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

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

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       ON

                            H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 14, 2008

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 110-98

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

          Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov

                                    ______

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    41-419 PDF                 WASHINGTON DC:  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 THE JUDICIARY

                     JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
    HOWARD L. BERMAN, California         LAMAR SMITH, Texas
    RICK BOUCHER, Virginia               F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
    JERROLD NADLER, New York                 Wisconsin
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina       ELTON GALLEGLY, California
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
    MAXINE WATERS, California            DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
    WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts   CHRIS CANNON, Utah
    ROBERT WEXLER, Florida               RIC KELLER, Florida
    LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California         DARRELL ISSA, California
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               MIKE PENCE, Indiana
    HANK JOHNSON, Georgia                J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
    BETTY SUTTON, Ohio                   STEVE KING, Iowa
    LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois          TOM FEENEY, Florida
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
    ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York          JIM JORDAN, Ohio
    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
    DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
    KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota

                Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
          Sean McLaughlin, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                 MARCH 14, 2008

                                                                       Page

                                   THE BILLS

    H.R. 2176, ``To provide for and approve the settlement of certain
      land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community''................     2
    H.R. 4115, ``To provide for and approve the settlement of certain
      land claims of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians''     6

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
      Judiciary......................................................     1
    The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary.    11

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of Michigan
      Oral Testimony.................................................    12
      Prepared Statement.............................................    14
    The Honorable Shelly Berkley, a Representative in Congress from
      the State of Nevada
      Oral Testimony.................................................    16
    Mr. Carl Artman, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
      U.S. Department of the Interior
      Oral Testimony.................................................    20
      Prepared Statement.............................................    21
    Chief Fred Cantu, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan
      Oral Testimony.................................................    23
      Prepared Statement.............................................    24
    Alice E. Walker, Esquire, Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe
      Oral Testimony.................................................    25
      Prepared Statement.............................................    26
    Ms. Kathryn Tierney, Tribal Attorney, Bay Mills Indian Community
      Oral Testimony.................................................    27
      Prepared Statement.............................................    28

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Guy Clark, Chairman of the National
      Coalition Against Gambling Expansion...........................    19

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

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2008

                              House of Representatives,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.

        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
    Conyers, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Conyers, Johnson, Smith,
    Sensenbrenner, Coble, Chabot, Issa, King and Jordan.
        Staff Present: Diana Oo, Majority Counsel; George Slover,
    Majority Counsel; Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief
    Counsel; Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and Sean McLaughlin,
    Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel.
        Mr. Conyers. Top of the morning, Ms. Berkley, Ms.
    Kilpatrick.
        Ms. Berkley. Hi.
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Hi.
        Mr. Conyers. The Committee will come to order.
        This morning, we're here to consider two bills that propose
    to settle the land claims of two tribes from Michigan's Upper
    Peninsula, the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and allow them to establish
    casinos in Romulus and Port Huron, Michigan, over 350 miles
    away from their reservations.
        [The bill, H.R. 2176, follows:]

        [The bill, H.R. 4115, follows:]

        Mr. Conyers. Concerns have been raised about the legitimacy
    and the fairness of these land deals.
        First, these bills would drastically change how casinos can
    be approved, not just in Michigan but all over the country.
    Under existing Federal law, the Department of the Interior
    determines whether to take off reservation land into trust for
    an Indian tribe to use to run casino gaming after carefully
    considering numerous criteria and giving special scrutiny if
    the new land is farther--quote, farther--thank you, Mr.
    Sensenbrenner. We appreciate that--and if--quote,if the new
    land, is quote, farther than a commutable distance from the
    reservation. End quotation.
        Without these constraints, there would seem to be no limit
    to how far Indian gaming could be spread, which would be far
    beyond reasonable bounds.
        These bills would also alter central provisions of the 1993
    compacts that both these tribes signed with the State of
    Michigan. Circumventing these and other existing legal
    processes could set a very bad precedent. The Sault Tribe
    itself acknowledge as much in the 2002 congressional testimony
    regarding the same claim before it became a party to it.
        I am also troubled by the fact that these bills would
    overturn the express wishes of the residents of Michigan.
        In 1994, they passed a State-wide referendum to allow three
    and only three private casinos to be built in the State and in
    the City of Detroit.
        In 2004, they passed another State-wide referendum to
    strictly limit the expansion of private gaming in Michigan. Any
    new private gaming facility must be approved by both a local
    and a State-wide vote. This referendum would still allow the
    city support hearing in Romulus to pursue casinos, but they
    would have to do exactly what the City of Detroit did, one, get
    the approval of the voters in the State of Michigan.
        Both cities have already passed local referendums, so they
    are already half way there, in a manner of speaking, but they
    need to go the full distance.
        And then, finally, authorizing the casinos in Port Huron
    and Romulus in this fashion would unfairly disadvantage the
    city of Detroit, to put it mildly. The city has suffered from a
    sharp decline in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last
    decade. The great people of the city have been working
    extremely hard in recent years to improve its economy and
    increase its competitiveness.
        Our efforts have brought visible signs of economic
    progress. The city has attracted new hotels, luxury
    condominiums and new construction going on over all parts of
    the city. It has built employment training centers and new
    housing projects. It has succeeded in convincing major regional
    employers to move their headquarters into downtown Detroit.
        A crucial precursor to all these developments was the
    establishment of the three casinos in the city. A few months
    ago, MGM Grand opened a new $800 million hotel and casino.
    Undoubtedly, MGM would probably not have made that kind of
    investment if it knew that Congress would be considering
    shoehorning in additional casinos right outside its borders.
        The three casinos have provided over $1 billion thus far in
    taxes and percentage payments. The city also has received
    another $100 million in municipal service fees. This revenue
    allows the city to invest in critical infrastructure and
    services for its residents.
        In addition to being a good source for revenue for the
    city, the casino employs nearly 8,000 residents. These are
    well-paying jobs. Most of them are union and have brought
    tremendous health care benefits to people who were in desperate
    need of quality health care coverage.
        So let's have a discussion about the issue before us this
    morning. The Judiciary Committee will be addressing these
    concerns and will be taking your recommendation quite
    seriously.
        Between the two distinguished Members of Congress, which
    one would like to precede the other?
        Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would proceed
    first, if that is okay with the Chair.
        Mr. Conyers. All right and that meets with the approval of
    the gentlelady from Nevada, I presume.
        Ms. Berkley. Absolutely.
        Mr. Conyers. Turn your mic on. Caroline.
        Ms. Berkley. Okay. Did I get it? Yes.
        Mr. Conyers. Yes.
        Carolyn Kilpatrick distinguished Member of the
    Appropriations Committee, a former State legislator herself and
    the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus--may I just
    interrupt myself for a moment?
        Lamar Smith has agreed to make his opening statement now so
    that we get a fuller picture of the view of the Members of the
    Committee. The distinguished Ranking Member from Texas is
    recognized.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I always appreciate
    your graciousness. I only hope I'm not interfering or
    disrupting too much, but it is nice to be on the same side.
        I join Chairman Conyers in opposing these bills, H.R. 2176
    and H.R. 4115. I share Chairman Conyers' concerns with these
    bills, but I oppose them for other reasons as well.
        These bills transfer land from the State of Michigan to two
    Indian tribes. The tribes will be allowed to use this land to
    build casinos or other gaming establishments. I am concerned
    that building more casinos will turn more people into
    compulsive gamblers and lead to higher crime rates.
        The link between gambling and crime is real. A 2004 study
    by the Department of Justice indicated that more than 30
    percent of pathological gamblers studied committed a robbery
    within a year of their arrest. The study also stated that
    nearly one-third of those arrested admitted they committed the
    robbery to pay for gambling or gambling debts.
        In addition, the same study found that 13 percent of those
    studied said they had assaulted someone to get money. According
    to the study, 25 percent of those assaults were related to
    gambling.
        Even proponents of Indian gambling admit the limitations of
    legalized gambling.
        Although casinos do bring some economic benefit to many
    impoverished Native American communities, some tribes have
    found that gaming is not a silver bullet for their overwhelming
    needs. The pro-gaming National Congress of American Indians
    states, ``Even after the advent of gaming, Indian reservations
    continue to have a 31 percent poverty rate and a 46 percent
    unemployment rate.'' They also note Indian health and education
    statistics are among the worst in the country.
        Further, these bills circumvent the well-established
    Department of Interior process to evaluate the environmental
    impact of a land transfer before approval. This Committee
    should ensure that established procedures are followed in every
    instance.
        Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to legislation--this legislation
    that, in my judgment, would in lead to increased gambling. And
    I share the Chairman's concerns and I join him, as I say, in
    opposing these bills, and I certainly will encourage my
    colleagues to do the same.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for yielding me time to make
    this opening statement.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Lamar Smith.
        Could I call on a senior Member of the Committee, Howard
    Coble of North Carolina, and ask if he wanted to welcome our
    congressional witnesses or make any comments about the subject
    matter?
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you and the
    distinguished Ranking Member have adequately and appropriately
    addressed the issue.
        Welcome to our colleagues, and I yield back.
        Mr. Conyers. May I invite Steve King, the gentleman from
    Iowa, to make any comments or welcoming remarks to our
    congressional witnesses?
        Mr. King. I thank our genteel Chairman for offering me the
    opportunity.
        I would like to welcome our witnesses to the panel.
        Sometimes I find myself on the privilege of sitting on the
    other side of this thing, and I want to state that I'll
    maintain that level of collegiality that we maintain here on
    the panel with the witness, and I look forward to your
    testimony.
        I thank you, and I yield back.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Steve.
        I was introducing Carolyn Kilpatrick, my distinguished
    colleague from the Detroit area, who has been an outstanding
    State legislator, an activist in the civil rights struggle and
    a distinguished Member of the Appropriations Committee. We have
    your statement, and all statements will be put in the record,
    both of Members and witnesses. So I ask Chairwoman Kilpatrick,
    who is, additionally, the Chair of the Congressional Black
    Caucus, 43 members strong, and invite her for her
    recommendations and views on the subject matter that bring us
    here today.

