U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

41–419 PDF 2008

TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE 

BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, AND TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT 

OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF THE SAULT 

STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 

MARCH 14, 2008 

Serial No. 110–98 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 14, 2008 

Page 

THE BILLS 

H.R. 2176, ‘‘To provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims 

of the Bay Mills Indian Community’’ ................................................................. 2 

H.R. 4115, ‘‘To provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims 

of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians’’ ......................................... 6 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................... 1 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 11 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Carolyn C. Kilpatrick, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Michigan 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 14 

The Honorable Shelly Berkley, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Nevada 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 16 

Mr. Carl Artman, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 21 

Chief Fred Cantu, Saginaw Chippewa Tribe of Michigan 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24 

Alice E. Walker, Esquire, Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26 

Ms. Kathryn Tierney, Tribal Attorney, Bay Mills Indian Community 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 27 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 28 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Prepared Statement of Dr. Guy Clark, Chairman of the National Coalition 

Against Gambling Expansion .............................................................................. 19 

(1) 

TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF 

THE BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY, AND 

TO PROVIDE FOR AND APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF 

THE SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS 

FRIDAY, MARCH 14, 2008 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John Conyers, 

Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Conyers, Johnson, Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Chabot, Issa, King and Jordan. 

Staff Present: Diana Oo, Majority Counsel; George Slover, Majority Counsel; Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel; 

Kimani Little, Minority Counsel; and Sean McLaughlin, Minority 

Chief of Staff and General Counsel. 

Mr. CONYERS. Top of the morning, Ms. Berkley, Ms. Kilpatrick. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Hi. 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Hi. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Committee will come to order. 

This morning, we’re here to consider two bills that propose to settle the land claims of two tribes from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, 

the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe 

of Chippewa Indians, and allow them to establish casinos in Romulus and Port Huron, Michigan, over 350 miles away from their 

reservations. 

[The bill, H.R. 2176, follows:] 

2 


I2176-1.eps
3 


I2176-2.eps
4 


I2176-3.eps
5 


I2176-4.eps
6 

[The bill, H.R. 4115, follows:] 


I4115-1.eps
7 


I4115-2.eps
8 


I4115-3.eps
9 


I4115-4.eps
10 

Mr. CONYERS. Concerns have been raised about the legitimacy 

and the fairness of these land deals. 

First, these bills would drastically change how casinos can be approved, not just in Michigan but all over the country. Under existing Federal law, the Department of the Interior determines whether to take off reservation land into trust for an Indian tribe to use 

to run casino gaming after carefully considering numerous criteria 

and giving special scrutiny if the new land is farther—quote, farther—thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. We appreciate that—and if— 

quote,if the new land, is quote, farther than a commutable distance 

from the reservation. End quotation. 

Without these constraints, there would seem to be no limit to 

how far Indian gaming could be spread, which would be far beyond 

reasonable bounds. 

These bills would also alter central provisions of the 1993 compacts that both these tribes signed with the State of Michigan. Circumventing these and other existing legal processes could set a 

very bad precedent. The Sault Tribe itself acknowledge as much in 

the 2002 congressional testimony regarding the same claim before 

it became a party to it. 

I am also troubled by the fact that these bills would overturn the 

express wishes of the residents of Michigan. 

In 1994, they passed a State-wide referendum to allow three and 

only three private casinos to be built in the State and in the City 

of Detroit. 

In 2004, they passed another State-wide referendum to strictly 

limit the expansion of private gaming in Michigan. Any new private gaming facility must be approved by both a local and a Statewide vote. This referendum would still allow the city support hearing in Romulus to pursue casinos, but they would have to do exactly what the City of Detroit did, one, get the approval of the voters in the State of Michigan. 

Both cities have already passed local referendums, so they are already half way there, in a manner of speaking, but they need to 

go the full distance. 

And then, finally, authorizing the casinos in Port Huron and 

Romulus in this fashion would unfairly disadvantage the city of Detroit, to put it mildly. The city has suffered from a sharp decline 

in the number of manufacturing jobs over the last decade. The 

great people of the city have been working extremely hard in recent 

years to improve its economy and increase its competitiveness. 

