    [Senate Hearing 109-18]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 109-18

                         LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                          COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       ON

                                     S. 113

       TO MODIFY THE DATE AS OF WHICH CERTAIN TRIBAL LAND OF THE LYTTON
             RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA IS DEEMED TO BE HELD IN TRUST

                                   __________

                                 APRIL 5, 2005
                                 WASHINGTON, DC

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    21-799                      WASHINGTON : 2005
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    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 INDIAN AFFAIRS

                         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman

                  BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Vice Chairman

    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming                KENT CONRAD, North Dakota
    GORDON SMITH, Oregon                 DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
    LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska               TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
    MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho              MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
    TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma

                     Jeanne Bumpus, Majority Staff Director

                    Sara G. Garland, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    S. 113, text of..................................................     2
    Statements:
        Arner, Rock, city manager, city of San Pablo, San Pablo, CA..    14
        Brown, Sharon J., council member, city of San Pablo, San
          Pablo, CA..................................................    14
        Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota, vice
          chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs......................     3
        Feinstein, Dianne, U.S. Senator from California..............     4
        Hancock, Loni, assembly member, 14th Assembly District,
          Sacramento, CA.............................................    19
        Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii.............     4
        Macarro, Mark, chairman, Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians....    21
        McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arizona, chairman,
          Committee on Indian Affairs................................     1
        Mejia, Margie, chairperson, Lytton Rancheria, Santa Rosa, CA.    17
        Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California.....     7
        Skibine, George T., acting deputy assistant secretary for
          policy and economic development for Indian affairs,
          Department of the Interior.................................    11

                                    Appendix

    Prepared statements:
        .............................................................
        Brown, Sharon J. (with attachment)...........................    37
        Hancock, Loni................................................    30
        Macarro, Mark................................................    31
        Mejia, Margie................................................    32
        Miller, Hon. George, U.S. Representative from California.....    27
        Sammut, Dennis J., president, Artichoke Joe's Casino, San
          Bruno, CA..................................................    48
        Skibine, George T............................................    35
    Additional material submitted for the record:
        Brown, Harold C., president, Marin County, CA, Board of
          Supervisors, letter........................................    59
        Gambling on Tribal Lands, Legislative Constitutional
          Admendment, Text of Proposition 1A.........................    60
        Lyons, Maurice, chairman, Tribal Council, Morongo Band of
          Mission Indians, letter....................................    70
        Uilkema, Gayle B., chair, Board of Supervisors, Contra Costa
          County, CA, letter with resolution.........................    72

                         LYTTON RANCHERIA OF CALIFORNIA

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2005

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                   Committee on Indian Affairs,
        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
    562, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. John McCain (chairman of the
    committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators McCain, Dorgan, Inouye, and Thomas.

       STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA,
                 CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        The Chairman. Good morning. This morning, we will hear
    testimony supporting and opposing S. 113, a bill introduced by
    Senator Feinstein to remove language from the Omnibus Indian
    Advancement Act that benefited the Lytton Rancheria of
    California.
        [Text of S. 113 follows:]

        The Chairman. This language had the effect of making
    certain property in the San Francisco Bay Area immediately
    eligible for gaming pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory
    Act without going through the normal processes required under
    that act.
        I have said before that I have concerns with the manner in
    which the Lytton's off-reservation casino was authorized. The
    question before us now, however, is what to do about it. The
    Lytton Band of Pomo declared just last month that it is no
    longer seeking legislative ratification of the gaming compact
    and so the prospect of a class III casino with thousands of
    slot machines is not imminent.
        Nevertheless, the issue, as we will hear today, is still
    controversial. I look forward to hearing from all of our
    witnesses. It has been my practice for many years that when a
    member of the Senate requests a hearing on an issue that I have
    tried to accommodate those wishes. Even after the Lytton
    Rancheria changed their plans, I asked Senator Feinstein if she
    wanted to still proceed with the hearing. She said she did so,
    so therefore we are going to have this hearing today.
        This will not be the last hearing in this committee of the
    issue of taking land into trust for purposes of gaming. I note
    the presence of my friend, Senator Inouye, with whom I worked
    on the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I think he would agree
    that never in our wildest dreams at the time of the formulation
    of that legislation did we envision that Indian gaming would
    become the $19 billion a year enterprise that it is today. It
    is long overdue time to review the impact and implications of
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act from a broad variety of
    aspects, not just that of taking land into trust for gambling
    purposes, but whether there is sufficient oversight of Indian
    gaming and whether there needs to be better enforcement of
    existing law.
        I thank Senator Feinstein and my old friend from the House
    of Representatives, Congressman George Miller, if he would come
    forward. I will recognize Senator Dorgan and then Senator
    Thomas and then Senator Inouye.
        Senator Dorgan.

      STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH
           DAKOTA, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me
    again say I appreciate your holding this hearing. This is a
    hearing that is being held at the request of Senator Feinstein
    on her bill, S. 113, the Lytton Gaming Compliance Act, a bill
    that would require the Lytton Band to utilize the land into
    trust process established by the Department of the Interior
    before gaming could be conducted on the land.
        I think it is important to point out that this hearing is
    only about the Lytton Band legislation. It is not intended to
    be a general discussion about the policy of off-reservation
    gaming. I say that because while I think a discussion of that
    issue is important and we likely will have that type of
    discussion in other hearings, it will require much more input
    and much broader representation than we have called for at this
    hearing.
        Again, I welcome our colleagues, Senator Feinstein, and my
    colleague from my days in the House, Congressman Miller.
        The Chairman. Senator Thomas.
        Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no
    questions.
        The Chairman. I hope you get better soon. [Laughter.]
        The Chairman. Senator Inouye.

      STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    welcome to the committee, Senator Feinstein and Congressman
    Miller. I believe it is important that we understand the
    historical background of the bill that we address today.
        For nearly 30 years from 1962-91, the Lytton Rancheria was
    terminated from its federally recognized status. As part of its
    effort to regain that status, litigation was initiated by the
    tribe. The county of Sonoma intervened in that lawsuit and as a
    condition of the county's consent to a forthcoming settlement
    of the legal action, certain conditions were imposed which
    precluded the tribe from initiating economic development
    activities on the tribe's traditional lands.
        Thus, from the outset of the restoration of the tribe's
    federally recognized status, the tribe was forced to look to
    other areas for the development of the tribe's economy. In
    2000, Representative George Miller proposed an amendment to the
    Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of that year, which identified
    lands to be taken into trust for the Lytton Band and deemed
    those lands to have been taken into trust prior to October 17,
    1988, the date of the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
    Act.
        The bill, as amended by the House on October 26, 2000, came
    back to the Senate, where it was pending on the Senate calendar
    until December 11, 2000, when the bill was taken up and passed
    by the Senate. In those 45 days in which the amended bill was
    pending in the Senate, the customary protocol was followed to
    assure that the amendment was agreed to not only by the offices
    of the California Senators, but that the amendment was
    acceptable to other Senators prior to action on the bill in the
    Senate.
        Legislative history is clearly documented in the records of
    the Senate for all to examine.
        Accordingly, I would hope that when this measure is
    addressed that we take into consideration these critical
    aspects of the legislative history that led to enactment of the
    amendment to the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act of 2000,
    including a subsequent amendment to the Act which provides that
    the Lytton Band must comply with all aspects of the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act in the conduct of any gaming activities
    on the tribe's lands.
        I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
        Welcome, Senator Feinstein.

      STATEMENT OF DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM CALIFORNIA

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Senator McCain,
    Senator Dorgan, Senator Inouye, Senator Thomas. I very much
    appreciate this hearing. I introduced this bill, as you know,
    in the last Congress and in this Congress as well. I would be
    hopeful that you can give it consideration and that we can get
    it passed.
        This bill is the Lytton Gaming Compliance Act, S. 113. It
    has one simple purpose, to ensure that the Lytton Tribe follows
    the regular process set out under the Indian Gaming Regulatory
    Act for gaming on newly acquired lands. This legislation
    strikes a provision inserted into the Omnibus Indian
    Advancement Act of 2000. That provision mandated the Secretary
    of the Interior to take a card club and adjacent parking lot in
    the San Francisco Bay Area into trust for the Lytton Tribe as
    their reservation and backdate that acquisition to October 17,
    1988, or pre-IGRA.
        This backdating was done expressly with the purpose of
    allowing the Lytton Tribe to circumvent IGRA's two-part
    determination process, an important step that requires both
    secretarial and gubernatorial approval, along with consultation
    with nearby tribes and the local community. The legislation
    that I have introduced would simply return the Lytton Tribe to
    the same status as all other tribes seeking to game on newly
    acquired lands.
        I also want to emphasize what the bill will not do. It
    would not remove the tribe's recognition status. It would not
    alter the trust status of the new reservation nor would it take
    away the tribe's ability to conduct gaming through the normal
    IGRA process. Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
    has clear guidelines for addressing the issue of gaming on so-
    called newly acquired lands, or lands that have been taken into
    trust since IGRA's enactment in 1988.
        Most importantly, in my opinion, IGRA includes a process
    called the two-part determination, which provides for both
    Federal and State approval, while protecting the rights of
    nearby tribes and local communities. Circumventing this process
    creates a variety of serious and critical multi-jurisdictional
    issues, issues which can negatively affect the lives of
    ordinary citizens and deprive local and tribal governments of
    their ability to effectively represent their communities.
        Nevertheless, I think we need to be honest about the real
    reason we have seen a proliferation of cases like the Lytton
    with an increasing number of tribes attempting to open casinos
    outside of traditional Indian lands. Attempts at off-
    reservation gaming and the practice of reservation shopping
    have increased dramatically in California over the past 5
    years.
        It is now estimated that there may be over 20 proposals to
    game outside of tribal lands in California. I have watched as
    out-of-State gaming developers have sought out tribes offering
    to assist them in developing casinos near lucrative sites in
    urban areas, and along central transit routes far from any
    nexus to their historic land. Today in the San Francisco Bay
    Area alone, there are at least five such proposals.
        Let's go back to proposition 1A. Off-reservation gaming was
    clearly not what the people of California voted for when they
    overwhelmingly passed proposition 1A in March 2000 to allow
    tribes in my State to engage in Nevada-style gaming on tribal
    lands. Not only did the proposition language clearly state that
    gaming would take place on Indian or tribal lands, but this
    claim permeated the entire campaign in support of Indian
    gaming.
        Let me give you a few examples. Let me read from the
    argument in favor of proposition 1A.

        We are asking you to vote yes on 1A so we can keep the
    gaming we have on our reservations. We thank you for your past
    support and need your help now to protect Indian self-reliance
    once and for all.

        It goes on.

        So 1A has been put on the March ballot to resolve this
    technicality and establish clearly that Indian gaming on tribal
    lands is legal in California.

        Then it goes on to describe 1A as a simple constitutional
    measure that allows Indian gaming in California.

        It protects Indian self-reliance by finally providing clear
    legal authority for Indian tribes to conduct specific gaming
    activities on tribal lands.