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

        Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Mr.
    Smith, thank you very much, and Members of the Committee.
        Thank you, first of all, for holding the hearing. I started
    in Resources, the head of a full Subcommittee hearing as well
    as a full Committee hearing, and I'm happy that Judiciary is
    continuing your responsibility to look at these bills.
        You have my full statement, and thank you for putting it in
    the record. I will summarize briefly.
        We oppose these bills for a number of reasons.
        Twenty years ago, the City of Detroit, under the leadership
    of Mayor Coleman Young, begin the journey to bring casinos to
    Detroit. We lost two local referendums before we finally won a
    local referendum and then went to the State Capitol where we
    did win another referendum and allowed three casino companies
    to build in my district all three casinos. They are now
    operating. Two have now built temporaries and are now moving on
    to permanent sites.
        And, as the Chairman mentioned, MGM has built a permanent
    site, over $800 million, that just opened a couple of weeks
    ago. They have been good neighbors, good citizens; and because
    of the city's action, because of the State legislature's
    passing legislation in 2004 and 1994 that said, yes, you can go
    ahead, yes, these would be the only casinos in this State, and
    if a community wanted to build a casino there are steps they
    had to follow as well, local referendum, back to the
    legislature and so forth.
        This bill will circumvent all of that. These are dangerous
    bills and a precedent that I don't think this Congress wants to
    set. It really is opposing Michigan law, as I just explained to
    you. It is controversial among the Native American tribes in
    our State. There are 12 tribes, 12 tribes opposing this
    legislation and only 2 supporting and, I might mention, the 2
    that are going to be helped if this happens.
        The city would lose thousands of jobs. Major investments
    from the people who have been with us for the last 10 years who
    built the temporaries and now the permanent casinos will be
    certainly at a loss.
        This new casino--one of them is 15 minutes from the three
    that we already have in Michigan, plus one across the river in
    Canada. For the reasons that Ranking Member Smith mentioned--
    and I don't gamble. It's legal, but I don't, and I don't want
    anybody I love to gamble. It is a terrible habit to get in. And
    I get calls in my office all the time from children about
    parents, grandparents about sons and daughters and all of that.
    Four casinos within 10 miles of each other is more than enough
    for two-thirds of the population from Michigan lives in my
    area, and these casinos serve them well.
        The Bureau of Indian Affairs already rejected this matter.
    The Interior Department is being looking at the matter still. I
    don't think we should circumvent their authority. They are the
    rightful people to do. Indian Affairs has already rejected it,
    Interior is looking at it, and, on top of all of that, it is
    very uncertain.
        And you will hear from the ancestral tribe whose land this
    is that this may be reservation shopping, an illegal deal. And
    I'm sure this Congress does not want any more illegal actions
    coming to us from something that might not be just sound
    enough.
        So I would urge the Committee to take your time to look at
    it closely for all the reasons that both the Chairman and the
    Ranking Member already discussed, that we look and take our
    time with a bill I am still opposing for the reasons that have
    been mentioned. Eight thousand jobs have been created, over a
    billion dollars in our area, sorely needed at a time when
    manufacturing in America, let alone in Michigan, has been
    decimated.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
    We hope you will oppose these bills, and I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Carolyn Kilpatrick. You
    are getting us off to a very good and fast start. I don't know
    what Shelly Berkley is going to say about one part of your
    comments, but we will soon find out.
        Since our two congressional witnesses are under the same
    time constraints as we are and there will not be questions
    asked of them, if you want to leave now or whenever you want to
    leave--you are welcome to stay here as long as you can, but you
    are also able to leave. We're grateful for your testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kilpatrick follows:]

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

        Chairman Conyers, Rahall, Ranking Minority Member Smith, and
    Members of the House Judiciary Committee:
        Thank you for holding this hearing today. I also want to thank
    Chairman Conyers, Ranking Minority Member Smith, and Speaker Pelosi for
    allowing these bills to be consecutively referred so that the Judiciary
    Committee can do their due diligence on these 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
    reservations and near the City of Detroit.
        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; it is not clear that these land swaps are valid; 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
    Port 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 the House Natural
    Resources Committee 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.
        But, for the moment, let us ignore the impact that these bills will
    have on the City of Detroit. Let us ignore the precedent that these
    bills will set, allowing any Native American tribe to claim any piece
    of land hundreds of miles away, as their native tribal land. Let us
    ignore the fact that IGRA has not been reauthorized in more than two
    decades, and clearly needs to be revisited and revised by Congress.
    What I cannot ignore is the strong possibility that the very integrity
    of Congress is in jeopardy.
        On October 10, 2002, in testimony before the Senate Committee on
    Indian Affairs, The Chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Bernard
    Boushor, said ``the Bay Mills case was a scam from the start.'' In
    testimony and information provided to the House Natural Resources
    Committee in February of this year, Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu
    cited Chairman Boushor's testimony, stating that the original lawsuit
    on the land claim was a collusive lawsuit. I have provided Chairman
    Boushor's statement to be included as part of today's testimony.
        I would strongly encourage the Committee to carefully read these
    documents on how this land claim actually began. The proponents of this
    legislation have repeatedly stated that these bills are simply to
    address the aggrieved landowners in Charlotte Beach. But according to
    the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe ``the Charlotte Beach claim did not
    originate with Bay Mills. It was a product of a Detroit area attorney
    who developed it specifically as a vehicle to obtain an IGRA casino . .
    . the goal was never to recover the Charlotte Beach lands.''
        How was this originally a collusive lawsuit? The Bay Mills Tribe
    sued Mr. James Hadley on October 18, 1996 who entered into a settlement
    in which he gave land to the Bay Mills Tribe 300 miles from their
    reservation to build a casino in Auburn Hills, Michigan. That plan was
    rejected by the Department of Interior. The point is that Mr. Hadley
    was not an aggrieved landowner, he was an active participant in what
    the Sault Tribe described as ``a collusive lawsuit'' and ``a scam.''
        I strongly encourage all of you to read the testimony of the former
    Sault Ste. Marie Chairman before the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs, the testimony of the Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu, and
    review the documents Chief Cantu provided to the Committee, which was
    provided to the House Natural Resources Committee at its hearing in
    February.
        There is a way to save the integrity of Congress. The Saginaw
    Chippewa Tribe has requested that the U.S. Department of Interior
    investigate the land claims made by these Tribes, and determine whether
    they are valid claims, worthy of federal resolution. It is my
    understanding that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the
    validity of these land claims. I would urge the Committee to wait until
    this investigation is complete until it rushes into passing legislation
    that mandates off-reservation gaming.
        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 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;

              It is uncertain that these land swaps are legitimate,
            possibly jeopardizing the integrity of the U.S. Congress;

              The Committee should allow the Department of Interior
            the time to do their due diligence to determine if these are
            valid land claims; and

              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.

        Mr. Conyers. Shelly Berkley, Las Vegas, Nevada--that tells
    you something right there. That speaks worlds of information
    about this distinguished lady.
        Shelly Berkley has distinguished herself on the Ways and
    Means Committee, the Veterans Affairs Committee. She's been
    strongly active in Foreign Affairs as one of the causes that
    attract her great talent. She has been looking at this issue
    for quite a while, and I'm happy that she was able to come
    before the Committee today.
        We recognize you, Shelly Berkley, for your comments and
    your views on the subject.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SHELLY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

        Ms. Berkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and thank
    you, Mr. Smith, Ranking Member, and all of the Committee
    Members who have come today to listen to us testify on this
    very important issue.
        I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on an issue
    that we have been dealing with in Congress for more than 5
    years now, and it keeps rearing its ugly head again and again.
    I'm especially thankful to you, Mr. Chairman, for obtaining a
    referral of these bills to your Committee in order to more
    fully investigate their potential impact. After listening to
    your opening remarks, I'm not sure that there is much that I
    can add to your body of knowledge, but I certainly shall try.
        I strongly oppose the bills offered by my colleagues, Mr.
    Dingell and Mr. Stupak, because they offer a blueprint to any
    Indian tribe who 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 not only represent
    Las Vegas but I grew up in Las Vegas, the gaming capital of the
    world. I'm living proof of the positive impact gaming can have
    on a community.
        My father moved his family to Las Vegas 45 years ago when I
    was a young girl. He was a waiter. On a waiter's salary, he put
    food on our table, clothes on our back and a roof over our
    heads. And that's not a bad thing on a waiter's salary. He also
    put two daughters through college and law school.
        Now while I respect everybody's opinion about gambling, I
    think I must say that, while I was raised in Las Vegas and
    subjected to gaming all of my life, I don't drink, I don't
    smoke, I don't gamble, I haven't assaulted anybody, I'm debt
    free.
        Mr. Conyers. As they say, as far as we know.
        Ms. Berkley. As far as I know. And I'm not unique. I think
    I'm rather representative of the people that I do represent.
        I certainly don't begrudge the Bay Mills or Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe or the Michigan communities at 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, special legislation and compete with existing
    facilities under an entirely different set of rules that they
    would like Congress to implement.
        We have a Federal law on the books that governs the process
    for approving gaming by native Indian tribes. It's called 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 its reservation land, 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 happened 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, but that was before his tribe joined the party and
    stood to benefit from this.
        In addition to the suspect land claim, which has been
    tossed out of both State and Federal court, the settlement
    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 Michigan tribal gaming compact which
    requires that any new off-reservation gaming have the support
    of all the tribes in the State.
        As Mrs. Kilpatrick has already testified, most of the
    tribes in the State are opposed to this, so 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 as tax revenue to the city and
    the State. The two proposed facilities will compete with the
    Detroit casinos for some of the exact same customers but as
    sovereign tribal entities without the burden of State and local
    taxes.
        In a misguided attempt to promote tribal sovereignty, the
    Committee on Natural Resources approved the Dingell and Stupak
    bills last month with little attention to the potential
    ramifications for other parts of our country. If these bills
    become law, any one of the more than 500 recognized Native
    American tribes can argue that they have a right to sue private
    landowners in an attempt to bargain for gaming somewhere else.
    This debate raises serious questions about issues under the
    jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and that's why I'm
    glad we have an opportunity to testify in front of you today.
        This is not a simple tribal lands claim, as the proponents
    would like Members of Congress to believe. In short, 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, hundreds of
    miles from their ancestral land in direct competition with
    existing facilities that have helped revitalize a major
    American city.
        I commend you for taking a closer look at these issues; and
    I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for again allowing me to
    testify in front of your august Committee.
        Mr. Conyers. Thanks. You're amazingly brief this morning,
    Shelly Berkley.
        Ms. Berkley. I'm learning from past mistakes.
        Mr. Conyers. We are grateful to both of you for joining us,
    and I know you will be following our activities, and we may be
    coming back to you for consultation. Thanks so much for
    starting us off.
        We now call panel two. We have the distinguished Assistant
    Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the
    Interior, Mr. Carl Artman; and then we have Chief Fred Cantu,
    Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan;and then we have Alicia
    Walker, the Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe; and Attorney
    Kathryn Tierney, the Bay Mills Indian Community.
        Cynthia Abrams of the National Coalition Against Legalized
    Gambling is unable to be with us, but we will accept into the
    record her written statement.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The statement referred to was not received by the Committee at
    the time this hearing was printed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I also note that our good friend and colleague, Hank
    Johnson of Atlanta, GA, has joined the hearings, thank you.
        The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As you just mentioned, Dr. Guy Clark, Chairman of the
    National Coalition Against Global Expansion, was scheduled to
    testify, but it turned out he is unable to do so, and so I
    would like to ask unanimous consent that his statement or
    testimony be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Clark follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Dr. Guy Clark, Chairman of the National Coalition
                           Against Gambling Expansion

