolet, approximately 18 miles southeast of the
City of Sault Ste. Marie, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Prior to
private ownership of the Charlotte Beach lands, these lands were
designated for withdrawal from the public domain under a certain Treaty
of 1855. This Treaty, known as the Treaty of Detroit, withdrew public
domain land for selection by individual Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
whose tribes were party to the treaty with the United States. After the
1855 Treaty was negotiated, but prior to its ratification by Congress
and, therefore, prior to the actual withdrawal of the lands from the
public domain, the federal government issued land patents to Boziel
Paul and his wife, who were non-Indians. Those land patents issued to
the Pauls in 1856 included the present day Charlotte Beach property.
In 1857, for reasons which are not fully documented, the Pauls
conveyed their Charlotte Beach property to the then Governor of
Michigan, Kinsley S. Bingham, in trust for the benefit of two Bands of
Chippewa Indians in and around Sault Ste. Marie. Whether the deed was
delivered and/or accepted by the Governor is also unknown. Of course,
once in the hands of the Governor, the lands were technically in fee
status and subject to the payment of real property taxes, which taxes
subsequently were never paid. As a result of the non-payment of taxes,
the lands were forfeited and sold by the State of Michigan to third
parties at tax sales, notwithstanding the Indians interests in those
lands.
In the late 1990s, litigation over those lands ensued, but did not.
result in clearing the cloud on the title to these Charlotte Beach
parcels. The federal court litigation brought by the Bay Mills Indian
Community, one of the modern political successors in interest to the
two Bands for which the lands were originally withdrawn, was dismissed
on procedural grounds for failure to join an indispensable party, the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, another modern day
political successor in interest to the Bands for whom the lands were
also withdrawn. The State court litigation, also brought by Bay Mills,
was dismissed on substantive grounds, but did not clear the landowners
title. Therefore, as of today, there has never been an adjudication of
the Indians claims to the Charlotte Beach parcels in private ownership.
As a result, there is an outstanding cloud on title to these parcels,
which will never be lifted absent Congressional action extinguishing
those claims. The cloud will never be lifted because tribes are immune
from suit resulting from their sovereign status. Thus, any quiet title
action by my clients (or any other Charlotte beach landowner) against
tribes designed to clear the cloud on title will not be allowed to
proceed. At this point, and based upon the previous litigation, it does
not appear that any tribe will ever waive its immunity if such
litigation were initiated. Therefore, the cloud will remain unless
cleared through Congressional action.
The nature and extent of the economic loss to my clients is
devastating and overwhelming. At present, no title company in Michigan
of which I am aware is willing to issue a title insurance commitment or
title insurance policy in connection with any of the Charlotte Beach
parcels. As you no doubt appreciate, that means no present owner of a
Charlotte Beach parcel is able to sell his or her property, since few
if any buyers are willing to forego title insurance. And the title
companies are unwilling to insure over the Indian claims even for an
additional insurance premium. Similarly, no Charlotte Beach parcel
owner can use his or her land to secure any loan. Thus, not only can
they no longer sell their land, they can no longer refinance any
existing loan on their property.
Theoretically, a Charlotte Beach land owner could sell his or her
land for cash, but of course few if any are willing or able to buy a
parcel with a cloud on title and. without title insurance, and it is a
rare purchaser willing to buy land they know they will be unable to
resell in the future because of the cloud on title. This is
particularly true since litigation over the cloud on title has occurred
and may occur again in the future.
This cloud on title is devastating to my clients. For most of my
clients, their Charlotte Beach lots are the location of their primary
residences. And these residences are anything but glamorous. The lots
are small and the homes are modest; indeed, many of the parcels are
occupied by trailers or modular homes. The residents are good, hard
working people with meager resources. Their homes and parcels represent
the bulk of their personal worth. They live in a poor rural area, where
jobs are low paying and hard to find. Suffice it to say, these parcels
and the homes located on them are neither large, nor glamorous. The
owners can barely afford to attend court hearings in connection with
litigation affecting their lands, let alone afford the legal fees
required to protect their only real asset in life.
You will likely hear a variety of testimony today by many persons
interested in the Bills before you. That testimony may come from down
State political figures, such as Mayors of large cities in Michigan. It
will probably also come from publicly-traded corporations owning and
operating substantial casinos. Clearly, those persons testifying will
have interests they wish to protect, for which they are not to be
faulted. But, please, do not forget the real victims of this land
claims dispute. The real victims are the property owners of the
Charlotte Beach parcels, who bought lands with whatever resources were
available to them, only to find out years later that there is a cloud
on their title that relates back to the mid 1800s, and that that cloud
has, as a practical matter, rendered their property difficult, if not
impossible, to sell or collateralize. Had they foreseen litigation and
the problems which ensued in conjunction with it, they may have taken a
different path. Had they known in advance, perhaps they could have
bought land elsewhere. Now, having purchased the land and subsequently
learning of the defect in their title, they are absolutely helpless to
do anything about it. They have no money for legal fees. And even if
they did, the money would do them no good, since there is no way to
quiet title to lands against unwilling defendants which are immune from
suit.
The only salvation for these innocent purchasers of Charlotte Beach
land is for Congress to step in and extinguish the Tribes claims to
these parcels. Of course, the Tribes interest in these parcels must be
compensated, but we understand that the Bills before you would
accomplish that, thereby passing constitutional muster. We support the
passage of these Bills that would clear the cloud' on the Charlotte
Beach parcels and allow my clients to go on with their lives, knowing
that their homes will no longer be considered worthless.
Thank you for accepting my testimony and allowing my clients
concerns to be brought to the Committee's attention.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rahall, and members of the Committee,
for the opportunity to testify on this important matter. As most of you
know, I have been working on this land transfer problem for years and
first introduced legislation in 1999 in an effort to resolve this
issue. And as you can see from the size of my file, it's been a long
road.
I hope that my testimony on these two bills will help to finally
resolve this land dispute for the Bay Mills Indian Community (Bay Mills
Tribe), the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa Indians (Sault Tribe),
and most importantly, property owners along Charlotte Beach on
Michigan's Eastern Upper Peninsula--all of whom reside in my district.
Currently, the two tribes claim rights to the land along Charlotte
Beach, creating a ``cloud'' on the land owned by the property owners of
Charlotte Beach.
I first became involved in this land issue at the request of the
property owners, not the tribes. With a ``cloud'' on their title the
Charlotte Beach property owners have been sued, have a difficult time
trying to secure real estate loans, and have experienced lost real
estate sales as well as significantly lower property values.
In order to resolve this land issue, an agreement was reached in
September of 2002 between former Michigan Governor John Engler and the
Bay Mills tribe. And in December of that same year, the former governor
reached a similar settlement agreement with the Sault Tribe on their
land claim.
In the settlement agreements, the tribes agree to extinguish their
property claims on Charlotte Beach in exchange for land in two Michigan
communities--Romulus and Port Huron. Under federal law these parcels of
land would be taken into trust on the tribes' behalf by the federal
government. (25 USC Sec. 465 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to take this land into trust on behalf of tribes)
You will hear today that the measures are also supported by the
local elected officials in Port Huron and Romulus. In addition, the
voters in these communities have signaled their approval.
It is crucial that Congress ratify the two settlement agreements
reached between the Bay Mills and Sault tribes and former Governor
Engler. The tribes have worked with the State of Michigan and each
other, but without Congressional approval, the land exchange cannot be
completed.
By ratifying these two land transfer settlements, Congress has an
opportunity we can't afford to miss--an opportunity to right a wrong
and bring an end to a land dispute that has been going on far too long.
This wrong has been inflicted upon all three of the parties
involved--the two tribes who have a legitimate claim to more than 100
acres of Charlotte Beach and the 180 innocent homeowners along
Charlotte Beach.
And that is all these two bills do--ratify a simple land exchange
and put to rest this land dispute. This is a specific solution to a
localized problem that has been arrived at only after extensive
negotiations between the parties.
If I can get one point across to you in my testimony today, it is
that the parties involved have worked together to come to an agreement
on a land dispute. Congress has the opportunity, the power, and an
obligation to finally settle this dispute.
Finally, the Charlotte Beach landowners support this legislation
and their attorney, Leanne Barnes Deuman, has drafted testimony to
submit for this hearing, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that it be included
in the record.
I would also like to submit a letter written by former Michigan
Governor Engler for the record.
It is my hope that the rights of all parties involved will be
addressed during the discussion of this bill and that an agreement will
be reached. I remain committed to addressing this issue and will
continue to work with everyone, including our colleagues John Dingell
and Candice Miller to bring about a final resolution to this land
dispute--no matter how long it takes!
______
The Chairman. I know that Mr. Dingell has a conflicting
appointment. If it is necessary for you to leave, you may.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are most
gracious.
The Chairman. And Mike, did you have to leave, too?
Mr. Rogers. Very shortly, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. OK. Does anybody have any questions that they
would like to ask of Mr. Rogers or Mr. Dingell before they have
to go?
Mr. Rahall. Mr. Chairman, if I might ask just one quick
question of Mr. Dingell before he leaves.
Is there any reason to believe that if your legislation
were enacted into law that the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe would
pull out of the Detroit casino in which it has an 80 percent
interest, as I understand it.
Mr. Dingell. No, there is no reason. There is a commitment
on the part of the tribe that that will not happen. There also
is a commitment on the part of the tribe that they are going to
do everything they can to hold Detroit and the city of Detroit
risk-free in the event that this casino starts going up in
terms of loss of tax revenues and things of that kind.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Young?
Mr. Young. Mr. Rogers, do you have gambling in your
District?
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
Mr. Young. You do not have any gambling in your District?
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
Mr. Young. It is my understanding that there are two
casinos across the border from Port Huron. Is that correct?
Mr. Rogers. Port Huron?
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. That's correct.
Mr. Young. In Canada.
Mr. Rogers. Mm-hm.
Mr. Young. And that 75 percent of that revenue they
generate is from America, Americans?
Mr. Rogers. I think there is some dispute about percentage,
but I imagine it is a healthy percentage.
Mr. Young. I just--one of the things, again, in my opening
statement was that I am really here because of Candice Miller.
And it is her District, and I am very supportive of that. And
the people have spoken from that District. And if they are
willing to take over the responsibility of the--in fact, if
there is a gaming casino, what is wrong with that?
Mr. Rogers. Well, unfortunately, the impact of casinos
don't remain wholly in a Congressional District. The entire
Congressional District certainly didn't speak. And it has large
ramifications, really, across the State of Michigan. The Mayor
of Detroit, who is opposed to these two new casinos--
Mr. Young. But she has three in her District, right?
Mr. Rogers. The Mayor does, that is right.
Mr. Young. If she has three, I can understand why she is
opposed to this one because it might take something from that
District, because--I believe that was just brought up by Mr.
Dingell.
Mr. Rogers. Sure.
Mr. Young. But the reality is we are talking about who has
and who had not, not about, you know, the legitimacy of
settling the land claims part. That is what this bill is about.
Like Mr. Stupak said, we are trying to settle it. I would feel
a lot more comfortable with your testimony if you would say,
OK, let's bar all casinos period.
Mr. Rogers. I would be happy to join with--
Mr. Young. You would be happy with that.
Mr. Rogers. Absolutely.
Mr. Young. But would the Mayor be happy with that?
Mr. Rogers. Probably not.
Mr. Young. Would any other mayor--
Mr. Rogers. Politics makes strange bedfellows, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. I know. I understand that.
Mr. Rogers. You understand that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. I haven't talked to Candice about that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. What you do on your own time, Mr. Chairman, is
absolutely up to you.
Mr. Young. I will have to find out about that. But what I
am suggesting is that it appears to me, with 20 casinos in
Michigan, it is those that have the casinos now are ganging up
against those that do not have and saying this is an
inappropriate thing to do. And to me, that is really not quite
cricket, I mean, as I look upon this. It is sort of, you know,
I got mine, pull the gangplank up now and nobody else needs
this.
Mr. Rogers. Well, and I understand--I welcome that in this
fight. If they want to stop the expansion of casinos, I am with
them. I have opposed--
Mr. Young. Elimination--if we are going to do it, we
eliminate.
Mr. Rogers. I would be happy to do that as well. I don't--
Mr. Young. You would, but they would not.
Mr. Rogers. Well, that is correct. But at the end of the
day, as you know, Mr. Chairman, you put together coalitions to
further your goal. And I say I will gladly work with them if
they want to stop the expansion of casinos. I have opposed
every Indian compact that came through the State legislature
when I was there. I opposed the three Detroit casinos for,
really, all the reasons I have mentioned. They have not been an
economic panacea. As a matter of fact, they have had tremendous
costs.
You know, the last movie theater left Detroit, Kmart closed
up and left there. It is a major city. I can go on.
Mr. Young. Don't bring that in. I have Kmarts that left
this area, too, and no casino was here. I have had 7-Elevens
close here, and there are no casinos here. So don't blame
everything on the casinos. I can go back to my good friend Mr.
Gibbons from Nevada saying what a great thing it is for Nevada
and how it works very well. This is not about gambling, it is
about who is going to gamble.
Mr. Rogers. Well, I disagree. It is about the economic
impact to the communities that house casinos.
Mr. Young. You and I have a difference of opinion on it.
Mr. Rogers. Absolutely. And unfortunately, the statistics
bear out that there is a negative consequence to having
casinos. Some will make money. I have no doubt that the tribes
will make a tremendous amount of money. But there is a cost to
the community that houses these casinos. We have seen it in all
20 communities that house the casinos currently and we see it
across the country. As a matter of fact, even Nevada is coming
to start to deal with some of their problems that are--
Mr. Young. You and I are arguing about gambling. We are not
talking about the claims settlement.
Mr. Rogers. And I understand that. There is great argument
just on the claims settlement why this shouldn't happen. I
happened to argue--I am going to let somebody else argue that.
But there is also great argument why we ought not have rampant
expansion of gambling without taking into consideration the
impact of everybody who lives in the surrounding communities.
At what cost--
Mr. Young. Again--wait a minute. But they already voted on
that. The community there already voted on it. And if you
believe in democracy and the Republic, you have to respect the
wishes of the people who vote on it. You have no right to sit
in judgment on those around the area it affects. You say it
affects the whole State.
Mr. Rogers. It does affect it.
Mr. Young. I would agree with that if you didn't have the
20 other gambling institutions within the State. If it was the
first one, great. But in the meantime, they are going through
the town, a little town, a very depressed area, and going into
Canada and spending their dollars. And you are not stopping
that. It is like exporting jobs. It is like exporting money to
buy oil from the OPEC countries. I don't think that is correct,
either. I think that ought to be left here in the United
States. We ought to be drilling our own wells, not voting ``not
drill'' them.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rogers. I would be happy to debate that issue anytime,
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Really? You would like to debate the drilling?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. On ANWR?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. I will trade you that for a casino, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Now we're talking.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. Well, that is good, because you already had me
on ANWR.
Mr. Young. We're talkin'.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. Sold.
The Chairman. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I do have the utmost respect for Mr. Rogers's opinions
about this issue. But I was just curious, does the State of
Michigan also participate in lotteries; if he considers
lotteries, horse racing, the problems of the sins of alcoholic
beverages and the beer lobby? Would you also be in agreement
that we ought to ban all of these evils as well?
Mr. Rogers. Well, again, you are asking from a moral
perspective. I argue casino gambling on the economic impact of
it. I really don't support the State being involved in
lotteries. It has proven in all State lotteries it tends to go
after the poor more than it does the wealthy folks,
unfortunately. Horse racing is a different animal. I have
adamantly opposed--they are trying to put slot machines at
horse tracks. I have adamantly opposed that because then,
again, it takes it from a different demographic and shoves it
to--quite frankly, it preys on those who are of lesser means.
And those machines are designed to take your money away from
you.
So, I mean, I look at these things as economic and criminal
enterprise impact. And the information on what casinos do to a
community is overwhelming. And it is really indisputable. And,
you know, that 60 percent bankruptcies in southeast Michigan,
we are all paying for that. You are paying for that. When
somebody goes down to get a loan, had nothing to do with one of
these casinos and certainly isn't the recipient of it, they are
paying a price for that. They are paying a higher price in
products that they consume.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I am not going to dispute your
statistical knowledge of all this, Mr. Rogers, but one of the
ironies--and correct me if I had a wrong reading of history--
was that one of the first ways that our Revolutionary
Government started to fund the war effort was to conduct a
lottery. The Founding Fathers of this Nation had to do this
simply because of economic necessity. And I was wondering if
having a lottery at the time we were trying to establish this
Nation in terms of the economic necessity that the Founding
Fathers had to do this for economic purposes, not the moral
issues but strictly because of economics.
Mr. Rogers. Well, and I will--I am not familiar with that
case, to be honest with you, but I do know the economics of
casinos currently as they exist in America today, and they are
a bad bet for the citizens that house them in those
communities. Every community has found it. We had, I think,
seven escort services--just to give you an example on the
social side--seven escort services, exotic escort services
prior to the casinos in Wayne County. Two months after the
casinos opened, there were 42.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Are you suggesting to the Gentleman from
Nevada that gaming altogether ought to be banned from the State
of Nevada?
Mr. Rogers. I am not going to worry about the State of
Nevada. I am going to worry about the State of Michigan.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. If they can take our nuclear waste, maybe we
can talk.
The Chairman. That is still not a deal.
Mr. Gibbons. We are getting a lot done here, Mr. Chairman,
thank you.
The Chairman. I don't know, he was talking about banning
beer. I think you are going way too far with that.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, if you noticed, I didn't mention
beer. I am all for that.
The Chairman. Further questions? Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Just one question. Mr. Young before he left
mentioned that it is a question of have and have-nots. Mr.
Rogers, Bay Mills, are they a have-not right now?
Mr. Rogers. I don't know what you mean, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Well, they have a casino, right?
Mr. Rogers. Yes, they do, actually.
Mr. Kildee. So it is not a have or have-not there. And
Sault Ste. Marie has at least one casino up north and they have
a casino in Detroit.
Mr. Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Kildee. So they would have three casinos if these bills
were to pass.
Mr. Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Kildee. So it is not so much have or have-not. I helped
write IGRA myself, and I think it has been helpful to the
Indian communities. We want to continue to be helpful, but it
is not--I want to make it clear that this is not really have or
have-nots, that these tribes, as much as I hold them close to
my heart, they do have a casino or, in one instance, more than
one casino--one in Detroit, which is a fairly good market.
The Chairman. Any further questions? Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Rogers, you indicated that bankruptcies
have gone up 60 percent since the Detroit casinos had opened.
When did they open?
Mr. Rogers. They went into operation in 2000, I believe.
Mr. Inslee. So I guess that would have been a 60 percent
increase in bankruptcies since George Bush has been elected? Is
that right?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rogers. It is an interesting point, but I would argue
differently. We have also seen those percentage increases in
other communities that house casinos. And it is consistent with
other communities that house casinos as well.
The Chairman. Mr. Duncan?
Mr. Duncan. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Young
had some good points, but I also think that Congressman Rogers
has some good points, too. I just wanted to ask, did I hear
somebody say that Michigan already has 20 casinos? How many
casinos do you have in Michigan?
Mr. Rogers. We currently have 20 casinos and there are a
whole bunch on deck, unfortunately.
Mr. Duncan. How many are on deck?
Mr. Rogers. I want to say seven, if I understand correctly.
Nine, I am being told.
Mr. Duncan. Other than Nevada, is that going to put
Michigan at the top per population for Indian casinos, or do
you know?
Mr. Rogers. Well, three of those casinos are not quote-
unquote Indian casinos. They were--
Mr. Duncan. Oh, they are just regular--
Mr. Rogers.--in the city of Detroit. The remainder of those
are Indian casinos. We already have--I think, by different
types of gambling, we are second only to Nevada on the types of
gambling that Michigan affords.
Mr. Duncan. All right. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Any further questions?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I just want to correct for
the record. I am the one that mentioned something about the
beer lobby. Alcoholic beverages.
The Chairman. Yes, that is the one I was worried about.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to clarify that for the
record, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I even moved your bill.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. No further questions. I want to thank our
witnesses. I know that two of our witnesses have to leave, but
Mr. Stupak, you are more than welcome to join us on the dais.
Mr. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the members of
the Committee.
The Chairman. I would like to at this time call up our next
panel, consisting of Aurene Martin, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs.
Before you take your seat, if I could just have you stand
and raise your right hand?
[Witness sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Welcome back to the
Committee. I believe we are ready when you are.
STATEMENT OF AURENE MARTIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Martin. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and members of
the Committee. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
present the Department of Interior's views on H.R. 831 and H.R.
2793, which provide for and approve the settlement of land
claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste.
Marie Tribe.
As discussed in our written testimony, the Department is
not currently able to support the bills as they are written.
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 extinguish land claims of the Bay Mills
and Sault Ste. Marie tribes against the State of Michigan for
lands located in Charlotte Beach. The legislation approves the
settlements the State has entered into with each of the tribes
to extinguish the claims and quiet title to the tracts at
issue. It also identifies lands which will be provided to the
tribes in settlement of the claims and directs the Department
of Interior to take those lands into trust. Finally, it deems
the new lands as settling a land claim, thus making them exempt
from the requirements of Section 20 of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act and eligible for use for Class III gaming
facilities.