        It goes on this way. I would like to submit for the record
    proposition 1A, the arguments both pro and con that appeared on
    the ballot, if I might.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [Referenced documents appears in appendix.]
        Senator Feinstein. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, without
    this bill, the Lytton will be able to take a former card club
    and adjacent parking lot as their reservation and turn it into
    a large gambling complex outside of the regulations set up by
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        Let me make very clear, I oppose off-reservation gaming in
    California. This is not what the people voted for in the year
    2000. It is a perversion of that legislation and it should not
    happen without another initiative that specifically approves
    it.
        Even though the tribe recently announced that it was
    temporarily dropping its pursuit of a casino, it could reverse
    these plans at any time and proceed with both class II and
    class III gaming without first going through the regular
    process. Allowing this to happen would set a dangerous
    precedent, not only for California, but every State where
    tribal gaming is permitted. I do not think it is asking too
    much to require that the Lytton be subject to the regulatory
    and approval processes applicable to all other tribes by the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        I thank the committee for allowing me this opportunity, and
    would hopefully ask for your support so that this bill could go
    to the floor.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        [Prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears in
    appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
        We are pleased to welcome our old friend George Miller.
        Senator Feinstein. May I be excused? We have the Patriot
    Act in Judiciary.
        The Chairman. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Feinstein. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
        The Chairman. I think you answered the only question that I
    had, and that was that since the Lytton Band has changed their
    proposal that that does not change your commitment to this
    legislation.
        Senator Feinstein. No; the Governor visited with me not too
    long ago. He felt he had the votes for the compact. I
    understand there are not the votes for the compact.
    Nonetheless, should the situation change, it could move ahead
    and again, it would be obfuscating the process and I believe
    the process ought to be carried out for each and every tribe on
    a regular basis.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Welcome, George.

       STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
                               CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    committee. Thank you for your time this morning. I appreciate
    the opportunity to testify.
        Senator Feinstein, it was a pleasure to be with you. We do
    not agree on this issue, but we have worked on a number of
    other issues with respect to our State.
        I would like to submit my written statement for the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Miller. I would also like to recognize several
    constituents and local representatives who will testify here.
    Assemblywoman Loni Hancock represents part of this area with me
    in her district. She is a strong advocate for our community.
    Mayor Sharon Brown and City Manager Brock Arner of the city of
    San Pablo are here. They are working very hard to stimulate
    economic development in the city. I appreciate their efforts on
    behalf of the residents of San Pablo.
        Today's hearing concerns the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians in
    the city of San Pablo in my district and their effort to work
    together to meet mutual goals of desperately needed economic
    development. I support these efforts.
        My involvement with this matter dates back to 1999 and 2000
    when I was approached by the city to discuss the interests in
    working with the Lytton Band to help them acquire an existing
    card room in San Pablo for the purposes of renovating it and
    building a modest-sized casino. The tribe made a good-faith
    effort to work through the Department of the Interior to win
    the right to acquire this land for the purposes of gaming under
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, but due to special
    circumstances affecting the tribe, it is my understanding the
    tribe was told by the department that they would be turned
    down.
        After much discussion and detailed review of the
    circumstances, I agreed to help the city and the tribe. I
    supported their project for several reasons. The local
    community, including the police department, supported the
    project. The city stood to make significant economic
    development gains from the project. The tribe had a clear need
    and a legitimate right to pursue lands for the purposes of
    economic development and made a good-faith effort to work
    through the Department of Interior to do so. I have a
    longstanding history of supporting the sovereign rights of
    Indian tribes.
        The issue of whether or not American Indians should be
    involved in gaming is not an issue here. There are opponents of
    gaming for many reasons, some personal, some moral, some simply
    competitive. Of course, there are many proponents of gaming.
    There are card rooms throughout the Bay Area and extensive
    lottery programs, race tracks and the California constitution
    allows Indian gaming. Personally, I am neither a proponent or
    opponent of gaming per se. I am, however, a strong defender of
    the economic development of Indian sovereignty.
        As you will hear in greater detail today from the Lytton's
    Chairperson Margie Mejia, the Lytton Band was wrongfully
    terminated in the 1960's. A Federal court restored the tribal
    status in 1991. The Lyttons are poor people, many of whom are
    homeless. The tribe is concerned about preserving its tribal
    heritage and providing economic means for its members. The city
    of San Pablo and the Lyttons share much in common. San Pablo is
    one of the poorest cities in the Bay Area. It is a small city
    with little economic activity. It has a poverty rate of 18
    percent, twice that of the entire Bay Area and more than twice
    of that of the county in which it resides. Its unemployment
    rate is higher than that of the Bay Area and the county and
    more than 90 percent of the city's residents work outside the
    city because there are not enough jobs created within the city.
        The key question before this committee is whether it was
    appropriate for Congress to have passed section 819 of the
    Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in 2000 on behalf of the Lytton
    Band. It believe that it was appropriate and that the provision
    should stand as written.
        As you know, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress plenary
    authority over Indian tribes that pass laws for their benefit.
    Congress is fully within its rights to pass the legislation
    directing the Secretary to place lands into trust for
    particular tribes and does so on a regular basis. In just the
    last 108th Congress, at least 10 bills became law, placed lands
    into trust for various reasons for various benefits to Indian
    tribes.
        This may happen for any number of reasons Congress
    determines is prudent. It may be part of a settlement agreement
    of land claims. For instance, in the Pechanga Indian Tribe that
    is scheduled to testify later today, the desire was to protect
    certain important lands from possible desecration. In the last
    Congress, we even took lands out of a national park and placed
    it into trust for one tribe. In the Gila River water settlement
    law, we were required to act in Congress to concur to bring
    lands into trust for the tribe.
        In most cases, including the ones I mentioned here, the
    tribe attempts to go through the BIA process, becomes
    frustrated for one reason or another, and comes to Congress to
    plead its case. In fact, the highly touted bill with the Lytton
    provision also included 14 other provisions to take lands into
    trust for Indian tribes, including one provision that held the
    land to be considered in trust as of 1909.
        The Lyttons have a special circumstance that I believe
    distinguishes them from most other tribes in California that
    necessitated congressional action. In 1991, the Federal court
    settlement that restored the Lyttons tribal status and that of
    numerous other California tribes included one unusual provision
    pertaining only to Lyttons. The court order restoring Lytton's
    tribal status contained the unique limitation that precluded
    the Secretary of the Interior from taking lands in Sonoma
    County, the Lyttons ancestral lands, into trust for the benefit
    of the Lytton Band for any use inconsistent with the Sonoma
    County general plan. In effect, the limitation denied the
    Lyttons any rights to use their ancestral land for gaming.
        The order, however, did not put any restrictions on the
    ability of Lyttons to pursue other lands to be taken into trust
    for them for gaming or other activities. The limitation created
    a special circumstance when the Lyttons appealed to the
    Department of the Interior for the exception of the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act. I think it is fairly clear that under
    any ordinary circumstances they would have qualified for
    exception number four, lands that are taken into trust for part
    of a restoration of lands for Indian tribes that is restored to
    Federal recognition, but that was not so because of the
    prohibition on the Sonoma County general plan.
        The lands that the tribe sought were not their ancestral
    lands, nor contiguous to their ancestral lands. It is my
    understanding that the BIA denied the tribe the exception under
    IGRA because of the lands issue, and yet as I explained, the
    court settlement forbade the tribes from using their ancestral
    lands.
        The Lyttons are the only tribe in California, perhaps the
    only tribe in the United States, that as a condition of
    restoration of tribal status, was expressly deprived the
    opportunity to exercise rights under the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act on its ancestral lands. I do not believe that
    the existing law anticipated the unusual circumstances, and
    therefore Congress, which has the authority to intervene on
    these matters, appropriately remedied this situation.
        This is what the issue boils down to. Through no fault of
    their own, the Lytton Tribe was illegally stripped of their
    status as a federally recognized Indian tribe and denied their
    rights for decade until it was restored to its proper status by
    our judicial system. Had the tribe never been illegally
    terminated, there would have been no question of the Lyttons
    ability to operate gaming within their ancestral area.
        I thought that the BIA would except the land under the IGRA
    exceptions for restored tribes, but when I was told it would
    not, I believe that was a mistake, and even then Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Affairs Kevin Gover was quoted at the time
    about the denial of the Lyttons request, saying it was a
    ``close call and a good case could be made that we were
    wrong,'' Grover said.
        Every tribe's situation is different and must be evaluated
    individually. That was what was done in this legislation. But I
    believed then and continue to believe now that it was the fair
    and right thing to do in this particular case to make the
    Lytton Band whole again. Not only do I believe that it was
    appropriate for Congress to have acted with the tribe's behalf,
    I want to be clear that the manner in which Congress approved
    this legislation was entirely appropriate.
        My provision regarding the Lytton Band was added, along
    with numerous other tribal issues, as an amendment to H.R.
    5528, the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act in the full House. All
    of the provisions added were done so with the support of the
    leadership of both the House Resources Committee and this
    committee as a way to move legislation that for one reason or
    another had not passed.
        To make it clear this was a compilation of bills, the
    omnibus title was given to the bill. This is the most
    appropriate way to move legislation near the end of Congress
    that had been bottled up. The bill passed the full House on
    October 26, 2000. H.R. 5528 was referred to the Senate
    Committee on Indian Affairs and passed by the Senate by
    unanimous consent on December 11, 45 days after its referral to
    the Senate and being sent to both respective cloak rooms for
    reviewing and Senate notification.
        Section 819 was identified by the heading Lands taken into
    trust, and at all times contained the names of the tribes and
    the location of the land. Any Senator who questioned or
    objected to any provision had the opportunity to review the
    provision, to withhold consent. Under the unanimous consent
    procedure, no Senator did. Under the provision, Lytton is
    subject to all of the provisions of IGRA including the
    requirement of California law that any compact negotiated
    between the State of California and the Lytton Band is ratified
    by the California legislature. A compact was signed in August
    of 2004 by the Governor and the tribal chair, but has not yet
    been ratified by the legislature.
        I am on record as opposing the size of this first proposed
    compact between the State and the tribe and the revised
    proposed contract. I hope that any final resolution of this
    compact will adhere to the proposal originally presented to me
    by the tribe and the city. That proposal called for a modest
    casino within the parameters of what already exists at the card
    room, not a mega-casino that is now under consideration. I
    think this is important for this committee to understand. This
    was not a controversial action when it was considered for a
    modest casino, with strong support in the community for this
    economic development.
        When it got into the compacting arrangements with
    California's deficit problem, this compact became the object of
    those who wanted to solve the deficit problem on the backs of
    the compacts. So what was proposed as a modest 1,000-slot
    machine casino now became a 5,000-slot machine casino, larger
    than the MGM Grand in Las Vegas.
        I have rejected that. The legislature cut it down to 2,500.
    I still believe that that is too extensive. I do, however,
    believe the Lyttons are still entitled to have a casino on what
    is now their reservation land. I think it is important. Loni
    Hancock, our representative in the State legislature, can
    address the question of where this is in the legislature at
    this time.
        It should be noted, however, that the Lytton Band from the
    very beginning went to unprecedented lengths to consult with
    the local community and the State of California to forge an
    agreement with regard to mitigating potential impacts of the
    new casino and sharing the benefits of the casino with the
    community, but the issue of the compact details is a separate
    matter.
        The issue today is whether or not the tribe has the right
    to these lands and whether Congress acted appropriately in
    conveying the lands to the tribe. In both instances, I think
    the answer is clearly yes. I do not believe that Congress is
    justified in taking away the Lyttons rights that Congress gave.
    Doing so would be a significant breach of trust between
    Congress and the Indians, a trust that has been broken so often
    in our Nation's history. It would also greatly undermine the
    economic development opportunity for an impoverished tribe and
    an impoverished California city. I believe that S. 113 is
    unwarranted and harmful. More importantly, I believe that it
    would be a dangerous precedent.
        Governor Schwarzenegger expressed a similar view when he
    wrote to Senator Feinstein on September 20, 2004 about her
    legislation, that, quote, ``this bill would set a dangerous
    precedent that could damage the trust and faith with the Lytton
    Rancheria Indian Community.'' He added, quote, ``passage of
    this bill will destroy the trust which has been built up with
    the Lyttons and other tribal governments not just in
    California, but throughout the Nation.''
        Indian gaming in California is clearly a complicated matter
    and there are many aspects of the issue to resolve, but using
    the power of Congress to take punitive action against the
    Lytton Band is neither justified nor appropriate.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your time and the
    consideration of the members of your committee, and my
    opportunity to testify here today on this matter.
        I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Representative Miller appears in
    appendix.]
        The Chairman. A 1,000-slot machine casino is a modest
    gaming operation?
        Mr. Miller. In the context of where California was, where
    Indian gaming was at that time, yes, that was about what was
    taking place in other sites in the State. It is a big State.
        The Chairman. A 1,000-slot machines is a lot of slot
    machines.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I have no specific questions
    of Congressman Miller. I have read the statements on both sides
    and I think I would like to hear from the other witnesses. I
    appreciate your statement, Congressman Miller.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you.
        Senator Dorgan. You have in great detail laid out your
    position and why legislative action previously was taken and
    also that you believe any further legislative action at this
    point would be punitive. So let us hear from the other
    witnesses today.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Miller. We
    appreciate your coming over today.
        Mr. Miller. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. George Skibine, who is the acting deputy assistant
    secretary for policy and economic development for Indian
    affairs at the Department of the Interior. As always, your
    complete statement will be made part of the record.

        STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. SKIBINE, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT
       SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR INDIAN
                  AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Skibine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman. I
    am very pleased to be here to represent the Department of the
    Interior's views on S. 113.
        My statement will be made part of the record. It is a
    fairly short statement and my comments now will be probably
    even shorter.
        Essentially, the department has no objections to Senator
    Feinstein's bill. The bottomline is that we do not object to it
    because we do not believe that it is proper to waive the
    requirements of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
    for any particular tribe. We believe that section 20 strikes a
    delicate balance between the rights of Indian tribes and the
    rights of local communities and the rights of the State. It has
    been implemented very carefully by the department over the last
    17 years. We believe in that sense that it has worked.
        I think that it is true, as Congressman Miller said, that
    the application to take land in trust and compliance with
    section 20 is a slow process and that the department takes its
    time in weighing the considerations. We want to make sure that
    the local community, especially for off-reservation
    acquisitions, is in support and that their concerns have been
    taken care of. In this particular case, as Senator Feinstein
    said, this would bypass the requirements of section 20 of IGRA.
        To go back briefly to this particular case, as stated
    before, the tribe was terminated and it was subsequently
    restored through stipulation of entry of judgment in 1991 in
    the Scotts Valley litigation. In 1999, the tribe submitted an
    application to take land into trust to the BIA, submitted
    documentation to the regional office, submitted an
    environmental assessment, but that process was overtaken by the
    enactment of the act that is under consideration today.
        I want to clarify a statement that Congressman Miller
    stated. I do not think the tribe was turned down on an
    application to take land into trust. We were in discussion with
    the tribe. I think one of the issues that we were facing is
    whether the tribe would qualify under the restored land for
    restored tribes exception.
        I think we agreed the tribe is a restored tribe, but for
    restored land, I think that is a closer question, certainly.
    Right now, for restored land, I think we look for the tribe to
    have a geographical, traditional and historical nexus to the
    land. So in this particular case, I think that probably would
    be problematic. As a result, this provision was passed that
    short-circuited the process.
        The decision to take the land into trust was made by the
    BIA on January 18, 2001. There were subsequent lawsuits in
    Artichoke Joe's v. Norton over our decision, but the injunction
    was denied in this case. On August 6, 2003, the court ruled in
    that case.
        The land was subsequently taken into trust. On October 9,
    2003 a proclamation of reservation was published in the Federal
    Register and issued on July 13, 2004. That is where we are
    today. We understand, as stated before, that the tribe has
    submitted, is working on a class III gaming compact. We have
    not received that compact because of the issues that were
    raised in the previous testimony. The tribe nevertheless is
    entitled to do class II gaming on the site at this point. If
    the bill is enacted, I think it will probably require the tribe
    to close down its gaming activities for class II gaming because
    essentially they may not satisfy the requirements of section 20
    of IGRA. So the land would not be Indian lands over which a
    tribe has jurisdiction and satisfies the requirements of
    section 20.
        This concludes my testimony at this point. I will be happy
    to answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Skibine appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Are you aware of any
    other cases in which Congress has retroactively deemed land to
    have been taken into trust prior to 1988 in order to relieve a
    tribe of having to comply with IGRA?
        Mr. Skibine. I am not aware of it. That might not mean that
    there is not anything out there, but I am not aware of it.
        The Chairman. You indicated that the applicable section of
    the Omnibus Indian Advancement Act mandated the secretary to
    take the land into trust without consideration of the factors
    in the land acquisition regulations. Can you list some of those
    factors that did not have to be considered?
        Mr. Skibine. Sure. Essentially because it was a mandatory
    acquisition, that means that the decision of the secretary is
    essentially ministerial. That means that the BIA does not have
    to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental
    Policy Act, NEPA, which the tribe was in the process of
    complying with at the time the act was passed. Under our
    regulations, we require consultation with the local community
    that has jurisdiction over the site. This was therefore
    bypassed also.
        In the decisionmaking process, the acquisition of land is
    discretionary, but the Secretary follows the criteria in
    section 151 which are objective criteria. One of the things we
    look at is if there is what is the impact of taking the land
    off the tax rolls.
        Another issue we look at is the need of the tribe for the
    land, what the purpose will be for the acquisition. We also
    look at whether there will be any conflicts in land use and
    whether there will be jurisdictional issues raised by taking
    the land into trust. We also look at whether the bureau is able
    to discharge its responsibility with acquiring new land into
    trust.
        The Chairman. What is the status of the land parcels at
    issue here? Are they currently held in trust for the Lytton
    Rancheria?
        Mr. Skibine. Yes; they are. As Senator Feinstein pointed
    out, the bill does not change that. The land will continue to
    be held in trust. The tribe will have to comply with the
    requirements of section 20 of IGRA because it will be after-
    acquired lands.
        The Chairman. Do you consider a 1,000-slot machine casino a
    small casino?
        Mr. Skibine. No; I do not think that, in my experience, a
    1,000-slot machine casino can be considered a small casino. It
    is true that in California there are casinos with 1,000 or more
    slot machines, but I do not think we would consider those small
    operations.
        Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Skibine, the Lytton
    Band's testimony indicates that they believe this would be
    deemed an unconstitutional Fifth Amendment taking. Has the
    Department analyzed the legislation and determined whether it
    would result in a taking and whether that may subject the
    Federal Government to some future liability?
        Mr. Skibine. Yes; we have look at this issue and the
    department has determined that there would not be taking
    implications with this legislation.
        Senator Dorgan. I have no further questions.
        The Chairman. Do you agree with Senator Feinstein's comment
    that even though the Lytton Rancheria has decided to only
    engage in class II gaming, that at any time they could change
    that to a status class III gaming operation?
        Mr. Skibine. That can change if the tribe successfully
    enters into a compact with the State of California and that
    compact is approved by the Secretary of the Interior and notice
    of its approval is published in the Federal Register. Right
    now, apparently there are problems with that, but it could
    happen.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming
    this morning. It is nice to see you again.
        Mr. Skibine. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Our next panelist is Sharon Brown, who is a
    councilmember of the city of San Pablo, CA. She is accompanied
    by Brock Arner, the city manager of the city of San Pablo;
    Margie Mejia, who is the chairperson of the Lytton Rancheria.
        Assemblywoman Hancock, are you still here? Would you like
    to join the panel and make a comment? You are certainly welcome
    to do so.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, I am supposed to be speaking
    on the floor of the Senate at 10:15 a.m., so I am going to
    depart. I will try to come back before this panel is completed
    if I am able to do that. I have reviewed the testimony,
    however, and appreciate very much the witnesses being here. I
    apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, for having to do that, but the
    schedule on the floor, as you know, is pretty uncertain and I
    am called to go over there at this point.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Dorgan.
        Ms. Brown, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF SHARON J. BROWN, COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF SAN
     PABLO, SAN PABLO, CA, ACCOMPANIED BY BROCK ARNER, CITY MANAGER

        Ms. Brown. Good morning. I believe like the rest of the
    world, I have a cold. Hopefully my voice will hold out long
    enough.
        Good morning, my name is Sharon Brown. I have been a San
    Pablo city council member for 21 years and have served as Mayor
    for 4 of those 21 years. I was formerly the chairperson of the
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission and the Association of
    Metropolitan Planning Organizations in Washington, DC.
        In the early 1990's, the city of San Pablo faced
    bankruptcy. Things were so desperate that the city was forced
    to borrow $4 million to meet payroll during that year. Our
    former city manager approached the city council with the idea
    of attracting a card room to San Pablo. After a lot of thought,
    we put the item to a vote for the constituents and it passed 67
    to 33 in a landslide.
        During the campaign, as with other gambling situations,
    there was also opposition to us, talking about prostitution,
    drugs, et cetera. I will tell you that none of that has
    happened. The proposed site was a section 8 mobile home park
    and a bowling alley. In 10 years, the crime rate has actually
    dropped dramatically. The money generated from the card room
    has allowed the city to fund police and recreation programs. We
    have basically repaved the entire city and we have a major
    decrease in crime.
        The card room has also provided new entry-level jobs to
    residents who needed them the most. Many of these people were
    on welfare their entire lives. Revenue from the card room to
    the city decreased dramatically in 1990's due to the Asian
    economy and no smoking rules in California.
        Plus, there is additional development of nearby Indian
    casinos. These Indian casinos are as close as a 90-mile or 90-
    minute drive from San Pablo, and at least one is within 25
    miles of the State capital. We are referring to the River Rock
    Casino in Santa Rosa, the Cache Creek Casino in Yolo County and
    the Thunder Valley Casino in Lincoln.
        We also wish to point out that the Indian casino in
    Highland, CA is situated in an urban-suburban area much like
    Casino San Pablo. And please remember, this was a card room at
    the time that the Casino San Pablo came into operation.
        You have heard about the Federal Government wrongfully
    terminating the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians in the 1950's,
    resulting in the transformation of their ancestral land into
    vineyards. In 1988, the Federal courts ordered that the
    Government reverse its decision to terminate the tribe and
    restore the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to full tribal status.
        Unfortunately, the court also precluded the Lyttons from
    returning to their ancestral lands. I am sure that there is a
    lot of nice wine produced there.
        The tribe has previously been rejected by a number of
    cities closer to their ancestral lands and returned to San
    Pablo only because of the existing card room. In 1999, the city
    council unanimously approved a municipal services agreement
    with the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians acknowledging that type-
    III gaming would be coming to the city of San Pablo. Following
    the agreement, both the city and tribe approached Congressman
    George Miller and requested he introduce legislation to allow
    the full Federal Government to take Casino San Pablo into trust
    on behalf of the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. This was
    extremely cooperative and a full partnership between the city
    and the Indian tribe.
        In the fall of 2000, Congressman Miller introduced the
    enabling legislation which was unanimously supported by the
    city of San Pablo city council because it would bring much-
    needed jobs and economic growth to the region which were both
    vitally needed. Congressman Miller's legislation was part of an
    Indians appropriation bill and was published in the Federal
    Register, as is all legislation.
        This bill sat in the committee for 3 months prior to being
    approved by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and being
    signed into law by the President of the United States. This
    bill received considerable media attention while undergoing the
    legislative process. Given this process, it is difficult to
    understand how anyone can describe this as stealth legislation.
        Additionally, after the President signed the bill into law,
    Nevada Senator Harry Reid attempted to repeal the San Pablo
    legislation, which was unsuccessful in that attempt. Senator
    Inouye was a particularly strong advocate in opposing Senator
    Reid's proposed amendment.
        The committee might ask why San Pablo has embraced Indian
    gaming. The reasons are many, but relatively straightforward.
    San Pablo had the lowest per capita income of any community in
    the San Francisco Bay Area. The per capita income of San Pablo
    is far less than the national average, yet housing prices in
    the Bay Area and San Pablo are some of the most expensive in
    the United States.
        Eighteen percent of our residents live below the poverty
    line as defined by the Federal Government. The unemployment
    rate in San Pablo and West County is 175 percent of the county
    average. The city of San Pablo serves more free meals to
    seniors than any other location in Contra Costa County; 44
    percent of our residents are Latino, with the remaining 56
    percent being Lao, Vietnamese, African Americans, Cambodians
    and Anglos; 92 percent of our residents commute outside the
    city for their employment.
        As daunting as these statistics are, many of the
    neighborhoods just outside our city limits in the
    unincorporated county and the city of Richmond are in even
    worse financial situations. Job growth and economic development
    needs are apparent and the Lytton Compact is the best
    opportunity to achieve both.
        There is one uncommissioned study on the casino thus far,
    and it should be viewed as an objective analysis. The
    University of California Graduate School of Planning concluded
    that the proposed compact negotiated by the tribe and the
    Governor of the State of California would provide the residents
    of San Pablo and West County with entry-level jobs, that it
    would increase these employees' earnings by 350 percent. These
    earnings are augmented by health insurance and retirement
    benefits.
        The Lytton Tribe also commissioned an economic analysis of
    the proposed compact. This study forecast the creation of more
    than 3,000 new and permanent jobs at Casino San Pablo if the
    compact is ratified by the legislature. The compact before the
    legislature would allow up to 2,500 slot machines and 200
    gaming tables. The same study estimates that local agencies in
    the State of California would gain $155 million annually to
    mitigate impacts and provide much-needed revenue to the State.
        The same study also forecast more than $600 million in
    economic benefits throughout the region. It is the highest
    amount of revenue-sharing ever offered by a tribe to the State
    and local governments, and for the first time ever includes
    revenues from table games.
        The Chairman. Ms. Brown, you will have to summarize your
    statement. We usually like to have 5 minutes. Please go ahead.
        Ms. Brown. Okay. I was looking for a button or something up
    there.
        We in the city of San Pablo believe the Lytton Band of Pomo
    Indians have been the best neighbor and partner imaginable. The
    Lytton Band, despite being abused by the Federal Government in
    the past, has negotiated agreements with the city of San Pablo
    and the State of California that ensures that their facility
    will have a positive impact on a community most in need.
        It is a sad commentary that the State legislature has not
    approved the proposed compact and a sadder commentary that the
    Senate would consider legislation that would rob the tribes
    sanctioned rights. I urge you to reject S. 113.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Brown appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Chairperson Mejia, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF MARGIE MEJIA, CHAIRPERSON, LYTTON RANCHERIA, SANTA
                                ROSA, CA

