[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 96 (Thursday, June 26, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8729-S8732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
S. 1342. A bill to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give
the Secretary of the Interior discretion regarding taking land into
trust; to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to give the State of
California and the local communities of Sonoma, Napa, and Marin
counties the opportunity for input and review of the tribe's plan for a
major casino in the Bay Area.
I am offering this legislation because the Boards of Supervisors of
the local communities impacted by this planned casino have asked me to
amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act. The Boards of Supervisors
of Sonoma, Marin, and Napa counties have each unanimously passed
resolutions seeking a change in Federal law to restore the Secretary of
Interior's discretion in approving land into trust and allowing the
State and local government to have a voice in the process.
Prior to today's introduction I have met with the Presidents of the
Sonoma and Marin Boards of Supervisors, the Graton tribe, and Senators
Campbell and Inouye the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian
Affairs Committee.
This week I had a very spirited and frank conversation with Graton
Tribal Chairman Greg Sarris and representatives from the casino
investors. During the meeting Chairman Sarris committed to work with
the local Boards of Supervisors and he committed to look at alternative
sites for the casino. Chairman Sarris also said the Tribe and the
casino investors would conduct an environmental review based on the
criteria laid out in the National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA,
before a site is selected. These are positive signs and I have told
both the Boards of Supervisors and the Tribe that I would like to see
them continue to work together.
This legislation guarantees that the local and State officials have a
voice in the process. Without this change to the Graton Rancheria
Restoration Act they do not have that voice.
In 2000, Congress passed the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act to
restore Federal recognition to the 355 members of the Federated Indians
of the Graton Rancheria.
The Graton Tribe's original Rancheria was in the northern Sonoma
County town of Graton on land purchased by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, BIA, in 1920 for the ``village home'' of otherwise homeless
Miwok and Pomo Indians. The Rancheria was terminated in 1958 when the
BIA approved a plan to distribute the assets to resident Indians and
remove the Rancheria from Federal trust.
The original version of the Graton restoration bill, H.R. 946,
sponsored by Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey in the 106th Congress, passed
the House of Representatives with a gaming restriction, to which the
Tribe agreed.
In testimony before the House Resources Committee in May 2000, and in
other public comments, Graton Chairman Greg Sarris stated that the
Tribe had no intention of conducting gaming.
In fact, before the House Resources Committee, Chairman Sarris
stated, ``Many may think our motives for restoration have been
influenced by the opportunity gaming affords some other recognized
tribes. Because our local political constituency, both democratic and
republican has opposed any sort of development for environmental
reasons, we agreed with these local political forces to not develop a
gaming complex. So, as proof, we voted as a tribe to include a non-
gaming clause in our bill, stipulating that we will not be a gaming
tribe.''
Furthermore, in an article in the Marin Independent Journal on
September 21, 2000, Chairman Sarris said, ``All we want is to be
formally recognized as Indians and have the same rights that other
Indians do for education and health care. We are not interested in
gambling.'' I ask unanimous consent to print a copy of this article in
the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Marin Independent Journal, Sept. 21, 2000]
Gambling Dispute Threatens Miwok Bill
(By Gannet News Service)
Washington.--Legislation to formally re-establish the
identity and standing of Marin's band of Coast Miwok Indians
appears all but dead in the face of a House-Senate dispute
over how tight guarantees must be that the tribe will never
allow casino gambling.
``This is insane, this is frustrating, and I just can't see
why we can't find a way out of this,'' said Greg Sarris, the
tribe's chief who is an English professor at UCLA.
[[Page S8730]]
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the Petaluma Democrat who authored the
original bill, said she shares the frustration but sees
little hope other than the fact that ``down the road there
will be other Congresses.''
The problem is that the bill to restore the all-but-
vanquished tribe, approved by the full House in June,
included specific language that waived in perpetuity any
right to establish gaming on the tribe's remaining one-acre
ancestral plot in the Sonoma County town of Graton.
Woolsey sought that waiver in agreement with the tiny
tribe. In hearings last spring and summer, she and Sarris
said the tribe was happy to agree to the waiver. They were
not interested in gaming, and their acreage was too small
even if they were interested. Additionally, the fine print in
a state-passed referendum in California to divide gaming
resources among tribes prevents them from operating any kind
of casino.
Adding a federal gaming ban on top of an existing state ban
was an easy and harmless layer of extra insurance to reassure
the community that the tribe would not be bringing high-
stakes bingo to Marin.
``All we want is to be formally recognized as Indians and
have the same rights that other Indians do for education and
health care,'' said Sarris, one of some 300 descendants of
the tribe that the government declared extinct in the 1950s.