Our efforts have brought visible signs of economic progress. The 

city has attracted new hotels, luxury condominiums and new construction going on over all parts of the city. It has built employment training centers and new housing projects. It has succeeded 

in convincing major regional employers to move their headquarters 

into downtown Detroit. 

A crucial precursor to all these developments was the establishment of the three casinos in the city. A few months ago, MGM 

Grand opened a new $800 million hotel and casino. Undoubtedly, 

MGM would probably not have made that kind of investment if it 

knew that Congress would be considering shoehorning in additional 

casinos right outside its borders. 

11 

The three casinos have provided over $1 billion thus far in taxes and percentage payments. The city also has received another $100 

million in municipal service fees. This revenue allows the city to invest in critical infrastructure and services for its residents. 

In addition to being a good source for revenue for the city, the 

casino employs nearly 8,000 residents. These are well-paying jobs. 

Most of them are union and have brought tremendous health care 

benefits to people who were in desperate need of quality health 

care coverage. 

So let’s have a discussion about the issue before us this morning. 

The Judiciary Committee will be addressing these concerns and 

will be taking your recommendation quite seriously. 

Between the two distinguished Members of Congress, which one 

would like to precede the other? 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would proceed 

first, if that is okay with the Chair. 

Mr. CONYERS. All right and that meets with the approval of the 

gentlelady from Nevada, I presume. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONYERS. Turn your mic on. Caroline. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Okay. Did I get it? Yes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes. 

Carolyn Kilpatrick distinguished Member of the Appropriations 

Committee, a former State legislator herself and the Chair of the 

Congressional Black Caucus—may I just interrupt myself for a moment? 

Lamar Smith has agreed to make his opening statement now so 

that we get a fuller picture of the view of the Members of the Committee. The distinguished Ranking Member from Texas is recognized. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I always appreciate 

your graciousness. I only hope I’m not interfering or disrupting too 

much, but it is nice to be on the same side. 

I join Chairman Conyers in opposing these bills, H.R. 2176 and 

H.R. 4115. I share Chairman Conyers’ concerns with these bills, 

but I oppose them for other reasons as well. 

These bills transfer land from the State of Michigan to two Indian tribes. The tribes will be allowed to use this land to build casinos or other gaming establishments. I am concerned that building 

more casinos will turn more people into compulsive gamblers and 

lead to higher crime rates. 

The link between gambling and crime is real. A 2004 study by 

the Department of Justice indicated that more than 30 percent of 

pathological gamblers studied committed a robbery within a year 

of their arrest. The study also stated that nearly one-third of those 

arrested admitted they committed the robbery to pay for gambling 

or gambling debts. 

In addition, the same study found that 13 percent of those studied said they had assaulted someone to get money. According to the 

study, 25 percent of those assaults were related to gambling. 

Even proponents of Indian gambling admit the limitations of legalized gambling. 

Although casinos do bring some economic benefit to many impoverished Native American communities, some tribes have found that 

12 

gaming is not a silver bullet for their overwhelming needs. The progaming National Congress of American Indians states, ‘‘Even after 

the advent of gaming, Indian reservations continue to have a 31 

percent poverty rate and a 46 percent unemployment rate.’’ They 

also note Indian health and education statistics are among the 

worst in the country. 

Further, these bills circumvent the well-established Department 

of Interior process to evaluate the environmental impact of a land 

transfer before approval. This Committee should ensure that established procedures are followed in every instance. 

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to legislation—this legislation that, 

in my judgment, would in lead to increased gambling. And I share 

the Chairman’s concerns and I join him, as I say, in opposing these 

bills, and I certainly will encourage my colleagues to do the same. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for yielding me time to make 

this opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Lamar Smith. 

Could I call on a senior Member of the Committee, Howard Coble 

of North Carolina, and ask if he wanted to welcome our congressional witnesses or make any comments about the subject matter? 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sure you and the distinguished Ranking Member have adequately and appropriately addressed the issue. 

Welcome to our colleagues, and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. May I invite Steve King, the gentleman from Iowa, 

to make any comments or welcoming remarks to our congressional 

witnesses? 

Mr. KING. I thank our genteel Chairman for offering me the opportunity. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses to the panel. 

