[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 91 (Wednesday, June 25, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6364-S6366]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 962. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act with respect 
to certain gaming practices on tribal lands held in trust by the 
Secretary of the Interior, and for other purposes; to the Committee on 
Indian Affairs.


                 the gambling clarification act of 1997

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to reform 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. There is, as I speak, a tribe that is 
attempting to move into the State of Missouri to build a large gambling 
casino. I do not believe the tribe is entitled to build this casino 
under the Indian gaming law, but while Secretary Babbitt has indicated 
he would consider our views in making his decision, he may rule in 
favor of the tribe and those who favor gambling. The only way to 
reverse his decision would be for Congress to change the law and I plan 
to start that process now.
  As my colleagues know, Mr. President, the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
Act became law in 1988 to address the rapid growth of gambling on 
Indian tribal lands. The Supreme Court affirmed the sovereignty of 
Indian tribes and upheld their right to conduct gambling on their 
tribal lands, holding that such a right could only be abrogated by an 
act of Congress. Recognizing that it is the policy of the majority of 
the States to prohibit or drastically regulate gambling and recognizing 
that many of the citizens of these States regard gambling as morally 
repugnant, Congress passed the Indian Gambling Regulatory Act.

[[Page S6365]]

  The intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is to balance tribal 
sovereignty with a State's interest in regulating and controlling 
gambling. The bill attempted to accomplish this by bringing parties to 
a mutual table to work out an agreement for regulating gambling on 
reservations consistent with State policy. But the spirit of the 
legislation is one of containment, to limit gambling and control its 
growth. IGRA pursues the objective by narrowly restricting the 
circumstances by which gaming can be conducted on land acquired by 
tribes after the date of passage of the statute, October 17, 1988. 
However, like many pieces of regulation, unforeseen circumstances 
arise, loopholes open and language proves to be too vague or obtusely 
drafted. Such is the case with IGRA. My legislation does not attempt to 
reopen or rewrite the bill, but it does attempt to address some of the 
legislative voids that affect my State and others.
  A first step for a tribe to conduct gaming on Indian land is to 
petition the Secretary of the Interior to have land taken into trust, 
this permits the tribe to benefit from the tax advantages afforded 
Indian tribes. While such trust petitions are under review by the 
Secretary, he is instructed to review the petition considering the best 
interests of both the tribe and the surrounding community. Furthermore, 
while such a petition is under review, elected officials have an 
opportunity to confront the Secretary with any concerns regarding 
gambling on that land or any objections that community members may hold 
regarding gambling. The statute, however, does not require the tribe to 
declare to the Secretary that land will be used for gambling. 
Furthermore, there is nothing in the statute that would prohibit a 
tribe from representing to the local community and the Secretary that 
land will be used for an unobjectionable purpose, only to begin using 
the land for gambling after it has been placed in trust.
  My legislation will require a tribe that is planning to begin 
conducting gambling on newly acquired tribal land to inform the 
Secretary during the trust application process that the land in 
question will in fact be used for gambling. Tribes with land held in 
trust that have not made such a declaration to the Secretary will be 
prohibited from using that land for gambling until such time as the 
tribe applies with the Secretary to have that land held in trust for 
the specific purpose of gambling. I believe this language will 
encourage the tribes to be open and upfront regarding their gambling 
plans for the trust land and is in the best interests of communities to 
be affected by gambling and in the best interests of the tribal-
community relations. Communities that have serious concerns with the 
introduction of gambling to their neighborhoods will be given 
the opportunity to register their concerns with their elected officials 
and with the Secretary of the Interior. Tribes will also be disinclined 
to misrepresent their intentions or engage in any deceptive tactics to 
acquire land to begin or expand their gambling operations, which will 
go a long way to abating any suspicion between the tribes and the 
surrounding communities.

  This language also clarifies the language regarding tribes in the 
State of Oklahoma, a State where there is no tribal reservations, 
attempting to spread their gaming operations into a neighboring State. 
I believe such a practice was not foreseen by the original statute and 
is inconsistent with the spirit of that statute. Specifically, my 
legislation will permit an Oklahoma tribe to expand their gaming 
operations into a neighboring state, but only when the tribe is located 
in that State and the gaming will be conducted within the boundaries of 
a former reservation. My State is confronted with a situation where a 
tribe has purchased land reaching across the State border into Missouri 
and the tribe is attempting to use that recently purchased land to 
claim residency in Missouri for the purpose of the statute. To me, that 
is exploiting the loose drafting of a statutory language. I do not 
believe the tribe is located in Missouri as contemplated by the statute 
and, therefore, is not entitled to bring a casino into this Missouri 
community over the overwhelming objections of Missourians. My bill will 
make this section clear.
  Finally, the Indian Gaming statute authorizes tribes to conduct 
gaming on their reservations and other trust lands to the extent that 
gaming is permitted in that State. Such language is consistent with 
other Federal law by which tribes are subject to the criminal laws of 
the State but they are not subject to the regulations of the State. The 
Missouri constitution prohibits land-based gaming, gaming of this class 
may only be conducted on floating facilities on the Missouri River or 
Mississippi River. This prohibition was a popular referendum passed by 
the people of the State and the State legislature endorsed the 
objection to land-based gaming in a resolution. My legislation clearly 
states the Missouri Constitution contains a prohibition on land-based 
casinos and may not be interpreted in any way to permit class III land-
based gaming. I might add that where a State has spoken so clearly--and 
the State constitution is certainly a clear statement of intent--I find 
it absurd that outsiders can just come in and do what the local people 
have said they oppose.
  Mr. President, my proposals are not an exhaustive list, but the 
statute has caused a situation in my State that this legislation will 
address. I understand that the chairman of the Committee on Indian 
Affairs will be pursuing a larger package of amendments to address the 
problems in the gaming laws. I encourage him to do so, I look forward 
to working with him and I encourage my colleagues to join us in this 
effort. I want to conclude by reiterating that Federal Indian gambling 
legislation is intended to control and contain Indian gambling. 
Unfortunately the legislation is riddled with loopholes that out-of-
State gambling interests can exploit through tribes like the Eastern 
Shawnee to operate gambling parlors. The people of southwest Missouri 
do not want any kind of casino gambling and I am going to do everything 
I can do legislatively and through the regulatory process to stop it.
  I ask unanimous consent to include a copy of the bill and a brief 
question and answer in the Record.
  There being no objection, the items were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 962

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Gaming Clarification Act of 
     1997''.

