[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13671-S13673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INDIAN GAMING
Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, I have an issue I want to explain to
my colleagues before the Labor-HHS conference report comes before the
body. In that conference report, there was an item that was going to
address a wrong that had been placed in an earlier appropriations bill
and that was not the Interior appropriations bill. This body passed a
particular piece of legislation, a very small paragraph, that dealt
with a situation in Kansas that was then taken out of the conference
report. That is why I am objecting to the Labor-HHS conference report
until I get some assurances that we are going to have this issue dealt
with next year. It has to do with a cemetery in Kansas.
The pictures I have here are of a beautiful site in Kansas City, KS,
that is called the Huron Indian Cemetery. The area overlooks the Kansas
River. It is up on a bluff. It is in downtown
[[Page S13672]]
Kansas City, KS. It is where a number of Native Americans are buried
who lived in this area--the Wyandotte Tribe who lived in this area,
before a number of them moved to Oklahoma, before the tribe moved to
Oklahoma.
You can see the pictures we have of a peaceful site in Kansas City,
KS. It is virtually a park for a lot of people, a very solemn cemetery
that is maintained quite nicely in this area.
We have Indian gaming in Kansas, and four tribes are recognized in
Kansas. Each has a casino in the State. There is a tribe in Oklahoma,
the Wyandotte Tribe, that wants to build a casino in Kansas, even
though they are now located in Oklahoma. Initially, they wanted to
build it on top of the cemetery. Local people protested, saying: Why
are you ruining this sacred site to put in a casino?
They said: OK, we will put stilts on it and you will still have the
cemetery, but this will sit on top of it.
Next they said: We want to build it right next to it. We are going to
buy property next to the cemetery and we want to put in a casino, even
though we are not a Kansas tribe and we are from out of State; some of
our ancestors from the Wyandotte Indians were buried here 200 years
ago, so we want to be able to claim this as an Indian reservation in
Kansas, even though we are an Oklahoma tribe; we want to be able to
claim it in Kansas so we can build a casino in Kansas.
That is what they desired to do.
The four recognized tribes in Kansas opposed it and said: Look, you
left the State, and we stayed here; we have the appropriate
authorization to build casinos; we don't want another one in the State;
we don't want you coming here. The unofficial Wyandottes who stayed in
Kansas said: We don't want you to have a casino next to our graveyard.
It is a sacrilege to put a casino on it, on top of it, or next to it.
We oppose that.
The Governor of Kansas opposed them doing that, saying this isn't
fair to our tribes in the State. It isn't fair to the Wyandotte Indians
and their ancestors who stayed in the area for an Oklahoma tribe to
come in. They fought them on doing that. This matter was litigated
first in Federal court, lower court, and in the Tenth Circuit Court. In
each case, Kansas, and the tribes in Kansas, the local people who
stayed in Kansas, won against the Oklahoma tribe. They won at all
levels--lower court, district court, and Tenth Circuit Court. So they
could not declare this land adjacent to the cemetery as part of the
Oklahoma Wyandotte Reservation in Kansas. That is what they were trying
to do. The court said they disagreed with that.
Let me take you to the Department of the Interior Appropriations
bill. In that appropriations bill, nothing was passed regarding this
issue on either side, the House side or Senate side. In the conference
committee that met, there was a handwritten sentence that was written
in by a staff member that overruled the court ruling and allowed for
the creation of a casino next to this cemetery. That was done in the
Interior Appropriations bill.
Both Senator Roberts and I are opposed to doing this. This was not
brought to the Senate floor, not handled here. This was a handwritten
sentence that was inserted. They declared: We are going to overrule the
court case, overrule what the Kansas Senators want to do. They are
going to allow them to build a casino next to the cemetery, regardless
of what the local tribes and the Governor and what the people in the
State of Kansas or what the two Senators say.
It is an egregious abuse of the appropriations process to do this--
and in my State where people don't want this to take place--just for
the financial advantage of an Oklahoma tribe. If they want to do this
in Oklahoma, build casinos there. That is up to them. Fine. But in
Kansas this is not appropriate. Yet they slipped in that handwritten
note to the Interior conference report.
This body, the Senate, corrected that in the Labor-HHS appropriations
bill. We said this is not appropriate to take place in Kansas. That was
the amendment that was on the floor and was accepted. That was the
position of this body.
In the conference meeting that took place last night, the House would
not agree with the Senate position, so the Senate position was taken
out and now we are left with the Oklahoma Wyandottes being allowed to
build a casino right next to this cemetery in Kansas City, KS, and
overrule a court ruling of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. BROWNBACK. Yes.