Sometimes I find myself on the privilege of sitting on the other 

side of this thing, and I want to state that I’ll maintain that level 

of collegiality that we maintain here on the panel with the witness, 

and I look forward to your testimony. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Steve. 

I was introducing Carolyn Kilpatrick, my distinguished colleague 

from the Detroit area, who has been an outstanding State legislator, an activist in the civil rights struggle and a distinguished 

Member of the Appropriations Committee. We have your statement, and all statements will be put in the record, both of Members and witnesses. So I ask Chairwoman Kilpatrick, who is, additionally, the Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, 43 members 

strong, and invite her for her recommendations and views on the 

subject matter that bring us here today. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MICHIGAN 

Ms. KILPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Mr. Smith, thank you very much, and Members of the Committee. 

Thank you, first of all, for holding the hearing. I started in Resources, the head of a full Subcommittee hearing as well as a full 

13 

Committee hearing, and I’m happy that Judiciary is continuing 

your responsibility to look at these bills. 

You have my full statement, and thank you for putting it in the 

record. I will summarize briefly. 

We oppose these bills for a number of reasons. 

Twenty years ago, the City of Detroit, under the leadership of 

Mayor Coleman Young, begin the journey to bring casinos to Detroit. We lost two local referendums before we finally won a local 

referendum and then went to the State Capitol where we did win 

another referendum and allowed three casino companies to build in 

my district all three casinos. They are now operating. Two have 

now built temporaries and are now moving on to permanent sites. 

And, as the Chairman mentioned, MGM has built a permanent site, over $800 million, that just opened a couple of weeks ago. 

They have been good neighbors, good citizens; and because of the 

city’s action, because of the State legislature’s passing legislation in 

2004 and 1994 that said, yes, you can go ahead, yes, these would 

be the only casinos in this State, and if a community wanted to 

build a casino there are steps they had to follow as well, local referendum, back to the legislature and so forth. 

This bill will circumvent all of that. These are dangerous bills 

and a precedent that I don’t think this Congress wants to set. It 

really is opposing Michigan law, as I just explained to you. It is 

controversial among the Native American tribes in our State. There 

are 12 tribes, 12 tribes opposing this legislation and only 2 supporting and, I might mention, the 2 that are going to be helped if 

this happens. 

The city would lose thousands of jobs. Major investments from 

the people who have been with us for the last 10 years who built 

the temporaries and now the permanent casinos will be certainly 

at a loss. 

This new casino—one of them is 15 minutes from the three that 

we already have in Michigan, plus one across the river in Canada. 

For the reasons that Ranking Member Smith mentioned—and I 

don’t gamble. It’s legal, but I don’t, and I don’t want anybody I love 

to gamble. It is a terrible habit to get in. And I get calls in my office all the time from children about parents, grandparents about 

sons and daughters and all of that. Four casinos within 10 miles 

of each other is more than enough for two-thirds of the population 

from Michigan lives in my area, and these casinos serve them well. 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs already rejected this matter. The 

Interior Department is being looking at the matter still. I don’t 

think we should circumvent their authority. They are the rightful 

people to do. Indian Affairs has already rejected it, Interior is looking at it, and, on top of all of that, it is very uncertain. 

And you will hear from the ancestral tribe whose land this is 

that this may be reservation shopping, an illegal deal. And I’m sure 

this Congress does not want any more illegal actions coming to us 

from something that might not be just sound enough. 

So I would urge the Committee to take your time to look at it 

closely for all the reasons that both the Chairman and the Ranking 

Member already discussed, that we look and take our time with a 

bill I am still opposing for the reasons that have been mentioned. 

Eight thousand jobs have been created, over a billion dollars in our 

14 

area, sorely needed at a time when manufacturing in America, let 

alone in Michigan, has been decimated. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

We hope you will oppose these bills, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much, Carolyn Kilpatrick. You are 

getting us off to a very good and fast start. I don’t know what 

Shelly Berkley is going to say about one part of your comments, 

but we will soon find out. 