        As Chairman of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, I
    appreciate the invitation to submit testimony regarding the issue of
    gambling expansion and the proposed legislation presently before this
    Committee.
        We strongly oppose this legislation because we believe these land
    claims should go through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There should be
    no short cuts by attempting to win the favor of Congress.
        But more importantly, my remaining comments will extend beyond the
    specific questions of land claims before you this morning. Because the
    driving force behind these land claims is the desire for more gambling
    expansion.
        Many of you will agree that nearly all of the debate around
    gambling expansion in this country, whether in Michigan or anywhere
    else, consistently focuses on questions about ``jobs'' and ``revenue.''
        But what is remarkable about all of this frenzied discussion about
    jobs and revenue is that virtually no one ever stops for a minute and
    examines the product itself.
        Because this is a debate not about just any kind of gambling. It's
    not about Friday night poker games with the guys at work or buying a
    square in the Super Bowl office pool. This fight is about exploitative
    gambling--combating those who prey on human weakness for profit.
        America is on an exploitative gambling binge. What started forty-
    five years ago with a lottery ticket has evolved into addiction
    delivery systems. There are now more than a dozen pathological gambling
    states and many others heading there fast.
        Today, the purest form of exploitative gambling is machine gambling
    with close to 800,000 slot machines and video poker games in operation
    in this country--that's one machine for every 395 Americans. And, it's
    these machines that generate most of the profits for the casino trade.
        What makes these electronic gambling machines exploitative?
    According to Dr. Natasha Schull at MIT, when you look at what these
    algorithms inside the machines are doing, it's a high tech version of
    ``weighting the deck'' or ``loading the dice.'' Using loaded dice in
    gambling is cheating and is illegal.
        The goal of the technology behind these electronic loaded dice is
    no secret: how to get people to play longer, faster and more
    intensively. Every feature of the machine--the mathematical structure,
    visual graphics, sound dynamics, seating and screen ergonomics--is
    geared, in the language of the casino trade, to get gamblers to ``play
    to extinction''--which means until their money is gone. What the user
    is seeing is not an accurate representation of what's happening inside
    the machine.
        In my own state of New Mexico, Konami, one of the largest slot
    machine manufacturers, recently admitted to using subliminal technology
    in its machines by deceptively flashing jackpot symbols at players. I
    know you are well aware that many social scientists have done extensive
    research on subliminal perception and its motivational power.
        A modern slot machine doesn't have a handle to pull or use reels--
    they use buttons and video screens. Instead of coins, they take player
    consumer cards. And instead of a few games per minute, hundreds can be
    played.
        Instead of actual reels, they have virtual reels that rely on
    complicated algorithms and virtual reel mapping, concepts that few
    people in the casino trade itself understand--much less policy makers
    and citizens considering these machines in their own communities.
        But despite the exploitative nature of these machines, there are
    still many people who say aren't people playing these machines
    ``voluntarily?''
        All of you are familiar with consumer loyalty cards. Nearly all of
    the supermarkets and drug stores offer them. They use these cards to
    track consumers. The casino trade has taken this marketing research
    technology to a whole new level. Anyone comforted by the idea that
    playing the slots is voluntary should spend a day with those who work
    for the casino trade.
        People are targeted based on factors such as how fast they play a
    slot machine, information that can be collected through their
    ``Player's Rewards card'' because many players use these cards directly
    in the machine. The faster someone plays, the more likely they are to
    play out of out of control. And the faster you play (i.e. more out of
    control you are), the more you are offered incentives like free slot
    play as well as free meals and hotel rooms.
        The casino trade's message is ``most people gamble without a
    problem'' declaring that ``only'' 5% of the general population has a
    problem. To put it in real numbers, that's one out of every twenty
    people. But the real question for everyone in this country to be asking
    is: ``What is the percentage of problem gambling behaviour, not among
    the general population, but of the gamblers who play electronic
    gambling machines once a month or more?'' Because having these machines
    locally is very different than having to travel to Las Vegas or drive
    several hours to play them. Instead of going 2-3 times a year to play
    the machines, now tens of millions of people are able to play the
    machines weekly.
        The facts show that more than fifty percent of regular electronic
    gambling machine players are experiencing harm. That's of those who
    play once or more per month. It's not telling it straight to say that
    ``most people gamble without a problem'' because the vast majority of
    people don't play slots or haven't yet played long enough or frequent
    enough to experience the imminent harm. And, it's these problem
    gamblers who are the money makers. More than 80% of the revenues come
    from 20% of the players.
        Yes, there are a few other things in our society that are
    exploitative but our government aims to protect us from exploitative
    and predatory things. The major difference here is that many of our own
    state governments are a virtual partner in the exploitation. In every
    other instance, our government prosecutes such practices.
        The time has arrived for a national solution to America's gambling
    binge and it begins with a thorough and transparent investigation into
    the electronic gambling machines that are driving the casino trade's
    massive expansion.
        It's time this country put the chance back in gambling.

        Mr. Conyers. Carl Artman, the Assistant Secretary for
    Indian Affairs, is a member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin,
    where he was chief counsel of the tribe before coming to
    Washington as Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs in the
    Department; and he was confirmed in his current position last
    March. We welcome him to these proceedings.
        Your statements are all included in the record, and we
    invite your oral testimony.
        Good morning.

    TESTIMONY OF CARL ARTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INDIAN
                AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Artman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
    Committee. Thank you.
        My name is Carl Artman, and I am the Assistant Secretary
    for Indian Affairs of 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 this settlement of certain land claims
    for the Bay Mills Indian Community, and on H.R. 4115, a bill to
    provide for and approve certain land claims for the Sault Ste.
    Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.
        Through the legislation, Congress would approve and ratify
    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 tribe in consideration for
    extinguishing the tribe's claim 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 the alternative lands be taken into trust
    even if NEPA liabilities exist on these lands. We recommend
    that any acquisition in trust be conditioned upon the land's
    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 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 prior to Class
    III gaming occurring.
        The settlement agreements include many provisions commonly
    found in a tribal State compact under the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act, such as:
        The Governor's concurrence in the trust acquisition of the
    alternative lands for gaming purposes.
        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 to the local units of State
    governments.
        Limitations of the tribe's Class III gaming operations in
    Michigan.
        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. We believe that these provisions would be
    best in a compact.
        Finally, we're 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 that it is implicated by
    the settlements.
        This concludes my remarks; Mr. Chairman; and I would be
    happy to answer any questions that the Committee has. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir. We welcome your appearance
    here.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Artman follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of Carl Artman

        Good morning, 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. Conyers. The Chair notes the presence of Steve Chabot
    of Ohio, who is the Ranking Member currently, and also Jim
    Jordan of Ohio. What is this, an Ohio pile-on here, everybody
    from Ohio? Welcome to the hearing, gentlemen.
        We now turn to Chief Fred Cantu, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe
    of Michigan. He has been that chief, having been unanimously
    elected to it in December of 2005; and then he was reelected
    last December. He has been appointed to a vacancy on the tribal
    council in late 2004, and before that had been the chief of the
    tribal fire department.
        Chief Cantu, welcome to the Committee. I don't know if
    you've testified in Congress before, but we've read your
    prepared statement, and now we're happy to hear your views
    summarizing your position.

