    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

     H.R. 2176, TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND
     CLAIMS OF THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY; AND H.R. 4115, TO PROVIDE
      FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE SAULT
                    STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA   INDIANS.

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

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                          Wednesday, February 6, 2008

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-57

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

      Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
                                   index.html
                                       or
             Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    40-622                      WASHINGTON : 2008
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                   NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
                  DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan             Jim Saxton, New Jersey
    Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American      Elton Gallegly, California
        Samoa                            John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
    Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii             Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
    Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas              Chris Cannon, Utah
    Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey       Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
    Donna M. Christensen, Virgin         Jeff Flake, Arizona
        Islands                          Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Grace F. Napolitano, California      Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
    Rush D. Holt, New Jersey                 Carolina
    Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona            Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
    Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam          Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
    Jim Costa, California                Louie Gohmert, Texas
    Dan Boren, Oklahoma                  Tom Cole, Oklahoma
    John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Rob Bishop, Utah
    George Miller, California            Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
    Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts      Dean Heller, Nevada
    Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon             Bill Sali, Idaho
    Maurice D. Hinchey, New York         Doug Lamborn, Colorado
    Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island     Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
    Ron Kind, Wisconsin                  Vacancy
    Lois Capps, California               Vacancy
    Jay Inslee, Washington
    Mark Udall, Colorado
    Joe Baca, California
    Hilda L. Solis, California
    Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
        Dakota
    Heath Shuler, North Carolina

                         James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
                           Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
                Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
                     Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
                                     ------

                                    CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Wednesday, February 6, 2008......................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Christensen, Hon. Donna M., a Delegate in Congress from the
          Virgin Islands.............................................     5
        Heller, Hon. Dean, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Nevada............................................     3
            Prepared statement of....................................   123
        Kildee, Hon. Dale, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     4
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of West Virginia.................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     2
        Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Alaska..................................................    24
            Prepared statement of....................................    25

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Artman, Carl, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, U.S.
          Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................    51
            Prepared statement of....................................    52
        Berkley, Hon. Shelley, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Nevada............................................    39
            Prepared statement of....................................    41
        Cantu, Hon. Fred, Chief, Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Mt.
          Pleasant, Michigan.........................................   100
            Prepared statement of....................................   102
            Letter submitted for the record..........................   104
        Conroy, Joe, Director of Governmental Operations, City of
          Flint, Michigan............................................   105
            Prepared statement of....................................   106
        Conyers, Hon. John, Jr., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Michigan......................................    37
            Prepared statement of....................................    38
        Dingell, Hon. John D., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................    10
            Port Huron Times Herald article, ``Casino foe mailings
              scrutinized,'' dated February 5, 2008, submitted for
              the record.............................................    11
            Engler, Hon. John M., Former Governor, State of Michigan,
              Letter dated June 23, 2004, to Chairman Pombo and
              Ranking Member Rahall. and Sault Ste. Marie Settlement
              Agreement..............................................    18
        Kilpatrick, Hon. Carolyn C., a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Michigan.................................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    28
        Kilpatrick, Hon. Kwame, Mayor, City of Detroit, Michigan.....    91
            Prepared statement of....................................    96
        Lambert, Hon. Alan R., Mayor, City of Romulus, Michigan......    78
            Prepared statement of....................................    79
        Miller, Hon. Candice S., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Michigan......................................    33
            Prepared statement of....................................    35
        Parker, Hon. Jeffrey D., President of the Executive Council,
          Bay Mills Indian Community, Brimley, Michigan..............    62
            Prepared statement of....................................    63
            Statement, Letters and Addendum submitted for the record.    67
        Payment, Hon. Aaron, Chairman, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
          Chippewa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan...............    71
            Prepared statement of....................................    73
        Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................    29
            Prepared statement of....................................    32
        Stupak, Hon. Bart, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan..........................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
            Letter from Hon. Bart Stupak, Hon. Candice Miller, and
              Hon. John Dingell submitted for the record.............    16
            Official Ballot submitted for the record.................    49
        Thompson, Hon. Bennie G., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Mississippi...................................    42
            Prepared statement of....................................    43
        Tomion, Karl S., City Manager, City of Port Huron, Michigan..    80
            Prepared statement of....................................    81

    Additional materials supplied:
        Boike, Edward, Wayne County Commissioner, Wayne County,
          Michigan, Statement and letter submitted for the record....    13
        Chapman, Raymond, President and Business Manager, Bricklayers
          and Allied Craftworkers, Letter submitted for the record...    15
        Cleland, Charles E., Distinguished Professor Emeritus of
          Anthropology, Michigan State University, Statement
          submitted for the record...................................    67
        Deuman, Leanne Barnes, Attorney at Law, Sault Ste. Marie,
          Michigan, Statement submitted for the record...............    22
        Devlin, Patrick J., CEO, and Patrick F. Gleason, President,
          Michigan Building and Construction Trades Council, Letter
          submitted for the record...................................   110
        Granholm, Hon. Jennifer, Governor, State of Michigan, Letter
          submitted for the record...................................   111
        Groden, Shaun S., County Administrator/Controller, County of
          St. Clair, Michigan, Letter submitted for the record.......   113
        Kay, Earl, Chairman, Chippewa County Commissioners, Sault
          Ste. Marie, Michigan, Letter submitted for the record......    22
        Kewaygoshkum, Hon. Robert, Tribal Chairman, The Grand
          Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Statement
          submitted for the record...................................   114
        Miklojcik, Jacob, President, Michigan Consultants, Statement
          submitted for the record...................................   122
        Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Legal History submitted for the
          record.....................................................   125
        List of documents retained in the Committee's official files.   124

       LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2176, TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE
     SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY,
      AND H.R. 4115, TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN
         LAND CLAIMS OF THE SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS.

                                  ----------

                          Wednesday, February 6, 2008

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:01 p.m. in Room
    1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall,
    [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Rahall, Young, Kildee,
    Abercrombie, Christensen, Napolitano and Heller.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
              IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
    to order. The Committee is convening today as one big, happy
    family to hold a hearing on H.R. 2176 introduced by our dear
    friend and colleague, Bart Stupak; and H.R. 4115, sponsored by
    the Dean of the House of Representatives, the very
    distinguished, honorable, capable and very dear friend,
    Chairman John Dingell.
        These bills seek to settle certain land claims of the Bay
    Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
    Chippewa Indians in the State of Michigan. The genesis of these
    bills date back to 1807 when the Chippewa ceded much of what is
    now the State of Michigan in a treaty with the Governor of the
    Michigan Territory.
        Subsequent treaties ensued in 1817, 1820, 1836 and 1855. In
    the case of both the Bay Mills and the Sault, the 1855 Treaty
    of Detroit set aside land to be reserved for their use. Shortly
    after that treaty was concluded, the United States Land Office
    allowed that very land to be sold to non-Indian speculators.
        Hence began a 153 year odyssey before a settlement
    agreement was entered into by Michigan, the Bay Mills and the
    Sault, and in doing so cleared the land title cloud that has
    hung over the residents of the Charlotte Beach area. Under the
    agreement with the Bay Mills, which is supported by the current
    Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, the tribe would
    relinquish their land claims at Charlotte Beach and instead
    would be able to take into trust land at Port Huron, Michigan.
        Under the agreement with the Sault Ste. Marie, which is
    also supported by Governor Granholm, the tribe would relinquish
    their land claims at Charlotte Beach and instead would be able
    to take into trust lands at either Flint, Monroe or Romulus,
    Michigan. In this regard, let me state that there is no
    administrative process for these tribes to go through.
        Only the U.S. Congress can extinguish Indian title to land.
    We are not setting any precedent here as Congress has on
    several occasions enacted tribal land claim settlement
    legislation. Now, I have set out the facts, the historical
    record regarding these two tribes and their Charlotte Beach
    land claims.
        I do believe that the deliverance of justice is on the side
    of these two tribes and the legislation that we are hearing
    today. With that noted, there are ramifications to the
    enactment of these bills beyond delivering justice to these two
    tribes, and I look forward to hearing all those views during
    this hearing.
        Before recognizing our Ranking Minority Member, Mr. Heller,
    I do want to recognize a former chairman of our committee, then
    called the Resources Committee, who is with us today, Mr.
    Richard Pombo, and a former chief of staff on the committee,
    Steve Ding. Welcome, gentlemen. We are glad to have you in the
    audience today.
        I now recognize the acting Ranking Member, Mr. Heller.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rahall follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II, Chairman,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        The Committee on Natural Resources is convening today to hold a
    hearing on H.R. 2176, introduced by our colleague Bart Stupak, and H.R.
    4115, sponsored by the Dean of the House of Representatives, the
    distinguished Chairman John Dingell.
        These bills seek to settle certain land claims of the Bay Mills
    Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians in
    the State of Michigan.
        The genesis of these bills dates back to 1807, when the Chippewa
    ceded much of what is now the State of Michigan in a treaty with the
    Governor of the Michigan Territory.
        Subsequent treaties ensued in 1817, 1820, 1836 and in 1855.
        In the case of both the Bay Mills and the Sault, the 1855 Treaty of
    Detroit set aside land in what is now known as Charlotte Beach for
    their exclusive use.
        However, shortly after that treaty was concluded, the United States
    Land Office allowed that very land to be sold to non-Indian
    speculators.
        Hence began a 153 year odyssey that the legislation before us seeks
    to resolve.
        The two bills we are hearing today would implement a settlement
    agreement entered into by the Governor of Michigan, the Bay Mills and
    the Sault, and in doing so, clear the land title cloud that has hung
    over the residents of the Charlotte Beach area.
        Under the agreement with the Bay Mills, which is supported by the
    current Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, the tribe would
    relinquish their land claims at Charlotte Beach and instead would be
    able to take into trust land at Port Huron, Michigan.
        Under the agreement with the Sault Ste. Marie, which is also
    supported by Governor Granholm, the tribe would relinquish their land
    claims at Charlotte Beach and instead would be able to take into trust
    land at either Flint, Monroe or Romulus, Michigan.
        In this regard, let me state that there is no administrative
    process for these tribes to go through. Only the U.S. Congress can
    extinguish Indian title to land. And we are not setting any precedent
    here, as Congress has on several occasions enacted tribal land claim
    settlement legislation.
        I have set out the facts, the historical record, regarding these
    two tribes and their Charlotte Beach land claims. I do believe that the
    deliverance of justice is on the side of these two tribes, and the
    legislation we are hearing today.
        With that noted, certainly there are ramifications to the enactment
    of these bills beyond delivering justice to these two tribes, and I
    look forward to hearing all views during this hearing.
                                     ______

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DEAN HELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Mr. Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by
    thanking you for agreeing to have hearings on these bills and
    proceed with regular order. As one of those who requested this
    procedure, I appreciate the consideration. As we know, H.R.
    2176, H.R. 4115 would settle two Native American land claims in
    Michigan for tribes currently with claims in northern portions
    of the state.
        Those two tribes want land taken into trust for gaming
    further south, about 300 miles away. I have real concerns that
    these bills have significant negative effects on existing law
    already in need of reform. Off-reservation Indian gaming has
    become a highly controversial matter. These two bills sharply
    divide members of both parties in Michigan, divide local Native
    American tribes, and divide this committee and other members of
    the House.
        Finally, these bills circumvent the existing procedure in
    place to approve of tribal gaming and trample states' rights on
    this issue. For all of these reasons, they are bad bills and
    should be opposed. Coming from Nevada I obviously support
    gaming including Michigan's right to have gaming so its
    expansion is not the issue.
        The issue is off-reservation gaming is highly controversial
    and divisive for communities, and what we do in this committee
    has clear national repercussions. Circumventing existing laws
    on the matter IGRA has far reaching consequences. Make no
    mistake, passing these bills is circumventing IGRA.
        The unprecedented congressional approval of off-reservation
    gaming will set off shockwaves across the Nation and among
    tribes. Dozens of tribes with no gaming facilities will see
    this move as yet another green light to set up in nearly any
    economically viable location. Other tribes with gaming on
    historical land may want a new location for their facility in
    order to remain competitive.
        The door to off-reservation gaming has been opened wider
    with each passing year, and these bills kick it open for a
    nationwide explosion of Indian casinos in nearly any location.
    Numerous states have already fought off this off-reservation
    matter. This committee has done work to reform this law in the
    past and should do so again instead of continuing the status
    quo.
        IGRA is now 20 years old, and perhaps we should take a good
    look at it before passing these bills. IGRA wisely allows for
    states to take the lead on these issues, for tribal state
    compacts to be negotiated and for the Department of the
    Interior and BIA to play proper oversight roles. These bills
    wipe all that away without any close understanding of Michigan
    law.
        I would object to this committee's trampling Nevada law, as
    I think most members would of their own states. The mission
    delegation is deeply divided over this issue and not along
    party lines. Why should we force something so divisive without
    more time to address it without a closer understanding of state
    law?
        I understand House Judiciary Chairman Conyers says the
    Michigan law is being ignored on this matter. Even the tribes
    in Michigan are divided. I join the members of this committee
    who support the rights of Native Americans including those
    rights under IGRA. Nevada has a number of casinos owned and
    operated in part or whole by tribes, but we are treating some
    differently than others by approving this reservation's
    shopping.
        Additionally, the rights of the State of Michigan are
    clearly being circumvented as well. Michigan law is being
    trumped by the fact that we here in this committee are going to
    make law that should be set by the state as already set forth
    in IGRA. Approving these bills is de facto approving the gaming
    compacts for Michigan, documents we have not read or examined
    and which have had little or no discussion.
        I find that hard to swallow. Is this committee prepared to
    do the oversight needed to grant gaming compacts? Nevada has
    procedures in place to ensure high ethical standards are used
    when granting gaming licenses, and I assume Michigan does as
    well. Are we going to assume that responsibility, that
    liability, those efforts on this issue in place of the State of
    Michigan?
        I urge the defeat of these bills because they are simply
    bad policy in so many ways, are controversial matters that have
    not been vetted appropriately and they are divisive for tribes,
    our colleagues throughout Congress and many of our
    constituents.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. The Chair thanks the gentleman from Nevada
    for his comments and recognizes the gentleman from Michigan,
    Mr. Kildee, the sponsor of one of the bills and a very valued
    member of our Committee on Natural Resources.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DALE E. KILDEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    having this hearing. Mr. Chairman, I intend to support both
    H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176 when the Committee marks them up next
    week. In the past, Mr. Chairman, I have stated my strong policy
    concerns with similar off-reservation gaming legislation,
    particularly when the land in question was far away from the
    existing reservation and on the ancestral treaty lands of
    another tribe.
        The people of my home town of Flint, Michigan, have voted
    both against a casino in 1994 and for a casino in 2004. Mr.
    Chairman, even after the 2004 vote by the people of Flint,
    Michigan, in favor of a casino I expressed my policy misgivings
    about these measures in a letter to this committee in 2006.
        However, there are several factors, both before and after
    my 2006 letter, that when taken together have led me to
    reconsider my position on these bills. First, in 2002, then
    Michigan Governor John Engler signed separate agreements
    between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the Bay Mills Tribe in
    order to settle the disputed land claims near Charlotte Beach.
        Second, in 2003, the Flint City Council approved a
    resolution supporting an Indian casino that was followed in
    2004 by the people of Flint voting in favor of a citywide
    referendum to support bringing an Indian casino to Flint,
    Michigan.
        Third, in November 2007, the present Governor of Michigan,
    Jennifer Granholm, amended and reaffirmed these agreements and
    has expressed strong support for these bills. Finally, as a
    congressman from Flint, Michigan, I have to consider the
    continued economic realities of my home town.
        Therefore, in light of all these factors, particularly the
    reaffirmation of the settled agreement by Governor Granholm and
    Flint's continued economic difficulties, I have been moved to
    reconsider my position, and I will support these bills in
    committee and support these bills on the Floor.
        I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kildee follows:]

      Statement of Dale E. Kildee, a Representative in Congress from the
                               State of Michigan

        MR. CHAIRMAN, I INTEND TO SUPPORT BOTH H.R. 4115 AND H.R. 2176 WHEN
    THE COMMITTEE MARKS THEM UP NEXT WEEK.
        IN THE PAST, I HAVE STATED MY STRONG POLICY CONCERNS WITH SIMILAR
    OFF-RESERVATION GAMING LEGISLATION, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE LAND IN
    QUESTION WAS FAR FROM THE EXISTING RESERVATION AND ON THE ANCESTRAL
    TREATY LANDS OF ANOTHER TRIBE.
        THE PEOPLE OF MY OWN HOMETOWN OF FLINT, MICHIGAN HAVE VOTED BOTH
    AGAINST A CASINO [IN 1994] AND FOR A CASINO [IN 2004].
        MR. CHAIRMAN, EVEN AFTER THE 2004 VOTE BY THE PEOPLE OF FLINT IN
    FAVOR OF A CASINO, I EXPRESSED MY POLICY MISGIVINGS ABOUT THESE
    MEASURES IN A LETTER TO THIS COMMITTEE IN 2006.
        HOWEVER, THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTORS, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER MY 2006
    LETTER, THAT WHEN TAKEN TOGETHER, HAVE LED ME TO RECONSIDER MY POSITION
    ON THESE BILLS.
        FIRST, IN 2002, THEN MICHIGAN GOVERNOR JOHN ENGLER SIGNED SEPARATE
    AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE AND THE BAY MILLS TRIBE
    IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE DISPUTED LAND CLAIMS NEAR CHARLOTTE BEACH.
        SECOND, IN 2003, THE FLINT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A RESOLUTION
    SUPPORTING AN INDIAN CASINO. THAT WAS FOLLOWED IN 2004 BY THE PEOPLE OF
    FLINT VOTING IN FAVOR OF A CITY-WIDE REFERENDUM TO SUPPORT BRINGING AN
    INDIAN CASINO TO FLINT.
        THIRD, IN NOVEMBER 2007, THE PRESENT GOVERNOR, JENNIFER GRANHOLM,
    AMENDED AND REAFFIRMED THESE AGREEMENTS AND HAS EXPRESSED STRONG
    SUPPORT FOR THESE BILLS.
        FINALLY, AS THE CONGRESSMAN FROM FLINT, MICHIGAN, I HAVE TO
    CONSIDER THE CONTINUED ECONOMIC REALITIES OF MY HOMETOWN.
        THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF ALL OF THESE FACTORS, PARTICULARLY THE
    REAFFIRMATION OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS BY GOVERNOR GRANHOLM AND
    FLINT'S CONTINUED ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES, I HAVE BEEN MOVED TO
    RECONSIDER MY POSITION.
        I WILL SUPPORT THESE BILLS.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Gentlelady from the Virgin Islands wish to make an opening
    statement?

           STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN,
             A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

        Ms. Christensen. Yes, I do. Just a brief one, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank you for holding this hearing. I also want to welcome my
    good friend, Mayor Kilpatrick, the other mayors, the President
    and Chairman of the tribes, and of course, my Michigan
    colleagues, as well as the other distinguished panelists who
    have traveled here today for this hearing.
        This is a very difficult and complex hearing issue before
    us today. While I can understand the desire and the need for
    the State of Michigan to resolve the claim on Charlotte Beach
    by the Sault Ste. Marie Band of Chippewa and Bay Mills Indians,
    I do have very grave concerns about the settlement agreement
    that we are being asked to ratify in this hearing today as a
    person who has always stood for and in support of our Indian
    tribes in this country.
        However, I am very clear that there must be a settlement to
    satisfy what is due to the tribes. I do not feel that this is
    the way to go. This settlement, as I see it, would jeopardize
    the economic security of Detroit, a city that is heavily black
    and is beginning to see a resurgence under the leadership of
    Mayor Kilpatrick largely due to the revenues from the current
    casinos in that city which stand to lose under this agreement.
        Both tribes already have casino gaming, and their members
    are benefitting from its profits. So this, as I see it, is not
    really an economic issue for them, it is an issue of a
    settlement that needs to be put in place. It is an economic
    issue for the City of Detroit. I am very interested in hearing
    the testimony before us today, but at the end of the day the
    test that we have to meet is that we do no harm.
        I think that the bills before us today, while well-
    intentioned, do not really meet that test, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Donna.
        No further opening statements from Committee members, the
    Chair will now proceed to recognizing our witnesses and the
    lead off witness, whom I have already introduced, the Dean of
    the House of Representatives and my good friend, Chairman John
    Dingell.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN D. DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Dingell. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this
    extraordinary courtesy to us, and I thank you for your
    friendship. I also want to thank Ranking Member Young and the
    members of this committee, especially my dear friend, Mr.
    Kildee, from Flint. I want to thank you for holding this
    hearing today and for listening to the merits of the proposal.
        I want to also thank Mayor Alan Lambert of Romulus,
    Michigan, and Aaron Payment of the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa
    Tribe of Indians, for taking time from their busy schedule to
    be here with us today. I also want to thank my dear friend,
    Candice Miller, for her work on this issue, and of course, my
    very dear friend, Bart Stupak, for his tireless efforts to
    settle the very legitimate land dispute in this matter.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask you at this time to extend my remarks
    in the record in order to save the time of the Committee.
        The Chairman. Without objection. Chairman, apologize, just
    a minute. All member statements will be made a part of the
    record as if actually read, and every member, feel free to
    proceed as you desire.
        Mr. Dingell. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to
    appear here on behalf of H.R. 4115 and the other bill, H.R.
    2176, the first by myself, the second by my dear friend, Mr.
    Stupak, and Ms. Miller. I would note if you read the title of
    these bills it says to provide for and approve the settlement
    of certain land claims of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
    Chippewa Indians. That is in H.R. 4115.
        In H.R. 2176, the purposes of the bill are set forth to
    provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims
    of the Bay Mills Indian Community. I would note for the benefit
    of some of my colleagues here who may perhaps not have read the
    bills that nowhere in this legislation appears authority for
    the Indians to engage in gambling.
        As a matter of fact, gambling is not mentioned in either of
    the bills, although there are certain gambling interests that
    oppose these legitimate pieces of legislation for the
    resolution of important questions in Michigan approved by two
    Governors, a Republican, Mr. Engler, and a Democrat, Ms.
    Granholm.
        Let us talk then about it. We have before us a legitimate
    land dispute. We also have an economic opportunity for a state.
    We do not have any violation of the legislation regulating
    Indian gambling on reservations or otherwise. We have a
    solution to a problem which is depressing the economy of the
    communities represented by Mr. Stupak where it affords massive
    opportunities for the communities served so well by Ms. Miller
    and our good friend, Mr. Kildee.
        This, again, is a situation where Michigan's unemployment
    rate is seven and a half percent, leading the nation, and where
    our household income has decreased by 11.9 percent since 2000
    and where the state has lost over 350,000 jobs. The opportunity
    presented by these two pieces of legislation will bring
    something like 2,700 high paying, onsite, union jobs to the
    15th District of Michigan and a similar opportunity to the
    district so well served by our distinguished colleagues, Mr.
    Kildee and Ms. Miller.
        The legislation in each instance extinguishes land claims
    in the area of the Sault Tribe. These two tribal bands were
    once, and have been found to have been, a single band of
    Indians in a single tribe.
        The character of the lands and the tribes is set forth in
    the settlement agreement which was reached, I repeat, by the
    Governors of the State of Michigan, and supported now by the
    current Governor of the State of Michigan and approved by the
    governments of the State of Michigan. The legislation directs
    the Secretary of Interior to take the lands into trust as lands
    obtained in a settlement of a land claim under the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act.
        Now, I would note that you are going to hear from opponents
    of these bills. Some will say enough is enough and the state
    does not need another casino. I would note for the benefit of
    my colleagues here who are here to complain that there is no
    mention of casinos in the legislation.
        The issue before us is that we are going to solve a major
    problem, which is suppressing the economy of Michigan, and of
    the northern peninsula of Michigan and the upper peninsula and
    which affords opportunity for communities served by Members of
    Congress here today to do better and to enjoy profitable
    economic activities.
        I would repeat that enactment of this legislation will
    create thousands of well-paying union jobs in a number of
    congressional districts here. I would also like to submit for
    the record the settlement agreement between the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the State of Michigan. This
    was entered into, as I mentioned, in 2002 by then Governor John
    Engler.
        The settlement stems from a longstanding dispute on lands
    in Charlotte Beach, Chippewa County, Michigan. Some will say
    these claims are not legitimate. I would observe that if you
    listen to testimony today you will find they are legitimate.
    The Governors of the State of Michigan have found them to be
    so, and the Indians have found them to be satisfactory.
        I would note that Mr. Stupak and Ms. Miller will address
    this in a broad explanation of these matters, which I would
    hope again would be helpful, to opponents of the legislation.
    Now, as you will note, the settlement agreement forms a basis
    for action by Congress to extinguish the Charlotte Beach land
    claim in return for alternative lands to be taken in trust for
    the tribe in either Monroe County, south of Raisin River, or in
    the City of Romulus, or in the City of Flint.
        Both Romulus and Monroe are in the 15th District, which I
    had the honor to serve, and for many months both of the
    communities, Monroe and Romulus, have discussed whether they
    wanted a casino there. I would note that Romulus has decided
    they do, Monroe has decided they do not. The Indian bands do
    want to go to Romulus if they go there. So this is something
    which would probably be a good thing.
        I would note for the benefit of the opponents of this
    legislation that the City of Romulus has passed a referendum in
    December of 2003 with a 57 percent support approving a casino
    to be built in that city. The Sault Tribe has of course
    voluntarily elected to pursue that possibility there. You will
    hear then from the elected representatives of our people back
    home that they want this.
        I do not believe that a group of out of state special
    interests, like MGM, should be able to send a bunch of folks
    down here to confuse the issue and to do hurt to the people
    that are served by legitimate representatives, and members of
    the Congress and members of the constituencies which we serve.
        I would also note that there have been claims made that
    this would adversely impact Detroit. I would ask unanimous
    consent to submit a study which addresses this matter in which
    Drs. Gary Wolfram and Bruce Ikawa performed a study which
    suggested that there will be, ``no statistical effect on
    competition on casinos within a 60 mile range or 120 mile
    range.''
        So this business of allowing dogs in the manger to deny a
    resolution of an important question for us in Michigan is, I
    think, entirely improper, and I hope this committee will extend
    its sympathy and its support to the legitimate citizens of
    Michigan who want to have this particular relief.
        I would ask unanimous consent to submit also to you a story
    yesterday in the Port Huron Times Herald which broke a study
    linking Gambling Watch, a nice word, a recently established,
    ``anti-gambling group,'' asking citizens to speak out against
    the opening of any new casinos in Michigan to the MGM Grand
    Casino in Detroit.
        The good and honest people who have been suckered into
    supporting this are legitimately opposed to gambling, but they
    have not received the whole story.
        I am sure they would be shocked and appalled to learn that
    they are being used by people who are imposing the same shoddy
    lobbying tactics that were used by Jack Abramoff, a man who now
    is serving time in the jailhouse, as he properly should, for
    his behavior in connection with the use of similar tactics in
    opposition to legitimate legislation of this kind and the kind
    of deceitful practices which quite frankly shame him and shame
    those who pay the salary of those who do this kind of
    unfortunate thing.
        In any event, a very comprehensive and expensive binder was
    delivered to the members' offices yesterday, and just to
    address this in a brief way I would note several things. First
    of all, many of the letters in there are outdated and are not
    any longer relevant. Second, Tab F has absolutely nothing to do
    with the legislation under consideration today.
        As you will note, the Bureau of Indian Affairs rejected the
    Hannahville Tribe's request to develop off gaming reservations
    in Romulus. I would note we are not asking for off-reservation
    gambling, we are simply asking for the settlement of land
    claims legitimately settled by our Governors, and the state
    government and the Indian tribes concerned.
        Under discussion today is a legitimate land claim then
    involving the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, as I had mentioned.
    Three, Tab G contains a study of the potential impact of
    expanded gaming in the City of Detroit. I would note there is
    no reference in the binder as to who did the study. If I do
    studies I would be sufficiently proud of them that I would make
    known who it was had done this.
        Perhaps maybe those who are pushing this study will want to
    lay that before the Committee. I think it would be helpful. In
    any event, I would like to submit for the record and ask
    unanimous consent to do so, Mr. Chairman, a number of
    additional documents.
        First, a letter from Wayne County Commissioner Edward Boike
    in support of H.R. 4115. As you will note, Commissioner Boike
    talks about job opportunities derived from this legislation for
    Wayne County. Second, I would like to submit a letter from the
    International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers in
    which they set forward the number of jobs that the construction
    aspects of projects undertaken by the Indians then would mean
    to us in Michigan.
        I would also like to submit letters from Governor Granholm
    of Michigan in support of both H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176. Last, I
    would ask that letters from Mr. Stupak, Ms. Miller and myself
    dated November 14, 2007, and February 5, 2008, in response to
    opposition claims be included in the record.
        Since both bills before you today derived from land
    settlement agreements that originate from the same land dispute
    it is critically important that both bills move together so
    that this matter may be resolved completely and in a timely
    manner.
        It has suffered over long, and the communities and the
    people involved have suffered over much by the delay that has
    been imposed upon this committee and upon the Congress by the
    unfortunate and I think ill-timed and improper opposition to
    the legislation. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the
    members of the Committee for your consideration.
        I look forward to answering any questions that you might
    wish to direct to me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dingell follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable John D. Dingell, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Michigan

        Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and Members of the Committee,
    thank you for holding this hearing today and for being here to listen
    to the merits of this proposal. I would also like to thank Mayor Alan
    Lambert of Romulus, Michigan and Aaron Payment of the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe of Chippewa Indians for taking time out of their busy schedules
    to be here today. I would like to thank Representative Candace Miller
    for her work on this issue. Lastly, I would like to thank
    Representative Bart Stupak for his tireless efforts to settle the very
    legitimate land dispute in his district.
        I am here today to talk about an economic opportunity for a state
    that continues to be affected disproportionately by domestic and global
    economic forces. Michigan's unemployment rate of 7.5 percent leads the
    nation. Michigan's median household income has decreased by 11.9
    percent since 2000 and the State has lost over 350,000 jobs.
        The opportunity presented in H.R. 4115 will bring 2,700 well-
    paying, on-site, union jobs to Michigan's 15th Congressional District.
    In addition to that number, we are looking at 1,400 construction jobs--
    also union--needed to build the facility. Mr. Chairman, this is an
    opportunity for Michigan we simply cannot afford to turn down.
        The legislation I introduced would extinguish the land claims in
    the area of the Sault Tribe. In exchange, the legislation will grant
    the Sault tribe alternative lands in Otsego County, Michigan and
    Romulus, Michigan as outlined in the settlement agreement. These
    alternative lands would become part of the reservation of the Sault
    Tribe community.
        In addition, my legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior
    to take these lands into trust as land obtained in a settlement of a
    land claim under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        Now, throughout this hearing you are going to hear from opponents
    to these bills. Some may say enough is enough, the State simply does
    not need another casino. Others will express strong opposition based on
    the fact that the proposed facility is supposedly too far away from the
    original reservation. While still others may say that the Southeast
    Michigan gaming market is already saturated. To those opposed to these
    pieces of legislation, I simply say, let's not create a battle between
    those communities that have casinos versus those communities that do
    not. Rather, let us work together to help extinguish legitimate land
    disputes that have been around for generations while at the same time
    allowing investment in our communities and our State. Let us build a
    brighter Michigan that creates thousands of well paying, union jobs
    that will help our state recover from the recent job losses we have
    experienced.
        I would like to submit for the record the Settlement Agreement
    between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and the State of
    Michigan. Entered into in 2002 by then-Governor John Engler, the
    Settlement stems from a longstanding dispute on lands in Charlotte
    Beach, Chippewa County, Michigan. Now some will erroneously say these
    land claims are not legitimate. To those folks, I ask you to listen to
    the testimony here today, including that of our good colleague Mr.
    Stupak--who will tell you of muddied titles, uncertain property rights
    and diminished property values. As you will see, the Settlement
    Agreement forms the basis for action by Congress to extinguish the
    Charlotte Beach land claim in return for alternative lands to be taken
    into trust for the Tribe in either:
        1.  Monroe County south of the Raisin River;
        2.  The City of Romulus; or
        3.  The City of Flint
        Now, both Monroe and Romulus are in Michigan's 15th Congressional
    District. For many months, Monroe and Romulus discussed whether or not
    they wanted a casino. Eventually, Monroe fell out of the running while
    the City of Romulus expressed continued interest. In fact, voters in
    Romulus passed a referendum in December 2003 with 57% in support of
    approving a casino to be built in that city. The Sault Tribe has
    voluntarily elected to pursue only the possibility of alternative land
    in Romulus.
        You will hear from folks today that the voters of Michigan
    expressly voted in 2004 against any expanded gaming in the State. I
    would like to submit for the record the text of proposal 04-1, which
    very clearly states that the proposal ``does not apply to Indian tribal
    gaming or gaming in up to three casinos located in the City of
    Detroit''.
        I understand the concerns of the Detroit Mayor and some other
    Members of Congress that a new casino in Romulus would adversely impact
    Detroit. An awful lot has been invested into the gaming facilities
    within the City. I would like to submit for the record an economic
    analysis by Drs. Gary Wolfram and Bruce Ikawa. The analysis, based on a
    complex equation, suggests there would be ``no statistical effect of
    competition on casinos within a 60 mile range or a 120 mile range''.
    So, Mr. Chairman, as you can see, there is ample economic opportunity
    to go around.
        I would like to take just a moment to express my disappointment and
    dismay at the lobbying tactics used by some of the opponents of my
    bill. As many of you may have read, the Port Huron Times Herald broke a
    story yesterday linking Gambling Watch, a recently established ``anti-
    gambling group'' asking citizens to speak out against the opening of
    any new casinos in Michigan, to the MGM Grand Casino in Detroit. The
    good and honest people who are legitimately opposed to gambling would
    be shocked and appalled to learn they are being used by people
    employing shady lobbying tactics reminiscent of Jack Abramoff. I look
    forward to hearing from some of the opponents here today about whether
    or not they were involved in these dubious tactics.
        I understand Mr. Chairman that a very comprehensive looking binder
    was delivered to Members' offices late yesterday. I would like to take
    a moment to address just a couple of things in that binder: One--many
    of the letters in there are out-dated and are no longer relevant. Two--
    Tab F as absolutely nothing to do with the legislation under
    consideration here today. As you can see, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    rejected the Hannahville Tribe's request to develop off-reservation
    gaming in Romulus. Under discussion today is a legitimate land claim
    involving the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. And three: Tab G contains a study
    of the potential impact of expanded gaming on the City of Detroit. I
    would note there is no reference in the binder as to who did the study.
        Finally, I would like to submit into the record a few additional
    documents. First, a letter from Wayne County Commissioner Edward Boike
    in support of H.R. 4115. As you will see, Commissioner Boike talks
    about the job opportunities derived from this legislation for Wayne
    County. Additionally, I would like to submit a letter from the
    International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers. As you can
    see, Michigan stands to gain an additional 1,400 jobs from the
    construction aspect of this project. I would also like to submit
    letters from Governor Granholm of Michigan in support of both H.R. 4115
    and H.R. 2176. Lastly, I would ask that letters from Representatives
    Stupak, Miller and myself dated November 14th, 2007 and February 5,
    2008 in response to opposition claims be included in the record.
        Since both bills before you here today derive from land settlement
    agreements that originate from the same land dispute, it is critically
    important that both bills move together so this matter may be resolved
    completely and in a timely manner.
        Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to
    answering any questions you might have.
                                     ______

        [The Port Huron Times Herald article and letters submitted
    for the record by Mr. Dingell follow:]
    Port Huron Times Herald
    Casino foe mailings scrutinized
    Miller calls foul over highly organized opposition campaign
    By MIKE CONNELL
    Times Herald

        Directing its appeal to ``Michigan families,'' a newly incorporated
    organization has launched a direct-mail campaign aimed at blocking
    proposed casinos in Port Huron and Romulus.
        There is a twist, however.
        The organization--Gambling Watch--isn't a grassroots anti-gambling
    group opposed to casinos on moral or ethical grounds. In fact, it's a
    corporation created just two weeks ago by a Lansing public-relations
    specialist whose clients include MGM Mirage, a giant in the gambling
    industry and a fierce opponent of the two casinos.
        ``This was put together by a very well known, highly paid political
    consultant who has worked for other casino interests, other gaming
    projects in Michigan,'' said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Harrison Township,
    whose district encompasses Port Huron. ``Spare me the righteous
    indignation.''
        Gambling Watch was incorporated on Jan. 18, according to the
    Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. The legal paperwork
    was handled by a lawyer with Dickinson Wright, a Lansing law firm that
    counts MGM Mirage among its clients. Gambling Watch's resident agent is
    Lori Wortz, the chief operating officer of Sterling Corp., a Lansing
    public-relations firm that specializes in ballot proposals and public-
    policy issues.
    Conservative activist
        Wortz is well-known in conservative political circles. She oversaw
    Pat Robertson's 1988 presidential campaign in Michigan and later worked
    for the Republican National Committee. Last month, she helped guide
    Mitt Romney's campaign to a primary victory in his native state.
        In a telephone interview, Wortz acknowledged her work with MGM
    Mirage but said Gambling Watch was strictly her initiative.
        ``They're supportive of it,'' she said of MGM, ``but there are
    other people who support it, too.''
        MGM Mirage, based in Las Vegas, has annual revenues in excess of $7
    billion. Its majority owner is Kirk Kerkorian, 90, whose personal
    fortune was estimated at more than $9 billion last year by Forbes
    magazine. According to federal disclosure forms, MGM spent at least
    $160,000 in the first half of 2007 to lobby against a Port Huron
    casino.
    The people spoke
        Wortz recalled campaigning for a 2004 ballot initiative that
    amended the state constitution to require voter approval of any
    expansion of gambling in Michigan. The measure was aimed at so-called
    ``racinos,'' or the legalization of slot machines at seven horse tracks
    in southern Michigan.
        MGM Mirage, which has invested more than $800 million in a casino-
    hotel in Detroit, and the Saginaw Chippewa, which runs the state's
    largest casino in Mount Pleasant, did not want competition from race
    tracks. They poured money into the campaign for the 2004 proposal,
    which passed easily.Wortz said the voters spoke clearly, which is why
    she believes it would be wrong to allow casinos in Port Huron and
    Romulus without a statewide referendum.
        ``What I feel and many others feel is that it's important for
    voters to be aware that this is about expansion of gambling,'' she
    said. ``Any expansion in the state should go to the voters.''
    Families on alert
        Gambling Watch has shared that message in fliers mailed to
    households across the state.
        The flier carries a large headline: ``Michigan Family Alert.'' A
    smaller headline adds:
        ``Washington Poised to Force Two New Casinos on Michigan Families.
    Only You Can Stop the Special Interests.''
        The flier mentions Wednesday's congressional hearing and calls on
    people to contact five politicians--Sen. Carl Levin, D-Detroit; Sen.
    Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing; Rep. John Dingell, D-Dearborn; Rep. Bart
    Stupak, D-Menominee; and Miller.
        It says the five ``can put a stop to this special interest attempt
    to add two more casinos to the 22 Michigan already has.''
        Dingell and Stupak introduced the two bills that will be debated at
    Wednesday's hearing.
        Levin and Stabenow have expressed support for a Port Huron casino.
    Fair play, free trade
        For the five years she has been in office, Miller has been
    steadfast in her support of a Port Huron casino, describing it as a
    matter of fair play and free trade.
        She noted Port Huron is the only American border community that has
    not been allowed to compete for the jobs and tax revenues generated by
    casinos on the Canadian side.
        She expressed frustration with Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and
    his refusal to reach out to Port Huron.
        ``I remember when he was saying we had to support casinos in
    Detroit so his city could compete for all the American dollars going to
    the casino in Windsor,'' she said. ``And he was right, just as it's
    only right to let Port Huron compete for all of the American dollars
    going to Point Edward and Sarnia.''
        Miller also observed that Port Huron's entire political
    delegation--local, state and national--supports the casino.
        She said her office has received ``upwards of 500 phone calls in
    the last week'' from people responding to Gambling Watch's mailer.
    Little if any of that opposition was coming from St. Clair County, she
    added, ``and we're certainly not getting any from Port Huron.''
        Nick Choate, an aide to Stupak, said his office also has been
    getting calls. ``I don't have an exact number. We are getting a few,''
    he said. ``I wouldn't say the phones are ringing off the hook.''
        Choate said he was unaware of Gambling Watch's origins.
    Deceptive tactics
        For her part, Miller clearly wasn't amused to learn of the ties to
    a public-relations agency and a law firm that represent MGM Mirage.
        ``When my staff first told me about these fliers, I said 'I can
    tell you right now who's behind this,''' she recalled. ``Who would pay
    for a mailing like this? It had to be other casino interests. This
    thing is about money.''
        She said people who oppose gambling for reasons of conscious were
    being manipulated by special interests with hidden motives.''Have you
    heard of Jack Abramoff?'' Miller asked, naming the corrupt lobbyist who
    is serving a federal prison sentence for fraud, conspiracy and tax
    evasion. ``These people who put this flier out have taken a page right
    out of the Abramoff playbook. These are exactly the kind of tactics he
    would do for his clients. It's a very deceptive thing.'' Miller is
    scheduled to testify at Wednesday's hearing, which focuses on bills
    introduced by Stupak and Dingell. She also said the 48-member committee
    is not expected to vote on the measures until later this month.
        If the committee approves the bills, they would go to the full
    House for its consideration. Companion legislation has not yet been
    introduced in the Senate.
                                     ______

          Statement submitted for the record by Edward A. Boike, Jr.,
               Wayne County Commissioner, Wayne County, Michigan

        Mr. Chairman and members of the House Natural Resources Committee.
        My name is Edward Boike and I am the Vice Chairman and an elected
    member of the Wayne County Board of Commissioners. Wayne County has 43
    communities, in which Detroit is the largest.
        I am testifying today in support of H.R. 4115. Introduced by
    Congressman John D. Dingell, this legislation approves a land
    settlement agreement between the State of Michigan and the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        The settlement agreement was negotiated by Republican Governor John
    Engler and amended by Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm. It
    provides for alternative reservation lands being placed in trust for
    the Sault Tribe in Southeastern Michigan.
        This legislation will bring thousands of good paying job
    opportunities for residents of Detroit, Romulus and all Wayne County
    communities.
        With approval of the settlement agreement, the Sault Tribe will be
    able to obtain and develop land in Romulus--providing Wayne County a
    much needed, sustainable business development. This project will have
    significant beneficial impacts on the City of Romulus and all of Wayne
    County.
        A new casino is soon to open in Battle Creek, located in Southwest
    Michigan--attracting patrons from Western Wayne County and neighboring
    Washtenaw County. It is important Wayne County is able to compete with
    this new competition. With one of the nation's busiest airports located
    in Romulus and significant infrastructure improvements to support it,
    the high traffic counts in the area show Romulus is the most attractive
    location to maintain gaming revenue staying in Wayne County.
        Once developed, it is estimated the casino gaming business that
    will be built in Romulus by the Sault Tribe will create more than 2,700
    on-site jobs. This does not include the estimated 1,400 construction
    jobs required to build the facility. In addition to the on-site
    employment opportunities, it is estimated that another 2,000 jobs will
    come from increased business in the area.
        These good paying jobs will provide Southeastern Michigan workers
    with much-needed employment opportunities. According to the Michigan
    Department of Labor & Economic Growth, Wayne County currently has a 9%
    unemployment rate.
        This is even higher than the State of Michigan, who leads the
    country with 7.6% unemployment. It is critical that new jobs are
    created to replace the recent loss of nearly 250,000 manufacturing jobs
    in our state. I hope you will approve H.R. 4115 so Wayne County's
    economy can continue to develop and grow.
        Thank you for your consideration to this very important issue.