The Department has reviewed the legislation and identified
concerns, which are outlined in our written testimony. Our
concerns include the following: The bill requires us to acquire
the lands in trust within 30 days of the signing of the bill
into law. The mandatory nature of the provision does not
provide for us to not take the lands into trust if there are
significant contamination issues or other environmental
concerns with the lands that are at issue. And the timing of
the trust acquisition is such that we can't do a sufficient
review of the environmental concerns that we might have with
the lands at issue.
We also have some questions regarding the implications of
Section 9 of the Michigan Compact, the compact that is entered
into between the tribe and the State for operation of gaming,
which requires agreement with other affected tribes if these
settlements fall within its scope.
Finally, these agreements provide for revenue sharing
provisions and other provisions which pertain to the operation
of gaming, which we believe must be reviewed and approved by
the Department pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
because they fall within that jurisdiction.
While we have had significant concerns over the past 2
years with these agreements, I would like to note that the
Department has been involved in discussions with the Bay Mills
Indian Community regarding this legislation, and the community
has been making every effort to address our concerns. They have
even made significant progress in dealing with those issues and
have agreed to deal with some of the environmental issues with
regard to the legislation and have submitted the agreement that
they reached with the State of Michigan to the Department for
our review under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
However, two issues do remain a concern for us. The
departmental review which is currently contemplated is not
binding unless it is addressed in the legislation. That is, we
can review the agreement that has been submitted to us, but if
we find that it does not meet the requirements of IGRA, we
cannot--if this legislation was passed, we cannot do anything
about it. It is not binding on the parties.
Most importantly, though, this legislation raises a
significant policy issue upon which the Department has not yet
formulated a position. Whether a tribe may settle a land claim
in exchange for land whose purpose is to be used for conducting
Class III gaming has not yet been addressed by the Department
during this Administration. While we have initiated internal
discussions regarding this issue, we have not yet determined
our position. This discussion implicates a number of land
claims in additional States, and we are aware of its far-
reaching implications. Our discussion will address the issue as
a global matter and will, hopefully, provide a blueprint for
our positions in the future. However, we have not completed
that internal discussion and we do not have a position right
now.
I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to
present our views, and I would be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Aurene Martin follows:]
Statement of Aurene Martin, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name
is Aurene Martin, and I am the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--
Indian Affairs, at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be
here today to testify on H.R. 831, a bill to provide for and approve
the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian
Community, and on H.R. 2793, a bill to provide for and approve certain
land claims of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. For the
following reasons, the Department is unable to support these bills as
written.
H.R. 831 would approve and ratify an agreement executed on August
23, 2002, between the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Bay
Mills Indian Community. H.R. 2793 would approve and ratify an agreement
executed on December 30, 2002, between the Governor of the State of
Michigan and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. The settlement agreements
provide the basis for Congress to extinguish the two tribes' claims to
the Charlotte Beach lands. In consideration for the extinguishments of
the tribes' claims, Section 2 of H.R. 831 would require the Secretary
to take into trust for the Bay Mills Indian Community alternative land
located in Port Huron, Michigan, some 250 miles from the Tribe's
reservation. Section 1(b) of H.R. 2793 would require the Secretary to
take into trust for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe two parcels of land, one
located in Otswego County, subject to the approval of the Village of
Vanderbilt and the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the
other one located in the City of Romulus, Michigan, subject to the
approval of the City.
The settlement agreements are similar and contain, in pertinent
part: (1) provisions relating to the tribes' agreement to relinquish
all legal and equitable claims to the Charlotte Beach lands; (2) the
Governor's concurrence in the trust acquisition of the alternative
lands for gaming purposes; (3) tribal payments to the State of Michigan
in an amount equal to 8% of the net win derived from all Class III
electronic games of chance in consideration for limited geographical
exclusivity, and payments in the aggregate amount equal to 2% of the
net win from all Class III electronic games of chance to local units of
state governments; (4) limitation of the tribes' Class III gaming
operations in Michigan; (5) the Governor's forbearance from exercising
the State's unilateral right to renegotiate the Compact pursuant to
Section 12(c) of the Compact; and (6) a statement that Section 9 of the
compact is not implicated by provision of the alternative land to the
Tribe, and the Governor's waiver of this provision to the extent it is
determined to be implicated.
We are concerned with the mandatory nature of the land acquisition
provisions in the bills for two reasons. First, the bills would require
that alternative lands be taken into trust even if the Department
determines that potential liabilities exist on these lands. In this
regard, we would recommend that any acquisition in trust be conditioned
upon the lands meeting applicable environmental standards. Second, we
believe that the 30-day time frame to take the lands into trust after
receipt of title insurance policies is too short, and would make it
impossible for the Department to comply with its existing regulation,
25 CFR 151.12, that a notice be published in the Federal Register at
least 30 days before land is taken into trust. The Department asks that
Congress consider the cost to and potential liability of the United
States Government with respect to legislative transfers of land into
trust, both in this particular instance and all future mandatory trust
transactions.
We also are concerned with the lack of consultation with other
Michigan tribes that may be impacted by the terms of these settlements,
especially since the agreements purport to waive Section 9 of the
Michigan compacts to the extent it is implicated by the settlements.
Finally, we believe that the gaming-related provisions of the
settlement agreements should be evaluated under the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (IGRA) through the submission of compact amendments to
the Secretary. It is our view that IGRA requires that all substantive
provisions relating to the operation of gaming activities be included
in a tribal/state compact. These bills arguably carve an unwise
exception to this requirement, especially since the revenue-sharing
provisions of the settlement agreements may be in violation of Section
11(d)(4) of IGRA.
This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions
the Committee may have. Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Martin.
The opposition that you state to these two bills seems to
based largely on technical issues. Is it possible to rewrite or
amend the legislation in a way that would address what the
concerns of the Department are?
Ms. Martin. Generally speaking, yes. But as I stated in my
written testimony, there is one policy matter which we have not
resolved internally; that is, whether we believe as a policy
matter that it is appropriate to take land into trust in
settlement of a land claim that is solely to be used for gaming
purposes and, in this case, very far away from where the
tribes' reservations are.
The Chairman. So as far as the Department is concerned,
there are really two big issues; one, are technical issues with
the legislation, the other being the overall policy statement
that you have not yet taken a position on, that the Secretary
has not yet taken a position on, nor has this Committee in
terms of the location of land such as this. So those are,
really, two major issues that need to be settled before there
can be support from the Administration?
Ms. Martin. Yes, that is true.
The Chairman. And the second issue is up in the air in
terms of what position the Secretary ultimately takes?
Ms. Martin. With regard to the policy issue, yes.
The Chairman. All right, thank you.
Mr. Rahall.
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have testified to a concern about the Department taking
land into trust through these bills which might have some
environmental problems, or be contaminated in some way. Doing
so could cause serious liability questions for the Department,
and I think that is a very legitimate concern. I also
understand that you have worked with the Indian tribes before
us today on these matters in this legislation.
Ms. Martin. Yes, we have. We have had some discussions in
the past few weeks.
Mr. Rahall. And I would hope you would be willing to work
with the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribes to come up with
language that has been used before to address some of the
problems?
Ms. Martin. Yes, we will.
Mr. Rahall. One last question, if I might. Your testimony
says that the 30-day timeframe given in the bills to take land
into trust once the Department receives a title insurance
policy was too short to comply with the Department's notice
regulations. Could you give us a timeframe that is more in line
with those regulations? For example, would 90 days be adequate
for the Department?
Ms. Martin. I can't give you a set number of days right
now, but I will get back to you on what might be adequate.
Obviously, we need to take enough time to deal with matters
that we need to take care of, but the balance is trying to find
what is the least amount of time that we can do those things.
Mr. Rahall. Is an Act of Congress required for an Indian
tribe to relinquish its property rights, or can this be handled
administratively?
Ms. Martin. I do believe that an Act of Congress is
required under 25 U.S.C. Section 177, the Nonintercourse Act.
Mr. Rahall. That is my understanding as well. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Further questions? Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary, it is always a pleasure to have you here. A
couple of quick questions. I want to pick up on a point that
the Chairman raised and just clarify it for my purposes and my
understanding. Are your objections primarily process- and
jurisdictional-oriented, or are they substantive? In other
words, you have, obviously, some concerns about times and
certain things that worry you about the process. But as you
step back and look at the agreement, is there anything in the
agreement, from the Department's standpoint, that causes you
problems?
Ms. Martin. We have not fully reviewed the agreement yet.
It was submitted to us within the last 2 weeks for review for
IGRA purposes. Whether provisions of that agreement violate
provisions of IGRA, we haven't yet determined. But the
provisions of the bill and the terms of the legislation, the
concerns that we have had with those, based on our discussions
with Bay Mills, at least, they would be more than willing to
work with us to try to rectify what those problems might be.
Mr. Cole. Could you characterize too, or if you have an
opinion on the process, the negotiation process between the
State of Michigan when Governor Engler was Governor, and the
tribe? Does that appear to have been open and fair and, you
know, handled well, from your standpoint?
Ms. Martin. As far as I am aware, it was conducted in an
open and fair manner. I do know that when I testified on
similar legislation 2 years ago, a representative of the
Governor appeared at that hearing and did testify in support of
the legislation.
Mr. Cole. Does the fact that the local community appears to
be supportive of this influence your decision, impact it one
way or the other? Make any difference?
Ms. Martin. Yes, it does have an impact on our
decisionmaking. There is a policy of the Secretary and the
Department generally to always try to get the support of a
local community whenever we enter into any kind of activity in
that area. So it would be our policy also here to try to
respect agreements that States and tribes come to terms with.
Here, though, we have, I think, what is a far-reaching policy
matter which needs to be addressed by the United States, and we
just have not done that yet.
Mr. Cole. It is still pretty impressive, though, to see a
State, a tribe, and a locality that actually work together and
arrive at a solution. I mean, we don't see that very often. It
is a remarkable occurrence.
One last question, if I may. You mentioned that the
Secretary had not yet arrived at a determination as to whether
or not land could be moved into trust solely for the purposes
of gaming, if I understood your point. Have previous
Administrations--is this an Administration question? Have
previous Administrations taken a position on this or Congress
taken a position on this before? So are you reviewing what we
have done before or is this totally new ground that you are
looking at?
Ms. Martin. It is my understanding that both this
Administration up to now and the past Administration had an
informal policy that they would not approve either water or
land claims settlements that contemplated an exchange of land
which would solely be used for gaming. And my understanding is
also that Congress has never approved such a settlement,
either. But we are at a point now where there are a number of
land claims negotiations that are being undertaken in different
States, where the settlement contemplated is specifically land
being taken into trust for gaming. So we will have to, if not
here, in some other settlement in, I think, the relatively near
future, have to take some kind of a position on that issue.
Mr. Cole. Well, again, I would just join my colleagues, I
think on both sides of this issue, and ask, with full
understanding that it is a pretty weighty question, that you
expedite that. Because we do--obviously we are going to have a
number of cases that depend on this kind of decision, and at
least give us some enlightenment as to where the Administration
is going to ultimately come down on this. It would be
extraordinarily helpful.
Ms. Martin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Further questions from Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, I appreciate your testimony. Someone asked
whether we could rewrite this legislation to remove any
imperfections. But would rewriting the legislation remove the
far-reaching implications which you mentioned? You mentioned
that there are far-reaching implications for Congress to enact
such a law. Because we know there are many tribes throughout
the country who are seeking to have land put into trust for the
purpose of gaming. I think the Miamis are seeking a place in
Illinois, the Delaware a place in New Jersey, and there are
other places. How many of these cases are pending now where
they are seeking to put land into trust for that purpose?
Ms. Martin. I am aware of at least four land claim--well,
six land claims issues and two water settlements.
Mr. Kildee. Now, let me ask you this. If Congress,
bypassing the process which we put together under IGRA, if
Congress bypasses that and takes land into trust for the
purpose of gaming, could not then Congress set a precedent
where no place in America could not be subject to having an
Indian casino put on that land?
Ms. Martin. Well, I think that is part of the overall
discussion. If you start on a path of--even though you might
say that it is not precedent, you take land into trust in
settlement of a land claim, and then you take land into trust
further away from a tribe's aboriginal area, then the next
step--as you progress further and further, where do you draw
that line? Do you draw a line at near the reservation, 100
miles from the reservation, 300 miles? Is it OK to put land in
a trust in another State? You start down that path, and it has
implications even though you might not intend for that to
happen. And we are at that point now.
Mr. Kildee. The compact which was reached between the Bay
Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe with Governor Engler would
be put into law were we to pass this legislation. Is there
precedent for a compact to be put into law by Congress?
Ms. Martin. No, there is not. Not that I am aware of. In
fact, obviously, that is one of our concerns with the bill,
that once you approve this legislation and, by virtue of that,
approve the settlement, then there is the possibility, then,
other tribes will attempt to bring their provisions to Congress
for approval, provisions that might not otherwise be approved
through the departmental process.
Mr. Kildee. I thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Chairman. Mr. Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
Madam Secretary, to the Committee.
If we could just put the issue of gaming aside, I was just
wondering, these lands in question, weren't they once owned by
the Chippewa Tribe?
Ms. Martin. Yes, they were.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So what we are doing here is just simply
formalizing the situation? I mean, how did the Chippewa Tribe
lose these lands to begin with?
Ms. Martin. Well, it is actually a fairly complicated
history. The lands in Michigan were ceded by a larger Chippewa
Tribe, as I understand it, but then there were further cessions
by individual bands as they organized separately. I think
overall the lands that are at issue here were part of the
cession by the one Chippewa Tribe in Michigan.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So there was no forced takeover or
adverse possession by other interests or other groups of people
that came and occupied them before it became the State of
Michigan or during the time that we became a country? I just
wanted to find out--I am curious. We are conveying land back to
the true owners of--the people who really owned the land to
begin with? I am just wondering if this is how I read history,
and correct me if I am wrong on this.
Ms. Martin. Well, I think you can make that argument for
all of the lands in the United States, really.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I don't want to talk about the
United States. I just want to talk about Michigan and the
Chippewa Tribe, because this is what we are discussing here.
Ms. Martin. They were originally owned by the larger
Chippewa Tribe, yes, and ceded to the United States by them.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Ceded, or forced to be ceded?
Ms. Martin. Ceded through treaty, is my understanding.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, they were not taken like the way it
was taken in other instances?
Ms. Martin. No.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No treaty relationship between the
Chippewas. This is how the Chippewas lost these lands, by
treaty?
Ms. Martin. Oh, if you are talking about the Charlotte
Beach land--
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am talking about, specifically, these
two tracts of--pieces of property here.
Ms. Martin. Oh, OK. I was confused. I thought you meant the
lands that were being exchanged.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, no, no.
Ms. Martin. They were actually, the lands in Charlotte
Beach were reserved to what was historically, what is now the
Bay Mills Community. But at the time that the tribes entered
into those agreements, they did not know that the title to
portions of those lands had been given to a non-Indian.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Yes, and who gave it to the non-Indian?
Ms. Martin. The United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Ms. Martin. OK.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So what we are actually doing is that we
are just trying to correct an inequity or a transgression on
the part of the U.S. Government--took the land away from the
tribe to begin with. My point here is that these lands belonged
to the tribe to begin with. So we are just simply formalizing
the transfer by having the State of Michigan be the transferor,
if you will, to the tribe.
The reason why I raise this issue, Madam Secretary, is that
if these lands belonged to the tribe to begin with, we are just
simply formalizing another way of conveying it back to the
tribe that owned the land to begin with. And that being the
case, why would there be an objection on the part of the
Administration that this is just simply what we are doing,
formalizing the transfer of the land that actually was owned by
the Chippewas to begin with?
Ms. Martin. Well, but the land that we are exchanging to
give back to the tribe is--
Mr. Faleomavaega. Doesn't belong to--
Ms. Martin. It is not in that area. It is very far away.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Does it matter? Did it belong to the
tribes in question?
Ms. Martin. Well, historically it belonged to a larger
Chippewa Tribe.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK. Madam Secretary, I just wanted to ask
another question. I understand the DOI policy has not been
established. Talking about the instances of non-reservation
lands, if you will, is this time the first instance that
something like this has happened, as far as the laws, the IGRA
is concerned, and where you have not really made a decision as
a policy decision in the Department?
Ms. Martin. It is the first time before the fact, that is,
in settlement of the land claim, that we would be taking lands
into trust for gaming.
Mr. Faleomavaega. OK, now, do you think the Congress should
wait for the Department for a decision? Or we could probably
just put a little zip in the amendment and be done with it as a
matter of public policy, and make an amendment on the IGRA. So
that way, you don't have to worry about--or us waiting on the
part of the Administration to make a decision. Would you
recommend that we make an amendment, an appropriate amendment
of these proposed bills to take care of that policy problem
that you are having?
Ms. Martin. I think that it would make our discussion much
easier. I couldn't tell you that that is our position right
now, though.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Further questions? Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
courtesies extended to me at today's hearing.
Ms. Martin, I think you alluded to it earlier, Chapter 25.
If we are going to extinguish any claim or title to a land by a
Native American tribe, Congress must act on it, correct?
Ms. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. And there is land that the BIA takes into trust
for Native American tribes that is not used for gaming.
Correct?
Ms. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. If you look at the legislation--I found it on
Page 3, subsection (b) in one and subsection (c) in the other--
there is no requirement that this land be used for gaming. It
may be used for gaming, but if they never build a casino on
this land once it is transferred, there is no penalty or
anything like that. They don't have to use it for a casino, do
they?
Ms. Martin. No, they don't.
Mr. Stupak. And it goes on, in each of these pieces of
legislation, I think it is the last part of each of these
legislation, second-to-last piece, Page 4, subsection (2) ``Not
Precedent,'' that by extinguishing these land claims, if
Congress approves this, you would not set a precedent for any
other tribe or any other State that would enter into a
settlement of land claims, that these are unique and should not
be considered as precedent for any future agreement between any
tribe and the State. Is that correct?
Ms. Martin. That is what it says, yes.
Mr. Stupak. And also, in response to Mr. Kildee's question
about a compact, this is not a compact between the Native
American tribes and Governor Engler. This is a settlement of a
claim. The State of Michigan has already approved their compact
a number of years ago, and it is good for about 20 years, if I
remember correctly, from the date they approved it. So we are
not approving a gaming compact here, asking the BIA to approve
a compact. What is said here is ``as a settlement of a land
claim.'' That is all this is. Is that--it is not a compact
between the State of Michigan and these tribes.
Ms. Martin. The agreement is not termed a compact, but it
does contain provisions which are normally contained in a
compact and the type of provisions which IGRA contemplates the
Department would review.
Mr. Stupak. Sure, similar provisions. But does not under
the compact that currently exists between the State of Michigan
and all the tribes in Michigan--I believe there are eight
recognized tribes in Michigan that have gaming--that there are
provisions in that compact that allow the Governor to enter
into negotiations on points that were not totally addressed in
that compact when it was signed a couple of years ago. Is that
not correct?
Ms. Martin. Yes, but it is also our position that the
provisions which are addressed in the agreement would amend the
compact by their very nature.
Mr. Stupak. Right. But the compact that the State of
Michigan has with the tribes, which you approved, BIA approved,
allows the Governor that right to go back and discuss,
negotiate, and settle issues that come up under this compact
during this 20-year period that were not contemplated between
the parties.
Ms. Martin. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. And you approved that the Governor could do
that. And in this case, Governor Engler used that compact, that
provision to allow him to enter into this settlement agreement.
Correct?
Ms. Martin. I believe so.
Mr. Stupak. OK. When you indicated that the Bay Mills and
the Sault tribes were--you kept saying, well, there is a bigger
Chippewa Tribe. But you would agree that the Bay Mills Tribe
and the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians are a successor of this
larger Chippewa Tribe, and the right that was extended to the
first Chippewa Tribe--the big Chippewa Tribe, as you describe
it--flows through to these tribes here present today?
Ms. Martin. That is a far more complicated question than I
could answer right now. We would have to undertake a legal
review to determine whether they are a successor in interest or
not.
Mr. Stupak. Well, let me ask you this, then. Successor in
interest with these tribes does not end with the death of the
people who made up the agreement. Isn't that correct? It flows
to their ancestors.
Ms. Martin. Generally speaking, yes, but every situation is
different. And there have been a number of land claims
settlements which have discussed how successors in interest
would be able to make claims against certain tracts of land. I
couldn't make that kind of review and answer that question for
you right now on the spot.
Mr. Stupak. Are you familiar with the court cases that were
involved in this case at all?
Ms. Martin. Not in detail.
Mr. Stupak. How about this generality that the Court of
Appeals indicated to the tribes, that the Sault Tribe was an
indispensable party? The lawsuit was brought by Bay Mills, the
Sault Tribe was an indispensable party to this land claim.
Therefore, the judge basically ruled, if you are going to
settle this case, you have to have both parties here, not just
one of you, because you cannot extinguish half a cloud on a
title.
Ms. Martin. I believe that that is correct.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Martin, for your testimony. Members may have
additional questions that they would like to ask you that will
be submitted in writing. If you could answer those in writing
so that they can be included in the hearing record.
Ms. Martin. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you for being here.
I would like to now call up Panel No. 3. We will hear from
the Honorable Jeff Parker of the Bay Mills Indian Community;
the Honorable Mark Neal, Mayor of Port Huron, Michigan; Paul
Shagen, Senior Tribal Attorney for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe;
and the Honorable Alan Lambert, Mayor of Romulus, Michigan.