                    TESTIMONY OF CHIEF FRED CANTU,
                   SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF MICHIGAN

        Chief Cantu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is probably my
    third time here in Congress, but thank you.
        My name is Fred Cantu. I'm the Chief of the Saginaw
    Chippewa Indian Tribe. I want to thank the Committee for
    allowing our tribe to testify today.
        Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying these bills are very
    controversial, not just here on Capitol Hill but also in
    Michigan and across Indian country. This is because these bills
    push the envelope past the limits of Indian policy.
        I've submitted two items to the Committee which raise
    serious questions about these two bills.
        First, I have submitted correspondences of the Department
    of Interior discussing and rejecting the request to prosecute
    these claims because of the view--they view them as unwinable.
        I also submitted testimony--testimony submitted by the
    Sault Ste. Marie Tribe in 2002 opposing the Bay Mills claim and
    attacking its validity.
        It is important to note that these land claims have never
    been independently verified by anyone. In fact, the Bay Mills
    Indian Community claim was rejected by the State and Federal
    courts; and the letters I have submitted show the U.S.
    Department of Interior believes the claims fail on its merits
    and cannot be won. But there are many questions that need to be
    examined.
        According to the former Sault Tribe chairman, this whole
    land claim was a scam from the start. According to detailed
    testimony the Sault Tribe gave in 2002 and which I've submitted
    with my written testimony, the Charlotte Beach claim was
    conceived by a Detroit area casino who developed it
    specifically as a vehicle to obtain a casino, not to settle a
    lands claim.
        We would ask that this Committee to investigate the
    detailed charges made by the Sault Tribe in their testimony
    before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2002.
        We also believe these bills undermine the Michigan gaming
    compact, which specifically required that no tribe conduct off-
    reservation gaming without a revenue agreement from the other
    tribes in Michigan. This is a blatant attempt by these two
    tribes to evade their obligation under the compact which was
    specifically reviewed and approved by the Michigan legislature.
        Furthermore, this legislation would have Congress ratify a
    tribal State compact for the first time in history, which
    undermines the intent of IGRA and circumvents the authority of
    the Michigan legislature.
        Our tribe is deeply concerned that these proposed casinos
    are to be located in the ancestral lands of the Saginaw
    Chippewa Indian Tribe. Neither the Bay Mills Tribe nor the
    Sault Tribe has any ancestral connection to these lands, and
    the Indians Claims Commission has ruled on this on two separate
    occasion.
        During the February 6, 2008, hearing in the House Resource
    Committee, one Member of Congress remarked that these bills
    were solely about settling the lands claim and nothing about--
    to do with gaming. If that is the true goal, we believe the
    validity of this claim should be proven.
        To that end, we respectfully recommend that this Committee
    remove the gaming provision from this legislation and have the
    appropriate Federal agencies determine whether these lands
    claims are legitimate. If they find that these claims are
    legitimate, we would ask that they make a determination as to
    the value of the claim and an appropriate compensation for
    those claims. This would ensure that these land claims have
    merit and would ensure the tribe are properly compensated if
    these claims exist.
        While these bills may be good for two tribes and their
    nonIndian developers, we believe it is bad policy for Indian
    country and urge the Committee to reject these bills.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        Mr. Conyers. Thanks, Chief Cantu. We appreciate you being
    here one more time in the Congress.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cantu follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Chief Fred Cantu

        My name is Fred Cantu and I am the Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa
    Indian Tribe. I want to thank the committee for allowing our Tribe to
    testify today.
        Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying these bills are very
    controversial--not just here on Capital Hill--but all across Indian
    Country. Tribes across the country are waiting to see if Congress will
    actually allow two Tribes to get casinos on lands 350 miles from their
    reservations to settle a land claim that has never been validated by a
    single court or the federal government. In fact, the Bay Mills Indian
    Community's claim was rejected by both state and federal courts, and
    has also been rejected by the United States Department of Interior.
        These land claims have never been independently verified by
    anyone--and these bills raise more questions than they provide
    solutions. These claims would lower the standard for the establishment
    of a legitimate land claim and would invite other tribes to seek land
    claim settlements for casinos without any independent verification of
    the validity of such claims. In fact it could be argued that the long
    history and ill treatment received by tribes across the country could
    support similar claims that are at least as compelling as those raised
    in these bills.
        If Congress passes these bills, you will have Tribes across the
    country lined-up before Congress seeking casinos for land claims that
    have never been proven valid. We have not found one instance in which
    Congress has granted a Tribe a casino and a gaming compact for settling
    a land claim, much less the type of an unsubstantiated and questionable
    claims presented here.
        These bills would establish a dangerous precedent and must be
    rejected by Congress for the sake of Indian gaming. What separates
    Indian gaming from private gaming is that Tribes are restricted to
    gaming on Indian Lands--not wherever they feel it is most profitable.
    If Congress begins authorizing Tribes to establish reservations 350
    miles from their existing reservations and designates those lands for
    gaming, it will completely undermine the whole premise of Indian
    gaming. And that is why Mr. Chairman, no other Tribe supports these
    bills.
        Our Tribe is also deeply concerned that these proposed casinos are
    to be located in the ancestral lands of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe.
    Neither the Bay Mills Tribe nor the Sault Tribe has any ancestral
    connection or claim to these lands and the Indian Claims Commission has
    ruled on this on two separate occasions.
        We also believe these bills undermine the Michigan Gaming Compact
    which specifically requires that no Tribe conduct off-reservation
    gaming without a revenue agreement from the other Tribes in Michigan.
    Very simply--this is a blatant attempt by these two Tribes to evade
    their obligations under the Compact, which was specifically reviewed
    and approved by the Michigan State Legislature. Furthermore, this
    legislation would have Congress ratify a Tribal/State compact for the
    first time in history--which undermines the intent of IGRA and
    circumvents the authority of the Michigan Legislature.
        During the February 6, 2008, hearing in the House Natural Resources
    Committee, one Member of Congress remarked that these bills were solely
    about settling a land claim and had nothing to do with gaming. If that
    is the true goal, we believe the validity of this claim should be
    proven. To that end, we respectfully recommend that this Committee
    remove the gaming provisions from this legislation and have the
    appropriate federal agencies, determine whether these land claims are
    legitimate. If they find these claims are legitimate we would ask that
    they make a determination as to the value of the claim and the
    appropriate compensation for those claims. This would ensure that these
    land claims have merit and would ensure the Tribes are properly
    compensated if these claims exist.
        But there are many questions that need to be examined. According to
    the former Sault Tribe Chairman, this whole land claim was a scam from
    the start. According to the Sault Tribe, the Charlotte Beach claim was
    conceived by a Detroit area attorney who developed it specifically as a
    vehicle to obtain a casino--not to settle a land claim. We would ask
    this committee to investigate the detailed charges made by the Sault
    Tribe in their testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
    in 2002.
        Mr. Chairman, IGRA was meant to promote economic development on
    Indian reservations--not to reward Tribes who scheme with non-Indian
    developers.
        While these bills may be good for two Tribes and their non-Indian
    developers, it is simply bad policy for Indian Country. We would hope
    the Committee does the right thing and rejects these bills.
        Thank you.

        Mr. Conyers. I'm now turning to a partner of the law firm
    Greene, Meyer & McElroy. An attorney, Alicia Walker, a law
    graduate from Georgetown Law School, is our witness today.
    She's been representing Indian tribes for quite a while. She's
    here today on behalf of the Sault Tribe.
        Welcome to the Committee hearing.

                TESTIMONY OF ALICE E. WALKER, ESQUIRE,
                    SAULT STE. MARIE CHIPPEWA TRIBE

        Ms. Walker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Unlike Chief Cantu, this is my first time testifying before
    Congress, so I didn't get the button quite right.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today.
        As you noted, my name is Alice Walker. I'm from Boulder,
    Colorado, a partner in the law firm of Greene, Meyer & McElroy.
    We have represented the Sault Tribe for more than 20 years on a
    variety of issues, and I am here today representing the Sault
    Tribe on the settlement of the Charlotte Beach land claim.
        It is my pleasure to appear before the Committee today to
    urge its support for H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115, both of which
    would settle the long-standing claims of the Bay Mills Indian
    Community and the Sault Tribe with respect to lands in
    Charlotte Beach. The bills arise from two settlement
    agreements. They were entered into in August and December of
    2002, one between Bay Mills and the other between the Sault
    Tribe. Both of the 2002 settlement agreements contain identical
    language, except for identification of potential alternative
    lands.
        The record before the Committee on Natural Resources
    describes in detail the nature of those settlement agreements
    and the propriety of congressional approval of those settlement
    agreements so that final resolution of the Charlotte Beach land
    claim may finally come to fruition.
        The issue before the Committee today relates to the need
    for the judicial review provision in each of the bills, which
    states as follows:
        This is the enforcement provision: The settlement of land
    claim shall be enforceable by either tribe or the Governor
    according to its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any
    enforcement action is vested in the United States District
    Court for the Western District of Michigan. That provision is
    section 1(e)(3) of H.R. 4115 and section 3(c) of H.R. 2176.
    That mirrors section 14 of the 2002 settlement agreements which
    provide that to the extent there is a dispute or controversy
    involving the terms of this settlement, the parties agree that
    all actions or proceedings will be tried and litigated only in
    the Federal District Court for the Western District of
    Michigan.
        The judicial review provisions are consistent with the 2002
    settlement agreement and indeed may be viewed as a belt-and-
    suspenders approach to ensuring that no court other than the
    United States District Court for the Western District of
    Michigan will have jurisdiction over disputes arising under the
    2002 settlement agreement. While the judicial review provisions
    of the bills are consistent with the 2002 settlement agreement,
    they are not necessary in order to accomplish the substantive
    purposes of the bills, which is to finally resolve the long-
    standing Charlotte Beach land claims to the satisfaction of
    both tribes as well as the Charlotte Beach landowners.
        Accordingly, the Sault Tribe does not object to retaining
    the judiciary review provisions in the bill, since they are
    consistent with the 2002 settlement agreements, or eliminating
    those provisions, since they are arguably duplicative of the
    underlying agreements.
        On behalf of the Sault Tribe, I look forward to the
    Committee's consideration of this issue and its referral of
    H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 back to the House floor. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much. We are delighted to have
    you here for your first congressional experience----
        Ms. Walker. Thank you.
        Mr. Conyers.--before the Judiciary Committee. It will be a
    pleasant experience, I assure you.
        Ms. Walker. I sure hope so.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Walker follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Alice E. Walker, Esq.

