[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 157 (Tuesday, November 9, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14418-S14419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. BOND:
  S. 1893. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to prohibit 
the Secretary of the Interior from taking land into trust for Indian 
tribes for gaming purposes under certain conditions, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.


                    gaming clarification act of 1999

  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, today I am introducing a Senate companion 
bill to legislation sponsored in the other body by the distinguished 
Representative from southwestern Missouri (Mr. Blunt). This bill 
intends to clarify the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 
or IGRA, in Missouri.
  Specifically, this bill would prevent Indian Tribes from setting up 
casino gambling operations in areas of Missouri where non-Indians 
currently are prohibited from gambling. This is vitally important, if 
for no other reason than to maintain harmony in these communities. It 
is also essential to preserve the family-friendly atmosphere that draws 
so many vacationers to these areas. Branson, Missouri, in particular, 
has attained national fame as an extraordinarily beautiful area, with 
fun activities and entertainment suitable for parents and children 
alike.
  An invasion of gambling into this setting would wreck this tremendous 
asset. It would bring all the well-known pathologies and social 
problems that accompany gambling. I oppose introducing gambling into 
these areas and will do all I can to fight it. We must protect the 
family spirit that makes Branson a national destination for 
vacationers. We must do likewise for other Missouri communities that 
offer similar sanctuaries from the hyperactive stress of modern life, 
as well as great places for residents to raise children, build homes, 
and do business.
  The bill I introduce today is very similar to one I offered in 1997. 
That bill would also have prevented Tribally owned casinos in areas of 
Missouri where non-Indian casinos are currently illegal. It became 
necessary when a Tribe in Oklahoma applied to put land in the small 
town of Seneca, Missouri into trust status for gambling purposes. They 
wanted to operate a casino where no one else could do so legally and to 
do so despite overwhelming community objection. Fortunately, the 
Interior Secretary indicated to me that he would not approve that 
application, and the Tribe ultimately withdrew its gambling 
application. Thus, the issue was satisfactorily resolved without 
legislation.
  More recently, however, a flurry of applications has been filed to 
put Indian-owned land into trust for non-gambling activities. I am glad 
the Tribes are finding that non-gambling activities, as proposed uses 
for these lands, can be more beneficial and more friendly to their 
communities and neighbors. However, a great many of my constituents are 
concerned that these trust applications might make it easier to apply 
for gambling later. They worry that some Tribes might be seeking to 
approve gambling casinos through the back door. This bill will 
eliminate that concern by clarifying the meaning of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act with respect to Missouri.
  When the Congress adopted IGRA in 1988, it intended for a State's 
general policy toward gambling to be considered in evaluating 
applications by Indian Tribes to start casino operations. Drawing upon 
past court decisions in this area, the Congress provided that a Tribe 
might be eligible to conduct casino gambling on their lands in a State 
``that permits such gambling for any purpose by any person, 
organization, or entity.'' Once a State decides to move away from a 
criminal/prohibitory stance toward gambling, and adopts instead a 
civil/regulatory stance, Tribes are to have the opportunity to engage 
in gambling in that State as well. To that end, they may ask the State 
to negotiate a compact to regulate those casinos.
  Generally, this approach helps ensure public peace while also 
ensuring the Tribes get to participate in gambling on more-or-less the 
same basis as non-Indians in the State. If the people of a State, 
through their legislature or through direct legislation, decide to 
legalize casino gambling ``by any person,

[[Page S14419]]

organization, or entity,'' they cannot simply exclude the Tribes in 
favor of whatever non-Indian gambling companies might have the inside 
track in the State government. The Tribes are to have the same 
opportunity as the non-Indian companies.
  But, if the people of a State maintain a general prohibition on 
gambling--whether as an expression of moral opposition or for some 
other reason--the Tribes will also need to respect this public opinion 
just like everyone else. I believe this is the situation in Missouri, 
whose constitution includes just such a general prohibition on casino 
gambling, with an exception for casinos based on the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers.
  Article III of the Missouri Constitution sets out the powers of the 
Missouri General Assembly. Section 39 of that article makes certain 
things expressly outside of the legislature's authority. This is where 
the State's general prohibition on gambling appears. ``The General 
Assembly shall not have power,'' it says, ``to authorize lotteries or 
gift enterprises for any purpose, and shall enact laws to prohibit the 
sale of lottery or gift enterprise tickets.'' It says prohibit, not 
regulate.
  Gambling, in general, is still prohibited by State law. Under section 
572.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, ``the crime of gambling'' is 
a class C misdemeanor, unless committed by a professional player, in 
which case the crime is a class D felony. This means the crime of 
gambling is punishable by fine of up to $300 in the case of a 
misdemeanor. A professional player may be fined up to $5,000 or twice 
the amount of any gain received, up to a limit of $25,000. These 
criminal offenses also carry potential prison sentences, of 15 days for 
a misdemeanor and up to 5 years for felony gambling.
  The State constitution does not give the General Assembly authority 
to legalize these crimes. The power to legalize gambling was withheld 
from the General Assembly by the express terms of the constitution. Any 
change would require a constitutional amendment, ratified by the voters 
of Missouri.