        Ms. Mejia. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me here today
    and thank you in particular, Senator McCain, for the
    understanding and support you have shown to Native Americans.
        My name is Margie Mejia and I am the chairwoman of the
    Lytton Band of Pomo Indians. To understand why we are here
    today, it is important to understand something about the
    history of our tribe. Like most California tribes, we are a
    small group with about 275 members. Like many other California
    tribes, most of our members live in poverty. Many have no or
    inadequate health care. Alcoholism and substance abuse is a
    continuing problem. We have many families living together in
    tiny apartments. Only one of our members is buying a home.
        But until the 1950's, we did have land. That land was in
    Sonoma County and today this is the site of some of the most
    prestigious wineries anywhere in the world. But the reason that
    today there are vineyards on that land instead of our homes is
    a result of actions taken by the Federal Government. But we
    never lost our sense of existence as a community. Many of us
    continue to live together and to take care of tribal members in
    need and we do this even to this day.
        Eventually, we sued the United States and the outcome of
    that suit was that the Federal Government admitted it had
    broken promises it had made in the termination agreement. In
    1991, our tribal status was restored. However, that settlement
    effectively barred us from returning to our tribal lands in the
    Alexander Valley by prohibiting us from operating a gaming
    facility in that area. We had no choice but to agree to this
    condition because otherwise, with little or no resources of our
    own, we would have been forced to fight a protracted legal
    battle against a group of wealthy wineries and the county.
        After restoration, we reestablished our tribal government,
    passed a constitution and elected a tribal council. We also
    began to look for a means out of the relentless poverty many of
    our members face and to rebuild our tribal community. We turned
    to gaming because the government offered that to us as a means
    of economic development and because it generates enough money
    to allow us to get a loan and finance the rebuilding of our
    tribe and our tribal community.
        The 1991 restoration agreement, while barring us from
    operating a gaming facility in Sonoma County, did not foreclose
    our right to find another community that might welcome us as
    partners. We found our road to economic self-reliance in the
    city of San Pablo, where with the help of private investors we
    purchased an existing card club that had been approved by local
    voters in 1994.
        The city and the tribe then negotiated a municipal services
    agreement. At that time, such an agreement was unprecedented in
    California and was the most attractive agreement between local
    interests and an Indian tribe in California.
        But there were other hurdles to come. Although it was the
    Government's wrongful actions which resulted in the loss of our
    land, by the time the Government had admitted that and prepared
    to make good for our loss, the legal landscape for tribes had
    changed. A law had been passed which made it extremely
    difficult for tribes to operate gaming on lands taken into
    trust after 1988 unless Congress made the land eligible. Even
    though it was not our fault that we were in this position, and
    although the law had not been intended for landless tribes, but
    rather tribes with existing reservations, our efforts to seek
    help from the Department of the Interior went nowhere.
        Finally, Congress acted to take that land into trust for us
    as it has in the case of many other tribes in California and
    other States. This was the final option after we had tried
    everything else. Thanks to the efforts of Congressman George
    Miller, that proposal was introduced in legislative form in
    October 2000. On December 27 of that year, the President signed
    that bill into law. There were newspaper articles about this at
    the time and subsequently there were two attempts to repeal
    this proposal. Neither of those met with success.
        Senator Feinstein's legislation represents the third time
    there has been a proposal to take this land from us. We believe
    it would be legally wrong to do that. Section 819 conferred a
    highly valuable property right on our tribe by specifically
    entitling us to acquire land into Federal trust for Indian
    gaming. The Feinstein bill would deprive us of this right to
    conduct gaming on the land and would be a taking under the
    Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
        That act of taking land into trust for us in San Pablo was
    not the beginning of this story. It was the end of a very long
    story, a story of poor treatment of our tribe at the hands of
    the Federal Government. That was an act of redress, making good
    the wrong that had been done to us more than 50 years before.
    To have simply said we are sorry and offered up a paper apology
    for the treatment of our tribe would have been wrong. Taking
    that land into trust represented a meaningful act of redress.
    Taking that land out of trust would make that gesture so many
    empty words.
        That is the background to our proposal for a casino project
    on our land in San Pablo. Our initial proposal in 1999 was for
    a modest gaming operation, something on the order of 1,000 slot
    machines. In the proposed compact that we signed with the
    Governor last year, that number was originally 5,000 and was
    revised down to 2,500 machines. Since there has been some
    controversy about the change, let me address that for a moment.
        When we made our initial proposal in 1999, no compact, not
    ours or any other tribe's, provided for any revenue sharing
    with the State of California, nor did these compacts provide
    local and State government opportunities for substantive
    environmental review, mitigation of local impacts, or
    involvement in gaming regulation.
        We stepped up to the plate to do just that, reaching an
    agreement to pay an unprecedented 25 percent of net gaming
    revenues to the State and local government to pay our fair
    share of public services and environmental mitigation. But that
    commitment also required more slot machines than originally
    envisioned.
        We have agreed to two exhaustive environmental impact
    reviews prior to anything being built. These provisions are
    modeled on the California Environmental Quality Act, such as
    the inclusion of project alternatives mitigation and citizen
    participation in the process. But the compact took one further
    step by requiring the tribe to complete agreements on
    mitigation measures with its neighbors in the city of San
    Pablo, the local county and the State Transportation
    Department.
        Over and above our compact obligations, the tribe has spent
    the past months engaged with the community to hear their hopes
    and concerns about our project. As a result, we reduced the
    size and scope of our project to make it a better fit for the
    community, while still offering the creation of more than 6,000
    new jobs. We negotiated and signed that compact with the
    Governor of California. We had the strong support of the city
    of San Pablo where the casino would be located. We believe that
    the proposed compact represented a good deal for all parties.
        Notwithstanding all that, as you know, the California State
    legislature has chosen not to act on the compact. As a result,
    we will now focus on exercising our rights under Federal law.
    We will renovate the interior of the existing building to make
    it more attractive and to offer a wider variety of class II
    gaming activities, including class II electronic bingo games.
    These are not the video lottery terminals. They will fall well
    within the definition of what constitutes class II gaming. We
    do not intend to push the envelope.
        Senator McCain, we did not ask to be in this situation. We
    did not ask the Federal Government to take our name and our
    land, but that happened. Now, decades later, when this
    Government has finally acted to right those wrongs, we believe
    it would be wrong to take away our right to pursue economic
    self-sufficiency, which is effectively what Senator Feinstein's
    bill would do.
        If this body wishes to address various issues associated
    with Indian gaming, so be it. But I respectfully ask you,
    Senators, not to go back and retroactively change the rules for
    us. What this body did in 2000 was to do the right thing. It
    was to make good a wrong the Federal Government had committed
    against our tribe. I ask you to let that act of justice stand.
        Thank you.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Mejia appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Assemblywoman Hancock, welcome.

       STATEMENT OF LONI HANCOCK, ASSEMBLY MEMBER, 14th ASSEMBLY
                        DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO, CA

        Ms. Hancock. Thank you, Senator McCain.
        My name is Loni Hancock. I serve as an assembly member in
    the California State legislature. My district is in the East
    San Francisco Bay Area and includes the cities of Oakland,
    Berkeley, Richmond, and San Pablo.
        First, let me thank you, Senator McCain, for having this
    hearing today. Senator Feinstein's legislation would require
    advocates of Casino San Pablo to follow the two-step process
    laid out under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. I want to
    express my support for Senator Feinstein's legislation.
        Second, I would like to speak about the role of the State
    legislature and the legislative history regarding Casino San
    Pablo. As you know, in order for a tribe to open a casino, they
    must negotiate a gambling compact with the Governor. That
    compact is then subject to ratification by the State
    legislature. The Casino San Pablo proposal came to my attention
    in August of last year when it was submitted to the legislature
    by the Governor as a package of five compacts in the last week
    of the State legislative session when the legislature was
    voting on over 100 bills.
        The compact negotiated between the tribe and the Governor
    authorized 5,000 slot machines in a six-story, 600,000 square
    foot building. To put these figures into perspective, the
    compact would have made Casino San Pablo the third largest slot
    machine operator in the country. Only the two casinos in
    Connecticut would be larger operations.
        In terms of square footage, this casino would have been the
    size of six Wal-Marts combined. It would be built in the middle
    of the already heavily congested San Francisco Bay Area.
        Other provisions in this compact allowed the Governor's
    chief financial officer in his or her sole discretion to
    completely obviate any or all of the local government
    mitigations provided in the compact. After sustained
    legislative opposition, the compact was amended to reduce the
    number of slot machines to 2,500.
        This amended compact created a casino with as many slot
    machines as any major casino on the Las Vegas strip. But also
    included in the revised compact is a provision allowing
    renegotiation of the number of slot machines in 2008. In
    essence, this provision would make it possible for the casino
    to go right back to a request for 5,000 slot machines.
        Given the nature of this revised compact, my colleagues in
    the State legislature made it clear they would not ratify the
    compact.
        The Casino San Pablo proposal touches on many of the
    complex issues surrounding the expansion of Indian gambling in
    California and the expansion of off-reservation casinos. In
    2000, the voters of California passed initiative Proposition
    1A, amending the State constitution to provide economic
    development opportunity by authorizing gambling casinos in
    rural areas and on traditional tribal lands. That was the
    intent of proposition 1A.
        What we have seen since proposition 1A's passage is some
    tribes with ambiguous ancestral titles to a land parcel making
    claims to that land for the sole purpose of operating a casino.
        In the San Francisco Bay Area alone, we face the proposed
    development of up to five casinos within a 15-miles radius by
    tribes who have scant, if any, ancestral connection to those
    lands. California is experiencing a proliferation of proposals
    for Indian gambling casinos that have little to do with self-
    sufficiency on tribal lands. These off-reservation casinos in
    reality are being supported by aggressive out-of-State casino
    developers who clearly hope to build casinos in every urban
    area of the State.
        Keep in mind that in California, Nevada-style gambling is
    illegal. Through proposition 1A, it was intended to be legal
    only for Indian tribes on their traditional tribal lands.
        Finally, I would like to talk briefly about the community
    opposition to Casino San Pablo. Polls conducted by KPIX, our
    local TV station, showed that 57 percent of the respondents
    opposed the casino. I personally sent a survey to every
    household with a registered voter in my Assembly district.
        The returned survey showed overwhelming opposition. Survey
    results indicated district-wide, 91 percent opposition to the
    casino, and my staff broke down the results by city, and even
    within the city of San Pablo, where the casino would be located
    and where people had been promised jobs and revenues for the
    city budget, over 64 percent of the returned surveys opposed
    the casino.
        Cities like Albany and Berkeley in the surrounding
    community who will experience the negative impacts of increased
    traffic, crime and gambling addiction have taken positions
    against the proposed casino. Other cities are considering
    similar resolutions, and today the local county board of
    supervisors will be considering a resolution against urban
    gambling and against urban casinos.
        Mr. Chairman, I have thousands of letters, e-mails, surveys
    that say that Casino San Pablo is a bad economic development
    strategy for our community and our State. You have heard that
    the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians no longer intends to build a
    Las Vegas-style casino. The proponents have said that they will
    operate only class II electronic bingo machines, but the 2,500
    slot machine compact is still on the table.
        Recently, a letter sent by the tribe to members of the
    State legislature states that the tribe remains confident that
    this or a future legislature will eventually recognize the
    benefits of the compact negotiated with the Governor. This is a
    2,500-slot machine casino with the ability to negotiate for
    even more slot machines when the environment is more
    politically favorable for them to do so.
        So in the final analysis, I believe that the legislation
    authored by Senator Feinstein to remove the backdating, and
    without that legislation the Lytton Tribe will continue to seek
    a massive gambling casino at Casino San Pablo. This entrance of
    tribal casinos on non-ancestral land in densely built urban
    areas would set a precedent for authorizing off-reservation
    gambling casinos in California and in every State where tribal
    gambling is permitted.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
    respectfully ask the committee to act in support of Senator
    Feinstein's legislation.
        [Prepared statement of Ms. Hancock appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Mark Macarro, Chairman of the Pechanga Band of
    Luiseno Indians. Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF MARK MACARRO, CHAIRMAN, PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO
                                INDIANS