If I could have you remain standing.
[Witnesses sworn.]
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Let the record show they
all answered in the affirmative.
Thank you all for being here today. I would like to start
with Mr. Parker.
STATEMENT OF JEFF PARKER, PRESIDENT OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL,
BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY OF MICHIGAN, BRIMLEY, MICHIGAN
Mr. Parker. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank
you very much for allowing me time to testify before you on a
bill that impacts my tribe. I am the elected president of the
Bay Mills Indian Community, a post I was first elected to in
1989 and, except for a couple of years, have held since then.
We are talking about an issue that is going on its third
century now of not being resolved, and we are coming before the
Committee to ask for your help in resolving this issue. In the
mid-1800s, Bay Mills, on advice from others, ceded property
that it bought and paid for from the Governor of Michigan. This
is a mechanism that was used by other tribes in Michigan to
protect property. In fact, there is still a State reservation
today, in Athens, Michigan, that was made a reservation by the
same process. What we are trying to do now is rectify what
happened to our tribe in losing that property. I am sure there
are going to be others that are going to talk to you and
question the distance between an existing Bay Mills reservation
and lands that we are looking for in settlement in Port Huron.
I have before me, and I would like to include it for the
record, what is called a Royce map. Royce was a gentleman the
Smithsonian Institute had hired to go and put on the maps all
of the treaties in the United States. This was a report to
Congress, so it may still be around here somewhere. Anyway,
these areas are called different things. The Port Huron area is
called Royce map 66. And when you talked earlier about a bigger
Chippewa Tribe, the bigger Chippewa Tribe and other tribes in
Michigan basically ceded that territory to the U.S. Government.
My ancestor signed that treaty. In fact, today, tribes in
Michigan, Indian people, are afforded educational opportunities
based on that treaty. And those opportunities aren't limited in
any way to one specific tribe, but the entire State.
I would also like to address some of the concerns people
have that we are not following the proper process, we are not
going through the proper channels, we should go before a court.
And we had gone to court, and we had reached a settlement
agreement. And when we brought that in to Interior to have them
review it, they said everything looked OK and looked
appropriate, thank you very much for at least coming in and
sharing that with us. As we were leaving, they said, Oh, by the
way, because you have an interest in property, in order for
this claim to be fully extinguished, you need an Act of
Congress.
We don't need an Act of Congress to ratify things, we need
an Act of Congress that basically extinguishes Bay Mills claim
to the Charlotte Beach lands. The settlement that we have
reached is with the State of Michigan, with the elected leader
of that State, Governor Engler. Even Congress in IGRA
contemplated land claims--it is mentioned in IGRA--and
contemplated mechanisms for doing that, making sure that the
Governor of the affected State was involved in the process and
concurred, making sure that the local unit of Government was
involved and concurred.
We are by no means attempting to slip a tribal casino into
an area that is now wanted. And in fact, the Port Huron site
was selected by Governor Engler as a site that he wanted to
have this facility to compete with the Canadian casino across
the bridge that, as you heard earlier, could be 75 percent of
the revenue comes from United States citizens.
I am not sure what I can do to convince you that this is
the right thing. I will tell you that this is not a commercial
casino that we are dealing with. Tribes don't have the luxury
of commercial casinos. We are basically taxed 100 percent by
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, as all the revenue that we
generate from our facilities has to go into social programs,
educational programs, health and well-being. I would invite you
to come to Bay Mills to see what we have done, amidst
considerable competition, to provide benefits not only to the
tribal community, but the entire surrounding community, non-
Native as well, with our health facility, our community
college, elementary school. Everything that we have done has
been open to all people.
I think it is important to note that when you say Bay Mills
Indian Community, you really are talking community, because we
look at everybody as being in the same boat. Maybe it is
because we are from the U.P. and things are a little tougher up
there with the longer winters, but if you don't stick together,
it makes for a long winter.
With that, I would like to, as I said, include the maps,
the Royce maps that show the area, as part of my testimony, and
also some research that was done and testimony that was done
previously, talking about us going through the court systems
that should resolve some of those issues.
With that, I would answer any questions that you may have.
[The Royce maps and other materials submitted by Mr. Parker
have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey D. Parker, President of the Executive Council,
Bay Mills Indian Community of Michigan, Brimley, Michigan
Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be
invited to present testimony on behalf of the Bay Mills Indian
Community on H.R. 831. I speak here today in my official capacity as
President of the Executive Council, which is the elected government of
our Tribe. The legislation before you is extremely important to my
people; its importance will be better understood by my description of
the history of the Tribe and the origin of this controversy.
The Bay Mills Indian Community is comprised of the bands of Sault
Ste. Marie area Chippewa who signed a series of treaties with the
United States beginning in 1795. My Tribe's modern-day Reservation is
located at the juncture of the St. Mary's River and Lake Superior, in
the Iroquois Point area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and on Sugar
Island, which is just east of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, in the St.
Mary's River Channel. My Tribe is one of four in Michigan which has
maintained continuous government-to-government relations with the
United States since treaty times. We adopted a Constitution in 1936
under the Indian Reorganization Act, and codified as our form of
government the traditional Chippewa public forum, in which all adult
members comprise the General Tribal Council. I represent a direct
democracy, which votes every two years to select officers, known as the
Executive Council. Our total enrollment is approximately 1,500 members.
It is on their behalf that I speak today.
I am very proud to testify in support of this legislation, as it
represents the final step in obtaining redress of a great wrong done to
our people over 100 years ago, a wrong that has imposed continuing
consequences to the present day. The Bay Mills Indian Community is
deeply grateful to Congresswoman Candice Miller for sponsoring H.R.
831, and to Congressman Don Young for co-sponsoring it. In addition I
wish to acknowledge the assistance and support that our Congressman,
Bart Stupak, has given to the Tribe in its efforts to achieve redress
these many years. I also wish to express my thanks to Chairman Pombo
and Ranking Member Rahall for understanding how important this
legislation is to my people and for holding this hearing today.
Finally, I wish to thank Congressman Dingell for his efforts to
resolve the Charlotte Beach land claim by introducing the companion
bill, H.R. 2793. That legislation ratifies the settlement of the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe's claim to the same land. As you may know, resolution
of both claims is necessary to clear the cloud on title of the current
residents living in the claim area. By the explicit terms of the Sault
settlement, ratification of the Bay Mills settlement is a precondition
to the Sault Tribe's settlement becoming effective.
History of Our Land Claim
The Sault Ste. Marie area Chippewa bands participated in a series
of treaty negotiations by which large tracts of land were ceded to the
United States in 1807, 1817, 1820, and 1836. In return, the United
States promised to reserve certain lands for the exclusive occupancy of
the Chippewa, and to protect forever reserved lands from further white
encroachment.
The Treaty signed by our ancestors in 1836 promised to set aside
certain lands for us in perpetuity. When the 1836 cession Treaty was
sent to Congress for ratification, however, the Senate unilaterally
inserted a provision which limited protection of the lands reserved
under it to a five-year term. As a result, over the course of a
relatively short period of time the Chippewa lost hundreds of thousands
of acres of land, in direct contravention of the express terms of the
Treaty that had been signed by them.
In part to rectify the injustices done by the 1836 Treaty, the
United States in 1855 entered into another Treaty with our ancestors by
which new lands were to be reserved for our use. Among these lands was
property specifically identified by legal description in the 1855
Treaty at Hay Lake (the area in modern times known as Charlotte Beach).
My Tribe's ancestors signed the 1855 Treaty with the express
understanding that the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land would be set aside
for our exclusive use, and that it would be protected from alienation
and white encroachment.
One day after the 1855 Treaty was concluded, however, the United
States Land Office allowed that very land at Hay Lake to be sold to
non-Indian speculators. Hence, despite the fact that the United States
agents induced our ancestors to sign the 1855 Treaty on the
understanding that the Hay Lake land would be included within our
reserved lands, and despite the fact that the Senate ratified the 1855
Treaty with the legal description of the Hay Lake lands still in place,
the Tribe lost that land by virtue of the United States Land Office's
actions.
In order to recover the Hay Lake land, which was of central
importance to us for historical, food gathering, and cultural reasons,
my people used their annuity money to buy back what portion of it that
they could. Upon advice of the Bureau of Indian Affairs agent at the
time, trust title to the Hay Lake land was conveyed from the land
speculators to the Governor of the State of Michigan, to protect the
land from further alienation and encroachment. This method of
protecting Indian lands was not uncommon in the nineteenth century, and
it is well established under federal case law that such lands are
protected by the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act's prohibition against
the alienation of Indian lands without express Congressional consent.
My ancestors hunted and lived on the Hay Lake property for nearly
thirty years unmolested by the State of Michigan. In the 1880s,
however, Chippewa County determined that it would impose taxes on the
property. Even though he held trust title, the Governor of the State of
Michigan failed to respond to the tax assessment in any manner
whatsoever. Despite repeated requests from our people to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs for help, the federal government also took no action.
Because neither the federal government nor the State of Michigan acted
to protect our lands as was required by the Indian Trade and
Intercourse Act, the County moved to foreclose on the property and our
ancestors were evicted.
I want to make you aware of what the Bureau of Indian Affairs' own
agent wrote in 1880 about the impending sale of our Hay Lake lands:
At the ``Sault'', the Old Chief Shaw wa no is in very destitute
circumstances, and much agonized as his land which amounts to
some 300 acres bought by annuity money and deed in trust to the
Governor of this State many years ago, has been sold for
taxes...The Old man wished me to do something for him or ask
the Government to provide the means to cancel this claim for
taxes, He is Old, sick & Blind; and all his people are very
poor, simply sustaining life by fishing, picking berries, or an
odd days work which chance may throw in their way...
Emphasis added. G. Lee, Michigan Indian Agent, in a letter to the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs dated August 1880.
In 1916, we again petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for help
when on behalf of the Community tribal member William Johnson wrote to
the Bureau begging for assistance in regaining the Hay Lake lands. The
Bureau rebuffed his petition.
In 1925, an attorney, John Shine, wrote again on the Tribe's
behalf, begging the Bureau for help in recovering the Hay Lake
property. The Bureau again rebuffed the Tribe's petition for help.
In the 1970s, the United States' own expert witness (widely
considered to be the preeminent historian of Indians in the Great Lakes
area) in the U.S. v. Michigan treaty fishing rights litigation
highlighted the existence of the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach claim in her
expert report submitted to the Federal District Court for the Western
District of Michigan. See Report of Dr. Helen Tanner, dated April 1974,
for the United States in U.S. v. Michigan, Civ. Case No. 2:73 CV 26
(W.D. MI).
In the 1980s, the Bay Mills Indian Community repeatedly petitioned
the Department of the Interior to include the Charlotte Beach claim on
its list of protected historical Indian claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 2415. Through a Field Office of the Office of the Solicitor,
Interior erroneously denied our Tribe's petition for the simple and
only reason that the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land was held in trust by
the State rather than the federal government. The Field Solicitor's
refusal was not legally supportable. Existing federal court opinions
made clear that the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act protects Indian
lands held by states, and Congress had specifically directed Interior
to protect all historical Indian claims except those that ``had no
legal merit whatsoever.'' (See section 3(a) of Pub. L. 97-394.)
Further, the Field Solicitor's refusal was inconsistent with general
Interior policy because in fact Interior had included on the final list
of protected historical claims a fair number of state-held lands,
including some held for state recognized tribes.
In the 1990s, we tried to obtain redress in the courts. Our efforts
were unsuccessful. Our federal court case was dismissed on a procedural
technicality (the court found that the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe was an
indispensable party). We fared no better in the state courts, which
little understood the federal Indian legal issues before it.
By the late 1990s, we had been left with little choice but to enter
into direct settlement negotiations with the Governor of the State of
Michigan. To Governor John Engler's credit, the State determined that
it would work with our Tribe to address our long-standing grievances.
The settlement process was lengthy and often difficult. But as you will
hear from others testifying today, we were able to forge a settlement
that addresses the needs and concerns of the Bay Mills Indian
Community, of the State of Michigan, of the people living within the
Charlotte Beach land claim area, and of the people living in the area
in which we wish to acquire replacement land. That settlement, executed
by the Bay Mills Indian Community and the State in August 2002, is the
backbone of the legislation here before you today.
I underscore this history because I want the Congress to understand
the long-standing importance that this land has held for my people. I
want the Congress to understand that this land claim is not about
gaming, not about forum shopping, not about modern-day business deals.
This land claim exists because of negligence by Land Office staff,
historical inaction by Department of Interior staff, and abandonment of
trustee obligations by the Governor. Resolution of this land claim is
about finally securing just compensation for my people, finally being
able to close this painful chapter of our history, and finally being
able to shift our focus to the future. It is about finally achieving
justice.
The Settlement
In commencing settlement negotiations with the Governor of
Michigan, the Bay Mills Indian Community well understood that no
agreement would be possible without compromise. Because achieving
closure to this long-standing wrong was very important to our
community, we worked hard to reach an accommodation with the Governor
by which a resolution to our claim would serve both our goals and those
of the State.
Our goals were to recover lost lands, and to receive monetary
compensation due us for having lost possession of those lands. As you
may be aware, the federal courts have determined that such monetary
compensation generally encompasses compensation for lost rent plus
interest. (See, e.g., the Cayuga cases.)
The State's goals were to quiet title to the claim area property
without displacement of the people living there, to construct a
settlement that would not have an impact on the State's budget, and to
ensure that any replacement lands would be located in a community
desirous of our presence there.
The Settlement we reached with the Governor in August, 2002
accomplishes both the Tribe's and the State's goals in a fair and
equitable manner. Indeed, we would like to think that the spirit of
mutual respect and cooperation with which these negotiations took place
should serve as a model for how such difficult and emotionally charged
issues can be resolved. In addition, I note that the general structure
of the Bay Mills settlement is consistent with other land claims
settlements already enacted by Congress. (See, for example, the Torres-
Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Claims Settlement ratified in the
106th Congress and codified at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1778, in which that
tribe's claim for trespass damages was resolved with replacement lands
and a related gaming opportunity.)
Indian Gaming
We understand that there is a reluctance to allow Indian land claim
settlements to be used to as vehicles for the expansion of off-
reservation Indian gaming. We share that concern. We think, however,
that the United States owes it our people, particularly given the long
and unfortunate history of our dealings with the United States, to take
a hard look at the merits of this land claim, and to understand the
proposed settlement in the context of our land claim rather than
through the filter of modern controversies surrounding Indian gaming.
If we had never been severed from possession of our Hay Lake
property, if either the United States government of the State of
Michigan had honored and enforced the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act
when Chippewa County sought to (and achieved) our dispossession through
tax foreclosure sales, then everyone, everywhere, would understand the
Hay Lake property to be ``Indian lands'' held by the Tribe prior to the
enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Had our ancestors
never been evicted by county tax assessors, we would continue to live
there to this day, and we would be entitled, under IGRA, to operate an
Indian gaming facility there.
The Governor, acting for the State, made clear that he would not
agree to my Tribe's recovery of the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land
because it could result in the eviction of current landowners in the
Hay Lake area. The Governor instead offered his support for the concept
of finding new lands to replace the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach property
in return for our agreement that our trust title to the Hay Lake
property would be extinguished by Congressional action. By agreeing to
provide replacement land to the Tribe, the State has alleviated the
anxiety of persons currently living in the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach
claim area that they might some day be evicted from their homes. By
agreeing that such replacement lands should be eligible for gaming, the
State has agreed that the replacement land should in fact have the same
status as the lands we have agreed to give up--that is, the replacement
land should be treated as if it, too, had been held by the tribe since
the mid-nineteenth century.
The Governor insisted that we locate replacement lands in a
community that was desirous of hosting us. We have done that. As you
will hear directly from the elected representatives of Port Huron
today, that community affirmatively wishes our Tribe to locate its
replacement lands there.
I also wish to underscore that the State insisted that it would not
provide appropriated money from its own budget to compensate us for
nearly one hundred and thirty years' back rent and interest. We have
agreed to that; indeed, have agreed that we will try to achieve full
compensation based on the money we ourselves make through economic
development on the replacement lands. Those funds will generate the
income we require in order to provide governmental services and
programs to the Tribe's members and their families. Without that
income, we would have no choice but to come back both to the State and
the Federal Government, and insist that we be compensated for both
parties' failure to protect our lands from alienation as required by
the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act.
For these reasons, I strongly and respectfully urge you to consider
this settlement not through the lens of Indian gaming, but rather in
the context of the long and well-documented history of the wrong done
to my people, and in the context of the overall wisdom of a settlement
crafted to create the greatest good for the most people.
The Department of the Interior
We have tried to work closely with the Department of the Interior
over the last few years, and have made every effort to address each of
the concerns raised by the Department of the Interior about the
structure and content of the proposed settlement. I wish to note here
that we have appreciated Interior's efforts to work with us in this
regard. We have proposed a modification to the draft language in
Section 2 of H.R. 831 that would alleviate the Department's concerns
about whether the replacement land would have to be acquired in trust
if it is contaminated (it would not). We have submitted the settlement
to the Department for its review so that the Department may satisfy
itself as to the appropriateness of provisions in the settlement that
the Department feels implicate the Tribe's Tribal-State Gaming Compact.
And we have welcomed the inclusion of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe into
the settlement and legislative process so that landowners within the
Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach claim area can be assured that their titles
will be fully and completely cleared through the complete
extinguishment of Indian title.
It is our belief that we have successfully addressed the
Department's concerns, and it is our hope that, as a result, the
Department will support our efforts and support enactment of H.R. 831.
Conclusion
I recognize that there are additional issues which may be of
interest or concern to the Committee. I am happy to address any and all
issues, and I welcome your questions today. I once again thank you for
the opportunity to tell the Bay Mills Indian Community's story, and I
respectfully urge you to support the efforts of the Bay Mills Indian
Community, the citizens of Charlotte Beach and Port Huron, and the
State of Michigan, by providing the necessary Congressional
ratification of our settlement without further delay.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Neal?
STATEMENT OF HON. B. MARK NEAL, MAYOR,
CITY OF PORT HURON, MICHIGAN
Mr. Neal. Thank you, Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall,
ladies and gentlemen of the Committee, distinguished guests.
My name is Mark Neal. I am the Mayor of the city of Port
Huron. Our population is approximately 32,000 people. We are
the county seat for St. Clair County. We are along the St.
Clair River just across from Sarnia, Ontario. We currently have
in our community an unemployment rate that is approaching 20
percent. We have many people that live below the poverty level.
We are very much a blue-collar town.
We look at this possibility of having this land settlement
taken care of so a casino could be brought to our city. We
think it is important from the standpoint it provides
employment opportunities. With the potential of having 3,000 to
3,500 jobs created by this casino/convention center, it would
go a long way in providing employment opportunities for our
community. We feel the high-paying jobs, that are going to be
union, would turn over those wages in our community many times
over and would support other industries in our community as
well.
In our community, we have had, unfortunately, many
employment opportunities dry up. We are very much dependent on
the automotive industry, and the way the automotive industry in
the State of Michigan has gone, it has disappeared. We have
lost those jobs out of our State. And unfortunately, we haven't
had any new industry move in to replace them. Our community is
looking at this opportunity to create a whole other type of
industry, a service industry, a tourism industry, that would
enable us to be a destination for people not only from the
State of Michigan but from the region as well.
I hear the comments from Congressman Rogers, and it
disturbs me to hear him say that gaming does not bring economic
opportunity. I disagree with that. We are affected in our
community right now by gaming. The reason I say that, if you
look to my left, your right, here is the Canadian casino. It is
approximately 500 yards from the city of Port Huron, just
across the St. Clair River. We have 75 to 80 percent of the
patrons that go to that casino comes from the State of
Michigan. So what happens is our money goes across the river to
a Canadian-sponsored casino and stays there. It doesn't get
back to our community. We feel if we have the casino in our
community, it goes to a strong way of providing jobs and money
back to our schools, our community, our social services, and
many other services throughout our community.
I hear the comments also in regard to bankruptcies. In my
day job, I have seen those bankruptcies go high, too, go higher
than they normally are. But unfortunately, they are not tied to
the casino or the gaming industry; they are tied to the
economic conditions of our State, and that is where we have
lost jobs. So we feel it is important that we have this
opportunity to have a new industry come into our community and
create employment opportunities.
At this time, I also would like to thank Congresswoman
Candice Miller for sponsoring this bill. We really appreciate
the effort that she has gone through in trying to do what is
right for her District. She has worked tremendously on this
issue ever since she has taken office, and it is my gratitude,
as the representative of the city of Port Huron, to express our
appreciation for her efforts.
I will entertain any other questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Neal follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Mark Neal, Mayor,
City of Port Huron, Michigan
Chairman Pombo, Ranking Member Rahall, ladies and gentlemen of the
committee, my name is Mark Neal, I am Mayor of the City of Port Huron,
in the Great Lakes state of Michigan. Thank you for allowing me a few
minutes of your time to share with you important facts about my city.
Port Huron is a city with a population of 32,000 people. We are the
county seat for St. Clair County, which has a population of 175,000. We
sit on the US/Canadian Border just across the St. Clair River from
Sarnia, Ontario. We currently have an unemployment rate approaching 20
percent. In addition, we have many citizens that are below the poverty
level. We are very much a blue collar community.