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.008

                                     ______

        [A letter submitted for the record by Raymond Chapman,
    President and Business Manager, Bricklayers and Allied
    Craftworkers, follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.011

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.012

                                    ------

        [A letter submitted for the record by Hon. Bart Stupak,
    Hon. Candice Miller, and Hon. John Dingell follows:]

                                February 5, 2008

    The Honorable Nick J. Rahall
    Chairman, Natural Resources Committee
    U.S. House of Representatives
    Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Chairman Rahall:

        We are writing to you today to ask for your support of our
    legislation (H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115) that settles a long-standing land
    claim in Charlotte Beach, Michigan. We thank Chairman Rahall and
    Ranking Member Young for the leadership they have shown by endorsing
    and supporting this legislation and for providing a hearing for this
    legislation in the Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 6th.
        We introduced this legislation to allow the Congress to accept an
    agreement reached between by two successive Governors on behalf of the
    State of Michigan and two constituent Native American tribes, the Bay
    Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa
    Indians.
        This legislation provides a positive solution to long standing
    problem. The settlement will benefit the tribes, the State of Michigan
    and the local communities that have been working cooperatively with the
    tribes for several years in attempting to resolve this claim. The Bay
    Mills Indian Community and the Sault Tribe are comprised of successors
    to several bands of Chippewa Indians who ceded much of the State of
    Michigan. In later treaties the tribes were able to purchase land in
    ``Charlotte Beach'', Michigan, land that was illegally sold off at a
    tax sale to land speculators despite being deeded to the Governor of
    the State to protect the Tribe's interest. This land is ancestral land
    of both tribes and was wrongly taken from them even though they
    repeatedly tried to win redress for the loss of the land. The Bay Mills
    Tribe filed suit in federal and state court. The cases were dismissed
    on procedural grounds and the merits never fully considered.
        As a result, to this day the Charlotte Beach land claim remains a
    cloud on the title of area landowners in Chippewa County, who have also
    sought to have that cloud lifted. For tax purposes, the claim has
    devalued the land significantly. In fact, the County Chairman of
    Chippewa County has written to the Committee to support our legislation
    and ask for its passage.
        To attempt to resolve this situation, two successive governors of
    the State, John Engler (R) and Jennifer Granholm (D), both lawyers,
    signed settlements of the claims. Their extensive personal involvement
    in this issue attests to the level of seriousness of the land claims.
    As with other land claim settlements approved by Congress, the
    settlement would allow for replacement lands to be taken into trust,
    rather than evicting current owners. The replacement land for the Bay
    Mills Tribe is located in Port Huron, Michigan. Replacement land for
    the Sault Tribe may be located in Romulus or Flint, Michigan.
    Representatives of these communities will also testify at the hearing
    in strong support of the settlement.
        Despite our views as the representatives of all the affected areas,
    the support of the Governor, the support of the community in which the
    disputed land is located and the support of the communities in which
    the tribes would locate, it has recently come to our attention that two
    letters were sent to the Committee that contain numerous inaccuracies,
    distortions, and outright misrepresentations of fact regarding our
    legislation. While we are not surprised that the small handful of
    opponents to this common sense legislation will go to great lengths in
    order to undermine a constructive settlement, we strongly believe the
    inaccurate information they are circulating in opposition to our
    efforts should not go unchallenged.
        In their correspondence to the Committee some opponents have
    attempted to cast doubt on the legitimacy of this land claim. However,
    Michigan's current Governor and its most recent Governor have accepted
    the legitimacy of the claim and personally worked to resolve it. Noted
    tribal experts have also verified the legitimacy of the claim, and we
    can assure you that for the property owners and taxpayers in Charlotte
    Beach, this land claim is all too real. Clouding of private property
    titles as a result of the unresolved claim has resulted in homeowners
    finding as much as 90% of their property's assessed value has been
    lost. In turn, this has led to a depreciation of the real estate tax
    base of Chippewa County, resulting in lost revenue and reduced
    government services.
        Our opponents have also alleged that the authority of the Michigan
    legislature could somehow be undermined by approval of the Charlotte
    Beach settlement. Nothing could be further from the truth. Under the
    1993 Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie compacts, negotiated by the
    Governor and ratified by the legislature, the tribes are allowed to
    game on any eligible Indian land in the State of Michigan. Thus, the
    State Legislature does not need to pass on a new site so long as it
    would be eligible Indian Land. This was confirmed in the settlement of
    litigation between the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and the State of
    Michigan.
        The Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie compacts do not have an
    expiration date, but rather an optional time frame for the Governor to
    ask for renegotiation of the compact. When the Governor negotiated the
    Bay Mills Settlement, he chose to delay this optional time frame. This
    too mirrored an action blessed by a Federal Court in settlement of the
    Keweenaw Bay lawsuit.
        Finally, the changes in revenue sharing to the State of Michigan
    are governed by the 1993 Michigan Indian Gaming Settlement Agreement.
    This agreement allowed for the establishment of Indian gaming in
    Michigan and placed sole power in the hands of the Governor to
    negotiate the terms of revenue sharing agreements with Michigan tribes.
    Thus, any suggestion that H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 somehow wrongfully
    usurp the prerogatives of the legislature runs contrary to all
    applicable state laws and compact agreements.
        Equally unfounded are the arguments made by opponents that H.R.
    2176 and H.R. 4115 undermine the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA).
    When IGRA was enacted in 1988, it was contemplated that situations may
    arise where tribal governments may wish to conduct gaming on lands
    acquired through land claim settlements, and IGRA specifically allows
    for this to happen. In fact, the Charlotte Beach Settlement actually
    exceeds requirements found in IGRA for land claim settlements by
    including the active involvement of the local communities in the
    settlement and by having already secured the approval and support of
    the Governor of Michigan.
        Under the Constitution, Congress has plenary power over all Indian
    policy, and possesses the sole ability to extinguish aboriginal Indian
    land title. As the Charlotte Beach Settlement requires the
    extinguishment of Indian title to the lands in question and new land
    being taken into trust for the tribe, it is entirely appropriate and in
    fact incumbent upon Congress to act on this matter. Congress has done
    so on at least five occasions since the enactment of IGRA, with the
    land in question being deemed eligible for gaming. Congressional action
    on this matter does not circumvent IGRA, but rather expedites an
    existing process, saving the federal taxpayer significant expense and
    providing an immediate resolution to the claim.
        Opponents of our legislation have alleged that it will open the
    door for ``off-reservation gaming''. This is patently false. Settling
    these long-standing claims will not open the door to a ``rash of tribal
    land claim lawsuits'' by tribes hoping to acquire new lands for gaming.
    For nearly 20 years, IGRA has contained a land claims exemption, and
    its existence has not produce a deluge of land claim lawsuits. Indeed,
    most outstanding Indian land claims in the United States have already
    been resolved by the Indian Claims Commission or acts of Congress.
    Outside of the Charlotte Beach land claim and a handful of others, few
    legitimate Indian land claims remain unresolved at this juncture. As
    mentioned earlier, H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 are land claim settlement
    acts which include the provision of alternate lands for tribes in
    compensation for relinquishing their claims to Charlotte Beach lands.
    As both pieces of legislation conform with the spirit and intent of
    IGRA that lands acquired by a tribe through a lands claim settlement be
    eligible for gaming, without limitation on location, it is misleading
    to attempt to label these bills as promoting off-reservation gaming.
        We urge you to reject the 11th-hour overtures of those who seek to
    derail the common-sense settlement embodied in H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115
    in order protect incumbent casino gambling interests and fight the
    precedent that will be set by the Bay Mills tribe in paying its fair
    share to the State of Michigan to help with statewide economic
    redevelopment and job creation.
        We appreciate your continued commitment in helping us to resolve
    this matter and shepherd this legislation through the House.

                                   Sincerely

               ,                       ,                        ,

    Bart Stupak             Candice Miller.........  John Dingell
    Member of Congress      Member of Congress.....  Member of Congress

        [A letter from Hon. John M. Engler, Former Governor, State
    of Michigan, dated June 23, 2004, to Chairman Pombo and Ranking
    Member Rahall. follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.014

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.015

        [NOTE: The study by Wolfram and Ikawa, ``An Analysis of
    Proposed Indian Casino Gaming in Romulus'' dated November 2003;
    Settlement Agreement between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
    Chippewa Indians and the State of Michigan; and additional
    documents submitted for the record have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Without objection,
    all requested materials for submission in the record by all
    members will be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Stupak.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BART STUPAK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Stupak Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of
    the Committee. Welcome to the Michigan delegation food fight.
    This is how it is. It is a food fight. It is not as has been
    dramatically portrayed as a deep divide in our delegation. That
    is not it. We are all advocates for our district, we are here
    to advocate for our district.
        Some of us have personal beliefs on land that may be used
    for gaming that may or may not be proper. It is nothing that
    divides us. Michigan is a very united delegation. We continue
    to look forward to work together on issues that affect the
    State of Michigan, and we appreciate the opportunity to appear
    here again.
        We were here in 2004 to address this issue, we are here
    once again. I know I told my good friend and my Chairman, Mr.
    Dingell, I would yield him some of my time. I did not think I
    would have to yield him all of my time or that of rest of the
    panel. Let me be brief, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, you articulated the 150 year history of this
    land claim. There is no reason to go through it again. As I
    said, we were here in 2004 on the same issue. I first became
    involved in this issue over 10 years ago, not at the request of
    any tribes but at the request of the residents of Charlotte
    Beach whose land value had been deeply devalued because of the
    cloud on this title for the last number of years.
        As a result, property owners have trouble trying to secure
    real estate loans. They have had significantly lower property
    values because of the cloud on this title to the property at
    Charlotte Beach. Local assessors have reduced the value of a
    piece of property of the home on Charlotte Beach by 90 percent
    because of the cloud created by the land claim dispute.
        Earl Kay, Chairman of the Chippewa County Board of
    Commissioners, has written testimony to provide additional
    information on the depreciation of land at four Charlotte Beach
    residents, and I ask that it be included in the record. Also,
    Mr. Chairman, I will make as part of my testimony Charlotte
    Beach residents' attorney, Ms. Leanne Barnes Deuman, has
    written testimony on behalf of her clients in support of
    passing these bills.
        Again, I will support it or put it as part of my testimony.
    The tribes in this matter, the Sault Tribe and the Bay Mills
    Tribe, it is critical that Congress approve these two bills to
    ratify the land settlement agreements reached between Bay Mills
    and the Sault Tribes by former Governor Engler.
        Tribes have worked together with the State of Michigan, the
    Charlotte Beach residents, to resolve this land dispute.
    However, without congressional approval the land exchange
    cannot be completed and the residents of Charlotte Beach will
    continue to face clouded land titles and economic hardships.
        By ratifying these two settlements Congress has an
    opportunity to right a wrong and bring an end to a land dispute
    that has been going on for 150 years. You will hear many
    misleading and false statements about what my and Mr. Dingell's
    legislation represent. Let me make this crystal clear.
        These two bills simply ratify a land exchange and put to
    rest a land dispute. This is a specific solution to a localized
    problem that has been arrived at only after extensive
    negotiation between the parties. Every opponent to our
    legislation resides outside of Mr. Dingell's district,
    Congresswoman Miller's district and my congressional district.
        If I can make one more point, it is that the Congress has
    settled dozens of Native American land claims. The most recent
    was the Timbisha Shoshone Homeland Act of 2001. It is time for
    Congress to exercise its statutory and constitutional duty and
    ratify this land settlement agreement.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Young. Thank you,
    members of the Committee for considering our legislation. I
    appreciate the time and effort you have put into this matter. I
    yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stupak follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Bart Stupak, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Michigan

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Young, and members of the
    Committee, for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 2176 and
    H.R. 4115 to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land
    claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe. I have been working on this problem for over ten years and first
    introduced legislation in 1999 in an effort to resolve this issue.
        I first became involved in this land claim dispute at the request
    of the property owners at Charlotte Beach, not the tribes. Tribal
    claims to the land have created a ``cloud'' on the property owned by my
    constituents in Charlotte Beach. As a result, the property owners have
    a difficult time trying to secure real estate loans, and have
    experienced significantly lower property values.
        Local assessors have reduced the property values of the Charlotte
    Beach land owners by 90 percent because of the ``clouded'' title
    created by the land claim dispute. Earl Kay, Chairman of the Chippewa
    County Commission, has written testimony to provide additional
    information on the depreciation of land value for Charlotte Beach
    residents for this hearing, and I ask, Mr. Chairman, that it be
    included in the record.
        In addition, the Charlotte Beach residents' attorney, Mrs. Leanne
    Barnes Deuman, has written testimony on behalf of her clients in
    support of passing these bills. In her testimony, you will find a
    description of the dire situation my constituents are in. I ask Mr.
    Chairman to have that testimony included in the record as well.
        The tribes' claim to the land in question dates back to 1855, when
    the U.S. government signed the Treaty of Detroit deeding the land to
    the Tribes. However, the land was later sold to non-Indian speculators,
    without the tribes' knowledge, eventually resulting in an eviction of
    the members of the tribes. More than 100 years later, those individuals
    who originally stole this land from the tribes are deceased. But the
    current landowners are the individuals currently being harmed by the
    clouded titles and low property values.
        In order to finally resolve this land claim dispute, a settlement
    agreement was reached in 2002 between former Governor John Engler and
    the Bay Mills tribe. Later that year, the Sault Ste. Marie tribe and
    Governor Engler reached a similar agreement. These settlement
    agreements have been reaffirmed by Michigan's current Governor,
    Jennifer Granholm.
        In the settlement agreement, the tribes agree to extinguish their
    property claims at Charlotte Beach in exchange for land outlined in the
    settlement. The settlement invokes the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
    (IGRA) exception clause of taking lands into trust to settle a land
    claim and was within the authority granted to the Governor by IGRA.
        However, in order to be implemented, Congress must approve the
    negotiated land settlement agreement. I have introduced H.R. 2176 with
    the support of Congresswoman Miller, and Congressman Dingell has
    introduced H.R. 4115, with my support, to implement the land settlement
    agreements.
        It is crucial that Congress approve these two bills to ratify the
    land settlement agreements reached between the Bay Mills and Sault
    tribes and former Governor Engler. The tribes have worked
    collaboratively with the State of Michigan and the Charlotte Beach
    residents to resolve the land dispute. However, without Congressional
    approval, the land exchange cannot be completed and the residents of
    Charlotte Beach will continue to face clouded land titles and economic
    hardships.
        By ratifying these two settlements, Congress has an opportunity to
    right a wrong and bring an end to a land dispute that has been going on
    for over 100 years.
        You will hear many misleading and false statements about what my
    and Congressman Dingell's legislation represent. Let me make this
    crystal clear: these two bills simple ratify a land exchange and put to
    rest a land dispute. This is a specific solution to a localized problem
    that has been arrived at only after extensive negotiations between the
    parties. Every opponent to our legislation resides outside of
    Congressman Dingell's, Congresswoman Miller's and my congressional
    district.
        Lastly, if I can get one point across to you today, it is that
    Congress has settled dozens of Native American land claims, the most
    recent was the Timbisha Shoshone Homeland Act of 2001. It is time for
    Congress to exercise its statutory and constitutional duty and ratify
    this land settlement agreement.
        Thank you, Chairman Rahall, and Ranking Member Young, and Members
    of the Committee for holding this hearing to bring about a final
    resolution to this land claim dispute. I look forward to working with
    you to pass this legislation and finally fix this problem.
                                     ______

        [The letter from Earl Kay submitted for the record by Mr.
    Stupak follow:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.020

                                    ------

          Statement submitted for the record by Leanne Barnes Deuman,
                  Attorney at Law, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan

        I am Leanne Barnes Deuman, an attorney in private practice in Sault
    Ste. Marie, Michigan. I am pleased to submit this testimony for the
    record in support of both H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115.
        I represent 149 individuals who own very small parcels of land in
    an area known as Charlotte Beach, near Barbeau, Michigan. My clients
    innocently acquired their land in an area that later became the subject
    of a land claim by Indian tribes in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of
    Michigan, including the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and
    the Bay Mills Indian Community. My clients' story is very sad; their
    resources are extremely meager; and without the help of Congress, the
    lands which constitute their most precious assets, will be rendered
    worthless forever. The following is their story.
        The Charlotte Beach lands are located on the southern shore of what
    is now known as Lake Nicolet, approximately 18 miles southeast of the
    City of Sault Ste. Marie, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Prior to
    private ownership of the Charlotte Beach lands, these lands were
    designated for withdrawal from the public domain under a certain Treaty
    of 1855. This Treaty, known as the Treaty of Detroit, withdrew public
    domain land for selection by individual Ottawa and Chippewa Indians
    whose tribes were party to the Treaty with the United States. After the
    1855 Treaty was negotiated, but prior to its ratification by Congress
    and, therefore, prior to the actual withdrawal of the lands from the
    public domain, the federal government issued land patents to Boziel
    Paul and his wife, who were non-Indians. Those land patents issued to
    the Pauls in 1856 included the present day Charlotte Beach property.
        In 1857, for reasons which are not fully documented, the Pauls
    conveyed their Charlotte Beach property to the then Governor of
    Michigan, Kinsley S. Bingham, in trust for the benefit of two Bands of
    Chippewa Indians in and around Sault Ste. Marie. Whether the deed was
    delivered and/or accepted by the Governor is also unknown. Of course,
    once in the hands of the Governor, the lands were technically in fee
    status and subject to the payment of real property taxes, which taxes
    were subsequently never paid. As a result of the non-payment of taxes,
    the lands were forfeited and sold by the State of Michigan to third
    parties at tax sales, notwithstanding the Indians' interests in those
    lands. This is the background for what is known as a cloud on title as
    a result of the foregoing transactions.
        In the late 1990's, litigation over those lands ensued, but did not
    result in clearing the cloud on the title to these Charlotte Beach
    parcels. The federal court litigation brought by the Bay Mills Indian
    Community, one of the modern political successors in interest to the
    two Bands for which the lands were originally withdrawn, was dismissed
    on procedural grounds for failure to join an indispensable party, the
    Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, another modern day
    political successor in interest to whom the lands were also withdrawn.
    The State court litigation, also brought by Bay Mills, was dismissed on
    substantive grounds, but did not clear the landowners' title.
    Therefore, as of today, there has never been an adjudication on the
    merits of the Indians' claim to the Charlotte Beach parcels in private
    ownership. As a result, there is an outstanding cloud on title to these
    parcels, which will never be lifted absent congressional action
    extinguishing those claims. The cloud will never be lifted because
    tribes are immune from suit resulting from their sovereign status.
    Thus, any quiet title action by my clients (or any other Charlotte
    Beach landowner) against tribes designated to clear the cloud on title
    will not be allowed to proceed. At this point, and based upon previous
    litigation, it does not appear that any tribe will ever waive its
    immunity if such litigation were initiated. The cloud on title will
    remain unless cleared through congressional action.
        The nature and extent of economic loss to my clients is devastating
    and overwhelming. The title to the Charlotte Beach parcels are subject
    to Indians' claims and are not considered marketable. As you no doubt
    appreciate, that means no present owner of a Charlotte Beach parcel is
    able to sell his or her property, since few if any buyers are willing
    to forego clear or marketable title. Title companies are unwilling to
    insure over the Indian claims even for an additional premium.
    Similarly, no Charlotte Beach parcel owner can use his or her land to
    secure any loan. Thus, not only can they no longer sell their land for
    its true value, they can no longer refinance any existing loan on their
    property. Theoretically, a Charlotte Beach owner could sell his or her
    land for cash, but of course few, if any, are willing or able to buy a
    parcel with cloud on title and without clear title. It is a rare
    purchaser willing to buy land known to be subject to a cloud on title
    which cannot be cleared absent an act of Congress. This is particularly
    true since litigation over the cloud on title has occurred and may
    occur again in the future.
        This cloud on title is devastating to my clients. For most of my
    clients, their Charlotte Beach lots are the location of their primary
    residences and these residences are anything but glamorous. The lots
    are small and the homes are modest; indeed, many of the parcels are
    occupied by trailers or modular homes. These residents are good,
    hardworking people with meager resources. Their homes and parcels
    represent the bulk of their personal worth. They live in a poor rural
    area, where jobs are low paying and hard to find. Suffice to say, these
    parcels and the homes located on them are neither large, nor glamorous.
    The owners can barely afford to attend court hearings in connection
    with litigation affecting their lands, let alone afford the legal fees
    required to protect their only real asset in life.
        You will likely hear a variety of testimony today by many persons
    interested in the Bills before you. That testimony may come from down
    State political figures, such as Mayors of large cities in Michigan. It
    will probably come from publicly-traded corporations owning and
    operating casinos. Clearly, those persons testifying will have
    interests they wish to protect, for which they are not to be faulted.
    But, please, do not forget the real victims of the land claims dispute.
    The real victims are the property owners of the Charlotte Beach
    parcels, who bought homes with whatever resources were available to
    them, only to find out years later that there is a cloud on their title
    that relates back to the mid 1800's, and that the cloud has, as a
    practical matter, rendered their property difficult, if not impossible,
    to sell or collateralize. Had they foreseen litigation and the problems
    which ensued in conjunction with it, they may have taken a different
    path. Had they known in advance, perhaps they could have bought land
    elsewhere. Now, having purchased the land and subsequently learning of
    the defect in title, they are absolutely helpless to do anything about
    it. They have no money for legal fees. And even if they did, the money
    would do them no good, since there is no way to quiet title to lands
    against unwilling defendants which are immune from suit.
        The only salvation for these innocent purchasers of Charlotte Beach
    land is for Congress to step in and extinguish the Tribes' claims to
    these parcels. Of course, the Tribes' interest in these parcels must be
    compensated, but we understand that the Bills before you would
    accomplish that, thereby passing the constitutional muster. We support
    the passage of these Bills that would clear the cloud on the Charlotte
    Beach parcels and allow my clients to go on with their lives, knowing
    that their homes will no longer be considered worthless or at least
    unsellable.
        Thank you for accepting my testimony and allowing my clients'
    concerns to be brought to the Committees attention.
                                     ______

        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman?
        The Chairman. Yes? The Chair will recognize Ranking Member
    Young.

       STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I have a written statement I would
    like to issue for the record. First, let me congratulate
    Candice Miller for being on this issue for many years, and Mr.
    Bart Stupak, and of course the Chairman, John Dingell.
        I know there are people that object to this legislation,
    but I have been involved in Indian gambling and the settlement
    of land trust and the recognition of tribes. If anybody has
    done this job, Bay Mills has done it. I understand those that
    oppose it, I have no argument with it or opposition, but I
    think Mr. Stupak made a point that we ought to consider because
    it is dear to my heart.
        None of those people that are opposed to this issue live
    within the districts that this would affect. I think we should
    look at this as a committee and understand that this is, very
    frankly, about interest outside of this district, and some
    people will say it affects their district, also.
        My argument, if we are to go forth with the original act,
    as Mr. Udall and I passed, then you should follow the rules,
    the recognition, and the designation of and completion of I
    think a legitimate concern and a legitimate solution of
    recognizing Bay Mills.
        So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for having this hearing. This
    is a very diverse panel in front of us today. I respect that,
    but again, keep in mind that justice should serve, and in this
    case I think this bill should pass through this body. Yield
    back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]

           Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican,
                         Committee on Natural Resources

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling today's hearing on two
    Indian land claims settlement bills. I want to recognize your
    leadership in moving these settlements forward and I also want to
    salute my good friend and Republican Colleague, the Gentle Lady from
    Michigan (Candice Miller), for her persistence on the Bay Mills
    settlement. These settlement proposals have been pending for years and
    have been studied in past congressional hearings. Thus, I will my
    comments to a couple of points.
        First, these bills enjoy strong support from the Members who
    represent land owners affected by the land claims and the communities
    where casinos would be built and operated. The Committee owes much
    deference to the views of the Members representing their constituents.
        Second, these settlements were originally negotiated by former
    Governor John Engler and they are supported by the current Governor,
    Jennifer Granholm. Such continuity of support through two
    administrations, one a Republican and the other a Democrat, should be
    weighed heavily, especially by those Members like me who promote
    States' rights.
        Finally, while most of the discussion is going to revolve around
    Indian gaming, I would urge my colleagues to consider that a failure to
    find an adequate land claims settlement will continue to have serious
    consequences on private landowners in Charlotte Beach, who have watched
    the value of their property plummet.
        I look forward to hearing the testimony of today's witnesses.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Ms. Kilpatrick, you may proceed.

          STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, A
         REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
    Ranking Member Young, acting Ranking Member Heller and members
    of the Committee. Thank you for holding the hearing, first of
    all, and that it be in regular order and not snuck into a late
    night bill that is inappropriate. I do appreciate all of your
    support in scheduling this hearing.
        I also want to thank Speaker Pelosi for helping us to
    settle this, and that we are here today to talk about these two
    pieces of bills. In essence, both of these bills will allow two
    Native American Tribes located in Michigan's upper peninsula to
    build casinos 350 miles from their reservation and 15 minutes
    from my district.
        As you prepare for these hearings, I have provided each of
    you a notebook that goes into great detail on why we are
    opposing these bills. My reason for opposing these bills, which
    will allow land to be taken into trust for gambling purposes
    for the settlement of proposed land claims, are actually very
    simple.
        These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress. They
    contravene Michigan state law, they are very controversial
    among the tribes in Michigan and throughout Indian country, the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs has ruled against a similar casino in
    Romulus, Michigan, and finally, Congress has not had a
    comprehensive review of the IGRA in nearly two decades.
        Perhaps it is time for that now. Furthermore, it is
    important to note that these land claims have never been
    validated by the U.S. Government or any court of law. In fact,
    the courts have ruled against the Bay Mills Tribe on their
    claims on two other separate occasions. The people of Michigan
    have spoken at the ballot box about gaming and expansion in our
    state.
        In the City of Detroit, we fought 20 years before we
    actually passed by the people and the legislature the right to
    have casino gaming. In 1994, the people of Michigan voted to
    allow three casinos in the City of Detroit. In 2004, the people
    voted to limit any more expansion of gaming unless there was a
    statewide referendum. This legislation circumvents that.
        In addition, the Michigan Gaming Compact specifically
    prohibits off-reservationq gaming unless all tribes in Michigan
    share in the revenue. This legislation does not allow that.
    These two bills circumvent both the will of the people of
    Michigan and the compact that the Michigan legislature has made
    with the tribes in Michigan.
        Instead, these bills will have Congress mandate not one but
    two off site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away
    from their reservation. Moreover, the disputed land is located
    near the two tribes' reservations in the upper peninsula, but
    yet the land they want for a settlement is located over 300
    miles away.
        If these bills were to become law what would prevent other
    tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States
    for off site reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the
    IGRA? It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress the
    Congress Resource Committee at that time on a bipartisan basis
    passed legislation by an overwhelming margin to restrict off
    site reservation gaming, yet today it now seeks to expand
    gaming in an unprecedented manner.
        Congress passed the IGRA in 1988 that allows tribes to
    conduct gaming on land acquired before October 17, 1988. In
    1993, our former Governor Engler negotiated a gaming compact
    with the seven Federally recognized tribes in Michigan
    including Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes.
        In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across
    the state, the provision was added to the compact that required
    any revenue generated by off-reservation gaming be shared by
    all 12 of the tribes. This legislation would take that out.
    Settled by our state, passed by our legislature that the
    proceeds would be shared, this legislation would not allow
    that.
        The provision has worked for well over 15 years. The two
    bills before this committee will simply nullify this critically
    important provision of the Michigan Gaming Compact. These bills
    include gaming compacts in them that were never approved by the
    state legislature who has provided every other gaming compact.
        It is important to know that Congress has never passed a
    gaming compact in the history of gaming. Those compacts have
    been regulated by the IGRA and the states which has its
    authority. In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a
    statewide referendum and overwhelmingly approved a ballot
    initiative that would restrict the expansion of gaming in the
    State of Michigan.
        The ballot box is the solution to this matter. We in the
    State of Michigan have gone to the ballot box to discuss and
    solve this matter time and time again. I am aware that the
    Governor of our state has sent you a letter supporting these
    bills. That kind of baffles me. The gaming industry in Michigan
    has allowed $1.5 billion new dollars into our state coffers.
        Because the automobile industry is suffering our state
    would be devastated by this loss of revenue. As my Chairman
    spoke, there have been studies, and we will identify the people
    who did the study. There are new gamblers. They are the same
    gamblers who move around, and not just in your district, not
    just in mine or the state, they move around the country.
        You should know that there is no legal basis for the state
    to support these agreements. I believe the Governor has erred
    in this and must have made another deal that it is required by
    gaming institutions that they provide--and our state has one of
    the highest percentages that the gaming institutions pay--to
    our state coffers, to our local unit of government, higher than
    in some cases in Nevada.
        The Chairman mentioned MGM as an outside agitator. MGM for
    over a decade now has been a very good citizen of not only our
    state but of our city; just recently, a new, permanent $800
    million casino hiring over 2,000 workers. I do not think that
    is outside. I think they are very much a part of not just
    Detroit or Michigan, but of this community, and in particular,
    I am very upset with the Governor for having signed off.
        I do not understand it. This will be revenue our state will
    lose. All of you know that Indian gaming casinos do not provide
    the same revenue that other casinos provide. It is a loss of
    tax revenue for our state, for our city. Ultimately, this will
    harm the state when compared to their private counterpart,
    Native American Gaming Site, because they are sovereign
    nations, as you know, they are required to share in the
    revenue.
        As I have mentioned before, these two bills will destroy
    that. In the end, these two tribes are seeking to do an end run
    around two statewide referendums and the Michigan Gaming
    Compact of 1993. Rarely have voters in any state in this
    country spoken so clearly on gaming.
        Michigan has time and time again. It would be a travesty
    for Congress to mandate two off site gaming casinos that would
    have such a negative affect on the people of Michigan and my
    district. The Bureau of Indian Affairs in essence affirms this
    position in your notebooks that was alluded to that I did
    provide. I wanted to make sure that the members had the
    information. On January 4 of this year, BIA rejected the casino
    in Romulus. I know you know that as well.
        I thank the Committee for your time. We have much work to
    do. Michigan is in peril. The American automobile industry will
    never be what it once was, but we will survive. We do need new
    technologies, and a lot of that is going on. Work with us. Do
    not harm us. The tens of thousands of people who work in the
    industry are not required to do so when it becomes Native
    American gaming.
        These are American companies doing America's business. How
    dare we take that right away from them? The investments that
    they have made in our state for over the last decade, how dare
    we look shakily upon them and treat them as if they are
    outsiders? They are citizens, they are taxpayers, they employ
    our constituents. I urge you, vote against this legislation. Do
    not move it on to committee.
        Something is not right here. Let us review the compact that
    was settled some time ago; it has not been reviewed in 20
    years. Perhaps it does need updating. This is a committee. You
    have the responsibility. I thank you for your time. I am
    available to answer any questions that you might have, and I
    look forward to working with you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Carolyn.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kilpatrick follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Michigan

        Chairman Rahall, Ranking Minority Member Young, and Members of the
    House Natural Resources Committee:
        Thank you for holding this hearing today. I also want to thank
    Chairman Rahall, Ranking Minority Member Young, and Speaker Pelosi for
    scheduling this legislation in regular order. In essence, both of these
    bills will allow two Native American tribes located in Michigan's Upper
    Peninsula to build casinos 350 miles from their reservations and near
    the City of Detroit.
        As you prepare for these hearings, I have provided each of you a
    notebook that goes into great detail my opposition to these bills. My
    reasons for opposing these bills, which will allow land to be taken
    into trust for gambling purposes for the settlement of proposed land
    claims, are actually very simple. These bills set a dangerous precedent
    for Congress; they contravene Michigan state law; they are very
    controversial among the Tribes in Michigan and throughout Indian
    Country; and finally, Congress has not had a comprehensive review of
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in nearly two decades.
    Furthermore, it is important to note that these land claims have never
    been validated by the U.S. Government or any court of law. In fact, the
    courts have ruled against the Bay Mills Tribe on their claim on two
    separate occasions.
        The people of Michigan have spoken at the ballot box about gaming
    expansion in our state. In 1994, they voted to allow three casinos in
    the City of Detroit. In 2004, the people voted to limit any more
    expansion of gaming unless there was a statewide referendum. In
    addition, the Michigan Gaming compact specifically prohibits off-
    reservation gaming unless all of the Tribes in Michigan agree to a
    revenue-sharing plan. These two bills are simply an attempt to
    circumvent both the will of the people of Michigan and the compact the
    Michigan State Legislature has made with the Tribes in Michigan.
        Instead, these bills would have Congress mandate not one, but two
    off-site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away from the
    reservations of these Tribes. Moreover, the disputed land is located
    near the two Tribes reservations in the Upper Peninsula but yet the
    land they want for a ``settlement'' is located 350 miles away near the
    City of Detroit. If these bills were to become law, what would prevent
    other Tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States
    for off-site reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act?
        It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress, the House Resources
    Committee, on a bi-partisan basis, passed legislation by an
    overwhelming margin to restrict off-site reservation gaming. Yet today,
    it now seeks to expand Native American gaming in an unprecedented
    manner.
        Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that
    allows Tribes to conduct gaming on lands acquired before October 17,
    1988. In 1993, former Governor John Engler negotiated a gaming compact
    with the seven federally-recognized Tribes in Michigan, including the
    Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes.
        In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across the
    state, a provision was added to the compact that required any revenue
    generated by off-reservation gaming be shared among the Tribes who
    signed the compact. This provision has worked well for over 15 years.
    The two bills before the House Resources Committee would simply nullify
    this critically important provision of the Michigan Gaming Compact.
    Both of these bills would allow the Tribes to; 1) settle a land claim
    that has never been validated and is located near their reservations in
    the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and 2) acquire lands 350 miles from
    their reservation to build casinos. Furthermore, these bills actually
    include gaming compacts in them that were never approved by the
    Michigan State Legislature who has approved every other gaming compact.
    It is important to note that Congress has never passed a gaming compact
    in the history of Indian gaming. IGRA specifically grants that
    authority to the states.
        In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a state-wide
    referendum and overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that would
    restrict the expansion of gaming in the state of Michigan. This
    referendum would require local and state-wide approvals for any private
    expansion of gaming in Michigan.
        The people and the elected officials of Michigan already have a
    solution to this matter--the ballot box. There is nothing in the
    referendum that would prevent the two Tribes and their non-Indian
    developers from initiating a statewide referendum to get casinos in Pt.
    Huron and in Romulus. In fact, both of those cities have already passed
    local referendums. But the Tribes and their developers decided to
    short-circuit the vote of the Michigan people and come to Congress to
    get a casino on a proposed land claim that is located near the Tribes
    reservation lands in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
        I am aware that the Governor of Michigan has sent you a letter
    supporting these bills. You should know that there is no legal basis
    for the State to support these agreements because, in fact, the State
    has already won this case in the Michigan Court of Claims and the Bay
    Mills Tribe appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The
    Supreme Court subsequently declined to hear the case.
        The Governor ignored the fact that the city of Detroit will be the
    main victim of the states largess in these casino deals. The city of
    Detroit will lose hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of the
    competition of these new casinos and that will cause irreparable harm.
    Harm to whom? Harm to the current investors of the casinos in the City
    of Detroit, who have invested more than $1.5 billion in the
    construction of the three casinos in the City of Detroit. Harm to the
    thousands of jobs that have been created and the tax revenue that those
    jobs generate for the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan.
    Ultimately, this will harm the State. When compared to their private
    counterparts, Native American gaming sites, because they are sovereign
    nations, and must share their revenue with other Native American
    tribes, do not bring in the tax revenue of private investors.
        In the end, these two Tribes are seeking to do an end-run around
    two statewide referendums and the Michigan Gaming Compact of 1993.
    Rarely have voters in any state in this country spoken so clearly on
    gaming issues. In light of all of this, it would be a travesty for
    Congress to mandate two off-site reservation gaming casinos that would
    have such negative impact on the people in Michigan. The Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA), in essence, affirms this position. In your
    notebooks, I have enclosed the January 4, 2008, rejection of a casino
    site in Romulus, Michigan by the BIA.
        I thank the Committee for its time. Congress should not be in the
    business of handing out off-site reservation gaming casinos. It is my
    hope that the wisdom of the Committee and of Congress is the rejection
    of both of these bills for the following four reasons:
          These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress by
    approving a compact which is a state, not a federal, responsibility;
          They contravene Michigan state law;
          They are controversial among the Native American tribes
    in Michigan; indeed, nine out of Michigan's 12 tribes oppose these
    bills;
          The City of Detroit would lose thousands of jobs and
    hundreds of millions of dollars in the investments made by the three
    casinos currently operating in Detroit;
          The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already rejected a
    similar application for gaming in Romulus, Michigan;
          These bills would involve the removal of valuable land
    from the tax rolls of the State of Michigan, resulting in the potential
    loss of even more revenue;
          Congress needs to revisit, revise and reauthorize the
    IGRA, which has not had a comprehensive review in nearly two decades.
        Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member for
    this hearing. The Committee must reject these bills based on the merit
    of the will of the people of the City of Detroit and the State of
    Michigan.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Mike.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today. I have the deepest respect all of
    the members here. I agree with Mr. Stupak. This is more of a
    squabble than it is a divide with us. It is an important issue,
    we have some strong disagreements, but we hopefully will come
    out stronger.
        To Mr. Dingell, I have the utmost respect, but I do think
    Representative Kilpatrick is just right today on this
    particular issue. It is really not about the moral or ethical
    arguments about gambling, and I am going to bring a different
    approach I think to this debate. It will not be in my district,
    but we will be impacted by casinos coming to both of those
    towns.
        The costs of adding new casinos are real, and they extend
    well beyond the cities that actually want those casinos to
    exist. It is the one kind of dirty little secret we never talk
    about when we talk about what happens when a casino comes to a
    town. The surrounding communities pay a price for them to be
    there.
        Really, what that ought to be is a decision on behalf of
    the whole state. The reason that we regulate casinos so
    heavily, including the Detroit casinos, is because casinos
    coming to town bring a whole set of problems with it.
        So the public said that if we are going to have those
    casinos, we need to have very tough regulation, we need to go
    from A to Z to make sure that the gamblers that walk in get a
    fair shake and the impact of crime and other things that we
    know happens as a result of these casinos is at least mitigated
    to the extent that we can.
        Should Congress make that decision for the citizens of
    southeast Michigan? I think not, and I will tell you why.
    Michigan voters have spoken twice on this issue--twice. Once in
    1996, and again in 2004. They said we want to make the decision
    about casinos, not individual towns, not individual townships,
    but the State of Michigan.
        They were willing to make that investment in the City of
    Detroit in 1996 because they thought it would bring economic
    development to the city, and they make that set of
    determinations. Then afterward, the legislature set out some of
    the toughest regulation, of which I helped write by the way, in
    the country on those casinos to give at least a fighting chance
    to mitigate the troubles that we know happen with it.
        These casinos, make no doubt about it, they say there is
    nothing in here about casinos, but then they talk about the
    2,700 jobs that it is going to bring when they build a casino
    on this property, so we ought to stop fooling ourselves on what
    this is all about. These proposed casinos have very little to
    do with the tribes.
        Both tribes have casinos, they are very well-respected,
    they do the right thing, but this is really about putting
    casinos down in southeast Michigan and having access to a
    market. That is what this is about. That is the very kind of
    thing that the citizens of Michigan voted in two statewide
    referendums to stop.
        They wanted to be a part of the decision. So what Congress
    is saying today is that you, the 420 of you who will vote on
    this who are not from the State of Michigan, know better than
    every Michigan citizen in the State of Michigan. I think that
    is wrong. I think that is how Congress gets involved in things
    they ought not to be involved in.
        This is a family fight. We should be making this decision
    across the State of Michigan given the wishes of the Michigan
    population. I have to tell you, there are some things and costs
    that, again. we don't talk about. I am just going to talk about
    a couple. Studies clearly demonstrate the loss of economic
    output, cannibalization of small businesses that happen in
    surrounding communities.
        The community that has it might have a short-term economic
    benefit. The communities surrounding those municipalities will
    suffer economic impact, and it is negative. Every study proves
    that. Increased government costs. Great study that came out
    said the government has to pay $6 in increased costs for every
    $1 of economic benefit from casinos.
        You are going to upset our apple cart in southeast
    Michigan. More crime. Casinos raise crime rates over the long-
    term, and local governments are ill-equipped, especially now in
    the State of Michigan, to hire more police. Michigan has spent
    over $20 million in taxpayer dollars since 2001 trying to raise
    the awareness of the costs of gambling.
        Nongamblers, people in my district, are paying those costs.
    They ran over 100,000 radio and print ads. Name another
    industry they have to do that. 350,000 problem gamblers in
    Michigan. There is a great Maryland study that shows each one
    of those problem gamblers costs the state an economic loss
    between $13,500 and $50,000.
        That is real negative economic impact to the state. One in
    20 people living near a casino will become problem gamblers.
    You do the math for metro Detroit. Despite what you have heard,
    these are not land swap bills. They are casino bills. If
    Congress allows this to go through it would drastically change
    how casinos can be approved all over the country. Make no doubt
    about it, Mr. Chairman, I do believe this is precedent setting,
    and it is really dangerous when we do this.
        At a time when we need real IGRA reform, not new loopholes,
    this is really the perfect opportunity for you, Mr. Chairman, I
    hope to step back and say listen, IGRA does need some reform,
    and we can do this and put the kind of protections that say the
    City of Detroit casinos have in with these new casinos that are
    proposed around the country without violating the spirit of
    what IGRA was intended to do, which was help the tribes.
        The compact agreed by the tribes and the state legislators
    specifically prohibits off-reservation gaming unless all tribes
    in Michigan agree to revenue sharing plan. That hasn't
    happened. So not only are you going to go against the wishes of
    the citizens of Michigan who voted in the statewide referendum
    twice, you are also going to go against the tribes in Michigan.
        So this isn't just Republican and Democrat, this isn't
    Members of Congress. This is the citizens of Michigan and the
    tribes all think this is a bad idea. There are real economic
    and government costs to casinos. We ought to have the right to
    discuss them in our home state and determine what the impact
    is. Michigan voters said twice they want to have a say in
    casinos.
        Casinos are complicated, risky propositions that need to be
    carefully studied and regulated. This process, Mr. Chairman,
    with no offense intended, doesn't give the citizens of Michigan
    that opportunity. This committee has a lot of important things
    to do. Is telling Michigan voters that Washington knows best
    really what we ought to be doing here today?
        Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to
    testify today and appreciate your thoughtful consideration of
    movement of the bills.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mike.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rogers follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Michigan