        Mr. Macarro. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify regarding S. 113, a bill to modify the
    date as of which certain tribal lands of the Lytton Rancheria
    of California is deemed to be held in trust.
        My name is Mark Macarro. I am the duly elected chairman of
    the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians. I have been asked
    to discuss the Pechanga Tribe's position with regard to S. 113.
        The Chairman. What is your geographic position as compared
    with Councilwoman Mejia's tribe?
        Mr. Macarro. The Lytton Band is in Northern California in
    the Bay Area. We are in Southern California, about 60 miles
    north of San Diego, 20 miles inland of Camp Pendleton.
        The Chairman. And does your tribe engage in gaming?
        Mr. Macarro. We do.
        The Chairman. How big a casino do you have?
        Mr. Macarro. We have a 522-room hotel and 2,000 slot
    machines.
        The Chairman. Please proceed. Thank you.
        Mr. Macarro. Thank you.
        The Pechanga believe that each and every federally
    recognized tribe is a sovereign and in its own right enjoys all
    the rights and privileges that flow from sovereignty, including
    the right to pursue economic development opportunities which
    improve the quality of life for all tribal members. However, it
    is our sincere belief that all Indian tribes also have a
    responsibility to the larger community and that the specific
    instance of the backdating of the fee-to-trust acquisition of
    the Lytton Rancheria is contrary to the best interests of all
    of Indian country.
        The Pechanga Tribe supports S. 113 for two reasons. First,
    we believe that the Lytton fee-to-trust acquisition should
    follow the same procedure that all other tribes must follow to
    authorize gaming on what are termed after-acquired trust lands.
    While the process is not perfect, it allows tribes, States and
    local communities to have input and a chance to participate in
    the process, including the ability to resolve differences
    before decisions are made. The manner in which this acquisition
    was placed into trust deprived those communities who are most
    affected by the acquisition a chance to address important
    issues before the land was placed into trust.
        The other reason we support this legislation is that it
    will reverse an action which violates a promise that all
    California Indian tribes made to the citizens of California
    when propositions 5 and 1A were considered and approved. During
    the time those propositions were considered, tribes in
    California pledged that the passage of those propositions would
    not result in the proliferation of urban gaming, but would be
    confined to a tribe's existing reservation lands, the vast
    majority of which are not located in urban areas.
        The legislation which directed the Lytton land acquisition
    to be placed into trust status violated that public policy
    promise to the citizens of California and denied the citizens
    affected by the acquisition to play a part in the process which
    determines whether land should be placed into trust status.
        We believe S. 113, by providing that the trust acquisition
    of the Lytton Rancheria, while remaining in trust status, is
    considered to be placed in trust as of its actual date of
    acquisition. It levels the playing field. It requires the
    Lytton Rancheria to deal with the local community and the
    Governor before it may operate gaming on the parcel, or it must
    apply to the BIA before the land can be declared meeting one of
    the exceptions to the prohibition on gaming on lands acquired
    after October 17, 1988.
        Both processes provide for more detailed, thoughtful
    consideration on the merits of the application before gaming
    can be conducted on those lands.
        This concludes my testimony. Again, I would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to provide our views on S. 113. I would
    be happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [Prepared statement of Mr. Macarro appears in appendix.]
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Mejia, how do you respond to Chairman Macarro's comment
    that a commitment was made at the time of the passage of the
    propositions 5 and 1A that there would not be an expansion of
    Indian gaming in urban areas?
        Ms. Mejia. As I stated in my testimony, back in 1999, the
    compacts that were signed with the State of California and 62
    tribes were signed September 9 of 1999. We had already
    negotiated, were in negotiations with the city of San Pablo on
    our municipal services agreement. We were in every paper and,
    you know, we were going into an existing facility in a
    community that had already passed a referendum for gaming. We
    were not hiding anything.
        The Chairman. Why was it that your tribe was not included
    in this ballot proposition which gave numerous tribes the
    opportunity to engage in a compact with the State?
        Ms. Mejia. Governor Davis said that we could not enter into
    that agreement because we did not have the land in trust. When
    I attended the compact negotiations with the other tribes of
    California and asked them to put language in there that would
    apply to us, they said no, that they needed to move forward.
    They had to act in their tribe's best interests and that is
    what they did.
        The Chairman. Ms. Brown, your view of the public support
    for this enterprise seems to vary rather dramatically from
    Assemblywoman Hancock's view of the support for this
    enterprise.
        Ms. Brown. We had 2,000 petitions of support in the last
    few months.
        The Chairman. You have to move the microphone closer.
        Ms. Brown. I am sorry.
        We had 2,000 petitions of support in the last few months,
    which have been submitted.
        The Chairman. Is the tribe currently operating a casino at
    the San Pablo site?
        Ms. Mejia. The tribe is currently operating a class II
    facility.
        The Chairman. And how many members of our tribe are
    employed there?
        Ms. Mejia. Actually, right now, none, because we have not
    been able to. We have been working toward doing this and the
    card club is not generating revenue for teaching job skills and
    addressing those issues so that they can participate in
    employment there. Right now, it is just operating as it was
    before. Hopefully with the move to adding the class II
    machines, we will generate revenue. We will bring in tribal
    members to work there.
        The Chairman. Assemblywoman Hancock, do you have objection
    that class II gaming be conducted?
        Ms. Hancock. I think that it would be a good idea if it
    were part of the two-step negotiations that I understand are
    required under IGRA. Certainly, class II gaming, although my
    understanding, again, is that the electronic bingo machines
    look and feel very much like slot machines and that there would
    be obviously an impact on the community from that.
        I think it would be good to have those impacts discussed,
    which is one of the reasons that I support Senator Feinstein's
    bill. But in addition, the fact is that right now the 2,500-
    slot machine compact is still before the California
    legislature. It can be brought forward at any time that the
    proponents believe they can get the votes. I think it
    illustrates the enormous pressures and problems that we are
    facing in California around off-reservation gambling.
        So it seems to me that simply as a fairness measure, there
    ought to be the community discussion around the traffic impacts
    and the social impacts of class II gambling in a very densely
    built-up region. The city of San Pablo is actually a city of
    30,000 people, totally surrounded by the city of Richmond, also
    a very poor city, that will benefit in no way from this
    compact.
        The Chairman. Go ahead, sir.
        Mr. Arner. Senator, you have asked a question about size of
    casinos and the number of slots previously. I would like to
    respond to that. I am Brock Arner, the city manager.
        Thunder Valley Casino within 48 miles of the capital of the
    State of California has 2,700 slot machines. Cache Creek has
    2,500.
        The Chairman. Not much different from the original proposal
    of 2,500.
        Mr. Arner. No, sir; it is not. What I was trying to show
    was the relative request of the Lytton Band of the Pomo Indians
    in this regard.
        I would also like to point out that no local city other
    than Albany has opposed. None of our neighbors have opposed
    this proposal by the Lyttons. The 3,000 jobs that would be
    generated by this proposal will greatly benefit the residents
    of the city of Richmond who are even poorer than the residents
    of the citizens of San Pablo. Finally, $150 million would be
    made available to State and local governments to offset and
    mitigate issues like traffic raised by this proposal. That is
    in the compact negotiated by the Governor with Tribal Chair
    Mejia.
        I am almost finished. I am sorry for taking your time.
        The Chairman. Go ahead.
        Mr. Arner. We have also received support from the Richmond
    Chamber of Commerce, the Rodeo Chamber of Commerce, the San
    Pablo Chamber of Commerce, and a variety of other clubs,
    including the Rotary Club in San Pablo, supporting the job
    creation and the economic development in the poorest area of
    the Bay Area as a result of Casino San Pablo and the proposed
    type III gaming.
        The Chairman. Your survey shows that 3,000 jobs, and how
    much money would be created by this?
        Mr. Arner. The University of California Graduate School
    indicates that the jobs are attainable by the folks that we
    serve. Those 3,000 jobs are identified an economic analysis
    paid for by the tribe.
        The Chairman. 3,000 jobs and how much money?
        Mr. Arner. They estimate $150 million annually to be
    divided between the State of California, the county of Contra
    Costa, the city of San Pablo, and CALTRANS.
        The Chairman. Chairman Macarro, how many slot machines are
    in your operation?
        Mr. Macarro. We have 2,000.
        The Chairman. Have you created anywhere near 3,000 jobs
    associated with that?
        Mr. Macarro. Actually, yes. We have about 5,000 employees.
    We are the second-largest private employer in Riverside County.
        The Chairman. It is interesting to me that many times where
    gaming operations take place, there is very little impact on
    the surrounding community. Has that been your experience,
    Assemblywoman Hancock?
        Ms. Hancock. Well, this is really my first experience with
    urban gambling. I have learned more about gambling than I ever
    thought I would, since last August, Senator McCain.
        The Chairman. During March Madness, it is appropriate.
        Ms. Hancock. Really. [Laughter.]
        Ms. Hancock. One of the things I have learned is that there
    are a number of studies indicating other things. A study that
    was commissioned by a coalition of card rooms, from Professor
    William Thompson at the University of Nevada, estimated that
    the Bay Area economy would lose $138 million a year as a result
    of the casino. It is based very much on an analysis that he
    calls the difference between destination gambling and grocery
    store gambling.
        Destination gambling, meaning when people fly to a place
    like Las Vegas, they are on vacation. They know what they can
    afford to lose and spend. They leave their money in Las Vegas
    and they go home. If you do not have a destination, what you
    have is grocery store gambling where he estimates 80 to 90
    percent of the customers would come from the adjacent area, a
    very poor area.
        This is where somebody is driving by, they decide to stop.
    They just got their paycheck and pull the handle or press the
    button a few times, and they leave without the lunch money for
    the kids. They leave without the money for clothes or rent. And
    this is money that would go back into the local economy, but
    instead it goes out, 30 percent or so, to the investors who are
    typically out of State gambling casino operators and the rest
    in various places.
        So that the economic impact on the communities may be to
    move money around, but it actually can be a very negative
    economic impact.
        The Chairman. Chairwoman Mejia, would you like to make any
    additional comments?
        Ms. Mejia. No; I would just urge the committee, Senator
    McCain, yourself, to really look at the impact this is going to
    have on my people.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown. Basically, the same as Margie Mejia, is that the
    concerns we have in San Pablo is the impacts for San Pablo.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. This hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
    reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