Since our two congressional witnesses are under the same time 

constraints as we are and there will not be questions asked of 

them, if you want to leave now or whenever you want to leave— 

you are welcome to stay here as long as you can, but you are also 

able to leave. We’re grateful for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kilpatrick follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Chairman Conyers, Rahall, Ranking Minority Member Smith, and Members of the 

House Judiciary Committee: 

Thank you for holding this hearing today. I also want to thank Chairman Conyers, Ranking Minority Member Smith, and Speaker Pelosi for allowing these bills 

to be consecutively referred so that the Judiciary Committee can do their due diligence on these bills. In essence, both of these bills will allow two Native American 

tribes located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula to build casinos 350 miles from their 

reservations and near the City of Detroit. 

My reasons for opposing these bills, which will allow land to be taken into trust 

for gambling purposes for the settlement of proposed land claims, are actually very 

simple. These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress; they contravene Michigan state law; they are very controversial among the Tribes in Michigan and 

throughout Indian Country; it is not clear that these land swaps are valid; and finally, Congress has not had a comprehensive review of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in nearly two decades. Furthermore, it is important to note that 

these land claims have never been validated by the U.S. Government or any court 

of law. In fact, the courts have ruled against the Bay Mills Tribe on their claim on 

two separate occasions. 

The people of Michigan have spoken at the ballot box about gaming expansion in 

our state. In 1994, they voted to allow three casinos in the City of Detroit. In 2004, 

the people voted to limit any more expansion of gaming unless there was a statewide referendum. In addition, the Michigan Gaming compact specifically prohibits 

off-reservation gaming unless all of the Tribes in Michigan agree to a revenue-sharing plan. These two bills are simply an attempt to circumvent both the will of the 

people of Michigan and the compact the Michigan State Legislature has made with 

the Tribes in Michigan. 

Instead, these bills would have Congress mandate not one, but two off-site reservation casinos located over 350 miles away from the reservations of these Tribes. 

Moreover, the disputed land is located near the two Tribes reservations in the 

Upper Peninsula but yet the land they want for a ‘‘settlement’’ is located 350 miles 

away near the City of Detroit. If these bills were to become law, what would prevent 

other Tribes from seeking a land claim anywhere in the United States for off-site 

reservation gaming? Is this the real intent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act? 

It is indeed ironic that in the 109th Congress, the House Resources Committee, 

on a bi-partisan basis, passed legislation by an overwhelming margin to restrict offsite reservation gaming. Yet today, it now seeks to expand Native American gaming 

in an unprecedented manner. 

Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988 that allows Tribes to 

conduct gaming on lands acquired before October 17, 1988. In 1993, former Governor John Engler negotiated a gaming compact with the seven federally-recognized 

Tribes in Michigan, including the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes. 

In order to prevent a proliferation of Indian gaming across the state, a provision 

was added to the compact that required any revenue generated by off-reservation 

gaming be shared among the Tribes who signed the compact. This provision has 

worked well for over 15 years. The two bills before the House Resources Committee 

15 

would simply nullify this critically important provision of the Michigan Gaming 

Compact. Both of these bills would allow the Tribes to; 1) settle a land claim that 

has never been validated and is located near their reservations in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan and 2) acquire lands 350 miles from their reservation to build casinos. Furthermore, these bills actually include gaming compacts in them that were 

never approved by the Michigan State Legislature who has approved every other 

gaming compact. It is important to note that Congress has never passed a gaming 

compact in the history of Indian gaming. IGRA specifically grants that authority to 

the states. 

In 2004, the voters of Michigan spoke again in a state-wide referendum and overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative that would restrict the expansion of gaming 

in the state of Michigan. This referendum would require local and state-wide approvals for any private expansion of gaming in Michigan. 

The people and the elected officials of Michigan already have a solution to this 

matter—the ballot box. There is nothing in the referendum that would prevent the 

two Tribes and their non-Indian developers from initiating a statewide referendum 

to get casinos in Port Huron and in Romulus. In fact, both of those cities have already passed local referendums. But the Tribes and their developers decided to 

short-circuit the vote of the Michigan people and come to Congress to get a casino 

on a proposed land claim that is located near the Tribes reservation lands in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. 

I am aware that the Governor of Michigan has sent the House Natural Resources 

Committee a letter supporting these bills. You should know that there is no legal 

basis for the State to support these agreements because, in fact, the State has already won this case in the Michigan Court of Claims and the Bay Mills Tribe appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court subsequently 

declined to hear the case. 