        Chairman Rahall and Ranking Member Young, I thank you for convening
    this hearing which will have a profound impact on the citizens
    throughout my home state of Michigan. Please let me be clear: this
    hearing should not be about moral or ethical arguments with regard to
    gambling. This hearing should be about the very real costs of adding
    new casinos in Port Huron and Romulus, which H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115
    aim to do. It should also be about how we measure these costs, who pays
    for these costs, and whether or not the benefits of these proposed
    casinos outweigh the costs.
        Despite what you have heard, these are not simple land swap bills.
    They are casino bills. If Congress allows this legislation to go
    through, it will pave the way for two new off-reservation casinos in
    Port Huron and Romulus. It will also drastically change how casinos can
    be approved all over the country. At a time when we need real IGRA
    reform, not new loopholes for casinos, these two bills are severely
    misguided. It should also be noted that the bills violate a Michigan
    gaming compact, agreed to by the Tribes and the State Legislature,
    which specifically prohibits off-reservation gaming unless all Tribes
    in Michigan agree to a revenue-sharing plan. The two casinos in
    question today have ignored this important agreement and circumvented
    regulatory process.
        Most importantly, it is important for this Committee to know that
    there are real economic costs and consequences to the bills before you
    today. I believe that it makes no economic sense to add more casinos in
    Michigan. First, new casinos in metro Detroit will ultimately result in
    the loss of economic output. Studies have consistently proven that
    gamblers lose their money and their jobs. In fact, one study in 2004
    estimated that problem gamblers lose enough money to equal a new
    recession every four years. Imagine the consequences in Michigan, a
    state with an already struggling economy, if it were to lose even more
    economic output. Second, casinos have proven to have a limited economic
    benefit to the surrounding region. The problem is that while a new
    casino's host city may see short term economic growth, studies have
    shown the regional economy is negatively impacted in the long term.
    Jobs, business and tax revenue are simply taken away from one community
    and given to another. Third, government is forced to pay higher costs
    as a result of new casinos. Some have estimated that for every $1 of
    economic benefit created by a casino, it costs the government $6 to pay
    for problems associated with gambling, including crime and social
    services. Finally, it has been proven that casinos raise local crime
    rates over the long-term, and local governments are ill-equipped to
    hire more police and law enforcement in the long-term.
        It is clear to me that Michigan is already paying for these kinds
    of costs. Since 2001, Michigan has spent over $20 million in taxpayer
    dollars trying to raise awareness about the costs of gambling. The
    state has run over 100,000 radio and print ads and maintained toll-free
    phone lines and counseling resources to deal with a spike in troubled
    gamblers. Today, there are over 350,000 problem gamblers in Michigan,
    and I fear that number will only grow should these two new casinos in
    Port Huron and Romulus move forward. Studies have shown that about 1 in
    20 people living near casinos become problem gamblers. You do the math
    for the citizens of metro Detroit, and it paints a grim picture.
        There is a reason our country regulates casino gambling, because
    there are costs. When Congress regulates things, it needs to take into
    account what happens to the region it is regulating. We would take into
    account the state and regional effect of a new smokestack in metro
    Detroit, but not a new casino? Clearly, there needs to be much more
    careful thought and analysis about these proposed casinos before they
    move forward.
        Today, Congress must also consider what the region and the state of
    Michigan wants. In this case, Michigan voters have already made their
    voices heard loud and clear. In 2004, Michigan voters said they wanted
    to approve any new casinos by a statewide vote. This ballot initiative,
    passed by an overwhelming margin, applied to new non-Indian gaming. The
    legislation this committee has before it today would authorize two
    casinos that have very little to with their respective Tribes. In fact,
    the proposed casinos would be located 350 miles off-reservation. I
    would argue that passage of these bills would directly undermine the
    voice of the citizens of Michigan and their desire to vote on any new
    casinos.
        Mr. Chairman, there are real economic and government costs to
    casinos. And there are real problems with the two bills before you
    today. Casinos are complicated, risky propositions that deserve to be
    carefully studied and regulated by Congress. Michigan voters have
    already stated their opinion on adding new casinos, yet these bills
    roll back regulations and create a dangerous precedent for the future
    of our country. I would urge your Committee to oppose H.R. 2176 and
    H.R. 4115. Thank you for convening this hearing.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Candice.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CANDICE S. MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Ms. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking
    Member Young and members of the Committee. I also want to thank
    you sincerely, really sincerely, for holding this hearing.
        It is very, very important to my state, and I am here of
    course to urge you to approve both pieces of legislation that
    you are contemplating today, one of which would allow for a
    casino in the City of Port Huron, which is the city that I am
    very proud to represent here in the U.S. Congress.
        Port Huron is a beautiful city. It is a very proud city. It
    has fallen on extremely difficult economic times. It is no
    secret as been mentioned here that the State of Michigan is in
    a recession. We have the highest unemployment in the nation, we
    have the lowest personal income growth in the nation, we have
    one of the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, and
    unfortunately, you can take all of those statistics to the City
    of Port Huron and literally double them.
        Interestingly enough, Port Huron is one of the only United
    States border crossing towns on the northern tier of our nation
    where there is a casino on the Canadian side of the border and
    then not one on the American side.
        In fact, that was the most persuasive argument I thought
    that the leaders of the City of Detroit used when they were
    allowed to have their casinos in the City of Detroit because
    all the Americans were simply spending all of our American
    money over on the Canadian side in Windsor, Ontario, in their
    casinos to the detriment of the City of Detroit.
        Of course now that the City of Detroit has theirs, they
    don't want anyone else to have anything similar because in Port
    Huron you can simply look across the St. Clair River at the
    Canadian casino. In fact, if you are a pretty good golfer you
    can hit a golf ball--I couldn't do it, but some of you might be
    able to do it--and hit the sign that says casino that is
    blinking there. It is just 10 minutes away.
        Eighty percent of the revenues in that casino come from the
    United States. This is a Canadian casino which gives back
    literally millions of dollars every single year to their local
    municipalities which is being used for police, or fire, or
    improving their schools, or their roads, or what have you and
    for further economic development as well.
        All the City of Port Huron is asking for of the U.S.
    Congress is to approve a settlement which would allow the Bay
    Mills Indian Community to build a casino to generate jobs and
    revenue and allow them to work their own way back into some
    kind of economic activity, which certainly this casino would
    provide, and to help American citizens to do the very same for
    an American city that our Canadian counterparts right across
    the river are doing for their citizens.
        Let me also make this committee aware of sort of a unique
    distinction in the City of Port Huron. It is home to the Blue
    Water Bridge, which is actually the second busiest commercial
    artery, commercial crossing, on the northern tier of our
    nation. The Federal government is in the process of very huge
    expansion of the existing footprint of the current bridge
    plaza.
        In that process they will be condemning literally hundreds
    of acres of valuable residential property, and they are going
    to be taking it off the tax rolls of the City of Port Huron. We
    think this could have a significant negative impact on the
    city's ability to even survive.
        It would seem fair that if the Federal government is
    forcing the city to live with this decision because it does
    benefit commerce between the United States and Canada that it
    would certainly be fair for the Federal government to try and
    compensate the city in some way, and passing this legislation
    would be a fantastic help.
        I believe in representative government. I think all of us
    do. I think that most of us would agree that generally it is
    the Member of Congress in their particular district that
    understands what the people that live in that district want and
    how to best represent it. As has been pointed out, and I won't
    go into too much of this, but this legislation is settling a
    land claim that has been simmering for many, many years,
    decades.
        It started during a time in our nation's history, not a
    very good time, actually, when Native Americans were routinely
    taken advantage of. In this case, a former Governor of Michigan
    promised the Bay Mills Indian Community a 110 acre parcel of
    property located in Mr. Stupak's district, but then the
    government seized the land from the tribe, and they sold it.
        Subsequently, former Michigan Governor John Engler reached
    an agreement with the tribe to abandon its claim to that piece
    of property in exchange for some acreage in Port Huron, now my
    district. This agreement was also approved by the citizens of
    Port Huron in a citywide vote.
        This legislation was also put forward first I believe for
    congressional approval by my predecessor, David Bonior, in the
    House, and Senator Stabenow in the Senate during the 107th
    Congress, and of course today being advanced in a bipartisan
    way.
        This legislation, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Committee, is supported literally by every single elected
    official that represents the City of Port Huron in any
    capacity, and that includes the entire City Council, their
    County Commissioners, their state House members, their state
    Senator, certainly myself, both of our United States Senators,
    as well as our current Governor, Jennifer Granholm.
        You can't find anybody in any elected capacity who does not
    support this. In this legislation we are not asking the Federal
    government or anybody else for a handout. We are simply asking
    for fairness. We are asking for an opportunity. This issue has
    absolutely zero to do with any kind of partisanship. Again,
    both Republicans and Democrats support the plan.
        I will make one personal observation here, as been
    mentioned already by Chairman Dingell, but much of the
    opposition, not all of it, but much of the opposition is based
    purely on greed. It is all about the money and making sure that
    one part of the state can protect its revenue source from new
    competition and the heck with everyone else.
        Mr. Chairman, Congress has lived through some extremely
    painful revelations in recent years, revelations about high
    paid lobbyists who tried to manipulate people and elected
    officials about casino gaming, and the face of that scandalous
    behavior is Jack Abramoff who successfully lobbied against the
    City of Port Huron on this very legislation during the 107th
    Congress.
        I raise this because of a recent mailing that went out in
    Michigan, not by Jack Abramoff, but actually someone that has
    taken a page out of the playbook of Jack Abramoff, I believe.
    This is a copy of the mailed piece that was recently mentioned
    by Chairman Dingell. It is from Gambling Watch Michigan.
        This is a group that is asking citizens to call Senator
    Levin, and Senator Stabenow, and Congressman Stupak, and
    Dingell and myself and to voice their objections about two new
    casinos. Of course they do not tell anybody any information,
    where these casinos are or any other background.
        It is interesting, you know, the address actually of course
    is not from my district, or Mr. Stupak's, or Mr. Dingell's, it
    is from a different place, a different Member of Congress in
    Michigan. We had never heard of this group before, so we
    checked with the state. Here we find out their principals
    actually. They just incorporated two weeks ago.
        The principal officer listed actually is a very well-known
    political consultant who has done extensive work on behalf of
    gambling interests in Michigan and whose husband is a lobbyist,
    works for a lobbyist firm, who represents, guess what, other
    casinos that are now operating in Michigan. Some would say
    spare me the righteous indignation about the values here.
        These are from casinos who do not want fair competition.
    Mr. Chairman, and members of this committee, this legislation I
    believe is consistent with the provisions of IGRA. The gaming
    facilities that would be built are governed by IGRA rules.
        Certainly, on behalf of the wonderful, hard working men and
    women of the City of Port Huron and Romulus as well I would ask
    you to give us the opportunity to help ourselves and in
    fairness and support this legislation. Thank you very much for
    the opportunity to testify today.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Candice Miller, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Michigan

        Chairman Rahall, Ranking member Young and members of the committee
        Thank you all for holding this hearing today. I am here to urge you
    to approve this legislation which would allow for a casino in the City
    of Port Huron, Michigan--a city that I am proud to represent in
    Congress.
        Port Huron is a beautiful city, a proud city, which has fallen on
    extremely difficult economic times. It's no secret that my state is
    suffering from a recession--we have the highest unemployment in the
    nation, the lowest personal income growth in the nation, we have among
    the highest foreclosure rates in the nation, and you can take all of
    those factors into consideration and in the case of Port Huron,
    probably double them.
        Interestingly enough, Port Huron is one of the only U.S. border
    crossing towns on the northern tier where there is a casino on the
    Canadian side of the border and not one on the American side.
        In fact, that was the most persuasive argument that the leaders of
    the city of Detroit used when they asked to be allowed to have casinos
    in Detroit--because all the Americans were simply spending their money
    in the Windsor, Ontario casino--to the detriment of Detroit. Of course
    now that they have theirs, they don't want anyone else to have anything
    similar.
        Because in Port Huron you can just simply look across the St. Clair
    River at the Canadian casino, just 10 minutes away, where 80% of their
    revenue is from Americans.
        A Canadian casino which gives back millions of dollars each year to
    local municipalities which they use to pay for police or fire, fixing
    their roads, to support their schools or further economic development.
        And all the city of Port Huron is asking for is for Congress to
    approve a settlement which would allow the Bay Mills Indian Community
    to build a casino--and generate jobs and revenue--and allow them to
    work their own way back into some economic activity which this casino
    will most certainly provide, and will help American citizens to do the
    same for an American city that our Canadian neighbors, right across the
    river, are doing for their citizens.
        Let me also make the committee aware of a unique distinction in the
    city of Port Huron it is home to the Blue Water Bridge, which is the
    second busiest border crossing on the northern tier--and the federal
    government is in the process of a huge expansion of the existing
    footprint of the current bridge plaza--and in that process they will be
    condemning hundreds of acres of valuable residential property and
    taking it off the tax roles.
        We think this could have a significant negative impact on the
    city's ability to survive and it would only seem fair that if the
    federal government is forcing the city to live with it's decision
    because it benefits commerce between the United States and Canada, then
    it would certainly be fair to try and compensate the city in some way,
    and passing this legislation would be very helpful.
        I believe in representative government--I think we all do--and I
    think that most of us would agree that the Member of Congress, who
    represents a particular district, generally understands what the people
    of that district want--especially if it is an activity that has
    absolutely zero impact on another district.
        So I would point out--that this legislation settles a land claim
    that has been simmering for many years--started during a time in our
    nation's history when Native Americans were routinely taken advantage
    of.
        In this case--a former Governor of Michigan promised the Bay Mills
    Indian Community a 110 acre parcel of property--located in Mr. Stupak's
    district--but then the government seized the land from the tribe and
    sold it.
        Subsequently, former Michigan Governor John Engler reached an
    agreement with the tribe to abandon its claim to that piece of property
    in exchange for some acreage in Port Huron, in my district
        This agreement was also approved by the citizens of Port Huron in a
    city-wide vote. This legislation was first put forward for
    congressional approval by my predecessor David Bonior in the House and
    Senator Stabenow in the Senate during the 107th Congress
        Today it is being advanced in a bi-partisan way by myself and Mr.
    Stupak.
        This legislation is supported by every single elected official who
    represents the city of Port Huron in any capacity. That includes the
    entire City Council, the county commissioners, the state
    representatives, the state senator, myself, both United States
    Senators, Stabenow and Levin, as well as our current Governor Jennifer
    Granholm.
        This legislation is not asking the federal government--or anyone
    else for a hand out--we are simply asking for fairness--and an
    opportunity
        This issue has absolutely zero to do with partisanship--clearly
    both Republicans and Democrats support the plan.
        But I will make a personal observation--and that is that most of
    the opposition is based purely on greed. It's all about the money and
    making sure that one part of the state can protect its revenue source
    from new competition--and the heck with everyone else.
        Congress has lived through some extremely painful revelations in
    recent years revelations about high paid lobbyists who tried to
    manipulate people and elected officials about casino gaming--and the
    face of that scandalous behavior is Jack Abramoff--who successfully
    lobbied against the city of Port Huron on this very legislation during
    the 107th Congress.
        And I raise this because of a recent mailing that went out in
    Michigan--not by Jack Abramoff--but by some who have taken a page out
    of his playbook
        Here is a copy of that mail piece--from Gambling Watch Michigan--a
    group which is asking citizens to call myself, Mr. Stupak, Mr. Dingell
    and our two United States Senators and voice their objections to 2 new
    casinos.
        They don't tell folks where they are; they just say we have enough
    casinos in Michigan. Sent from an address--not in my district, or Mr.
    Stupak's or Mr. Dingell's--it is in fact based in the district of
    another member from Michigan.
        We had never heard of this group so we checked with the state on
    when they were registered and who their principles are. This group just
    incorporated about 2 weeks ago and their principle officer is a well
    known political consultant who has done extensive work on behalf of
    gambling interests in Michigan and whose husband is a lobbyist who
    works for a lobbying firm who represents--guess what--other casinos now
    operating in Michigan.
        Casinos who do not want any competition.
        Mr. Chairman and members of this committee--this legislation is
    consistent with provisions of IGRA--and the gaming facility that would
    be built would be governed by IGRA rules. On behalf of the wonderful,
    hardworking and self reliant people of the city of Port Huron I am
    asking you to give us the opportunity to help ourselves and support
    this legislation.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Candice.
        Our committee is very honored to have a second full
    committee Chairman with us today, the distinguished and
    honorable Chairman of our House Judiciary Committee, the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. Welcome, John. You may
    proceed as you wish.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am so happy to be
    here and listen to all of you, your Ranking Member, Mr. Young,
    Mr. Heller, Dale Kildee of course, Dr. Christensen. This is a
    unique opportunity for us to get together. Actually, it is
    bringing the Michigan delegation together in ways that may not
    have been anticipated.
        The Chairman. I am very honored that our committee could do
    that.
        Mr. Conyers. It doesn't happen too often anyway. I have
    never heard Mr. Rogers make a more persuasive presentation
    since he has been in the Congress. I want to commend him. His
    experience and training here has just been enormously
    beneficial to everybody in the state. I want to thank him
    personally for that.
        Mr. Rogers. Can I quote you often on that, Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Conyers. I am not going to give out releases or quotes
    today, so I am afraid I will have to keep that secret in the
    room. Now, I started out, I was so relieved to find out that
    this wasn't about gaming. Then I find out that maybe there is a
    gaming aspect to this hearing. So you have a lot of work in
    front of you.
        Then my chief of staff was in here for a few minutes, and I
    said, you know, this is a job for the Committee on the
    Judiciary. Here is the feds fighting state law, citizens
    resolutions.
        We have an issue tailor made for the Judiciary Committee
    that if, in your wisdom, Mr. Chairman, you wish to refer this
    matter to the tender mercies of our committee, we would be
    happy to have joint jurisdiction or work this matter out
    because there seems to be a lot of problems. Is it the state
    law that is to be obeyed, is it the Federal Indian Reservation
    legislation, or is it the Congress of the United States?
        This is a job for your committee on judiciary, and I urge
    you to keep that in mind.
        The Chairman. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think
    our committee is capable of handling it.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, I just want to help. I know you will do
    a good job. My confidence in you is unending. I think it has
    been noted by one of the members of the Committee, Mr. Heller,
    who observed that these bills are opposed by tribes in Michigan
    as well as all around Indian country including tribes in New
    Mexico, California, the United States southeastern tribes, all
    concerned with the precedent that would be set with the passage
    of these bills.
        Of course there is a large issue. Is there any precedent
    setting involved in the consideration of this legislation or
    not? So even if we don't get jurisdiction, we are going to be
    watching carefully the legal ramifications of these conflicting
    kind of laws that are going to have to be resolved by this very
    important and distinguished committee.
        So my statement comports with that that has been made by
    the Chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Carolyn
    Kilpatrick. I don't need to go over that part of it again, but
    this to me could strike some as a short circuited process and
    give away congressionally mandated casinos. I am not sure if we
    want to proceed down this road.
        I am interested in the welfare of all parts of the State of
    Michigan's economic circumstances. We aren't here to benefit
    ourselves in the Detroit area to the detriment of anywhere else
    in the state. We are all in this together. I think this will be
    resolved by all of us together as well. So I thank you for this
    opportunity to join you this afternoon.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]

       Statement of The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in
                      Congress from the State of Michigan

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today in opposition to H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115.
    These bills will allow two Indian Tribes from Michigan's Upper
    Peninsula to establish casinos in Romulus and Pt. Huron, Michigan.
        It is not very often that I find myself disagreeing with my friends
    from the Michigan delegation, but today we do have very different views
    on these bills because they affect each of our districts in a very
    different way.
        Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the passage of these bills for a very
    simple reason--they threaten the economic future of the city of
    Detroit.
        In 1994, the voters in the State of Michigan passed a statewide
    referendum to allow three private casinos to be built in the city of
    Detroit. During that campaign, the proponents argued that the passage
    of this referendum would spur economic development in Detroit, create
    well-paying jobs and benefits, and provide much-needed tax revenues to
    the city coffers. I am pleased to report, Mr. Chairman, that the
    development has occurred and jobs have been created.
        Since that referendum, over a billion dollars in new investment
    have poured into Detroit. In fact, just a few months ago, the MGM Grand
    opened up a new $800 million hotel and casino in the heart of the city.
    There is no question in my mind that MGM would never have made that
    kind of investment if it knew that Congress would be mandating
    additional casinos right outside the city borders.
        The three Detroit casinos have also been responsible for creating
    nearly 10,000 new jobs in the city. I need not remind this Committee of
    the economic difficulties that our city has faced as a result of the
    decline in our automobile manufacturing base. These well-paying jobs,
    many of them union jobs, have also brought tremendous health care
    benefits to people who were in desperate need of quality health care
    coverage.
        Finally, these three casinos have provided hundreds of millions of
    dollars in critically-needed tax revenues to the city of Detroit. I
    understand that last year the three casinos contributed over $450
    million in direct taxes, fees, and assessments to State and local
    governments.
        Mr. Chairman, what concerns me with these bills is that not only do
    they threaten the economic future of the city of Detroit, they also
    undermine the will of the voters in the State of Michigan.
        In 2004, Michigan voters passed another statewide referendum that
    limits the expansion of private gaming in Michigan. Any new private
    gaming expansion must be approved by a local as well as statewide vote.
    This law would still allow the city of Pt. Huron and the city of
    Romulus to pursue casinos, but they would have to do exactly what the
    city of Detroit did--get the approval of the voters in the State of
    Michigan. It is my understanding that both cities have already passed
    local referendums--so they are already halfway there.
        So the question I ask is why this Committee would attempt to favor
    one city over another. Shouldn't every city seeking a casino be
    required to go through the same process? I know these are Indian
    casinos, but Pt. Huron and Romulus are over 350 miles away from their
    reservations. This is not really Indian gaming.
        It took years for the voters of Michigan to pass the 1994
    referendum. But instead of following that common-sense process, we have
    legislation before your Committee that would short-circuit that process
    and give away congressionally-mandated casinos.
        Mr. Chairman, I believe these bills are unfair to the city of
    Detroit and every other city in Michigan that wishes to have casinos--
    and believe me--there are a lot of them.
        I understand these bills are opposed by Tribes in Michigan, as well
    as all around Indian Country--including Tribes in New Mexico,
    California, and U.S. Southeastern Tribes--which are concerned with the
    precedent that would be set with the passage of these bills.
        For all of these reasons, I would encourage the Committee to reject
    these bills.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Shelley, welcome to the Committee.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELLEY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Ms. Berkley. Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young, members
    of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today
    on an issue that we have been dealing with for over five years
    now and keeps rearing its ugly head again and again.
        I strongly oppose the bills offered by my good colleagues,
    Chairman Dingell and Congressman Stupak, that unfortunately
    offers a blueprint to any Indian tribe that wants to circumvent
    the laws regulating Indian gaming in order to build a casino
    outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory.
        For those of you who are not aware, I represent Las Vegas,
    Nevada, the gaming capital of the world. I am living proof of
    the positive impact gaming can have on a community. When my
    father moved his family there 45 years ago on a waiter's salary
    he made enough money to put a roof over our head, food on the
    table, clothes on our back and two daughters through college
    and law school.
        Not bad on a waiter's salary. That is because we had a
    strong economy base on the gaming industry. So I certainly do
    not begrudge the Bay Mills or the Sault Ste. Marie Tribes, or
    the communities of Port Huron and Romulus, their desire to
    participate in this successful industry.
        I do take issue with them attempting to flout the laws on
    Indian gaming, come to Congress for the worst type of special
    interest legislation and compete with existing facilities under
    a different set of rules. We already have a Federal law on the
    books that governs the process for approving gaming by Native
    American Tribes, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or IGRA.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs can approve gaming on newly
    acquired land taken into trust under very limited
    circumstances. In the case of Bay Mills and the Sault Tribes,
    each of which already has gaming on their reservation lands, a
    suspect land claim was used as a bargaining chip in settlements
    with the Governor in which the tribes agreed to renounce their
    claim and receive alternative properties which just so happen
    to be in locations more conducive to gaming, namely near the
    population center of Detroit.
        In fact, a representative of the Sault Tribe described the
    deal as shady in his Senate testimony in 2002 before his tribe
    joined the party and stood to benefit from this agreement.
        In addition to the suspect land claim, which has been
    tossed out of both the State and Federal Court--let me repeat
    this--a suspect land claim that has been tossed out of both
    State and Federal Court, the settlements reached with former
    Michigan Governor John Engler to allow gaming at Port Huron and
    Romulus, which incidentally are part of the ancestral lands of
    a different tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa, violates the Michigan
    Tribal Gaming Compact which requires that any new off-
    reservation gaming have the support of all the tribes in the
    state.
        These settlements, as has been testified by others before
    me, do not have that support. Residents of Detroit can attest
    to the role gaming has played in transforming that city. The
    three new casinos employ more than 7,500 people in the city and
    contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year in tax
    revenue to the city and the state.
        The two proposed facilities will compete with the Detroit
    casinos for some of the same customers, but as sovereign tribal
    entities, without the burden of state and local taxes. In the
    last Congress this committee--this committee--approved
    legislation designed to crack down on this type of reservation
    shopping. It passed overwhelmingly with the support of the
    current Chairman, I might add.
        The bills we are discussing today would have the exact
    opposite affect, paving the way for any one of the more than
    500--500--recognized tribes to sue private land owners in an
    attempt to bargain for gaming elsewhere. Now, as the Chairman
    said, Congress has in fact legislated on these issues in years
    gone by, and that is the very reason that IGRA was passed, so
    to get Congress out of the business of deciding which tribe
    should have gaming and which tribes shouldn't.
        I don't think this is an area that Congress ought to be
    insinuating itself. If you think that passing these pieces of
    legislation will not be setting a very dangerous precedent,
    well then, I think we are all kidding ourselves. Whatever the
    title of these bills, land claim, not land claim, make no
    mistake, these bills are Indian gaming bills.
        Casinos will be built, and other tribes will demand the
    same preferential treatment being asked for by the Sault and
    Bay Mills Tribes today. Now, it is very interesting to me that
    people have intimated that gaming, gambling, is not mentioned
    in the title of these bills, but meanwhile, there was a study
    conducted to see if gaming in Romulus and Lake Huron would in
    fact compete with the casino revenue in Detroit.
        So it seems to me that somebody is setting the table for
    something, and it is not inviting me to dinner. Now, I also
    find it very ironic, and you will forgive me for a moment, I am
    defending my state, but criticizing those that may not live in
    Detroit or in Michigan as opponents of this legislation, that
    doesn't seem to stop the proponents of putting nuclear waste in
    the State of Nevada, the fact that they don't live there or
    they don't represent Nevada, where 77 percent of the people
    that do live in Nevada are opposed to nuclear waste.
        So I don't think that is an issue here. I have just as much
    a right to speak my mind in this piece of legislation as others
    have to speak their minds when it comes to nuclear waste. I am
    absolutely astounded that the name Abramoff has come up in
    relation to this legislation or any lobbying.
        That man was shamed and shamed because he was lobbying on
    Indian gaming special treatment. I don't think that is a road
    that any of us want to go down here.
        Now, to recap, Congress is being asked to pass special
    interest legislation benefiting two tribes, each of which
    already has gaming, based on a suspect land claim that has
    already been thrown out of State and Federal Court so they can
    open casinos hundreds of miles from their ancestral lands in
    direct competition with existing facilities that have helped
    revitalize a major American city.
        Now, what is not to like about this legislation? So with
    that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for allowing me to
    testify. I urge that people put this legislation where it
    belongs and where the sun don't shine. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Berkley follows:]

        Statement of The Honorable Shelley Berkley, a Representative in
                       Congress from the State of Nevada

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to speak today on an issue that we have been dealing with
    for more than five years now, and keeps rearing its ugly head again and
    again. I strongly oppose the bills offered by my colleagues Chairman
    Dingell and Congressman Stupak that offer a blueprint to any Indian
    tribe that wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in
    order to build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign
    territory.
        For those of you who are not aware, I represent Las Vegas, Nevada,
    the gaming capital of the world. I am living proof of the positive
    impact gaming can have on a community--my father brought us to Las
    Vegas when I was a child and put food on the table and two kids through
    college and one through law school on a waiter's salary. I certainly
    don't begrudge the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes, or the
    communities of Port Huron and Romulus, their desire to participate in
    this successful industry, but I do take issue with them attempting to
    flout the laws on Indian gaming, come to Congress for the worst type of
    special interest legislation, and compete with existing facilities
    under a different set of rules.
        We have a federal law on the books that governs the process for
    approving gaming by Native American tribes--the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act. Under IGRA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs can approve
    gaming on newly acquired land taken into trust under very limited
    circumstances. In the case of the Bay Mills and Sault Tribes, each of
    which already has gaming on their reservation lands, a suspect land
    claim was used as a bargaining chip in settlements with the Governor in
    which the tribes agreed to renounce their claim and receive alternate
    properties which just so happen to be in locations more conducive to
    gaming, namely near the population center of Detroit. In fact, a
    representative of the Sault Tribe described the deal as ``shady'' in
    his Senate testimony in 2002, before his tribe joined the party and
    stood to benefit.
        In addition to the suspect land claim, which has been tossed out of
    both state and federal court, the settlements reached with former
    Michigan Governor John Engler to allow gaming at Port Huron and Romulus
    (which incidentally are part of the ancestral lands of a different
    tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa) violate the Michigan Tribal Gaming
    Compact, which requires that any new off-reservation gaming have the
    support of all tribes in the state. These settlements do not have that
    support.
        Residents of Detroit can attest to the role gaming has played in
    transforming that city. The three new casinos employ more than 7,500
    people in the city and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each
    year in tax revenue to the city and the state. The two proposed
    facilities will compete with the Detroit casinos for some of the same
    customers, but as sovereign tribal entities without the burden of state
    and local taxes.
        In the last Congress, this Committee approved legislation designed
    to crack down on this type of reservation-shopping. It passed
    overwhelmingly, with the support of the current Chairman, I might add.
    The bills we are discussing today would have the exact opposite effect,
    paving the way for any one of the more than 500 recognized tribes to
    sue private landowners in an attempt to bargain for gaming somewhere
    else.
        To recap: Congress is being asked to pass special interest
    legislation benefiting two tribes, each of which already has gaming,
    based on a suspect land claim that has already been thrown out of state
    and federal court, so they can open casinos hundreds of miles from
    their ancestral lands, in direct competition with existing facilities
    that have helped revitalize a major American city. What's not to like?
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for allowing me to testify today.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. The sun always shines in Las Vegas, doesn't
    it? The Chair is very honored, matter of fact our committee is
    honored, to have mentioned two full committee Chairmen that are
    with us. We have a third full committee Chairman, which may be
    precedent setting, although this legislation is not precedent
    setting, but the Chair is very happy to welcome the
    distinguished Chairman of our Homeland Security Committee, the
    gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Bennie Thompson.
        Chairman Thompson, welcome.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE BENNIE G. THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE
               IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and other
    members of the Committee. At the risk of being repetitive I
    will basically summarize my comments. I am not here as Chair of
    the House Homeland Security Committee. I am here today as Chair
    of the Congressional Black Caucus Gaming Task Force.
        We have 15 members of that task force. I chair. I have 24
    operating casinos in my congressional district. Next to my
    colleague from Las Vegas, I am number two. For once in my life,
    Mississippi is on top. I am happy. Gaming has meant a lot to
    that. I come here today opposed to the two current bills being
    considered before the Committee today.
        Both bills would allow the development of off-reservation
    casinos in the State of Mississippi. I want to begin by
    affirming that I wholeheartedly support Native American issues
    ranging from the improvement of health, education and housing.
    It is clear that these issues cannot properly be addressed
    without economic development activities including on site
    gaming, which many tribes currently enjoy.
        To me, for this debate the key word, Mr. Chairman, is on
    site gaming, gaming that is carried out, previously established
    reservation as described in regulations set forth by the
    Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The two bills
    in discussion today provide tribes with land designation off
    reservation for the primary purpose of developing casinos.
        This is a process which is commonly referred to as
    reservation shopping where tribes attempt to seek designation
    of sovereignty of lands not currently within their legal tribal
    reservation for the sole purpose of establishing a gaming
    facility. I think, Mr. Chairman, even though the language might
    not say it, the clear intent of this whole legislation is to
    establish gaming.
        What we are trying to do by doing that is circumventing the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs and clearly the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act by awarding this issue to a tribe that is trying
    to get designation 300 miles from their reservation. This is a
    clear case of reservation shopping. One of the most blatant in
    the history of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        The proposed legislation is contrary to the intent of the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and would establish a precedent
    that would undermine the Act itself. So in summation, Mr.
    Chair, I would recommend that the Committee not send these
    bills forward as they deeply trouble a lot of us because they
    are precedent setting and for the most part undermine the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by establishing reservation
    shopping. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]

      Statement of The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in
                     Congress from the State of Mississippi