``We are not interested in gambling.''
But when the bill reached the Senate as an identical
version of the bill sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-
Calif., numerous Indian advocates and the government's Bureau
of Indian Affairs objected. The surrender of sovereignty by
the Miwoks, however well-intentioned, would set a precedent
that could be used against other tribes in other states--in
effect a means to pressure tribes on the sensitive issue of
gambling.
``It's not that we don't have sympathy with what the Miwoks
want to do, or in this case don't want to do. It's a question
of eroding the hard-won sovereignty that is the legal basis
for the gambling that has been an important resource of many
tribes,'' said John Sanchez, an expert on Indian sovereignty
at Pennsylvania State University and a member of the
Apache tribe.
Boxer's spokesman, David Sandretti, said his bill was still
hopeful, but the key lawmaker on the issue is Sen. Daniel
Inouye of Hawaii, vice chairman of the Indian Affairs
Committee and long a powerful voice on behalf of American
Indians and native Hawaiians. Without his support, the bill
wouldn't survive in the Senate, Sandretti said.
Inouye made it clear this week that the bill is dead unless
Woolsey agreed to drop the gambling ban in her legislation.
``If you set that precedent, that creates a lot of
problems,'' Inouye said. ``I would prefer to see a measure
without the waiver, and if I do I'd be likely to support
it.''
Inouye added that it's a meaningless, symbolic waiver to
begin with, because the tribe is already prevented from
opening a casino by state law. ``I just don't think this is
something that the federal government should be involved
in,'' he said.
Woolsey said she has no intention of agreeing to anything
that doesn't include the anti-gaming clause as written.
``I got it out of the House, and now it's in the Senate,
and I guess that's just where it is,'' Woolsey said. ``I've
heard some proposals for compromise, but I haven't seen
anything that would offer the level of protection against
gaming that the community and the 6th Congressional District
would be prepared to accept.''
Gene Buvelot of Novato, vice chairman of the Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria, said his group is disappointed
in Woolsey, because members believe she should allow the bill
to go forward without the clause.
``We're disappointed, deeply disappointed with Woolsey
because she seems to be the one who's dropped the ball on
this, not Barbara Boxer,'' he said. ``It's a shame that it's
getting this far and that Woolsey is letting it bog down like
this.''
Coast Miwok tribal elder Joanne Campbell, a former Marin
resident now living in Daly City, said she often visited her
great aunt at the Miwok's Graton Rancheria in Sonoma County.
``I'm really steamed, I'm just so upset that this bill
maybe will not pass,'' Campbell said. ``I think it's a just
bill and it's about time we got some recognition because we
have all these other issues to deal with, Health issues,
education issues, and we need this recognition to move
forward.''
The bill would make the tribe eligible for a wide range of
U.S. and California health, education and housing grants and
assistance from various federal agencies, give the tribe the
right to establish a reservation and exempt the tribe from
some local, state, or federal taxes and local zoning
ordinances on reservation land.
If the bill is not passed by Oct. 5, when the Senate
recesses, a new restoration bill would have to wait until the
next Congress.
Camobell described Woolsey's refusal to drop the redundant
anti-gaming clause from the Senate version as ``unrelenting''
and ``unreasonable.''
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Senator Boxer sponsored legislation identical to
Congresswoman Woolsey's in the Senate, but the gaming restriction was
stricken when the bill was ultimately passed as part of the Omnibus
Indian Advancement Act of 2000.
The day the legislation passed on December 11, 2000, Senator Boxer
stated on the Senate Floor that dropping the gaming restriction was
necessary because of opposition to the no-gaming clause by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs and the Clinton Administration and because,
according to Senator Boxer, ``Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming
clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of
conducting gaming.''
So what has changed one might ask?
Well, even though the Gratons voluntarily and repeatedly took a no-
gaming pledge while their restoration bill was under consideration by
Congress, on April 23, 2003, the Tribe and its partner, Stations
Casinos of Las Vegas, announced plans to purchase approximately 2,000
acres of land in Southern Sonoma County near Sears Point for the
development of a casino.
This site is located on environmentally sensative open space and San
Francisco--North Bay tidelands which have been the subject of a
decades-long conservation effort by environmentalists and local
residents.
This site is roughly 30 miles from San Francisco--along the gateway
to Sonoma that leads thousands of travelers into the beautiful wine
country each day.