The Governor ignored the fact that the city of Detroit will be the main victim of 

the states largess in these casino deals. The city of Detroit will lose hundreds of 

millions of dollars as a result of the competition of these new casinos and that will 

cause irreparable harm. Harm to whom? Harm to the current investors of the casinos in the City of Detroit, who have invested more than $1.5 billion in the construction of the three casinos in the City of Detroit. Harm to the thousands of jobs that 

have been created and the tax revenue that those jobs generate for the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan. Ultimately, this will harm the State. When compared to their private counterparts, Native American gaming sites, because they are 

sovereign nations, and must share their revenue with other Native American tribes, 

do not bring in the tax revenue of private investors. 

In the end, these two Tribes are seeking to do an end-run around two statewide 

referendums and the Michigan Gaming Compact of 1993. Rarely have voters in any 

state in this country spoken so clearly on gaming issues. In light of all of this, it 

would be a travesty for Congress to mandate two off-site reservation gaming casinos 

that would have such negative impact on the people in Michigan. 

But, for the moment, let us ignore the impact that these bills will have on the 

City of Detroit. Let us ignore the precedent that these bills will set, allowing any 

Native American tribe to claim any piece of land hundreds of miles away, as their 

native tribal land. Let us ignore the fact that IGRA has not been reauthorized in 

more than two decades, and clearly needs to be revisited and revised by Congress. 

What I cannot ignore is the strong possibility that the very integrity of Congress 

is in jeopardy. 

On October 10, 2002, in testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 

The Chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, Bernard Boushor, said ‘‘the Bay Mills 

case was a scam from the start.’’ In testimony and information provided to the 

House Natural Resources Committee in February of this year, Saginaw Chippewa 

Chief Fred Cantu cited Chairman Boushor’s testimony, stating that the original 

lawsuit on the land claim was a collusive lawsuit. I have provided Chairman 

Boushor’s statement to be included as part of today’s testimony. 

I would strongly encourage the Committee to carefully read these documents on 

how this land claim actually began. The proponents of this legislation have repeatedly stated that these bills are simply to address the aggrieved landowners in Charlotte Beach. But according to the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe ‘‘the Charlotte Beach claim 

did not originate with Bay Mills. It was a product of a Detroit area attorney who 

developed it specifically as a vehicle to obtain an IGRA casino . . . the goal was 

never to recover the Charlotte Beach lands.’’ 

How was this originally a collusive lawsuit? The Bay Mills Tribe sued Mr. James 

Hadley on October 18, 1996 who entered into a settlement in which he gave land 

to the Bay Mills Tribe 300 miles from their reservation to build a casino in Auburn 

Hills, Michigan. That plan was rejected by the Department of Interior. The point 

16 

is that Mr. Hadley was not an aggrieved landowner, he was an active participant 

in what the Sault Tribe described as ‘‘a collusive lawsuit’’ and ‘‘a scam.’’ 

I strongly encourage all of you to read the testimony of the former Sault Ste. 

Marie Chairman before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, the testimony of 

the Saginaw Chippewa Chief Fred Cantu, and review the documents Chief Cantu 

provided to the Committee, which was provided to the House Natural Resources 

Committee at its hearing in February. 

There is a way to save the integrity of Congress. The Saginaw Chippewa Tribe 

has requested that the U.S. Department of Interior investigate the land claims 

made by these Tribes, and determine whether they are valid claims, worthy of federal resolution. It is my understanding that the Department of the Interior is reviewing the validity of these land claims. I would urge the Committee to wait until 

this investigation is complete until it rushes into passing legislation that mandates 

off-reservation gaming. 