Our community has been devastated by the loss of employment
opportunities; we had two industries that provided 7,500 jobs. One
company had 5,000 employees and another had 2,500 employees. The one
with 5,000 employees has reduced their workforce to 500 employees and
the company with 2,500 employees closed their doors. We have an active
Economic Development Alliance that helps promote our industrial park.
Many of the tenants in our industrial park are suppliers for the auto
industry. Unfortunately, when the Big Three (Ford, GM, and Chrysler)
say they need to cut their costs, they turn to their suppliers, which
means we are the first to suffer from any downturn and the last to
recover. Whenever we get a new tenant in our park, another one closes
its doors.
Our community is in desperate need of employment opportunities.
That's why we asked the Bay Mills Tribe to consider resolving their
land claim by accepting land in Port Huron for their economic
development. With the proposed casino and their anticipation of
employing 3,000 to 3,500 people at an above average wage, the economic
benefit to our community would be tremendous. Those wages would be
turned over many times in our community. You will probably hear from
people who object to gaming and casinos. We have heard from those
people as well. However, our community had an advisory vote in 2001 and
the proposed casino won approval with over 54% of the vote. The main
reason that the vote passed is because our area is already exposed to
casino gaming. The Canadian government operates a casino just across
the Blue Water Bridge (literally 500 yards from our site) in Port
Huron. It takes less than ten minutes to get to the Canadian casino.
75-80 percent of their customers come from the States. So to hear
people say they don't want another casino in Michigan, our people are
already gambling and they are doing it in Canada. Unfortunately, our
community doesn't receive any benefit. No jobs, no money for our local
government, no money for schools and no money for our social services.
There are numerous entities that would benefit from a casino if it
were located in Port Huron. I have included letters of support from my
city council, the Economic Development Alliance of St. Clair County,
the Superintendent of the Intermediate School District of St. Clair
County, the United Way of St. Clair County as well as letters from
local labor unions that support the casino. It is also important to
note that Port Huron is the only border city in the northern tier that
doesn't have a casino.
If the proposed Bay Mills Indian Community land claim settlement is
given Congressional approval, the 3,000 plus jobs that would be created
would make the casino the largest employer not only in Port Huron but
in St. Clair County as well. The City of Port Huron needs these jobs.
The region needs these jobs. I am here to speak on behalf of my
community to request your support for immediate passage of H.R. 831,
the Bay Mills Indian Community Land Claim Settlement Act. We cannot
afford to wait any longer for this legislation to be enacted as it will
result in a massive boost to our economy that will strengthen the Port
Huron community and the lives of our citizens. I also wish to express
my deepest gratitude to our Congresswoman, Candice Miller, for
championing H.R. 831 and fighting so hard to do her part to turn the
economy around for her constituents. I urge the chairman and the
members of this committee to help her do right by our community.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Shagen?
STATEMENT OF PAUL W. SHAGEN, ESQ., SENIOR TRIBAL ATTORNEY,
SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MICHIGAN, SAULT
STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN
Mr. Shagen. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and our chairman,
Bernard Bouschor. As some of you may be aware, Chairman
Bouschor looked forward to appearing before this Committee on
this important piece of legislation, but was unable to attend
because we are in the process of concluding a tribal election
today, so he is back in Sault Ste. Marie.
I am a Member of the Sault Tribe's Board of Directors. For
a Sault Tribe, that is the Tribal Council. I was first elected
in 1998. I am also a senior tribal attorney for Sault Tribe.
With nearly 30,000 members, we are one of the largest
Indian tribes in the country and by far the largest in
Michigan. The Sault Tribe and the Bay Mills Indian Community
both hold claims to land in Charlotte Beach, Michigan, that was
deeded in trust to the Governor in 1857 for the use and benefit
of the tribes. The Charlotte Beach lands were later sold
without the knowledge of either tribe. As a result, the tribes
were denied their rights to their land and the current
homeowners faced clouded title and greatly diminished property
values.
In 2002, Michigan Governor John Engler reached separate
land claims settlements with the Sault Tribe and Bay Mills.
Under the settlements, the tribes agreed to relinquish all
claims to the Charlotte Beach lands, and in return Governor
Engler concurs in the provision of the alternative lands for
the tribes. The settlements are the basis of the bipartisan
legislation before the Committee today.
The Romulus site is of interest to the Sault Tribe in large
part because the Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is
located there. Many don't realize that Detroit Airport is one
of the 10 busiest in the United States. We believe that a
nearby casino would attract travelers and customers that are
not now visiting downtown Detroit. The Romulus casino will also
provide revenue for State and local Governments. We estimate
that it would likely produce an additional $11 million a year
in revenue to local Governments. In addition, we have agreed to
pay an additional percentage of net gaming revenue from both
the new casino and our casinos in the Upper Peninsula for a
total of $32 million in revenue annually to the State. These
additional fees are not currently paid by most competing tribes
in Michigan.
We do not see a new casino in Romulus as a threat to
Detroit. In fact, while we consider the possibility of a
Romulus casino, we are planning to break ground on a permanent
Greektown casino at a total cost of $450 million. A 2003 report
by two Hillsdale College economists concluded that the addition
of a Romulus casino would not saturate the Detroit market.
Nonetheless, we understand why our competitors in Detroit
may raise concerns about a Romulus casino. We would, however,
specifically ask Detroiters to understand the legal and
historical circumstances that led to our settlement. We are
committed to Detroit, and have indicated our willingness, as
the Honorable John Dingell indicated, to work with the city and
to ensure that Detroit's finances are not adversely affected by
a Romulus casino.
Deputy Assistant Secretary Martin has raised a series of
concerns both in her testimony today and in her letter that she
submitted about this legislation. The Sault Tribe appreciates
her comments and looks forward to working with Interior on
addressing these issues, which we believe can be overcome. I
would like to quickly address a couple of her concerns.
She argues that the gaming-related provisions of the
agreements should be evaluated through compact amendments
submitted to Interior. Unfortunately, compact amendments cannot
resolve the Charlotte Beach land claims. Only Congress has the
authority to extinguish tribal title to land.
Second, she suggested the revenue-sharing provisions of the
agreements could violate IGRA. In response, I would note that
Interior has approved compacts for every tribe in Michigan
which include the exact same revenue-sharing provisions.
Third, she expresses concern about the impact of the
settlements on Section 9 of the Michigan compacts. Section 9
was included in the compacts for the benefit of the Governor,
and in this case, Governor has chosen to waive Section 9.
And also, just to talk briefly to the policy consideration
that was raised by Secretary Martin, in 1994, the Department of
Interior made a favorable finding which would have allowed
tribal gaming by the Sault Tribe on after-acquired property in
downtown Detroit. The reason that didn't occur was because the
Governor of Michigan did not concur with that determination. It
wasn't because of any objections from the Department of
Interior.
We have also heard some concerns about the possible
precedent of opening the casino on land at a distance from our
reservation. And we don't view this as being an issue. Interior
has reported that there are at least four tribes that have
already done so, and one of these is in Michigan in the Upper
Peninsula, Keweenaw Bay Indian Community. Another is in
Wisconsin, where a tribe has a casino in Milwaukee, more than
200 miles from the tribe's reservation. Moreover, this is
consistent with IGRA in that the settlement of a land claim
exemption covers this exact situation before you today.
Opponents may wish to graft a distance limit on the law, but it
simply is not there.
In conclusion, we believe that H.R. 2793 and H.R. 831
deserve the support of the members of the Resources Committee.
The bills will do several things. First, they will clear title
and restore property values for the Charlotte Beach homeowners.
Second, they will provide the tribes a fair compensation for
the land to which they were entitled. And third, it will bring
jobs and economic development to the communities that have
voted to welcome tribal casinos.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the
members of the Committees on this important piece of
legislation and we thank you for the opportunity to testify
today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shagen follows:]
Statement of Paul W. Shagen, Esq., Member, Board of Directors and
Senior Tribal Attorney, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians,
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
Chippewa Indians and our Chairman, Bernard Bouschor. As you know,
Chairman Bouschor looked forward to appearing before the Committee on
this important legislation but is unable to attend because our tribe is
concluding our election today. In his absence, I am pleased to be here
to represent the Tribe.
I am a Member of the Sault Tribe's Board of Directors, which is our
tribal council, and also a senior tribal attorney for the Sault. I was
first elected to the Board in 1998. With nearly 30,000 members, we are
one of the largest Indian tribes in the country and by far the largest
in Michigan. Our territory is the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan,
and our government is headquartered in the city of Sault Ste. Marie.
Although most of our members are in the Upper Peninsula, the next
highest concentration of members are in Wayne County, in suburban
Detroit.
We trace our roots to the Original Bands of the Sault Ste. Marie
Chippewa Indians, which were organized tribes long before contact with
white explorers in the 1600s. The Tribe's modern government began to
take shape in the 1940s, when a group of Sugar Island residents began
meeting to review their common history and develop a case for
recognition. After more than 20 years of work, the Sault Tribe was
recognized by the Secretary of the Interior in 1972. Land was taken
into trust in 1974, and our Constitution was adopted in 1975.
Since the 1970s, the Sault Tribe has created a successful,
business-based economy to provide programs, services, and jobs for
tribal members. The Tribe controls five Kewadin casinos in Northern
Michigan and 15 non-gaming businesses. We employ approximately 2,500
people and are northern Michigan's largest employer. We also own a
majority interest in the Greektown Casino in Detroit, which is not an
Indian casino.
The Charlotte Beach Lands and the Settlement with State of Michigan
The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Bay Mills
Indian Community both hold claims to land in Charlotte Beach, Michigan
that was deeded in trust to the Governor of the State of Michigan in
1857 for the use and benefit of the Tribes and their predecessors.
The Charlotte Beach lands, approximately 125 acres total, were
later sold without the knowledge or agreement of the Sault Tribe or Bay
Mills. As a result, the Tribes were denied the rights to their land,
and the current homeowners face clouded title, uncertain property
rights, and greatly diminished property values. Litigation to resolve
title was unsuccessful because the Sault Tribe, which was not a party
to the central case, was found to be an ``indispensable party.'' The
Sixth Circuit court noted: ``We are satisfied that the evidence
establishes the existence of two separate tribes...both of which...have
a potential interest in the Charlotte Beach property.'' Companion
litigation in state court also failed to remove the cloud of title to
the Charlotte beach parcels.
In 2002, Michigan Governor John Engler reached separate land claim
settlements with the Sault Tribe and with Bay Mills. In short, under
the settlements, the Tribes agree to relinquish any and all legal and
equitable claims to the Charlotte Beach lands, and in return, the
Governor concurs in the provision of alternative lands in Michigan for
the Tribes. The settlements are the basis of the bipartisan legislation
before the Committee today, and enactment of H.R. 2793 and H.R. 831
will ratify and implement the terms of the two settlements.
The agreements were the product of lengthy negotiations, during
which Governor Engler embraced two priorities: 1) that any casino
subsequently built on the alternative lands have no real impact on
other tribes; and 2) that any new casino have prior local support. To
accomplish the first goal, the Sault Tribe settlement limited the
alternative lands to parcels in specific communities. To accomplish the
second, our settlement explicitly requires the approval of local
communities.
Alternative Lands
Our settlement provides for not more than two parcels of
alternative lands, one of which could be in Otsego County, and the
second of which could be in one of the following three locations:
Monroe County; the City of Romulus; or the City of Flint. In each case,
the settlement requires that the location be approved by the county or
city, and in the case of Otsego County, it requires also the approval
of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians.
Notwithstanding the various options included in our settlement with
the State--and the possibility of securing alternative lands in two
locations--we have voluntarily elected to pursue only the possibility
of alternative land in Romulus. We are excited at the prospect of
bringing jobs and economic development to Romulus, and we have worked
closely with Mayor Lambert to develop a plan that meets the needs of
the City and its residents. We are also pleased that the voters of the
city have already shown their support, approving a referendum last year
to allow the casino gaming contemplated by our settlement agreement
with the state to be conducted within the corporate limits of Romulus.
Opportunity for Romulus and Its Residents
A Sault Tribe casino in Romulus, if approved, would have an
enormous positive impact on the community. It would result in scores of
construction jobs while the casino is being built and add 3,500
permanent new positions at the casino once it is open. Other than
supervisory personnel, the jobs will be high-paying, union jobs. We
have already received more than 500 job applications from Romulus
residents eager to work at the casino.
We expect that a casino in Romulus would be a magnet for other
development in the city, including hotels, restaurants, and
recreational facilities like a world-class golf course--all of which
would bring jobs, taxes, and greater spending in the community.
The Romulus site is of interest to us in large part because the
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport is located there. Many do not
realize that the Detroit airport is one of the ten busiest in the
United States, with more traffic than at JFK in New York or the
airports in Newark, San Francisco, Seattle, or Miami. As Northwest
Airline's primary international hub, millions of passengers travel
through the Detroit airport on their way to or from international and
domestic destinations. We believe a nearby casino, with shuttle service
from the terminals, would attract travelers with short layovers--
travelers not now visiting downtown Detroit or its casinos 20 miles
away.
The Romulus casino will also provide revenue for the State and for
local governments. We estimate that it would likely produce
approximately $6 million in slot revenue to local governments and $5
million in property taxes for related development on land adjacent to
the casino. In addition, the casino will generate about $24 million per
year in revenues to the State, plus additional state revenues of about
$8 million a year from our casinos in the Upper Peninsula under
provisions of the agreement. The total increase in revenue to the State
of Michigan will be approximately $32 million per year, not including
additional revenue from the Bay Mills casinos.
Moreover, the revenue from the Romulus Casino will enable the Sault
Tribe itself to provide needed services for our own people in our
community, including health care, housing, law enforcement, education,
and other social services.
Impact on Detroit and Detroit Casinos
Our friends from Detroit may express the concern that a casino in
Romulus will have a negative impact on the non-Indian casinos that
operate there. Obviously, as the majority owners of one of those
casinos, Greektown, this is a subject to which we have devoted
considerable attention.
The Sault Tribe joined with city leaders and developers in Detroit
in the 1980s--before any other casino company took Detroit seriously--
in an effort to bring gaming jobs, revenues, and tourists to the city.
We took a risk in Detroit because we knew gaming there could benefit
both the city and our Tribe. In the years since we opened Greektown,
our vision has been proven correct. The Greektown Casino employs 2,300
people and pays them $100 million annually. We target a significant
percentage of our $171 million spending on Detroit-based businesses,
including small businesses and those owned by minorities. Greektown has
paid more than $160 million in gaming taxes to the city and state.
We do not see a new casino in Romulus as a threat to Greektown. In
fact, while we consider the possibility of a Romulus casino, we are
also planning to break ground on a permanent Greektown Casino at a
total project cost of about $450 million. The new casino-resort will
have 3,300 employees and include a 400-room hotel, 100,000 square feet
of gaming space, a spa, a 1,500-seat theater, and a 4,000-space
attached garage.
The Sault Tribe has also commissioned studies to analyze the impact
of a Romulus casino on the casinos in Detroit. A 2003 report concluded
that the addition of a casino in Romulus would not saturate the Detroit
market. The study, by two Hillsdale College economists, suggested that
the potential size of the Detroit/Windsor market could approach that of
the Chicago market. Even if a new casino in Romulus generated $325
million in revenue, the Detroit/Windsor market would remain nearly $500
million smaller than Chicago.
Nonetheless, we can understand why Detroit's leaders would raise
concerns about a tribal casino about 20 miles from the downtown
casinos. As in any metropolitan area, there is natural competition
between businesses in the suburbs and the city. We would, however,
respectfully ask Detroiters to understand the legal and historical
circumstances that led to our settlement with Governor Engler. And we
have indicated our willingness to work with the city to ensure that
Detroit's finances are not adversely affected by the opening of a
casino in Romulus.
Need for Congressional Action
The agreements will take effect when Congress approves the
bipartisan legislation to ratify the settlements, extinguish the
Tribes' land claims, and authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
take the alternative lands into trust. Together, H.R. 2793 and H.R. 831
would accomplish these objectives. Only passage of both bills will
clear title to the Charlotte Beach lands.
Recognizing this, the Sault Tribe is working closely with Bay Mills
in support of the two bills. Last year, our Board of Directors passed a
resolution in support of the Bay Mills legislation. The Bay Mills
Executive Council considered and approved a similar measure with
respect to our legislation. In a memorandum of understanding between
the two tribes earlier this year, we reiterated our joint support for
the enactment of the two bills that would resolve the Charlotte Beach
issue.
In conclusion, we believe H.R. 2793 and H.R. 831 deserve the
support of the Members of the Resources Committee. The bills will:
Clear title and restore property values for the Charlotte
Beach homeowners;
Provide the Tribes with fair compensation for the land to
which they were entitled; and
Bring jobs and economic development to communities that
have voted to welcome tribal casinos.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and Members of
the Committee on this important matter, and we thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lambert?
STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN R. LAMBERT, MAYOR,
CITY OF ROMULUS, MICHIGAN
Mr. Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members and
distinguished guests. My name is Alan Lambert and I am the
Mayor of the city of Romulus. Romulus is best known for being
the home to Detroit Metropolitan Airport. If you have ever
flown by commercial airline into Detroit, you have landed in
our city. It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to discuss
a very important piece of bipartisan legislation introduced by
Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller and Democratic
Congressman John Dingell. In this election year, we are glad
members of both parties agree that our city and the city of
Port Huron should be able to vastly expand our economies by
developing casinos that will add 3,500 new jobs to my city and
thousands more to Port Huron.
In 2002, Michigan Governor John Engler took steps to settle
a land dispute involving land in Charlotte Beach, Michigan to
which the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and Bay
Mills Indian Community have claims. To settle the claim, the
Land Settlement Agreement signed by Governor Engler provided
that the Bay Mills Tribe would be allowed to develop a casino
in Port Huron and Sault Ste. Marie would be allowed to develop
a casino in Vanderbilt in northern Michigan as well as one in
Romulus, Flint, and Monroe.
The Sault Tribe has decided not to seek a casino in
Vanderbilt and has chosen Romulus, my city, to be the location
of the casino. Under Governor Engler's Land Settlement
Agreements, the casino cannot be developed without the approval
of the host cities and without the approval of Congress. Our
City Council first provided host community approval through a
resolution passed by a 5-2 vote. However, we felt this was too
important to move forward without a voice of the people.
Therefore, a referendum election was held on December 3, 2003,
resulting in approval of the casino project in the city of
Romulus.
As Mayor, I was a strong supporter of this referendum, for
reasons that I will share with you. My reasons for support were
simple. The casino will bring 3,500 new, high-paying, permanent
jobs to our city of 23,000 people. A casino can be a beautiful
destination-style development that will include a hotel,
convention center, and other amenities. It will also draw
additional commercial development, such as retail stores, movie
theaters, and offices, which our city needs very badly. The
referendum also had the support of various local organizations,
including unions, the Romulus Police Officers Association,
Police Officers Association of Michigan, and the Southern Wayne
County Regional Chamber of Commerce.
This casino is a real opportunity for our city and,
actually, for all of southeast Michigan. Romulus Casino will
provide revenue for the State and for local Governments,
including approximately $6 million in slot revenue to the local
Governments and $5 million in property taxes for development
near the casino. The casino is a tremendous opportunity for the
people of our city and for the region.
Because of the proximity to the airport, we have a
responsibility to generate a positive economic climate for
hotels and airline companies located within our city limits.
Our airport is among the largest in the United States and the
city of Romulus has the third-highest number of hotel rooms in
the State of Michigan. Since 9/11, these businesses have
suffered great losses. The casino will open up new
opportunities that we could have never dreamed of and generate
new businesses for them.
The average household income in Romulus is about $31,000
per year. These casino jobs will average about $40,000 per
year, including benefits. We have had interest not only from
residents, from our city, but also from people throughout
southeast Michigan. At a job fair held last year for 2 days--
these are some the applications I would like to show you--we
had well over 500 people in the 2 days interested in jobs.
There have been some questions asked about what the impact
of a Romulus casino would be on the existing Detroit casinos. A
study was commissioned to examine the impact of the proposed
casino on our community, including the economic impact of
Romulus Casino on Detroit. Professor Gary Wolfram of Hillsdale
College conducted the study. He is a noted economist and has
real-life experience well beyond the classroom. He has served
as deputy director of the Michigan Department of Treasury,
appointed by Governor Engler, and also served on the Hill as
chief of staff to Congressman Nick Smith.
The study, which I include as an attachment to my written
testimony, concluded that a casino in Romulus would not have
negative impact on the Detroit casinos. The analysis suggested
that the Detroit casino market still has substantial room for
growth. The study also concluded that if additional casinos can
make Detroit a destination location to out-of-state travelers,
the entire Michigan economy may substantially benefit.
In conclusion, a casino in Romulus would be a huge economic
generator for our city and all of southeast Michigan, provide
3,500 permanent high-paying jobs, and would generate other
types of commercial development that we need, such as offices,
retail, and other forms of entertainment. Tax revenue to
Romulus, southeast Michigan, and the State of Michigan will be
significant. Finally, it would not be a detriment to the city
of Detroit.