The Tribe's casino proposal has outraged local elected officials and
residents who had sympathized with the Tribe's plight and supported
their restoration on the condition that they not seek to develop a
casino. The Sonoma and Marin County Boards of Supervisors have each
passed unanimous resolutions objecting to the Graton casino proposal.
In fact, even the Board of Supervisors of neighboring Napa has also
passed a resolution against the casino proposal. I ask unanimous
consent to print these resolutions and letters from the counties in the
Record.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Marin County, San Rafael, CA and Sonoma County, Santa
Rose, CA,
May 29, 2003.
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate,
San Francisco, CA.
Dear Senator Feinstein: We write this joint letter to
request your assistance with an urgent matter facing Marin
and Sonoma counties. As you are aware, the Graton Rancheria
Tribe has announced plans to acquire lands adjacent to the
San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge and to construct a
major casino in partnership with Stations Casinos of Las
Vegas. The proposal came as a shock to us since, at the time
it sought restoration in 2000, the Graton tribe represented
to Congress that it would not engage in gaming. It now
appears that the Secretary of the Interior believes she must
take into trust any land within our counties acquired by the
tribe, and that gaming will be permitted on these lands
without consultation with local governments or discretionary
review by the Secretary.
We ask that you sponsor legislation to require that tribal
trust land acquisitions be subject to consultation with local
governments and an appropriate administrative review. We ask
that restored tribal land acquired for gaming be subject to
the two part test that it is not detrimental to the community
and is supported by the Governor. Finally, we ask that the
Secretary be given discretion with respect to accepting land
into trust for the benefit of the Graton tribe. County
Counsel from our two counties have prepared a letter to you
providing background and supporting details regarding our
proposals.
We know that you share our concern about the proliferation
of casinos in California, especially those which are close to
metropolitan areas or have impacts on sensitive lands.
We look forward to working with you to bring about changes
in the law which can advance the economic interests of tribes
without harm to the local community.
Very truly yours,
Annette Rose,
President, Marin County Board of Supervisors.
Paul Kelley,
Chairman, Sonoma County Board of Supervisors.
____
Resolution No. 03-0512
Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the
San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most
environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in
light of their proximity to and drainage directly into the
Bay;
Whereas, the agricultural lands along Lakeville Highway
afford an invaluable agricultural and scenic resource, not
only to the people of Sonoma County but to the populace of
the entire Bay Area;
[[Page S8731]]
Whereas, such lands provide one of the Bay Area's most
cherished community separators, and represent an important
scenic gateway to Sonoma County;
Whereas, these bay, agriculture and wet lands have been the
focus of preservation and conservation efforts by
environmentalists and local communities for many years;
Whereas, based upon press reports, approximately 2,000
acres of such lands are presently in imminent danger of being
withdrawn from County land use control and placed into trust
for the purposes of casino development--including the
potential of an extensive gaming complex, including a hotel,
parking and other support services as well as possible
residential development, by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-
based developer and the Federated Indians of the Graton
Rancheria (``Tribe'');
Whereas, the Tribe was restored in 2000 based, in part, on
its promise not to engage in Indian casino gaming;
Whereas, the federal legislation restoring the Tribe
contains language that could be used to circumvent the
normally required environmental review and administrative
regulatory process for taking land into trust by the United
States government on behalf of the Tribe;
Whereas, the Tribe's gaming plans were announced in the
media without any government to government consultation with
affected local communities;
Whereas, the Board and Tribe have initiated communication
regarding the proposed casino but details regarding the
project and siting have not yet been made available;
Whereas, the proposed project could overwhelm the local
infrastructure in the area in which the casino project is
proposed;
Whereas, the environmental impacts of the prosed project
have the potential of being are reaching and of such a
magnitude that they would negatively affect a significant
portion of the North Bay, including grossly aggravating
existing traffic problems along State Highways 37 and 101 (as
well as County roads in the project vicinity), pose severe
water quality risks, and have profound negative visual
impacts in the scenic area;
Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A
(Indian Gaming) in March of 2000 as a means of supporting the
laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-
sufficiency, they were not aware that such approval would
allow Nevada developers to seize prized off-reservation
environmental resources of intense development without
regarding to locally approved general plans or any meaningful
environmental review or protection;
Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the
Tribal-State Compact, local communities have been granted no
effective input into the development of proposed tribal
casinos that threaten their rights and the State appears to
have no effective redress for significant environmental
impacts these gambling casinos impose on local communities:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Sonoma County Board of supervisors,
based on the information currently available, strongly
opposes the creation of a gambling casino on the site
proposed by the Tribe; and be it further
Resolved, That County staff is directed to enter into good
faith discussions with tribal representatives for the
purposes of facilitating government to government
communications, exploring casino development and reviewing
alternative sites, as well as minimizing and mitigating
environmental impacts of any casino project; be it further
Resolved, That County staff is authorized to take all
reasonably required action, including submitting comments to
agencies involved in considering the trust application and
casino proposal, requesting assistance from State and Federal
elected representative, proposing legislation, participating
in administrative proceedings, and initiating litigation to
insure that any proposed gaming project in Sonoma County
complies with the county General Plan and meets all federal
and state environmental, public health, and public safety
requirements that otherwise would apply to a non-Indian
development project, and to require that any land proposed to
be taken into trust goes through a thorough regulatory and
environmental review process.