        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
    Congressman Bennie G. Thompson, representing the Second Congressional
    District of Mississippi, and though I Chair the Committee on Homeland
    Security, I come to you today as the Chair of the Congressional Black
    Caucus Gaming Task Force and the representative of 24 casinos in my
    Congressional District. There are 15 members of the CBC Gaming Task
    force, many who have operating casinos in their district both tribal
    and non-tribal and a few who have referendums pending in their
    Districts for both tribal and non-tribal gaming enterprises.
        I come to you opposed to the two current bills being considered in
    Committee today, H.R.2176 and H.R. 4115--both which would allow for the
    development of off-reservation casinos in the State of Michigan.
        I want to begin by affirming that I wholeheartedly support Native
    American issues, ranging from the improvement of health, education, and
    housing. It is clear that these issues cannot be properly addressed
    without economic development activities, including on-site gaming which
    many tribes currently enjoy.
        To me, the key word is on-site gaming; gaming that is carried out
    on previously established reservations as described in regulations set
    forth by the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.
        The two bills in discussion today provide tribes with land
    designations off-reservation for the primary purpose of developing
    casinos. This is a process which is commonly referred to as
    ``reservation shopping''--where tribes attempt to seek determinations
    of sovereignty on lands not currently considered within their legal
    tribal reservation for the sole purpose of establishing a gaming
    facility.
        There are some who would have you believe that this legislation is
    about helping tribes who seek to have this land located hundreds of
    miles from their reservations approved as reservation lands; however,
    these bills have nothing to do with settling a legitimate land claim.
    Plain and simple, these bills are all about expanding off-reservation
    gaming in Michigan.
        Furthermore, the Bay Mills Indian Community and Sault Ste. Marie of
    Chippewa Indians have no historical or ancestral ties to the land on
    which they want to build casinos in Port Huron and Romulus. There is
    concern, even among other Native American tribes, that off-reservation
    casinos weaken public and government support for Indian gaming and
    undermines the purpose of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) which
    is to promote development of strong reservation economies through ``on-
    reservation'' casinos. Also, it has been noted that other tribes
    opposed to off-site gaming feel that our actions today will invite
    disputes among tribes when the locations is close to more than one
    tribe that has a significant historical connection and leads to an a
    proliferation of casinos in urban areas.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs has ruled against several of these
    applications that constitute ``reservation shopping'' This is not a new
    issue. In fact, legislation has been proposed in the past to eliminate
    the practice of ``reservation shopping''.
        These bills allow two Michigan Tribes to abuse a loophole in the
    Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) to conduct gaming on lands that are
    over 350 miles from their reservations. This is clear case of
    reservation shopping; one of the most blatant in the history of the
    IGRA. The proposed legislation is contrary to the intent of IGRA and
    would establish a precedent that would undermine the Act.
        I would urge the Committee to not send these bills forward as I am
    deeply trouble and concerned with the precedent that would be set with
    the passage of these bills. I encourage the committee to reject these
    bills.
        Thank You.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. The Chair wishes to thank all of the panel
    for taking the time to be with us today. I have no specific
    questions, but I do feel it appropriate to make a comment at
    this point for the record, and that is to state that the
    allegations that these two bills constitute off-reservation
    casino shopping, in this Chair's opinion and the record I think
    will clearly show, does not have merit.
        These are efforts to settle legitimate land claims of the
    two tribes involved. In previous cases there may not have been
    land claims involved where the allegations of off-reservation
    shopping are made. Resolving Indian land claims is something
    that is vested with the Congress, and the Congress has resolved
    these types of claims on numerous instances.
        I do have a list before me of 14 such instances where these
    type of land claims have been settled by the Congress. The
    legitimacy of the land claims that are the subject of the two
    bills before us has been recognized by two Governors of the
    State of Michigan, as has been referenced already, Republican
    John Engler and current Democratic Governor, Jennifer Granholm.
        Indeed, the current Governor, Jennifer Granholm, stated in
    a letter addressed to Ranking Member Don Young and myself,
    ``The Federal Courts have held that both the Bay Mills Tribe
    and the Sault Tribe trace their ancestry to the two Chippewa
    bands named in the deed to the disputed Charlotte Beach lands
    and that both tribes accordingly share in any potential claim
    based on those lands.''
        I have no reason whatsoever to doubt the integrity of these
    two Governors of Michigan, nor from the historical and judicial
    record to doubt the legitimacy of these land claims. There is
    an effort afoot to equate this matter with the off-reservation
    policy issued by the Interior Department on January 3 of this
    year, and the denial of any off-reservation land into trust
    applications announced by the Interior Department as a result
    of that policy.
        This is mixing apples and oranges. Not one of those denied
    applications involved the settlement of Indian land claims. So
    I just wanted to set the record straight on that record and
    present the record for this committee taking up this
    legislation.
        I recognize the Ranking Minority Member.
        Mr. Young. Yes. Mr. Chairman, thanks for that comment
    because I have listened to the testimony of the witnesses and
    each one has their own beliefs, but this is not shopping. That
    is number one.
        Candice, you referred to it. At one time there was how many
    acres? Who has got that cell phone on?
        Ms. Miller. It wasn't me.
        Mr. Young. All right. Good. Didn't the Bay Mills Tribe, it
    was called something different, they were granted, I don't know
    what year, so many acres of land and that was taken and sold.
    Then there was a settlement, where?
        Ms. Miller. It was 110 acres, actually. This was back in
    the 1850s I believe.
        Mr. Young. Charlotte Beach. One hundred ten acres. OK.
    Then?
        Ms. Miller. The state government of Michigan, the Governor
    at that time said that they were going to allow this for the
    Indian tribe, and the Governor at that time back in those
    years----
        Mr. Young. 1855.
        Ms. Miller.--seized that land. They seized it, they stole
    it from the Indians and they sold it.
        Mr. Young. And then the land, sort of a settlement. They
    had the land they sold. Has there been any compensation or any
    land giving for that 105 acres?
        Mr. Stupak No.
        Ms. Miller. No. Not that I am aware of, no. One hundred ten
    acres.
        Mr. Young. All right. Again, I appreciate everybody
    testifying in this legislation. Like my good Chairman, Mr.
    Conyers, said, it is the first time I have seen so many
    Michigan people in the same room at the same time. Six and six
    is pretty good.
        Mr. Rogers. You can see us at the car show.
        Mr. Young. Yes. The other question I have from anybody on
    the panel, I heard some question about sharing from Mr. Rogers.
    What percentage do the existing Indian tribes' casinos share
    with the other tribes now that don't have gambling?
        Mr. Rogers. Not sure I understand your question, but I
    wouldn't know the percentage.
        Mr. Young. Well, you said there was no sharing under the
    provision of these two bills. Is that in lieu of the fact that
    there was sharing from the other tribes.
        Mr. Rogers. The agreement under the compact was that all
    tribes share in the revenue of new casinos.
        Mr. Young. And are they doing that?
        Mr. Rogers. That I can't speak to. I think there is a panel
    next that will speak to that.
        Mr. Young. OK.
        Mr. Stupak Mr. Chairman?
        Mr. Young. Yes?
        Mr. Stupak A new casino just opened up in my district off
    reservation. Nobody objected to it. They are doing quite well.
    They are not sharing the revenue from that casino with the
    other tribes in Michigan.
        Mr. Young. Now, following that question, it is my
    understanding that this agreement or this was to become
    legislation. I am not kidding you, I agree it is a gambling
    bill. I know that is where the Chairman is coming from, and the
    good lady from Nevada, and the good gentleman from Nevada. It
    is a gambling bill.
        It is my understanding this is a greater sharing under this
    provision than in existing casinos within the State of Michigan
    to the state and the local governments.
        Mr. Stupak Mr. Young, when the three casinos in Detroit
    opened up the Native Americans then no longer had to pay their
    eight percent to the State of Michigan. That was always the
    agreement. Once they lost their exclusive right to game in
    Michigan that eight percent went out the window. Michigan
    stopped collecting it.
        In the settlement agreements negotiated between Governor
    Engler and reaffirmed by Governor Granholm if these two tribes,
    the Sault Tribe and Bay Mills, allowed to open a casino, let us
    say Romulus and let us say Port Huron, they then have to pay at
    least eight percent, and it might even be more now, to the
    State of Michigan while the other casinos that are operating
    would not have to.
        That is why the State of Michigan, it is a windfall for
    them in a way. They are paying a special tax on these two
    casinos that the other casinos are not paying.
        Mr. Young. Just one last question, Mr. Chairman. Candice,
    you have mentioned the fact there is, I think I saw a picture
    of it, a Canadian casino right across the creek.
        Ms. Miller. Across the St. Clair River.
        Mr. Young. What about the chances the Canadians coming down
    and spending their dollars in America after we open this casino
    up?
        Ms. Miller. Well, I will tell you. Interestingly enough,
    because of the difference between the Loon----
        Mr. Young. Value of the dollar.
        Ms. Miller.--and our dollar right now, that was some of our
    biggest revenue that was happening--in the City of Port Huron
    we have a large mall there--during the Christmas shopping rush
    because they were coming across. So it would be wonderful if we
    could get them to come and spend some of those Canadian dollars
    in an American city on this because, as I say, fully 80
    percent--this is not about all these other studies, but I can
    tell you the study of this particular casino across the river--
    80 percent of all those revenues are U.S. dollars that are
    being spent right there.
        I mean, you can see just as clear. You are standing right
    there looking at it. That is how close it is.
        Mr. Young. Last, Mr. Chairman, I said that a moment ago,
    but last, I am an old duck hunter. I found out the best way to
    get a lot of ducks is have a lot of decoys on the water. You
    may not like gambling, Mr. Rogers, and I understand that, but
    the idea that competition is not good I think is dead wrong.
        I think you will find out that in reality this will
    increase all the revenues to all the gambling casinos. I know
    there are those that don't approve of gambling, and I
    understand that. I don't buy the argument this is unfair
    competition, or they are getting a break, or any other type. I
    think this will actually be a plus for the industry itself, and
    I think it will be good for the communities.
        Again, these are communities that yes, the state voted on
    it, and those that run that campaign already have theirs. They
    want to pull the plank up and let no one else in the program.
    So, but I don't buy the idea that competition is bad.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Just very briefly. Mr. Stupak, the people on
    the Charlotte Beach land right now, you indicated there is a
    cloud over their title to the land.
        Mr. Stupak Correct.
        Mr. Kildee. Is it not true that only Congress can
    extinguish land claims? It can't be the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs or the Department of the Interior. Under the Indian
    Regulatory Act, only Congress. That is why it is before this
    body.
        Mr. Stupak That is true under approximately 180 land owners
    on Charlotte Beach who have devalued property, property
    devalued by as much as 90 percent because of this cloud on the
    title. Everyone up there including the tax assessor recognize
    the valid claim of the two tribes on property on Charlotte
    Beach.
        Mr. Kildee. And they can't go to BIA or Department of
    Interior?
        Mr. Stupak They can't go BIA or anywhere.
        Mr. Kildee. Only this body can extinguish that land claim?
        Mr. Stupak The U.S. Congress is the only one that can
    extinguish a land claim.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Thank you. I yield back.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Heller.
        Mr. Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my
    appreciation to Chairman Young calling this exactly what it is,
    and that is a gambling bill. I want to respectfully disagree,
    maybe very respectfully disagree with you, Mr. Chairman, on
    perhaps the fact that we have a different definition of
    competition.
        I think competition has an even playing field. For
    competition to in fact bring in more revenues I believe that
    everybody has to be on the same playing field. The fact that
    some pay taxes, some do not pay taxes differentiates between
    those that can succeed and those who can't succeed, so as long
    as the playing field is even.
        I hear the proponents of this continue talking about this
    having nothing to do with gaming or casinos. Yet, I look at
    both of these bills, H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176, and on page three
    of both of these they have a provision specifically talking
    about gaming. We could make everybody happy, Mr. Chairman, and
    maybe you would agree and maybe the proponents would, just to
    take this section out.
        Then we can make it a specific land bill. I don't know if
    there is any disagreement with that, and I would love to have
    responses to that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Abercrombie.
        Mr. Abercrombie. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By the way,
    I just want to make certain of this because our distinguished
    guests may not be familiar necessarily of what this committee
    does ordinarily and routinely, although the solution to these
    bills is never routine, which is the land claim question.
        It is a real sensitivity for this committee. Now, there may
    be all kinds of difficulties and challenges locally in terms of
    the gaming or the circumstances of it, taxation. All that, at
    least I think has been the record of this committee, that gets
    settled locally. We don't try to impose that on anybody.
        Whatever Michigan, either by way of the cities, or the
    states, or the localities and so on, have gone through, that is
    your business. It is our business on the land claims. That is
    the underlying rationale for this committee's jurisdiction with
    respect to the Constitution. These two bills are fundamentally
    land claim settlement.
        Now, what goes into that settlement I think has to be
    determined by you folks in the Michigan area. I am very
    sensitive to what Representative Shelley Berkley was talking
    about having voted with you on the Yucca Flats situation
    because I believe that it is imposing it on Nevada. I don't
    think that is right.
        Being in the hospitality industry ourselves, right, we have
    made a decision on gambling in Hawaii which benefits Las Vegas
    because a significant portion of revenue that goes into Las
    Vegas I can assure you comes from Hawaii. We have specific
    airplane operations in hotels there in Nevada, and in Las Vegas
    in particular, that do a major portion of business with people
    from Hawaii.
        So these things have to get settled that way. So believe
    me, I understand that. Our fundamental jurisdiction is on land
    claims. We have to judge that objectively on the basis of what
    the land claim legislation is. When that is done, and so I
    don't mislead anybody, I am inclined to be supportive of this
    and I have my own parochial interest as well because the native
    Hawaiians are trying to go through exactly the same thing right
    now.
        They have historic claims that need to be settled, and we
    are struggling to find legislative venues that will allow us to
    settle this issue. Now, not everybody is going to be happy with
    what comes out of the settlement. That remains for the politics
    of the situation in terms of resolving it. Our duty in this
    committee is to take votes on the merits or demerits of land
    claims legislation.
        If that is the case, I am inclined to support it because I
    think it would be hypocritical of me to ask for the
    consideration of other Members of Congress with regard to land
    claims legislation in Hawaii and then turn around and not be
    able to make a judgment which I believe is our obligation and
    duty in this committee with regard to this legislation. You can
    comment if you want.
        Mr. Stupak You have indicated that the State of Michigan
    may have had other laws, and it has been alluded by some of the
    members up here that in 2004 Michigan passed a law requiring
    voter approval and therefore there should be a statewide
    initiative.
        I would like to submit for the record the 2004 statewide
    ballot proposal which says proposal to amend state constitution
    to require voter approval of any form of gambling authorized by
    state and certain new state lottery games, specifically that
    the voter approval requirement does not--does not--apply to
    Indian tribal gaming or gaming in up to three casinos located
    in Detroit.
        So while they are saying that we passed a statewide
    initiative banning any new forms of gaming, it did not apply to
    Native American Indian gaming. I just wanted to clarify it for
    the record as Chairman had done earlier as part of the record.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.021

        Mr. Abercrombie. I will just leave it at that. In some
    respects that is making my point to me. I think that is
    entirely up to you folks. I am not going to comment on any of
    that any more than I would like you, as some people have done,
    to try to come out to Hawaii and tell us what we should be
    doing with the ceded lands and the Hawaiian homelands.
        Everybody, believe me. For those of you who haven't been
    through this with our committee, every single bill that comes
    up on land claims has its own unique properties, and no pun
    intended on that. I mean, it has its own unique history, it has
    its own unique challenges and nothing is ever the same. Nothing
    is without its almost incredibly convoluted history that has to
    be resolved one way or another.
        So it comes down basically to land claims legislation and
    land settlement. Then, what happens as the result of that I
    think is up to local authority and for you folks to work out
    yourselves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms.
    Christensen.
        Ms. Christensen. I don't have any particular questions for
    our distinguished panel, but just in response to Mr. Heller's
    comment, it seems to me that I recall that in another hearing
    with another tribe that was seeking Federal recognition we did,
    and they did agree that gaming would not be a part of that
    agreement to have them recognize.
        As you know, I think that, as Mr. Thompson and others have
    said, we really stand by our Native American Tribes, and their
    sovereignty and the need for a settlement, but I have not yet
    been convinced, I am waiting to hear the other testimony, that
    this would not be extremely damaging to Detroit and to some of
    its surrounding areas.
        I will listen to the testimony, and I will have questions
    for some of our other witnesses.
        The Chairman. If I might respond to you, Donna. Those bills
    to which you referenced in previous legislation of this
    committee concerned nonFederally recognized tribes. These are
    Federally recognized tribes and therefore involve legitimate
    land claim disputes.
        Ms. Christensen. My issue is not with the land claims. It
    was with the gaming part.
        The Chairman. I just want to distinguish between what you
    were referencing.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The Chair will recognize the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Napolitano.
        Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I really don't have
    many questions because I have been listening intently in my
    office.
        I have long been antigaming with the exception in the areas
    where it has been a necessity because the Federal government
    has always ignored services to the Native Americans, and that
    happened to be something that California went through many
    years ago when they started establishing their casinos and
    their gaming.
        My contention was if they can help themselves, then I will
    support in them in that, but when it comes to major gambling,
    major gaming, I have been involved in stopping those processes
    within my own community twice and adjoining communities several
    times because of the fact that it is an unfortunate thing that
    happens, people get addicted to gambling.
        Many have come before at the time I was on City Council and
    indicated to us openly that they had lost their homes, their
    business, their families because of their gambling habit. So to
    me it is a two-edged sword.
        Native Americans have been very successful, especially in
    California, in helping other tribes, in establishing medical
    facilities for themselves and their community, for educating
    their children and being able to at least pull themselves out
    of certain poverty if you will.
        So I, too, will look forward to the rest of the testimony
    because while I do support land transfers that are legitimate,
    and we have gone through those in this committee as was
    indicated by the Chair, but there is certainly something in
    what Mr. Heller says and what my colleague, Ms. Christensen,
    indicates is if the gaming portion is taken out, would this
    still be a viable solution for the tribes? Thank you, Mr.
    Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Grace.
        With the agreement of members of the Committee, the Chair
    would like to invite the members of this distinguished panel,
    each of you, to join us on the podium here as we hear from the
    rest of the panels today.
        You will be recognized for questions from the rostrum here
    after of course members of the Committee are recognized. So
    anybody that wants to join us is welcome to unless there is
    objection from our colleagues. Thank you.
        The Chair will now call our second panel composed of one
    individual, The Honorable Carl Artman, who is the Assistant
    Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, United States Department
    of Interior, Washington, D.C.
        Mr. Secretary, we welcome you to the Committee. We have
    your prepared testimony. It will be made a part of the record
    as if actually read, and you may proceed as you desire.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARL ARTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
      BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Mr. Artman. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. My name is Carl Artman, and I am the Assistant
    Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior.
    I am pleased to be here today to testify on H.R. 2176 and H.R.
    4115.
        Through the legislation Congress had approved and ratified
    agreements executed in 2002 between the State of Michigan and
    the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes alternate lands would
    be provided to each in consideration for extinguishing the
    tribes' claims to the Charlotte Beach, Michigan, lands.
        The Department does not support these bills for several
    reasons. The mandatory nature of the land acquisition
    provisions would require that alternative lands be taken into
    trust even if NEPA liabilities existed on these lands. We
    recommend that any acquisition in trust be conditioned upon the
    lands meeting applicable environmental standards.
        The mandatory nature of the land acquisition would preclude
    consultation with affected tribal, state and local governments
    that takes place under our 151 regulations. In addition,
    Section 2710[d] of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act requires a
    tribe and state to enter into a compact approved by the
    Secretary, and that notice of such approval be published in the
    Federal Register before Class III gaming occurs.
        The settlement agreements include many provisions commonly
    found in tribal state gaming compacts under the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act. Finally, we are concerned with the lack of
    consultation with other Michigan tribes that may be impacted by
    the terms of these settlements since the legislation would
    waive Section 9 of the Michigan compacts to the extent it is
    implicated by the settlements.
        This concludes my oral statement, and I will be happy to
    answer any questions that the Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Artman follows:]

        Statement of Carl Artman, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs,
                        U.S. Department of the Interior

        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name
    is Carl Artman and I am the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs, at the
    Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be here today to testify on
    H.R. 2176, a bill to provide for and approve the settlement of certain
    land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and on H.R. 4115, a bill
    to provide for and approve certain land claims of the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Because of the potential for liability to
    the United States, and because the settlement agreements go beyond
    those required for the settlement of a land claim and circumvent an
    established process, the Department cannot support these bills.
    Background
        H.R. 2176 would approve and ratify an agreement executed on August
    23, 2002, between the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Bay
    Mills Indian Community. H.R. 4115 would approve and ratify an agreement
    executed on December 30, 2002, between the Governor of the State of
    Michigan and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. The settlement agreements
    provide the basis for Congress to extinguish the two tribes' claims to
    the Charlotte Beach lands. In consideration for the extinguishments of
    the tribes' claims, Section 2 of H.R. 2176 would require the Secretary
    to take into trust for the Bay Mills Indian Community alternative land
    located in Port Huron, Michigan. Section 1(b) of H.R. 4115 would
    require the Secretary to take into trust for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
    two parcels of land, one located in Oswego County, subject to the
    approval of the Village of Vanderbilt and the Little Traverse Bay Bands
    of Odawa Indians, and the other one located in the City of Romulus,
    Michigan, subject to the approval of the City.
    Problematic Provisions
        Both bills would establish a 30 day requirement for the Secretary
    to take land into trust for the Tribe once the Secretary receives a
    title insurance policy for the alternative land that indicates it is
    not subject to any mortgage, lien, deed of trust, option to purchase,
    or other security interest. The mandatory nature of the land
    acquisition provisions would require that alternative lands be taken
    into trust even if the Department determines that potential liabilities
    exist on these lands. The legislation precludes the Department from
    evaluating the subject property to determine whether hazardous
    materials are present. The Department asks that Congress consider the
    cost to and potential liability of the United States Government with
    respect to legislative transfers of land into trust, both in this
    particular instance and all future mandatory trust transactions. We
    recommend any acquisition in trust be conditioned upon the lands
    meeting applicable environmental standards. The mandatory nature of the
    land acquisition would also preclude consultation with affected tribal,
    State, and local governments that takes place under our regulations.
        In addition, section 2710(d) of the IGRA requires that a tribe and
    State enter into a compact approved by the Secretary and that notice of
    such approval be published in the Federal Register before Class III
    gaming may occur.
        The settlement agreements include many provisions commonly found in
    a tribal-state compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA):
        (1)  the Governor's concurrence in the trust acquisition of the
    alternative lands for gaming purposes;
        (2)  Tribal payments to the State of Michigan in an amount equal to
    8 percent of the net win derived from all Class III electronic games of
    chance in consideration for limited geographical exclusivity, and
    payments in the aggregate amount equal to 2 percent of the net win from
    all Class III electronic games of chance to local units of state
    governments;
        (3)  limitation of the Tribes' Class III gaming operations in
    Michigan;
        (4)  the Governor's forbearance from exercising the State's
    unilateral right to renegotiate the Compact pursuant to Section 12(c)
    of the Compact; and
        (5)  a statement that Section 9 of the compact is not implicated by
    provision of the alternative land to the Tribe, and the Governor's
    waiver of this provision to the extent it is determined to be
    implicated.
        However, these bills appear to circumvent the tribal-state compact
    approval process by bypassing the approval of the Michigan State
    legislature. The Department respects tribal and state rights and
    supports the tribal-state compact negotiation and approval process.
    Therefore, we believe that these provisions would best appear in a
    compact.
        Finally, we are concerned with the lack of consultation with other
    Michigan tribes that may be impacted by the terms of these settlements
    since the legislation would waive Section 9 of the Michigan compacts to
    the extent it is implicated by the settlements.
        This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions
    the Committee may have. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Kildee. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Mr.
    Secretary. We appreciate your presence here today, and we
    appreciate the role you will play in the welfare of the Native
    Americans. I have served in Congress for 32 years and have
    dealt with many Assistant Secretary in charge of the BIA and I
    appreciate the enormity of your job and the responsibility of
    your job. I appreciate your presence here today.
        Mr. Artman. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Kildee. Please explain what is the Department's
    position regarding land acquired by a tribe located away from
    the reservation through congressional settlement, whether that
    view is different when a tribe seeks to acquire land off the
    reservation through the administrative process?
        Mr. Artman. Well, in this particular situation acquiring
    land and settlement of a land claim, the Department supports
    settlement of land claims, and sometimes that may take place
    off reservation.
        As I mentioned in the testimony, we would like to be able
    to at least examine the land form as the legislation makes
    clear title opinion, make sure that there are no liens on it,
    certainly, but also go through the additional 151 regulation
    steps including reviewing it for environmental compliance,
    seeking consultation with neighboring tribes, local
    governments, state governments, et cetera.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you. While you have expertise and we call
    upon you, as we have called upon you today, to share that
    expertise with this committee, which indeed has its own
    expertise, under the Indian Non Intercourse Act only Congress,
    though, can really extinguish a land claim settlement. Land
    cannot be sold or in any way taken away from the Indians unless
    through action of the Congress. Am I not correct on that?
        Mr. Artman. We agree with you, sir. Yes, that is correct.
        Mr. Kildee. OK. So that is why people wonder why we are
    gathering here and I have reiterated this. We are the only
    body, and this law dates back to in the 1780s I believe
    sometime, the Indian Non Intercourse Act, because there was so
    much sales taking place.
        I can recall, my dad can recall in Michigan where the one
    tribe near where he lived, that they put the land on the tax
    rolls unbeknownst to the tribe, and then a year later when the
    taxes weren't paid they came in and took the land away from the
    Indians and to make sure they didn't return burned the village
    down.
        My dad can remember that happening. This is the reason we
    have this real tight control over any land settlement and any
    selling or exchange of Indian property. So your expertise is
    extremely important in guiding us, but ultimately, it is only
    our action that can really bring this about. That is true, is
    it not?
        Mr. Artman. That is correct, Congressman Kildee. We
    certainly support and understand the Congress' plenary power in
    area.
        Mr. Kildee. Well, OK. Since IGRA does not define settlement
    of a land claim, does the Department have a position as to what
    factors should guide our decision when considering settlement
    legislation?
        Mr. Artman. Well, first, we would like to have the
    opportunity to examine it not just for liens and title
    impositions, but also for environmental compliance, compliance
    with the National Environmental Policy Act. Also, we would like
    to have the opportunity to make sure that neighboring tribes
    and localities have some consultation on that, though Congress'
    plenary power certainly seems to override that.
        With regards to this particular situation where there may
    be gaming involved we would also like to have the ability to
    adhere to IGRA and have the ability to have the Department of
    the Interior review the compact provisions. Now, within the
    settlement agreement and within this settlement agreement there
    are provisions that seem like compact type provisions.
        If this legislation were passed, and gaming did occur on
    those lands and those provisions were used as part of the
    Tribal State Gaming Compact we would be in a unique position of
    asking what do we do with that? Certainly, Congress has acted
    upon it. Congress has affirmed or supported the settlement
    agreement and all of its provisions.
        Does this law then take the place of the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act? How do we review this for revenue sharing? Is
    it a taxation? Is the exclusivity of the tribe somehow impacted
    combined with this revenue sharing? Within the State of
    Michigan specifically, how does this impact Section 9, if at
    all, of the existing gaming compacts?
        Mr. Kildee. I helped write IGRA back in the 1980s. We spent
    months. I don't think we ever have amended IGRA. We are kind of
    afraid to bring it out on the House Floor as to what might
    happen if we have an open rule. IGRA was not probably a perfect
    law, I say sometimes only a perfect law was written on Mt.
    Sinai not on Capitol Hill, but it is a pretty good law. It is a
    pretty good law. IGRA is a good law.
        We do know, looking at IGRA and looking at the Indian Non
    Intercourse Act, looking at both of them at the same time, that
    the Charlotte Beach land has a cloud over the title. So we have
    some responsibility to those settlers there who came into what
    was given to the Indians and was kept by the Indians really in
    a sense because all of Michigan at one time was owned by the
    Indians.
        So we have to consider their clouded title. Then you talk
    about environmental standards, too, for where they may get land
    in exchange. I think probably the City of Romulus or the City
    of Flint, because there is two choices under the one bill,
    either Romulus or Flint, and the other bill only the one
    choice, Port Huron, that they certainly would want to have
    their own environmental standards.
        That does not preclude us from consulting with you and have
    you give us your advice on that. Ultimately, we would make that
    decision, would we not?
        Mr. Artman. With regards to settling the land claims, yes.
    As I mentioned before, Congress has plenary power of this, but
    we would like to have the opportunity to limit the potential
    liability that the United States may incur by ensuring that the
    land that we accept into trust holdings for the benefit of the
    tribe does not have any environmental implications on it.
        Mr. Kildee. Right. We do have good dialogue between us,
    sometimes formal, sometimes informal, but we will certainly
    continue to have that.
        Mr. Heller.
        Mr. Heller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Artman, thank you
    for being here today. I referred to that gaming provision in
    both of these bills. Can you in layman terms explain to us what
    this provision of these sections do in these bills?
        Mr. Artman. Well, the bill affirms the Settlement Act and
    states that the Settlement Act would be enacted, one that was
    agreed to by the tribes and the State of Michigan, two separate
    settlement acts. Inside that Settlement Act there are
    provisions that you might find within a compact: revenue
    sharing provisions, provisions relating to exclusivity for
    gaming, areas on where gaming may potentially take place.
        When we look at compacts and we review compacts we look at
    just those very clauses: revenue sharing, exclusivity, how
    those two interact with one another. We also look at the
    broader picture of the state and the agreements that have been
    forged with the other tribes between the state and the tribes.
        In this case, as I mentioned, Section 9 of all the compacts
    mandates a consultation and potential agreement between the
    tribes, if there will be gaming, I believe under a two-part
    determination. By Congress affirming that settlement agreement
    through this legislation it in many ways potentially
    circumvents our process.
        Now, the legislation does say or I believe the Settlement
    Act says that a tribal state compact will be entered into in
    accordance with IGRA. So I will to matters in this case that
    the tribe and the state would negotiate a contract that would
    be agreed to or affirmed by the Michigan State Legislature.
        It would then be sent by the Michigan Secretary of State to
    the Department of Interior for review and we would review it.
    In many respects, that is where the problem may occur, right
    there. What do we do? We have processes that we use, we have
    standards that we use when reviewing compacts that look at just
    the areas that I mentioned before.
        If that subsequent compact violates those areas, what do we
    do next? Do we say no, that this compact is rejected? If so,
    how do these two settlement bills then interact with Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act? Now, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
    certainly is a broader bill, earlier in time. These are more
    specific and later in time.
        So by certainly looking at how one would use the canons of
    law, one might say that these would rule. Then, does this set,
    I know it has been said before, that the bills don't create a
    precedent, but are we creating some kind of a pathway, roadway,
    that others may use to also circumvent IGRA?
        Mr. Heller. Do you know why these tribes have chosen to
    come directly to Congress instead of through the BIA and IGRA
    process?
        Mr. Artman. I think Congressman Kildee certainly stated it
    best, that this is where land claims are settled, this is where
    it begins. As to why these provisions may be in the Settlement
    Act and the subsequent which is supported by this legislation,
    I am not sure.
        Mr. Heller. OK. I think it was, what, January 4 other
    members mentioned you rejected the Hannahville Tribe's
    application to take land into trust in Romulus, Michigan, and
    one of the key considerations I believe was distance.
        I just wanted to know if you agree that the untenable
    commuting distance of some of the other concerns that you noted
    with regards to that particular tribe, the Hannahville Tribe,
    seems to apply equally with these tribes', Bay Mills and Sault
    Ste. Marie, proposals?
        Mr. Artman. You are correct. On January 4 we did send a
    letter with a negative conclusion to Hannahville that we would
    not take that land into trust. As part of that letter, as the
    substantiation for that conclusion, there were a number of
    factors that we looked at, one of which was looking at
    151.11[b] which mandated that we give greater scrutiny to land
    the further it is away from the reservation than the applicant
    land.
        We looked at a number of issues there, not the least of
    which was the commutability. If the purpose of the IRA was to
    create an area in which sovereignty could be exercised,
    jurisdiction could be exercised, and tribal members could come
    back to and live and work, if that was the purpose of the IRA,
    and from that the 151 regulations fall out from 465, that is
    why we are taking land into trust, we certainly did take a look
    at those issues.
        How would this impact the people on the reservation? Now,
    it is difficult to say here without seeing a formal 151
    application what our conclusion would be in Bay Mills or Sault
    Ste. Marie. We would want to look at those applications in full
    before we would come to any conclusion.
        Mr. Heller. I know my time is running out, Mr. Chairman. Do
    you think that these two tribes, these two proposals here that
    we have in front of us today, would past mustard with the
    Department's land and trust review process?
        Mr. Artman. Congressman Heller, it is difficult to say
    right now without seeing those applications in front of us.
    There are many factors that we look at. Everything from
    consultation with the local communities, the state, the
    National Environmental Policy Act mandates, as well as
    information that the tribes provide to us as well.
        We can't make that conclusion. I can't make that
    determination sitting here.
        Mr. Heller. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Artman. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Kildee. The gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, Ms.
    Christensen.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. I don't know if you answered it
    in the last few minutes as I was going through some of my
    notes, but if I understand that at least one of the lands in
    the settlement in question is 350 miles away from the
    reservation. Would that meet this new policy? Would that be
    outside of your policy?
        Mr. Artman. Well, there is no strict mileage limitation.
    Again, we look at a number of things.
        Ms. Christensen. Commutable distance.
        Mr. Artman. The commutable distance. Even when looking at
    151.11[b], commutability is just one of the factors that we
    look at. So as I mentioned to Congressman Heller, this is
    something that without looking at the full application I can't
    determine here, and I don't even want to risk making the
    hypothetical conclusion or making a conclusion based on
    hypothetical facts.
        For the real situation for Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie,
    we would need to see their complete application.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. Just for the record, you don't dispute
    the fact that a settlement is necessary in the case of
    Charlotte Beach and the two tribes?
        Mr. Artman. That is correct, ma'am.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. Have you made a determination in whole
    or in part on these two bills and their compliance or
    noncompliance with IGRA in any areas?
        Mr. Artman. No, ma'am, we haven't. Without seeing the
    compact formally presented to us, and as I said before,
    compacts are usually much longer than the two pages worth of
    provisions that were listed in the Settlement Act, we would
    need to see, as with the 151 application, the full compact
    before making any conclusions.
        Ms. Christensen. I will withhold questions for right now.
        Mr. Artman. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Christensen. If I could just reserve my time for a
    minute. If I could reserve my time I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Kildee. Yes. Your time will be reserved. The gentlelady
    from California, Ms. Napolitano.
        Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Artman, in your
    testimony you mentioned concerns about the lack of consultation
    with the Michigan tribes that may be impacted by the terms of
    the settlements. Is the consultation with the tribes generally
    required for all land settlements, and if it isn't, why not?
        Mr. Artman. No, ma'am, it is not required for all land
    settlements. It is not the land settlement portion that
    concerns us. What concerns us is Section 9 of the Michigan
    compacts.
        Ms. Napolitano. Would you explain Section 9? I am sorry.
        Mr. Artman. I am just going to refer to it here just so I
    can get the verbiage correct. Section 9 of the Michigan Tribal
    State Compact requires that no application for land to be taken
    into trust for a two-part determination shall be submitted to
    the Secretary unless there is a written agreement between the
    submitting tribe and the other Federally recognized tribes in
    the state that provides for revenue sharing with those tribes.
        This may or may not be a two-part determination. For all
    intent and purposes, it may eventually be viewed by us as
    settlement of land claim, which is one of the exceptions that
    is found in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to the post-1988
    land, the mandate that any post-1988 land go through is
    prohibited from gaming unless it falls into an exception or a
    two-part determination.
        This may not be viewed as a two-part determination, but,
    again, it depends on a number of factors. One, how the
    settlement agreement is finally passed. How the Settlement Act
    is passed in accordance with that or how it is accepted through
    that legislation. How the compact is presented. If this is a
    two-part determination, then certainly there must be
    consultation.
        Right now this is an area that may cause a concern for us.
        Ms. Napolitano. On that Section 9 of the proposed land
    settlement agreement requiring that the applications take land
    in trust for gaming pursuant to Section 20 of IGRA may not be
    submitted to the Secretary without a written agreement between
    the tribe and state's other tribes, because this is a land
    settlement and not an application to place land in trust
    pursuant to Section 20 is it the administration's position that
    Section 9 applies and that despite the mandatory nature of this
    legislation the administration must still ensure that it
    complies with Section 20 of IGRA?
        If so, has the administration performed the detailed
    analysis arriving to the conclusion, and what is that
    conclusion if you have?
        Mr. Artman. OK. Land cannot be taken into trust based on
    IGRA. IGRA is focused solely on the gaming aspect that may take
    place on Indian lands, so the land would be taken into trust in
    accordance with 151, or through the 151 process, or through a
    mandatory acquisition by mandate of Congress and signed into
    law.
        Again, just going back to my previous statement, Section
    20, I think, specifically refers to the two-part determination
    portion of Section 20. Again, we would need to see if this
    would require a two-part determination or if it would fall
    under the land claims exception.
        Ms. Napolitano. Then what kind of research, what kind of
    information do you have on these two requests that can tell me
    specifically? Because I am sure my colleagues are better
    informed than I am in being able to determine why there is
    opposition to them?
        Mr. Artman. Well, I think the opposition, the panels after
    me are going to explain why they oppose it more strongly. We do
    not support the legislation currently because we want to have
    the ability to examine the land as is taken into trusts under
    the NEPA standards, the 151 standards, and to make sure that if
    any subsequent submission of a compact adheres to IGRA and all
    that we have to consider under IGRA.
        Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Time has run out.
        The Chairman. Before I go back to Ms. Christensen, under
    the settlement provision of these bills Section 9 then would
    not apply?
        Mr. Artman. It may not.
        The Chairman. It may not apply?
        Mr. Artman. It may or may not, but, again, it depends on
    what happens here, how the bill is passed, how the compact is
    presented and how it is categorized. Would it be land in
    settlement of a land claim or another form?
        The Chairman. If Congress determines that it is a
    settlement of land claim, which Mr. Stupak fairly clearly
    presented, if it is indeed a settlement of a land claim, then
    Section 9 would not apply, though, would it?
        Mr. Artman. It would not appear that way.
        The Chairman. OK. Thank you very much. Back to the
    gentlelady from the Virgin Islands.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. There have been some experts
    who have said there have been no cases to date where a tribe
    has been permitted to have taken land into trust for gaming
    purposes in the situation presented by these two tribes, that
    is where the tribe already had reservation land elsewhere in
    the state in question and it in fact was already operating
    tribal casinos within tribal land.
        Do you agree with that, that this would be unprecedented?
    The statement was made early on by the Chairman that this
    doesn't really set a precedent. Is that how the Department of
    Interior sees that?
        Mr. Artman. This would be unique. We have worked with
    settlements of land claims before, but never have we worked
    with settlements of land claims that also had a potential
    gaming component with it, a potential gaming component that is
    already listed out in the settlement agreement.
        Now, there have been instances where there have been land
    claims and later gaming has taken place on it, but they were
    two distinct events.
        Ms. Christensen. Right. That is why I was wondering why you
    thought this was a two-part process because to me, as I read
    it, gaming is already included in the settlement and the claim
    is made under IGRA.
        Mr. Artman. And it may very well not fall under that.
    Again, it depends upon how the land is categorized subsequent
    to passage of this legislation and how it is presented to us.
    In terms of precedent setting, and I know that the bill itself
    says that it will not create a precedent, but it may provide a
    road map for others to follow at a later time.
        Ms. Christensen. Do you think it could result in lawsuits
    by other tribes claiming similar----
        Mr. Artman. We have a room full of lawyers here. I don't
    think I need to give them any ideas.
        Ms. Christensen. I don't have any further questions, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Kildee. Chair will yield to the Chairman.
        The Chairman. To the Chairman.
        Mr. Kildee. I am very sorry.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. May I?
        Mr. Kildee. Absolutely. Gentlelady from Detroit.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Thank you. Thank you very much
    for yielding, and thank you for the opportunity to even ask a
    question in this Resource Committee. Thank you very much. I
    have your letter of January 4, 2008. We have gone over it quite
    a bit. It was quite lengthy and quite specific in various
    things that you stated.
        One thing that really talks glaring to me, and I am going
    to quote, ``In this case, the remote location of the proposed
    gaming facility may encourage reservation residents to leave
    the reservation for an extended period of time to take
    advantage of job opportunities created by the tribal gaming
    facility.''
        First of all, how did you know this was a gaming facility
    because it was stated earlier that this is not a gaming bill?
    Don't answer that right this second. ``The potential departure
    of a significant number of reservation residents and their
    families could have serious affects and far reaching
    implications for the remaining tribal community and its
    continuity as a community.''
        You started off with your testimony today saying that the
    reason why you did not support this application, it was
    incomplete and as well as it needed to be decided in Michigan,
    which is how I took that. Maybe you are going to say something
    different. I would like you to speak to that.
        Mr. Artman. Sure.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. The continuity, the movement of
    the serious distance between it, and you all said, I think
    Congresswoman Christensen used the word that you all used as it
    relates to distance, there is no mileage. There are two words
    that talk about--somebody else has to help me here.
        Mr. Kildee. Commutability.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Yes, that is it. I would like
    for the record as we move on application incomplete, number
    one, needs to be settled in Michigan, there is a process for
    settling this and moreover, the continuity and perhaps
    irreparable harm to the Native American community. All of those
    were some of the things that you discussed in your letter.
        Can you for the record, as we have been here a while and I
    know you have looked at this, again, why did you reject the
    application?
        Mr. Artman. Well, I believe the application that you are
    referring to is the Hannahville application. In that case,
    Hannahville did give us a request to take land into trust for
    the stated purpose of gaming which is distinguishable from this
    particular situation where we don't have an application to take
    land into trust because it is before Congress for the
    settlement of a land claim.
        One of the things that we do look at, for example, in the
    Hannahville case, is we go back to 25 U.S.C. 465, the IRA. The
    purpose of the Indian Reorganization Act was to rebuild the
    tribal community after it had been torn down through allotment
    and termination.
        The words in the bill and throughout the statements that
    supported the legislation, it speaks of building up tribal
    jurisdiction, creating a land where the tribes can be
    sovereign, allowing the community to flourish.
        One of the tests that we have to look at when looking at it
    from the 151, the regulations that are subsequent to 25 U.S.C.
    465, what we look at when we are looking at 151 is that sole
    mandate as trustee delegate taking that land into trust to
    build it up for the community.
        Now, there are many reasons why you may want to take land
    into trust off reservation near or far away, and they may be
    very good and they may be something that we support, but first
    and foremost, we look at those issues that were put upon us by
    25 U.S.C. 465.
        In that particular case, and Hannahville I believe was 400,
    450 miles away from the reservation, there were a number of
    issues that we looked at and came to the conclusion that it
    will be very difficult to substantiate that you are going to be
    able to allow the community as a group, as a whole, to
    flourish, that if you are looking at this land to benefit the
    tribe in that way that tribal members would actually have to
    leave the reservation and in many respects undo what we were
    trying to do under 25 U.S.C. 465 and the 151 regulations.
        So that was the approach that we took there. This is in
    many ways a different situation because of the fact that it is
    the settlement of a land claim.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Settlement of the land claim in
    one regard, and I guess that is debatable far as I am concerned
    because I think it is not. I think that the whole premise is
    not, and it is end around to do something else and using that
    as what it might be. I am not on this committee, so I can't
    argue as well as some of my colleagues will.
        In fact, you stated in the Hannahville case that you just
    described the distance, the destroying or certainly impacting
    the continuity of the community was a disadvantage to the
    Native American tribe.
        Mr. Artman. Under that potential application? That is
    correct.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Thank you. And if it were not
    land swamp, and swamp, my word not yours, the same would apply.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Artman. Thank you, ma'am.
        The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we appreciate the Department's
    desire to review these compacts, but isn't it a fact that IGRA
    allows these compacts to go into affect without the
    Department's review, for example, like after 45 days, and isn't
    there precedent for that having occurred such as in the
    California compact?
        Mr. Artman. Actually, it has occurred more than just the
    California compacts. There are times when compacts do go into
    effect. IGRA states that if a compact is not reviewed within 45
    days of being submitted to the Department that it will be
    deemed approved, and it will go into effect and be published
    into the Federal Register as though it had been approved.
        Nevertheless, we still like to have the opportunity to
    review it for sections that may be contrary to IGRA and how we
    view it.
        The Chairman. But you have allowed compacts to go into
    effect without your review?
        Mr. Artman. That is correct, under the 45 day rule.
        The Chairman. Then the bottom line is this Land Settlement
    Act?
        Mr. Artman. That is correct.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Kildee. One more question. How would the Department
    apply 25 C.F.R. Part 151 to the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribes if they were to seek additional lands contiguous to the
    land acquired through this congressional settlement?
        Mr. Artman. Well, I don't know, sir.
        Mr. Kildee. I appreciate your honest answer.
        Mr. Artman. I would have to look at the application. There
    are a lot of factors that go into it. Are these reservations,
    how contiguous are they, what have you. As I said, as with the
    other questions that asked us to make a conclusion based on a
    small set of facts, we really need to see the full application
    before making a determination.
        Mr. Kildee. Is there also some need within the Department
    to have more specific ways to make that determination?
        Mr. Artman. Well, we do have the 151 process, and it is
    well laid out in the regulations, and how we have done business
    and our checklist. Tribes that make application have access to
    that and certainly know how to do it. I know that having worked
    with Sault Ste. Marie on other matters other than this one that
    tribe, for one, certainly knows how to put land into a trust,
    as well as Bay Mills does, too.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Unless others have questions, we
    appreciate very much your testimony here today and we
    appreciate your good work over in the Department.
        Mr. Artman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Committee.
        Mr. Kildee. At this point I will ask the next panel to come
    to the table. The Honorable Jeffrey D. Parker, President of
    Executive Council, Bay Mills Indian Community, Brimley,
    Michigan, which reservation I have had the pleasure of
    visiting, The Honorable Aaron Payment, Chairman, Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan,
    which I visited probably when I was about 20 years old, The
    Honorable Alan R. Lambert, Mayor of the City of Romulus,
    Michigan, and Mr. Karl Tomion, City Manager, the City of Port
    Huron, Michigan. I will yield the gavel back now to the elected
    chair, and we will call upon Mr. Parker.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JEFFREY D. PARKER, PRESIDENT OF
        EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, BRIMLEY,
                               MICHIGAN;

        Mr. Parker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I bring greetings from
    Brian Newlan. Sure you remember him.
        Mr. Kildee. Well, give Brian my best. He is out of law
    school now, right?
        Mr. Parker. And he is working. Gainfully employed.
        Mr. Kildee. Very good. That is great. Very good.
        Mr. Parker. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jeff
    Parker, I am the elected President of the Bay Mills Indian
    Community, a position I have held since 1989 more or less, all
    but for two years. Before I get into my testimony I did want to
    say one thing.
        I am a child of the cold war, so to speak. My mom was born,
    and raised and died on the Bay Mills Indian Community
    Reservation. My father, however, was born in Smithville, West
    Virginia, so there is a bit of a connection, and just wanted to
    say hi from him.
        I have heard a number of things today and I have some
    concerns about how things were presented as far as the land
    claim that Bay Mills has. This claim goes back to the 1870s. It
    is a claim against the then Governor of the State of Michigan,
    it is a claim for property that my descendants used for
    sustenance and it is a claim that we have been trying to get
    resolved for over 100 years.
        In my written testimony you can see the timeline, how we
    have gone repeatedly to the Federal government seeking redress
    for the lands that we lost. That hasn't happened. In fact, some
    of the arguments wold be gone about Indian gaming and
    exceptions to IGRA if the Federal government had resolved this
    land claim prior to 1988, but it didn't.
        I am glad that Congressman Kildee brought up about the
    Trade and Intercourse Act because that really is the foundation
    upon which this claim is made. Tribes themselves cannot dispose
    of property without an act of Congress. We need an act of
    Congress. We have a settlement. In the past we were trying to
    resolve this without the Governor's input at all.
        Governor Engler took a look at what was going on, took a
    look at the struggles that the Bay Mills Indian Community made
    to get this addressed in an equitable manner because he was
    also concerned about the citizens who now call the Charlotte
    Beach area their home and not having them be displaced. He sat
    down with the tribe and said listen, I know that this type of
    activity happened four times in the past with three other
    tribes and yourself.
        In fact, today there is still a state reservation in
    Michigan. I am willing to sit down and work with you, but if I
    am going to sit down with you I really want to designate the
    area where you are going to have alternative lands. Was it a
    choice of the tribe? No. It was a choice of the Governor who
    the claim was against.
        He picked the City of Port Huron because it was one of the
    only border crossings in Michigan at this time that does not
    have a casino on the opposite side, on the Canadian side. He
    picked it because the citizens of Port Huron support this, as
    do the elected leaders, as we heard earlier, as does Candice
    Miller and Bart Stupak, two very honorable congresspeople that
    I have had the pleasure of working with, and now are U.S.
    Senators.
        This is something that has full support of everyone who has
    been involved with it. Really what we are looking for from this
    community is a way to put the past behind us and be able to go
    forward. I ask for your support. I would be happy to answer any
    questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Parker follows:]