I urge you to support this very important bipartisan
legislation introduced by Congresswoman Candice Miller and
Congressman John Dingell. Our residents supported it via
referendum, our elected officials supported it through a host
community resolution, and Governor John Engler supported it in
the terms of Land Settlement Agreements. Now it needs your
support as well. This is very important bipartisan legislation
to our city, county, and State.
We thank you very much for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lambert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Alan R. Lambert, Mayor,
City of Romulus, Michigan
Mr. Chairman, Committee Members, Distinguished Guests:
I am Alan Lambert, Mayor of Romulus, Michigan.
Romulus is now best known for being the home to Detroit
Metropolitan Airport. If you've ever flown by commercial airline into
Detroit, you have landed in our city.
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon to discuss a very
important piece of bi-partisan legislation introduced by Republican
Congresswoman Candice Miller and Democratic Congressman John Dingell.
In this election year, we're glad that members of both parties agree
that our city and the City of Port Huron should be able to vastly
expand our economies by developing casinos that will add 3,500 new jobs
to our city and another 3,000 jobs to Port Huron.
In 2002, Michigan Governor John Engler took steps to settle a land
dispute involving land in Charlotte Beach, Michigan to which the Sault
Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the Bay Mills Indian Community
have claims. To settle the claim, the Land Settlement Agreements signed
by Governor Engler provide that the Bay Mills Tribe would be allowed to
develop a casino in Port Huron and the Sault Tribe would be allowed to
develop a casino in Vanderbilt, in Northern Michigan, as well as one in
either Romulus, Flint or Monroe.
The Sault Tribe has decided not to seek a casino in Vanderbilt and
has chosen Romulus, my city, to be the location of its casino.
Under Governor Engler's Land Settlement Agreements, the casinos
cannot be developed without the approval of the host cities and without
the approval of Congress.
Our City Council first provided host community approval through a
resolution passed by a 5-2 vote. However, we felt this was too
important to move forward without a vote of the people. Therefore, a
referendum election was held on December 3, 2003 resulting in approval
of a casino project in the City of Romulus.
As Mayor, I was a strong supporter of the referendum--for reasons I
will share with you today.
My reasons for support were simple. A casino will bring 3,500 new,
high paying permanent jobs to our city of 23,000. A casino can be a
beautiful destination style development that will include a hotel,
convention center and other amenities. It will also draw additional
commercial development such as retail stores, movie theaters, and
offices.
The referendum also had the support of various local organizations,
including unions, the Romulus Police Officers' Association, the Police
Officers' Association of Michigan, and the Southern Wayne County
Regional Chamber of Commerce.
This casino is a real opportunity for our city and all of Southeast
Michigan.
The Romulus casino will provide revenue for the State and for local
governments, including approximately $6 million in slot revenue to
local governments and $5 million in property taxes for development near
the new casino.
A casino is a tremendous opportunity for the people of our city and
the region.
Because of proximity to the airport, we have a responsibility to
generate a positive economic climate for our hotels and airline
companies located within our own city limits. Our airport is among the
largest in the United States, and the City of Romulus has the third
highest number of hotel rooms in the State of Michigan. Since 9/11
these businesses have suffered great losses. A casino will open up new
opportunities that we could have never dreamed of, and generate new
business for them.
The average household income in Romulus is $31,000 per year. The
casino jobs will average $40,000 per year, including benefits. We have
had interest, not only from residents from our city, but also from
people throughout Southeast Michigan. At a job fair held last year,
more than 500 Romulus residents submitted applications for jobs at the
casino.
There have been some questions asked about what the impact of a
Romulus casino would be on the existing Detroit casinos. A study was
commissioned to examine the impact of the proposed casino on our
community, including the economic impact of a Romulus casino on
Detroit.
Professor Gary Wolfram of Hillsdale College conducted the study. He
is a noted economist who has real-life experience well beyond the
classroom. He has served as Deputy Director of the Michigan Department
of Treasury, appointed by Governor Engler, and also served here on the
Hill as Chief of Staff to Congressman Nick Smith (R-MI).
The study, which I include as an attachment to my written
testimony, concluded that a casino in Romulus would NOT have a negative
impact on the Detroit casinos. The analysis suggested that the Detroit
casino market still has substantial room for growth. The study also
concluded that if additional casinos can make Detroit a destination
location for out-of-state travelers, the entire Michigan economy may
substantially benefit.
In conclusion, a casino in Romulus will be a huge economic
generator for our city and all of Southeast Michigan. It will provide
3,500 permanent high paying jobs, and it would generate other types of
commercial development that we need, such as offices, retail stores,
and other forms of entertainment.
The tax revenue to Romulus, Southeast Michigan, and the State of
Michigan will be significant, and finally it would not be detrimental
to the City of Detroit.
I urge you to support this very important bi-partisan legislation
introduced by Congresswoman Candice Miller and Congressman John
Dingell. Our residents supported it via referendum. Our elected
officials supported it through a host community resolution. And
Governor John Engler supported it in the terms of the Land Settlement
Agreements Now, it needs your support as well. This is very important
bi-partisan legislation to our city, county, and state.
Thank you very much.
NOTE: The Wolfram study attached to Mr. Lambert's statement has
been retained in the Committee's official files.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I thank the entire panel for your
testimony.
Any of you can answer this. How close together in terms of
miles are these two sites?
Mr. Neal. I think, Mr. Chairman, I would estimate we are
probably about 75 miles from each other.
The Chairman. That is pretty close.
In trying to settle this, why were these two sites chosen?
Mr. Parker. I can answer that to some extent. This is what
the Governor of the State of Michigan wanted at the time of
negotiations. And as I stated earlier, he really wanted
something in Port Huron to compete with what was happening
across the border and to try to stem the flow of cash going
from Michigan into Ontario, Canada.
The Chairman. And the other site, was there a specific
reason why that was chosen?
Mr. Lambert. If I could, Mr. Chairman. I note that he had
given a choice of the three locations, Romulus, Monroe, and
Flint, and I believe the Sault picked our location because of
the airport and thought it could be a new way to get people to
fly in.
Mr. Shagen. And obviously another component of that is that
these are two communities that have consented to this and that
want this and are excited about this opportunity. So that is
another reason for this.
The Chairman. Was there a reason why both of these were not
put in the same city?
Mr. Parker. I would imagine that Governor Engler may be a
person who could answer that question. We were negotiating with
the State of Michigan to settle the Bay Mills claim to lands
that were taken from us. So our settlement was specific to us.
The Chairman. And were all the negotiations separate?
Mr. Parker. Yes.
The Chairman. And obviously, this is something that has
been going on for a number of years in trying to come up with a
settlement. And we have had testimony in the other body that
was not the agreement that there is today on supporting both
bills. And there are some concerns amongst members of the
Committee as to why the opinion has changed over the last
couple of years in terms of support of the different land
claims. I think we need to explore that a little bit in terms
of why opinions have changed in the last couple of years with
it.
Mr. Shagen. Is that question directed at myself?
The Chairman. Predominantly, yes.
Mr. Shagen. OK, thank you. In the past I know that Chairman
Bouschor testified before the Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs. And, you know, at that point in time, we hadn't
entered into a settlement agreement with Governor Engler yet.
And we understood, and so did the landowners, that this would
not clear their title, that, as the Sixth Circuit has ruled, we
are an indispensable party, we have a claim. And, you know, we
could not support the legislation at that point in time
because, quite frankly, it didn't include us and it wasn't
going to resolve the issue, from our perspective. So now that
we have worked, the two tribes have cooperated since then and
we now have a settlement agreement similar to what Bay Mills
has, and we feel now that these two bills together, jointly,
will resolve this land claim issue. So that is the reason why
Sault Tribe is now supporting this measure, because we are
included in it when we should have been included initially.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Kildee?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shagen, do you have a petition before the Department of
Interior now on this land settlement and taking the land into
trust?
Mr. Shagen. I don't believe that we do at this point. I
understand that Bay Mills has submitted their settlement
agreement to the Department of Interior. That is not something
that we have done. That is something that we are amenable to
and that we can go forward with and work with Interior to
resolve some of these issues. We don't object to that. But we
haven't done that up to this point.
Mr. Kildee. And I would suggest that it would probably be a
prudent thing to do, to have at least two venues there to
pursue your petition. And that is the more appropriate venue,
particularly for this type of petition. You mentioned four, and
there may very well be four. I can only find three where the
land not contiguous to the reservation was taken into trust for
the purpose of gaming. That is one in Wisconsin, one in
Washington, and of course the Keweenaw Bay in Michigan. But
whether it be three or four, all of those, those three or four,
were all done through the administrative process. None were
done through the Congressional process. So I think it would be
just a prudent thing to do the same as Bay Mills has done, is
to use both avenues or venues for that purpose.
Mr. Shagen. I believe the fourth was the Seneca Nation of
New York on a location in Niagara Falls.
Mr. Kildee. I wasn't aware of that one. I was aware of the
there.
The Mayor of Romulus--
Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kildee. I fly into your city every week. I do know that
Romulus has gone through similar things to Flint, Michigan,
right, it has had its great days and not so great days and some
changes in automotive industry and manufacturing in general.
Mr. Lambert. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kildee. You are convinced, I am sure, then, that
Romulus could compete in that market? You really will have, if
you are successful in getting a casino getting a casino there,
you will have four casinos in Wayne County, right--the three in
Detroit and the one in Romulus?
Mr. Lambert. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kildee. How many miles away from Detroit is Romulus,
roughly?
Mr. Lambert. Approximately 25.
Mr. Kildee. Twenty-five miles?
Mr. Lambert. Yes.
Mr. Kildee. And you think you could compete with the other
three in Wayne County?
Mr. Lambert. Yes, we do.
Mr. Kildee. Can you tell us why you think, what factors
have gone into that?
Mr. Lambert. I think what is going to be a major key is
having new business, actually people flying into the airport.
This is going to be a resort-style with a convention center. We
believe we are going to be able to have a lot of fly in traffic
that doesn't come to Detroit right now. In fact, we believe
when they do fly in, they will visit the Romulus site and also
go to Detroit and visit the sites there.
Mr. Kildee. So you think the three in Detroit--one of which
is not trust territory; the Sault Ste. Marie is primarily owned
by the tribe but it is not trust territory--if they and the
other two, MGM and the other one, would be able to succeed also
along with yours?
Mr. Lambert. We believe that to be correct, sir.
Mr. Kildee. And there are market studies on that?
Mr. Lambert. That is right, there are.
Mr. Kildee. All right. Well, I helped write IGRA and I
tried to fair in IGRA. This is a difficult time for me, because
I have friends all over. Jeff, you and I have been friends for
a long time, and I hope that will persist before, during, and
after this discussion here. But several things that I pushed in
IGRA which I think have been helpful to the Native Americans,
one was the Land Claims Settlement Exemption. We pushed that in
there because we foresaw that things like this could happen
where there were claims. And I am very aware, Chairman Taylor,
of your claim at Charlotte Beach there. And we put that in, and
I think we probably assumed, however, that that would be done
more through, as the other four had been done, through the
administrative process rather than a Congressional process. But
I did help put that in because I could see situations that both
Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills have.
Another thing I pushed to put in the bill at that time,
because I was on the Committee then, on IGRA, was the fact that
if States are not bargaining in good faith, then the Secretary
of Interior could intervene and bargain for that. And Bruce
Babbitt came close to promulgating the rules on doing just
that. So we tried to be fair to everyone, tried to be fair to
the Indian tribes. And after the Cabazon decision, I am proud
of the fact that I helped write IGRA, and I want IGRA to work.
And I would prefer, certainly, however, obviously with my
position being what it is today, that you use the
administrative process rather than the Congressional process
because I am just a little fearful of the precedent that we may
create here by other people coming to Congress asking to bypass
that administrative process.
But otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I think
all the witnesses have testified very well.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons?
Mr. Gibbons. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Kildee. And since
it is my turn to ask a question, I think I will take advantage
of this opportunity.
I would like to ask Mr. Shagen, since he is the resident
expert on IGRA--
Mr. Shagen. Oh, I don't--let's not get carried away here.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, we are going to assume that because you
are the senior attorney for the tribe.
One of the core requirements of IGRA, in order to establish
a casino on non-ancestral land, is to get the consultation and
approval of the other nearby tribes. Is that correct?
Mr. Shagen. I don't believe that to be the case.
Mr. Gibbons. It is not?
Mr. Shagen. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. Then I have been misled into my understanding
of what IGRA requires as well. So you are telling this
Committee that it is not a requirement? Is that correct?
Mr. Shagen. It is not under--I have been advised it is not
under IGRA, but it is under the Indian Reorganization Act, the
land to trust requirements. So there is nothing in IGRA as far
as requiring--
Mr. Gibbons. All right, that is--you are right. You are
right. I take back my statement about that. But you have
identified the issue that if it is going to be taken into trust
by the Government for a casino, it requires consultation and
approval of the neighboring tribes, does it not?
Mr. Shagen. It does, for the land to trust. And that was
one of the primary concerns of Governor Engler in adopting the
settlement agreement, that it, one, there is the local approval
from the local community; two, that it not adversely impact
another tribe. In the case of the Vanderbilt site, we had a
consent requirement, if we had gone forward with that, that we
got the consent of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa
Indians. However, we have foregone that.
Mr. Gibbons. So there are some tribes that are here in the
audience today, I am sure you are aware, who are not in support
of this idea.
Mr. Shagen. Yes.
Mr. Gibbons. What efforts have you taken on behalf of this
tribe to see that the essential component that we are talking
about here has been met with to assure fairness to those other
tribes?
Mr. Shagen. Well, what I have been told is that it is
actually--the requirement is consultation with the other tribes
for the land to trust, not necessarily--
Mr. Gibbons. Is it consultation with the BIA, or actually
agreement with the other tribes as well?
Mr. Shagen. It is consultation--not agreement. Consultation
with the other tribes is the requirement. And as far as the
other tribes, what attempt we have taken, it is no secret that
we are business competitors. You know, the Saginaw Chippewa
Tribe is located north of Detroit and I am sure that they will
be here today testifying in opposition to that. And, you know,
a casino in Port Huron may impact them in some way. But we are
business competitors and, you know, that is the reality of the
situation.
Mr. Gibbons. So you don't feel at all averse to the idea
that you could install or put this casino in place without the
consent or approval or acceptance of your project by those
neighboring tribes?
Mr. Shagen. I mean, I think in the best-case scenario it
would be nice to always be able to--
Mr. Gibbons. Well, that is in the best-case scenario. This
is what you are doing today--
Mr. Shagen. Exactly.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me ask the Mayor of Romulus, Mr. Lambert.
Sir, welcome before the Committee.
Mr. Lambert. Thank you.
Mr. Gibbons. I know that Mr. Kildee talked about the three
other casinos in Detroit. This would be a fourth. Those other
three casinos pay a nine-something, 9.9 percent tax on the
gaming revenues to those communities.
Mr. Lambert. Right.
Mr. Gibbons. What steps are being taken should that revenue
drop off dramatically by those communities and those Government
agencies for that share of revenue that you are going to take
from there?
Mr. Lambert. Actually, I think I should refer back to Mr.
Shagen, because the Sault had said that they were going to work
with Detroit on lost revenue. Actually, the city of Romulus
would have nothing to do with it. Detroit maybe would get 9
percent of whatever percent they get, we would get 2 percent,
out of the compact. So that money would be for the city of
Romulus. The Sault had mentioned they would work with Detroit
on any kind of revenue loss.
Mr. Gibbons. All right.
Mr. Lambert. Are in negotiations with them at this point, I
believe.
Mr. Gibbons. And if we do this, would you have a problem
with us granting a trust status for a casino development right
next-door to your property?
Mr. Shagen. I guess that is something that I am not
prepared to answer at this point.
Mr. Gibbons. Well, what would you--just throw it up as a
ballpark kind of concept idea. If we got one on either side of
you, right next-door, would you--it certainly would be OK with
Romulus, because they are going to get the revenue from it. But
would you be OK with it?
Mr. Shagen. We probably would be in the same situation as
some of the other tribes in trying to protect our market.
Mr. Gibbons. That is all I wanted to know.
Mr. Kildee, do you have any further questions?
Mr. Kildee. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
that.
Mr. Parker, if I may ask you, if we would pass this law as
written now, we would in effect put the compact terms into law.
How, then, would you be able to modify or renegotiate that
compact if it is part of Federal law?
Mr. Parker. That is an interesting question simply because
we are not asking you to modify or approve our existing
compacts. Our existing compacts have already been approved.
They were approved in 1993. They were published in the Federal
Register. And they allow us to game on the site we have now and
also on the site in Port Huron. What we are asking now for
Congress to do is to relinquish our claim to the Charlotte
Beach area by Congressionally approving the settlement
agreement we have with the Governor of the State of Michigan--a
totally separate document from the compact.
Mr. Kildee. I am wondering if, dealing with your
attorneys--and Mr. Shagen, yourself, you are an attorney--if it
might be better, if this bill is to move forward, to take the
language put in the compact into a Federal law out, because it
seems to me that in the future you would have a difficult time
changing that compact without changing Federal law.
Mr. Parker. But the compact is not being modified or
addressed in any way through this legislation.
Mr. Kildee. No, but if you wanted to modify it in the
future--
Mr. Parker. There are provisions in the compact to do this.
Because the compact itself is not a part of the pertinent law,
nor is it as an attachment modifying this. This is just simply
a settlement agreement. We were told by Interior that in order
for us to resolve our claim, we had to have an Act of Congress.
Mr. Kildee. I would just advise you--and I am not an
attorney, I am a Latin teacher--just to make sure that you
haven't locked yourself in in the future, just to review that
again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Kildee. And to each
of our panel members, I want to thank you--Oh, excuse me. Mr.
Cole has a question. I am sorry.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try and
be brief because I know it is late.
I just wanted to make a point, actually. First of all, I
wanted to thank you, gentlemen, for, frankly, the cooperative
spirit. I am always impressed when I see--I live in a State
that has a lot of disputes between the State, the localities,
and the tribes. And to see them all come together around an
agreement I think is always a very impressive achievement.
There are very legitimate policy and process issues here, and I
have not made up my mind about those, but I very much
appreciate the manner in which you have tried to settle a
problem and help a community and, frankly, take a tribe, which
I think is an asset to a community, and turn it into something
that is good for all concerned.
Insofar as opposition to what you are trying to do is
focused on legitimate concerns about process and are we setting
precedents here that are bad, I think that is fair and we ought
to look at that very carefully. On the other hand, if the
opposition is simply economic--you know, we have it here, we
don't want you to have it there, that cuts in--that is not
legitimate. I mean, every tribe has a right to develop its
assets, and to do so in a cooperative and conciliatory way with
the other governmental entities with which you are dealing is
really very impressive. And you are to be commended.
So I hope we will try and find ways to work with you to
resolve the problems, as opposed to taking an approach--and I
am sure we will try to work with you, but as opposed to
letting, you know, competing economic interests drive this. It
ought to really be about the process and what is right. And
again, I would tell you there are a lot of communities in the
country, and a lot of States, that could learn a lot from the
process that you developed to get to this point. So thank you
for your efforts in that regard.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Cole.
Mr. Stupak?
Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Parker, when did the Bay Mills Community first seek
assistance from the Department of Interior for help in pursuing
its land claim here on Charlotte Beach? And has it been a long-
time venture, or is it something that mostly has come up with
the expansion of gaming opportunities?
Mr. Parker. This goes back to 1925. We made reference to
the Interior Department to assist us in getting the property
back. Land claims--that was going through a while back, meaning
Land Claims Commission was reviewing the stuff, we submitted it
to them. They let it go, though, because it was with the State
not the Federal Government, although in other instances where
tribes had claims with the State, they were allowed to go
forward. So this is something we have been working on for quite
some time. And your predecessor Mr. Davis, Congressman Davis,
was working on this also.
Mr. Stupak. Was the Port Huron area ever part of your
aboriginal land? And if so, was this land ever ceded under
treaties with the United States?
Mr. Parker. It is our belief from our research that, yes,
it was. In 1807 there was a treaty that ceded that portion of
the land to the Federal Government. And I briefly touched on
this before. And when they talked about the larger Chippewa
Tribe, what they were talking about was the Chippewa Nation
that was located in the Michigan area. After that treaty and
that negotiation, that is when they started breaking--the
Federal Government started breaking a nation up into tribes and
smaller bands to facilitate the cession treaties that were
going forward. And as I had stated earlier, the post-secondary
educational opportunities that Michigan tribal representatives
enjoy are based on that treaty of 1807. And that is open to all
tribal Indians in Michigan.
Mr. Stupak. When you mention universities, are you saying
that secondary education is for Chippewa Indians available
through Michigan universities based upon the treaties?
Mr. Parker. And it is Odawa-- This was Indian population of
Michigan. It is open to everybody.
Mr. Stupak. And that admission is to all State
universities, or certain ones?
Mr. Parker. State universities and State community
colleges.
Mr. Stupak. Have members of your tribe been able to take
advantage of that?
Mr. Parker. I did.
Mr. Stupak. You did?
Mr. Parker. Mm-hm.
Mr. Stupak. Anyone currently?
Mr. Parker. Quite a few.
Mr. Stupak. OK.
Mr. Shagen, there has been some discussion today about
Section 9 of the Michigan compact with the Community. Could you
explain to the Committee what Section 9 is and why it is or is
not a problem? It seems to be perceived a problem, at least by
BIA.
