[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 32 (Wednesday, March 6, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Page S1233]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. FEINSTEIN:
  S. 477. A bill to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to modify a 
provision relating to gaming on land acquired after October 17, 1988; 
to the Committee on Indian Affairs.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce the Tribal 
Gaming Eligibility Act.
  This bill sets forth what I believe is a very reasonable, moderate 
standard for where tribes are allowed to open gaming establishments.
  The standard is simple: a tribe must demonstrate that it has a modern 
and an aboriginal connection to the land before it can open a gaming 
establishment on it.
  The new standard is needed because too many tribes in California and 
across the nation are ``reservation shopping''. They look for a 
profitable casino location, and then seek to put that land in trust 
regardless of their historical ties to the area.
  To be clear, most tribes do not fit this mold. Most play by the rules 
and acquire land in appropriate locations.
  But as wealthy Las Vegas casino interests search for ways to expand 
their gaming syndicates, the problem is getting worse. These syndicates 
have no interest in preserving native cultures and they have little 
interest in pursuing other forms of economic development; so they also 
have little interest in limiting casinos to bone fide historical tribal 
lands.
  The tragic part is that these casinos are going up despite objections 
from communities and other Native American tribes. That is why I am 
introducing the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act.
  This legislation addresses the problems that arise from off 
reservation casinos by requiring that tribes meet two simple conditions 
before taking land into trust for gaming:
  First the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct modern 
connection to the land.''
  Second, the tribe must demonstrate a ``substantial direct aboriginal 
connection to the land.''
  Simply put, tribes must show that both they, and their ancestors, 
have a connection to the land in question.
  California voters thought they settled the question of reservation 
shopping in 2000 when Proposition 1A authorized the Governor to 
negotiate gambling compacts with tribes, provided that gaming only 
occurred ``on Indian lands.''
  The words ``on Indian lands'' were critical. This made clear that 
gaming is appropriate only on a tribe's historical lands, and voters 
endorsed this bargain with 65 percent of the vote.
  But fast-forward 12 years and this agreement is being put to the 
test. More than 100 new Las Vegas style casinos have opened in the 
State in the last 12 years.
  Unfortunately things aren't slowing down; the Department of the 
Interior has approved three extremely controversial new casinos just 
last year, some nowhere near the tribe's aboriginal territory or 
current reservation.
  When given the opportunity voters have rejected the idea of 
reservation shopping. Two years ago in Richmond, CA, a tribe proposed 
taking land into trust at Point Molate to open a 4,000-slot-machine 
mega-casino. Proponents touted it as a major economic engine for a 
depressed area.
  But the voters of Richmond knew the reality was far different. The 
project threatened to burden state and local government services, and 
it threatened to irreparably change the character of the community.
  So Richmond voters made it clear how they felt by overwhelmingly 
rejecting the advisory measure by a margin of 58 to 42. Voters also 
elected two new city council members who strongly opposed the casino. 
It was an unambiguous rejection of this reservation shopping proposal.
  Fortunately the Department of the Interior rejected the misguided 
Point Molate proposal. But voters in Yuba County were not so lucky.
  In 2005, Yuba County voters had an opportunity to weigh in on a 
casino in this mostly rural and suburban Northern California community. 
By a margin of 52-48, voters rejected the proposal. Many cited concerns 
about crime as a reason they opposed the project.
  But after the dust settled, the Department of the Interior decided to 
move forward with the project anyway. Despite the fact that voters 
rejected it and only one of the 21 public officials in the area polled 
on the issue expressed support for the project.
  Moreover, the Department's claim that even one local official 
supported the project is dubious. The so-called support is based on a 
Memorandum of Understanding the County entered into prior to the 
advisory election. The county never offered a letter of support when 
consulted and still has not to this day.
  As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local 
governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to 
support large casinos, with the promises of hundreds of construction 
jobs, can be strong.
  But I also know the heavy price that society pays for the siren song 
of gambling. This price includes addiction and crime, strained public 
services and increased traffic congestion.
  Some Indian gaming proponents and their out of state gaming syndicate 
backers would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming 
establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.
  But a 2006 report, titled Gambling in the Golden State, paints a 
different picture. The report compiled a comprehensive body of research 
on the effects of casinos on their surrounding communities. The results 
were staggering.
  New casinos are associated with a 10 percent increase in violent 
crime and a 10 percent increase in bankruptcy rates.
  New casinos are also associated with an increase in law enforcement 
expenditures of $15.34 per resident.
  California spends an estimated $1 billion to deal with problem-
gamblers and pathological-gamblers, 75 percent of which identify Indian 
casinos as their primary gambling preference.
  The report confirms what many local elected officials and community 
activists already know: casinos come at a tremendous cost.
  Some have tried to mischaracterize my legislation. They have said it 
limits the sovereignty of tribes or it destroys the ability to 
undertake economic development.
  But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the 
truth.
  The bill preserves the right of tribes to acquire trust land in any 
location, provided they secure the approval of the Governor and meet 
the strict two-part determination standards.
  The bill puts no limits on where a tribe can acquire land for any 
purpose other than gaming.
  Because the fact of the matter is that most casinos are appropriately 
placed, on historical tribal lands, and there is no need to argue about 
the legitimacy of these establishments.
  My legislation only deals with those proposals that are truly beyond 
the scope of Congressional intent when the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 
was passed in 1988.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue.
                                 ______