____
Resolution No. 2003-70
Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the
San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most
environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in
light of their proximity to and drainage directly in to the
Bay; and
Whereas, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria have
announced their intention to acquire 2000 acres of land along
Highway 37 and develop a casino, hotel, housing and related
development on this precious natural resource; and
Whereas, the impact on traffic of a development of this
magnitude will be felt throughout the North Bay, with this
single development jeopardizing all traffic capacity with
local jurisdictions have husbanded for purposes consistent
with their respective General Plans; and
Whereas, when Congress passed the Graton Rancheria
Restoration Act, the Federated Indians of Graton had pledged
not to engage in gaming on any lands placed in trust by the
federal government; and
Whereas, the Federated Indians of the Graton Rancheria take
the position that under the provisions of the Graton
Rancheria Restoration Act, and the tribal state compact,
local residents have no effective input into the development
of the proposed tribal casino, yet these residents
nevertheless bear the resultant environmental, societal,
traffic, infrastructure, public safety, and other burdens
which these gambling casinos impose on their communities:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Marin calls on its elected members of the United States
Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and its elected
member of the House of Representative, Lynn Woolsey, to
assist the residents of Marin and the entire North Bay to
preserve their environment by introducing legislation that
would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/or the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation
of tribal lands and to subject any development of tribal
lands in the newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act.
____
Resolution No. 03-94
Whereas, the agricultural lands and wetlands fronting the
San Francisco Bay along Highway 37 constitute one of the most
environmentally sensitive regions in the entire Bay Area in
light of their proximity to and drainage directly into the
Bay; and
Whereas, the agricultural lands along Lakeville Highway
afford an invaluable agricultural and scenic resource, not
only to the people of Sonoma County but also to the populace
of the entire Bay Area; and
Whereas, such lands provide one of the Bay Area's most
cherished community separators, enjoyed and remembered by all
who traverse Highway 37; and
Whereas, these agricultural lands, bay and wetlands have
been the focus of preservation and conservation efforts by
environmentalists and local communities for many years; and
Whereas, such land are presently in imminent danger of
intense development--including an enormous casino, a high-
rise hotel, an amphitheater, a residential development, and
acres of parking--by Station Casinos, a Las Vegas-based
developer, and
Whereas, the impact on traffic of a development of this
magnitude will be felt throughout the North Bay, with this
single development jeopardizing all traffic capacity, which
local jurisdictions have husbanded for purposes consistent
with their respective General Plans; and
Whereas, when California voters approved Proposition 1A
(Indian Gaming) in March 2000 as a means of supporting the
laudable goal of Indian economic development and self-
sufficiency, they had no way of knowing that such approval
would allow Nevada developers to seize our most prized
environmental resources for intense development in violation
of all local zoning controls and health and safety
ordinances; and
Whereas, under the provisions of Proposition 1A and the
tribal state compact, local residents have been granted no
effective input into the development of proposed tribal
casinos that threaten their civil and property rights, yet
these residents must nevertheless bear the resultant
environmental, societal, traffic, infrastructure, public
safety, and other burdens that these gambling casinos impose
on their communities: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Napa strongly oppose the creation of a gambling casino along
highway 37 or Lakeville Highway; and be it further
Resolved, That the Board of Supervisors of the County of
Napa calls on Governor Davis, the California State
Legislature, the U.S. Congress, and the U.S. Department of
the Interior to take any and all steps within their powers
and prerogatives to block the creation of new tribal land
bases that are intended for gambling casinos and other
development inconsistent with local zoning and controls and
to require that all commercial development on new and
existing tribal lands comply with federal, state, and local
laws and regulations intended to safeguard the environment
and to protect public health and safety.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Let me just read one part of the Resolution from
Marin County which will give you an idea of the opposition to the
Graton tribe's proposed casino:
RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin calls
on its elected members of the United States Senate, Dianne Feinstein
and Barbara Boxer, and its elected member of the House of
Representatives, Lynn Woolsey, to assist the residents of Marin and the
entire North Bay to preserve their environment by introducing
legislation that would amend the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act and/
or the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to stop the unregulated creation of
tribal lands and to subject development of tribal lands in the Marin
and Sonoma Counties at a minimum to the regulatory and approval
processes applicable to newly acquired tribal lands by the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act.
