[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