[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]

 
           INDIAN GAMING AMENDMENTS MOVE TO RESOLVE PROBLEMS

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I would like to join in commending my 
colleague, the senior Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Inouye] for his work as 
chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. That work is partially 
reflected in the legislation he introduced today to amend the Indian 
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.
  Senator Inouye and his fellow committee members have worked hard to 
set a course through difficult issues raised by competing interests and 
the arguments of different advocates. It is clear that amendments are 
needed because many inequities and ambiguities have arisen since 
enactment 6 years ago.
  Although I am impressed with his work and many of the amendments, I 
must also add I am disappointed that the legislation does not include 
any language addressing either the difficulties of settlement States, 
nor the specific dispute facing the State of Rhode Island.
  I worked long and hard with the members of the Narragansett Indian 
Tribe to help hammer out the details of S. 3153, the Rhode Island 
Indian claims settlement in 1978. This agreement was not easy to reach, 
since it involved the Narragansett Indian Tribe, the town of 
Charlestown, the State of Rhode Island, and the U.S. Government.
  In exchange for extinguishing its aboriginal land claims, the 
Narragansett Indian Tribe received 1,800 acres of land--half from the 
State of Rhode Island and half from the U.S. Government. The land was 
held in trust for the tribe, a trust later transferred to the U.S. 
Government.
  As part of its purely voluntary agreement, the tribe specifically 
agreed that the settlement lands ``shall be subject to the civil and 
criminal laws and jurisdiction of the State of Rhode Island.'' This was 
stated clearly in both the Settlement Act and in the 1978 report of the 
Select Committee on Indian Affairs that accompanied it.
  I am proud of the agreement. It helped settle disputes and it 
advanced the cause of the Narragansetts, giving them a pristine land-
base to which they had historic links. It also served as a tremendous 
help to me in paving the way for subsequent Federal recognition of the 
tribe.
  Tribal representatives characterized the agreement, during Senate 
hearings in June 1978, as ``the result of a course of fair and 
honorable dealings between Indians and non-Indians, which is rare in 
the history of this country.''
  When the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act came before us in the Senate, 
it was made clear to us by Senator Inouye ``that the protections of the 
Rhode Islands 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, in report language, the committee made its intention 
clear that nothing in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act ``will supersede 
any specific restriction or specific grant of Federal authority or 
jurisdiction to a State, which may be encompassed in another Federal 
statute, including the Rhode Island Indian Claims Settlement Act.''
  Mr. President, we thought that what we wrote--and said--spelled out 
congressional intent in clear, declarative language. We received formal 
assurances and the committee spelled out its intent in its report. 
Unfortunately, the courts are making a hash of our understanding.
  One judge, however, noted that if Congress believed that an injustice 
had been done ``it could provide a remedy through supplemental 
legislation.'' That is exactly what we hope will happen during further 
consideration of the amendments proposed today. An unjustice has been 
done and years of good faith have been negated.
  I have already suggested two legislative remedies, either of which 
would do the job simply and quickly by codifying our expressed intent.
  The first remedy would be a general cure: ``Nothing in this act shall 
be construed to affect the applicability of any settlement act.''
  The second would be a specific cure, merely restate: ``The 
Narragansett Indian Tribe will remain subject to the civil, criminal 
and regulatory laws of the State of Rhode Island.''
  Either remedy would cure the plague of misunderstanding, litigation 
and bad faith that has grown in Rhode Island as a direct result of the 
well-intentioned--but subsequently misinterpreted--Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act. I am extremely disappointed that neither remedy was 
included in the legislation introduced today and would hope that one of 
them might be acceptable to Senator Inouye and be included in the final 
bill.
  I am convinced that these remedies are the only ones adequate for 
Rhode Island. I will continue to work with Senator Inouye and I will 
press for a legislative remedy both in committee and in the Senate. 
Although I am disappointed, I will continue to pursue all options.

                          ____________________