  The voters did exercise their authority to authorize very limited 
exceptions, without removing the general prohibition on legalized 
gambling. In the case of casino gambling, the voters authorized the 
General Assembly to legalize certain games only on excursion gambling 
boats and floating facilities docked along the Missouri and Mississippi 
Rivers. Again, the voters granted these limited exceptions without 
disturbing the general constitutional prohibition on gambling, which is 
a criminal offense elsewhere in the State.
  The initiative that created this exception took this approach because 
many areas of Missouri have strong objections to gambling casinos. 
Particularly in southwest Missouri, many citizens hold strong moral 
objections to gambling. Many others simply fear that gambling would 
destroy the family atmosphere that makes the Branson area a desirable 
and unique vacation spot. Still others are concerned that gambling 
disproportionately preys on the hopes of the poor, making it a 
particularly regressive economic activity.
  We can see this expression of the community's view in the votes that 
were cast on the Missouri and Mississippi riverboat casino initiative. 
In the November 1994 election, voters in Taney county (where Branson is 
located) voted against the casino initiative 73% to 27%. In Greene 
county (where southwest Missouri's largest metropolitan area of 
Springfield is located), 58% of voters opposed the riverboat casinos. 
Finally, in Newton county (the home of Seneca, Missouri, where a Tribe 
once sought to impose a casino on the local residents), 62% of voters 
opposed the constitutional amendment.
  Knowing the strength of these communities' opinions on gambling in 
general, the sponsors of the initiative petition drive had no real 
alternative but to leave the general gambling prohibition intact while 
carving out a very narrow geographic exception for Missouri's two major 
rivers. Otherwise, the initiative would almost certainly have failed 
statewide as well. Therefore, the constitutional amendment reassured 
southwest Missourians that they likely would not feel the change 
directly--it would affect only the two rivers far away from them, and 
would not bring casinos into the family oriented Branson and 
Springfield areas. The general constitutional prohibition on gambling 
stayed in force.
  The limited exception for riverboat casinos, therefore, did not 
change the State's posture on gambling from a criminal/prohibitory one 
to a civil/regulatory one. In areas such as the Branson, Missouri area, 
gambling is still a criminal offense. IGRA's requirement that the State 
negotiate to allow Tribally owned casinos is not triggered, since 
casino gambling in that area is not permitted by ``any person, 
organization, or entity.'' As I mentioned earlier, that's the language 
IGRA uses to trigger a State's obligation to negotiate with the Tribes 
to create a regulatory compact.
  Tribes wanting to operate casinos on the Missouri or Mississippi 
Rivers might have a case under IGRA, since there are persons, 
organizations, or entities authorized to gamble there. But this is not 
true in Branson, Springfield, or other areas off the rivers where 
gambling is still prohibited and where the General Assembly lacks 
constitutional authority to legalize it even if it wanted to.
  This view of IGRA is not undermined, as some claim, by the 
Mashantucket Pequot case decided in 1990. In that case, the 
Mashantucket Pequots sued Connecticut to force the State to negotiate a 
casino gambling compact because the State authorized ``Las Vegas 
Nights'' as a fundraising activity for certain nonprofit organizations. 
Connecticut had argued that the occasional Las Vegas Nights did not 
mean that the State had decriminalized gambling in general.
  However, those nonprofits authorized to operate casinos, even on a 
very occasional basis, fall within the express language of ``any 
person, organization, or entity'' used in IGRA, which is what the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals found. Allowing nonprofits to engage in 
some forms of casino gambling did move the State of Connecticut into a 
civil/regulatory stance on casino gambling. The State did not 
absolutely prohibit it; it regulated the type of organization permitted 
to engage in gambling. Thus, IGRA was triggered by the express language 
of the law.
  This is completely different from the situation in Missouri, where 
all persons, organizations, and entities are flatly prohibited, by 
criminal law, from casino gambling anywhere but on the Missouri and 
Mississippi Rivers. The Mashantucket Pequot case does not apply to the 
Missouri situation. Geographic limitations, like in Missouri, were not 
at issue in that case.
  Thus, the language of this bill does not really change the current 
policy of IGRA. It simply makes explicit what is already plainly 
implicit under current legislation and case law. It would take express 
notice of the provision in Missouri's constitution on gambling and 
recognize that Missouri still maintains a criminal/prohibitory stance 
toward gambling off the rivers.
  Because some pro-gambling advocates are attempting to read the 
Mashantucket Pequot case too broadly, trying to make it apply to 
Missouri when it clearly does not, this bill is essential. In the past, 
a number of Tribes have tried to use that argument to try to set up 
casinos in Missouri--even in a small town like Seneca, nowhere near the 
Missouri or Mississippi Rivers. Because some people are trying to read 
into the Mashantucket Pequot case a view that is really not there, this 
bill writes into law the correct interpretation.
  I appreciate the hard work my colleague in the other chamber did on 
this bill, and am glad to have the opportunity to resolve this issue 
once and for all.
                                 ______