While the counties acknowledge that the Graton have a right to be
recognized, they object to the site selected by the tribe and they
especially object to language in the Restoration Act
[[Page S8732]]
that precludes the local community, the Governor, or the Secretary of
the Interior from providing input on the suitability of this location
for land taken into trust for gaming purposes.
There is a problematic section of the Restoration Act that states,
``Upon application by the Tribe, the Secretary shall accept into trust
for the benefit of the Tribe any real property located in Marin or
Sonoma County . . .'' According to the Department of the Interior, this
language removes any discretion by the Secretary as well as any tribal
obligations for consultation with the surrounding community or
environmental review, as required by the normal process under the
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for newly acquired land taken into trust
for gaming purposes.
According to the Department of the Interior, the tribe must only
conduct a hazardous materials review and show title to the land for
land to be taken into trust. This could be completed in 9 months--and
it is an inadequate review in my opinion.
Since the local communities are seeking a remedy which would restore
the Secretary's discretion in approving its land trust application and
allow local government to provide input in the process, I am
introducing this legislation today that will change the ``shall take
land into trust'' to ``may take land into trust.'' This legislation
will also require the two-part test that is standard under the Indian
Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to apply so that the State and local
communities have input in the process.
There is precedent for this change. In 1994, legislation was passed
restoring the United Auburn Tribe with the same directive to the
Secretary of the Interior, requiring that land ``shall'' be taken into
trust for the Tribe. One of the restoration act's sponsors, Congressman
John Doolittle sponsored an amendment to change ``shall'' to ``may''
after it had been passed, thereby affording the Secretary of Interior
discretion in accepting particular parcels of land into trust and local
government officials an opportunity to weigh in on the Tribe's proposed
site.
The result of that change was that the Auburn Tribe and Placer County
officials successfully cooperated in not only identifying a mutually
agreeable site, but they signed a Memorandum of Understanding to
mitigate potential impacts from the proposed Thunder Valley Casino. And
earlier this month, the tribe opened its casino.
Today California is home to 109 federally recognized tribes. 61
tribes have gaming compacts with the State and there are 54 tribal
casinos. With more than 50 tribes seeking Federal recognition and
approximately 23 recognized tribes seeking gaming compacts from the
Governor, revenues from California's tribal gaming industry are
expected to surpass Nevada's by the end of the decade.
The dramatic growth in tribal gaming in California has the potential
to yield much needed benefits for tribal members in terms of
healthcare, education and general welfare, as Congress and California
voters intended. However, the question is not whether gaming should be
permitted, but rather how and where. Those questions were asked and
answered in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, IGRA. But without
the modest change made by this legislation, the Graton tribe will be
allowed to develop an off-reservation casino outside the requirements
established in IGRA, the first time such an exception has ever been
made for a California tribe. Allowing this to happen would set a
dangerous precedent not only for California, but every State where
tribal gaming is permitted.
The changes we are seeking today are extremely modest. We are not
reversing any restoration of the tribe. We are not infringing on Native
American sovereignty. We are not even blocking the casino proposal. We
are only seeking to give the State and the local communities a voice in
the process. They were promised the tribe would not open a casino. That
promise was broken, so the least we can do is ensure a normal review
will take place.
I hope my colleagues will support this legislation and I look forward
to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Indian Affairs
Committee to pass this legislation quickly.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1342
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO GIVE SECRETARY DISCRETION CONCERNING
LANDS TAKEN INTO TRUST.
(a) Review.--Section 1404 of the Graton Rancheria
Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n-2) is amended by adding at
the end the following new subsection:
``(f) Review.--No land taken into trust for the benefit of
the Tribe shall be construed to satisfy the terms for an
exception under section 20(b)(1)(B) of the Indian Gaming
Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(b)(1)(B)) to the prohibition
on gaming on lands acquired by the Secretary in trust for the
benefit of an Indian tribe after October 17, 1988, under
section 20(a) of such Act (25 U.S.C. 2719(a)).''.
(b) Land Into Trust.--Section 1405(a) of the Graton
Rancheria Restoration Act (25 U.S.C. 1300n-3(a)) is amended
by striking ``shall'' and inserting ``may''.
______