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of
    Chippewa Indians. My name is Alice E. Walker. I am a partner and
    shareholder in the law firm of Greene, Meyer & McElroy, P.C., located
    in Boulder, Colorado. Our firm has represented the Sault Tribe for more
    than twenty years on a variety of issues, and I am here today
    representing the Sault Tribe regarding the settlement of the Charlotte
    Beach land claims.
        It is my pleasure to appear before the Committee today to urge its
    support for H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115, both of which would settle the
    long-standing land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and the
    Sault Ste. Marie Tribe with respect to lands in Charlotte Beach,
    Michigan. The bills arise from two Settlement Agreements, entered into
    in December of 2002, one between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and the
    State of Michigan, and the other between the Bay Mills Indian Community
    and the State of Michigan. Both of the 2002 Settlement Agreements
    contain identical language, except for the identification of
    alternative lands. The record before the Committee on Natural Resources
    describes in detail the nature of those settlement agreements and the
    propriety of congressional approval of those settlement agreements so
    that final resolution of the Charlotte Beach land claims may finally
    come to fruition.
        The issue before the Committee today relates to the need for the
    judicial review provision in each of the bills, which states as
    follows: ``(c) Enforcement--The Settlement of Land Claim shall be
    enforceable by either the tribe or the Governor according to its terms.
    Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action is vested in the
    United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.''
    That provision is Section 1(e)(3) of H.R. 4115, and Section 3(c) of
    H.R. 2176. That provision mirrors section 14 of the 2002 Settlement
    Agreements, which provide that ([t]o the extent there is a dispute or
    controversy involving the terms of this Settlement, the parties agree
    that all actions or proceedings will be tried and litigated only in the
    Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
        The H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176 judicial review provisions are
    consistent with the 2002 Settlement Agreement, and indeed, may be
    viewed as a belt-and-suspenders approach to ensuring that no court
    other than the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Michigan will have jurisdiction over disputes arising under the 2002
    Settlement Agreements. While the judicial review provisions of the
    bills are consistent with the underlying 2002 Settlement Agreements,
    they are not necessary in order to accomplish the substantive purposes
    of the bills, which is to finally resolve the long-standing Charlotte
    Beach land claims to the satisfaction of both Tribes as well as the
    Charlotte Beach landowners. Accordingly, the Sault Tribe does not
    object to either retaining the judicial review provisions, since they
    are consistent with the 2002 Settlement Agreements, or eliminating
    those provisions, since they are arguably duplicative of the underlying
    agreements. On behalf of the Sault Tribe, I look forward to the
    Committee(s consideration of this issue and its referral of H.R. 2176
    and H.R. 4115 back to the House floor.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

        Mr. Conyers. Attorney Tierney, you are welcome here as the
    counsel for the Bay Mills Indian Community. You've represented
    them from the beginning of your legal career, and I am looking
    forward to getting the benefit of your experience as it applies
    to the questions that are now before the Judiciary Committee of
    the House of Representatives.
        Welcome to our hearing this morning.

            TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN TIERNEY, TRIBAL ATTORNEY,
                       BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY

        Ms. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to
    be here.
        I have to say, this weather almost prevented me from making
    it, and so I'm glad to be sitting at this table.
        As you've indicated, I am here as in-house counsel for the
    Bay Mills Indian Community and representing them and also its
    President of the Executive Council, Mr. Jeffrey Parker, who was
    invited to testify here today. In his absence, I am sitting in
    on his behalf.
        As you know, Mr. Parkertestified before the House Natural
    Resources Committee in February of this year about these two
    bills; and I have provided as an attachment to my one-page
    statement the full text of his submission to that Committee,
    hoping that way to provide sufficient information to you and
    not to duplicate matters by repeating myself and therefore
    perhaps preventing more expeditious review of this material.
        I think it is important for all of us to recognize that the
    reason why we have sought these bills is that it requires an
    act of Congress to settle land claims. That is why the Bay
    Mills Indian Community has sought legislation to resolve this
    matter, and that is why we are hopefully and respectfully
    asking for your support in having that done.
        I know that the materials that Mr. Parker has presented
    have been in circulation, so I think it best and most
    appropriate for me to offer my assistance, if I can, in
    answering any questions that Members of the Committee might
    have and thank you for the opportunity to address the
    Committee.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you so very much.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Tierney follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Kathryn L. Tierney