    =======================================================================

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                  Additional Material Submitted for the Record

    =======================================================================

      Prepared Statement of Hon. George Miller, U.S. Representative from
                                   California

        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        And Senator Feinstein, it is good to be with you. While you and I
    do not agree on this particular matter today it is always good to work
    with you on issues that affect the State of California. I appreciate
    what you do for us.
        Mr. Chairman, with your permission I would like to submit my
    written statement for the record.
        I would also like to recognize several constituents and local
    representatives who will testify later today.
        Assemblywoman Loni Hancock is a strong advocate for her district
    and. I appreciate her being here.
        And Mayor Sharon Brown and City Manager Brock Amer of the city of
    San Pablo are here. They are working very hard to stimulate economic
    development in their city and I appreciate their efforts on behalf of
    the resident of San Pablo.
        Today's hearing concerns the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and the
    city of San Pablo in my district and their effort to work together to
    meet mutual goals of desperately needed economic development. I support
    their efforts.
        My involvement with this matter dates back to 1999 and 2000 when I
    was approached by the city to discuss its interest in working with the
    Lytton Band to help them acquire an existing card room in San Pablo for
    the purposes of renovating it and building a modest sized casino.
        The tribe made a good faith effort to work through the Department
    of the Interior to win the right to acquire this land for the purposes
    of gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act [IGRA] but due to
    special circumstances affecting the tribe, it is my understanding that
    the tribe was told by the Department that they would be turned down.
        After much discussion and a detailed review of the circumstances, I
    agreed to help the city and the tribe. I supported their project for
    several reasons:
       \\\\\\the local community, including the police department,.
            supported the project;
       \\\\\\the city stood to make significant economic
            development gains from the project;
       \\\\\\the tribe had a clear need and a legitimate right to
            pursue lands for the purposes of economic development and made
            a good faith effort to work through the Department of the
            Interior to do so;
       \\\\\\I have a long standing history of supporting the
            sovereign rights of Indian tribes.
        The issue of whether or not American Indians should be involved in
    gaming is not at issue here. There are opponents of gambling for many
    reasons, some personal, some moral, some simply competitive. And of
    course there are many proponents of gaming. There are card rooms
    throughout the Bay Area, an extensive lottery program, and the
    California constitution allows for Indian gaming. Personally, I am
    neither a proponent nor opponent of gaming per se. I am, however, a
    strong defender of economic development and of Indian sovereignty.
        As you will hear in greater detail later today from the Lytton's
    tribal chairwoman, Marge Mejia, the Lytton Band was wrongfully
    terminated in the 1960's. A Federal court restored its tribal status in
    1991. The Lyttons are a poor people, many of whom are homeless. The
    tribe is concerned about preserving its tribal heritage and providing
    economic means for its members.
        The city of San Pablo and the Lyttons have much in common.
        San Pablo is one of the poorest cities in the Bay Area. A small
    city with little economic activity, it has a poverty rate of 18
    percent--twice that of the entire Bay Area and more than twice that of
    Contra Costa County. Its ``unemployment rate is higher than that of the
    Bay Area and the county. More than 90 percent of the city's residents
    work outside of the city, because there are just not enough jobs
    created within the city.
        The key question before the committee is whether it was appropriate
    for the Congress to have passed section 819 of the Omnibus Indian
    Advancement Act in 2000 on behalf of the Lytton Band. I believe that it
    was appropriate and that the provision should stand as written.
        As you know, the U.S. Constitution gives Congress plenary authority
    over Indian tribes to pass laws for their benefit. Congress is fully
    within its rights to pass legislation directing the Secretary of the
    Interior to place lands into trust for a particular tribe and does so
    on a regular basis.
        In the 108th Congress, at least 10 bills became law that placed
    lands into trust for various reasons to benefit various Indian tribes.
    This may happen for any number of reasons that Congress determines is
    prudent. It may be as part of a settlement agreement of a land claim,
    or in the instance of the Pechanga Indian Tribe, who are scheduled be
    testify later, the desire to protect certain important lands from
    possible desecration.
        Last Congress, we even took lands right out of a national park and
    had it placed in trust for one tribe. In the Gila River water
    settlement law we required an act of Congress occur to bring some lands
    into trust for that tribe.
        In most cases, including the ones I mention here, the tribe
    attempts to go through the BIA process, becomes frustrated for one
    reason or another, and comes to Congress to plead its case. In fact,
    the highly touted bill that the Lytton provision was--in also included
    14 other provisions to take lands into trust for Indian tribes,
    including one provision that held the land be considered in trust as of
    1909.
        The Lyttons had a special circumstance that I believe distinguished
    them from most other tribes in California and that necessitated
    congressional action.
        The 1991 Federal court settlement that restored Lyttons' tribal
    status and that of numerous other California tribes included one
    unusual provision that pertained only to the Lyttons.
        The court order restoring the Lyttons' tribal status contained a
    unique limitation that precluded the Secretary of the Interior from
    taking land in Sonoma County the Lytton's ancestral lands--into trust
    for the benefit of the Lytton Band for any use that was inconsistent
    with the Sonoma County General Plan. In effect, the limitation denied
    Lytton any right to use its ancestral land for gaming.
        The order however did not put any restrictions on the ability of
    Lytton to pursue other lands for gaming or other activities.
        This limitation created a special circumstance when the Lyttons
    appealed to the Department of the Interior for an exception under the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for permission to have lands put into
    trust and to be allowed to conduct gaming.
        The lands that the tribe sought were not their ancestral lands, nor
    contiguous with its ancestral lands. It is my understanding that the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] denied the tribe this exception under
    IGRA because of this land issue. And yet, as I explained, the court
    settlement forbade the tribe from using their ancestral lands.
        The Lyttons are the only tribe in California--and perhaps the only
    tribe in the United States--that, as a condition of the restoration of
    its tribal status, was expressly deprived of the opportunity to
    exercise rights under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act on its ancestral
    land.
        I do not believe that existing law anticipated this unusual
    circumstance and therefore Congress, which has the authority to
    intervene in these matters, appropriately remedied this situation.
        This is what the issue boils down to. Through no fault of its own,
    the Lytton Tribe was illegally stripped of its status as a federally
    recognized Indian tribe and denied its rights for decades until it was
    restored to its proper status by our judicial system. Had the tribe's
    status never been illegally terminated, there would have been no
    question as to the Lytton's ability to operate gaming on lands within
    its ancestral area.
        I thought that the BIA would accept the land under the IGRA
    exceptions for restored tribes, but was told it would not. I believed
    that was a mistake, and even then Assistant Secretary for Indian
    Affairs Kevin Gover was quoted at the time about the denial of Lytton's
    request that ``it was a close call. A good case could be made that we
    were wrong Gover said.
        Every tribe's situation is different and must be evaluated
    individually. But I believed then, and continue to believe now, that it
    was the fair and right thing to do in this particular case to make the
    Lytton Band whole again.
        Not only do I believe that it was appropriate for Congress to have
    acted on the tribe's behalf, but I want to be clear that the manner in
    which Congress approved this legislation was entirely appropriate.
        My Provision regarding the Lytton Band was added, along with
    numerous other tribal issues, as an amendment to H.R. 5528, the Omnibus
    Indian Advancement Act,'' in the full House.
        All the provisions added were done so with the support of the
    leadership of both the House Resources Committee and this committee as
    a way to move some legislation that for whatever reason had not passed.
    To make it clear this was a compilation of bills, the ``omnibus'' title
    was given to the bill. This is a most appropriate way to move
    legislation near the end of a Congress that has been bottled up. The
    bill passed the full House on October 26, 2000.
        H.R. 5528 was referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    and passed in the Senate by unanimous consent on December 11, 2000--45
    days after its referral to the Senate and its being sent to both
    respective cloakrooms for viewing and Senate notification.
        Section 819 was identified by the heading ``Land to be Taken Into
    Trust'' and, at all times, contained the name of the tribe and location
    of the land. Any Senator who questioned or objected to any provision
    had the opportunity to review the provision and to withhold consent
    under the unanimous consent procedure. No Senator did so.
        Under the provision, Lytton is subject to all of the provisions of
    IGRA, including the requirement under California law that any compact
    negotiated between the State of California and the Lytton Band be
    ratified by the California legislature.
        A compact was signed in August 2004, by the Governor and the Tribal
    Chair, but it has not yet been ratified by the legislature.
        I am on record as opposing both the size of the first proposed
    compact between the State and the tribe and the revised proposed
    compact. I hope that any final resolution on the compact will adhere to
    the proposal originally presented to me by the tribe and the City. That
    proposal called for a modest casino within the parameters of what
    already exists at the card room, not a mega casino as is now under
    consideration.
        It should be noted, however, that the Lytton Band from the very
    beginning went to unprecedented lengths to consult with the local
    community and the State of California to forge an agreement with regard
    to mitigating potential impacts of a new casino and sharing the
    benefits of the casino with the community.
        But the issue of the compact details is a separate matter.
        The issue today is whether the tribe has the right to these lands
    and whether Congress acted appropriately in conveying the lands to the
    tribe. In both instances, the answer clearly is yes.
        I do not believe Congress is justified in taking away from the
    Lytton's the rights that Congress gave to it. Doing so would be a
    significant breach of trust between Congress and the Indians, a trust
    that has been broken so often in our Nation's history. And it would
    also greatly undermine the economic development opportunity of an
    impoverished tribe and an impoverished California city.
        I believe that S. 113 is unwarranted and harmful but more
    importantly I believe that it would be a dangerous precedent.
        Governor Schwarzenegger expressed a similar view when he wrote to
    Sen. Feinstein on September 20, 2004 about her legislation that, ``This
    bill would set a dangerous precedent that could damage trust and faith
    with the Lytton Rancheria Indian community.'' He added, ``Passage of
    [this bill] will destroy the trust which has been built with the Lytton
    and other tribal governments, not just in California but throughout the
    Nation.''
        Indian gaming in California is clearly a complicated matter, and
    there are many aspects of the issue to resolve. But using the power of
    Congress to take punitive action against the Lytton Band is neither
    justified nor appropriate.
        Thank you again Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to testify today.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Loni Hancock, Assemblymember, 14th Assembly
                              District California