                         Statement of Jeffrey D. Parker

        Mister Chairman, and members of the Committee, I am pleased to be
    invited to present testimony on behalf of the Bay Mills Indian
    Community on H.R. 2176. I speak here today in my official capacity as
    President of the Executive Council, which is the elected government of
    our Tribe. The legislation before you is extremely important to my
    people; its importance will be better understood by my description of
    the history of the Tribe and the origin of this controversy.
        The Bay Mills Indian Community is comprised of the bands of Sault
    Ste. Marie area Chippewa who signed a series of treaties with the
    United States beginning in 1795. My Tribe's modern-day Reservation is
    located at the juncture of the St. Mary's River and Lake Superior, in
    the Iroquois Point area of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, and on Sugar
    Island, which is just east of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, in the St.
    Mary's River Channel. My Tribe is one of four in Michigan which has
    maintained continuous government-to-government relations with the
    United States since treaty times. We adopted a Constitution in 1936
    under the Indian Reorganization Act, and codified as our form of
    government the traditional Chippewa public forum, in which all adult
    members comprise the General Tribal Council. I represent a direct
    democracy, which votes every two years to select officers, known as the
    Executive Council. Our total enrollment is approximately 1,750 members.
    It is on their behalf that I speak today.
        I am very proud to testify in support of this legislation, as it
    represents the final step in obtaining redress of a great wrong done to
    our people over 100 years ago, a wrong that has imposed continuing
    consequences to the present day. The Bay Mills Indian Community is
    deeply grateful to Congressman Bart Stupak for sponsoring H.R. 2176,
    and to Congresswoman Candice Miller and Congressman Patrick Kennedy for
    co-sponsoring it. I also wish to express my thanks to Chairman Rahall
    and Ranking Member Young for understanding how important this
    legislation is to my people and for holding this hearing today.
    History of Our Land Claim
        Dr. Charles Cleland, PhD., a preeminent Great Lakes Indian
    ethnohistorian, has reviewed the history of the Hay Lake/Charlotte
    Beach land claim. His report on the claim, directed to the members of
    the Committee, is attached as Attachment 1. I will attempt to summarize
    his findings in my testimony.
        The Sault Ste. Marie area Chippewa bands, among many other bands
    throughout the Upper Great Lakes, participated in a series of cession
    treaty negotiations by which large tracts of land were sold to the
    federal government. These lands, which later became a large portion of
    the State of Michigan, were ceded to the United States in 1807, 1819,
    1820, and 1836. The terms of the Treaty of 1836 are particularly
    significant to the story of my people.
        The Treaty signed by our ancestors in 1836 promised to set aside
    certain lands for us in perpetuity. When the 1836 cession Treaty was
    sent to Congress for ratification, however, the Senate unilaterally
    inserted a provision which limited protection of the lands reserved
    under it to a five-year term. As a result, over the course of a
    relatively short period of time the Chippewa lost hundreds of thousands
    of acres of land, in direct contravention of the express terms of the
    Treaty that had been signed by them.
        In part to rectify the injustices done by the 1836 Treaty, the
    United States in 1855 entered into another Treaty with our ancestors by
    which new lands were to be reserved for our use. Among these lands was
    property specifically identified by legal description in the 1855
    Treaty at Hay Lake (the area in modern times known as Charlotte Beach).
    My Tribe's ancestors signed the 1855 Treaty with the express
    understanding that the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land would be set aside
    for our exclusive use, and that it would be protected from alienation
    and European settler encroachment.
        One day after the 1855 Treaty was concluded, however, the United
    States Land Office allowed that very land at Hay Lake to be sold to
    non-Indian speculators. Hence, despite the fact that the United States
    agents induced our ancestors to sign the 1855 Treaty on the
    understanding that the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land would be included
    within our reserved lands, and despite the fact that the Senate
    ratified the 1855 Treaty with the legal description of the Hay Lake/
    Charlotte Beach lands still in place, the Tribe lost that land by
    virtue of the United States Land Office's actions.
        In order to recover the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land, which was of
    central importance to us for historical, food gathering, and cultural
    reasons, the Bands used their annuity money to buy back what portion of
    it that they could. Upon advice of the Bureau of Indian Affairs agent
    at the time, trust title to the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land was
    conveyed from the land speculators to the Governor of the State of
    Michigan, to protect the land from further alienation and encroachment
    by the Trade and Intercourse Act's prohibition against the alienation
    of Indian lands without express Congressional consent.
        My ancestors hunted and lived on the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach
    property for nearly thirty years undisturbed by the State of Michigan.
    In the 1880s, however, Chippewa County determined that it would impose
    taxes on the property. Even though he held trust title, the Governor of
    the State of Michigan failed to respond to the tax assessment in any
    manner whatsoever. Despite repeated requests from our people to the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs for help, the federal government also took no
    action. Because neither the federal government nor the State of
    Michigan acted to protect our lands as was required by the Trade and
    Intercourse Act, the County moved to foreclose on the property and our
    ancestors were evicted.
        I want to make you aware of what the Bureau of Indian Affairs' own
    agent wrote in 1880 about the impending sale of our Hay Lake/Charlotte
    Beach lands:
            At the ``Sault'', the Old Chief Shaw wa no is in very destitute
            circumstances, and much agonized as his land which amounts to
            some 300 acres bought by annuity money and deed in trust to the
            Governor of this State many years ago, has been sold
            fortaxes...The Old man wished me to do something for him or ask
            the Government to provide the means to cancel this claim for
            taxes, He is Old, sick & Blind; and all his people are very
            poor, simply sustaining life by fishing, picking berries, or an
            odd days work which chance may throw in their way...
    Emphasis added. G. Lee, Michigan Indian Agent, in a letter to the
    Commissioner of Indian Affairs dated August 1880.
        In 1916, we again petitioned the Bureau of Indian Affairs for help
    when on behalf of the Community tribal member William Johnson wrote to
    the Bureau begging for assistance in regaining the Hay Lake lands. The
    Bureau rebuffed his petition.
        In 1925, an attorney, John Shine, wrote again on the Tribe's
    behalf, begging the Bureau for help in recovering the Hay Lake
    property. The Bureau again rebuffed the Tribe's petition for help.
        In the 1970s, the United States' own expert witness (widely
    considered to be the preeminent historian of Indians in the Great Lakes
    area) in the U.S. v. Michigan treaty fishing rights litigation
    highlighted the existence of the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach claim in her
    expert report submitted to the Federal District Court for the Western
    District of Michigan. See Report of Dr. Helen Tanner, dated April 1974,
    for the United States in U.S. v. Michigan, Civ. Case No. 2:73 CV 26
    (W.D. MI).
        In the 1980s, the Bay Mills Indian Community repeatedly petitioned
    the Department of the Interior to include the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach
    claim on its list of protected historical Indian claims pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 2415. Through a Field Office of the Office of the
    Solicitor, Interior erroneously denied our Tribe's petition for the
    simple and only reason that the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land was held
    in trust by the State rather than the federal government. (A copy of
    that determination letter is attached as Attachment 2.) The Field
    Solicitor's refusal was not legally supportable. Existing federal court
    opinions made clear that the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act protects
    Indian lands held by states, and Congress had specifically directed
    Interior to protect all historical Indian claims except those that
    ``had no legal merit whatsoever.'' (See section 3(a) of Pub. L. 97-
    394.) Further, the Field Solicitor's refusal was inconsistent with
    general Interior policy because in fact Interior had included on the
    final list of protected historical claims a fair number of state-held
    lands, including some held for state recognized tribes.
        The Tribe was not the only entity seeking resolution of the Hay
    Lake/Charlotte Beach claim. Property owners in the area were contacting
    both the Department of the Interior and the local Congressman, seeking
    help in their efforts to obtain clean title to their land. An example
    of that effort is correspondence with then-Congressman Bob Davis,
    attached as Attachment 3.
        In the 1990s, we tried to obtain redress in the courts. Our efforts
    were unsuccessful. Our federal court case was dismissed on a procedural
    technicality (the court found that the mere possibility that the Sault
    Tribe might have a claim to the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land prevented
    the case from going forward). We fared no better in the state courts,
    which were unable to address our equitable claim for land, and had
    little understanding of the federal Indian legal issues before them. In
    both forums, our claim was dismissed on procedural grounds, the merits
    of the Bay Mills claim to the land unaddressed. Additionally, while
    these cases were pending, the Tribe was informed by the Department of
    the Interior that no court decision could unilaterally extinguish its
    claim to the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land. Extinguishment of the
    Tribe's claim required Congress to act, with or without a court order
    approving a land claim settlement.
        In 2002, we entered into direct settlement negotiations with the
    Governor of the State of Michigan to resolve the claim. To Governor
    John Engler's credit, he determined that it would work with our Tribe
    to address this long-standing grievance. Subsequently, we were able to
    forge a settlement that addresses the needs and concerns of the Bay
    Mills Indian Community, of the State of Michigan, of the people living
    within the Charlotte Beach land claim area, and of the people living in
    Port Huron. That settlement, executed by the Bay Mills Indian Community
    and the State in August 2002, and as recently amended by agreement with
    Governor Jennifer Granholm, is the backbone of the legislation here
    before you today.
        I underscore this history because I want the Congress to understand
    the long-standing importance that this land has held for my people. I
    want the Congress to understand that this land claim is not about
    gaming, not about forum shopping, not about modern-day business deals.
    This land claim exists because of negligence by Land Office staff,
    historical inaction by Department of Interior staff, and abandonment of
    trustee obligations by the Governor. Resolution of this land claim is
    about finally securing just compensation for the Tribe, finally being
    able to close this painful chapter of our history, and finally being
    able to shift our focus to the future. It is about finally achieving
    justice.
    The Settlement
        In commencing settlement negotiations with the Governor of
    Michigan, the Bay Mills Indian Community well understood that no
    agreement would be possible without compromise. Because achieving
    closure to this long-standing wrong was very important to our
    community, we worked hard to reach an accommodation with the Governor
    by which a resolution to our claim would serve both our goals.
        The Tribe's goals were to recover lost lands, and to receive
    monetary compensation due us for having lost possession of those lands.
    The Governor's goals were to quiet title to the claim area property
    without displacement of the people living there, to construct a
    settlement that would not have an impact on the State's budget, and to
    ensure that any replacement lands would be located in a community
    desirous of our presence there.
        The Settlement accomplishes both the Tribe's and the Governor's
    goals in a fair and equitable manner. Indeed, we would like to think
    that the spirit of mutual respect and cooperation with which these
    negotiations took place should serve as a model for how such difficult
    and emotionally charged issues can be resolved. In addition, I note
    that the general structure of the Bay Mills settlement is consistent
    with other land claims settlements already enacted by Congress. (See,
    for example, the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Claims
    Settlement ratified in the 106th Congress and codified at 25 U.S.C.
    sec. 1778, in which that tribe's claim for trespass damages was
    resolved with replacement lands and a related gaming opportunity.)
    Indian Gaming
        We understand that there is a reluctance to allow Indian land claim
    settlements to be used to as vehicles for the expansion of Indian
    gaming. We share that concern. We think, however, that the United
    States owes it our people, particularly given the long and unfortunate
    history of our dealings with the United States, to take a hard look at
    the merits of this land claim, and to understand the proposed
    settlement in the context of our land claim rather than through the
    filter of modern controversies surrounding Indian gaming.
        If we had never been kicked out of our Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach
    property, if either the United States government or the State of
    Michigan had honored and enforced the Trade and Intercourse Act when
    Chippewa County sought to (and achieved) our dispossession through tax
    foreclosure sales, then everyone, everywhere, would understand the Hay
    Lake/Charlotte Beach property to be ``Indian lands'' held by the Tribe
    prior to the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Had
    our ancestors never been evicted by county tax assessors, we would
    continue to live there to this day, and we would be entitled, under
    IGRA, to operate an Indian gaming facility there.
        The Governor made clear that he would not agree to my Tribe's
    recovery of the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach land because it could result
    in the eviction of current landowners in the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach
    area. The Governor instead offered his support for the concept of
    finding new lands to replace the Hay Lake/Charlotte Beach property in
    return for our agreement that our trust title to the Hay Lake/Charlotte
    Beach property would be extinguished by Congressional action. By
    agreeing to provide replacement land to the Tribe, the Governor has
    alleviated the anxiety of persons currently living in the Hay Lake/
    Charlotte Beach claim area that they might some day be evicted from
    their homes. By agreeing that such replacement lands should be eligible
    for gaming, the Governor has agreed that the replacement land should in
    fact have the same status as the lands we have agreed to give up--that
    is, the replacement land should be treated as if it, too, had been held
    by the tribe since the mid-nineteenth century.
        The Governor insisted that we locate replacement lands in a
    community that was desirous of hosting us. We have done that. As you
    will hear directly from representatives of Port Huron today, that
    community affirmatively wishes our Tribe to locate its replacement
    lands there.
        I also wish to underscore that the Governor insisted that he would
    not approve appropriation of money from the State budget to compensate
    us for the damage done to us by having lost the use and benefit of
    these lands for more than a century. We have agreed to that; indeed,
    have agreed that we will try to achieve full compensation based on the
    money we ourselves make through economic development on the replacement
    lands. Those funds will generate the income we require in order to
    provide governmental services and programs to the Tribe's members and
    their families. Without that income, we would have no choice but to
    come back both to the State and the Federal Government, and insist that
    we be compensated for both parties' failure to protect our lands from
    alienation as required by the Trade and Intercourse Act.
        For these reasons, I strongly and respectfully urge you to consider
    this settlement not through the lens of Indian gaming, but rather in
    the context of the long and well-documented history of the wrong done
    to my people, and in the context of the overall wisdom of a settlement
    crafted to create the greatest good for the most people.
    Conclusion
        I recognize that there are additional issues which may be of
    interest or concern to the Committee. I am happy to address any and all
    issues, and I welcome your questions today. I once again thank you for
    the opportunity to tell the Bay Mills Indian Community's story, and I
    respectfully urge you to support the efforts of the Bay Mills Indian
    Community, the citizens of Charlotte Beach and Port Huron, and the
    State of Michigan, by providing the necessary Congressional
    ratification of our settlement without further delay.
                                     ______

     Statement of Charles E. Cleland, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of
       Anthropology, Michigan State University, submitted for the record

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Natural Resources Committee of the
    U.S. House of Representatives:
        My name is Charles E. Cleland and I am a Distinguished Professor
    Emeritus of Anthropology from Michigan State University (MSU). Since
    receiving my PhD in Anthropology from the University of Michigan in
    1966, I have devoted my career to the study of the history and culture
    of the native tribes of the Upper Great Lakes region. I have authored
    several books and many journal articles on these topics and have
    likewise taught numerous courses related to the anthropology and
    history of the Great Lakes region. During my career and subsequent to
    my retirement from MSU in 2000, I have had frequent occasions to offer
    expert testimony in our federal courts as they were hearing cases
    involving treaty right issues.
        I come before you today at the request of the Bay Mills Indian
    Community to discuss the historical events which precipitated the
    Charlotte Beach land claim over 130 years ago and which has been a
    point of bitter consternation for the Bay Mils Community ever since. My
    testimony today is also is support of H.R. 2176 which would resolve the
    long-standing Charlotte Beach land claim to the satisfaction of the Bay
    Mills Community.
        The Charlotte Beach land controversy originated over 135 years ago
    and has been a bitter point of consternation for the Bay Mills Indian
    Community ever since. H.R. 2176, which is now before the Natural
    Resources Committee of the House of Representatives, would resolve the
    many injustices that have resulted from the botched allotment of these
    lands under the Treaty of Detroit in July 31, 1855.
        Without a doubt the Bay Mills Indian Community has a valid and long
    standing historical claim to the Charlotte Beach lands which consist of
    Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Sec. 7, T. 45N., R. 2E., and Lot 1 of Sec. 18,
    T. 45N., R. 2E., in Chippewa County, Michigan.
        Chief Shawan's band, which was without land allotments since the
    land assigned to them in the Charlotte Beach area had either been
    previously sold to non-Indians or was underwater, became one of the
    bands that formed the Bay Mills Indian Community in 1871.
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.001

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.002

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.003

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.004

        The Chairman. [Presiding.] Thank you.
        Chairman Payment.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE AARON PAYMENT, CHAIRMAN, SAULT STE.
      MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS, SAULT STE. MARIE, MICHIGAN

        Mr. Payment. Chairman Rahall, my name is Aaron Payment. I
    speak to you today as the elected Chairperson of the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. We are the largest Federally
    recognized tribe within Michigan. I would like to thank you for
    giving me the opportunity to testify on both bills today, and
    especially on behalf of my people. Let me begin by expressing
    my tribe's deepest gratitude to Michigan Representatives John
    Dingell, Candice Miller, Dale Kildee and Bart Stupak.
        I would also like to thank our former Republican Governor,
    John Engler, and our current Democratic Governor, Jennifer
    Granholm, for their leadership in trying to settle a century
    old wrong that was committed on my ancestors. Today, we have
    heard a lot of testimony, and I am deviating from my
    presentation because I think gaming unfortunately brings out
    the most ugliest in politics and the distortion of facts.
        Hopefully, your committee will have the opportunity to read
    through all of the testimony and discern what is fact and what
    is not fact. As Indian people we are used to being in this
    position. We didn't come about where we are today by having
    things handed to us. My tribe had to become Federally
    recognized in 1972 after 20 years of fighting to try to provide
    for our people.
        The wrong committed on my ancestors was that the land that
    was withdrawn from the public domain for the benefit of Indians
    were in fact selected by a non-Indian in contravention of the
    1855 Treaty. Make no mistake, this land was illegally taken and
    only you, only Congress, has the opportunity to resolve that
    claim.
        Governor Granholm, in her November 14 letter, wrote to you
    and asserted that both the Federal Court and the State Court
    have addressed this claim, but neither has rejected it. You
    have heard different testimony today to suggest that this is an
    illegitimate claim and that somehow this has not been tested,
    but Governor Granholm, who used to be our Attorney General for
    the State of Michigan, asserted to you in a letter on November
    14 that the claims have not been dismissed.
        Two key issues regarding the settlement need to be
    addressed. First, the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
    includes a land settlement provision. When IGRA was enacted,
    Congress contemplated that situations may arise where tribes
    may wish to conduct gaming on lands acquired through land claim
    settlements.
        IGRA specifically allows this to happen. Contrary and
    notwithstanding to some of the testimony that you heard today
    to try to discredit this, IGRA specifically allows this to
    happen. Second, it is important to note that this legislation
    is not off-reservation gaming. That was used almost like a
    dirty word today.
        IGRA provides for Congress under your plenary power to take
    new lands into trust to create a new reservation as a remedy
    for lands that were unjustly taken from Indian people. We are
    not requesting off-reservation status under a two-part
    determination. That is why the Under Secretary was here. We are
    not requesting that.
        We are requesting that you settle a land claim on our
    behalf. I would be remiss if not to emphasize the importance of
    casino gaming on my tribe and to the State of Michigan. Before
    gaming, unemployment in my community was about 50 percent.
    Today, gaming provides good jobs and benefits to thousands of
    Indians and non-Indians alike all across the State of Michigan.
        Gaming provides revenues that empower my tribe to expand
    services with approximately 56 percent of our revenue coming
    from our own sources from gaming revenue and only 44 percent of
    the revenue for our services coming from Federal entitlement
    that we, as tribes, prepaid through the treaties and land
    cessation.
        Due to our large membership at 37,000 members we are not a
    per capita tribe. One hundred percent of our revenues goes
    toward services like healthcare for our members, services for
    our elders, college scholarships, an array of social services,
    to pave our roads, to buy public safety equipment, and to
    provide recreational opportunities and so much more.
        With 64 percent of my members residing outside of our
    service area and 97 percent living off reservation because we
    are a reservation poor tribe we need to generate even more
    revenues to begin to meet the needs of our most basic needs for
    our members including healthcare, education and elder services
    for our members regardless of where they live.
        There was some talk earlier about why are we picking
    Romulus? We happen to have 3,300 tribal members who live in the
    tri-county area of Wayne, Oakland and Macomb County. Certainly
    we have an interest in that community as much as anybody else
    has in that community. It is our goal as a tribe to try to
    provide for our people.
        Our opponents contend that a new casino would hurt
    employment in Detroit. My tribe happens to be the majority
    owner of one of those casinos. We own the Greektown Casino. We
    will do nothing to jeopardize our largest asset or take away
    jobs from Detroit or from ourselves.
        You know, it is interesting that when we hear these kind of
    criticisms because we helped to sponsor Proposal E in order to
    give Detroit the opportunities that they currently have, and we
    are one of those casinos that provides those opportunities, we
    are one of those casinos that employs nearly 3,000 employees in
    the City of Detroit.
        When some politicians who testified in front of you today
    when Proposal E was going through, they were silent on the
    issue because they didn't know what their constituents would
    think. We supported it all along. Our interest is to provide
    for our people to be justly compensated for land illegally
    taken that occurred over a century ago and to finally clear the
    clouded titles for the families who today own homes on the
    Charlotte Beach lands.
        Finally, I am grateful for the strong support we have
    received. Federal, state and local officials, both Democrat and
    Republican, support this legislation. Two Michigan Governors on
    both sides of the aisle have signed agreements to settle this
    claim once and for all. This is a legislation that is a fair
    and just settlement to our claim.
        On behalf of the members of my tribe, I thank you for the
    opportunity to testify in front of you today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Payment follows:]

     Statement of Aaron Payment, Chairperson of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
                              of Chippewa Indians

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Aaron
    Payment. I speak to you today as the elected Chairperson of the Sault
    Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, the largest of Michigan's 12
    federally recognized Native American tribes. On behalf of our Tribe's
    37,000 members who live across Michigan and the world, I would like to
    thank you and the entire Committee for your consideration of this
    matter and for giving me the opportunity to be here to testify in
    support of H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176.
        Before I begin the formal part of my testimony, I want to express
    the Sault Tribe's deepest gratitude to Michigan Representatives John
    Dingell, Bart Stupak and Candice Miller. Their leadership has the
    potential to settle a more than century-old wrong committed against the
    ancestors of the Sault Tribe and to create more than 2,700 good jobs
    and hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments in a region of
    Michigan where the economy is sputtering and desperate for good news.
    These Representatives care deeply about Michigan's Native people and
    are working tirelessly to boost our state's economic fortunes. The
    Sault Tribe is also grateful to Michigan's former Republican Governor,
    John M. Engler, for his support and for negotiating the 2002 agreement
    between the State of Michigan and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and to our
    current Democratic Governor, Jennifer Granholm, who has recognized and
    affirmed the validity of our land claim, negotiated an addendum to the
    2002 Engler agreement and has respectfully urged approval of our
    settlement by the U.S. Congress.
        My testimony centers on four main points:
          First, I will focus on the history of Charlotte Beach and
    the circumstances that gave rise to our land claim. I will show how two
    Michigan governors have confirmed that the Charlotte Beach lands were
    wrongly taken from the Sault Tribe's ancestors.
          Second, I will describe the federal court's conclusion
    that the Sault Tribe has a valid, un-adjudicated claim to the Charlotte
    Beach lands that were wrongly taken from the Tribe's ancestors.
          Third, I will describe the resolution of the land claim
    contained in Governor Engler's 2002 Settlement Agreement with the Tribe
    and Governor Granholm's 2007addendum.
          Fourth, I will demonstrate that the Charlotte Beach
    settlement falls within the ``settlement of land claim'' contemplated
    by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and is in no way an expansion of
    ``off-reservation'' gaming. Rather, the 2002 settlement creates new
    trust lands as compensation for lands that were illegally taken from
    our ancestors.
          Finally, I hope to help you understand how passage of
    this legislation confirming the 2002 settlement agreement between the
    State and the Sault Tribe provides just and fair compensation for the
    wrong done to the ancestral bands of my people more than 100 years ago
    and how it will add jobs and revenues to Detroit, Wayne County and the
    State of Michigan.
        The history of the Tribe's land claim in Charlotte Beach begins
    five centuries ago, when Europeans were first setting foot on the lands
    of what would become the Upper Peninsula of the Great State of
    Michigan. The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, together with
    the Bay Mills Indian Community, is a modern expression of the
    Anishinabeg who have lived in the Great Lakes since time immemorial.
    Back in the early 1600s, many of our Anishinabeg ancestors made their
    homes near the rapids of the St. Mary's River, which they called
    Powating (Bawating)--the rapids. This area would later become the City
    of Sault Ste. Marie and Chippewa County, Michigan. In the mid 1600s,
    our ancestors greeted the French who traveled from Montreal to the
    Sault to obtain beaver pelts for the fledgling fur trade. When French
    sovereignty ended a century later in 1763, the English moved into the
    area and took over what had become a lucrative fur trade. By 1820, the
    British had been replaced by Americans, and the Anishinabeg ceded 16
    square miles of land along the St. Mary's River to the United States to
    build Fort Brady. We have a long and proud tradition working closely
    with the Americans to avoid conflict and accommodate settler's needs.
        Two important treaties were signed over the next two decades. The
    Treaty of 1836--also known as the Treaty of Washington, 7 Stat.491--was
    supposed to set aside certain lands for our use in perpetuity. The
    treaty ceded northern lower Michigan and the eastern portion of the
    Upper Peninsula to the United States. In return, the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe received cash payments and temporary ownership of about 250,000
    acres of land contained in disparate, small reservations located
    throughout the ceded territory. These reservations were only to last
    five years, unless extended by the President, which never occurred.
    Because of the temporary nature of the reservations under the 1836
    Treaty, the status of the Ottawa and Chippewa after 1841 was tenuous
    and uncertain. To address their condition, the United States entered
    into a second treaty with these same tribes in 1855.
        The Treaty of 1855--also known as the Treaty of Detroit, 11
    Stat.621--is central to our land claim. The treaty was agreed to on
    July 31, 1855 and ratified by the Senate on April 15, 1856. Under the
    Treaty, the U.S. government agreed to withdraw large parcels of land
    from the public domain--meaning those lands were no longer available
    for purchase from the federal government and were to be reserved for
    the use of our tribe. All of the lands were located within the
    territory ceded under the Treaty of 1836. The Indians--including our
    ancestors--were allowed to select land allotments from the withdrawn
    areas for a 10-year period. After 10 years, all unselected lands were
    to be restored to the public domain. The area in Chippewa County now
    known as Charlotte Beach was among the lands specified in the treaty
    for the use of my ancestors and were for withdrawn from public domain
    under the Treaty of 1855, 11 Stat.621.
        In June of 1856, a non-Indian land speculator named Boziel Paul
    received a patent from the federal government to lands in Charlotte
    Beach even though those lands had been designated for withdrawal from
    the public domain for use by my ancestors under the 1855 treaty.
    1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States Patent (June 16, 1856), recorded in Liber 3 of
    Deeds on page 147 (Oct. 12, 1857), granting Lot 1, Sec. 18, Township
    45N, Range 2E; United States Patent (June 16, 1856), recorded in Liber
    3 of Deeds on page 150 (Oct. 12, 1857), granting Lot 1, Sec. 7,
    Township 45N, Range 2E; United States Patent (June 16, 1856), recorded
    in Liber 3 of Deeds on page 149 (Oct. 12, 1857), granting Lot Nos. 2, 3
    and 4, Sec. 7, Township 45N, Range 2E
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        After receiving the patent to the Charlotte Beach lands, Paul
    visited the property and discovered that Indians--including my
    ancestors--were already living there.
        To avoid conflict, on October 12, 1857, Paul conveyed the lands to
    then Michigan Governor Kingsley S. Bingham in trust for the original
    bands of the Sault Ste. Marie Indians. 2 The Governor, who
    may or may not have been aware of the 1857 conveyance, failed to pay
    property taxes on the Charlotte Beach lands, which were then sold in
    1884 and 1885 at a tax sale to third parties, who were non-Indians,
    even though the land belonged to the Bay Mills and Sault Tribes
    ancestors, who were then living on the land. 3
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Warranty Deed (Oct. 12, 1857), recorded in Liber 3 of Deeds on
    page 150, conveying Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sec. 7, Township 45N, Range
    2E to Kingsley S. Bingham for consideration of $375.00; Warranty Deed
    (Oct. 12, 1857), recorded in Liber 3 of Deeds on page 147, conveying
    Lot No. 1, Sec. 18, Township 45N, Range 2E, to Kingsley S. Bingham for
    consideration of $375.00
        \3\ State Tax Land Deed (Sept. 6, 1884), recorded in Liber 11 of
    Deeds on page 516, conveying Lot Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, Sec. 7, Township
    45N, Range 2E, for consideration of $35.00.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In sum, the wrong committed on the Sault Tribe's ancestors was that
    lands that had been designated for withdrawal from public domain for
    the benefit of the tribal members were, in fact, selected by a non-
    Indian, who received a patent to these lands, in contravention to the
    1855 Treaty of Detroit.
        Additionally, after that non-Indian subsequently transferred the
    land to the governor of Michigan in trust for the benefit of our
    ancestors, the state of Michigan failed to maintain ownership of the
    lands for the tribe's benefit and, instead, improperly lost the lands
    for non-payment of taxes.
        Make no mistake; this Land was illegally taken from the Sault
    Tribe.
        As a result of this illegal land taking from the tribes, not only
    were the tribes denied rights to their ancestral lands that were
    designated for their benefit, but the current homeowners face clouded
    title, since both Bay Mills and the Sault Tribe claim the land as their
    own, as do the homeowners. These 200 homeowners now face uncertain
    property rights and diminished property values. As Congressmen John
    Dingell and Bart Stupak and Congresswoman Candice Miller wrote to you
    and Ranking Member Young: ``.,..we can assure you that for the property
    owners and taxpayers in Charlotte Beach, this ``purported'' land claim
    is all too real. Clouding of private property titles as a result of
    this unresolved claim has resulted in homeowners finding as much as 90%
    of their property's assessed value has been lost. In turn, this has led
    to a depreciation of the real estate tax base of Chippewa County,
    resulting in lost revenue and reduced government services.''
        It is also important to note that both a federal court and a state
    court have addressed the land claim. Indeed, the federal court
    confirmed an important element of the Sault Tribe's claim.
        In 1998, the United States District Court for the Western District
    of Michigan dismissed a quiet title action addressed to the Charlotte
    Beach claim brought by the Bay Mills Indian Community. The suit was
    filed against various land owners of the Charlotte Beach tracts and a
    title company insuring their titles. The District Court ruled that Bay
    Mills could not prosecute the quiet title action alone because it was
    not the only tribe that had a claim to the Charlotte Beach properties.
        Indeed, the Sault Tribe had the identical claim to the lands. As I
    noted earlier, both the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians are modern-day political successors in
    interest to the Original Bands of Sault Ste. Marie Indians. Thus, the
    Sault Tribe was held to be an indispensable party to the lawsuit. The
    court concluded that in the Sault Tribe's absence, the lawsuit could
    not proceed, and since the Tribe enjoys sovereign immunity, it could
    not be forced to participate in the litigation without its consent.
        The District Court's decision was affirmed by the United States
    Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in a per curium opinion. Bay
    Mills Indian Cmty. v. W. United Life Assurance Co., 208 F.3d 212 (6th
    Cir. 2000).
        In a letter of November 14, 2007 to Chairman Rahall and Ranking
    Member Young, Governor Granholm described the legal situation as
    follows, ``The federal courts have held that both the Bay Mills Tribe
    and the Sault Tribe trace their ancestry to the two Chippewa bands
    named in the deed to the disputed Charlotte Beach lands and that both
    Tribes, accordingly, share in any potential claim based on those lands;
    both tribes are necessary parties in any effort to conclusively resolve
    those claims.'' Governor Granholm concluded that ``in order to
    adequately protect the legal interests of the state and its citizens,
    it is vital for congress to act to approve both of these amended
    settlement agreements, allowing these claims to be resolved fully and
    finally.''
        At about this same time, Bay Mills initiated a lawsuit against the
    State of Michigan in its Court of Claims, claiming that it was entitled
    to money damages against the State because of the Governor's failure to
    keep the Charlotte Beach lands in trust for its benefit, consistent
    with the Paul deed in the 1880s. In addition, Bay Mills contended that
    it was entitled to money damages because of the State's action allowing
    the lands to be forfeited due to the failure to pay taxes on the
    property.
        Although the Bay Mills' lawsuit against the State of Michigan in
    state court was rejected, it was not because that court concluded that
    there was no valid land claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that
    the State was not liable to Bay Mills for money damages primarily
    because the statute of limitations barred the claim. Bay Mills Indian
    Cmty. v. Michigan, 626 N.W.2d 169, 175-76 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). To
    conclude that the State is not liable in money damages to Bay Mills is,
    of course, far different from concluding that Bay Mills had no valid
    claim to the Charlotte Beach lands.
        This legislation resolves the century old historical land claim by
    Bay Mills and the Sault Tribe.
        In 2002, Governor John Engler reached separate land claim
    settlements with both tribes. Under the settlements, the tribes agreed
    to relinquish any and all legal and equitable land claims to the
    Charlotte Beach lands, and, in return, the Governor agreed to select
    alternative lands in Michigan for the tribes. As the agreement with the
    Governor reads, ``the Governor, as chief executive officer of the State
    of Michigan...desires to settle the land claim for the benefit of the
    State of Michigan and, in particular, the Charlotte Beach
    landowners...''
        In 2007, Governor Jennifer Granholm, amended and endorsed the 2002
    agreement stating in her November 14 letter to Chairman Rahall and
    Ranking Member Young, ``I strongly encourage you to support H.R. 4115
    provided that it includes the Settlement Agreement as modified by the
    enclosed addendum.''
        Two other issues regarding this legislation need to be addressed:
        First, it is important to understand that land claims are
    permissible under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act(IGRA). In fact, IGRA
    includes a land settlement provision. When IGRA was enacted in 1988 it
    was contemplated that situations may arise where tribal governments may
    wish to conduct gaming on lands acquired through land claim
    settlements, and IGRA specifically allows this to happen. In effect,
    under this IGRA exception, new trust lands are established--at times
    long distances from the tribe's original reservation.
        Soon after IGRA was enacted, Congress passed the Seneca Nation
    Settlement Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1774-1774h The United
    States wanted to make up for the past inequities associated with rental
    payments to the Seneca Nation Indians, located in western New York,
    under 99-year leases authorized by Congress in 1875. The leases were
    substantially under market value. Under the Seneca Nation Settlement
    Act (SNSA), the Seneca Nation Indians received money from the United
    States and the State of New York. Those funds could not be obtained by
    the Seneca Nation Indians until the tribe entered into new leases and
    released all claims under the old leases. Some of those funds could be
    used to purchase land for economic development purposes, including
    gaming. In 2002, the Seneca Nation Indians and the State of New York
    entered into a tribal-state class III gaming compact under IGRA, which
    authorized the Seneca to establish three gaming facilities: one on its
    reservation and one each in the cities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls.
    The money used for the purchase of gaming sites in these three areas
    was from the SNSA, the land claims settlement act.
        In addition, we are aware of at least three other Indian casinos
    operating on lands very distant from those tribes' reservations. The
    Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin owns and operates a
    casino in downtown Milwaukee, which is roughly 200 miles south of the
    Tribe's headquarters and reservation in Crandon. The Kalispell Tribe in
    Washington State operates a casino in the City of Airway Heights near
    Spokane, about 75 miles south of its main reservation. The third is the
    Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan. This Tribe operates a casino
    near Marquette, roughly 80 miles west of its reservation.
        Although these casinos are operated on lands made eligible for
    gaming under a different exception to IGRA than the one at issue here,
    they nonetheless demonstrate that under some circumstances gaming may
    occur on parcels of land very distant from the reservation of the
    affected tribe. More importantly, the Department of the Interior has
    made it quite clear that its difficulty with allowing gaming to occur
    on parcels far from the affected tribe's reservation is limited to
    applications for exception to IGRA's prohibition against gaming on off-
    reservation parcels under the so-called two-part determination
    exception in IGRA, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A). Here, the Sault Tribe
    is not seeking a two-part determination for the new alternative lands.
    Rather, it seeks to game on the alternative lands agreed to in the 2002
    agreement because that land would be taken into trust in settlement of
    a land claim, a different exception to IGRA's prohibition against
    gaming on after-acquired lands. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(i).
        Secondly, there is a misconception that this legislation will lead
    to ``off-reservation gaming.'' In fact, the IGRA exception embedded in
    this legislation takes new lands into trust as the remedy for the lands
    that were unfairly taken from Sault Tribe. Indeed, the legislation will
    lead to new trust lands and not ``off-reservation gaming.''
        Additionally, a constitutional amendment approved in 2004 by
    Michigan voters to limit gaming states that the requirement ``does not
    apply in Indian tribal gaming.'' In fact, the amendment also requires
    new casinos to win the approval of local voters before they can open.
    All the localities involved have approved ballot initiatives supporting
    projects in their communities
        Before I conclude, I would be remiss not to emphasize the
    importance of casino gaming to my Tribe and to the State of Michigan.
    Before gaming, unemployment among my tribal members exceeded 50
    percent. Today, gaming provides good jobs to thousands of Native
    Americans and non-Indians across our state.
        Since our tribe is so large, we do not have ``per capita'' payments
    to our tribal members. All of our revenue goes to services for our
    33,000 members. With federal entitlements, we receive just 45 percent
    of the established need for our members who reside in our Upper
    Peninsula service area. We pick up the other 55 percent out of gaming
    revenue. 64 percent of our members reside outside of our service area,
    including approximately 2000 in the tri-county Detroit area, we do not
    receive any federal entitlements for these members. Our business
    ventures provide revenues that have enabled the Sault Tribe to provide
    health care to our members--to open an award-winning school for tribal
    children--to provide the services that our tribal elders deserve and
    long did without--to send tribal members to college--to provide a
    myriad of human service programs--to pave roads, buy public safety
    equipment, provide recreational opportunities, and so much more.
    Because of gaming, thousands of my tribal members have escaped state
    and federal welfare programs for the hope and opportunities that only
    gainful, meaningful employment can provide. A new property on the
    alternative lands that Governor Engler selected, Governor Granholm
    endorsed and local voters approved would boost benefits and services to
    our members.
        It would also benefit the City of Detroit, where unemployment is in
    double digits and Wayne County, where unemployment is nearly 9 percent.
    Detroit currently has three casinos and the Sault Tribe is the majority
    owner of one of the properties, Greektown Casino. We are currently
    expanding that property and will do nothing to jeopardize that
    investment or take away jobs from this casino or Detroit as a whole.
    Indeed, the Sault Tribe wants the Detroit gaming market and the City of
    Detroit to succeed and to thrive.
        Their will be a net gain of jobs for the region, increased tourism
    dollars and an increase in revenues to the State of Michigan, Wayne
    County and the City of Detroit. A new project will bring at least 2700
    new jobs to the region. Detroit's gaming market--with more than 4
    million people and thousands of visitors daily--can easily support
    additional properties. In fact, additional properties will help Detroit
    become even more of a tourism destination. I want to be clear, the
    Sault Tribe is committed to the City of Detroit.
        Finally, I am grateful for the strong support we have received from
    so many people.
        Federal, state and local officials--Democrats and Republicans--
    support the agreement with Bay Mills and the Sault Tribe as a fair way
    to address the Charlotte Beach land claim within the confines and
    spirit of the law. As I have noted, two Michigan governors have
    negotiated and supported the agreement--John Engler, a Republican and
    Jennifer Granholm a Democrat. Michigan Congressmen John Dingell and
    Bart Stupak and Congresswoman Candice Miller have all worked tirelessly
    for justice for our tribe, to assist the economy of the State of
    Michigan and help Charlotte Beach homeowners. Local voters in three
    Michigan communities--Romulus, Port Huron and Flint--have approved
    ballot referenda in favor of the proposed facilities.
        Quite frankly, the loudest arguments against H.R. 4115 and H.R.
    2176 come from Las Vegas casino interests and gaming tribes that do not
    want competition to their own businesses. Our interest is that we are
    justly compensated for the illegal land taking from our tribe and that
    the titles are cleared for the many families who today own homes on
    Charlotte Beach lands.
        This land was taken illegally from my ancestors. We have waited for
    over a century for a resolution. A fair and equitable settlement to our
    Charlotte Beach land claim is found in this legislation. On behalf of
    all members of the Sault Tribe, I respectfully urge the Committee and
    all Members of Congress to approve H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mayor Lambert.

              STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALAN R. LAMBERT,
                    MAYOR, CITY OF ROMULUS, MICHIGAN

        Mr. Lambert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members.
    Actually, I had a whole list of things I was going to read
    here, but a lot of it has been said already. What I would like
    to mention is obviously my name is Alan Lambert, I am the Mayor
    of the City of Romulus. The City of Romulus is approximately 25
    miles west of Detroit. We have a population of about 25,000
    people.
        Detroit Metropolitan Airport sits right in the middle of
    our city. You know, I have heard today about Indian gaming, and
    I have heard about land claims. I believe I am in favor of H.R.
    4115 and H.R. 2176, which I believe are land claims, but also
    open the land claims up to casino gaming. That is where the
    City of Romulus comes in.
        In November or December of 2003 the City of Romulus had a
    referendum vote on casino gaming that was passed. This isn't
    the first time I have been here. Obviously I have testified
    before your committee before. With Michigan being in a one
    state recession, hundreds of thousands of jobs going away, as
    the Mayor of my community, I believe this will benefit not only
    our community, but also the entire southeast region and the
    State of Michigan.
        Governor Engler and Governor Granholm have supported this
    project. We have been patiently waiting for several years now,
    and meanwhile, the economy worsens, people are losing jobs and
    Wayne County, the county that Romulus sits in, is ranked among
    the top two United States where home foreclosures.
        I believe these somewhere around 2,700 union jobs that
    Congressman Dingell had mentioned earlier would certainly help
    the City of Romulus, the region and the state. I personally
    like to thank Congressman Dingell, Congressman Bart Stupak,
    Congressman Kildee. Thank you for your support on this. I think
    it is important that both Governor Engler and Granholm realize
    how important this is, especially at this time with such a bad
    economy in Michigan.
        The City of Romulus is working with Wayne County on a
    concept called Aerotropolis, which is supposed to bring
    regional economic development to our city and along the I-94
    corridor extending from the Detroit River to Ann Arbor. Romulus
    is centrally located along the corridor, and if a casino would
    come there we could obviously use that as a catalyst to jump
    start other development and make the Aerotropolis dream a
    reality.
        Implementation of the Aerotropolis plan will place the
    region front and center of the new economic investment in
    Michigan. The Sault project can also be an additional catalyst
    obviously for other developments to come to the area. In
    closing, I just want to stress the urgency of having this done,
    land claim, casino gaming.
        Now, obviously you deal with the land claim part of it, and
    hopefully, the casino gaming is a part of that. I thank you for
    listening. I am here representing my community in southeastern
    Michigan. Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lambert follows:]

                  Statement of The Honorable Alan R. Lambert,
                        Mayor, City of Romulus, Michigan

        My name is Alan R. Lambert and I am the Mayor of the City of
    Romulus. Romulus is located in Wayne County, Michigan, which is
    approximately 25 miles west of the City of Detroit. We have a
    population of approximately 25,000. Romulus is the home of Wayne County
    Metropolitan Airport, which is located directly in the middle of our
    City.
        In December of 2003 Romulus had a referendum vote asking our
    residents if they would want a casino development in the City of
    Romulus. The residents overwhelmingly voted in favor of allowing a
    casino development in the City limits. I believe, as do the residents
    of Romulus, that this casino would be a benefit to the City of Romulus,
    and would also provide huge benefits to the entire region, as well as
    to the State of Michigan.
        Former Governor Engler agreed when he signed a settlement agreement
    with the Sault Tribe in December 2002, resolving the land claim.
    Governor Granholm also has approved the Settlement Agreement and has
    asked for your support.
        We have patiently waited for this to move forward as the Michigan
    economy has worsened. We are concerned that the most vocal opposition
    casino may not even be from our area.
        With Michigan in a one-state recession, jobs are leaving the State
    faster than any other state. We live in one of the leading counties in
    the nation for the number of home foreclosures, and it is getting worse
    each day. We have lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in Michigan, and
    there is no one bringing those jobs back. I feel that a proposal such
    as the casino could bring 3 to 4 thousand new jobs and millions of
    dollars of revenue, not only to the City of Romulus, but also the
    southeast region, and the State of Michigan. This is a win-win for
    everyone. This is something that has to be done, and somebody has to
    step in and help.
        I want to personally thank Congressman John Dingell, Congressman
    Bart Stupak, and Congresswoman Candice Miller for all their efforts in
    Washington. I also want to thank Governor's Engler and Granholm for
    their support. They all understand the importance of the project and
    its impact to the state and region.
        In addition, it is important to note that the City of Romulus is
    working in partnership with Wayne County, the Airport Authority staff,
    and the neighboring communities on an ``Aerotropolis Regional Economic
    Development Plan''. As you may be aware, the Aerotropolis plan includes
    the development and growth of new industry, high tech business and
    quality entertainment opportunities along the I-94 corridor, extending
    from the Detroit River to Ann Arbor. Romulus is centrally located along
    this corridor and the casino located here would further act as a
    catalyst to jump start this Aerotropolis dream into a reality.
    Implementation of the Aerotropolis plan will place this region front
    and center for new economic investment in Michigan.
        The Sault project can be the catalyst for additional developments
    to come to the City, the Aerotropolis, and southeast Michigan.
        In closing, I want to stress the urgency of getting this approved
    for the positive economic impact it would have to our area.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mayor.
        Mr. Tomion.

              STATEMENT OF MR. KARL TOMION, CITY MANAGER,
                      CITY OF PORT HURON, MICHIGAN

        Mr. Tomion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Karl Tomion, I am
    the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan. This afternoon we
    have heard from our Michigan delegation and from Mayor Lambert
    talking about the one state recession that has been going on in
    Michigan.
        The reason that Michigan has this recession going on is
    simply because of all the manufacturing jobs that our country
    has lost that have gone offshore. Twenty-five percent of them
    have been lost in the State of Michigan.
        I know you understand that the State of Michigan has a very
    high unemployment rate, but what you probably don't understand
    unless someone has brought to your attention earlier is our
    city, the City of Port Huron, is in considerably worse shape
    than the State of Michigan and the United States.
        I think that is why Governor Engler chose the City of Port
    Huron as the site for the Bay Mills proposal. Our unemployment
    rate in December 2007 was 13.8 percent. That is when the United
    States' unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. Our unemployment is
    three times that of the nation. To put that in human terms, in
    Port Huron one out of seven workers is unemployed.
        Unemployment isn't the only challenge that is facing the
    City of Port Huron. We actually have problems with two very
    large Federal mandates, Federal projects, that are taking place
    in our community that are having an adverse impact on our
    economy. The first is an EPA order to separate our combined
    sewers.
        Port Huron is a historic town. We are over 150 years old,
    we have some sewers that were built before the 1900s and our
    32,000 residents have been ordered to separate these sewers at
    a cost of $185 million. What is worse about that is that 95
    percent of that cost has got to be borne by our citizens.
        Our sister city, Sarnia, Ontario, which has been referred
    to earlier this afternoon, directly across our international
    border a few hundred yards away has the identical problem of
    the City of Port Huron. In Canada, in Ontario, in Sarnia, the
    Federal government picks up a large portion of this cost and
    the City of Sarnia only has to pay a third of the cost.
        The revenue sharing provisions of the Bay Mills proposal is
    going to help the City of Port Huron close this gap, the gap
    where we are currently paying 95 percent of the cost when
    Sarnia is paying 33 percent of the cost. The second Federal
    infrastructure project that Congresswoman Miller mentioned in
    her testimony today is the expansion of the Blue Water Bridge
    Plaza.
        This is the plaza that connects the United States with
    Canada and the City of Port Huron with Sarnia. Here, the
    Federal government is going to take 60 acres of property from
    us, this is a community of only eight square miles, and it is
    going to involve a large portion of our business community and
    two viable residential areas.
        With the Bay Mills agreement we are hoping to provide some
    mitigation. We plan to turn this disadvantage into an
    advantage, and try and take our third busiest crossing in the
    United States and turn it into an entertainment venue. We need
    to restructure our economy. We need to move away from auto
    parts, which is our primary base and which we have lost 1,000
    jobs in the last few years.
        Again, in this example, Sarnia, Canada, our sister city, is
    far ahead of us. Sarnia has already been permitted two gambling
    facilities. Combined, these casinos receive 1.3 million
    visitors a year, and they have shared $37 million in local
    revenue sharing with that community. These casinos estimate
    that 80 percent of the people that are visiting those casinos
    are from Michigan or elsewhere in the United States.
        It is very frustrating for our citizens to watch the
    American dollars being spent in the casinos in Sarnia. I know
    Congresswoman Miller made reference to this picture that I
    submitted to the Committee earlier, but here you can see the
    site of the proposed casino, and you can read the
    advertisements for the casinos in Canada.
        This is extremely frustrating for our residents. With the
    Bay Mills agreement we think that our ability to compete in
    this important market will be significantly enhanced. I think
    it is also important, since we have heard a lot about this this
    afternoon, to point out that this market is not currently
    served by Detroit or by Mt. Pleasant.
        There has also been discussion in this hearing today about
    division. While there may be division in our congressional
    delegation, our community is not divided on this issue
    whatsoever. In fact, it has received unprecedented support.
        As has been mentioned earlier, the original agreement was
    approved by Republican Governor Engler, the existing agreement
    by Democratic Governor Granholm. It has the support of both of
    our U.S. Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, it had the
    support of our former Democratic Congressman David Bonior, and
    our current Congresswoman, Candice Miller.
        In summary, I know that all of you are concerned about the
    loss of jobs in Michigan and across the country to offshore
    competition, but you need to understand that for Port Huron
    offshore competition isn't China, it is Canada. All that we are
    seeking is a level field, a level field where we can compete
    fairly. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tomion follows:]

                  Statement of Karl S. Tomion, City Manager,
                          City of Port Huron, Michigan

        Thank you for inviting me to testify before the House Committee on
    Natural Resources concerning the City of Port Huron / Bay Mills Casino
    Land Settlement Proposal and permitting me to submit these comments for
    its consideration.
        While I am not familiar with the problems regarding the land claims
    for Charlotte Beach, I am the Chief Administrative Officer of the City
    of Port Huron, which is also my hometown.
        During my childhood while I pursued my education from elementary
    school through community college, Port Huron was arguably one of the
    most successful urban core cities in our state.
        In 2006, when I became Port Huron's City Manager and returned to my
    hometown, it had changed dramatically and is now facing some of the
    most serious challenges of any comparable community in Michigan.
    THE ECONOMY
        Our economic crisis results primarily from the negative forces
    affecting the State of Michigan. As the Committee is undoubtedly aware,
    Michigan has been suffering a long-term single state recession for the
    past several years. Of all the manufacturing jobs lost to foreign
    competition in the United States, 25% of these have been from Michigan.
    The severity of this problem is most easily summarized from the
    following unemployment statistics.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.005

        This means one out of seven workers in Port Huron was unemployed in
    December of 2007.
        While Michigan leads our country in unemployment, Port Huron has an
    average rate that is 75% higher than the entire state of Michigan. This
    has occurred because Port Huron's economic base has lost more auto
    manufacturing jobs proportionately than the state or country to
    offshore competition.
        In the past three years, our town of 32,000 has lost over 1,000
    manufacturing jobs with the closing of automotive suppliers Collins and
    Aikman, Modern Plastics, and Takata.
    EDUCATION
        Our ability to restructure our economic base to recruit service
    sector/knowledge based economies has been hindered by our undereducated
    workforce illustrated in the following comparison.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.006

        When Port Huron has less than half of the college-educated workers
    as the United States and Michigan, it's clear to see why our economic
    development options have been significantly limited.
        As economic conditions in the United States worsen, the anticipated
    recession will negatively impact our remaining employers. This will
    result in additional loss of manufacturing jobs, and we do not think it
    is unrealistic to expect our jobless rate to reach 15%.
    FEDERAL MANDATES
        At this time of economic crisis, two unfunded Federal mandates are
    threatening our ability to provide basic public services. The first is
    the United States Environmental Protection Agency's order to separate
    our combined sewer overflows. Last year, our City celebrated its 150th
    birthday and, as a historic urban center, we are being mandated to
    replace over 40% of our entire street, sanitary and storm sewer
    infrastructure.
        The total estimated cost of these improvements is $185 million. We
    estimate that our utility rates need to increase 120% over the next
    five years and we anticipate similar increases for several years
    thereafter.
        Dramatically raising these rates over a short period of time will
    create a hardship for our citizens, many of whom are unemployed,
    elderly and otherwise low income. It also poses a major disincentive
    for economic investment.
        At the same time, the Federal and State government are proposing to
    spend over $400 million to increase the size of the international Blue
    Water Bridge Plaza in Port Huron. The Blue Water Bridge connects the
    United States to Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. This is the third busiest
    vehicular crossing between our two countries.
        This 60 acre taking will remove 150 residential and commercial
    properties from the center of our city. Not only will this reduce our
    population and tax base, but it will divide the City physically with
    the construction of a 1.2 mile-long concrete wall, 15 feet in height.
        The Federal Highway Administration and the Michigan Department of
    Transportation have argued that Port Huron is only losing 2% of its
    economic base as if this were inconsequential. If Michigan were to lose
    a proportional amount of its population base, it would be equivalent to
    losing our second largest city, Grand Rapids. Or if we use the nation
    as an example, it would be the equivalent of losing the entire
    population or geographic area of the state of Missouri.
        Both the CSO project and the Blue Water Bridge Plaza expansion
    offer significant benefits to Michigan/Ontario and to the United States
    and Canada, but almost none to Port Huron, which suffers all of the
    negative consequences. Approval of the Bay Mills Casino Proposal will
    provide substantial mitigation of these adverse federal mandates
    without the need of significant supplemental federal appropriations.
    CANADIAN COMPETITION
        Our sister city, Sarnia, Ontario, with whom we share an
    international border crossing, has faced identical problems. However,
    the Canadian government has stepped in to mitigate them. This has
    frustrated and angered our U.S. citizens.
        For example, in July of 2007 Canada announced a $35 million, four
    year project to separate combined sewers in a central portion of Sarnia
    (population 71,000). Canada's Strategic Infrastructure Fund (CSIF) will
    grant $17.4 million to the project and the province of Ontario will
    contribute $5.8 million. The City of Sarnia will only be required to
    pay 1/3 of the project costs or $11.7 million. In comparison, Port
    Huron (population 32,000) must expend $185 million, 95% of which will
    be funded with municipal bonds repaid only by our customers.
        When Canada expanded its potion of the international bridge plaza,
    it was built largely in an undeveloped area, while we will be
    experiencing the loss of a fully developed commercial area and two
    stable residential neighborhoods. This is in addition to a prior taking
    of similar commercial/residential properties for a previous expansion
    of the U.S. bridge plaza completed in 1997.
        In 1998, Canada announced plans for a new ``charity casino''
    located directly across the St. Clair River from Port Huron. The Point
    Edward Charity Casino, which opened in 2000, has:
          490 slot machines
          38 game tables
          531 employees
          over 700,000 annual visitors of which over 70% come from
    Michigan or elsewhere in the United States.
        This casino has paid over $4 million a year as a grant in lieu of
    taxes to the municipality; an additional 5% non-tax revenue that's
    amounted to over $20 million to date.
        In 1998, the Canadian government also approved an expansion of the
    Hiawatha Raceway in Sarnia. This facility included;
          422 slot machines
          provides employment for 169 workers
          receives over 670,000 visitors annually
          has generated $17 million in revenue sharing to the City
    of Sarnia to date.
        The location of both of these Canadian casinos is depicted on the
    attached photograph.
        As you know, Port Huron has been unsuccessful in getting
    Congressional approval for our casino which would be sited a few
    hundred yards across the St. Clair River from Sarnia.
    DETROIT'S SUCCESS
        Detroit and Port Huron share similar characteristics and
    challenges:
          high unemployment
          low education levels
          the percentage of owner-occupied versus rental occupied
    are comparable (Port Huron 43% renter, Detroit 45%)
          border city facing Canadian competition with multiple
    casinos
          host to major international crossing
          age of average housing stock is comparable (Port Huron,
    1950; Detroit, 1948)
          median household income (Detroit = $29,526, Port Huron =
    $31,327)
        The City of Detroit has been permitted to address its challenges
    through a state-wide gambling ballot proposal. This initiative;
          allowed three gaming casinos to be established in the
    City of Detroit
          imposed an 18% state tax on gaming revenues
          allocated 55% of the tax revenue to the City of Detroit
    for crime prevention and economic development and allocated the
    remaining 45% to the State for public education.
        City of Port Huron residents supported this proposal to assist
    Detroit's economic growth. Port Huron's residents sympathized with the
    City of Detroit's inability to compete with its sister city, Windsor,
    Ontario which had already established a Canadian casino.
        In August of 2004;
          the 18% state tax on gaming revenues was increased to 24%
          1/3 of the increase was allocated to the City of Detroit
          this has resulted in over $120 million in additional
    revenue.
        Perhaps more important than the revenue has been the new investment
    in Detroit that has been stimulated by the development of the three
    casinos which has included:
          $500 million for the development of Ford Field, the new
    home of the Detroit Lions
          $300 million for Comerica Park, the new home of the
    Detroit Tigers
          $12 million in facade improvement program
          $30 million for a new downtown YMCA
          $400 million for construction of a 15-story Compuware
    Headquarters
          $500 million for the renovation of the Renaissance Center
    by General Motors
          $400 million investment in Belleview (formerly Uniroyal)
    for mixed-use development along the riverfront
          $15 million to transform the former Kresge headquarters
    (Kale's) into 119 apartments
          $52 million in facility bonds to renovate the historic
    Book Cadillac Hotel
          $150 million Cadillac Centre, 24 story mixed-use
    development
    PORT HURON'S SUMMARY
        Port Huron is a microcosm of Detroit and suffers from many of the
    same problems. In addition, its economic base is being undermined by
    two federally mandated projects: the $185 million U.S. EPA CSO Program
    and the $400 million Federal Highway 60 acre Blue Water Bridge Plaza
    expansion.
        We are also at a substantial disadvantage with our sister border
    community, Sarnia, because the financial grant assistance of the
    Canadian government and its approval of two gambling facilities that
    are siphoning millions of dollars out of Port Huron's economy.
        The Bay Mills/Port Huron casino proposal provides relief to the
    City of Port Huron without any major federal appropriations, increases
    our competitiveness with Canada, and provides an equitable settlement
    of the Charlotte Beach land dispute.
        Port Huron is Michigan's only international border city without a
    casino and we respectfully request that the Committee approve the bill
    which is before it to help ease our economic suffering and revitalize
    our city.
        The Bay Mills/Port Huron casino proposal has been strongly approved
    or supported by;
          the citizens of Port Huron in a general election
          the Port Huron City Council and the St. Clair County
    Board of Commissioners as well as our regional school districts
          former Republican Governor John Engler
          current Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm
          our Democratic U.S. Senator Carl Levin
          our Democratic U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow
          former Democratic Congressman Dave Bonior
          our current Republican Congresswoman Candice Miller.
        This agreement would not only reinvigorate our economy but would
    also provide additional revenue for education programs for our school
    districts and funding to assist us with the massive CSO and Bridge
    Plaza federal mandates.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.007

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. Let me yield first to the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really
    appreciate the testimony of all of you. Let me address my first
    question to Chairman Parker and President Parker and Chairman
    Payment. For purposes of administering governmental programs
    and providing for public safety, how would your tribes exercise
    that authority in the newly acquired lands in Port Huron and
    Romulus/Flint, whatever one is chosen?
        Would you have your own police presence there to keep order
    and make sure the law is obeyed?
        Mr. Parker. We would do similar to what we are doing right
    now at Bay Mills where we would have officers trained by the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs to enforce law on tribal members. We
    would work cooperatively with the county and the sheriff with
    cross-deputization agreements to make sure that the peace was
    kept.
        That is something that we do right now. I actually started
    just briefly talking with the City Manager about that. Before
    we go any farther with that we want to find out if we are going
    to get this legislation through.
        Mr. Kildee. So you right now do cross-deputize in your area
    plus have your own police force?
        Mr. Parker. That is correct.
        Mr. Kildee. OK. Chairman Payment.
        Mr. Payment. Just to add to that, our officers are trained
    under the BIA so they have that level of training. You know, I
    had the privilege of working with Bay Mills' attorney about 15
    years ago to get legislation through in Michigan so that our
    officers could become state certified, so our officers are
    also, and the Sault Tribe, also, state certified, and so there
    is no holes in jurisdictions.
        Sometimes you hear about the checkerboard reservation
    problem and challenge. We would directly fund our own law
    enforcement to be able to work with our Gaming Commission. We
    have a lot of regulations. Earlier today it was alluded to,
    kind of suggested, that Indian gaming is not regulated.
        We would work with our security and surveillance personnel,
    but we would have tribal law enforcement present, they would be
    state certified, and we would have cross-deputization
    agreements with the local municipalities so that there would be
    no holes in jurisdiction.
        Mr. Kildee. How would both of you characterize your
    relationship with the other governmental units around you?
        Mr. Payment. I think they are excellent. I think when we
    moved to get legislation so our officers would become state
    certified, that helped us to demonstrate the legitimacy of our
    officers within the local community, and since that time
    through a local two percent share that we do under our existing
    1993 compact we give funding to each of the communities in
    which we have reservation and we have jurisdiction.
        So we work cooperatively. We have very positive
    relationships not only with local law enforcement, we also do
    with the city council and with the local governments often
    putting up economic start up dollars to help look for other
    economic opportunities to expand and benefit those communities.
        I would characterize our relationship today as a very
    positive relationship.
        Mr. Kildee. Mayor Lambert and City Manager Tomion, you
    would want to work closely with intergovernmental relations
    with the sovereign tribes in your respective cities?
        Mr. Lambert. Certainly. Absolutely. In fact, just as we
    have been negotiating through the years and talking about
    certain things that has been a big issue that I think we have
    to get together. I think you work closely together and that is
    the way to make sure that people are going to be safe.
        Mr. Tomion. We have had preliminary discussions, as Mr.
    Parker has indicated, and we are quite confident that can be
    worked out.
        Mr. Kildee. Jim, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kildee. I have a question for
    President Parker and Chairman Payment. You may have seen this
    full page ad that ran in, well, probably all of the
    publications here on Capitol Hill this week. Should Congress
    role the dice with off-reservation casino deals? I am wondering
    if either of you could shed some light on who the supposed
    sponsor, paid for by Americans for Gaming Reform, Incorporated,
    who might be the true payers of this ad?
        Mr. Parker. It wasn't us. It is my understanding that it is
    a gentleman by the name of, and I will probably pronounce his
    last name wrong, Peter Rigoni, who has gone through and set up
    that and placed those ads.
        The Chairman. Who is that gentleman again?
        Mr. Parker. Peter Rigoni.
        The Chairman. Do you know who he represents?
        Mr. Parker. No, sir.
        The Chairman. Anybody on the panel?
        Mr. Tomion. I believe from what I have read in my own local
    newspaper that has been researching this topic that he has
    links to the MGM Casino interest.
        The Chairman. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Payment. I would just like to add to that.
        The Chairman. Yes?
        Mr. Payment. Earlier somebody testified on the connection
    with Lori Wartz and Sterling Group and Peter Ellsworth with
    Dickinson Wright who represents MGM.
        You know, the thing is when that ad came out and this
    mailer came out, we quickly tried to get some intel on it and
    tried to figure out who was behind it, but the fact that we
    have to research that and the fact that you even have to ask
    the question suggests that there is something not right.
    Something is not right in Denmark or Detroit.
        I really enjoyed Candice Miller's quote, ``Spare me the
    righteous indignation.'' If gaming interests, whether they are
    MGM or they are Las Vegas, are funding the kind of efforts that
    are intended to breed on the kind of antigaming sentiment that
    Congressman Rogers usually has in his district it is righteous
    indignation because it is clearly intended to try to eliminate
    competition.
        It has nothing to do with the citizens of Detroit, it has
    nothing to do with the citizens of Romulus or Port Huron or the
    Indians in the UP or land claims. Nothing to do with that at
    all. It has everything to do with spending dollars to try to
    affect you, as Members of Congress, in the worst possible way.
    It is a contamination of the political process.
        Unfortunately, we kind of accept it as a way of doing
    business in Congress. Well, I am not running for President, but
    that has to change.
        The Chairman. Well, I am not either. You heard the
    government's testimony, both here today and in 2004, at no time
    in the several years these bills have been before us has the
    government ever questioned the validity of your land claim. My
    question is would you expect them to voice that challenge if
    they had one?
        Mr. Parker. If they had a concern that this was not a valid
    claim?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Parker. Knowing our interaction with the Bureau in the
    past, I would more than expect them to state something for the
    record.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentlelady from Virgin
    Islands, Dr. Christensen.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    panelists, for being here and for your testimony. Coming from a
    place that has our own economic challenges and having wrestled
    with casinos and whether to have them or not have them, and
    then once we did have them with competing gaming and deciding
    whether we should allow them and the impact on the casinos that
    already exist I do have some understanding of the issue from my
    district point of view.
        None of us want to stand in the way of economic development
    for any part of our country or in the way of a settlement of a
    long-standing claim, which I don't question. I don't question
    the validity of the claim.
        If there has been a referendum where the people of Michigan
    said no more gaming, and if the legislature passed a state
    compact that is in direct conflict with the legislation that is
    before us today why should we in Washington pass legislation
    that the people of Michigan have spoken against in principle
    and the legislature has as well?
        Mr. Parker. Well, I really believe that is not entirely the
    case when it comes to the two bills that we are talking about
    today. We have to remember that Governor Engler, who sat down
    originally and negotiated the settlement, and current Governor
    Granholm, are both attorneys who understand the law.
        I for one do not believe that either one of them would
    subject either their office or the State of Michigan to
    anything inappropriate or illegal. So when we sat down and
    looked at this the referendum and everything else was there.
    This in no way interferes on what the laws in the State of
    Michigan are.
        We have had a compact since 1993. I may be, besides
    Catherine, who is with me, the only person in the room who was
    directly involved in the negotiations for the compact between
    the then seven Federally recognized tribes of Michigan and the
    State of Michigan.
        So I don't believe at all that this is inappropriate or in
    any way impeding upon the rights of the citizens of Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe, the Bay Mills Indian Community, the State of
    Michigan, City of Romulus or the City of Port Huron.
        Mr. Payment. Can I answer that as well? You know, there has
    again been a lot of talk today about what is legal, what is not
    legal, what authority rests with the state, what authority
    rests with Congress. Clearly, you have plenary authority in
    Congress to settle this claim. IGRA specifically carved out the
    opportunity that land that is taken in settlement of a claim is
    eligible.
        That suggests to me that your colleagues or maybe people
    who predated you here understood the nature of Indian claims,
    and why Indians were dislocated and all of the different
    variables that come into play that dislocate Indians from their
    homelands. I believe because I am optimistic about this that
    Congress wanted to provide a remedy for Indian people in those
    circumstances.
        That is why IGRA was enacted specifically providing for
    that opportunity. We have a compact. It was signed at the same
    time that Bay Mills was in 1993, also the same time that
    Saginaw Chippewa Tribe's was, and that rests the authority with
    the Governor of the State of Michigan to negotiate that
    compact.
        That has been challenged. Recently, that has been resolved,
    that the Governor does have the authority to enter the compacts
    and to amend those compacts. So when we ask, what does Michigan
    think about this, the authority vested with the Governor by the
    citizens when they elect the Governor give the Governor the
    authority.
        On Proposal 1 specifically, and it was ready by my
    Congressman, Bart Stupak, that specified that voter approval
    requirement does not apply to Indian tribal gaming or gaming in
    up to three of the casinos located in the City of Detroit. So
    under this postulate that somehow we are doing something
    improper, any changes to the operations of Detroit, and I am
    not advocating this because we have one of those casinos, we
    are the only one in Detroit that is 100 percent minority owned.
        That would suggest, though, that somehow anything that
    Detroit does and the three casinos in Detroit have to be passed
    by a vote of the people, both a local vote and a state vote.
    That is not the standard by which the people voted on. The
    people did vote, and they voted resoundingly, to approve
    Proposal 1 that specifically exempts tribal casinos.
        So when we are asking what do the people in Michigan think,
    the Governor has the authority and speaks on behalf of the
    state, and the citizens did speak to specifically exempt Indian
    tribes.
        Ms. Christensen. I understand that. My sense is that, and I
    would have to go back and look at the referendum in more
    detail, but the sense I have is that when they voted they did
    not want to have anymore casinos, period, but I will go back
    and look at it. I hear what you said.
        Mr. Payment. Detroit voters voted at 64 percent to approve
    this bill which exempted Indian tribes.
        Ms. Christensen. OK. Also, if we pass these bills
    regardless of whether we say that they don't represent a
    precedent or not, well, even if we say they don't represent a
    precedent, what is to prevent other tribes with claims to land
    in their state from coming to us to ask the Congress to ratify
    and declare land exchanged, that they favor to be tribal lands
    so that they could build a casino?
        Mr. Parker. You know, the issue is why shouldn't you do
    that? If a tribe has a legitimate claim, if it has been
    documented, Congress has the responsibility to take care of
    that land claim issue on behalf of that tribe.
        Ms. Christensen. No matter where the land is, the distance
    from the original tribal lands and whether or not there is
    agreement from other Native American Tribes that are involved
    that have to also agree?
        Mr. Parker. I don't know of any statutory language that
    requires what you are talking about to take place. I would like
    to just very quickly, because you brought it up, talk about the
    distance argument. That is something that is relatively brand
    new that tribes are just finding out about. Actually, in one
    way I am kind of glad about that because my grandmother was
    taken from the reservation by the Federal government and put in
    a boarding school.
        Now, the Federal government is saying no, we want to keep
    you on the reservation. So to that extent, that is kind of
    nice. I am glad that Congress and the Federal government is
    recognizing that. I don't see that distance argument as having
    any viability in the claims that the Sault Tribe and Bay Mills
    have before this committee today.
        Mr. Payment. Can I answer that, too? It is not in the law.
    If Congress would like to put it in the law as a requirement in
    IGRA, you know, there has been some talk today to try to bring
    IGRA back up for enactment, I would urge the Congress to change
    the law if that is the standard that they want to create.
        You know, my tribe was, again, recognized in 1972. I can
    see the pictures of the Indians on the wall, so you would think
    we are in a welcome place here.
        Ms. Christensen. You are.
        Mr. Payment. The process for us to become recognized
    happened, it took 20 years. We were left without recognition.
    We got recognized in 1972 fortunately because of the Methodist
    Mission, they donated our original property. We only have 450
    homes on a very small reservation. Ninety-seven percent of our
    members do not live on the reservation.
        To create a standard that suggests that we have to live
    within those original boundaries, we have 37,000 members, you
    know, could our economy in the upper peninsula of Michigan
    accommodate all of those members if they chose to move home? We
    do have 3,300 members who live within the three counties of
    Macomb, Oakland and Wayne County, and so that is our homeland.
        That is where our people live now. These are our members,
    and we have a responsibility to those people. So what we do as
    a tribe, because we only get 44 percent of the funding from the
    Federal government, Congress could write bills to make that
    higher, please, but in the meantime, we have to fend for
    ourselves because we can't wait for Congress or the President
    to do it.
        To do that we have to find opportunity, and that is why we
    are looking for where the opportunity exists. We will be honest
    about that and genuine about that. In order for us to begin to
    even scratch the surface of our needs for our members we have
    to find economic opportunity.
        Mr. Parker. Can I add just one more to that? In this
    specific case the Governor of the state directed the tribe
    where they were going to be able to get alternative lands. It
    wasn't the tribe going to the Governor. It wasn't like we had a
    choice. Well, let us take a look at Michigan. We want this
    site. No.
        When we sat down with the Governor and negotiated this
    settlement with him and her we were directed on where those
    alternative lands were going to be.
        Ms. Christensen. Well, my time is up, Mr. Chairman, and I
    will release my time.
        Mr. Kildee. Just a statement. You and I were here when IGRA
    was written. We remember the laborious, long process, and we
    deliberately did not put any geographical limitations in
    because of our study of history and the advice of genealogists
    and historians because some tribes were moved so far from their
    original land, including Michigan Indians were just, I mean,
    treated like awful treatment.
        So we deliberately after much discussion, I mean, days,
    probably several weeks of discussion, should we put any
    geographic limitation, we said no because there are some tribes
    that have been so far removed from what is called ancestral
    land that that would not be appropriate. So that was not
    something that just we neglected to put in. We didn't put in
    because we thought it would cause some problems.
        Now, we probably want some rule of reason and prudence to
    provide that, but generally, that has been the case. When you
    look at the history of even Michigan Indians, how far they have
    been removed, so anyway, we did it deliberately, did not put
    any geographical limitations in.
        The Chairman. The Chair thanks the panel for being with us.
    Panel No. 3 is composed of the following individuals. The
    Honorable Kwame Kilpatrick, the Mayor of City of Detroit,
    Michigan; The Honorable Fred Cantu, the Chief, the Saginaw
    Chippewa Indian Tribe, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan; and Mr. Joe
    Conroy, the Director of Government Operations, City of Flint,
    Michigan. We welcome all the panel.
        I am going to recognize the gentleman from Michigan for
    special recognition here, but before, I understand the Mayor
    has to leave because although it is 70 degrees here in
    Washington there is an ice storm approaching Detroit, and so
    the Mayor must leave.
        I can't understand why the air is always hotter inside the
    beltway than elsewhere in the country. The Chair recognizes the
    gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. First of all, I welcome
    all the guests. They are all friends of mine, and I know them
    very well. I am pleased to introduce especially to the members
    of this committee my very good friend and former State Senator,
    Joe Conroy, of Flint, Michigan. Joe was first elected to the
    Michigan House in 1977 and later served in the Michigan Senate
    until 1998.
        He has continued to serve in our hometown of Flint,
    Michigan, as the Director of Governmental Operations for Flint
    Mayor Don Williamson. Once again, I thank you for having him
    testify before us because Flint is one of the cities that is in
    the agreement signed by the two Governors. Thank you for being
    here, Mr. Conroy. Thank you, Joe.
        The Chairman. Mr. Mayor, you may proceed.

      STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KWAME KILPATRICK, MAYOR, CITY OF
                           DETROIT, MICHIGAN

        Mr. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, to you and to
    Congressman Kildee and members of the Committee. I am Kwame
    Kilpatrick, Mayor of the City of Detroit. I will shorten my
    remarks because there has been a lot of discussion today.
        We are a city of communities of hard working families that
    collectively have withstood tremendous economic challenges, and
    yet, we are experiencing a revolutionary transformation of our
    downtown and many of our neighborhoods in the city.
        Before I was Mayor of the City of Detroit I was leader of
    the state House and member of the Casino Oversight Committee,
    one of the authors and sponsors of the bills which brought
    three land based casinos to Detroit, and I also worked very
    hard on the second round of compacts in the state legislature.
        Thank you for convening this important hearing on H.R. 2176
    and H.R. 4115. These legislative proposals address the
    settlement of certain land claims of Bay Mills Indian Community
    and of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        I have worked with both of these tribes on different
    issues, Bay Mills on the issues of charter schools, and Sault
    Ste. Marie on the issues of casinos, since I was elected in the
    state House. Essentially, these two bills would authorize and
    permit these tribes to open and operate casino gaming
    facilities in close proximity to the casinos that are located
    in the City of Detroit far away from their tribal lands in the
    upper peninsula of Michigan.
        As further discussed herein, the two legislative proposals
    will be very detrimental to our city for a number of reasons.
    Our city council unanimously has voted against the bills.
    Several members of our community, several of our elected
    officials including our two congresspeople, as well as many of
    our county commissioners, state Representatives, state
    Senators, have strong opposition to the enactment of these
    bills.
        Mr. Chairman, the position that I must strongly advocate
    for today is unfortunately at odds with many of my friends in
    the Michigan congressional delegation. However, it is
    imperative that I speak on behalf of the future health and
    vitality of what we are calling the next Detroit and how these
    bills before the Committee today may severely harm the positive
    trend that we are experiencing in our city.
        I also ask the Committee to take note that there are
    several people within our delegation that are supportive of our
    position today as well. I believe that there are significant
    issues involved in this Indian land claim, I believe there are
    significant issue when it deals with IGRA involved in the
    proceedings today, but my testimony does not focus on these
    matters.
        Rather, I would like to share with you the critical
    information regarding the revitalization of our city. I have
    heard several times today that how would it impact the City of
    Detroit with new casinos coming forward? First, I want to give
    you some insight on the recent progress we are making in the
    City of Detroit.
        Because of our partnerships with the private sector
    philanthropic community and also our city government working
    together we have managed our way through a tremendous crisis in
    the City of Detroit. In 2002 when I first assumed office we had
    a $300 million deficit. Congress may remember everybody was
    predicting us to be in receivership.
        All the papers were even going as far as to pick the
    receiver that would be coming in to the City of Detroit. We
    didn't go into receivership. We stopped it. We had to make some
    very difficult decisions to do that.
        We cut our workforce by 25 percent, we negotiated
    significant pay decreases and benefit concessions for the first
    time in history with our labor unions and our employees, we
    made critical adjustments with our uniformed employees through
    binding arbitration agreements, the first time the city had
    ever won those, we cut over 25 percent our outside contracts,
    we had to make the painful decisions to close fire stations and
    police stations.
        While the state continues to carry over tremendous deficits
    in the billions we have balanced our budget in the City of
    Detroit. As a matter of fact, Standard & Poor's just recently
    about two weeks ago upgraded our bond rating, and we have
    started to move forward. We have developed over 75 buildings,
    large and small, in downtown Detroit.
        The last hotel to be built in our city, a named hotel, was
    1989, the Atheneum Hotel, before I took office. We have built
    seven new hotels in downtown Detroit including the $180 million
    renovation of the historic Book Cadillac. We have built more
    new housing in our city than ever in the history of our town.
        Our Brownfield Authority has completed 21 projects in 2006
    alone. Last year we broke ground on our east riverfront, which
    now two new high rises of 600 new housing units are going up.
    We have opened employment training centers which have enjoyed
    successful retraining and job placement rates in the
    hospitality industry, construction industry and the healthcare
    industry.
        We have also gotten a few of our regional businesses to
    move downtown with their headquarters. Quicken Loans was the
    last one which is moving 4,000 plus jobs to downtown Detroit.
    We have also received a number of accolades from Major League
    Baseball for hosting what they call the most successful major
    league all star baseball game ever in 2005 and from the NFL for
    hosting the Superbowl in 2006, and we recently snagged from the
    NCAA the Final Four for next year.
        Of course, everyone is invited. These achievements are the
    product of focus, a development commitment, and a strategic
    plan and teamwork for implementation. The State of Michigan has
    experienced the longest economic downturn in the history of our
    state. The economy hasn't been this bad in our state since the
    Great Depression.
        I have not seen the state develop or employ the same type
    of aggressive strategy to address its own financial
    difficulties, which unfortunately leads us to this moment in
    time today. We are pitting Port Huron, against Romulus, against
    Detroit.
        Three cities that have suffered in this horrible economy
    are now fighting each other over this knee jerk reaction to an
    economic solution in putting two casinos in two places that
    would take away from the other. A very prominent economic
    driver of these accomplishments has been our casinos. As I have
    said before, I have worked with Chairman Payment.
        Chairman Payment is a majority owner, his tribe is, of
    Greektown Casino in the City of Detroit. All the studies can
    say what they want, but he knows his bottom line right now is
    suffering. He is losing money right now. MGM committed to the
    City of Detroit and built an $833 million casino, gaming,
    entertainment resort complex in our city.
        Since that building has been open he has lost revenue.
    Motor City has lost revenue. There aren't new gamers coming
    into the City of Detroit. These are the same people now that
    are choosing to go to MGM and not go to Greektown. Another
    casino in this mix will only hurt the total vitality of all the
    casinos.
        Windsor Casino, as it was mentioned, in Canada is right
    across the water. Before we built our casinos they were making
    about half a billion dollars a year. Now, they are struggling
    and trying to figure out how to stay open. We don't have the
    market for another casino. These casinos will take
    substantially away from the City of Detroit.
        We had a statewide ballot initiative, which was mentioned
    here several times, in 1996 where we in the legislature wrote
    what would happen with these casinos. We wrote in the statewide
    percentage, the City of Detroit percentages. The city has
    received over $1 billion to date in wagering taxes from our
    casinos, over $100 million for municipal service fees that we
    put inside the contract.
        The state has received over $1.5 billion, and that does not
    include other investment. The MGM Casino Hotel was the largest
    construction project in Michigan when it was going on, and
    probably still is the largest construction project in Michigan
    that we can figure out ever. Also, the $400 million
    construction project of the Motor City Casino and Hotel as well
    as what Mr. Payment and the Sault Tribe along with their
    partners are doing in Greektown and downtown Detroit.
        Together, they employ over 7,500 people in the City of
    Detroit, but not just Detroiters. The people that work at the
    Detroit casinos live in Port Huron, they live in Romulus, they
    live in Oakland County and they live around the region. It is
    not a Detroit thing, it is a regional thing. They purchase
    goods.
        Companies that do business with our casinos do business,
    and they reside in Romulus, and Port Huron, and Flint and other
    cities. My administration worked hard to seal these permanent
    casino deals. These deals were sitting on the table when I
    walked in the office with no permanent solution in sight,
    lawsuits flying all over the place.
        We went to Las Vegas, put everybody at the same table and
    negotiated an end to the lawsuits and then new, permanent
    casino agreements. Because of those agreements our city now
    receives $470,000 in casino revenues daily. It is the only cash
    that is deposited into the city's account on a daily basis
    every day at 3:00.
        That is about $13.5 million monthly. These revenues from
    the casino are a significant source of our city revenue. Why?
    Because over the course of the same time period the state,
    which is advocating for new casinos today, has taken more than
    $161 million from us in state revenue sharing and other types
    of funding that they used to give to the City of Detroit.
        So as much of the dollars that they have backed out of the
    City of Detroit, we continue to make adjustments, make cuts,
    make transitions, make plans, to continue our city and our
    vibrancy moving forward. Clearly, the revenue from the casino
    listed above is critical to the daily budget and maintenance of
    our city.
        I also want to highlight last a profound study, and I know
    studies, as I close, have been mentioned here before, but this
    one is from the University of Michigan, which is also the Dean
    of the Congress. It is Chairman Dingell, Congressman Dingell.
    This is a quote from the study.
        ``The three Detroit casinos can be viewed as the spearhead
    of growth in the Detroit region's hospitality sector. The
    casinos have grown consistently over the past seven years while
    most of the rest of the state economy has languished. Direct
    employment for the three Detroit casinos is projected to be
    about 10,800 workers by 2009.''
        ``The total number of jobs contributed in Michigan by the
    Detroit casinos is up to 30,000 in 2007. That is 30,000 jobs in
    the region that is facing unparalleled manufacturing job loss.
    The result of this initial study to confirm though that the
    health of Detroit casinos is very important to the overall
    health of the Detroit region and the State of Michigan.''
        These facts presented by the University of Michigan I
    believe speak to what I have been saying here today. These
    revenues assist the city to improve its neighborhoods,
    infrastructure and services provided to its residents. A Map
    Quest of our region shows that Romulus is 20 miles away. MGM
    constructed a casino two miles away from the other two, and
    they are already hurting.
        They are already hurting. To put two more casinos just 20
    miles, or 60 miles away where Port Huron is, will hurt them
    even further. It is not hard to determine that opening
    congressionally mandated off-reservation casinos with short
    distances away from Detroit will significantly inhibit our
    ability to continue to revitalize and invest in the City of
    Detroit.
        Mr. Chair, I will simply say without getting in all of this
    IGRA stuff in closing in 30 seconds that our challenge in
    Detroit is the same as the challenge that has been raised here
    by the tribes. We are not immune from the economic pressures
    that have been going on in this country. I don't believe that
    there is a city, a region or a state in this country that has
    been harder hit or hardest hit like Detroit has.
        If we are saying now that we are going to put one
    impoverished community against one more impoverished community
    and stop the small gains we have made, then that is not sound
    economic policy. I have made this I think argument to the
    Governor. I think that is why the Governor is not here today.
        Because I believe yes, that the Governor wants to figure
    out how she can get eight more percent of revenue out of
    casinos, but when you diminish the total pot it is not more
    revenue to the state at all. I believe there are studies that
    say that, the Casino Committee said it in 1997 and 1998, and I
    believe we are realizing that in Detroit with the emergence of
    these huge, permanent facilities.
        We see that there are winners and losers even in that. Two
    more casinos would take jobs away, it will crush our city and
    state budget and will be very detrimental to the citizens of
    the City of Detroit. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity
    to be here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kilpatrick follows:]

