Department Of The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008 -- (House of Representatives - June 26, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I want to make four points about this amendment that I'm offering here today. First, the expansion of Indian or tribal gambling, particularly off-reservation casino gambling, has gone far beyond what was intended by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988.
Twenty years ago, there were no tribal casinos. Today, there are approximately 406 Indian casinos in 29 States.
Revenue from Indian gambling has gone from $0 to $19 billion in 20 years. These extraordinary profits have caused casino interests to form alliances with tribes in order to establish more profitable casinos in locations far removed from existing reservations.
The second point I want to make, and there are very specific examples of ``reservation shopping,'' as we like to refer to this. One, the St. Regis Bank of Mohawk Indians is trying to build a casino 350 miles from its reservation.
The Bad River Band of Lake Superior and St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin are trying to build a casino in Michigan, over 300 miles from its existing reservation.
The Pueblo of Jemez of New Mexico are trying to build a casino in Anthony, New Mexico, over 290 miles from its reservation.
The Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, along with the Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin, is trying to build the largest casino between New Jersey and Las Vegas in Kenosha, Wisconsin, over 1,000 miles from the Mohegan lands in Connecticut.
As of May 2006, there were some 40 applications to approve new casino operations pending at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, casinos that are, for the most part, destined for off-reservation sites.
The third point I want to make is that the expansion of tribal gambling has had a corrupting influence on the political system and has forced local municipalities and homeowners to go to court to essentially protect their properties from casino interests anxious to seize their lands.
Tribal casino profits are high, and regulation of tribal gaming profits is minimal. As a result, Jack Abramoff was able to take an estimated $85 million from the Mississippi Choctaw and other tribes. He was able to use some of this money to bribe entities within the political system, sometimes to further the interest of one client as against those of another.
Casino interests have also allied with local Indian tribes to sue municipalities and landowners. In the 15th District of Pennsylvania, which I represent, the Delaware Nation, which is actually based in Oklahoma, filed in Federal court to establish title to a 315-acre tract of land in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, near Easton, so that it could build a gambling facility. Its claim was based in part on a conveyance that ostensibly occurred in 1737, well before the establishment of our country.
More than 25 families live on this property, and it is also home of the Crayola Company, which makes the much beloved Crayola crayons that our children all enjoy.
Although the suit was ultimately resolved in favor of the homeowners and the plaintiffs lost in every courtroom, the deep-pocketed interests behind this lawsuit were able to fund this litigation all the way to the United States Supreme Court, causing no small amount of apprehension among the innocent home owners and business owners here.
Tribal organizations do recognize that there are problems with this expansion. Several support meaningful limitations on off-reservation tribal gambling.
And the fourth and final point that I would like to make about this amendment, Mr. Chairman, is that the time has come for Congress to step in. This amendment is the first step towards reforming a system that has simply spun out of control.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs published proposed regulations on October 5, 2006, but these regulations are weak and do not adopt meaningful criteria or standards.
The Congress must step in and reassert its regulatory authority over off-reservation gambling by enacting comprehensive reform of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Until that's done, we need to have a moratorium on off-reservation gambling, which this amendment will, in effect, accomplish.
The amendment directs specifically that no funds shall be expended to process any applications for off-reservation casinos under section 20(b)(1) of IGRA of fiscal year 2008.
The amendment will have no impact, and let me repeat this: The amendment will have no impact on existing on-or off-reservation casino operations, as they have already gone through the BIA approval process. This will not impact any tribal casino that is currently operating on- or off-reservation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out the fact that this problem has simply spun out of control in this country. Last session, we attempted to deal with this in a bill that would restrict off-site. Off-reservation tribal gambling was defeated. I think we need to try this again.
The regulations that were mentioned are simply weak and not meaningful enough, in my view, and I think we need the proposed regulations.
I would strongly urge that Congress reassert itself and take control over this issue. I don't believe that the authors of the Indian Gaming Act of 1988 intended that we would have a situation in this country today where 29 States would now have casinos, 406 tribal casinos in 29 States. I don't think that was the intent. I haven't met anybody who voted for that law who thought that was what they were voting for at the time, but that is what we have now.
In my district, there has been great hardship. I mean, a 1737 land conveyance, a 1737 land conveyance, going back to William Penn and the Walking Purchase. That is what we are talking about here, taking land of homeowners, a crayon factory, a much beloved crayon factory, and I think it is time for us to act. It is time for this Congress to act. We have had a lot of time to deal with this issue. We have not done so.
And with that, again, I respectfully ask all my colleagues, and I understand the process that we are engaged in here, but we need this type of a moratorium. It is absolutely essential. I think it will send a message to the authorizing committees, to the Department of Interior that we are serious about this issue, that we have had enough. Enough is enough. Too many people are being displaced or potentially displaced, clouds over the properties to their titles, again, in my case, over a 1737 land conveyance. Again, these were big developers working in concert with the tribes and spending enormous amounts of money and people having to defend themselves. And it really has gotten to the point of being outrageous, and I think we need to act once again. And I respectfully ask for the support of everyone here.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source