I thank the Committee for its time. Congress should not be in the business of 

handing out off-site reservation gaming casinos. It is my hope that the wisdom of 

the Committee and of Congress is the rejection of both of these bills for the following reasons: 

• These bills set a dangerous precedent for Congress by approving a compact 

which is a state, not a federal, responsibility; 

• They contravene Michigan state law; 

• They are controversial among the Native American tribes in Michigan; indeed, nine out of Michigan’s 12 tribes oppose these bills; 

• The City of Detroit would lose thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of 

dollars in the investments made by the three casinos currently operating in 

Detroit; 

• The Bureau of Indian Affairs has already rejected a similar application for 

gaming in Romulus, Michigan; 

• These bills would involve the removal of valuable land from the tax rolls of 

the State of Michigan, resulting in the potential loss of even more revenue; 

• It is uncertain that these land swaps are legitimate, possibly jeopardizing the 

integrity of the U.S. Congress; 

• The Committee should allow the Department of Interior the time to do their 

due diligence to determine if these are valid land claims; and 

• Congress needs to revisit, revise and reauthorize the IGRA, which has not 

had a comprehensive review in nearly two decades. 

Again, I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member for this hearing. 

The Committee must reject these bills based on the merit of the will of the people 

of the City of Detroit and the State of Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. Shelly Berkley, Las Vegas, Nevada—that tells you 

something right there. That speaks worlds of information about 

this distinguished lady. 

Shelly Berkley has distinguished herself on the Ways and Means 

Committee, the Veterans Affairs Committee. She’s been strongly 

active in Foreign Affairs as one of the causes that attract her great 

talent. She has been looking at this issue for quite a while, and I’m 

happy that she was able to come before the Committee today. 

We recognize you, Shelly Berkley, for your comments and your 

views on the subject. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE SHELLY BERKLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and thank 

you, Mr. Smith, Ranking Member, and all of the Committee Members who have come today to listen to us testify on this very important issue. 

I appreciate the opportunity to speak today on an issue that we 

have been dealing with in Congress for more than 5 years now, and 

it keeps rearing its ugly head again and again. I’m especially 

17 

thankful to you, Mr. Chairman, for obtaining a referral of these 

bills to your Committee in order to more fully investigate their potential impact. After listening to your opening remarks, I’m not 

sure that there is much that I can add to your body of knowledge, 

but I certainly shall try. 

I strongly oppose the bills offered by my colleagues, Mr. Dingell 

and Mr. Stupak, because they offer a blueprint to any Indian tribe 

who wants to circumvent the laws regulating Indian gaming in 

order to build a casino outside the boundaries of its sovereign territory. 

For those of you who are not aware, I not only represent Las 

Vegas but I grew up in Las Vegas, the gaming capital of the world. 

I’m living proof of the positive impact gaming can have on a community. 

My father moved his family to Las Vegas 45 years ago when I 

was a young girl. He was a waiter. On a waiter’s salary, he put 

food on our table, clothes on our back and a roof over our heads. 

And that’s not a bad thing on a waiter’s salary. He also put two 

daughters through college and law school. 

Now while I respect everybody’s opinion about gambling, I think 

I must say that, while I was raised in Las Vegas and subjected to 

gaming all of my life, I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I don’t gamble, 

I haven’t assaulted anybody, I’m debt free. 

Mr. CONYERS. As they say, as far as we know. 

Ms. BERKLEY. As far as I know. And I’m not unique. I think I’m 

rather representative of the people that I do represent. 

I certainly don’t begrudge the Bay Mills or Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe or the Michigan communities at Port Huron and Romulus 

their desire to participate in this successful industry. But I do take 

issue with them attempting to flout the laws on Indian gaming, 

come to Congress for the worst type of special interest, special legislation and compete with existing facilities under an entirely different set of rules that they would like Congress to implement. 

We have a Federal law on the books that governs the process for 

approving gaming by native Indian tribes. It’s called the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act. Under IGRA, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

can approve gaming on newly acquired land taken into trust under 

very limited circumstances. 

In the case of the Bay Mills and Sault Tribes, each of which already has gaming on its reservation land, a suspect land claim was 

used as a bargaining chip in settlements with the Governor in 

which the tribes agreed to renounce their claim and receive alternate properties which just so happened to be in locations more conducive to gaming, namely, near the population center of Detroit. In 

fact, a representative of the Sault Tribe described the deal as shady 

in his Senate testimony in 2002, but that was before his tribe 

joined the party and stood to benefit from this. 