                 Statement of The Honorable Kwame Kilpatrick,
                        Mayor, City of Detroit, Michigan

        Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and other distinguished
    members of the Resources Committee, I am Kwame Kilpatrick, the Mayor of
    Detroit, Michigan. Detroit is a great American city of industry that
    also has a rich cultural, educational, sports and entertainment
    heritage. We are a City of communities and hard working families that
    collectively have withstood tremendous economic challenges, and yet our
    city is experiencing a revolutionary transformation of its downtown and
    neighborhoods. Thank you for convening this important hearing on H.R.
    2176 and H.R. 4115. These legislative proposals address the settlement
    of certain land claims of the Bay Hills Indian Community and of the
    Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and have very significant
    implications for Detroit and an important component of our community's
    revitalization strategy. Essentially the two bills would authorize and
    permit these tribes to open and operate casino gaming facilities in
    close proximity to casinos that are located in the City of Detroit--far
    away from their tribal lands in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. As
    further discussed herein, the two legislative proposals will be very
    detrimental to the City and for that reason, the City of Detroit, the
    Detroit City Council and numerous Detroit elected officials and
    community leaders strongly oppose their enactment.
        Mr. Chairman, the position that I must strongly advocate for today
    is unfortunately at odds with some of my friends from the Michigan
    Congressional Delegation. However, it is imperative that I speak on
    behalf of the future health and vitality of the Next Detroit, and how
    these bills before the committee today may severely harm this positive
    trend. Also, I ask you to take note that there are other key leaders of
    Michigan's congressional delegation who share the concerns of Detroit
    in this matter.
        Mr. Chairman, while I believe that there are significant issues
    pertaining to Indian land claims settlement policy and to the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) involved in the proceedings today, my
    testimony does not focus on these matters. Rather I would like to share
    with you critical information regarding the revitalization occurring in
    our community and how we believe sanctioning the construction and
    operation of additional casino operations outside of the City will
    establish a dangerous precedent greatly and negatively impacting the
    progress being achieved.
        First of all, I want to give you some insights into recent progress
    my Administration, business and civic leaders and Detroit citizens have
    made to improve the quality of life in our city. There is real optimism
    about the future of our city. There are signs of growth and recovery
    throughout Detroit. We have developed more than 75 buildings downtown
    large and small. We have built seven new hotels, including the deal for
    the $180 million renovation of the historic Book-Cadillac hotel. This
    historic facility will house a four star Westin hotel with 455 rooms
    and have 67 condos on its upper floors, with at least two of them going
    for more that $1 million. Imagine that--people paying over a million
    dollars to own a condo in downtown Detroit. In addition, a development
    team has bought the air rights of the parking deck being built next to
    the Book. They are going to build 80 upscale condominiums on top of
    that garage. The whole concept of buying air rights is common in cities
    like New York and Chicago, but it has never been heard of in Detroit
    until now. We have several new housing projects in motion including an
    88 acre development on the east side providing 300 new single family
    homes to our City's residents. Our Detroit Brownfield Development
    Authority completed 21 projects in 2006 alone, mostly in neighborhoods.
    Last year we broke ground on the east riverfront on two developments
    that will create 600 new housing units along with retail and
    restaurants. We have built 3 new recreation centers in neighborhoods
    that had not seen rec centers in 20 years. We have instituted historic
    property tax cuts in neighborhoods. We have opened two new employment
    training centers, which have enjoyed successful retraining and job
    placement rates. We have enticed major regional employers to move their
    headquarters downtown, most recently Quicken Loans, the nation's
    largest online mortgage lender with its 4,000 jobs. We received
    national recognition for our success hosting the Major League Baseball
    All Star Game in 2005 and the Superbowl in 2006. We have built two new
    sports stadiums downtown and many sports pundits tag our Detroit Tigers
    as the team to beat in 2008.
        These dramatic improvements to the City of Detroit are not just
    happenstance. A very prominent economic driver to these accomplishments
    has been the establishment of three casinos within the City's
    boundaries. These three casinos, approved by a statewide ballot
    initiative in 1996, have provided over $1 billion to date in wagering
    taxes and percentage payments, and the city received another $100
    million in Municipal Service fees. That does not include investments
    held with in the City's limit to construct the new casinos. For
    instance, the $800 million MGM Grand Detroit Casino & Hotel was one of
    the largest construction projects in the State of Michigan when it was
    being built. The $400 million MotorCity Casino & Hotel preserved a
    major Detroit landmark by expanding on its current site to provide a
    uniquely Detroit experience. These three casinos in Detroit employ over
    7,100 hardworking Detroit residents all of whom pay taxes, purchases
    goods, make rent and mortgage payments and contribute to the overall
    economic and social well being of our city.
        My administration worked hard to seal the permanent casino deals
    for the city. Included in the deal, the city receives a lump sum of $4
    million when a casino obtains $400 million in adjusted gross receipts;
    in addition, the city receives another 1% payment during this period.
    The city also receives 1.25% of adjusted gross receipts for municipal
    services supplied to the casinos. As an example of the impact this
    funding has, the city currently receives approximately $470,000 in
    casino revenues daily or approximately $13,500,000 monthly. These
    revenues from the casinos are a significant source for the city. For
    instance, collected casino revenues nearly cover the fire services for
    the entire city of Detroit, and approximately one-half of what the City
    expends for police services.
        Over this time period, revenues from income taxes decreased over
    $100 million annually (from a high of $378 million in FY1999-2000 to
    $277 million in FY2006-07). In addition, annual cuts to State Revenue
    Sharing to the City amounted to $61 million annually (from $333.9
    million to $272.7 million). Clearly, the revenue from casinos listed
    above is critical to the daily budget and maintenance of the City.
        I also want to highlight some very profound findings from a
    recently released report from the University of Michigan, which I would
    like to submit in its entirety for the record. And I quote:
          the three Detroit casinos can be viewed as the spearhead
    of growth in the Detroit region's hospitality sector. The casinos have
    grown consistently over the past seven years while most of the rest of
    the state economy has languished.
          the three casinos combined to contribute close to $450
    million in direct taxes, fees and assessments to the state and local
    government treasuries in 2007, while at the same time paying out over
    $200 million in wages to their employees and investing almost $650
    million in construction projects. These construction projects include
    some of the historic development initiatives I just mentioned.
          direct employment for the three Detroit casinos is
    projected to grow to 10,800 workers in 2009 and ``the total number of
    jobs contributed in Michigan by the Detroit casinos up to 30,000 in
    2007.'' That is 30,000 jobs in a region that is facing unparalleled
    manufacturing job losses.
          The results of this initial study do confirm, though,
    that the health of the Detroit casinos is very important to the overall
    health of the Detroit region, and to the state of Michigan.
        These facts presented by the renowned independent views of the
    University of Michigan directly point to the fact that the City of
    Detroit's three casinos are a significant driver in the generation of
    the Next Detroit. These revenues assist the City to improve its
    neighborhoods, infrastructure and services provided to its residents. A
    Mapquest of the region shows that Romulus is just 20 miles away from
    the City and Port Huron is a mere 60. It is not hard to determine that
    opening congressional mandated off-reservation casinos within such a
    short distance from the City of Detroit would significantly inhibit our
    ability to continue to revitalize and invest in our city.
        The second part of my statement is to address the unprecedented
    approach these pieces of legislation take on establishing casinos. As
    many of you know, the three casinos currently operating in Detroit were
    approved by a majority of Michigan voters in 1996 by ballot initiative.
    Again, these were not just Detroit voters, they were Michigan voters
    from across the state who voted in a state wide election to establish
    three casinos within the City's boundaries. The City took this mandate
    very seriously and worked very hard to select the casino developers,
    establish a meaningful partnership between the casinos and the City,
    participated in the site selection and proved the critical design
    elements of the casinos and assured itself of their financial
    integrity. In my very strong view, we brought these casinos to the City
    of Detroit in a straightforward, lawful and deliberate manor.
        H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 seek to circumvent the proceedings long set
    by the Indian Regulatory Gaming Act established in 1988. In fact, these
    specific land claims have been denied at various levels of the judicial
    system, most recently the U.S. Supreme Court. They set an unprecedented
    congressional mandate for casinos. I want to stress that Congress has
    never mandated a casino placement in U.S. history. In fact, a cofounder
    of the Native American Caucus stated before this Committee in 2004 that
    the ``unintended consequences will be to set dangerous precedents that
    would cease to undermine the IRGA and would promote bad public policy
    regarding Indian Land Claims Settlements.''
        In closing, clearly, this legislation would severely harm our
    City's ability to rebuild and revitalize. We have made great strides
    and will continue to do so. The investments and the revenues from our
    three hard fought after casinos are paramount to these efforts.
    However, as a former state legislator and majority leader of the
    Michigan House of Representatives, I caution you against creating
    unprecedented congressionally mandated casinos by enacting these pieces
    of legislation. By doing so, I fear you will be endorsing an infinite
    number of land claims that will inevitably come before your Committee
    in years to come.
        Thank you for your attention on this important issue.
        NOTE: The attachment, ``The Contributions of the Detroit Casinos to
    the Economy of Michigan'' submitted to MGM Grand Detroit submitted by
    George A. Fulton and Donald R. Grimes, Institute of Labor and
    Industrial Relations, University of Michigan, January 2008, has been
    retained in the Committee's official files.
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know you have to run.
    I am going to yield my time to the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
    Kildee.
        Mr. Kildee. Well, I just want to thank the Mayor for his
    presence here today. I have great affection for Detroit. I went
    to college in Detroit, taught high school at University of
    Detroit High School there. You said you were able to avoid
    receivership. That is a real blessing. Flint went into
    receivership.
        As a matter of fact, Mr. Conroy come in with the new mayor
    and pulled us out of receivership, which is a great
    achievement. I commend you for what you are doing, and I
    appreciate your testimony. I won't keep you because I know the
    weather between here and Detroit. I fly that about every week.
    So take care. God bless you.
        Mr. Kilpatrick. God bless you, Congressman. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Gentlelady from Virgin Islands.
        Ms. Christensen. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I know you are
    getting ready to leave, but I think Chairman Dingell referred
    to this Hillsdale policy group analysis that said that with the
    new casino in Romulus or Port Huron any affect on existing
    Detroit casinos would be de minimis.
        Then on the other hand, some claim that as the largest
    community in Wayne County, City of Detroit would benefit from
    the bills with new and good job opportunities. Your Governor is
    saying that with the revenue that the state will get Detroit
    will benefit. How do you respond to those?
        Mr. Kilpatrick. Well, to try to respond to that entire
    question, Congresswoman, first, the State of Michigan has been
    continuously because of the economic pressures--I understand
    the pressure that the Governor has, it has to be amazing--
    rolling back any type of additional dollars for the City of
    Detroit or any city in Michigan.
        It is not just us. It is Flint, it is Grand Rapids and it
    is everyone else. I don't see a day when they get enough money
    into the coffers because of two casinos to be able to help us
    out. I don't believe anybody in the municipal league would be
    able to believe that or anyone else. This is no disrespect to
    the tribe or anyone else because I have worked with these guys
    before, but the tribe alone is not in this deal.
        There are other partners in this deal. As a matter of fact,
    when you see who is in front of the Port Huron deal you usually
    don't hear Bay Mills, you hear local developers and people who
    are trying to build these casinos. In their own numbers--in
    their own numbers--they talk about what the hit will be to the
    City of Detroit.
        A couple of them came to meet with me and said it will be
    as low as nine percent or as high as 20. Now, if it is as low
    as nine percent, nine percent of the $180 million we get, $18
    million, that is 300 police officers. I mean, so it is not a
    small thing. If you take the high end of 20 percent or 30
    percent, it is $72 million.
        So we are talking about major numbers that are significant
    in providing for our city's services, maintenance and
    infrastructure, and that is just one casino. When you talk
    about Romulus, I think everybody sitting in here would agree
    that is going to be a large take from our casinos. When
    Greektown Casino and Mr. Payment do an analysis of their
    customer base they know where they come from.
        They come mostly from down river in Wayne County, which is
    where this casino is being proposed to be put, or it comes from
    Macomb County, which is the other way which is where Port Huron
    is. They are very smart. They are amazingly gifted and smart,
    they have been in this industry for several years, they have
    done the studies, and this will be a substantial taking of our
    market share in Detroit.
        The reason that we get Superbowls, Final Fours, why we get
    All Star games is because we have been able to create a
    critical mass. So last, Congresswoman, to your last question,
    this will impact in another way because this policy has been
    tried before. This is the 50 year ago policy for southeastern
    Michigan.
        Let us forget about Detroit, and let us start building
    around Detroit and create things outside and maybe that will
    help Detroit. Unless you develop the core community you will
    never have the economic vibrancy that a city, or a region, or a
    state should. So I believe that the Governor's letter was a
    reaction from some bad information.
        I wish I would have had a chance to bring her other studies
    that talked about the total number of gamblers, where they come
    from, gambling trends. We don't have destination casinos.
    People are not coming from Vegas and Atlantic City or anywhere
    to our casinos. These are local casinos that are very nice.
        So when one wins, we all win. If you start to take away and
    ebb that market share, then we all will lose.
        Ms. Christensen. Thank you. Thank you for that answer.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, for your very
    knowledgeable testimony. On a personal note, before you leave
    let me just say although we may not see this issue in the same
    light, your mother and I see a lot more issues in the same
    light than we do not see in this Congress.
        I wanted to tell you what a great job she does and the high
    esteem and respect that she is held by every member of this
    Congress of the United States. So I am going to give mother a
    chance now to say goodbye to son.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Go back to work. Get your job.
        Mr. Kilpatrick. Mr. Chair, she told me about you in our
    briefing and told me how great you were. She told me not to
    think about today.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No
    comment. There is an ice storm. The Mayor has to get back.
    Brilliant, as always, son. Do your job.
        Mr. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Ms. Kilpatrick.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
        Our next witness is The Honorable Fred Cantu, the Chief of
    the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, Mt. Pleasant, Michigan. We
    welcome you to the Committee.

             STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRED CANTU, CHIEF,
         SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE, MT. PLEASANT, MICHIGAN

        Mr. Cantu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing
    my tribe to testify. My name is Fred Cantu. I am the Chief of
    the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. Let me start my testimony
    just by stating a few facts for the record. The lands on which
    these two tribes seek to build their casinos are in the
    ancestral lands of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
        Our tribe ceded these lands by treaties to the U.S.
    Government. Neither the Sault Tribe nor the Bay Mills Tribe has
    any ancestral connections or claims to these lands. The Indians
    Claims Commission has ruled on this on two separate occasions.
    IGRA wasn't intended to allow tribes to establish casinos 350
    miles from their reservations, much less on ancestral lands of
    another tribe.
        We believe this is a dangerous precedent and would
    undermine gaming for all tribes. We also believe that these
    bills undermine the Michigan Gaming Compact which states that
    no tribe can conduct off-reservation gaming without a revenue
    agreement from the other tribes. Very simply, this is a blatant
    attempt by these two tribes to evade their obligation under the
    compact.
        These bills would have Congress ratify a tribal state
    compact for the first time in history which circumvents the
    authority of the Michigan legislature. I think we all agree
    that these bills have absolutely nothing to do with the
    settlement of a valid land claim. These bills certainly have
    nothing to do with settling lawsuits with victimized land
    owners.
        According to the Sault Tribe, these bills are premised on
    nothing more than a scam, a scam perpetrated by a wealthy non-
    Indian developer and two tribes willing to go along for the
    ride. These may sound like harsh words, but these are not mine.
    These are the words of a former Chairman of the Sault Tribe in
    testimony before the Senate Committee of Indian Affairs in
    2002.
        You see, the Sault Tribe was against these casinos before
    they were for them. According to the Sault Tribe, the Bay Mills
    case was a scam from the start. The Charlotte Beach scam did
    not originate with Bay Mills but was conceived by a Detroit
    area attorney who developed it specifically as a vehicle to
    obtain an IGRA casino and marketed it both to the Sault Tribe
    and Bay Mills Tribe looking for a willing partner.
        This attorney first approached the Sault Tribe who rejected
    him. He then took it to the Bay Mills Tribe who accepted their
    proposal. According to the Sault Tribe, the Federal case had
    the air of a collusive lawsuit. The Federal complaint was filed
    in October of 1996. Less than one week before the suit was
    filed Mr. James Hadley purchased land within the Charlotte
    Beach area.
        A few months later, Mr. Hadley, representing himself,
    entered into a settlement with the Bay Mills Tribe. As
    explained by the Bay Mills Tribe, Mr. Hadley just happened to
    own some land in Auburn Hills, the city in which Bay Mills
    originally wanted to build the casino.
        Mr. Hadley agreed to give the Auburn Hills land to the
    tribe to clear title to the Charlotte Beach land he had just
    bought just weeks before the lawsuit was filed. All of this was
    contingent upon the Secretary of Interior taking the land into
    trust to build the casino. The Department never took the land
    into trust.
        What makes this scam even more interesting is the fact that
    Mr. Hadley passed away. His estate deeded the Charlotte Beach
    property to a Mr. Michael J. Malik and his gaming business
    partner. This raises the question of whether Mr. Malik had an
    interest in the land deal from the get go. If so, did he try to
    disguise his ownership in the land deal?
        This begs the question that was raised by the Sault Tribe
    whether this collusive lawsuit was a scam, a set up in order to
    make this land claim seem legitimate. As stated by the Sault
    Tribe, Mr. Hadley was clearly not an agreed land owner. He was
    a willing and active participant in this scam.
        That is why today we are asking the U.S. Department of
    Interior to investigate this matter and to request the
    Committee to refrain from taking any action until such
    investigation is complete. I would like to enter into the
    records the deeds that show Mr. Malik received these lands from
    Mr. Hadley's estate.
        Today, Mr. Malik is the lead developer with the Bay Mills
    Tribe to build the casino in Port Huron. If this land claim was
    so legitimate why does it appear that Bay Mills and their
    developer colluded to hide their identity in these
    transactions? We believe the answer is clear. They didn't want
    anybody to know this was a scam from the outset.
        Since that time, Bay Mills and their developers have
    pursued other cities in Michigan to build their off-reservation
    casino. First, Auburn Hills, then Vanderbilt, now Port Huron.
    The Sault Tribe also shopped their deals in several cities as
    well. These two tribes have most certainly put shopping in
    reservation shopping.
        As the Sault Tribe said, Bay Mills made up the claim,
    entered into a suspicious settlement and collusive lawsuit and
    now seeks to put one over on Congress. The Sault Tribe then
    asked the alternate question. Why is this bill before Congress
    given the shady dealings surrounding this so-called land claim?
        Only one fact has changed since the Sault Tribe's testimony
    in 2002, and that is the fact that the Sault Tribe has now been
    promised a casino. Everything the Sault Chairman stated about
    six years ago still holds true today. IGRA was meant to promote
    economic development on Indian reservations, not to reward
    tribes who scheme with non-Indian developers.
        This is the only committee in the House with jurisdiction
    over tribal gaming, and it needs to act in the interest of all
    tribes. While these bills may be good for two tribes and their
    non-Indian developers, it is simply bad policy for Indian
    country. I hope this committee does the right thing and rejects
    these bills. Again, thank you for allowing me to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cantu follows:]

       Statement of Chief Fred Cantu, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Fred Cantu and I
    am the Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today against H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115, two bills
    that will undermine the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, cause great harm
    to our tribal specifically, and set a negative precedent for Indian
    Tribes across the country.
        Mr. Chairman the two bills before the committee would allow the Bay
    Mills Tribe and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe to build two casinos, each
    350 miles from its reservation, in the historic and aboriginal
    territory of my Tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan.
        It is important to understand both Indian gaming history and the
    treaty history of the Michigan Indian Tribes to truly grasp the effect
    of these two bills.
        Between 1795 and 1864 the United States negotiated several treaties
    with the Michigan Indian Tribes. Beginning in 1795, a group of my
    ancestors, who descend from the Saginaw, Swan Creek and Black River
    Chippewa Bands, began negotiating and entering into treaties with the
    United States of America. They signed these treaties on their own, or
    with a group of Ottawas and Potawatonis, whose lands were located
    adjacent to our lands in southeast Michigan. On November 17, 1807, the
    Treaty of Detroit (7 Stat. 105), a land cession treaty, was signed by
    the group of Chippewas, Ottawas and Potawatomis and ceded most of the
    lands in southeastern Michigan, including the lands surrounding the
    Port Huron area, to the United States. However, this treaty
    specifically reserved the area of Port Huron, along with three other
    areas to the Chippewa. These areas were later ceded to the United
    States by the Treaty of May 9, 1836 (7 Stat. 503).
        These are the lands that my ancestors hunted and fished for
    hundreds of years. It is the land my ancestors sold to the United
    States government nearly 200 hundred years ago. And these are the lands
    that Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes want to build casinos
    despite the fact that their reservations are several hundred miles away
    in the Upper Peninsula. That is why my Tribe and so many other tribes
    oppose these bills.
        In 1986, Congress passed the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
    Michigan Distribution of Judgment Funds Act (``Saginaw Judgment Funds
    Act''), for claims in southeast Michigan, including the lands in Pt.
    Huron and Romulus, to provide compensation for claims the Saginaw
    Chippewa Tribe made and won before the Indian Claims Commission. The
    Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes were not participants in the
    settlements legislation, even thought they attempted to claim these
    lands before the Indian Claims Commission. This is because the Indian
    Claims Commission found their claims to be totally without any
    supporting evidence and threw them out (a copy of the Indian Claims
    Commission decision is attached to this testimony). This is because the
    Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie tribes were not signatories to the 1795
    Treaty of Greenville, the 1807 Treaty of Detroit, nor the Treaty of
    1819, which ceded the area to the United States. The Saginaw Judgment
    Funds Act clearly defines the Saginaw Tribes Settlement Area (the basis
    for the ICC claim) lands in southeast Michigan, including Port Huron
    and Romulus.
        In 1997, Congress approved the Michigan Indian Land Claims
    Settlement Act, an $80 million dollar plus settlement for five Michigan
    Tribes, including the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribe for claims
    in the northern and western portion of the Lower Peninsula and the
    Eastern Upper Peninsula., based on treaties that were signed in 1836
    and 1855. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe was not, and did not seek to be, a
    part of that settlement agreement because the lands that were the
    subject of the legislation are not the ancestral lands of the Saginaw
    Chippewa.
        Both settlement agreements were very clear on the ancestral and
    historical lands of each Tribe. In the case of the Saginaw Chippewa,
    the Indian Claims Commission specifically rejected claims by the Bay
    Mills and Sault Ste Marie Tribes, in two successive cases dealing with
    areas in southern Michigan, including the area surrounding Port Huron,
    stating that there was no evidence to support their assertions. (the
    decisions are attached) Based on the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of
    Michigan Distribution of Judgment Funds Act and the Michigan Indian
    Land Claims Settlement Act, the Saginaw Chippewa ancestral territory
    encompassed central and southeastern Michigan and the Bay Mills and
    Sault Tribe ancestral territory was located in the northwestern portion
    of lower Michigan and the Upper Peninsula.
        The Saginaw Tribe does not believe that the land claims exception
    to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was meant to allow tribes to assert
    land claims in one area in exchange for lands and casinos hundreds of
    miles away from the area where the land claim occurs. This view is also
    shared by the founders of the Congressional Native American Caucus and
    they have shared those views with the committee in previous years.
        The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719, identifies
    which lands can be used for Indian Gaming, and is divided into two
    sections. The first identifies that tribes may game on Indian lands and
    reservation lands prior to October 17, 1988, the date IGRA was enacted.
    The second section deals with exceptions to that limitation. The
    exceptions are also divided into two categories: 1) Off-reservation
    acquisition, and 2) Acquisitions which place tribes who might not
    otherwise be allowed to game because they did not have lands in 1998 on
    an equal footing with tribes who did have land.
        The off-reservation section, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A) is very
    clear in its requirements. A tribe who chooses to game outside of its
    reservation, may do so if it satisfies two requirements. First, the
    Tribe must make a showing to, and the Secretary of the Interior must
    find, that the off-reservation proposal is in the best interest of the
    Tribe and is not detrimental to the surrounding community. Second, the
    Governor must concur with the Secretary's determination. The law
    doesn't pose any limitations on the distance a tribe may go from its
    reservation or whether it is even limited to stay within a specific
    state. As long as they satisfy those two requirements, they could
    potentially game anywhere in the United States.
        The second set of exceptions are different, located 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. 2719 (b)(1)(B)(i)-(iii), and relate to righting past wrongs for
    tribes who may not otherwise be able to game. These exceptions tie the
    land on which the tribe can game to the historical territory of the
    Tribe. These exceptions allow tribes to game on lands acquired after
    1988 when a tribe is recognized when they establish their reservation,
    allow a tribe that has been restored to Federal recognition to acquire
    lands on which to game, and also allows a tribe to acquire lands in
    settlement of a land claim. In every case the Department of Interior
    reviews where a tribe is seeking to use one of these exceptions to
    acquire land for gaming, they seek to assess whether the tribe in
    question has historical and cultural ties to the land in question. With
    regard to restored lands and initial reservations, the Department has
    developed rigorous tests for determining whether a tribe is within its
    aboriginal and historic territory. With regard to the land claims
    exception, there has only been one time a tribe has used this exception
    to acquire land for gaming. In that case, the land at issue was within
    the tribe's land claim area and was confirmed as such by the Department
    of Interior. We believe this is what Congress truly intended, that a
    tribe using this exception would acquire lands in or near the land
    claim area for gaming, when they created the land claims exception.
        That is not only our view, but as we mentioned earlier, it is the
    view of the founders of the Native American Caucus who has expressed
    the same view in letters to the Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, if the Congress passes this legislation, every tribe
    in the United States with a potential land claim could petition
    Congress to settle the claim, and allow them build a casino anywhere in
    the United States where gaming is viable. The Saginaw Tribe does not
    believe Congress should endorse such tactics because they are contrary
    to the intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        The passage of this legislation will encourage tribes to create or
    exploit a land claim by seeking to replace lost lands with lands in
    profitable gaming markets, without regard to whether they are entering
    into the territory of other another tribe. This was never the intent of
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        In addition, in 1993 the Governor of Michigan signed a gaming
    compact with seven federally-recognized Tribes in Michigan, including
    the Bay Mills Tribe, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the Saginaw
    Chippewa Tribe. Section 9 of that compact stated that no tribe could
    conduct off-reservation gaming unless all the tribes agreed to a
    revenue sharing plan. This provision has worked well to prevent the
    proliferation of off-reservation gaming in the state.
        Unfortunately, today we find the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribes trying to circumvent this compact provision by coming to
    Congress to settle a land claim that has never been validated. In fact,
    the Bay Mills Tribe has lost this land claim in both federal and state
    courts on both the merits and on procedural grounds. The Bay Mills
    Tribe lost in federal court because the court ruled that the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe was an ``indispensable party'' to the lawsuit since they
    both were the same Tribe at one point and had the same claim to
    Charlotte Beach if one was ever proven. In the state court, the Bay
    Mills Tribe lost on the merits and it was eventually denied hearing by
    the U.S. Supreme Court. At this time, no valid land claim has ever been
    proven in these cases. Not one.
        Moreover, these bills would have Congress for the first time pass a
    gaming compact in federal legislation. Under IGRA, the states and
    tribes negotiate compacts and in the state of Michigan, these compacts
    are approved by the Michigan State Legislature. Under these two bills,
    gaming compacts would be approved after being negotiated by the
    Governor but not having been approved by the Michigan State
    Legislature. This would be unprecedented and undermine the authority of
    the Michigan Legislature and the spirit of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
    Act.
        These bills are highly controversial within the State of Michigan.
    Numerous legislators within the state are opposed to the bills, and
    they have sent you correspondence to confirm that fact. The City of
    Detroit is opposed to this legislation and they have sent you a letter
    to state their position. Numerous Members of the Michigan delegation
    are opposed to this legislation.
        These bills are opposed by tribes across the country. The tribes
    that oppose these bills recognize the dangerous precedent these bills
    would set for Indian Country. In addition, the practice of one tribe
    going into the historic and aboriginal territory--treaty territories--
    is so roundly rejected in Indian Country that the National Congress of
    American Indians and the National Indian Gaming Association have issued
    a joint resolution urging tribes not to conduct themselves in this
    manner.
        Not only are these bills controversial, they are bad policy.
        On behalf of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan, I ask
    the Committee to reject these bills and stop every effort to get them
    enacted into law.

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.009

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.010

                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Mr. Conroy.

         STATEMENT OF MR. JOE CONROY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENTAL
                  OPERATIONS, CITY OF FLINT, MICHIGAN

        Mr. Conroy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    the opportunity of being here. I felt a little bit like that
    guy named Huckabee. In the debate a week or two ago he says
    hey, I am here, too. So all I would like to have you know is
    that we are not only here, that is, Flint is here, but I think
    we have the resolve to the matter of only being 20 miles from
    downtown Detroit because we are 75 miles from downtown Detroit,
    and we are about another 75 miles from the next nearest casino.
        So we are quite a ways away from any competition if that is
    what people are worried about. I thought being in business that
    competition was good. Let me give you a little background on
    the City of Flint. We are a city that was at risk, is at risk.
    As Congressman Kildee indicated, we were under governance by an
    appointee, a financial manager, of the Governor of the state
    for two years.
        Mayor Williamson was elected and seven or eight months
    later the Governor allowed him to take over that city. I think
    it was about eight months into his term. Since then, we have
    balanced the budget each year, we have had a surplus at the end
    of each year. In addition to that, and keep in mind, we are a
    community that at one time had 85,000 General Motors jobs.
        I was in the legislature at the time because I remember
    that number. We now have about 8,000 General Motors jobs. So
    they are going, going, gone, is pretty much the idea with that
    company, so we have to do something else. You know, 30 years
    ago we wouldn't be thinking about casinos as a part of our
    total economic package, but today we have to fight for every
    job.
        If somebody comes in our door and has 12 jobs we are going
    to work really hard to make that company successful. We have a
    lot to offer. We have probably the best cultural center.
    Certainly it is better than anything in Michigan and probably
    anywhere in the Midwest. We have a cultural center that rivals
    the three or four million populated cities.
        It is just a fabulous center that we have. So we have
    positive. We have four universities, higher education
    facilities, in our city. We are building on that, we are
    building on education, but we have to also build on service.
    General Motors is buying out people who are being paid $28 an
    hour plus fringe benefits, and they are willing to pay $12 to
    $14 an hour for the new ones that they replace.
        So we have a whole new kind of war going on, an economic
    war if you will, even among the jobs that are left. So the City
    of Flint has tried to do a good job. We have tried to set the
    plate. As I tell the mayor, he is setting the plate for
    economic development.
        He has paved over 200 lane miles of streets each of the
    last three years, which is more than any city in America. He
    has demolished more boarded up, unsafe houses, two to seven
    houses a day--these are done primarily by city employees--and
    we still have a long list to go. So we are trying to clean up
    the mess that he inherited, and we are trying to make certain
    that our city survives.
        Now, please, with 20 casinos, and I say 20, in our State of
    Michigan, is one more or two more going to just kill the golden
    egg? I think not. There are 17 Indian casinos and three that
    are not Indian owned. Those numbers are pretty close. I may be
    one off. I remember when I was in the Senate there were 17, so
    that was 10 years ago.
        We are doing the best we can. We just need any kind of help
    we can get, and we need an opportunity to be able to talk to
    the Indian leadership people to see if indeed I-75, U.S. 23 and
    I-69 all meet. We have probably three million people within a
    60, 70 mile radius. I told the mayor as he left that I have a
    cure to his problem.
        That instead of going just to 20 miles west he could go 75
    miles north, and Flint would be very happy with all that. So
    keep up the good work, Committee, do a good job, get this bill
    out, let us see the light of day on it and let all of us see if
    we can be a part of the future. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conroy follows:]

         Statement of Joe Conroy, Director of Governmental Operations,
                            City of Flint, Michigan

        Dear Chairman and Members of the Committee on Natural Resources:
        My name is Joe Conroy and I am the Director of Governmental
    Operations for the city of Flint, Michigan. My proposed testimony will
    be on H.R. 2176 (Stupak) and H.R. 4115 (Dingell). The testimony
    addresses benefits a casino can have on Flint's depressed economy.
    Flint, MI--Populaton 117,068
        Once known as a booming center of automobile manufacturing, with as
    many as 14 General Motors related auto plants, the city of Flint, in
    recent years, has seen its economic base decimated by the loss of
    nearly 85,000 manufacturing jobs since the 1980s, as General Motors'
    closed plants and laid off workers in order to compete in the emerging
    global economy. As a result of the plant closings, the city has
    experienced a decline in population as families migrated to other
    states to seek employment. Flint now has substantial inventory of
    abandoned housing that must be torn down; the continually declining tax
    base provides little resources to rebuild the community's economic
    base. High paying manufacturing jobs are now replaced by lower paying
    jobs in the service industry.
        To date, Flint is continuing to feel the affects of the economic
    woes of the auto industry. In an effort to reduce the work force and
    bring on new workers at reduced hourly rates, General Motors, in June
    2006, offered incentive packages to encourage early retirements of its
    high seniority employees. As a result, GM announced the early
    retirements of 47,600 employees, 3,100 of which were from the Flint
    area.
        The economic woes of the Flint are also being felt by the entire
    state of Michigan. In just the past six years, the state of Michigan
    has lost 30 percent of its manufacturing employment or some 240,000
    jobs. The Flint and southeastern Michigan areas where the majority of
    these auto plants were located, have been hard hit by such job losses.
    The long term economic deterioration experienced by the Flint community
    caused by the loss of these jobs and plant closings, has crippled the
    community in such a manner that it has been hard to recover.
        The state of Michigan has the highest unemployment rate in the
    nation at 7.6 percent while the national average is 4.9 percent.
    Flint's unemployment rate is even higher than the state's at 8.3
    percent. The poverty rate in Flint is at 25.2 percent. Unfortunately,
    Flint is now at a crossroads. These sobering job statistics and the
    city's economic crisis mandates that Flint explores other opportunities
    to help rebuild its economy and guide it to the road to an economic
    renaissance.
        It has long been thought that a casino would be the catalyst to
    bring the Flint economy back to health. The idea of opening casinos
    locally has been one that has been bounced around Flint as far back as
    the early 1990s. In examining the affects of the casino industry in
    nearby Detroit and other Michigan cities, some of the expected benefits
    and possible negatives of a casino in Flint are as follows:
    Pros
          Creation of new jobs
          Decrease in the local unemployment rate
          Stimulation of the local economy through the increase in
    local revenue
          Influx of new visitors who more than likely will spend
    money in the area
          Improved public infrastructure to accommodate the casino
    facilities
          Increase in construction jobs
          Increase in the city's local tax base
          More housing to meet the demand of workers with higher
    wages
          Increase in retail and hotel establishments
        We believe that the positives of having a casino in the Flint area
    will far outweigh any negatives. Therefore, Flint is in support of H.R.
    2176 and H.R. 4115, which will allow for the settlement of land claims
    in favor of the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe of Chippewa Indians. The tribes will then be able to exercise
    their tribal rights to establish casinos within the state of Michigan.
        [NOTE: The Warranty Deed submitted for the record has been retained
    in the Committee's official files.]
                                     ______

        The Chairman. Thank you. Let me ask Chief Cantu a couple
    questions. You testified that both Port Huron and Romulus are
    in your tribe's aboriginal area. You also indicated 1986
    legislation was enacted settling your tribe's claims in
    southeast Michigan including lands in Port Huron and Romulus.
        Is it your position then that the tribe can veto any
    economic development opportunities by any government or
    individual because it is in your aboriginal territory even
    though you already accepted a cash settlement and waived your
    rights to such lands?
        Mr. Cantu. I don't think we can veto it, but when it comes
    into our ancestral lands that we have treaties that have been
    signed by the U.S. Government I think we have every right to
    protect what was originally signed to those treaties.
        The Chairman. Is that just for Indian tribes, though?
        Mr. Cantu. For a Indian tribe that is trying to come into
    our ancestral lands? Yes.
        The Chairman. Or any other economic development activities.
        Mr. Cantu. I would say any other Indian tribe coming into
    our ancestral lands.
        The Chairman. But not a Walmart?
        Mr. Cantu. No, not a Walmart. We are the sole signatories
    that, as mentioned, on those treaties, and nowhere does it say
    Sault Ste. Marie or Bay Mills on those treaties, it says the
    Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe.
        The Chairman. All right. In 2004 the Department of Interior
    prepared an internal memorandum signed by several high level
    Department officials including one who is now your lobbyist.
    This memo concluded that there is no evidence that Congress
    intended to limit gaming activity to existing reservation lands
    or within a close proximity.
        Do you have any evidence that contradicts this opinion and
    supports your view that the land claims exemption of IGRA
    intended that lands used for gaming must be in or near the land
    claim area?
        Mr. Cantu. I would have to check with that and get back
    with you on that.
        The Chairman. We would appreciate that.
        Mr. Cantu. Very well.
        The Chairman. Mr. Conroy, your testimony discusses the
    harsh economic conditions in the City of Flint and the expected
    benefits of a casino. Do you see these as short-term or long-
    term benefits?
        Mr. Conroy. Well, I see it every day as people walk into my
    office. We have a lot of disaster citizens who are in need of a
    lot of help. With the diminution of manufacturing--and, Mr.
    Chairman, I would like to point out to you Michigan has been in
    the top five for 30 years of manufacturing, and of course we
    got hurt commensurate to that dominance that we had in that
    general kind of arena.
        So we have lost just a huge number of manufacturing jobs.
    They are not just in Detroit, they are not just in Flint.
        The Chairman. Yes. You still are a football coach from West
    Virginia, too, so you are probably going to get hurt again.
        Mr. Conroy. I wish you would have helped pay his way.
    Apparently he owes some money. We have some problems. We are
    working on them. We are balancing the budget, we are trying to
    make it work, we are pushing the school system to get better,
    we are trying to make a better city, we paved more streets, as
    I said, than any place in America in the last three consecutive
    years. Those are lane miles.
        So we are doing the best we can. Our crime went down this
    past year pretty dramatically. So we have done some things that
    are helpful and to make the city a better place to live, but we
    typically have been on the high charts in terms of negative
    news over the years, and we are trying to change that.
        The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman from Michigan.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you. Mr. Conroy, Joe, the City of Flint
    and Romulus in H.R. 4115, will be one or the other, and so
    there will be some competition to lure a casino into either one
    of those towns. Is Flint prepared to extend a helpful hand to
    the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, and are they prepared to show them
    sites where a possible casino could be erected with all the
    parking needed for that?
        Mr. Conroy. Absolutely. We have had this issue come up for
    discussion many, many years, and you have been a part of that,
    Congressman Kildee, and we appreciate your support on this
    particular bill or these set of bills. Certainly, the City of
    Flint will be front and center in trying to cooperate and urge
    adoption of our locale with land and services.
        Mr. Kildee. That is very important. I do know that we have
    a very active city government now. It does reach out and try to
    make the city an attractive place for various types of
    enterprises, and that will be very important. I have the same
    confidence you have that we can make a very good presentation
    to the tribe. I send my best back to the mayor, too.
        Mr. Conroy. Thank you.
        The Chairman. The gentlelady from Michigan.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank you both for coming. It is good to see my colleague. I
    served 18 years with this gentleman in the legislature. Good to
    see you, Senator. I want to go back to the chief because I
    think he raised some very important issues here and he kind of
    brushed over them, but I had a chance to listen to you more
    closely.
        Are you alleging that there might be some illegal activity
    in the original land--I call it scheme, I don't know what it
    is, but I don't even want to use--in the original land whatever
    that whoever owns the land now--the person you mentioned name,
    and I didn't get it--was part of the original bill in the first
    place to get casinos down the line? Is that what you are
    alleging?
        Mr. Cantu. I am just asking that an investigation take
    place into that.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Did you say you had a deed or
    something that would show that the current person whose name is
    on the deed is now a developer for one of the tribes?
        Mr. Cantu. Yes, I do, and I have it for the record. I
    believe in my statement I was going to submit that as part of
    the record.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Without objection. I would like
    that submitted for the record, Mr. Chairman. I was here today
    on a whole other thing because I just think it is not right, it
    is a process we have on in Michigan and that is where it ought
    to be. What you have now put on the table is something far more
    severe which I hope this committee will look into and
    investigate.
        We are good elected officials, public servants, here. We do
    not want to be involved in anything that is illegal or looks
    like it is illegal. Now, you are the Chief of the Saginaw
    Chippewa Indian Tribe whose ancestral lands these two pots
    represent?
        Mr. Cantu. That is correct.
        Ms. Kilpatrick of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, with that, I will
    just implore the Committee to look further into the matter.
        The Chairman. Any further questions? We thank the panel.
    Thank you for being with us today and the testimony. The Chair
    wishes to thank all members for their participation today, both
    on the Committee and not on the Committee. We appreciate it.
    With that, Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [A letter submitted for the record by Patrick J. Devlin,
    CEO, and Patrick F. Gleason, President, Michigan Building and
    Construction Trades Council, follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.013

        [A letter submitted for the record by The Honorable
    Jennifer Granholm, Governor, State of Michigan, follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.016

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.017

        [NOTE: Additional letters and an addendum submitted for the
    record by Governor Granholm have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]
        [A letter submitted for the record by Shaun S. Groden,
    County Administrator/Controller, County of St. Clair, Michigan,
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.018