                                   ATTACHMENT

        Mr. Conyers. To our female attorneys, Ms. Walker and Ms.
    Tierney, here's what I'm thinking about. The Charlotte Beach
    lands have been in private hands since the late 19th century.
    When did your tribes interest in pursuing those lands first
    manifest itself?
        Then think about this with me. Since the land claims are
    against the State of Michigan, what do you imagine the Federal
    Government has to do with this?
        And, finally, why do the two land settlement agreements
    break with the 1993 compact that both your tribes entered into
    with the State of Michigan, particularly with the issue of
    sharing revenues?
        And then, Chief Cantu, how easy would it be for the Saginaw
    Tribe to assert a claim like the two asserted here? And if you
    did, what do you think the geographical limits on where you
    could build a casino would play into that?
        I'll let the ladies start first, and then the Chief will
    follow up.
        Ms. Walker. And, Mr. Chairman, I will defer first to Ms.
    Tierney, since she in Bay Mills was the first to pursue the
    land claims, if we start with your first question.
        Ms. Tierney. Thank you.
        The Bay Mills Indian Community has always been federally
    recognized. It has had that name since it was organized under
    the Indian Reorganization Act in 1936. But, prior to that, it
    was considered the Indian people living on or near Sault St.
    Marie. It is in that context that this claim first arose in
    1857.
        The efforts to resolve it go back that far; and if you look
    at Mr. Parker's testimony before the House Resources Committee,
    he gives you a time line starting at the bottom of page 3 and
    through page 4.
        Let me quickly repeat that in a summary fashion. The bank
    sought to protect land that they wished to live on permanently
    by placing it in trust with a Governor of the State of Michigan
    named Kingsley S. Bingham and his successor in office, at the
    recommendation of the superintendent of the Michigan agency,
    thinking that that would be the best way to ensure that land
    speculation, et cetera, could not result in the loss of the
    land to the Indian owners.
        In the 1870's, for some reason that no one has ever been
    able to determine, the land was placed on the tax roll of
    Chippewa County, which is still the county in which these lands
    are located, and was sold for tax sales in 1874 and 1875. That
    immediately resulted in disputes and claims and requests to the
    United States to fix this matter, to obtain the land back; and
    that effort went into the following century.
        There is correspondence going back to 1916, 1920, 1925,
    1930's, all trying to obtain this land back. The correspondence
    at that time was with the United States, and those documents
    are referenced in materials that Mr. Parker submitted to the
    House Resources Committee and a copy of which has been provided
    to this Committee.
        All of that correspondence indicates that the United States
    does not have a role to play in obtaining the land back from
    the subsequent owners through the tax sales because the United
    States did not own it at the time. The trust was not with the
    United States. It was with the Governor of the State of
    Michigan.
        In the 1970's, there was an effort again to bring up this
    issue to the 2415 process, which this Committee, I am sure, is
    quite familiar with. It was a statute of limitations provision
    in which claims for trespass against lands held for Indian
    people had to be filed for money damages or forever be lost.
        There was an initial deadline of 1976, I believe it was,
    that was extended until the early 1980's. This claim again was
    identified pursuant to that process and subsequently rejected
    by the Secretary of Interior, stating that in order for it to
    be a 2415 claim, again title to the land it had to have been at
    least at one point when the trespass occurred in the United
    States. Because it was in trust with the Governor, it was not
    an appropriate claim under 28 USC 2415.
        Subsequently to that, Bay Mills sought its own way to
    resolve this matter by filing suit both in Federal court
    against all the landowners currently holding title in that
    area, as long as anyone else who had an interest in the
    property--now we're including banks, road commission, anyone
    who had an appreciable property interest.
        The litigation, as everyone has noted, resulted in a
    dismissal on procedural grounds due to the fact that the Sault
    Ste. Marie Tribe was identified as an indispensable party who
    could not be joined without its consent.
        The case was dismissed. The dismissal was upheld by the
    Sixth Circuit. The efforts to obtain relief from the State of
    Michigan resulted in a claim filed with its court of claims.
    That was rejected, saying the statute of limitations had run.
        It was only after those efforts were gone through without
    success and the fact that the property owners were still
    seeking to have relief from the clouds on their title that the
    effort was made by the Governor then of the State of Michigan,
    John Engler, to sit down with the Bay Mills Indian Community
    and reach an agreement, which was made in August of 2002.
        Mr. Conyers. Chief Cantu, I presume you're in complete
    agreement with these observations?
        Chief Cantu. Yes, I believe so.
        Mr. Conyers. What do you think about the question that I
    asked you?
        Chief Cantu. It's been a little bit since you asked that
    question, and I would ask if you could repeat that for me.
        Mr. Conyers. How difficult would it be for the Saginaw
    Tribe to assert a claim like the two that are being put forward
    by the counsels to your left?
        Chief Cantu. Well, I think that would lower the bar for any
    land claim that would be out there.
        The claims should be verified by a court. Without
    verification of such claims by an act, then, yes, the Saginaw
    Chippewa Tribe and many others could also establish a lands
    claim anywhere else.
        Mr. Conyers. What's your feeling about this conversation
    we're in, Mr. Artman?
        Mr. Artman. I think Ms. Tierney's recitation of the facts
    is accurate, and I just want to underline in there that in her
    recitation of the facts this was a settlement of land claims
    between the State and the tribe. As the tribe's trustee, we
    weren't involved in this latter end process. At the very
    beginning, we provided the money to purchase the initial lands
    which were lost through the tax sales, but through this we
    weren't involved in it. And, as indicated by Ms. Tierney, the
    2415--it was rejected under the 2415 claim as well by the
    Department back in the '80's.
        You asked about the distance of Chief Cantu and how this
    could--this settlement created additional settlements for other
    tribes. I don't know that this may set up----
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Excuse me, Mr. Artman. Would you mind
    hitting the button? I don't think your mike is on.
        Mr. Artman. I'm sorry.
        This settlement of a land claim may or may not set up a
    precedent for additional land claims themselves. I think that a
    lot of that precedence would also have to be rooted in the
    history that's out there.
        One of our biggest concerns, though, with this is the
    precedent or the road map that this may create to circumvent
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act itself, again, by putting in
    Class III provisions or provisions that you might normally find
    in a Class III compact that goes through the approval of the
    tribal council and the State itself. And in the State of
    Michigan I believe that the Attorney General's opinion is that
    it has to go through the Governor's office as well as the State
    legislature.
        You are circumventing the State process, it seems; and then
    you are also circumventing the Federal process as laid out in
    the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by getting the approval of the
    Secretary of the Interior.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
        Steve Chabot.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I'm filling in for the Ranking Member, Lamar Smith, now;
    and he gave an opening statement. So I'll refer to that opening
    statement in which Lamar Smith indicated that both Chairman
    Conyers and he opposed these two bills because they would,
    well, among other things, transfer land from Michigan to the
    two tribes in order to build--in which they could build casinos
    or other gaming establishments.
        And one of his concerns was that building more casinos
    could lead to more people becoming compulsive gamblers and also
    the linkage to higher rates of criminal activity. I share those
    concerns as well, as I know that many other Members of Congress
    do; and I would invite any of the members of the panel to
    briefly comment on that. Because I have one more question in
    the 5 minutes that I have allotted to me, so we can either go
    down the line or anybody can jump right in.
        Ms. Walker, I see you going for the buzzer there, so----
        I had a short answer, and I think that the question really
    isn't whether we need another casino in Michigan, and whether
    they were going to lead to the bad elements that follow from
    additional casino gambling that the Committee has noted today.
    Really, the question is about whether Congress will participate
    in the settlement of these very longstanding land claims that,
    according to testimony, and certainly my review of the record
    and my participation in this process, are quite valid. They are
    longstanding.
        Ms. Tierney has recited very carefully the history of Bay
    Mills' efforts to try to get these resolved. I think that
    focusing on the addition of casinos really takes away from what
    these bills are really trying to accomplish, which is really
    settling these long-term land claims once and for all to the
    satisfaction of the tribes, the State, and the Charlotte Beach
    landowners.
        Mr. Chabot. Anybody else want to comment, or should I go on
    to my second question?
        Chief Cantu, did you want to comment?
        Chief Cantu. Thank you. If this was a legitimate land
    claim, then why was testimony given by the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe and the Bay Mills Tribe about the importance of
    developing the gaming, how it would create jobs. Our whole
    position is that this is a valid land claim. Let's take all of
    those provisions out of there and let's get it settled.
        Mr. Chabot. Let me go on with my second question. Again,
    this is from Mr. Smith's opening statement. He indicates that
    the Pro-gaming National Congress of American Indians itself
    stated, ``Even after the advent of gaming Indian reservations
    continue to have a 31 percent poverty rate and 46 percent
    unemployment rate.'' They also note that Indian health and
    education statistics are among the worst in the country.
        So, again, getting back to the point, and I know that you
    are talking specifically about land claims, but the
    implications to many of us up here is the fact that this could
    result in additional casinos or gaming establishments going up,
    and many of us consider that to be not necessarily in the best
    interest of the public because of the associated ills that go
    often times with gaming.
        But, again, if one is arguing that there are good things
    that come from this, how do you respond to those continuing
    high levels of poverty and a 46 percent unemployment rate,
    despite the fact that gaming is available on a number of
    reservations? So if anybody wants to touch on that.
        Mr. Artman. I see you going first.
        Mr. Artman. Thank you very much. I think the statistics
    often times don't show the whole picture. There are some very
    successful tribal casinos out there, there are some
    unsuccessful tribal casinos out there. But the fact remains
    success is largely driven by location.
        Many of the reservations, in fact, a great majority of the
    reservations across the United States, are located in the areas
    that aren't accessible to a market for gaming. So the ills that
    have affected reservations for decades still exist today, even
    with gaming.
        Gaming is not the cure-all. Tribes across the Nation, with
    or without gaming, are looking for that economic development,
    whatever that may be. So you still do have large swatches of
    unemployment throughout Indian Country, crime is larger than
    the national average, and education statistics for the students
    are lower than the national average. These are all things that
    we tackle on an everyday basis at the Department of Interior,
    and gaming is just a portion of that.
        The issues and ills and successes in Indian Country are
    difficult to categorize under a general category of all of
    Indian Country. You have to look at it on a regional, or even a
    local basis.
        Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, I note my time has expired, so I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Conyers. The Chair notes the presence of Darrell Issa,
    the gentleman from California. But I will recognize Howard
    Coble now.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Good
    to have you all with us.
        Mr. Artman, does the Indian Gaming Regulation Act require a
    tribe that receives a transfer of land to enter into an
    agreement about the use of that land with the State where the
    land is located?
        Mr. Artman. There are two portions of that question, or two
    things we have to address in that question, Congressman. First
    of all, the land itself. The land itself comes, before you can
    game on it, the land has to be held in trust by the United
    States. The United States takes the land into trust under the
    Indian Reorganization Act, the regulations, the 151 regulations
    specifically a part of that.
        During that process, the State has the opportunity, as well
    as local communities have the opportunity to comment on taking
    that land into trust. Where the State plays an even larger
    role, looking at the additional gaming portion of that
    question, is during the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Class III
    compacting process. In order to engage in Class III gaming on
    land that is in trust or on the reservation, the tribe and the
    State have to agree to a compact, and then that is submitted to
    the Department of the Interior.
        So the State certainly has a larger, very large role in the
    development on how that land will be used for gaming purposes
    during the IGRA process.
        Mr. Coble. Do these bills ensure that such an agreement
    will be made?
        Mr. Artman. These bills seem to circumvent the Indian
    Gaming Regulatory Act process by inserting at the congressional
    level here many of the provisions you might normally find in a
    Class III compact. These are things that are regulations, and I
    believe even the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress, in
    drafting that, would prefer to be negotiated between the tribal
    government and the State government.
        Mr. Coble. Thank you, sir.
        Chief, does the Michigan State Constitution require voter
    approval for additional gaming establishments?
        Chief Cantu. Yes, it does.
        Mr. Coble. Well, has the State held a referendum on the
    plan for these lands?
        Chief Cantu. I am not sure that they have.
        Mr. Coble. Ms. Walker, one side contends that the Michigan
    State Constitution requires voter approval for new gaming