In addition to the suspect land claim, which has been tossed out 

of both State and Federal court, the settlement reached with 

former Michigan Governor John Engler to allow gaming at Port 

Huron and Romulus, which, incidentally, are part of the ancestral 

lands of a different tribe, the Saginaw Chippewa, violates Michigan 

tribal gaming compact which requires that any new off-reservation 

gaming have the support of all the tribes in the State. 

18 

1The statement referred to was not received by the Committee at the time this hearing was 

printed. 

As Mrs. Kilpatrick has already testified, most of the tribes in the 

State are opposed to this, so these settlements do not have that 

support. 

Residents of Detroit can attest to the role gaming has played in 

transforming that city. The three new casinos employ more than 

7,500 people in the city and contribute hundreds of millions of dollars each year as tax revenue to the city and the State. The two 

proposed facilities will compete with the Detroit casinos for some 

of the exact same customers but as sovereign tribal entities without 

the burden of State and local taxes. 

In a misguided attempt to promote tribal sovereignty, the Committee on Natural Resources approved the Dingell and Stupak bills 

last month with little attention to the potential ramifications for 

other parts of our country. If these bills become law, any one of the 

more than 500 recognized Native American tribes can argue that 

they have a right to sue private landowners in an attempt to bargain for gaming somewhere else. This debate raises serious questions about issues under the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, and that’s why I’m glad we have an opportunity to testify 

in front of you today. 

This is not a simple tribal lands claim, as the proponents would 

like Members of Congress to believe. In short, Congress is being 

asked to pass special interest legislation benefiting two tribes, each 

of which already has gaming based on a suspect land claim that 

has already been thrown out of State and Federal court so they can 

open casinos hundreds, hundreds of miles from their ancestral land 

in direct competition with existing facilities that have helped revitalize a major American city. 

I commend you for taking a closer look at these issues; and I 

thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for again allowing me to testify in front of your august Committee. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks. You’re amazingly brief this morning, 

Shelly Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I’m learning from past mistakes. 

Mr. CONYERS. We are grateful to both of you for joining us, and 

I know you will be following our activities, and we may be coming 

back to you for consultation. Thanks so much for starting us off. 

We now call panel two. We have the distinguished Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Mr. Carl Artman; and then we have Chief Fred Cantu, Saginaw 

Chippewa Tribe of Michigan;and then we have Alicia Walker, the 

Sault Ste. Marie Chippewa Tribe; and Attorney Kathryn Tierney, 

the Bay Mills Indian Community. 

Cynthia Abrams of the National Coalition Against Legalized 

Gambling is unable to be with us, but we will accept into the 

record her written statement.1

I also note that our good friend and colleague, Hank Johnson of 

Atlanta, GA, has joined the hearings, thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

19 

As you just mentioned, Dr. Guy Clark, Chairman of the National 

Coalition Against Global Expansion, was scheduled to testify, but 

it turned out he is unable to do so, and so I would like to ask unanimous consent that his statement or testimony be made a part of 

the record. 

Mr. CONYERS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Clark follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. GUY CLARK, CHAIRMAN OF THE NATIONAL COALITION

AGAINST GAMBLING EXPANSION

As Chairman of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, I appreciate 

the invitation to submit testimony regarding the issue of gambling expansion and 

the proposed legislation presently before this Committee. 

We strongly oppose this legislation because we believe these land claims should 

go through the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There should be no short cuts by attempting to win the favor of Congress. 

But more importantly, my remaining comments will extend beyond the specific 

questions of land claims before you this morning. Because the driving force behind 

these land claims is the desire for more gambling expansion. 

Many of you will agree that nearly all of the debate around gambling expansion 

in this country, whether in Michigan or anywhere else, consistently focuses on questions about ‘‘jobs’’ and ‘‘revenue.’’ 

But what is remarkable about all of this frenzied discussion about jobs and revenue is that virtually no one ever stops for a minute and examines the product 

itself. 

Because this is a debate not about just any kind of gambling. It’s not about Friday 

night poker games with the guys at work or buying a square in the Super Bowl office pool. This fight is about exploitative gambling—combating those who prey on 

human weakness for profit. 

America is on an exploitative gambling binge. What started forty-five years ago 

with a lottery ticket has evolved into addiction delivery systems. There are now 

more than a dozen pathological gambling states and many others heading there 

fast. 

