[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 81 (Thursday, June 23, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: June 23, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
          THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, earlier today, the distinguished chairman 
and ranking member of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senators 
Inouye and McCain, introduced comprehensive legislation to amend the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 [IGRA].
  I want to join my colleague from Rhode Island, Senator Pell, in 
congratulating them for attempting to tackle this extremely complicated 
and thorny issue. As they said in their introductory statements this 
morning, literally hundreds of hours of difficult negotiations have 
gone into the crafting of this legislation.
  I am compelled, however, to let the Senate know how very disappointed 
I am that the bill, as introduced, does not contain language to remedy 
the terrible--and unanticipated--contro- versy that the IGRA has 
created in Rhode Island.
  A little background for the benefit of my colleagues: Rhode Island 
has one federally recognized Indian tribe, the Narragansetts. In the 
late 1970's the Narragansetts asserted claims to several thousand acres 
of land in Charlestown, RI. When the State resisted, the tribe sued in 
Federal court. Fortunately, the tribe, State, and town of Charlestown 
were able to reach a settlement: roughly 1,800 acres of land in 
Charlestown were transferred to the tribe. At the same time, the tribe 
agreed that those lands would remain under the civil and criminal 
jurisdiction of the State. Subsequently, Congress enacted the 1978 
Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act, which codified the 
settlement in Federal law.
  Under Rhode Island law, if an entity wants to conduct casino 
gambling, it first has to receive approval through both a local and 
statewide voter referendum. As my colleagues know, this is quite 
different from what the IGRA says. Therefore, when the Senate was 
debating the IGRA 6 years ago, Senator Pell and I wanted to make sure 
that the 1978 act would continue to be the controlling statute with 
respect to the rules that the Narragansetts would have to follow if 
they wanted to enter the casino business.
  During debate on the IGRA, Senator Pell and I discussed this matter 
with Chairman Inouye on the Senate floor. He provided assurances that, 
even after the enactment of the IGRA, ``the protections of the Rhode 
Island Indian Claims Settlement Act (Public Law 95-395) will remain in 
effect and that the Narragansett Indian Tribe clearly will remain 
subject to the civil, criminal, and regulatory laws of the State of 
Rhode Island.'' In addition, language was included in the committee's 
report on the measure to make it clear that the IGRA was not intended 
to supersede the 1978 settlement Act.
  Nevertheless, 2 years ago, the Narragansetts announced their plans to 
build and operate a full-scale gambling casino on their land, under the 
auspices of the IGRA. The State then petitioned a Federal court to 
declare that the IGRA was not meant to apply to the Narragansetts. To 
our dismay, however, both a district court judge and, most recently, 
the First Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled that since the statute 
itself is clear on its face, their interpretation of the law cannot be 
swayed by legislative history. Thus, they have ordered the State of 
Rhode Island to begin compact negotiations with the Narragansetts.
  The State still has the option of appealing its case to the Supreme 
Court, but, given the decisions of the two lower courts, I am 
optimistic about the prospects for resolving this matter through the 
judicial process.
  The only way to redress this problem, in my view, is to amend the 
IGRA to make it absolutely clear that that law does not supersede the 
1978 Rhode Island Settlement Act. And it seems to me that if ever there 
were an appropriate vehicle for such an amendment, it is the bill that 
was introduced earlier today. So, as I said at the outset, I am 
disappointed that for the time being, the chairman and ranking member 
have opted not to deal with this matter in their legislation.
  I recognize, however, that the introduction of this bill is only the 
beginning of a long process. In the coming weeks, I will continue to 
press the Indian Affairs Committee on this issue. I also look forward 
to working with Senators from the three other Settlement Act States, as 
I understand that a lack of consensus among our States on this matter 
was a deciding factor in the decision to leave the Settlement Act 
question unaddressed. In sum, this issue is of profound importance to 
Rhode Islanders, and I intend to do all I can to ensure that their 
voices are heard.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
continue for 5 minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 
2231 and S. 2232 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Nebraska 
[Mr. Exon].
  Mr. EXON. Will the Chair be good enough to advise the Senator from 
Nebraska as to the present status of the measure before the Senate?

                          ____________________