    establishments, is my interpretation. It is
        furthermore my interpretation that you claim there is
    exemption to the referendum rule for the Indian gaming.
        Now I am going to ask you which of the two positions is
    accurate, and I think you are getting ready to tell me.
        Ms. Walker. I am getting ready to refer to the letter that
    John Wernet has provided, addressing this very issue as to
    whether the settlement agreements would constitute an amendment
    of the compact and thereby whether the amendment of the compact
    would require voter approval.
        There has been recent Supreme Court decision in the
    Taxpayers of Michigan Against Casinos v. Michigan in which the
    compacting process was upheld. The amendment to the compacting
    process was upheld without requiring a new legislative approval
    for that amendment.
        But getting back to the other underlying issue, whether
    these bills constitute an amendment, it is our view, obviously,
    that they do not, and that is what the Governor has said, that
    is what the testimony before the Natural Resources Committee
    has determined, that these are not amendments to the compact,
    and that in fact the compact allows these bills to go forward
    consistent with their provisions.
        Mr. Coble. I thank you.
        Ms. Tierney, Mr. Artman is here representing the Department
    of the Interior, who has expressed opposition to these
    transfers.
        Now what do you say, Ms. Tierney, when one would say that
    it is a perhaps unwise or untimely or dangerous precedent to
    allow the established department procedures to be circumvented?
    What do you say to that?
        Ms. Tierney. Actually, sir, I do not believe that this
    legislation controverts established procedures. There is
    significant and numerous precedents for this body, meaning the
    Congress of the United States, to direct the Secretary of the
    Interior to accept title in trust to land on behalf of a
    specific Indian tribe. So in that sense, there is no precedent
    being established. In fact, there is also legislation that has
    been passed in previous Congresses not only directing the land
    to be taken into trust, but specifically allowing gaming to
    occur. There are references to those particular provisions in
    Mr. Parker's testimony. I am not going to bore everyone by
    trying to find it while I sit here.
        So in that sense, I am not sure what Mr. Artman has in mind
    by stating that this is setting precedent or circumventing
    procedures in a way that has never occurred in the past,
    because it has.
        Mr. Coble. Mr. Chairman, I know you like us to conclude
    before that red light illuminates.
        Mr. Conyers. Take all day.
        Mr. Coble. You are a very generous Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Conyers. Hank Johnson, the gentleman from Georgia.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask
    who owns the land in Port Huron and in Romulus that your two
    tribes would receive in these land deals.
        Ms. Tierney. The Bay Mills Indian community's legislation
    and agreements specifically identify particular parcels, both
    of which are currently in private hands, both of which are
    subject to understandings that the title to them will not
    transfer out of private hands unless or until this legislation
    is enacted.
        Mr. Johnson. So land is owned by some person who, or entity
    that is not identified currently. Would you wish to reveal
    that? I am sure it is public record.
        Ms. Tierney. I do not have the specific names. I can
    provide that.
        Mr. Johnson. Is it individuals?
        Ms. Tierney. The owners of record, they are on the title as
    recorded in the register of deeds office for St. Clair County.
    I just don't want to give the wrong information. I would like
    to check in order to provide it.
        Mr. Johnson. How was it that those lands were arrived at as
    the ones that would be subject to the Indian claim?
        Ms. Tierney. These were lands that----
        Mr. Johnson. I mean I am sure that these particular parcels
    that you have in mind are a part of a large--I mean it is part
    of the State of Michigan.
        Ms. Tierney. They are.
        Mr. Johnson. How is this particular part of the State
    selected for this particular action?
        Ms. Tierney. For the Bay Mills Indian community, and I can
    only speak for Bay Mills, and defer to counsel for the Sault
    Tribe on the other matters, Port Huron was identified by then
    Governor Engler as a location that he would like to see gaming
    be available. So we looked at that area closely and found that
    it would be one in which we were willing to enter into an
    agreement to accept land in return for the Charlotte Beach
    property.
        Ms. Walker. Thank you. The situation is similar for the
    Sault Tribe in that the Governor indicated areas that could use
    economic development, and looking to the casinos as a source
    for that purpose. The Sault Tribe has three options for the
    land acquisition; one is in Romulus. We have been talking about
    Romulus today, but there are really three options under the
    bill. One is Romulus, one is Flint, and the other is land in
    Oswego County.
        So there are options for purchasing those. They are in
    private ownership in this time. But they are areas that, as Ms.
    Tierney noted, would support economic development and that the
    tribe is examining for the propriety of substituting them for
    the Charlotte Beach land claims.
        Mr. Johnson. So these are lands in private hands in the
    State of Michigan; the United States has no particular claim to
    the property, if you will?
        Ms. Walker. Not at this time.
        Mr. Johnson. But now in this legislation you would be
    looking for the United States to ratify an agreement between
    the Governor and the tribes to settle a Federal claim?
        Ms. Tierney. There is a Federal law, sir, the Indian Trade
    and Intercourse Act, which was first enacted by the United
    States in the early 1800's, the one that we still refer to now
    was passed in 1834, which specifically prohibits Indian land
    from being disposed of without the consent of Congress. It is
    still the law of the country. That is why we are here. We need
    Congress' consent to relinquish our claim.
        Mr. Johnson. Relinquish to the Federal Government?
        Ms. Tierney. To the Charlotte Beach property, that is
    correct. That is the property we have been talking about
    earlier that I had indicated had been lost because of tax
    sales.
        Mr. Johnson. It is not owned by the Federal Government
    either, is it?
        Ms. Tierney. No.
        Mr. Johnson. Does the Federal Government assert some kind
    of interest in that property, Mr. Artman?
        Mr. Artman. No, we do not.
        Mr. Johnson. So the Federal Government would simply just
    ratify an agreement between the State and the private parties
    and that would then, according to this legislation,
    automatically entitle the property to a Class III gaming
    license. Is that what we are talking about here?
        Mr. Artman. Under this legislation, that is correct. This
    would mandate that the United States take into trust this land,
    and all claims would be relinquished, and according to
    legislation, gaming could occur on that land.
        Mr. Conyers. Would the gentleman from Georgia yield for a
    follow-up on his questions?
        Mr. Johnson. I will.
        Mr. Conyers. How did Governor Engler in his wisdom decide
    where this casino ought to be located?
        Ms. Tierney. That is not something I am privy to.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, I mean, Mr. Artman, do you have other
    instances in your experience where a Governor determines where
    a casino outside of the reservation itself is located is going
    to be?
        Mr. Artman. There has been precedent with--as mentioned
    earlier, there has been precedent with regard to taking land
    into trust, perhaps even through the congressional process,
    that has resulted in gaming. One such case was with the Seneca
    in New York, another was Wyandot in Oklahoma and Kansas.
        Mr. Conyers. They weren't hundreds of miles away from the
    reservation.
        Mr. Artman. Arguably, no, they weren't.
        Mr. Conyers. Arguably. I mean they either were or they
    weren't. I suggest to you that we are looking for some history
    where a Governor in his wisdom decides that hundreds of miles
    away from the Indian reservation let's start a casino, ladies
    and gentlemen. I guess the Indian reservations say who are we
    to object to the Governor's wisdom. And here we go.
        Now we are being asked, as Johnson has brought out, now the
    government is being asked to retroactively, the Congress,
    ratify all of this and say look, let's make it legal, let's get
    this over with, and let's forget the fact that there are
    several unusual, to me, unusual factors about this matter.
        Is that too disingenuous? Isn't that what we are doing here
    today? That is what is proposed to be done by the Congress.
    Right?
        Ms. Walker. Mr. Chairman, may I comment, please? With
    respect to other gaming facilities in which a Governor has
    agreed to a distance location, I think the good example is the
    Forest County Potawatomi facility in Milwaukee, which is over
    200 miles away from the reservation lands. This exists. This
    has happened. There are several situations in which this
    occurs. I think Seneca is another example. They have got a
    casino in Niagara, which is far away from the town of
    Salamanca.
        Mr. Conyers. This is a regular process.
        Ms. Walker. For approval of a land claim?
        Mr. Conyers. Look, this is either irregular or ordinary.
        Ms. Walker. I think it is regular.
        Mr. Conyers. In each of those cases I would just like to
    know, since the overwhelming majority of casinos are granted
    for the immediate benefit of the reservations and communities
    of the Indian tribes, but now it seems like somewhere along the
    line, historically, if you are right, people are saying well,
    and in those two instances I would want to know why did they
    pick hundreds of miles away from the casino.
        Mr. Artman.
        Mr. Artman. In the case just brought up, the Forest County
    Potawatomi, that, and along with two others, the Forest County
    Potawatomi was actually the longest of the two-part
    determination process. But that doesn't set a precedent for
    what is occurring here today. The Forest County Potawatomi,
    along with two others, we have only approved three two-part
    determinations, all went through the Indian Gaming Regulatory
    Act two-part determination. It went through the Secretary
    approval process, in which we reviewed it, analyzed it under
    certain conditions, and then the State approved it as well.
        Now certainly the State may have played a role in placing
    that particular gaming location in that area, but that was also
    done through the Federal law at the administrative level and
    not here at Congress. What we are concerned about is the
    precedent set here in Congress for circumventing that
    administrative process as set forth in IGRA.
        Mr. Conyers. What Congressman Johnson and I are trying to
    figure out, going back to the Michigan cases, why did they pick
    these two plots of land to do a casino? He put on a blindfold
    and went to the map and stuck a pin in and said aha, Sault or
    Port Huron; another blindfold, Romulus, Michigan. Is that how
    it happened?
        Ms. Tierney. I don't believe so.
        Mr. Conyers. I don't think so either.
        Ms. Tierney. I believe the best place to look perhaps is
    the testimony in support of this legislation that was done in
    2002 before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in which a
    statement was presented in testimony given by Lance Boldrey,
    the Deputy Legal Counsel for Governor Engler.
        Mr. Conyers. But what did he say?
        Ms. Tierney. I will have to defer to the text itself. I
    believe that there was an explanation as to the process by
    which the Governor agreed to those locations.
        Mr. Conyers. Okay.
        Mr. Johnson, should I invite you for any conclusion before
    we turn to our colleague from California?
        Mr. Johnson. I think you have clarified sufficiently. I
    will yield back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
        Darrell Issa.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have gone a long way
    toward setting the record straight. There is nobody on this
    Committee I think that represents more native American tribes
    and bands than I do. There is nobody on this Committee I think
    that would begin to be as dedicated to tribal sovereignty as I
    am. I don't say that out of brag, I say that because I have
    some of the best examples of Native Americans who, throughout
    the Spanish period, were mistreated, nearly exterminated, taken
    off their aboriginal lands, taken to missions, where three-
    quarters of them died.
        Those who are left today in California have returned to
    their aboriginal lands. They have sought over the last 100
    years to regain some small portion of the reins that they
    operated under. But in every case, the land in trust that they
    enjoy today, small or large, represents some portion of the
    land that they can lay a legitimate claim to, going back a long
    time, actually long before our records.
        The Constitution says that we, the Congress, have the right
    to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several
    States and with Indian tribes. Now, it doesn't say that Indian
    tribes are American Indians. And there is a reason for that.
        I want to get to a number of questions. We don't have
    American Indians, we have Indians of aboriginal regions. They
    have independent rights in those regions. They do not have
    rights beyond those regions. I think that is well thought of in
    the Constitution.
        We have made exceptions. Certainly, the Trail of Tears
    created a situation in which we took people's historic areas
    and now thousands of them are living in Oklahoma and other
    States. We made allowances for that. We made allowances for our
    sins of the past, not for a selection in order to promote
    Indian gaming.
        Let me go through a couple of things. First of all, Mr.
    Artman, they have made a selection of land. They have not
    bought it in fee simple. Instead, they have made an agreement
    to purchase it. In your opinion, aren't they making the
    agreement to purchase that is really not contingent on land in
    trust, it is really contingent on Indian gaming, it is really
    contingent on the value added? They have offered enough money
    for land to be purchased not for tribal purposes, but directly
    for casino purposes, and that is the reason they haven't bought
    it in fee simple today, isn't that true?
        Mr. Artman. Not having seen the actual documents, the
    option document for the land, I can't speculate as to what the
    purposes are. This is something though, a practice that we
    often times see with regard to land in trust, that the option
    isn't exercised until the very last minute going into trust.
    Often times in those same situations those are related to
    gaming. And the condition precedent for gaming is that the land
    be in trust.
        Mr. Issa. In fact, land in trust is a procedure we do to
    take off the tax roll and into trust as a Federal asset on
    behalf of the tribe. We do that because of tribal purposes.
    Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Artman. Yes. By taking it into trust, certain
    privileges and immunities are accorded to that land.
        Mr. Issa. Didn't we pass the IGRA, the Indian Gaming
