Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
By Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself and Mr. KYL):
S. 771. 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 introduce the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act with my friend and colleague from Arizona, Senator JON KYL.
This bill requires that Indian tribes demonstrate both an aboriginal and a modern connection to the land before it can be used for gaming.
The bill responds to growing concerns and frustrations about the number of ``off-reservation'' casinos proposals in California and across the nation.
As of May 2010, the U.S. Department of Interior was considering 35 of these proposals. Eleven of them are in my home State.
Casinos strain local governments, increase violent crime, and increase bankruptcies. Gambling regulations are poorly enforced, largely because deficit-plagued state governments have cut enforcement staff down to the bone. Even when enforcement officials are present, highly protective ``State Compacts,'' protect tribal casinos from true scrutiny and legitimate oversight.
The fact is that some tribes have abused their unique right to operate casinos by taking land into trust miles away from their historical lands and miles away from where any tribal member resides. This is done to produce the most profitable casino, often with little regard to what is most beneficial to tribal members.
This unbridled reservation shopping is occurring with little to no input from local governments or neighboring tribes.
The result: 58 casinos in California; 11 more in the approval process; and a very real potential for an additional 50 casinos in the coming years.
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 if they wish to game on lands acquired after the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
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 demonstrate that both they and their ancestors have a connection to the land in question.
In 2000, California voters thought they settled the question of casino gaming when they passed Proposition 1A. This proposition authorized the governor to negotiate gambling compacts that would make Nevada-style casinos possible for ``federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands.''
The words ``on Indian lands'' were key to Proposition 1A. This made it 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 10 years and this agreement is being put to the test. In the last decade, the Department of the Interior has received dozens of gaming applications; some for casinos nowhere near a tribe's historic lands. Many of these requests have been granted and California has become ground zero for tribal casinos. We have 58 Las Vegas style casinos all across the State--from within miles of the Mexican border, to within miles of the Oregon border.
The problem is only going to get worse. There are 67 tribes currently seeking Federal recognition in California who will have the ability to take ``initial lands'' into trust for gaming. This ``initial lands'' exemption gives landless tribes carte blanche when it comes to picking a spot for their casino--urban areas, environmentally sensitive areas, you name it! That is a real concern to me and my constituents.
As of May 2010, there were 11 applications for off-reservation or restored lands casinos in California pending at the Department of the Interior. These include projects near San Francisco, Barstow, and Sacramento.
It also includes applications for casinos in San Diego and Riverside Counties, where there are already 21 existing casinos.
By seeking to open casinos in urban areas close to the greatest number of potential gamblers, instead of on
historical lands, these tribes are ignoring the will of California voters and the intent of Congress when it passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
Unfortunately, without a legislative fix such as the Tribal Gaming Eligibility Act, Californians have no power to stop these tribes from opening unwanted casinos in their back yards.
But voters are still trying to make their voices heard, rejecting the idea of reservation shopping. At one location, in Richmond, CA, a city of nearly 100,000 in the middle of the Bay Area--a tribe proposed taking land into trust to open a 4,000-slot-machine casino. Proponents tout it as a major economic engine for a depressed area.
On November 2, Richmond voters made it clear how they feel: by a margin of 58 to 42 percent, voters overwhelmingly rejected the advisory Measure U on the Richmond casino and they elected two new city council members who strongly oppose the casino. It was an unambiguous rejection of this off-reservation gaming proposal.
Some people have tried to tell me that this is just a California problem, and that we just need a California-solution. I am afraid this is not the case.
The Department of the Interior is considering gaming applications for tribes in Washington, Oregon, Mississippi, Nevada, and Massachusetts just to name a few. I urge my colleagues to ask your constituents and your community leaders if they have were consulted about these proposals. Did they have any input? Were the needs of the cities, counties, and neighboring tribes considered?
As a former mayor, I know the financial pressures that local governments face, especially in these tough times. The temptation to support large casinos 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, often backed by rich out-of-state investors and gambling syndicates, would have us believe that these off-reservation gaming establishments are a sign of growth and economic development.
In 2006 the California Research Bureau compiled research on the effects of casinos on communities, and they released a report entitled Gambling in the Golden State. The results were staggering.
The development of new casinos is 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 person.
California already 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.
This report confirmed what many local elected officials and community activists already knew: casinos may create a few jobs, but they come with a tremendous cost.
One reason for the high costs casinos is the woefully inadequate oversight at Indian gambling facilities.
In California, gaming oversight officials are responsible for over twice as much economic activity per inspector compared to their counterparts in states with legalized commercial gambling. Using the most recent data available from 2006:
California employed 180 gambling oversight officials to regulate $5.2 billion dollars in economic activity.
This means the State only employed 1 official for every $28.9 million dollars of economic activity in the gambling industry.
By comparison, the 11 States that had legalized commercial gambling averaged 1 oversight official per $12.1 million dollars of activity.
Furthermore, closed-door gaming compacts limit what little power these investigators actually have. They cannot conduct unannounced visits, they have little discretion on what penalties to enact, and they cannot enforce their punishments when they are handed down. Quite simply, it is a broken system.
I know that some may try to mischaracterize my legislation and say that I am trying to limit the sovereignty of Native American tribes or destroy their ability to undertake much needed economic development.
But I am here today to say that nothing could be farther from the truth.
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source