Mr. Shagen. Section 9 of the compact required that gaming
revenues from a casino on newly acquired land be shared among
all of the Indian tribes of Michigan. And it is my
understanding that Section 9, and I believe that the Governor's
counsel at the last hearing testified to this, that Section 9
was included in the Tribal-State Gaming Compact for the benefit
of the Governor. And in this case, Section 9 is not implicated,
because the Governor chose to waive that requirement.
Mr. Stupak. Well, then, do the tribes then pay money to the
State of Michigan? I am not talking about local communities,
but to the State of Michigan for the benefit of the people of
the State of Michigan?
Mr. Shagen. I am sorry, I didn't catch the first part of
that.
Mr. Stupak. Do the tribes pay part of their casino revenues
to the State of Michigan for the benefit of the State of
Michigan?--and not necessarily local communities that may be
around the reservation.
Mr. Shagen. We don't currently, but under the provisions of
the settlement agreement with the State, we would pay 8 percent
to the State from Romulus and, in addition, we would once again
start paying the 8 percent from our northern casino properties
to the State.
Mr. Stupak. So by doing this agreement, this land
transfer--the title of your property is extinguished and in
exchange you get these two parcels of property, and if you do
put up casinos, then 8 percent not only of the revenues from,
in your case, Romulus or Bay Mills/Port Huron, but also 8
percent from your northern casinos would then go to the State
of Michigan?
Mr. Shagen. Exactly. And we estimate that--
Mr. Stupak. Would any other tribes be required to do that 8
percent?
Mr. Shagen. No.
Mr. Stupak. So if there is some perceived advantage,
economic advantage to you, you would still pay 8 percent, which
would be a disincentive to go through with this agreement
because not only would you do it for your new locations, but
also your current location. Is that correct?
Mr. Shagen. Yes, we would pay 8 percent on all locations
across the board.
Mr. Stupak. There has been some discussion about Detroit,
and I think you hit it a little bit, but if you would take an
opportunity, I would like to give you an opportunity to express
or indicate how would the Sault Tribe make Detroit whole, or
how it may or may not change if this bill is enacted?
Mr. Shagen. Well, I wasn't involved in those discussions,
necessarily, with the city, but it is my understanding that
there is a proposal on arrangement, that is being worked on,
whereby the Sault Tribe from the Romulus property would make up
any economic loss to the city, assuming that that occurred. It
is our opinion that that won't occur and that the Detroit
market can sustain an additional casino very easily. But in the
event that that happened, we are in the process right now of
working with the city to try to resolve the issue.
Mr. Stupak. You are somewhat familiar with the city of
Detroit and your casino down there, Mr. Shagen. Is there any
requirement of consultation or permission of other casino
owners before your new casino in Greektown rolls out their new
casino? Or do you have to get permission from them to do
something? Do you have to get permission from them to put in a
new type of gaming? Do you have to get permission from them to
increase the odds or lessen the odds?
Mr. Shagen. Well, we have to work with the Michigan Gaming
Control Board and their restrictions, but not the other
casinos.
Mr. Stupak. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much. And with that, if there
are no further questions, I would excuse our third panel with a
vote of thanks for your testimony here today. We have
appreciated it. It has been helpful to us. And we will excuse
you and call up the fourth panel.
The fourth panel is the Honorable George Bennett, Tribal
Councilor of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa
Indians, Suttons Bay, Michigan; Tribal Chief Audrey Falcon, the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Mount Pleasant, Michigan; Mr.
Richard Cummings, President of Michigan Machinists Council,
Port Huron, Michigan; and Mr. William Black, Legislative and
Community Affairs Director, Michigan International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Detroit, Michigan.
Before you would be seated, if you would all rise and raise
your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Gibbons. Let the record reflect that each of the
witnesses answered in the affirmative.
And to each of our witnesses, let me begin by welcoming you
to the panel here today. As we have explained to each of the
panels before you, and I am sure you heard, there is a series
of little lights in front of you that try to move the process
along by giving you sort of a stoplight effect. If it is green,
you can go; if it is yellow, we ask you to sort of try to slow
down and sum it up; and when it is red, it indicates that your
5 minutes time has come to an end and we would appreciate it if
you would yield to courtesy and wrap up your testimony.
With that, I think we will just begin in the order that we
listed you on the sign-up sheet. We will begin with the
Honorable George Bennett. We would like to welcome you, and the
floor is yours. We look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Bennett.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE BENNETT, TRIBAL COUNCIL, GRAND TRAVERSE
BAND OF OTTAWA AND CHIPPEWA INDIANS, SUTTONS BAY, MICHIGAN
Mr. Bennett. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the Resources Committee. My name is George E.
Bennett, and I am the Vice Chairman of the Tribal Council of
the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians located
near Traverse City, Michigan. I am here on behalf of the
Honorable Robert Kewaygoshkum, our chairman, who was unable to
reschedule another commitment here and was unable to be here
with us today.
With me today is my friend and colleague, the Honorable
David Arroyo, who is on my left.
First, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee, for the courtesy of inviting us to testify before
your Committee today. We have focused our testimony directly on
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, as introduced. I would request that if
there are any changes under consideration to those bills that
we be given a reasonable amount of time to review and comment
on such changes before they are given serious consideration.
Mr. Chairman, we request that our written testimony and
resolution be entered into the record and I will summarize my
testimony in order to save time, and answer any questions you
may have regarding my comments.
Mr. Gibbons. Let me say, without objection it will be so
entered into the record. Thank you.
Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The proposed legislation is premised on a sham concoction
of an unfounded land claim. While our tribe is for fair and
rule-governing economic competition within the marketplace,
these proposals would change the rules, relieve the tribes of
their contractual obligations to other Michigan tribes, and
create an exemption of Federal rules governing the
establishment of new gaming facilities far from the traditional
tribal lands. We respectfully, but forcefully, must oppose this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation pending before this Committee
asks Congress to violate the Federal trust responsibility and
notions of fundamental fairness by requesting that Congress
write special rules favoring a few specific tribes over others,
all in contravention of a clear agreement made that these
specific tribes respect the rights of other Michigan tribes. If
this legislation is enacted by Congress, it would establish a
terribly destructive precedent that would unleash an avalanche
of land claims before the Congress in Indian country and in our
communities throughout the Nation.
As an alternative solution, Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie
tribes are fully authorized and able to pursue Section
2719(b)(1)(A) applications under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act with the Secretary of the Interior in order to advance
their desire to game on off-reservation land, without involving
a Congressionally imposed settlement of a sham land claim. And
Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie are fully capable of honoring
their obligations to Michigan tribes under Section 9 of our
Michigan State Gaming Compact Agreement in process.
The Congress should reject these bills and not assist them
in reneging on their obligations to the 10 other tribes in
Michigan.
Mr. Chairman, again, ``miigwech.'' Thank you for the
opportunity this Committee has given our tribe to testify.
[The prepared statement of Robert Kewaygoshkum and the
resolution follow:]
Statement of The Honorable Robert Kewaygoshkum, Chairman, Presented by
The Honorable George Bennett, Tribal Councilor, on behalf of The Grand
Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
Introduction.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of this distinguished
Committee. My name is George Bennett. I am a member of the Tribal
Council of the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians,
located near Traverse City, MI. I am here on behalf of our Tribal
Council, and its Chairman, the Honorable Robert Kewaygoshkum, who was
unable to reschedule another commitment he had for today. With me is my
colleague and fellow Tribal Councilor, the Honorable Dave Arroyo.
I would like to thank this Committee for inviting the Grand
Traverse Band to testify today. We have focused our testimony on H.R.
831 and H.R. 2793 as introduced and would request that if there are any
changes under consideration to those bills that we be given a
reasonable amount of time to review and comment on such changes before
they are given serious consideration.
Both H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, and a companion Senate bill introduced
several years ago, S. 2986, attempt to provide a legislative remedy for
an un-established and unfounded land claim of the Bay Mills Indian
Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. In so
doing, these bills attempt to circumvent a very important promise made
by seven Michigan Tribes, including Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie, and
the Grand Traverse Band, when they entered into their IGRA Gaming
Compacts with the State of Michigan in 1993. At that time, each of our
seven Tribes pledged not only to the State but to each other that we
would not engage in economic warfare over gaming. Each Tribe agreed
that it would pursue proposals to establish casinos far removed from
its traditional territory only if it had first reached a revenue-
sharing agreement with the other six Tribes.
This inter-tribal agreement was critical to each Tribe's survival,
because proposals to game far off-reservation in the more populous
parts of the State posed then and pose today the real potential to
choke off the revenues of casinos closer to home that the Tribes rely
upon to fund essential governmental programs and for employment. H.R.
831 and H.R. 2793, as proposed by Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie,
brazenly violate that promise. Rather than honoring their Compact
pledge, Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie have asked the federal Congress
to impose federal legislation--based on a land claim that has never
been proven--that would excuse them from complying with their inter-
Tribal promises and that would instead favor them to the great
detriment of others, all in violation of the Federal trust
responsibility to act with the interests of all Tribes in mind.
Congress should reject the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie request to
legislatively impose such an unfair proposal. For these reasons, the
Grand Traverse Band respectfully but firmly opposes H.R. 831 and H.R.
2793 and similar legislative provisions with false land claim premises
and unfair results.
We take no pleasure in opposing legislation sought by two of our
sister Indian tribes. We have worked with both the Bay Mills and the
Sault Ste. Marie Tribes on many issues of common interest and concern
over the years. We expect to do more of the same in the future. But as
set out below, the rationale for the bills before this Committee is
without foundation in fact or law or sound Indian policy. H.R. 831 and
H.R. 2793 would set a bad precedent and produce a grossly unfair result
in violation of Compact agreements, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
(the ``Act'' or ``IGRA''), and a policy of fair dealings. We must
therefore oppose their enactment.
Background on the Grand Traverse Band.
The traditional tribal territory of the Grand Traverse Band
(``GTB'' or ``Band''), is located in the northwest portion of
Michigan's lower peninsula. The Band operates two casinos under the
provisions of IGRA, both of which are situated well within the
traditional territory of the Band. Our Peshawbestown casino, Leelanau
Sands, is located in the heart of our 1855 treaty reservation near the
center of the Band's modern-day government operations in Peshawbestown,
Michigan. Our Turtle Creek casino falls squarely within the Band's
traditional territory near the exterior boundaries of our 1836 treaty
reservation.
In a decision upholding the legality of our Turtle Creek Casino
under the Act, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit very
recently affirmed the finding of U.S. District Court Judge Douglas W.
Hillman that the casino is located ``...at the heart of the region that
comprised the core of the Band's aboriginal territory and was
historically important to the economy and culture of the Band.'' Grand
Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States
Attorney,--F.3d--, 2004 WL 1144510, *1 (6th Cir. 2004) (quoting Grand
Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States Attorney
198 F.Supp. 2d 920, 926 (W.D.Mich. 2002)). [While the case name of the
Sixth Circuit and district court Turtle Creek decisions reflects the
fact that GTB originally brought a declaratory judgment action against
the United States to establish the legality of its Turtle Creek Casino,
the United States, in an opinion issued by the National Indian Gaming
Commission and concurred in by the Secretary of the Interior, declared
prior to trial its own view that the Casino was legal under the Act,
again based on the casino's location in the Tribe's core territory. The
Turtle Creek litigation accordingly proceeded only against the State of
Michigan.]
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 Would Establish a Devastating Precedent.
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 are, at best, premature. They are both
premised on purported land claims which have never been established in
any court of law. It would be risky and ill-considered for the U.S.
Congress to preempt normal judicial processes by wading into a dispute
imposing a remedy before there is any adjudication of the claims. Yet
this is what these two bills would do. They would by-pass the courts
and force upon the local communities, Indian and non-Indian alike,
remedies with all kinds of ramifications, both intended and perhaps
unintended. Chief among these would be Congress's validation of the
effort by Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie to evade the promise made in
their IGRA gaming compacts that they would not pursue casino proposals
far off-reservation without first taking into account the interests of
other Michigan Tribes.
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 Are Premised on Land Claims That Have Been
Rejected Both By the Courts and the Secretary of the Interior.
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 would ratify a land claim settlement where
the underlying land claim has never been proven to be valid. In both
state and federal court, the Bay Mills Indian Community has attempted
to establish a valid land claim to the Charlotte Beach property. [See
Bay Mills Indian Community v. Western United Life Assurance Co., No.
2:96-CV-275, 26 Indian L. Rep. 3039 (W.D. Mich., Dec. 11, 1998), aff'd,
208 F. 3d 212, 2000 WL 282455 (6th Cir., Mar. 8, 2000)); Bay Mills
Indian Community v. Court of Claims, State of Michigan, 244 Mich. App.
739, 626 N.W. 2d 739 (2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 1303 (2002).
Notably, the Charlotte Beach land claim site is located within Chippewa
County, an Upper Peninsula county in which both Bay Mills Indian
Community and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe have long resided and have their
trust and reservation lands.] The essence of Bay Mills' land claim is
that the United States issued patents to tribal land on or near
Charlotte Beach to a non-Indian prior to the Congressional ratification
of the 1855 treaty. [See 626 N.W.2d at 172.] Bay Mills claims that the
land, which was eventually lost to county property tax foreclosure,
remained in trust and should never have been subject to state or local
taxes. [See id.]
From the beginning, the Grand Traverse Band has supported Bay
Mills' attempts to prove the validity of its Charlotte Beach land
claims in a court of law. We would strongly support further attempts by
Bay Mills to establish its judicial claims, including a Congressional
waiver of the sovereign immunity of any indispensable parties for the
purpose of reaching the merits of the Charlotte Beach land claim.
To this point, however, on each of its attempts to judicially
establish a land claim, Bay Mills has failed to affirmatively make its
case. For example, in Bay Mills Indian Community v. Court of Claims,
State of Michigan, a case decided in the Michigan state courts and with
respect to which the United States Supreme Court recently denied
certiorari, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that Bay Mills did not
establish a prima facie case that the State of Michigan and the United
States violated the Non-Intercourse Act. [See id. at 173-174.] The same
court also found that the land at issue was properly subject to county
property taxes because the federal government intended for the land to
be alienable when it issued the patents. [See id. at 172-73 (citing
Cass Co., Minnesota v. Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S.
103 (1998)).] The federal court litigation, entitled Bay Mills Indian
Community v. Western United Life Assurance Co., also failed to
establish a land claim as it was dismissed because of the refusal of
the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe to waive its sovereign immunity and
participate in the litigation. [See 26 Indian L. Rep. at 3041-42
(finding the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe indispensable to further
proceedings in the Charlotte Beach land claims litigation).] As such,
the liability of the State of Michigan or the United States has never
been established by Bay Mills or Sault Ste. Marie, and Sault Ste. Marie
has in fact affirmatively sought to preclude a judicial resolution of
the issue on the merits. Moreover, the Secretary of the Interior has
expressly rejected Bay Mills' Charlotte Beach land claim pursuant to
the process established by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2415. [As this Committee
knows well, section 2415 operates as follows: [Section] 2415(c)
``provides that there is no limitations period for suits for possession
or title brought by the United States.'' Title 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2415(b)
provides that Indian claims that are on a list published by the
Secretary of the Interior pursuant to section 4(c) of the Indian Claims
Limitations Act of 1982 are not barred until (1) one year after the
Secretary publishes, in the Federal Register, a rejection of the claim,
or (2) three years after the Secretary submits legislation to Congress
to revoke the claim. Seneca Nation of Indians v. State of New York, 26
F. Supp. 2d 555, 573 (W.D. N.Y. 1998), aff'd 178 F. 3d 95 (2nd Cir.
1999), cert. denied, New York v. Seneca Nation of Indians, 528 U.S.
1073 (2000).] So, having lost each time in the court, or having sought
to evade a judicial decision on the matter, Bay Mills and Sault Ste.
Marie have now come to Congress to obtain what the courts and the
Secretary cannot say is legally theirs. In sum, the Bay Mills and Sault
Ste. Marie proposals would turn the accepted understanding of IGRA's
land settlement provision directly on its head. For until now, as one
academic recently put it, it has widely been understood that ``[t]he
viability of establishing gaming operations under the IGRA on lands
taken into trust as part of a settlement of a land claim is, at the end
of the day, directly related to the viability of the land claim
itself.'' Blake A. Watson, Indian Gambling in Ohio: What are the Odds?,
32 CAP U. L. REV. 237, 292 (2003).
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 Invite Groundless Land Claims and Sham
Transactions.
If enacted despite the fact that the validity of the Charlotte
Beach land claims has never been established, H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793
would encourage other non-federal parties to conjure up sham
transactions affecting Indian land claims deemed groundless by the
Department of the Interior, and then settle those claims with a tribe
and run to Congress to get a land-claim settlement exception under
IGRA. We do not use the term ``sham'' lightly here. It was the very
same term used by Sault Ste. Marie chairman Bernard Bouschor two years
ago when he testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs in opposition to Bay Mills' earlier attempt to obtain
legislation based on the very same land claim and rationale at issue
here. See October 10, 2002 record of the Hearing of the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs on S. 2986, a Bill to Provide For and
Approve the Settlement of Certain Land Claims of the Bay Mills Indian
Community, Michigan.
Allowing Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and the State of Michigan to
invoke a federal remedy for an Indian land claim in which there is no
federal or state liability establishes an unprincipled precedent. The
states are no more than outside parties to IGRA's land claim settlement
exception. If Congress ratifies the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie
proposed Settlement Agreement, then any party--states, counties, local
landowners--could settle a land claim of dubious validity with an
Indian Tribe and demand to enjoy the benefits of the land claim
settlement exception under IGRA. Large non-Indian gaming interests
could see fit to acquire property with the cloud of potential Indian
land claims, settle the claim with the Tribe, and then strike a deal
with the Tribe to invoke the land claim settlement exception to IGRA's
general prohibition. The result could be an all-out proliferation of
gaming that would ultimately result in significant damage to the
interests of Tribes and others throughout America, and would embroil
the Congress in controversy after controversy that subject it to the
manipulation of collusive local interests.
The Grand Traverse Band's recent litigation with the State of
Michigan, the Michigan State Department of Natural Resources, and
Mirada Ranch, Inc., provides an instructive example of how the new Bay
Mills and Sault Ste. Marie proposed precedent could be utilized to
expand gaming operations. The Grand Traverse Band filed affidavits in
our litigation that may have served to cloud title for some purposes on
lands located on South Fox Island in Lake Michigan. The affidavits
stated that Band members may have land claims to certain parcels on the
Island. If the Congress were to enact H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, the Grand
Traverse Band and its members could use that bill as a precedent
justifying us to cut a deal with the South Fox Island landowners to
settle our land claim and then demand land far from South Fox for
gaming purposes in accordance with the manner proposed by H.R. 831 and
H.R. 2793. Indeed, unlike Bay Mills' and Sault Ste. Marie's land
claims, which have been expressly rejected by the Secretary of the
Interior, our South Fox Island claims remain valid and preserved under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 2415.
Section 2415 presumably has a very important role to play here.
Where the Secretary of the Interior, in the exercise of her expertise,
has expressly rejected the validity of a land claim under that
provision, a subsequent effort to settle that same ``claim'' in order
to invoke the land settlement provision of IGRA seems suspect at best.
Certainly Congress should not be about the business of over-riding both
the Judicial and Executive Branches in order to render valid an
otherwise invalid land claim. [The continued inability of Bay Mills to
establish the viability of the Charlotte Beach land claim, and the
repeated characterization of that claim as a ``sham'' by Sault Ste.
Marie, render highly questionable the State of Michigan's claim that
any need exists to ``settle'' that claim in order to protect land
values or the ability to levy real property taxes.]
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 Contravene Federal Indian Law and Expand IGRA.
The Grand Traverse Band opposes the dramatic expansion of the
exceptions to the general prohibition against gaming on after-acquired
lands proposed in H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793.
Even if Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie had a valid land claim to
land in Charlotte Beach, the Grand Traverse Band could not support
those Tribes in a scenario where they exchanged purported rights to
their traditional territory in Charlotte Beach for gaming lands
hundreds of miles away as is proposed in H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793. Public
policy, federal Indian policy, and federal case law are overwhelmingly
arrayed against construing land claim settlements in the manner
endorsed by H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, and Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie
have fostered such a construction only because of their desire to evade
their obligations to other Michigan Tribes under Section 9 of our IGRA
Gaming Compacts.
The policy enunciated by Congress in 1988 with the enactment of
IGRA would be undermined by adoption of H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793. IGRA
provides a general prohibition of gaming on lands placed into trust
after the passage of IGRA on October 17, 1988. [See 25 U.S.C.
Sec. 2719.] Generally, Congress contemplated that gaming on after-
acquired lands could only take place on lands located within or
contiguous to the boundaries of the reservation of an Indian tribe.
[See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(a)(1).] The general prohibition is subject to
certain exceptions: Tribes may game on after-acquired lands either
after successfully completing a rigorous administrative process
resulting in approval by the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor
of their gaming proposal (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A)), or after
establishing that the after-acquired lands were taken into trust as
part of the settlement of a land claim, the restoration of lands to a
restored tribe, or in establishing the initial reservation of an
administratively acknowledged tribe (25 U.S.C.Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)). [See
25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(i).] The three Section 2719(b)(1)(B)
exceptions are meant to be limited in scope, and to apply only to lands
located within or near a Tribe's traditional territory.