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.019

        [A statement submitted for the record by The Honorable
    Robert Kewaygoshkum, Tribal Chairman, The Grand Traverse Band
    of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, follows:]

           Statement of Robert Kewaygoshkum, Councilor and Chairman,
               Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians

    I. Summary.
        My name is Robert Kewaygoshkum and I am the Tribal Chairman and
    elected member of the Grand Traverse Band Tribal Council. I have served
    as Chairman since 2000. I would like to express my sincere appreciation
    for the opportunity to testify again on this matter on behalf of the
    Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians and the Grand
    Traverse Band Tribal Council. 1
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Hereinafter ``Grand Traverse Band'' or ``GTB.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Chairman and members of this Committee, the Grand Traverse Band
    of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians opposes the enactment of both bills--
    H.R. 2176, to provide for and approve the settlement of certain land
    claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and H.R. 4115, to provide for
    and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        Although the Grand Traverse Band and the Bay Mills Indian Community
    2 and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
    3 have worked together for decades, striving for a sound and
    reasonable Federal Indian policy, we cannot stand beside our friends in
    this matter. If enacted, H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 would set an unhealthy
    precedent for Federal Indian fee-to-trust acquisition policy. They
    would unnaturally expand exceptions to the general prohibition against
    Indian gaming on lands acquired after October 17, 1988. They would
    promote inconsistent Congressional policy. And, they would violate an
    important agreement of the Indian Tribes in Michigan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hereinafter ``Bay Mills'' or ``BMIC.''
        \3\ Hereinafter ``Sault Ste. Marie'' or SSMTCI.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Grand Traverse Band does not generally oppose the attempts by
    Bay Mills or Sault Ste. Marie to improve the economic situation of
    their people. Nor do we oppose any attempt to establish a legally valid
    land claim to the Charlotte Beach properties.
        What the Grand Traverse Band opposes is the effect H.R. 2176 and
    H.R. 4115 would have upon Congressional policy and Federal Indian
    policy in the context of the Indian Reorganization Act and the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act; and we vehemently oppose any Port Huron and
    Romulus tribal casino projects that attempt to circumvent Section 9 of
    the 1993 Compact between the State of Michigan and the seven Michigan
    Indian Tribes requiring revenue sharing in the event a Michigan Tribe
    commences gaming in accordance with 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A).
    II. Interest of the Grand Traverse Band
        Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and the Grand Traverse Band are among
    the legal successor signatories to the 1836 Treaty of Washington
    4 and the 1855 Treaty of Detroit. 5 In the 1836
    treaty, the Grand Traverse Band, Bay Mills, and several other Ottawa
    and Chippewa bands ceded vast amounts of territory in the eastern half
    of the Upper Peninsula and the northwest third of the Lower Peninsula
    of the State of Michigan to the federal government in exchange for
    reservation lands on or near our respective traditional territories.
    The 1855 treaty set aside parcels of land for the establishment of
    additional reservations for the Grand Traverse Band and the other
    bands.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ 7 Stat. 491 (Mar. 28, 1836). The federally recognized
    signatories to the 1836 treaty were the Grand Traverse Band, Bay Mills,
    the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan, the Little
    River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan, and the Little Traverse Bay
    Bands of Odawa Indians.
        \5\ 11 Stat. 621 (Jul. 31, 1855).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie, and my Tribe, the Grand Traverse Band,
    each operates gaming facilities in our respective Reservation
    communities. One of GTB's two facilities is located on land determined
    to have been restored to our Tribe as part of our restoration process.
    That Williamsburg facility, known as Turtle Creek, was the subject of
    Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. United States
    Attorney for the Western District & State of Michigan, decided on April
    22, 2002. 6
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 198 F. Supp. 2d 920, 925 (W.D. Mich. 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Grand Traverse Band is very interested in establishing and
    maintaining a sound Federal Indian policy where the Federal Government
    and Indian Tribes work together to preserve Tribal cultures, Tribal
    lands, Tribal economic security, and stable Tribal governments.
        The two bills that are the subject of today's hearing attempt to
    circumvent a very important promise made by seven Michigan Tribes,
    including Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and the Grand Traverse Band, when
    they entered into their IGRA Gaming Compacts with the State of Michigan
    in 1993. At that time, each of our seven Tribes pledged, not only to
    the State, but to each other, that we would not engage in economic
    warfare over gaming. Each Tribe agreed that it would pursue proposals
    to establish casinos far removed from its traditional territory only if
    it had first reached a revenue-sharing agreement with the other six
    Tribes.
        This inter-tribal agreement was critical to each Tribe's survival,
    because proposals to game far off-reservation in the more populous
    parts of the State posed then and pose today the real potential to
    choke off the revenues of casinos closer to home that the Tribes rely
    upon to fund essential governmental programs and for employment. H.R.
    2176, as proposed by Bay Mills, and H.R. 4115, as proposed by Sault
    Ste. Marie, brazenly violate that promise. Rather than honoring their
    Compact pledge, Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie have asked the federal
    Congress to impose federal legislation--based on a land claim that has
    never been proven--that would excuse them from complying with their
    inter-Tribal promises and would instead favor them to the great
    detriment of others, all in violation of the Federal trust
    responsibility to act with the interests of all Tribes in mind.
        These two bills would bypass the courts and force upon the local
    communities, Indian and non-Indian alike, remedies with all kinds of
    ramifications, both intended and perhaps, unintended. Chief among these
    would be Congress's validation of the effort by Bay Mills and Sault
    Ste. Marie to evade the promise made in their IGRA gaming compacts that
    they would not pursue casino proposals far off-reservation without
    first taking into account the interests of other Michigan Tribes.
    III. H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Attempt to Circumvent the Promise Made By
            Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie to Other Michigan Tribes Under
            Section 9 of the Tribal-State IGRA Compacts.
        The tribal-state IGRA gaming compacts negotiated in 1993 between
    seven Michigan Tribes, including Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie, Grand
    Traverse and the State, contain an identical provision, Section 9,
    which declares as follows:
            An application to take land in trust for gaming purposes
            pursuant to Sec. 20 of IGRA (25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719) shall not be
            submitted to the Secretary of the Interior in the absence of a
            prior written agreement between the Tribe and the State's other
            federally recognized Indian Tribes that provides for each of
            the other Tribes to share in the revenue of the off-reservation
            gaming facility that is the subject of the Sec. 20 application.
    See, e.g., A Compact Between the Bay Mills Indian Community and the
    State of Michigan, Sec. 9 (emphasis added).
        The meaning of, and intent behind Section 9, are clear. At the time
    that the 1993 Compacts were negotiated, each of the seven signatory
    Tribes was operating casinos within its traditional territory. Under
    IGRA and the Compacts, each Tribe could continue to operate those
    casinos in separate, independent efforts to foster tribal self
    governance and economic development. Furthermore, pursuant to the three
    section 2719(b)(1)(B) exceptions described above, each of the Tribes
    could develop additional IGRA-governed gaming facilities within its
    traditional territory. However, if any Tribe sought to take land into
    trust for gaming purposes outside of its traditional territories, each
    Tribe agreed that it first had to work out revenue sharing agreements
    with the other Tribes. In this way, the Michigan Tribes pledged not to
    engage in a form of economic warfare that would ultimately injure all
    of them. They promised not to engage in an endless game of attempting
    to leapfrog over one another in moving closer to major population
    centers while cutting off revenues to their less aggressive brethren.
    Only when they had worked out cooperative arrangements among themselves
    would the Michigan Tribes then attempt to secure the approval of the
    Secretary of the Interior, and the concurrence of the Governor, for
    far-reaching off-reservation gaming proposals under Section 20 of IGRA.
        Shortly after the 1993 Compacts were finalized, the Michigan Tribes
    demonstrated their understanding of how Section 9 of the Compacts was
    intended to work. The Tribes worked cooperatively on a proposal to take
    land into trust for gaming under IGRA in the City of Detroit. They
    crafted an appropriate revenue-sharing agreement, and only because then
    Governor Engler, at the last minute, withdrew his support for the
    proposal, did the collaborative effort not come to fruition.
    7
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ After the tribal IGRA deal was blocked, the State issued
    licenses for three commercial (non-IGRA) casinos in Detroit. All
    operate under authority of state law and not the federal Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act although one of the owner-operators is the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        By contrast, the legislation being advanced by Bay Mills and Sault
    Ste. Marie would establish IGRA-authorized gaming operations far from
    the traditional territories of those two Tribes without involving the
    other Michigan Tribes and without any regard for their well-being. H.R.
    2176 and H.R. 4115 are nothing more than an obvious attempt to
    circumvent Section 9 of the 1993 IGRA Compacts and the protection
    Section 9 offers other Tribal signatories.
        Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie seek to establish casinos in a part
    of the State far removed from their traditional territories in
    violation of their pledge to first work out a revenue sharing
    arrangement with other Tribes. Under normal circumstances, these
    proposals would fall squarely within Section 2719(b)(1)(A) of IGRA--the
    Tribes would have to convince both the Secretary of the Interior and
    the Governor that gaming proposals should move forward. However,
    because an application under Section 2719(b)(1)(A) would trigger the
    revenue-sharing requirements of Section 9, and because they seek to get
    a free pass from the Congress to avoid the revenue sharing and
    governmental cooperation underpinning that Compact provision, Bay Mills
    and Sault Ste. Marie have brazenly sought to characterize their land-
    grab efforts in southern Michigan as involving the settlement of a land
    claim in the Upper Peninsula. As detailed above, however, the validity
    of their land claims in Chippewa County has never been established.
    Moreover, no court of law has ever construed the ``settlement of a land
    claim'' provision in IGRA to authorize Tribes to establish casinos far
    removed from the traditional territory subject to the land claim being
    settled as is here proposed by Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie, even
    assuming the existence of a valid claim.
    IV. Overview of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115
        H.R. 2176 contains a legislative remedy provision for a single
    Michigan Indian Tribe--the Bay Mills Indian Community. Likewise, H.R.
    4115 contains a legislative remedy provision for another Michigan
    Indian Tribe--the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe. Each involves what amounts to
    a significant amendment to both the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act
    8 and the Indian Reorganization Act, 9 as well as
    a deviation from Federal Indian gaming and Indian land policy. As both
    IGRA and the IRA have had profound and wide-ranging impacts on Indian
    Tribes throughout the United States, Congressional divergence from the
    public policy behind these influential and fundamental statutes must be
    carefully and strictly scrutinized by both Indian Tribes nationwide and
    by Congress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Pub. L. 100-497 (Oct. 17, 1988), 102 Stat. 2467, codified at 25
    U.S.C. Sec. 2710, et seq. (hereinafter ``IGRA'').
        \9\ Act of June 18, 1934, c. 576, 48 Stat. 984, codified at 25
    U.S.C. Sec. 461, et seq. (hereinafter ``IRA'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        H.R. 2176 would ratify an agreement between the Bay Mills Indian
    Community and the State of Michigan to settle a land claim by Bay Mills
    to property on or near Charlotte Beach in Chippewa County, Michigan in
    the Upper Peninsula. 10 Likewise, H.R. 4115 would similarly
    ratify an agreement between Sault Ste. Marie and the State of Michigan.
    These two Tribes are asking Congress to ratify settlement agreements
    that provide an unprecedented remedy to purported Indian land claim--
    instead of paying monetary damages for trespass or providing land on or
    near Charlotte Beach, the State would give up land far from the Bay
    Mills and Sault Ste. Marie reservations and treat that land as part of
    the settlement of a land claim in accordance with IGRA's exceptions to
    gaming on lands acquired after the passage of the statute in 1988.
    11 Unlike previous land claim settlement acts, Congress is
    not a party to the negotiations to the Settlement Agreement underlying
    H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115. Congress did not and cannot negotiate the
    terms of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115--Congress may only ratify the
    Settlement Agreement hashed out between Bay Mills and the State of
    Michigan and between Sault Ste. Marie and the State of Michigan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Hereinafter the ``Settlement Agreement.''
        \11\ See S. 2986 Sec. 3(b)(2); Settlement Agreement, at 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Grand Traverse Band believes the land claim settlement
    exception in Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(i) should be applied only where federal
    or state liability or potential liability is well established. That
    way, Congress is an active negotiator in the terms of the settlement
    and not simply a ratifying body of settlement agreements over which
    Congress has no control because no federal liability has been found.
    V. Enactment of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Would Violate Federal Indian
            Policy.
    A.  H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Would Allow Gaming on Lands Acquired After
            October 17, 1988 Approximately 350 Miles from the Bay Mills
            Reservation and approximately 355 miles from the Sault Ste.
            Marie Reservation.
        H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 would ratify agreements between the State
    of Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe. The Bay Mills agreement would allow the Bay Mills to acquire
    from the State of Michigan land in the City of Port Huron, Michigan,
    near Detroit, to be held in trust by the Secretary of Interior, with
    the concomitant tribal civil adjudicatory and regulatory jurisdiction,
    as well as tribal criminal jurisdiction, provided for by applicable
    Federal and Tribal law. 12 Port Huron is approximately 125
    miles from the nearest boundary of the lands ceded in the Treaty of
    1836 that both the Grand Traverse Band and Bay Mills signed.
    Furthermore, the Port Huron parcel is approximately 350 miles from the
    Bay Mills Reservation in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Similarly,
    the Sault Ste. Marie agreement would allow the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
    to acquire from the State of Michigan land in the City of Romulus,
    Michigan, near Detroit, to be held in trust by the Secretary of
    Interior, with the concomitant tribal civil adjudicatory and regulatory
    jurisdiction, as well as tribal criminal jurisdiction, provided for by
    applicable Federal and Tribal law. 13 Romulus is
    approximately 125 miles from the nearest boundary of the lands ceded in
    the Treaty of 1836 that both the Grand Traverse Band and Sault Ste.
    Marie signed. Furthermore, the Romulus parcel is approximately 350
    miles from Sault Ste. Marie lands in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ See Bay Mills Settlement Agreement, at 3.
        \13\ See Sault Ste. Marie Settlement Agreement, at 3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Dicta from federal cases suggests strongly that Congress intended
    for geographic limitations on the three exceptions to the general
    prohibition against gaming on after-acquired property in
    Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B). In TOMAC v. Norton, 14 District Court
    Judge Robertson noted that the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians'
    attempt to have land put into trust in accordance with the restored
    lands exception was justified in part because the land they wished to
    game upon was within the Band's traditional territory and complied with
    inherent ``geographic and policy limits'' of the IRA and IGRA.
    15 Additionally, in Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton,
    16 the Tenth Circuit adopted a limited definition of the
    term ``reservation'' to mean ``...any land reserved from an Indian
    cession to the federal government....'' 17
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ 193 F. Supp. 2d 182 (D. D.C. 2002).
        \15\ Id. at 186 & 192 (citing South Dakota, 69 F. 3d at 882-83 &
    n.3).
        \16\ 240 F. 3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, Wyandotte
    Nation v. Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, 122 S. Ct. 807 (2002).
        \17\ 240 F. 3d at 1266 (quoting Felix F. Cohen's Handbook of
    Federal Indian Law 34 (2nd ed. 1982)) (emphasis added).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress could not have imagined that an Indian Tribe would settle
    a land claim with a state defendant in exchange for the right to game
    on lands far from the boundaries of the Tribe's reservation or
    territory. A review of the extensive Senate Report accompanying IGRA
    indicates that Congress did not opine on the possibility that Indian
    Tribes would establish gaming facilities substantially far from their
    own reservations or traditional territories. 18
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ See generally S. Rep. 100-446 (Aug. 3, 1988).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Grand Traverse Band's gaming facilities are situated well
    within the traditional territory of the Band. The Peshawbestown
    facility, Leelanau Sands, is located in the heart of the 1855 treaty
    reservation near the center of the Band's modern government operations
    in Peshawbestown, Michigan. The Turtle Creek site is well within the
    Band's traditional territory near the exterior boundaries of the 1836
    treaty reservation. In the Turtle Creek decision, Senior District Judge
    Douglas W. Hillman found that the Turtle Creek site is located ``at the
    heart of the region that comprised the core of the Band's aboriginal
    territory and was historically important to the economy and culture of
    the Band.'' 19 Moreover, Judge Hillman found that Grand
    Traverse Band members ``occupied the region continuously from at least
    100 years before treaty times to the present.'' 20 Finally,
    Judge Hillman found that the Turtle Creek site ``was located within the
    contemplated reservation, which was not designated for four years after
    the treaty was signed.'' 21 Therefore, Turtle Creek was
    subject to the Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B) exceptions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians v. U.S.
    Attorney, 198 F. Supp. 2d 920, 925 (W.D. Mich. 2002) (citations
    omitted).
        \20\ Id. (citation omitted).
        \21\ Id. (citations omitted).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Unlike the Grand Traverse Band, which has proven in federal court
    that its off-reservation gaming facility was within the Band's
    traditional and historical territory, neither Bay Mills nor Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe has shown any traditional or historical connection in any
    land near Port Huron or Romulus. Port Huron and Romulus are far beyond
    the 1836 ceded territory and none of the current five federally
    recognized signatories to that treaty had significant traditional or
    historical connections to that part of the state. We believe that
    Congress intended the settlement of a land claim exception in
    Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B)(i) to only include lands where the beneficiary Tribe
    has a historical connection, unlike Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A), which expressly
    provides for a comprehensive procedure for such gaming, including
    consultation with other affected state and tribal parties and
    independent determinations by the Secretary of Interior with the
    concurrence of the state governor in compliance with the law of that
    state. 22
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \22\ The Grand Traverse Band participated in an effort to bring
    Class III gaming to Detroit, Michigan in the mid-1990s in accordance
    with Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A). This participation was only made after the
    Band rescinded its previously enacted Resolutions opposing gaming
    outside the traditional and historic areas of Indian tribes and only
    after the repeated solicitations and negotiations on a revenue sharing
    agreement in compliance with Section 9 of the Tribal State Compact
    signed by all (then seven) Michigan Tribes. The Grand Traverse Band
    decided at that time to make the attempt to commence gaming in Detroit
    only because of the revenue sharing protections offered all the
    Michigan Tribes under Section 9. The Band entered into consultation
    with the proper parties and followed the comprehensive procedure
    contained in that exception, only to be denied concurrence by the
    governor of the State of Michigan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    B.  H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Create a Remedy for the Bay Mills Indian
            Community and for Sault Ste. Marie Tribe By Purporting to
            Settle a Land Claim that Has Never Established Federal
            Government Liability in Any Court of Law
        H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 would ratify a land claim settlement where
    the underlying land claim has never been proven to be valid. In both
    state and federal court, the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault
    Ste. Marie Tribe have attempted to establish a valid land claim to the
    Charlotte Beach property. 23 The essence of land claim is
    that the federal government issued patents to tribal land on or near
    Charlotte Beach to a non-Indian prior to the Congressional ratification
    of the 1855 treaty. 24 Bay Mills and, by extension, Sault
    Ste. Marie, claim that the land, which was eventually lost to county
    property tax foreclosure, remained in trust and should never have been
    subject to state or local taxes. 25
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \23\ See Bay Mills Indian Community v. Western United Life
    Assurance Co., No. 2:96-CV-275, 26 Indian L. Rep. 3039 (W.D. Mich.,
    Dec. 11, 1998), aff'd, 208 F. 3d 212, 2000 WL 282455 (6th Cir., Mar. 8,
    2000)); Bay Mills Indian Community v. Court of Claims, State of
    Michigan, 244 Mich. App. 739, 626 N.W. 2d 739 (2001), cert. denied, 122
    S. Ct. 1303 (2002).
        \24\ See 626 N.W.2d at 172.
        \25\ See id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To this point, however, each of the attempts to establish a land
    claim have failed to affirmatively establish a land claim. For example,
    in Bay Mills Indian Community v. Court of Claims, State of Michigan, a
    case decided in the Michigan state courts and to which the United
    States Supreme Court recently denied certiorari, the Michigan Court of
    Appeals held that Bay Mills did not establish a prima facie case that
    the State of Michigan and federal government violated the Non-
    Intercourse Act. 26 The same court also found that the land
    at issue was properly subject to county property taxes because the
    federal government intended for the land to be alienable when it issued
    the patents. 27 The federal court litigation, entitled Bay
    Mills Indian Community v. Western United Life Assurance Co., also
    failed to establish a land claim as it was dismissed for the refusal of
    the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Michigan to waive its
    sovereign immunity and participate in the litigation. 28 As
    such, the liability of the State of Michigan or the federal government
    has never been established.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \26\ See id. at 173-174.
        \27\ See id. at 172-73 (citing Cass Co., Minnesota v. Leech Lake
    Band of Chippewa Indians, 524 U.S. 103 (1998)).
        \28\ See 26 Indian L. Rep. at 3041-42 (finding the Sault Tribe
    indispensable to further proceedings in the Charlotte Beach land claims
    litigation).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The State of Michigan has embraced a foolish position in its
    decision to settle the Charlotte Beach land claims on the unfounded
    basis that they negatively impact land values and the collection of
    real property taxes by local units of government. So far, these land
    claims to Charlotte Beach have all been rejected for the purposes of
    establishing federal liability. Put another way, the State and these
    two Indian Tribes are asking the Congress to ratify a land claim
    settlement agreement in which no court has validated the underlying
    claim.
    C.  H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Constitute an Undisciplined Expansion of
            the Indian Reorganization Act's Geographic Limitations Upon
            Fee-to-Trust Transfers.
        In the modern era, when Congress recognized Indian Tribes, it would
    limit the Secretary's discretion to accept land into trust to lands
    within the Indian Tribe's service area having some rational, factual
    link to where tribal members lived and worked. Examples from the past
    several years include the Auburn Indian Restoration Act, 29
    the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians and the Little River
    Band of Ottawa Indians Act, 30 the Paskenta Band of Nomlaki
    Indians of California Act, 31 and the Graton Rancheria
    Restoration Act. 32 H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 would reverse
    the disciplined policy Congress has followed for a decade of limiting
    mandatory fee-to-trust acquisitions to lands acquired within a Tribe's
    service area, which in those instances closely corresponds with the
    Tribe's historic area. Neither Sault Ste. Marie nor Bay Mills'
    traditional territory and service area extends to St. Clair County--nor
    does it extend to any other county within approximately 200 miles of
    St. Clair County.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \29\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1300l-2(a) (``The Secretary may accept any
    additional acreage in the Tribe's service area pursuant to the
    authority of the Secretary under [25 U.S.C. Sec. 465].'').
        \30\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1300k-4(a) (``The Secretary may accept any
    additional acreage in each of the Bands' service area--pursuant to the
    authority of the Secretary under [25 U.S.C. Sec. 465].'').
        \31\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1300m-3 (``The Secretary may accept any
    additional acreage in each of the Bands' service area--pursuant to the
    authority of the Secretary under [25 U.S.C. Sec. 465].'').
        \32\ 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1300n-3 (``Upon application by the Tribe, the
    Secretary shall accept into trust for the benefit of the Tribe any real
    property located in Marin or Sonoma County, California, for the benefit
    of the Tribe after the property is conveyed or otherwise transferred to
    the Secretary and if, at the time of such conveyance or transfer, there
    are no adverse legal claims to such property, including outstanding
    liens, mortgages, or taxes.'').
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Bay Mills has no governmental authority in the area near Port
    Huron. Likewise, the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe has no governmental
    authority near Romulus. Under H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115, Bay Mills and
    Sault Ste. Marie would begin exerting jurisdiction over lands far from
    their own homeland and on lands directly within the jurisdiction of the
    State of Michigan, the City of Port Huron, and St. Clair County and the
    City of Romulus.
    D.  H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Set a Precedent Where Any Non-Federal
            Defendant to an Indian Land Claim Could Settle the Claim With
            an Indian Tribe Even Where No Federal Liability Is Proven and
            Utilize the Land Claim Settlement Exception in Sham
            Transactions.
        Allowing Bay Mills, Sault Ste. Marie and the State of Michigan to
    invoke a federal remedy for an Indian land claim in which there is no
    federal or state liability establishes an unprincipled precedent. The
    states are no more than outside parties to IGRA's land claim settlement
    exception. Congress could not have intended otherwise. If Congress
    ratifies the Settlement Agreement, then any party--states, counties,
    local landowners--could settle a land claim of dubious validity with an
    Indian Tribe and demand to enjoy the benefits of the land claim
    settlement exception. Large non-Indian gaming interests could see fit
    to acquire property with the cloud of potential Indian land claims,
    settle the claim with the Tribe, and then strike a deal with the Tribe
    to invoke the land claim settlement exception to IGRA's general
    prohibition. These two bills could trigger a flood of similar ' Indian
    ``land claims''. Exactly how do the Members of Congress who are
    proposing H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 intend to say no to them after
    pushing through these bills?
    E.  H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 are Inconsistent With Past Congressional
            Treatment of the Bay Mills Indian Community and Sault Ste.
            Marie Tribe Reservations.
        Congress created the Bay Mills reservation with its current
    geographic limitations in 1860 by authorizing the purchase of nearly
    800 acres of land owned by the Missionary Society of the Methodist
    Episcopal Church at Iroquois Point, Michigan. 33 Congress'
    purchase for the bands that would later become the Bay Mills Indian
    Community formed the core of the lands that constitute Bay Mills'
    traditional territory in the modern era. Congress has already spoken as
    to where Bay Mills must focus its efforts to establish a stable tribal
    government and provide for its membership. H.R. 2176 contemplates the
    reversal of a 142-year old Congressional policy decision to locate BMIC
    within its traditional territory.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \33\ See Charles E. Cleland, Rites of Conquest 289 (1992) (citing
    12 Stat. 44, 58 (1860)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Grand Traverse Band was recognized as an Indian Tribe on May 27,
    1980 through the procedures now found at 25 CFR Part 83 and established
    a Tribal Constitution under the provisions of the Indian Reorganization
    Act of 1934. The territory of the Grand Traverse Band includes a five
    county service area in Northwest Michigan. The core of the Tribe is a
    20,000 acre reservation on the ``North Shore of Grand Traverse Bay''
    established by the 1836 Treaty and the several townships by the Treaty
    of 1855. The Tribe has trust land in each of the areas established by
    the Tribal Constitution, the 1836 Treaty and the 1855 Treaty.
        The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians was administratively
    recognized in 1972. 34 The core area, program service area,
    and traditional territory of the Tribe is located in the Upper
    Peninsula of Michigan.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \34\ See City of Sault Ste. Marie v. Andrus, 532 F. Supp. 157
    (1980).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    VI. H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 Contravene Federal Indian Law and Create a
            Significant Expansion to the Exceptions to the General
            Prohibition on Indian Gaming on After-Acquired Lands
        The policy enunciated by Congress in 1988 by the passage of IGRA
    would be undermined by the enactment of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115. IGRA
    provides a general prohibition of gaming on lands acquired after the
    passage of IGRA on October 17, 1988. 35 Generally, Congress
    contemplated that gaming on after-acquired lands must be located within
    or contiguous to the boundaries of a reservation of the Indian tribe.
    36
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \35\ See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719.
        \36\ See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2719(a)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Congressional policy behind the enactment of the IRA would also
    be undermined by the passage of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115. A major
    provision of the IRA, section 465, exists to replace lands lost by
    Indian Tribes, not to create a wholly artificial land base for Indian
    Tribes. The policy behind the Indian Reorganization Act was to
    alleviate the ravages of the Congressional allotment policy in 1934 and
    to ``instruct'' the Secretary that land should be acquired to replace
    the millions of acres of Indian land lost as a result of the allotment
    policy and placed in trust to prevent its alienation.'' 37
    The policy to restore and replace the lands lost during the allotment
    era was codified most particularly in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 465 and in
    Department of Interior regulations implementing Sec. 465. 38
    That policy was expressly stated in the regulations governing land
    acquisition:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \37\ State of South Dakota v. United States Dept. of Interior, 69
    F.3d 878, 887 (Murphy, C.J., dissenting), vacated by Department of
    Interior v. South Dakota, 519 U.S. 919, on remand to State of South
    Dakota v. United States Dept. of Interior, 106 F.3d 247 (8th Cir.
    1996).
        \38\ See 25 C.F.R. Part 151.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
              (a) Subject to the provisions contained in the acts of
            Congress which authorize land acquisitions, land may be
            acquired for a tribe in trust status: (1) when the property is
            located within the exterior boundaries of the tribe's
            reservation or adjacent thereto, or within a tribal
            consolidation area; or (2) when the tribe already owns an
            interest in the land; or (3) when the Secretary determines that
            the acquisition of the land is necessary to facilitate tribal
            self-determination, economic development, or Indian housing.
            39
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \39\ 25 C.F.R. Sec. 151.3.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For example, where an Indian Tribe asks the Secretary of Interior to
    take off-reservation lands into trust on behalf of that Tribe, the
    location of the land relative to the Tribe's boundaries is critical
    and, ``as the distance between the tribe's reservation and the land to
    be acquired increases, the Secretary give[s] greater scrutiny to the
    tribe's justification of anticipated benefits from the acquisition.''
    40
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \40\ 25 C.F.R. Sec. 151.11(b).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The intersection of the IRA and IGRA creates a sound and
    predictable public policy that requires Class III gaming to be
    conducted on or near Indian reservations and Indian Country. As noted
    above, following this policy prevents a situation where an Indian Tribe
    exerts jurisdictional authority in a small pocket of trust land far
    from the Tribe's traditional territory. For example, land taken into
    trust under the restored lands exception does not extend further than a
    few miles from the beneficiary tribe's traditional territory. Several
    recent federal cases, many of them involving Michigan Indian Tribes,
    highlight this geographic limitation in finding that gaming conducted
    on or near the reservation may be conducted in accordance with the
    exceptions to the general prohibition:
          In our own case, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and
    Chippewa Indians v. United States Attorney, 41 the district
    court for the Western District of Michigan held that our gaming
    facility located only 1.5 miles from the exterior boundaries of our
    1836 treaty reservation constitutes land that is within the restored
    lands exception to IGRA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \41\ 198 F. Supp. 2d 920, 925 (W.D. Mich. 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In TOMAC v. Norton, 42 the district court for
    the District of Columbia upheld an Interior decision to take a parcel
    into trust on behalf of the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians of
    Michigan and Indiana that was located within the Band's traditional
    territory, specifically citing the ``geographic and policy limits''
    inherent in both the IGRA and the IRA in the context of taking land
    into trust on behalf of Indian tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \42\ 193 F. Supp. 2d 182, 186 & 192 (D. D.C. 2002) (citing South
    Dakota, 69 F. 3d at 882-83 & n.3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. United
    States, 43 the Sixth Circuit upheld a decision by the
    Secretary of Interior to take into trust a parcel for gaming purposes
    on behalf of the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians. The land
    at issue is located within the Band's 1836 treaty reservation area.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \43\ 288 F. 3d 910, 912-13 (6th Cir. 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw
    Indians v. Babbitt, 44 the D.C. district court held that a
    parcel held in trust for gaming purposes that was contiguous to the
    Confederated Tribes' reservation enjoyed the benefits of the restored
    lands exception.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \44\ 116 F. Supp. 2d 155, 157 (D. D.C. 2000).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In City of Roseville v. Norton, 45 the D.C.
    district court upheld a Department of Interior decision to take a
    parcel into trust for United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn
    Rancheria of California under the restored land exception that was 40
    miles from the boundary of its former rancheria, which had been
    terminated.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \45\ ----F. Supp. 2d----, 2002 WL 31027695, at *2 (D. D.C., Sept.
    11, 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other federal cases finding that the proposed gaming initiatives do not
    comply with IGRA exemplify the geographic limitations Congressional
    policy has placed on Indian gaming:
          In Kansas v. United States, 46 the Tenth
    Circuit held that the National Indian Gaming Commission acted in an
    arbitrary and capricious manner by finding that the Miami Tribe of
    Oklahoma had authority to game on land within the State of Kansas, 180
    miles from the tribe's reservation, for which the tribe had received
    payment in the 1960s settling its claim to the land. The Tenth Circuit
    found that the Miami Tribe did not have civil regulatory jurisdiction
    over the parcel and could not game on the land in compliance with IGRA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \46\ 249 F. 3d 1213 (10th Cir. 2001), on remand to State of Kansas
    ex rel. Graves v. United States, No. 99-2341-GTV, 2002 WL 1461978 (D.
    Kan., Jun. 25, 2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon v.
    United States, 47 the Ninth Circuit found that the
    Confederated Tribes' attempt to have the Secretary of Interior to
    acquire land in trust for gaming purposes that was located 50 miles
    from the reservation could not happen without the concurrence of the
    governor of the State of Oregon in accordance with 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. 2719(b)(1)(A).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \47\ 110 F. 3d 688 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1027 (1997).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In Sac and Fox Nation v. Norton, 48 the Tenth
    Circuit ruled that Wyandotte Nation's effort to compel the Secretary of
    Interior to take land into trust for purposes of gaming in accordance
    with the adjacent lands exception (Sec. 2719(a)(1)), in part, because
    the property, located in Kansas City, Kansas, was located so far from
    the Wyandotte Nation in Oklahoma.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \48\ 240 F. 3d 1250, 1266-67 (10th Cir. 2001), cert. denied,
    Wyandotte Nation v. Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri, 122 S. Ct. 807
    (2002).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress did not intend for the land claims settlement exception to
    be exploited in the manner proposed in H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115. The
    three exceptions contained in Sec. 2719(b)(1)(B) should be read in the
    same context. The Grand Traverse Band opposes the dramatic expansion of
    the exceptions to the general prohibition against gaming on after-
    acquired lands.
    VII. Conclusion and Suggestions for Future Action.
        The Grand Traverse Band does not come before the House Natural
    Resources Committee with a bone to pick with the Bay Mills Indian
    Community or the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa. On numerous
    occasions, the Grand Traverse Band has stood side-by-side with Bay
    Mills and Sault Ste. Marie on issues of Federal Indian policy,
    including the U.S. v. Michigan litigation and when we stood together to
    preserve our fledgling gaming interests. We know better than any other
    Michigan Indian Tribe that Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie have been our
    fellow leaders in pursuing self-determination, self-governance and
    self-reliance for Indian Tribes nationwide. We also recognize that Bay
    Mills in particular is situated far from tourist routes and cannot
    benefit as some other tribes have from gaming on their reservation.
        However, Grand Traverse and Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie differ
    on this one policy point--the land claim settlement exception to the
    general prohibition against gaming on after-acquired lands must be
    limited geographically. Sound historical and public policy reasons
    underlying both the Indian Reorganization Act and the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act compel the Grand Traverse Band to reach this conclusion.
        The Grand Traverse Band cannot support H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 and
    urge defeat of these bills. Thank you for reviewing our testimony. If
    there are questions you believe we can answer, please do not hesitate
    to ask.
                                     ______

        [A statement submitted for the record by Jacob Miklojcik,
    President, Michigan Consultants, follows:]

         Statement of Jacob Miklojcik, President, Michigan Consultants

        Mr. Chairman and committee members; I am speaking in support of
    H.R. 4115. The project will have significant beneficial impacts on the
    City of Romulus and all of Wayne County, including Detroit.
        I am a graduate of Carnegie-Mellon University and the University of
    Michigan, and have been providing consulting services for over 25
    years. My professionally involvement with casinos in Michigan began in
    1993 when Michigan Consultants prepared the first analysis of the
    potential for casinos in Detroit. Since that time we have worked for
    many of the tribes in Michigan and for Detroit casino interests.
    Furthermore, our gaming analyses have been used for projects in over a
    dozen other states and in foreign countries. We are retained for
    private advice to a greater degree than public documents; therefore, I
    have had to prove the accuracy and integrity of my work to those
    investing hundreds of millions of dollars.
        We were asked by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians to
    provide an updated market analysis for a casino in Romulus and to
    estimate economic impacts. All our analyses are based a highly detailed
    ``bottom-up'' model that carefully considers demand and supply and
    utilizes U.S. Census geocoding, mapping, survey data, and the
    experienced gained from over 60 past studies. To keep my testimony
    brief, allow me to enter into the record the key findings from our
    analysis of the proposed Romulus casino.
          Native American casino and hotel in Romulus, Michigan,
    near international airport, approximately 24 miles from Detroit.
          Capital investment of approximately $270 million;
    significant size, yet smaller than each of the new Detroit facilities.
          Employee estimates (full time equivalents)--
            On-site 2,762
            Indirect (vendors & other off-site) 551
            Induced, ripple, effect from sequential spending 1,988
            Total ongoing 5,301
            Construction work years of 1,434 on-site.
          Estimated public revenues (full year) from Romulus
    casino:
            State Compact payments--$33+ million.
            Local Board compact payments--$6+ million.
            Other payments to the State from northern Michigan
    operations will also begin.
            Numerous other revenues from employee income taxes, excise
    taxes, taxes paid by vendors, fees, etc.
            The tribe will work with local/county officials to address
    infrastructure costs.
        The primary market components for the facility will be market
    growth and gaming dollars that otherwise will flow to other states,
    Ontario, other Native America facilities, and to Windsor, Ontario.
    Wayne County needs to compete with new casino competition near Battle
    Creek and (likely) Grand Rapids--unless responded to, this new
    competition will attract patrons from western Wayne other eastern
    Michigan counties.
        Any impacts on Detroit casinos will represent only an insignificant
    part of their projected $1.6+ billion annual gaming market capture. The
    MGM operation, a facility and management I think extremely highly of,
    will have been serving loyal patrons for over ten years before the
    Romulus casino could open; plus Romulus is 24 miles away. The jobs and
    new revenues captured within the county will far exceed any theoretic
    decline at Detroit casinos. Of the thousands of jobs and contracts made
    possible, many will be filled by Detroiters. I am also impressed that
    the tribe is finalizing job growth and protection details with
    representatives of organized labor. Tribal officials have also shown a
    willingness to discuss all area impacts with local/regional officials.
        Let me add that past work has involved many areas within economic
    development, housing, transportation, energy and human services. I have
    been involved in the successful siting of major automotive plants.
    Simply put, Michigan needs jobs and investment, we need to halt dollars
    from leaving our state and to attract dollars into our state. Few other
    feasible projects can begin investment as quickly and create as many
    good paying jobs as the two casino projects that would be made possible
    by the legislation before your committee.
        Thank you for your time and consideration.
                                     ______

        [The prepared statement of Congressman Dean Heller
    follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Dean Heller, a Representative in Congress
                            from the State of Nevada

        I want to begin by thanking the Chairman for agreeing to have a
    hearing on these bills and proceeding with regular order. As one of
    those who requested this procedure, I appreciate that consideration.
        As we know, H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 would settle two Native
    American land claims in Michigan for tribes currently with claims in
    the northern portion of the state. Those two tribes want land taken
    into trust for gaming further south, about 300 miles away.
        I have real concerns that these bills have significant negative
    effects on existing law already in need of reform. Off-reservation
    Indian gaming has become highly controversial matter. These two bills
    sharply divide members of both parties in Michigan, divide local Native
    American tribes, and divide this committee and other Members of the
    House. Finally, these bills circumvent the existing procedure in place
    to approve of tribal gaming, and trample states' rights on this issue.
    For all of these reasons, they are bad bills and should be opposed.
        Coming from Nevada, I obviously support gaming, including
    Michigan's right to have gaming, so its expansion isn't the issue. But
    the issue of off-reservation gaming is highly controversial and
    divisive for many communities, and what we do in this committee has
    clear, national repercussions.
        Circumventing existing law on the matter, IGRA, has far-reaching
    consequences. And make no mistake--passing these bills is circumventing
    IGRA. The unprecedented congressional approval of off-reservation
    gaming will set off shockwaves across the nation and among tribes.
    Dozens of tribes with no gaming facilities will see this move as yet
    another green light to set up in nearly any economically viable
    location. Other tribes with gaming on historical land may want a new
    location for their facility in order to remain competitive.
        The door to off-reservation gaming has been opening wider with each
    passing year, and these bills kick it open for a nationwide explosion
    of Indian casinos in nearly any location. Numerous states have already
    fought over this off-reservation matter. This Committee has done work
    to reform this law in the past, and should do so again, instead of
    continuing the status quo. IGRA is now 20 years old, and perhaps we
    should take a good look at it before passing these bills.
        IGRA wisely allows for States to take the lead on these issues, for
    tribal-state compacts to be negotiated, and for the Department of the
    Interior and BIA to play proper oversight roles. These bills wipe all
    that away, without any close understanding of Michigan law. I would
    object to this committee trampling Nevada law, as I think most members
    would of their own states.
        The Michigan delegation is deeply divided over this issue, and not
    along party lines. Why should we force something so divisive without
    more time to address it a without a closer understanding of state law?
    I understand House Judiciary Chairman Conyers says that Michigan law is
    being ignored on this matter.
        Even the Tribes in Michigan are divided. I join the members of this
    committee who support the rights of Native Americans, including those
    rights under IGRA. Nevada has a number of casinos owned and operated in
    whole or part by tribes. But we are treating some differently than
    others by approving this ``reservation shopping''.
        Additionally, the rights of the state of Michigan are clearly being
    circumvented as well. Michigan law is being trumped by the fact that
    we, here in this committee, are going to make law that should be set by
    the state, as already set forth in IGRA. Approving these bills is de
    facto approving the gaming compacts for Michigan--documents we haven't
    read or examined, and which have had little or no discussion.
        I find that hard to swallow. Is this committee prepared to do the
    oversight needed to grant gaming compacts? Nevada has procedures in
    place to ensure high ethical standards are used when granting gaming
    licenses, and I assume Michigan does as well. Are we going to assume
    that responsibility, that liability, those efforts on this issue in
    place of the State of Michigan?
        I urge the defeat of these bills because they are simply bad policy
    in so many ways, are controversial matters that have not been vetted
    appropriately, and they are divisive for tribes, our colleagues
    throughout Congress, and many of our constituents. Thank you.
                                     ______

        [NOTE: The documents listed below have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]
          2002 Charlotte Beach, Chippewa County, Michigan,
    Land Claim Settlement Agreement.
          Treaty with Ottowa and Chippewa, 1855,
          Wolfram and Ikawa, ``An Analysis of Proposed
    Indian Casino Gaming in Romulus'' dated November 2003;
    Settlement Agreement between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
    Chippewa Indians and the State of Michigan.
                                    ------

        [A Legal History of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe submitted
    for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0622.022