        Good morning Chairman McCain, Senator Dorgan, members of the
    committee. My name is Loni Hancock and I serve as an assemblymember in
    the California State Legislature. My district includes most of the East
    San Francisco Bay Area including the cities of Oakland, Berkeley,
    Richmond, and San Pablo.
        Let me first say thank you for having this hearing today on S. 113
    authored by Senator Feinstein. This legislation requires the proponents
    of Casino San Pablo to follow the process set out under the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act. So let me first clearly express my support for
    Senator Feinstein's legislation.
        Second, I would like to speak about the role of the State
    Legislature and the legislative history regarding Casino San Pablo. As
    you know, in order for a tribe to open a casino they must negotiate a
    gambling Compact with the Governor of that State. That Compact,
    negotiated between the tribe and the Governor, is subject to
    legislative ratification by the State Legislature.
        The Casino San Pablo proposal came to my attention in August of
    last year. The Compact was submitted to the Legislature by the Governor
    as part of a package of 5 compacts in the last week of the legislative
    session when the Legislature was voting on roughly 800 bills.
        The Compact--negotiated between the tribe and the Governor--
    authorized 5,000 slot machines and a 6-story, 600,000-square-foot
    facility. To put these figures into perspective, the Compact would have
    made Casino San Pablo the third largest slot machine operator in the
    country. Only the two casinos in Connecticut have larger operations.
        In terms of square footage this casino would have been the size of
    six Wall Marts combined. Keep in mind this casino would be built in the
    middle of the already heavily congested San Francisco Bay Area. Other
    provisions in this Compact allowed the Governor's chief financial
    officer in his or her sole discretion to completely obviate any or all
    of the local government mitigation provided for in the Compact.
        After sustained legislative opposition, the Compact was amended to
    reduce the number of slot machines to 2,500. This amended Compact
    created a casino with as many slot machines as any casino on the Las
    Vegas strip. Also included in the revised Compact was a provision
    allowing renegotiation of the number of slot machines in 2008. In
    essence, this provision made it possible for the casino to go right
    back to 5,000 slot machines.
        Given the nature of this revised Compact, my colleagues in the
    California Legislature made it clear they would not ratify the Compact
    or authorize an expansion of Las Vegas style gambling into one of the
    State's most densely populated urban areas.
        The Casino San Pablo proposal touches on many of the complex issues
    surrounding the expansion of Indian gambling in California and the
    expansion of off-reservation casinos. In 2000, the voters of California
    passed a Statewide initiative--proposition 1A. Proposition 1A amended
    the State Constitution to provide for economic development by
    authorizing casinos in rural areas and on traditional ancestral tribal
    lands. This was the intent of proposition 1A.
        What we have seen since proposition 1A's passage is some tribes,
    with ambiguous ancestral ties to a land parcel, making claims to that
    land for the sole purpose of opening a casino. In the San Francisco Bay
    Area alone we face the proposed development of up 5 casinos within a
    15-mile radius by tribes who have scant, if any, ancestral connection
    to those lands. In the case of the Lytton Tribe at Casino San Pablo,
    the casino's location is 50 miles from Sonoma County--the traditional
    ancestral territory of their tribe. In another case, the Koi Nation
    Tribe is proposing to build a casino adjacent to the Oakland
    International Airport. This casino proposal located in Oakland is
    nearly 150 miles from the tribe's traditional lands in Lake County.
        California is experiencing a proliferation of proposals for Indian
    gambling casinos that have little to do with self sufficiency on tribal
    lands. These ``off reservation'' casinos are, in reality, being
    supported by aggressive out-of-state casino developers and their
    lobbyists who clearly hope to build casinos in every urban area of the
    State. Keep in mind that in California, Las Vegas style gambling is
    illegal. Las Vegas style gambling was only intended to be legal only
    for Indian tribes on their traditional ancestral land.
        Finally, I would like to talk briefly about the community
    opposition to Casino San Pablo. Polls conducted by KPIX our local TV
    station showed that 57 percent of the respondents oppose the casino. I
    personally sent out a survey to every household with a registered voter
    in my Assembly District, which contains 156,000 voters and the returned
    surveys showed overwhelming opposition. The survey results indicated
    that 91 percent of my district is against the casino proposal. My staff
    has broken down the results of the survey by city. Even within the city
    of San Pablo--where the casino would be located--and where the city has
    been promised jobs and revenues for the cities budget, 64 percent of
    the returned surveys opposed the casino. Cities such as Albany and
    Berkeley who are in the surrounding community and will experience the
    negative impacts of increased traffic, crime, blight and gambling
    addiction have taken positions against the proposed casino. In
    addition, other cities are considering similar resolutions against the
    Casino and against expanding urban gambling in general. In fact,
    tonight, the local county Board of Supervisors, in which Casino San
    Pablo resides, will be approving a resolution against urban gambling
    and urban casinos. Mr. Chairman and members, I have thousands of
    letters, e-mails and surveys that say that Casino San Pablo is a bad
    economic development strategy for our community and for our State.
        You will hear from the proponents of the Casino that they no longer
    intend to build a ``Las Vegas'' style casino, that they no longer
    intend to build entertainment venues, or that the casino now will not
    feature slot machines. The proponents will say that they will operate
    only class II gaming machines that is, electronic bingo machines.
        But the one thing we have learned from this experience is that once
    land is placed into trust everything can change.
        In a letter to the BIA in 1999, Mrs. Mejia the chairwoman of the
    tribe told the BIA that ``No other changes to the physical
    configuration or internal operation of the existing facility are
    proposed.'' The letter goes on to say ``Based upon the Band's review of
    the physical constraints of the Facility, the Band believes the
    capacity of 1,200 to 1,500 gaming positions [this means slot machines
    and poker tables]--will not increase.
        After these statements were made to the BIA, the tribe negotiated
    with the Governor a 5,000-slot machine casino and 600,000 square foot
    facility--and they said, no other changes to the physical facility
    would be made!
        Recently a letter sent by the tribe to members of the State
    Legislature states that ``. . . the tribe remains confident that this
    or a future legislature will eventually recognize the benefits . . .
    that the Compact we negotiated in good faith offers.'' In other words,
    the supporters of the casino intend to continue to put forward this
    Compact for a 2,500-slot machine casino and massive gambling complex
    with the ability to negotiate for even more slot machines when the
    environment is more politically favorable for them to do so.
        In the final analysis, it is my belief that without the legislation
    authored by Senator Feinstein, the Lytton Tribe will be able to open a
    massive casino at Casino San Pablo. This would be the first urban Las
    Vegas style casino that was never intended by the voters of the State
    of California, and is a direct violation of the Federal regulations
    outlined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The entrance of tribal
    casinos on non-ancestral land--such as Casino San Pablo--in densely
    built urban areas would set a precedent for authorizing off reservation
    gambling casinos in California and every state where tribal gambling is
    permitted.
        Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I
    respectfully urge the committee to act in support on Senator
    Feinstein's legislation a soon as possible.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Mark Macarro, Chairman, Pechanga Band of Luiseno
                                Mission Indians

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman and members of the
    committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding S. 113, a
    bill ``to modify the date as of which certain tribal land of the Lytton
    Rancheria of California is deemed to be held in trust''.
        My name is Mark Macarro, and I am the chairman of the Pechanga Band
    of Luiseno Mission Indians. I've been asked to discuss the Pechanga
    Tribe's position with regard to S. 113.
        The Pechanga believe that each and every federally recognized tribe
    is a sovereign in its own right and enjoys all the rights and
    privileges that flow from sovereignty, including the right to pursue
    economic development opportunities which improve the quality of life
    for all tribal members. However it is our sincere belief that all
    Indian tribes also have a responsibility to the larger community, and
    that the specific instance of the backdating of the fee to trust
    acquisition of the Lytton Rancheria is contrary to the best interests
    of all Indian country.
        The Pechanga Tribe supports S. 113 for two reasons.
        First, we believe that the Lytton fee to trust acquisition should
    follow the same procedure that all other tribes must follow to
    authorize gaming on what are termed ``after-acquired'' trust lands.
    While the process is not perfect, it allows tribes, States, and local
    communities to have input and a chance to participate in the process,
    including the ability to resolve differences, before a decision is
    made. The manner in which this acquisition was placed into trust
    deprived those communities who are most affected by the acquisition a
    chance to address important issues before the land was placed in trust.
        The other reason we support this legislation is that it will
    reverse an action which violates a promise that all California Indian
    tribes made to the citizens of California when propositions 5 and 1A
    were considered and approved. During the time those propositions were
    considered, tribes in California pledged that the passage of those
    propositions would not result in the proliferation of urban gaming, but
    would be confined to a tribe's existing reservation lands, the vast
    majority of which are not located in urban areas.
        The legislation which directed the Lytton land acquisition to be
    placed into trust status violated that promise to the citizens of
    California and denied the citizens affected by the acquisition to play
    a part in the process which determines whether land should be placed
    into trust status.
        We believe S. 113, by providing that the trust acquisition of the
    Lytton Rancheria, while remaining in trust status, is considered to be
    placed in trust as of its actual date of acquisition, levels the
    playing field. It requires the Lytton Rancheria to deal with the local
    community and the Governor before it may operate gaming on the parcel,
    or it must apply to the BIA before the land can be declared meeting one
    of the exceptions to the prohibition on gaining on lands acquired after
    October 17, 1988. Both processes provide for more detailed, thoughtful
    consideration on the merits of the application before gaming can be
    conducted on those lands.
        This concludes my testimony. Again, I would like to thank you for
    the opportunity to provide our views on S. 113. 1 would be happy to
    answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Margie Mejia, Tribal Chairwoman, Lytton Band of
                                  Pomo Indians