     SEC. 2. LAND BASED GAMING PROHIBITION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF 
                   THE STATE OF MISSOURI.

       Section 20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2719(b)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(4) Section 39(e) of article III of the Constitution of 
     the State of Missouri, which authorizes the legislature of 
     the State to permit games of chance only upon the Missouri 
     River or the Mississippi River, conducted on excursion 
     gambling boats and floating facilities--
       ``(A) is a prohibitory measure; and
       ``(B) may not be construed to permit land-based class III 
     gaming of any kind for any purpose.''.

     SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY OF RESTRICTIONS.

       Section 20(b) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 
     U.S.C. 2719(b)), as amended by section 2, is further amended 
     by adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     subsection, subsection (a) shall apply to any lands acquired 
     by the Secretary in trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe 
     after the date specified in that subsection, if, at the time 
     of the taking of those lands into trust, those lands are 
     located outside of the State in which the Indian tribe is 
     located.''.

     SEC. 4. DECLARATION OF INTENT TO CONDUCT GAMING.

       Section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 
     4719) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Declaration of Intent to Conduct Gaming.--
       (1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any 
     other provision of this Act, lands taken into trust for an 
     Indian tribe after the date of enactment of the Gaming 
     Clarification Act of 1997, shall not, for the purposes of 
     this Act, be considered to be Indian lands upon which class 
     II or class III gaming may be conducted in accordance with 
     this Act.
       ``(2) Exception.--With respect to trust lands described in 
     paragraph (1) of an Indian tribe, class II or class III 
     gaming may be conducted on those lands in accordance with 
     this Act if--
       ``(A) the Indian tribe submits an application to the 
     Secretary of the Interior that contains an explicit 
     declaration of the intent of the Indian tribe to conduct 
     gaming on those lands; and

[[Page S6366]]

       ``(B) the Secretary of the Interior, in accordance with 
     procedures established by the Secretary, including reviewing 
     the applicability of subsection (b)(4), approves the 
     declaration contained in the petition.''.
                                                                    ____


 Questions and Answers About Senator Bond's Indian Gambling Legislation

       Why is this legislation needed?
       The people of Southwest Missouri and their elected 
     representatives have valiantly fought against the Eastern 
     Shawnee tribes proposed casino project in Seneca. In 
     addition, Creative Gaming International, the gambling company 
     that is working with the tribe to establish the casino, has 
     also purchased land near Branson where they intend to open 
     another casino. At this time the tribe's application to have 
     the Seneca land taken into federal trust is pending with the 
     Secretary of the Interior. While Senator Bond has repeatedly 
     asked Interior Secretary Babbitt to deny the tribe's 
     petition, the outcome is uncertain. Loopholes in the Indian 
     Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the federal legislation that 
     regulates Indian gambling, need to be closed to prevent 
     tribes from locating in states where local citizens oppose 
     gambling.
       Will this legislation interfere with the legal action that 
     the State has taken?
       Senator Bond did not want to pursue any angle that would 
     interfere with any other efforts taken at the state level to 
     keep the casino out. The Attorney General of Missouri filed 
     suit on August 19, 1996, but filed a motion to dismiss the 
     case on November 18, 1996, which was granted on November 27, 
     1996. The fact that the case has been dropped means Bond's 
     legislation will not interfere with state efforts to stop the 
     casino.
       Is this a fix for Missouri or a change in the gaming 
     statute affecting all tribes?
       Both. As the situation in Missouri illustrates, the federal 
     statute intended to control the growth of this sort of 
     gambling is vague, poorly drafted and full of loopholes. The 
     Eastern Shawnee tribe is depending on this vague statute and 
     its loopholes to move into Missouri and open a casino, 
     activities that are directly contrary to the intent of the 
     statute. By focusing on several of the legal loopholes, I 
     believe we can solve the problem facing the State of Missouri 
     and other states whose citizens object to gambling 
     facilities.
       Can this legislation pass?
       Absolutely. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs is 
     proceeding with legislation this session to correct many of 
     the defects with the laws governing Indian gambling. Bond has 
     met with the committee chairman, Sen. Ben Nighthorse 
     Campbell, and he is aware of the situation in Missouri. Sen. 
     Campbell has several concerns with the law that are similar 
     to Missouri's and has pledged his cooperation to correct this 
     problem.
       Congress sometimes moves slowly; does Bond have an 
     alternative plan?
       Through his membership on the Senate Appropriations 
     Committee, Bond is well-situated to add language to the 
     annual Department of Interior Appropriations bill which would 
     prevent the Secretary of the Interior from placing this land 
     into trust.
       Hasn't the Eastern Shawnee tribe tried to assure local 
     citizens that they no longer intend to develop a casino site 
     on the Seneca land?
       Talk is cheap. The tribe has not amended their petition 
     application with the Department of Interior to reflect the 
     fact that they no longer intend to open a casino. Also, 
     Creative Gaming International, the New Jersey company working 
     with the tribe, noted in a press release just last Friday 
     that they were continuing to pursue ``Native American gaming 
     in southwest Missouri.''
                                 ______