Congress did not intend for the land claims settlement exception to
be exploited in the manner proposed by H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793. The
three exceptions contained in Section 2719(b)(1)(B) should be read in
the same context. One of the fundamental rules of interpreting statutes
relating to Indian Tribes is that ``Federal policy toward Indians is
often contained in several general laws, special acts, treaties, and
executive orders, and these must be construed in pari materia in
ascertaining congressional intent.'' [Yellowfish v. City of Stillwater,
691 F. 2d 926, 930 (10th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 927
(1983).] The other two exceptions--the restored lands exception [See 25
U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(iii).] and the initial reservation exception
[See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(ii)] ``both have been interpreted by
the courts as limiting gaming validated by these exceptions only to
areas in which the Indian Tribe has a traditional, historical, and
cultural connection and relationship. Grand Traverse Band, 2004 W.L.
1144510 (6th Cir. 2004); TOMAC v. Norton, 193 F.Supp 2d 182 (D.D.C.
2002); Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. United States;
Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpgua and Siuslaw Indians 116
F.Supp 2d 155(D.D.C. 2000). H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 would create
precedent for courts to read all three exceptions in Section
2719(b)(1)(B) as including lands put into trust for purposes of gaming
far from that Indian Tribe's traditional territory.
Contrary to Bay Mills' Port Huron and Sault Ste. Marie's Romulus or
Otsego County proposals, the Grand Traverse Band's efforts to lawfully
operate our Turtle Creek gaming facility properly followed the intent
and underlying policy of Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B). The Band established in
federal court that the Turtle Creek site was within the historical and
cultural center of the Grand Traverse Band's traditional territory. No
additional federal action was necessary because our land was already
held in trust and subject to the governmental authority of our Tribe.
H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793 Attempt to Circumvent the Promises Made By Bay
Mills and Sault Ste. Marie to Other Michigan Tribes Under
Section 9 of the Tribal-State IGRA Compacts.
The tribal-state IGRA gaming compacts negotiated in 1993 between
seven Michigan Tribes (including Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and GTB)
and the State contain an identical provision, Section 9, which declares
as follows:
An application to take land in trust for gaming purposes
pursuant to Sec. 20 of IGRA (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719) shall not be
submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in the absence of a
prior written agreement between the Tribe and the State's other
federally recognized Indian Tribes that provides for each of
the other Tribes to share in the revenue of the off-reservation
gaming facility that is the subject of the Sec. 20 application.
See, e.g., A Compact Between the Bay Mills Indian Community and the
State of Michigan, Sec. 9 (emphasis added).
The meaning of and intent behind Section 9 are clear. At the time
that the 1993 Compacts were negotiated, each of the 7 signatory Tribes
was operating casinos within its traditional territory. Under IGRA and
the Compacts, each of the Tribes could continue to operate those
casinos in separate, independent efforts to foster tribal self-
government and economic development. Furthermore, pursuant to the three
section 2719(b)(1)(B) exceptions described above, each of the Tribes
could develop additional IGRA-governed gaming facilities within its
traditional territory. However, if any Tribe sought to take land into
trust for gaming purposes outside of its traditional territories, each
Tribe agreed that it first had to work out revenue sharing agreements
with the other Tribes. In this way, the Michigan Tribes pledged not to
engage in a form of economic warfare that would ultimately injure all
of them. They promised not to engage in an endless game of attempting
to leapfrog over one another in moving closer to major population
centers while cutting off revenues to their less aggressive brethren.
Only once they had worked out cooperative arrangements among themselves
would the Michigan Tribes then attempt to secure the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior, and the concurrence of the Governor, for
far-reaching off-reservation gaming proposals under Section 20 of IGRA.
Very shortly after the 1993 Compacts were finalized, the Michigan
Tribes demonstrated their understanding of how Section 9 of the
Compacts was meant to work. The Tribes worked cooperatively on a
proposal to take land into trust for gaming under IGRA in the City of
Detroit. They crafted an appropriate revenue-sharing agreement and only
because the Governor, at the last minute, withdrew his support for the
proposal did the collaborative effort not come to fruition. [After the
tribal IGRA deal was blocked, the State issued licenses for three
commercial (non-IGRA) casinos in Detroit. All operate under authority
of state law and not the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act although
one of the owner-operators is the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe.]
By contrast, the legislation being advanced by Bay Mills and Sault
Ste. Marie would establish IGRA-authorized gaming operations far from
the traditional territories of those two Tribes without involving the
other Michigan Tribes and without any regard for their well-being. H.R.
831 and H.R. 2793 are nothing more than a naked attempt to circumvent
Section 9 of the 1993 IGRA Compacts and the protection Section 9 offers
for other Tribal signatories. Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie seek to
establish casinos in parts of the State far removed from their
traditional territories in violation of their pledge to first work out
a revenue sharing arrangement with other Tribes. Under normal
circumstances, the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie proposals would fall
squarely within Section 2719(b)(1)(A) of IGRA--the Tribes would have to
convince both the Secretary of the Interior and the Governor that
gaming proposals should move forward. However, because an application
under Section 2719(b)(1)(A) would trigger the revenue-sharing
requirements of Section 9, and because they seek to get a free pass
from the Congress to avoid the revenue sharing and governmental
cooperation underpinning that Compact provision, Sault Ste. Marie and
Bay Mills have brazenly sought to characterize their land grab efforts
in southern Michigan as involving the settlement of a land claim in the
Upper Peninsula. As detailed above, however, the validity of their land
claims in Chippewa County has never been established and those claims
have indeed previously been described by the Chairman of Sault Ste.
Marie as a ``sham'' in public testimony opposing the very position
being taken today by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. Moreover, no court of
law has ever construed the ``settlement of a land claim'' provision in
IGRA to authorize Tribes to establish casinos far removed from the
traditional territory subject to the land claim being settled as is
here proposed by Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie, even assuming the
existence of a valid claim.
Congress should accordingly reject the legislative proposals of
Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills as sham efforts to renege on their
Compact obligations to avoid injury to other Tribes economically
through off-reservation gaming proposals. The Sault Ste. Marie
proposal, for example, would authorize the establishment of a casino in
Otsego County. Were Sault Ste. Marie in fact to develop a casino in
Otsego County, the casinos presently operated by the Little River Band
of Ottawa Indians, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and
the GTB [these three Tribes operate their casinos within their
traditional tribal territories under authority of the IGRA and the
tribal-State Compacts], would all stand to suffer significantly, as
Otsego County falls in-between the major population centers downstate
and the casinos run by those Tribes. All three Ottawa Tribes have
invested tremendous resources in the development of their casinos, and
as Judge Hillman expressly found and the Sixth Circuit expressly
affirmed in the case of the GTB Casino, those casinos not only provide
tribal members with valuable employment opportunities but also fund ``a
variety of governmental programs, including health care, elder care,
child care, youth services, education, housing economic development and
law enforcement.'' Grand Traverse Band, 198 F.Supp.2d at 926. Grand
Traverse Band, 2004 WL at *2.
Conclusions
The Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills legislative proposals are
premised upon a sham concoction of an unfounded land claim. While GTB
is for fair and rule-governed economic competition in the market place,
the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie proposals would change the rules,
relieve Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie of their contractual obligations
to other Michigan tribes, and create an exception to the rules
governing the establishment of new tribal gaming facilities far from
traditional tribal territories. We respectfully but forcefully must
oppose H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation pending before this Committee asks
Congress to violate the federal trust responsibility and notions of
fundamental fairness by requesting that Congress write special rules
favoring a few specific Tribes over others, all in contravention of a
clear agreement made by those specific Tribes to respect the rights of
other Michigan Tribes.
If the Congress enacted H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, it would establish
a terribly destructive precedent that would unleash a flood of land
claims mischief in Congress, in Indian Country, and in communities
throughout the United States. Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie are fully
authorized and able to pursue Section 2719(b)(1)(A) applications under
IGRA with the Secretary of the Interior in order to advance their
desire to game far off-reservation without involving a Congressionally
imposed settlement of a sham land claim, and Bay Mills and Sault Ste.
Marie are fully capable of honoring their obligations to other Michigan
Tribes under Section 9 in the process. The Congress should reject these
bills and insist that these two Tribes abide by their obligations. At
the very least, the Congress should not assist them in breaching their
obligations to the Grand Traverse Band and other Tribes in Michigan.
For these reasons, the Grand Traverse Band respectfully urges this
Committee and the Congress to reject as unwise and unfounded the
provisions of H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, and all provisions similar to
them which would purport to resolve unresolved land claims and
implicate lands far from the land claims in question.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity this Committee has
accorded the Band to testify on these matters and to note for the
record the Grand Traverse Band's strong opposition to H.R. 831 and H.R.
2793.
I ask that a copy of my written statement and a copy of the
recently-enacted resolution of the Tribal Council of the Grand Traverse
Band, ``Resolution 04-22.1402--Opposition to H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793'',
be included in the record of this hearing I would be pleased to try to
answer any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.013
Mr. Gibbons. Mr. Bennett, thank you very much. I think what
we will do is just go through the complete list of witnesses
here with their testimony and then ask questions. And to each
of you let me say that, without objection, your full and
complete written testimony will be entered into the record. You
may feel free to summarize as you see fit.
Now we will hear from Tribal Chief Audrey Falcon. Ms.
Falcon, welcome. The floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF TRIBAL CHIEF AUDREY FALCON, SAGINAW CHIPPEWA
INDIAN TRIBE, MT. PLEASANT, MICHIGAN
Ms. Falcon. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Audrey
Falcon and I am the Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today against
legislation that will cause great harm to our tribe, its
members, other tribes in Michigan, and Indian tribes across the
country.
With me today are Tribal Subchief Bernie Sprague and Tribal
Treasurer Charmaine Benz.
Mr. Chairman, the two bills before this Committee would
allow the Bay Mills Tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe to
build two casinos hundreds of miles from their reservation and
in the treaty territory of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand the treaty
history of the Michigan Indian tribes and the U.S. Government.
I have brought a map showing the different treaty areas of the
Michigan Indian tribes. Between 1795 and 1864, the United
States negotiated several treaties with the Michigan Indian
tribes. Of greatest import to this discussion is the 1807 Land
Cession Treaty signed by Chippewas, Ottawas, and Potawatomis.
The Chippewa leaders who signed the 1807 treaty are ancestors
of my tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. It is important
to note that there is no historical evidence that shows that
any Chippewa from the Upper Peninsula signed the 1807 treaty.
The land ceded to the United States in 1807 includes almost
all of southeast Michigan. If you look at the map, it is the
area shaded in green. These are the lands that my tribe's
ancestors hunted and fished for hundreds of years. These are
also the lands that my ancestors ceded to the U.S. Government
almost 200 years ago. And these are the same lands on which Bay
Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe want to build additional
casinos despite the fact that their traditional lands and
reservations are several hundred miles away in the Upper
Peninsula of Michigan. That is why my tribe and so many other
tribes in Michigan oppose these bills.
Mr. Chairman, our tribe does not believe the land exception
provision in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was intended to
allow tribes to move hundreds of miles from their traditional
territories and reservations and build casinos under the guise
of settling land claims that have been invented solely for that
purpose.
Mr. Chairman, if the Congress were to pass this
legislation, it would distort the intent and meaning of IGRA
and open the door for every tribe in the United States to
petition Congress to settle moral claims against various States
even where no viable legal claims exist and allow them to build
casinos in every corner of the United States where gaming is
viable. Our tribe does not believe Congress should be doing
that, and we believe that IGRA does not allow it.
These bills do not settle the kinds of land claims
contemplated by IGRA. The alleged claims of the Bay Mills and
Sault tribes have not been accepted by the judiciary and there
is no pending litigation awaiting settlement. These bills ask
Congress to substitute itself for the judiciary and simply
declare the existence of land claims which Congress then
supposedly settles by allowing the tribes to build casinos
hundreds of miles away from their reservation and territorial
lands. Such action would make a travesty of the IGRA process
and should not be allowed to happen.
These bills would also create great problems for existing
Tribal-State compacts in Michigan. Our tribe, the Bay Mills
Tribe, and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe are all signatories of the
1993 Gaming Compact with the State of Michigan. The compact at
Section 9 provides that if a tribe acquires other lands to
expand its gaming operations to another location, it has to get
the concurrence and approval of all the other federally
recognized tribes of Michigan. The same provision applies to
our tribe and all other compacted tribes in Michigan. The Bay
Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribes are trying to bypass this
important compact provision by getting Congress to overrule it
because they do not have approval of the other compacted tribes
as required by the compact. They are pursuing this legislation
in an attempt to evade their obligations to the other tribes
under their gaming compact. Congress should not be a party to
such an attempt.
On behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, I ask the
Committee to reject these bills and to stop every effort to get
them enacted into law.
Today we met with representatives from the city of Detroit,
and they do not support H.R. 2793, and asked me to express that
they are in the room.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I am
available for any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Falcon follows:]
Statement of Audrey Falcon, Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Audrey Falcon
and I am the Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today against legislation that will cause
great harm to our tribe, its members, other tribes in Michigan, and
Indian Tribes across the country.
With me today are Tribal Subchief Bernie Sprague, and Tribal
Treasurer Charmaine Benz.
Mr. Chairman, the two bills before this committee would allow the
Bay Mills tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie tribe to build two casinos
hundreds of miles from their reservation and in the treaty territory of
the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to understand the treaty history of
the Michigan Indian tribes and the U.S. Government. I have brought a
map showing the different treaty areas of the Michigan Indian tribes.
Between 1795 and 1864, the United States negotiated several treaties
with the Michigan Indian tribes.
Of greatest import to this discussion is the 1807 land cession
treaty signed by Chippewas, Ottawas and Potawatomis. The Chippewa
leaders who signed the 1807 treaty are ancestors of my tribe, the
Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. It is important to note that there is no
historical evidence that shows that any Chippewa from the Upper
Peninsula signed the 1807 treaty.
The lands ceded to the United States in 1807 includes almost all of
southeastern Michigan. If you look at the map, it is the area shaded in
green. These are the lands that my tribe's ancestors hunted and fished
for hundreds of years. These are also the lands that my ancestors ceded
to the United States Government almost 200 years ago. And these are the
same lands on which the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribe want to
build additional casinos despite the fact that their traditional lands
and reservations are several hundred miles away in the Upper Peninsula
of Michigan. That is why my tribe and so many other tribes in Michigan
oppose these bills.
Mr. Chairman, our tribe does not believe the land exception
provision in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) was intended to
allow tribes to move hundreds of miles from their traditional
territories and reservations and build casinos under the guise of
settling land claims that have been invented solely for that purpose.
Mr. Chairman, if the Congress were to pass this legislation it
would distort the intent and meaning of IGRA and open the door for
every tribe in the United States to petition Congress to settle moral
claims against various states even where no viable legal claims exist
and allow them to build casinos in every corner of the United States
where gaming is viable. Our tribe does not believe Congress should be
doing that and we believe that IGRA does not allow it.
These bills do not settle the kinds of land claims contemplated by
IGRA. The alleged claims of the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribes
have not been accepted by the judiciary and there is no pending
litigation awaiting settlement. These bills ask Congress to substitute
itself for the judiciary and simply declare the existence of land
claims, which Congress then supposedly settles by allowing the tribes
to build casinos hundreds of miles away from their reservation and
territorial lands. Such action would make a travesty of the IGRA
process and should not be allowed to happen.
These bills would also create great problems for existing tribal/
state compacts in Michigan. Our tribe, the Bay Mills tribe and Sault
Ste. Marie tribe are all signatories of the 1993 gaming compact with
the state of Michigan. The compact at section 9 provides that if a
tribe acquires other lands to expand its gaming operations to another
location it has to get the concurrence and approval of all other
federally recognized tribes in Michigan. The same provision applies to
our tribe and all other compacted tribes in Michigan. The Bay Mills and
Sault Ste. Marie tribes are trying to bypass this important compact
provision by getting Congress to overrule it because they do not have
approval of the other compacted tribes as required by the compact. They
are pursuing this legislation in an attempt to evade their obligations
to the other tribes under their gaming compact. Congress should not be
a party to such an attempt.
On behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, I ask the Committee
to reject these bills and to stop every effort to get them enacted into
law.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I am available for any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. Gibbons. Ms. Falcon, thank you very much for your
testimony. We certainly appreciate the added information that
you have brought to us today.
We turn now to Mr. Richard Cummings, President, Michigan
Machinists Council. Mr. Cummings, welcome. The floor is yours.
We are looking forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD CUMMINGS, PRESIDENT,
MICHIGAN MACHINISTS COUNCIL, PORT HURON, MICHIGAN
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In addition to my complete testimony, I would like to enter
into the record several letters of endorsement from our
community, from the St. Clair County AFL-CIO, Machinists Union,
Greater Port Huron Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development
Alliance, St. Clair County Intermediate School District, Blue
Water Convention Tourism Bureau, and the United Way of St.
Clair County.
Mr. Gibbons. Without objection.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
[NOTE: The letters submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]*** insert
Mr. Cummings. Mr. Chairman, I represent 11,300 machinists
in the State of Michigan, of which 400 are located in St. Clair
County, along with 4,500 in the city of Romulus at the Detroit
Metropolitan Airport, of which currently there are 1,500
machinists at the Metro Airport laid off due to downsizing, new
technology, and elimination of jobs. I am here to support
Candice Miller, our Congresswoman's Bill 831 along with the
H.R. 2793 from Romulus.
Before I forget, I would like to agree with Mr. Young's
opening statement, the fact that we elected Congresswoman
Candice Miller to represent the constituents in Port Huron. And
I believe Mr. Young's statement to be the way the average voter
feels. We don't feel that Mr. Rogers's effect in his community
affects our community. The difference being--I looked up the
statistics, and they are also in package, the unemployment
statistics we sent here today--in my community, we are talking
about 14 to 20 percent unemployment. It is so high because a
lot of people have run out of benefits and the statistics stop
when you are out of benefits.
We are right across the river, as the picture indicates and
you will see in the packet that was given to you, from the
Canadian casino. We are not here to take business away from any
other gaming community; we are competing with Sarnia, Ontario.
There are over $200 million U.S. dollars, which is 5,000
visitors a day going to Sarnia, right across the river from the
city of Port Huron, of which there are about $200 million, like
I said, 76 percent of the patrons of two casinos located three
miles across the river from us goes on a daily basis.
In our community in the last 3 years, we have lost over 20
manufacturing facilities in the city of Port Huron. As you all
know, tourism is number two in the State of Michigan, the
number two industry. We are right up here in the thumb, where
we have the lake, we have a beautiful situation. We are
competing with Canada, and they are taking even our tourist
business.
We think this agreement would settle this long-standing
dispute concerning the Charlotte Beach land dispute, we think
it would keep U.S. dollars and jobs in Port Huron, and we think
the impact because of the way the people voted in Port Huron--
in fact, this Saturday will be 3 years ago that the residents
of the city of Port Huron have voted by a 54 percent margin to
get this casino.
As far as some of the other tribes testifying about
competing, as far as I know, Mt. Pleasant is a 2-hour drive
away from Port Huron. The other factor that enters in here with
the city of Detroit that I disagree with, Congressman Rogers
testified earlier, he said that this casino gaming in the three
casinos in Detroit cost in excess, I thought he said, of a
million dollars in fire protection and police protection. But
he did not state the fact of the millions of dollars of revenue
that is created by the excess of 5,000 jobs by those three
casinos in Detroit.
It is an important point to make, that we are not competing
with the city of Detroit. The people that are going to the
Canadian casino from the United States already have that option
to go to Mt. Pleasant, other casinos, along with Detroit. They
don't choose to go to that area, so therefore they are taking
our jobs out of the country.
Now, we are losing all of our manufacturing capabilities.
In St. Clair County, when I say 14 to 20 percent, in a
community of 170,000 people, we have 9,000 people right now out
of work. We have 22,000 people that don't even have insurance.
I have been on the Economic Development Committee up there
for 25 years. This is the first project of any significance
that I have seen come along the way not asking the Government
and not asking the city of Port Huron and St. Clair County to
give tax abatements. Where generally we give millions and
millions of dollars for 12, 15, 20 jobs, these people come in
here with substandard wages. Then when their tax abatements run
out, they leave our community. I think that is terrible to the
citizens of the United States.
I think this casino would create much-needed revenue and
good jobs and good benefits for our people, along with helping
the revenue for the State and the Federal Government.
Thank you. I would be glad to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cummings follows:]
Statement of Richard W. Cummings, President, Michigan Machinists
Council, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers
Chairman Pombo and Members of the House Resources Committee, I
appear before you today on behalf of the 11,300 machinists in the state
of Michigan and in particular the 397 in St. Claire County and 4500 in
Romulus who work at the Detroit Metro Airport of which 1500 are
currently laid off and without jobs.
Specifically, my testimony is focused on Congresswoman Candice
Miller's bill, H.R. 831--the settlement of the Bay Mills Indian
Community Land Claim and Congressman John Dingell's bill, H.R. 2793--
the settlement of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indian Land
Claim and its anticipated economic impact on our community and state. I
am not that familiar with employment statistics of the proposed Romulus
casino, however, I did some checking and 1500 of the machinists at the
airport along with employees of other unions have been downsized and
their jobs eliminated. I will address the following four points:
The ability of this bill to settle a long existing Native
American land claim dispute while providing in excess of 3,000
employment opportunities for a community with severe employment needs.