        Thank you for inviting us today, and thank you in particular,
    Senator McCain, for the understanding and support you've shown for
    Native Americans.
        My name is Margie Mejia, and I am the chairwoman of the Lytton Band
    of Pomo Indians. To understand why we are here today, it's important to
    understand something about the history of our tribe.
        Like most California tribes, we are a small group, with about 275
    members. Like many other California tribes, most of our members live in
    poverty. Many have no or inadequate health care. Alcoholism and
    substance abuse is a continuing problem. Living as we do in the San
    Francisco Bay Area, where housing is very expensive--we have many
    families living together in tiny apartments. Only one of our member's
    owns a home.
        But until the 1950's, we did have land. That land was in Sonoma
    County, and today this is the site of some of the most prestigious
    wineries anywhere in the world. But the reason that today there are
    vineyards on that land, instead of our homes--is the result of actions
    taken by the Federal Government.
        In the 1950's, the Government decided to ``terminate'' small Native
    American bands like ours. The Government gave tribal members individual
    titles to land and houses, in exchange for a promise to provide needed
    infrastructure--water, electricity, roads, and sewage. The tribe was
    dissolved as a legal entity. But the Government did not fulfill any of
    its promises to make improvements on our land, and the Government gave
    those titles to individuals with no experience of managing either
    property or money.
        The result was that we lost both our legal identity and our land,
    which in fact, was the intended outcome. [As a historical aside, the
    same Government official who presided over this policy at the BIA, had
    also been in charge of the Government's policy of interning Japanese-
    Americans during WWII.]
        But we never lost our existence as a community. Many of us
    continued to live together, and to take care of tribal members in need,
    as we do to this day. Eventually, we sued the United States, and the
    outcome of that suit was that the Federal Government admitted it had
    broken its promises during termination. In 1991, our tribal status was
    restored. However, that settlement effectively barred us from returning
    to our tribal lands in the Alexander Valley by prohibiting us from
    operating a gaming facility in the area. We had little choice but to
    agree to this condition because otherwise, with little or no resources
    of our own, we would have been forced to fight a protracted legal
    battle against a group of wealthy wineries and the county.
        After restoration, we re-established our tribal government, passed
    a constitution and elected a tribal council. We also began to look for
    a means out of the relentless poverty many of our members faced, and to
    rebuild our tribal community. The tribal council conducted a needs
    assessment to determine what alternatives were available to finance our
    tribe's mission of buying the land, building homes, providing roads,
    electricity, water, sewer and the other infrastructure necessary for
    our tribal community.
        We turned to gaming because the government offered that to us as a
    means of economic development, and because it generates enough money to
    allow us to get a loan and finance the rebuilding of our tribe and
    tribal community.
        Let me take a moment to explain the connection between Native
    Americans and gaming, and specifically about our tribe, and the gaming
    business. We are a poor people with few options for economic
    development. If we went to a bank and asked for money to build houses
    for our people, or a school, or even a business venture--they would
    show us the door. We have nothing to guarantee such a loan, and trust
    land cannot be used for collateral. Revenues from gaining will help us
    get members off welfare and provide them basic health care, education,
    job training and housing in a new small community on rural land in
    Sonoma County.
        The 1991 restoration agreement while barring us from operating a
    gaming facility in Sonoma County did not foreclose our right to find
    another community that might welcome us as partners. We found our road
    to economic self-reliance in the city of San Pablo where with help from
    private investors we purchased an existing card club that had been
    approved by local voters in 1994.
        The city and the tribe then negotiated a Municipal Services
    Agreement. At the time, such an agreement was unprecedented in
    California, and was the most protective arrangement between city and
    regional interests and an Indian tribe in California.
        But there were other hurdles to come. Although it was the
    Government's wrongful actions which resulted in the loss of our land,
    by the time the Government had admitted that, and prepared to make good
    our loss--the legal landscape for tribes had changed. A law had been
    passed which made it extremely difficult for tribes to operate gaming
    on lands taken into trust after 1988 unless Congress made the land
    eligible. Even though it was not our fault that we were in this
    position, and although the law had not been intended for landless
    tribes, but rather tribes with existing reservations, our efforts to
    seek help from the Department of the Interior went nowhere.
        Finally, Congress acted to take that land into trust for us as it
    has in the case of many other tribes in California and other States.
    This was the final option, after we had tried everything else. Thanks
    to the efforts of Congressman George Miller, who represents the
    district which includes our land, that proposal was introduced in
    legislative form, as an amendment to a large piece of Indian
    legislation. That was October 2000. On December 27 of that year, the
    President signed the bill into law.
        There were newspaper articles about this at the time, and
    subsequently, there were two attempts to repeal this proposal. Neither
    of those met with success. Senator Feinstein's legislation represents
    the third time there has been a proposal to take this land from us.
    And, as I explained earlier, given the economics of tribal life, to
    leave us with the physical earth, but to take away our right to do
    business on it--gaming in this case--makes the granting of the land an
    empty gesture. We believe it would be legally wrong to do that. Section
    819 conferred a highly valuable property right on our tribe by
    specifically entitling us to acquire land into Federal trust for Indian
    gaming. The Feinstein bill would deprive us of this right to conduct
    gaming on the land and would be a ``taking'' under the fifth amendment
    of the U.S. Constitution. And most certainly it would be morally wrong.
        That act, of taking land into trust for us in San Pablo, was not
    the beginning of this story. It was the end of a very long story--a
    story of poor treatment of our tribe at the hands of the Federal
    Government. That was an act of redress, making good the wrong that had
    been done to us more than 50 years before. To have simply said, ``We're
    sorry,'' and offered up a paper apology for the treatment of our tribe
    would have been wrong. Taking that land into trust represented a
    meaningful act of redress; taking that land out of trust would make
    that gesture so many empty words--and Senators, whatever you may think
    of this issue, I am sure you know our people have heard many empty
    words from this Government over the years.
        That is the background to our proposal for a casino project on our
    land in San Pablo.
        Our initial proposal in 1999 was for a modest gaming operation with
    something on the order of 1,000 slot machines. In the proposed compact
    that we signed with the Governor last year, that number was originally
    5,000, which was then revised down to 2,500 machines. Since there has
    been some controversy about the change, let me address that for 1
    moment.
        When we made our initial proposal in 1999, no compact, not ours or
    any other tribe's, provided for any revenue-sharing with the State of
    California. Nor did these compacts provide local and State governments
    opportunities for substantive environmental review, mitigation of local
    impacts or involvement in gaming regulation.
        We stepped up to the plate to do just that, reaching an agreement
    to pay an unprecedented [not just in California, but anywhere in the
    Nation] 25 percent of net gaming revenues to State and local government
    to pay for our fair share of public services and environmental
    mitigation. But that commitment also required more slot machines than
    originally envisioned.
        Along with various provisions to pay for mitigation measures
    required by our project, we agreed to two exhaustive environmental
    impact reviews prior to anything being built.
        Potential traffic and environmental problems would be identified
    and addressed. These provisions are modeled on the California
    Environmental Quality Act such as the inclusion of project alternatives
    and citizen participation in the process. But the compact took one
    further step by requiring the Tribe to complete agreements on
    mitigation measures identified in this environmental review with its
    neighbors in the city of San Pablo, the local county and the state
    transportation department.
        The tribe also agreed to participate in the State workers'
    compensation, unemployment compensation and disability benefit systems.
    The tribe has agreed to strong state oversight and review of gaining
    operations, including independent audits, background checks on
    employees, and prohibitions on gambling by anyone under 21.
        Over and above our compact obligations, the tribe spent the past
    months engaged with the community to hear their hopes and concerns
    about our project. We spoke with more than 3,000 individuals, met with
    dozens of elected officials and community leaders, and participated in
    more than 50 community meetings and forums.
        As a result, we reduced the size and scope of our project, to make
    it a better fit for the community, while still offering the creation of
    more than 6,600 new jobs and generation of an estimated $618 million
    each year in economic benefits, regionally and statewide. These jobs
    were particularly important in the city of San Pablo and surrounding
    region, where unemployment is high and there are not other major
    employers offering good jobs with health and retirement benefits. The
    tribe also committed to a local preference hiring policy, to help steer
    jobs to where they were most needed.
        We promised the Bay Area that our project would not include a hotel
    or nightclub, convention facility, amusement arcade or other facilities
    that would generate additional traffic. We also committed to advance
    $25 million to the state once our project was approved, to jump start
    necessary work on the freeway interchange closest to our facility.
        We negotiated and signed that compact with the Governor of
    California. We had the strong support of the city of San Pablo, where
    the casino would be located. We believe that the proposed compact
    represented a good deal for all parties. But notwithstanding all that,
    as you know, California's state Legislature has chosen not to act on
    the compact.
        As a result, we will now focus on exercising our rights under
    Federal law to operate a wider variety of class II gaming activities at
    Casino San Pablo. We will renovate the interior of the existing
    building to make it more attractive and to offer a wider variety of
    class II gaming activities, including class II electronic bingo games.
    These are not video lottery terminals. They will fall well within the
    definition of what constitutes class II gaming. We don't intend to push
    the envelope.
        For decades we worked to regain our name and our land. We obeyed
    the law, even when it was used against us. We followed the law. When
    the law allowed us to pursue gaming on our restored land in San Pablo,
    we did so. But already twice since then, there have been attempts to
    undo what you rightfully did. This legislation represents the third
    attempt to undo that act of justice toward our tribe. I ask you to say
    enough.
        I know that we are a small group, without much money, power, or
    influence. We have received more attention in the last year, over this
    casino proposal--than anyone paid to us for the decades that went
    before. I understand that there are many issues involved here today. I
    hear the talk about Indian gaming and all the other questions. What I
    don't hear, is any talk about our people, and Senators, this hearing is
    also about us.
        Senator McCain, we did not ask to be in this situation. We did not
    ask the Federal Government to take away our name and our land. But that
    happened. Now, decades later, when this Government has finally acted to
    right those wrongs--we believe it would be wrong to take away our right
    to pursue economic self-sufficiency--which is effectively what Senator
    Feinstein's bill would do. As I explained earlier, without the right to
    operate gaming on our land, which is a right given to us by both the
    Federal Government and the State of California, we cannot use that land
    to help ourselves.
        If this body wishes to address the various issues associated with
    Indian gaming, so be it. But I respectfully ask you, Senators, not to
    go back and retroactively change the rules for us. What this body did
    in 2000, was to do the right thing. It was to make good a wrong the
    Federal Government had committed against our tribe. I ask you to let
    that act of justice stand. Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of George Skibine, Acting Deputy Assistant
        Secretary, Policy and Economic Development for Indian Affairs,
                           Department of the Interior

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, and members of the
    committee. My name is George Skibine, and I am the Acting Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Policy and Economic Development in the Office
    of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs at the Department of the
    Interior [Department]. I am pleased to be here this morning to offer
    the Department's views on S. 113, a bill to modify the date as of which
    certain tribal land of the Lytton Rancheria of California is deemed to
    be held in trust by the United States for the benefit of the Lytton
    Band of Pomo Indians [Lytton Band]. For the following reasons, the
    Department does not have any objections to this bill.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] authorized the transfer of
    several parcels of land in the city of San Pablo, in Contra Costa
    County, CA, on January 18, 2001, pursuant to section 819 of the Omnibus
    Indian Advancement Act of 2000, Public Law 106-568, which mandated the
    acquisition of the parcels, also known as the San Pablo Casino site, in
    trust for the Lytton Band. The Lytton Band's application was originally
    made under the authority of section 5 of the Indian Reorganization Act,
    25 U.S.C. 465, and was under consideration by the BIA under the
    authority, procedures, and policies governing the discretionary
    acquisition of land into trust by the Secretary contained in
    regulations at 25 CFR part 151. However, enactment of section 819 of
    Pubic Law 106-568 mandated the Secretary to take the San Pablo site
    into trust without consideration of the factors in the land acquisition
    regulations. The fact that the Lytton Band wanted to acquire the San
    Pablo Casino site for gaming purposes was immaterial to what had become
    the ministerial decision of the Secretary to accept the land into
    trust.
        The last sentence of section 819 provides that the San Pablo Casino
    site ``shall be deemed'' to have been held in trust as part of the
    reservation of the Rancheria prior to October 17, 1988.'' This
    provision permitted the Lytton Band to immediately operate a class II
    gaming establishment on the site without having to meet any of the
    requirements of section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988
    [IGRA] which contains a prohibition on gaming on lands acquired in
    trust after October 17, 1988, unless one of several statutory
    exceptions contained in section 20 of IGRA is satisfied. The Lytton
    Band cannot operate a class III gaming establishment under IGRA unless
    it negotiates a compact with the State of California, and notice of the
    Secretary of the Interior's approval of the compact is published in the
    Federal Register. The Lytton Band and the State have not yet submitted
    such a compact to the Secretary for approval.
        S. 113, if enacted, would strike the last sentence of section 819.
    The practical effect of removing the so-called ``retroactive'' clause
    of section 819 will be to require the Lytton Band to seek an exception
    to the gaming prohibition contained in section 20 of IGRA if the Band
    wants to engage in either class II or class III gaming activities. We
    believe that the only exception under which the tribe could qualify is
    the exception contained in section 20(b)(1)(A) which requires the
    Secretary to make a determination that a gaming establishment on the
    trust land would be in the best interest of the tribe and its members,
    and not detrimental to the surrounding community, and is subject to the
    Governor of the State of California's concurrence. Unless and until the
    Secretary makes such a determination and the Governor concurs, class II
    or class III gaming activities would not be permitted on the San Pablo
    Casino site, effectively requiring the Lytton Band to shut down its
    current class II gaming operation on the property.
        The Department does not object to this bill because we believe that
    it is inappropriate to waive the requirements of section 20 of IGRA for
    any particular tribe. Section 20 imposes reasonable restrictions on the
    right of Indian tribes to engage in gaming activities on off-
    reservation lands acquired in trust after the enactment of IGRA. The
    exception in section 20(b)(1)(A) in particular requires consultation
    with the local community, consideration of detrimental impacts, and
    gives the state ultimate veto power over gaming on the off-reservation
    land. We believe that the standard in section 20(b)(1)(A) has required
    Indian tribes to negotiate with the State and affected local
    governments before a casino is placed on off-reservation land. The
    Department supports the process of consultation and cooperation between
    Indian tribes and affected local communities and sees no reason to
    exempt any tribe from this process.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 113. I will be happy
    to answer any questions you may have.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.007

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.008

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.010

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1799.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.013

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.015

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.017

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.019

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.020

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.021

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.022

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.023

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.024

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.025

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.026

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.027

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0474.028