Mr. REID. I have been in touch with Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd agrees
with me that, on the Interior bill next year, it would be possible for
you to do it in subcommittee, or committee, or any member of the
subcommittee has an absolute right to offer that amendment. We know how
strongly you feel about it. I personally feel it should not have been
in the Interior bill in the first place. I indicated that to the
Senator. We will work with you on the minority and majority sides to
make sure this issue is raised in the subcommittee and at the full
committee level next year.
Mr. BROWNBACK. I appreciate that being raised by my colleague from
Nevada--his assurance that we get this dealt with next year. We have
talked off the floor about that. He agrees this is not the right way
for this to come in. I point out that this is something we are going to
have to deal with next year because this matter will still be under
construction, or starting to be constructed at that point in time. It
needs to be changed back in the Department of the Interior
appropriations bill. I am very pleased that the Senator from Nevada
recognizes that as well.
I point this out because I think this is such an abuse of the
process. It is just wrong for this to take place.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the Governor of the State of Kansas regarding this matter and also one
from the four Indian nations in Kansas, the four recognized tribes, all
opposed to the expansion of the Oklahoma Indian tribe into Kansas to
build a casino.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Kansas,
Office of the Governor,
Topeka, KS, October 10, 2001.
Hon. Pat Roberts,
U.S. Senator, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Pat Roberts: On behalf of the State of Kansas,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to language
proposed for inclusion in H.R. 2217, the Department of the
Interior and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 2002.
Language that proposes to clarify the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior should not be included in the final
text of the bill.
The language proposed as a technical amendment states,
``the authority to determine whether a specific area of land
is a `reservation' for purposes of sections 2701-2721 of
title 25, United States Code, was delegated to the Secretary
of the Interior on October 17, 1988.''
As you are aware the State of Kansas has been actively
involved in litigation concerning the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
in Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v. Norton, recently upheld
the position of the State of Kansas that ``. . . the
Secretary lacked authority to interpret the term
`reservation' as used in IGRA.'' The decision of the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeal has been appealed and the Wyandotte
Nation has requested a writ of certiori to the Supreme Court
of the United States. If the proposed language were to be
included in the final version of H.R. 2217 it has the
potential to negatively impact ongoing litigation. This is
simply another effort to avoid IGRA and expand gaming by non-
residential tribes.
I request your support in opposing the inclusion of this
proposed language in the final version of H.S. 2217.
Sincerely,
Bill Graves,
Governor.
____
Indian Nations in Kansas,
June 19, 2001.
Hon. Bill Graves, Governor of Kansas,
Topeka, Kansas.
Re: Four Tribes' Joint Resolutions Opposing Gaming Within the
State of Kansas by Out-of-State Indian Nations.
Governor Graves: The four (4) Indian Nations in Kansas
(``INIK'') have unanimously supported the governor of the
State of Kansas in opposition to out-of-state Tribes
attempting to gain land holdings in the state of Kansas for
purposes of establishing gaming enterprises. At this
juncture, the Four Nations have passed joint resolutions
similar to the Kansas Legislative Resolution (SCR 1611)
opposing such efforts. Enclosed herein are INIK's originals
of both of their resolutions. Resolution I opposes the
Wyandotte Tribe of Oklahoma's efforts, and Resolution II
opposes all out-of-state Tribes.
The Kansas Tribes join with the State of Kansas in this
effort, and want you to have this information to see their
formal position. if you have any questions, please feel free
to contact any of the Tribal Chairpersons.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Bear,
Chairperson, Kickapoo Tribe in Kansas.
[[Page S13673]]
Mr. BROWNBACK. I want to read from the Governor's letter:
I continue to support the rights of the four existing
residential Native American tribes to conduct gaming in
Kansas in accordance with approved compacts. Efforts to side-
step IGRA negatively impact the rights of our residential
tribes as well as the rights of the State of Kansas.
This is a quote from the Indian Nations of Kansas, the four tribes--
the Kickapoo, Sac and Fox, Prairie Band, and Iowa Tribe:
The four Indian Nations in Kansas have unanimously
supported the governor of the State of Kansas in opposition
to out-of-state Tribes attempting to gain land holdings in
the state of Kansas for purposes of establishing gaming
enterprises.
They are all united and opposed to what was stealthily slipped in the
dark of night by staff in a handwritten note, and it is wrong for this
to take place.
I put my colleagues on notice, I put the House on notice, and I put
the Wyandotte Tribe in Oklahoma on notice: This is going to be back
next year. You have bought the land, and you may have won this round,
but we will be back at this next year.
The way this happened is not fair. I think it is a sacrilege for them
to desecrate this sacred site for their own gaming purposes, their own
income purposes, their own purposes of making money that they would
take this upon this sacred site. In all traditions, burial grounds are
treated as a sacred site. This is wrong. It should not happen, and it
was slipped in the wrong way.
Madam President, I thank you for your understanding of this
situation. I hope we can correct this next year. I yield the floor and
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________