Thus, positively affecting the economic well-being of both U.S.
populations without the necessity of governmental funding.
The retention of otherwise lost U.S. dollars for the
growth and development of the economy of communities in the United
States.
The impact of the development project which this
settlement will allow on the ability to provide charitable services on
a local level for residents of St. Clair County, Michigan.
The endorsements attained and necessary for the positive
development of a joint venture between the two populations involved.
The passage of this bill would allow the Bay Mills Indian Community
to establish a casino in Port Huron, Michigan at the site of the
current Thomas Edison Inn, within 500 yards of the Blue Water Bridge
international border crossing. This casino will provide significant
income for both the Bay Mills Indian community and the residents of
Port Huron and the surrounding area.
As you can see from my supporting documentation, Port Huron is
experiencing real unemployment rates estimated to be as high as 14%.
Compared to other areas of the state the Port Huron area consistently
has a higher rate. It is important for you to know that these are now
permanently lost jobs. They are primarily the result of plant closings,
not lay- offs.
Currently, in the Port Huron area employers that have even a few
job openings are hesitant to even put an ad in the paper or advertise
that there is an opening. The reason for this is that within two days
they will be overwhelmed with hundreds of applicants causing confusion
and lost time to the company.
The consistent and escalating unemployment situation was the
genesis of a joint project by residents of Port Huron and the Bay Mills
Indian Community to develop and construct a casino in Port Huron. This
casino will provide an opportunity for the Port Huron community to
develop its geographic potential as a tourist destination and allow it
to become a viable piece of the tourist industry of the state. The
proposed casino would provide 650 construction jobs for one year and
2,500 to 3,000 permanent jobs. These jobs will have living wages that
will support families and promote economic development of the entire
community.
There are already casinos taking in a $100 million a year from Port
Huron, on the other side of the boarder in Canada. Each day 5,000 U.S.
residents cross the bridges to utilize the two Canadian casinos located
within 3 miles of this border crossing. They spend over $100 million
U.S. dollars at these facilities annually. Seventy-five percent (75%)
of these casinos' customers are from the U.S. These travelers are the
target market for a casino in Port Huron. The people who are
frequenting these gaming establishments do so because it meets their
needs in distance and accessibility. They are not customers that
normally frequent other Michigan casinos nor do surveys indicate they
would. We want to stop this loss of U.S. revenue and bolster our local
economy.
For those who are concerned about the proliferation of casinos in
Michigan, they should know that Port Huron is the only boarder crossing
in Michigan with a Canadian Casino and no facility on the United States
side. We believe that this is the major reason that our community
suffers while others prosper. Our neighbor to the north in Sarnia,
Ontario flourishes while we remain stagnate in an economic recession.
In addition to revenue for the state; the proposed casino project
includes the provision of 5% of the net revenues to be paid to the City
of Port Huron to enhance and develop the City. As you are well aware,
an increased local economic base that has the potential for consistent
returns reduces the need for governmental subsistence programs at any
level individual, governmental or corporate. This project will not
require the governmental funding for job creation or retention normally
present in any major job creation project. In fact by recapturing our
own U.S. dollars being spent elsewhere it will provide revenue for
government.
Also, the casino project developed in Port Huron has taken the
charitable and human service needs into account with 3% of the net
revenue distributed to local charities through the United Way. This
would mean a sustained environment for human services to reach all age
levels and to once again contain prevention programs for the at-risk.
Finally, I wish to list the endorsements for this casino project
for your consideration. Without these endorsements this project could
not exist and this appeal would not occur:
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers
The St. Clair County AFL-CIO Central Labor Council
The Greater Port Huron Chamber of Commerce
The Economic Development Alliance of St. Clair County
St. Clair County Intermediate School District
The Blue Water Convention and Tourism Bureau
The United Way of St. Clair County
For all the reasons I have discussed, the residents of Port Huron
who approved this casino project three years ago by a 54% majority
support it now more than ever.
Please take the necessary action to pass H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793
submitted by Congresswoman Candice Miller, 10th District of Michigan
and Congressman John Dingell, 15th District of Michigan. Our residents
in Port Huron have patiently waited for three years, as economic
conditions have worsened, for legislation to approve this well
developed plan to help our community help itself. Your action now is
imperative.
______
Mr. Jones. [Presiding.] Thank you.
Mr. Black, we now recognize you.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM BLACK, LEGISLATIVE AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Mr. Black. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. Thank you today for this wonderful opportunity to
testify in front of this honorable body.
I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of the
Michigan Teamsters and President Lawrence Brennan and
International Brotherhood of Teamsters and our president, James
P. Hoffa.
I am here to testify in favor of H.R. 2793 and H.R. 831,
which would bring thousands of needed jobs to Michigan. These
measures, if enacted, will have a profoundly positive effect on
the communities of Romulus and Port Huron.
The Michigan Teamsters represent over 99,000 active and
retired members in the State of Michigan. We currently
represent over 300 members currently employed at the casinos.
One of our priorities is to encourage job creation and
economic development, particularly in communities such as
Romulus, which, like many other communities in the State of
Michigan, has been negatively impacted by manufacturing jobs
leaving the State. Michigan has suffered over 180,000
manufacturing jobs permanently lost in the last 3 years.
The creation of a new Indian casino in Romulus is central
to our plans and the plans of the Mayor of the city of Romulus
to bring new jobs and new development to Romulus, and the Sault
Ste. Marie casino in Romulus would create over 3,500 or more
new jobs, including 3,350 jobs in the casino and another 150
that would be in the hotel and restaurant. Most of these jobs
will be union jobs paying a decent living wage and providing
much-needed benefits such as health insurance, 401(k)'s, and
vacations.
In other States, studies have shown that casino employment
can spur economic growth, reduce unemployment, and reduce
welfare and dependence--much demonstrated in the revitalization
that we are seeing in downtown Detroit.
Moreover, the creation of casinos and a resort in Romulus
will spur additional development near the casino and elsewhere
in Romulus. Millions of passengers pass through the Detroit
Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, the airport located in
Romulus, which is a major hub for Northwest Airlines, which is
currently facing layoffs of both flight attendants, pilots, and
other crews. Romulus is roughly 20 miles from downtown Detroit.
Finding a way to entice the millions of passengers who
travel through the Detroit hub to leave the airport and visit
the surrounding communities is a key to promoting economic
development of the area. A casino would draw many of those
passengers, and the casinos in turn would prompt other
recreational and business developments in the region. We
believe that, with the coming of the hotel, it would enhance
business meetings and conventions to take place as well.
The new casinos would also bring revenue for the community
in which they will be located. The Romulus casino is expected
to generate slot revenue for local Government of $6 million
annually. In Romulus, with a city budget of $19 million, this
new revenue stream would enable the city to do much more for
its citizens, expanding social services and programs for all
the residents.
It is difficult to measure, Mr. Chairman. The legislation
before you simply ratifies a settlement reached by Governor
Engler 2 years ago. H.R. 2793 settles a century-old land claim
in the interests of homeowners in Charlotte Beach area and
provides the Sault Tribe an opportunity to acquire alternative
lands in Romulus on which the tribe would have the ability to
build a casino. H.R. 831 does the same thing for the Bay Mills
Indian Community, which would acquire land in Port Huron. In
each case, these new casinos would bring vital new jobs to
communities that need them and that have voted by referendum to
welcome casino gaming.
Thank you again for your invitation to speak before you
today. If you have any questions, I will be more than glad to
answer them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
Statement of William Black, Legislative and Community Affairs Director,
Michigan Brotherhood of Teamsters, Detroit, Michigan
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today. I am pleased to be here on behalf of the
Michigan Brotherhood of Teamsters, President Lawrence Brennan,
International President James P. Hoffa, and our members throughout
Michigan.
I am here to testify in favor of H.R. 2793 and H.R. 831, which
would bring thousands of needed jobs to Michigan. These measures, if
enacted, will have a profoundly positive effect on the communities of
Romulus, Port Huron, and Charlotte Beach.
The Michigan Brotherhood of Teamsters represents 99,000 active and
retired members in Michigan, including over 300 casino workers in
Michigan.
One of our priorities is to encourage job creation and economic
development, particularly in communities such as Romulus, which has had
two major companies close over the past five years. Over 180,000
manufacturing jobs have been lost in Michigan in recent years.
The creation of a new Indian casino in Romulus is central to our
plans, and the plans of Mayor Lambert and the city, to bring new jobs
and new development to Romulus. A Sault Tribe casino in Romulus would
result in 3,500 or more new jobs, including 3,350 casino jobs and
another 150 hotel and restaurant jobs. Most of them will be union jobs.
In our experience, casino jobs tend to be high-paying, desirable
positions. In other states, studies have shown that casino employment
can spur economic growth, reduce unemployment, and reduce welfare
dependence.
Moreover, the creation of a destination casino and resort in
Romulus will spur additional development near the casino and elsewhere
in Romulus. Millions of passengers pass through Detroit Metropolitan
Wayne County Airport each year. The airport, located in Romulus, is 20
miles from downtown Detroit.
Finding a way to entice the millions of passengers who travel
through the Detroit hub to leave the airport and visit the surrounding
communities is a key to promoting economic development of the area. A
casino would draw many of those passengers, and the casino, in turn,
would prompt other recreational and business development in the region,
bringing more jobs and revenue for the community.
The new casinos would also bring revenue for the communities in
which they will be located. The Romulus casino is expected to generate
slot revenue for local governments of $6 million annually. In Romulus,
with an annual city budget of $19 million, this new revenue stream will
enable to city to do much more for its citizens, expanding social
services and programs for all residents.
Mr. Chairman, the legislation before you simply ratifies
settlements reached between Governor Engler and the tribes two years
ago. H.R. 2793 settles a centuries-old land claim in the interest of
homeowners in the Charlotte Beach area and provides the Sault Tribe an
opportunity to acquire alternative lands in Romulus on which the Tribe
will build a casino. H.R. 831 does the same thing for the Bay Mills
Indian Community, which would acquire land in Port Huron. In each case,
the new casinos would bring vital new jobs to communities that need
them and that have voted by referenda to welcome casino gaming.
Thank you again for the invitation to appear here today. I would be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. Jones. I thank the panelists. I am sorry that I was
late getting here today. I am not the Chairman, but I am
filling in. But I am a member of this Committee, and this is an
issue that is of great interest to those of us in North
Carolina. I am not going to take your time by talking about our
situation down in North Carolina.
But I do have one question for Mr. Bennett. Is it common
for tribes to establish land claims through a judicial process
before seeking a resolution of such claims in Congress?
Mr. Bennett. My answer would be yes. I think that you have
to have a judicial decision before you come before Congress, I
would think. Otherwise, why create the courts?
Mr. Jones. Right.
The other panelists are from Michigan. I assume they have
statements--so I will stop with that question. Thank you for
the answer.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Chairman, I was going to grab the chair
when Mr. Gibbons left, but you grabbed it first.
Mr. Jones. Well, maybe next year.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kildee. First of all, each one of the panelists sitting
right now I feel very close to, as I felt close to Chairman
Parker and to Bernard Bouschor, who could not be here today.
This is where some honest people disagree as to process. Again,
I think every Native American in this room knows that I have
been a staunch advocate of their rights of sovereignty and
their rights to game. I think our main point of differences
here is whether we run this through the Congressional process
or the process that we put into place in many bits of Federal
legislation, including IGRA itself. My feeling is that we run a
real danger for the country, various places throughout the
country, by running this through the Congressional process,
where, as I have said earlier, there would be no place in
America that could not be a subject of Indian gaming. So I
think we have to proceed most cautiously and that is why we, in
other Federal laws and IGRA, we did put in place an
administrative process. So we are all people of good will
trying to do what is right here.
If I may ask a question of both the tribal leaders. What
other tribes in Michigan might be adversely affected if these
bills were enacted? Mr. Bennett, you can start first and then
Chief Falcon.
Mr. Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Kildee, for the question. I
took the liberty of calling each of the tribes, with the
exception of Sault Ste. Marie and Bay Mills. Of that, we had 10
tribes--nine tribes of the 10 were in opposition. The one that
didn't oppose it didn't have a feeling one way or the other.
And so we took a survey about how this legislation might impact
their community and they were strictly opposed to it because it
leaves them out of the--under Section 9 of the compact
agreement, they get the Governor to waive it. So they play no
party into what goes on within the State. So I think, in all
fairness to all the tribes of the State, I think we have a
right to say something about what goes on in the State. Thank
you.
Mr. Kildee. Chief Falcon?
Ms. Falcon. I haven't called all the tribes, but there are,
I believe, three that I know I have spoken to that are opposed.
Also, Laura Spurr, the chairwoman of the Huron Potawatomi
Tribe, is asking that she be associated with the Saginaw,
Chippewa, and Grand Traverse testimony today in agreement.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Mr. Bennett, we have known each
other for about 40 years, right?
Mr. Bennett. I am not that old, Dale.
Mr. Kildee. OK. Well, I am.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kildee. What happens to Section 9 of the 1993 compact
if we pass this law?
Mr. Bennett. Well, it is still in force, in my opinion.
Whether the State has the discretion of waiving it or not, it
is their business. But if they are going to do that, I say we
need some consultation with it. I mean, we could very well lose
a lot of revenue and not follow the process that has been put
in place by the State of Michigan.
Mr. Kildee. All right, I really have no further questions
and refer to my colleague, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. Thank you.
Mr. Bennett, you just said that if the State of Michigan
wants to waive Section 9, that is their business.
Mr. Bennett. Well, it is our business. I mean, it affects
all the tribes in the State. We all have the compact.
Mr. Stupak. Well, you said it is their business. If the
State of Michigan, and its representative would be the Governor
of the State, wants to waive it for this tribe or that tribe,
that is really between the State of Michigan and that tribe, is
it not?
Mr. Bennett. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. And the only interest you would have is not
because the Governor doesn't have the right to do it but
because of the economic impact it may have on your tribe.
Correct?
Mr. Bennett. That is correct.
Mr. Stupak. In fact, these tribes you talked to, their
opposition is based upon economic interest, is it not?
Mr. Bennett. No, I would not say so, Bart.
Mr. Stupak. What other interest would they have?
Mr. Bennett. They would have not only economic but I think
policy issues that would be taken for granted by the State, the
agreement that we had with the State of Michigan.
Mr. Stupak. What policy decisions would this--
Mr. Bennett. Well, if you enter into a compact agreement
with all of the tribes, it seems to me--I am not here to speak
on behalf of the State, but I am here to speak on behalf of my
own tribe--we think it is just poor policy, and certainly this
legislation doesn't help it any.
Mr. Stupak. And when you enter into a compact, that is the
Grand Traverse Band of Chippewa and Ottawa Indians with the
State of Michigan, right?
Mr. Bennett. That is correct.
Mr. Stupak. So you have your own compact with the State of
Michigan, correct?
Mr. Bennett. It was signed with all of those tribes in
August of 1993.
Mr. Stupak. True. But each tribe has their own compact--
Mr. Bennett. That is correct.
Mr. Stupak.--which is then signed and published in the
Federal Register.
Mr. Bennett. That is correct. You are correct.
Mr. Stupak. So there could be differences in them, too,
could there not?
Mr. Bennett. No, I don't believe so.
Mr. Stupak. OK. But you have your own separate compact?
Mr. Bennett. We do.
Mr. Stupak. OK. So if there is a violation of compact, that
is really between the Governor's Office and that tribe and
their individual compact.
Mr. Bennett. I would say that, but if you are harmed, I
think there is legal recourse given consideration.
Mr. Stupak. Sure, and the legal recourse here would be
economic damages if you are economically--
Mr. Bennett. That is correct.
Mr. Stupak. So your objection, then, is based on economic
grounds.
Mr. Bennett. Well, I would go beyond that. I think legal
grounds as well.
Mr. Stupak. Did your tribe or anyone else object to the
Governor for signing this?
Mr. Bennett. Well, Mr. Stupak, I think it was done at the
11th hour as Mr. Engler was going out the back door.
Mr. Stupak. Well, Bay Mills signed their in September. I
think maybe Sault Tribe was December, after they got the two
together. And you just weren't aware of it, because--
Mr. Bennett. Well, we get information like that through the
newspaper. I mean, I think there is more of a relationship that
needs to be developed between the State and the tribes.
Mr. Stupak. So from September to the end of the year, while
Governor Engler was still there, did Grand Travers or the
Saginaw Chippewas object to the Governor or try to get him to
change his mind before this became law?
Mr. Bennett. No, because we didn't feel it was right.
Mr. Stupak. When we speak of--and Ms. Falcon, I guess I
would address this question to you. You indicated that, on your
map there, and there has been testimony from BIA that there was
a Greater Chippewa Tribe or Chippewa Nation, and you are all
descendants of that Greater Chippewa Nation, is that correct?
Ms. Falcon. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. So Chippewa Nation really had all of Michigan
and went into Canada, even Wisconsin, did it not?
Ms. Falcon. Yes, it did.
Mr. Stupak. And the signators to those treaties, when they
ceded land, would be your ancestors and also ancestors of the
Bay Mills and the Sault Tribe, correct?
Ms. Falcon. The 1807 was just the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe,
and we were paid--that is the lands that we were paid, that
were ceded.
Mr. Stupak. That is the part that you ceded, right?
Ms. Falcon. My ancestors.
Mr. Stupak. Your ancestors. Correct?
Ms. Falcon. Correct.
Mr. Stupak. And your ancestors were part of this Greater
Chippewa Nation, correct?
Ms. Falcon. Yes, they were.
Mr. Stupak. In fact, if you take a look at it, you have the
Saginaw Tribe of Chippewa Indians, you have the Sault Tribe of
Chippewa Indians, you have the Bay Mills Tribe, which is also
Chippewa Indians, you have the Grand Travers Tribe of Chippewa
and Ottawa Indians. You were all part of one nation at that
time, much like we are all 50 States of one Nation. But what
the Federal Government did here was individually, if I can use
the words, break down that Greater Nation in the smaller bands
and tribes so they could get you to cede land to the United
States. Isn't that correct?
Ms. Falcon. Yes.
Mr. Stupak. And that would be like some nation, like Canada
trying to negotiate strictly with Michigan to the disadvantage
of the rest of the United States, but to their advantage.
Correct?
Ms. Falcon. Correct.
Mr. Stupak. Not a very good way of doing business, as we
look back now a couple of hundred years, right?
Ms. Falcon. Right.
Mr. Stupak. So when you say that these casinos would be
going into land not owned by Bay Mills or Sault Ste. Marie, it
really was owned by their forefathers who may have signed these
treaties way back in 1807 or even before that time. Isn't that
correct?
Ms. Falcon. Yes, but 1807 was the land that was paid to the
Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. The treaty was with the Saginaw
Chippewa Tribe.
Mr. Stupak. Sure. That was your part of it. And Bay Mills
and Sault did theirs about 1856, and you go to the western part
of the U.P., the other Chippewas did theirs a little bit later.
Then you go down to the Potawatomis and all that. The point
being, they are all part of one nation. You derived your rights
in being a sovereign nation, in being a recognized tribe, based
upon the first treaties made in Michigan with the Chippewas. Is
that not correct?
Ms. Falcon. That would be correct.
Mr. Stupak. OK. Did the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe disagree at
any time when the Bay Mills gave up land in the Higgins Lake
area to the Federal Government to help provide habitat to the
Kirtland warbler back in the early 1990s?
Ms. Falcon. I think I would need to research that, or go
back and look. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Stupak. OK. So do you know of any other way, without
Congress acting, that you can extinguish rights to your
property whether it is Charlotte Beach or down there in Saginaw
Midland area where you are located? Do you know of any way in
which we can extinguish title to Native American land?
Ms. Falcon. No, I don't.
Mr. Stupak. There are no administrative ways, there is no
court or anything. The only way you can do it is through an Act
of Congress, right?
Ms. Falcon. I would have to look into that and research it
and come back with an answer. But I know that our tribe has
unsettled land claims also.
Mr. Jones. If the gentleman--excuse me, one more question
after she completes this, Mr. Stupak.
Mr. Stupak. I will stop right there. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Jones. I want to thank the witnesses today on behalf of
the Committee for their valuable testimony and the members of
the Committee and Mr. Stupak for joining us today on this
important issue.
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. The hearing record will be held open for
these responses.
If there is no further business, the Chairman again thanks
the members of the Committee and our witnesses. The Committee
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:58 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carson follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Brad Carson, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today to consider
these two pieces of legislation. Since taking office, I have fought to
protect and strengthen the sovereign rights of Indian nations. However,
I have concerns with the precedent these bills will set in Indian
country.
From what I understand, they would enable the Bay Mills Indian
Tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe to settle land claims and build
new casinos hundreds of miles from their reservation, on land they have
no historical ties to; and the measures put Congress in the position of
ratifying a tribal/state gaming compact for the first time in history.
It is my understanding these bills are opposed by a number of
tribes in Michigan, some members of the Michigan Congressional
Delegation, and even the Administration does not support these bills.
For these reasons, I am very concerned with H.R. 831 and H.R. 2793, and
I look forward to hearing and reviewing the testimony from the
interested parties here today.
Thank you.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Kwame
M. Kilpatrick, Mayor, City of Detroit, Michigan, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4455.009