    Regulatory Act, anticipating that this would be one of many of
    a portfolio of activities that tribes on their reservations
    could do? The act in no way, shape, or form said go out and buy
    land. The act intended and required that it be their land in
    order to have a casino on it, land in trust. Even if they
    already had fee land that they owned, that was never available
    for gaming. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Artman. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act essentially
    frames an already existent right in States where tribes are
    located if there is Class III gaming already occurring in those
    States.
        Mr. Issa. So, in a nutshell, this is reservation shopping
    in absolute terms, correct? Is there anyone there that can
    dispute that this doesn't look, act and smell like reservation
    shopping for the purpose of Indian gaming? Even the others on
    the panel. Let's be honest, this is a selective selection not
    for purposes of Indian housing, not for a tribal health center;
    this is for an operation that in fact is a casino.
        Is anyone going to try to sit here, under oath, we are
    under oath, doesn't matter, lying to Congress is a felony,
    anyone going to tell me that is not true, or they believe by
    some convincing evidence that it is not true?
        Thank you. That is an important point to get across.
        Ms. Walker. I would like to respond, if I could. Thank you.
        Mr. Issa. Just to that question.
        Ms. Walker. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Issa. Do you say, yes or no, that this land is for some
    other significant purpose besides the primary purpose of
    operating a casino for benefit to the tribe? Yes or no.
        Ms. Walker. Yes, it is.
        Mr. Issa. What is that other purpose?
        Ms. Walker. The other purpose is to provide revenues to
    allow the tribe to support itself.
        Mr. Issa. Sorry. I asked the question. The correct answer
    is no other purpose than to provide revenue to the tribe. It is
    a casino to provide revenue to the tribe.
        Ms. Walker. It is a casino to provide revenue to the tribe.
        Mr. Issa. Okay, thank you. I have got very little time. The
    Chairman has been indulgent already, and there is a lot more to
    cover because this is an important constitutional issue and it
    is one that I think this Committee has to take very seriously.
        I represent--my State represents over 100 Indian tribes. We
    will just talk about Jamul, an Indian tribe near the Mexican
    border. They have less than four acres. They were driven nearly
    into extinction.
        Is there any reason, Mr. Artman, today that the Jamul
    Tribe, sitting near the Mexican border, in a rural, poor area,
    with only four acres at this time, should not be able to bid
    and buy this land against that tribe? It is 1,500 miles, 2,000
    miles. Is there any reason that this tribe is any more entitled
    to go 300 miles than my very poor Jamul Indians or my La Jolla
    Indians, neither one of whom have a location convenient for
    casino gaming and both of whom would benefit tremendously by
    this opportunity?
        Mr. Artman.
        Mr. Artman. I think if you look at the Indiana
    Reorganization Act and 151 regulations, clearly you are going
    off reservation to do something at this point. As I stated in a
    memo on January 3 to our regional director in our Office of
    Indian Gaming, we need to, by the mandates of the regulations
    that have been on the books for decades, give a greater
    scrutiny to any desire to move off reservation, and the further
    you go, the greater the scrutiny.
        Now if Jamul wanted to move to Charlotte Beach, I think
    certainly we would give that a lot of scrutiny, as we would
    anyone that would want to move 300 miles.
        Mr. Issa. Let's be a little more close in then. The Jamul
    Indians or the La Jolla Indians only have to go 30 or 40 miles
    to get to some very profitable casino sites that are already
    operating. Thirty or forty miles. If we allow this land in
    trust for the purpose of gaining revenue through casino gaming
    to occur 250, 300 miles away outside of an area that if the
    tribes were all still in tact the neighboring tribe would not
    let them in, not beyond maybe a meal. They would not be allowed
    to move in and take over land.
        If we allow it, is there any reason that we wouldn't have
    to essentially have a domino effect that every other poor tribe
    wanting revenue would be able to select downtown Los Angeles,
    downtown San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, any other city that
    was, let's say, within 250 miles? Is there any basis that
    somehow this tribe, these two tribes have any more entitlement
    than hundreds of tribes around the country who do not happen to
    have the ideal gaming location but do have a gaming location
    within 250 or 300 miles?
        Mr. Artman. I think you have hit upon one of our biggest
    concerns when we were developing the January memo, in that you
    are opening it up greatly for any other tribe to go great
    distances. If you allow one tribe to go a great distance, then
    you do begin to open it up for all tribes to be able to
    consider it.
        Certainly, there is going to be that opportunity to have a
    greater market elsewhere. When do you stop, what are the
    limitations. These are the things we consider all the time.
        Mr. Issa. I am going to ask one more question.
        Mr. Artman, it is a little outside of your direct
    knowledge, but I think you are the most appropriate to answer
    this, and I think the Chairman would appreciate this. We also
    sit together on an antitrust task force. We are very cognizant
    on this Committee that another Committee regulates commerce,
    but we deal with whether or not government or private
    enterprise operates in a monopolistic way.
        If we allow opportunistic travel outside of reasonable
        aboriginal territory, reasonable historic tribal lands, if
    we allow it to a group of Americans; in other words, we say
    well, because they are sovereign, we are going to let them make
    a deal with the State, not the Federal Government, deal with
    the State, and they are going to make these moves for purposes
    of putting casinos up, why in the world wouldn't--and I know
    Shelly Berkley was here a minute ago, and she is not a neutral,
    and I am, I don't happen to have private casinos in my
    district--why in the world wouldn't Harrah's and all the other
    major casino operators be able to cry foul, to say that in fact
    they should be able to put up right next door and around these
    reservations competing casinos; in other words, have virtually
    unfettered ability to compete, if in fact we are going to allow
    other Americans, and they may be the first Americans, and we do
    have a special obligation, but once we give up that special
    relationship that comes from their aboriginal claims and we
    simply say well, it's good for your people to do it and it is
    going to be somehow good for the economy, once we do that, why
    wouldn't this Committee consider that we have no right to allow
    the States to give to the Indians and keep private enterprise
    out, once we lose the justification of their unique
    relationship with this government?
        Mr. Artman. I think one of the large differences between
    Harrah's and any Indian tribe is the fact that the Indian tribe
    is a government, and inherent with the government rights comes
    a number of rights and responsibilities. One is the ability to
    engage in gaming similar to the State that it may be located in
    that does Class III. There is that limitation.
        Mr. Issa. But there is no State in the Union that operates
    Class III gaming. No State. They simply allow private
    enterprise to do it, and that is where the right comes from. I
    just want to make sure we understand.
        Mr. Artman. A lot of these are considered Class III. That
    is what creates that basis for many tribes. Looking at it from
    the governmental perspective, and this may help to answer a
    question, and you are right, I am not an antitrust expert, but
    one of the things we focus on, one of the concerns we have is
    the jurisdiction is exercised on the reservation, and that is
    the highest exercise of jurisdiction.
        Mr. Issa. Here, we are asked to create a reservation to
    create sovereignty, not in fact to codify a sovereignty that
    was taken away. This is not tribal land and is not being put
    into trust for purposes of being tribal land, it is being put
    into trust for purposes of being a casino.
        Mr. Artman. That is why we examine in that process very
    carefully what it will be used for, how far away it is from the
    reservation. That is why we are asking those critical
    questions, because we don't want to dilute the exercise of
    sovereignty for that tribe. That is a very important
    cornerstone.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Artman, I am going to yield back after one
    last question to the Chair.
        In your opinion, this does not pass the sniff test of
        aboriginal tribal land, or the next closest reasonable
    thing, and therefore putting this into trust would not serve
    the legitimate sovereign rights of these Native Americans,
    these first citizens. Whether or not they go into casinos isn't
    the point. The point is this is not an appropriate tribal land,
    and it is not the closest land to their aboriginal legitimate
    claim, is it?
        Mr. Artman. We haven't had the opportunity to look at those
    documents because this bill and the prior court actions at the
    State level haven't given the United States the ability to
    engage in that process. Our issues, our concerns with this
    legislation are in the process. It doesn't allow it to go
    through the 151 process in which we look at those things, nor
    does it allow the compacts to go through the IGRA process also,
    where we would look at those things.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope we have made the
    case that we do need to allow the regular order of this process
    in order to get the facts. I yield.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. [presiding]. Let me thank the witnesses as
    well. We have a vote on the floor. So I will quickly pose some
    questions, and forgive me if they have been asked and answered.
    I will ask for witnesses to have very succinct answers.
        Chief Cantu, just help me, does your tribe own any casinos
    at this time?
        Chief Cantu. Yes, we do. We own the Soaring Eagle Casino
    and Resort.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Tell me, what do you think is the sense of
    the commitment of the compacts and the trust? Why do you feel
    that the legislation before us pierces that structure that has
    been put in place?
        Chief Cantu. Well, I think that, with Mr. Johnson's
    question, that the compact requires it, the type of off-
    reservation gaming be approved by other tribes. The tribe
    agrees with Mr. Artman here that the concerns are bypassing the
    requirements of the compact.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Which is that other tribes have to agree,
    and the tribes that are before us are asking that casinos be
    put off their reservations or their sites?
        Chief Cantu. That is correct. Our ancestral lands.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. On your ancestral lands.
        Chief Cantu. That is correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I guess I am confused, Ms. Walker and Ms.
    Tierney. Why would you be doing this? I want to be open minded
    as well, but what is the basis behind at least challenging the
    compact?
        Ms. Walker. We don't believe we are challenging the
    compact. We believe what we are doing is consistent with the
    compact, and that is the nature of the testimony given before
    the Natural Resources Committee as well.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Which says?
        Ms. Walker. That this is entirely consistent with the
    compact. The compact does not limit the number of casinos that
    individual tribes may have, and section 9 of the compact that
    the Governor chose not to enforce in the 2002 settlement
    agreements is a revenue-sharing provision.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. What about the requirement of having the
    other tribes agree to placement?
        Ms. Tierney. Section 9 of the 1993 compacts, which is one
    that both Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribes signed with
    the State and approved by the Secretary, does not require
    approval of the other tribes; it simply requires a revenue-
    sharing if it is a two-part determination fee-to-trust request
    under section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You are prepared to share revenue?
        Ms. Tierney. We agree with the State that section 9 of the
    compact is not implicated by our land settlement agreement with
    the State.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. But are you prepared to share revenue?
        Ms. Tierney. No, ma'am. It is not required.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Are you in fact suggesting that casinos
    would be on Chief Cantu's land?
        Ms. Tierney. No, I am not. In fact, we have submitted
    testimony and documents to the National Resources Committee,
    which is also in my submission here today, which indicates that
    the aboriginal claims of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to the Port
    Huron area are not what Mr. Cantu has indicated.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me ask Mr. Artman very quickly. I am
    going to call this hearing to an end. Can you explain how the
    U.S. would be liable for supporting these bills?
        Mr. Artman.
        Mr. Artman. If the land were taken into trust without going
    through the environmental review process as mandated under
    NEPA, we may be taking land into trust that comes with
    environmental liabilities. At that point, we would be accepting
    those liabilities once it goes into trust.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. So whatever liabilities would occur, the
    U.S. Government would have to be responsible for?
        Mr. Artman. That is correct. The way the bill is written,
    it doesn't give us the opportunity to afford those kind of
    environmental reviews.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me thank you very much, all witnesses,
    for your testimony.
        Without objection, Members will have 1 week to submit any
    additional written questions, for which we will forward and ask
    that you answer as promptly as you can to be made part of the
    record. Without objection, the record will remain open for 1
    week for the submission of any other additional materials.
        The hearing has helped enlighten the many procedural
    irregularities involved in these two land deals. Strong
    concerns have been raised about the shortcuts that hack through
    important legal steps that were established to give all voices
    a chance to be heard and to give all issues their due
    consideration and about the potentially indiscriminate spread
    of casino gaming into all corners of our country if a precedent
    like this is allowed to gain a foothold.
        The concerns of the Chairman about these land deals and the
    two bills that would bless them for casinos, in disregard of
    established Federal legal protections and in defiance of the
    express wishes of Michigan voters, have only increased this
    morning. The Committee will consider the next appropriate steps
    accordingly. We thank the witnesses all. You have all been
    heard.
        With that, the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]