[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.

                          ____________________