Today, the purest form of exploitative gambling is machine gambling with close 

to 800,000 slot machines and video poker games in operation in this country—that’s 

one machine for every 395 Americans. And, it’s these machines that generate most 

of the profits for the casino trade. 

What makes these electronic gambling machines exploitative? According to Dr. 

Natasha Schull at MIT, when you look at what these algorithms inside the machines are doing, it’s a high tech version of ‘‘weighting the deck’’ or ‘‘loading the 

dice.’’ Using loaded dice in gambling is cheating and is illegal. 

The goal of the technology behind these electronic loaded dice is no secret: how 

to get people to play longer, faster and more intensively. Every feature of the machine—the mathematical structure, visual graphics, sound dynamics, seating and 

screen ergonomics—is geared, in the language of the casino trade, to get gamblers 

to ‘‘play to extinction’’—which means until their money is gone. What the user is 

seeing is not an accurate representation of what’s happening inside the machine. 

In my own state of New Mexico, Konami, one of the largest slot machine manufacturers, recently admitted to using subliminal technology in its machines by deceptively flashing jackpot symbols at players. I know you are well aware that many 

social scientists have done extensive research on subliminal perception and its motivational power. 

A modern slot machine doesn’t have a handle to pull or use reels—they use buttons and video screens. Instead of coins, they take player consumer cards. And instead of a few games per minute, hundreds can be played. 

Instead of actual reels, they have virtual reels that rely on complicated algorithms 

and virtual reel mapping, concepts that few people in the casino trade itself understand—much less policy makers and citizens considering these machines in their 

own communities. 

But despite the exploitative nature of these machines, there are still many people 

who say aren’t people playing these machines ‘‘voluntarily?’’ 

All of you are familiar with consumer loyalty cards. Nearly all of the supermarkets and drug stores offer them. They use these cards to track consumers. The 

casino trade has taken this marketing research technology to a whole new level. 

20 

Anyone comforted by the idea that playing the slots is voluntary should spend a day 

with those who work for the casino trade. 

People are targeted based on factors such as how fast they play a slot machine, 

information that can be collected through their ‘‘Player’s Rewards card’’ because 

many players use these cards directly in the machine. The faster someone plays, the 

more likely they are to play out of out of control. And the faster you play (i.e. more 

out of control you are), the more you are offered incentives like free slot play as well 

as free meals and hotel rooms. 

The casino trade’s message is ‘‘most people gamble without a problem’’ declaring 

that ‘‘only’’ 5% of the general population has a problem. To put it in real numbers, 

that’s one out of every twenty people. But the real question for everyone in this 

country to be asking is: ‘‘What is the percentage of problem gambling behaviour, not 

among the general population, but of the gamblers who play electronic gambling 

machines once a month or more?’’ Because having these machines locally is very different than having to travel to Las Vegas or drive several hours to play them. Instead of going 2–3 times a year to play the machines, now tens of millions of people 

are able to play the machines weekly. 

The facts show that more than fifty percent of regular electronic gambling machine players are experiencing harm. That’s of those who play once or more per 

month. It’s not telling it straight to say that ‘‘most people gamble without a problem’’ because the vast majority of people don’t play slots or haven’t yet played long 

enough or frequent enough to experience the imminent harm. And, it’s these problem gamblers who are the money makers. More than 80% of the revenues come from 

20% of the players. 

Yes, there are a few other things in our society that are exploitative but our government aims to protect us from exploitative and predatory things. The major difference here is that many of our own state governments are a virtual partner in 

the exploitation. In every other instance, our government prosecutes such practices. 

The time has arrived for a national solution to America’s gambling binge and it 

begins with a thorough and transparent investigation into the electronic gambling 

machines that are driving the casino trade’s massive expansion. 

It’s time this country put the chance back in gambling. 

Mr. CONYERS. Carl Artman, the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs, is a member of the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, where he 

was chief counsel of the tribe before coming to Washington as Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs in the Department; and he was 

confirmed in his current position last March. We welcome him to 

these proceedings. 

Your statements are all included in the record, and we invite 

your oral testimony. 

Good morning. 

TESTIMONY OF CARL ARTMAN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. ARTMAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee. Thank you. 

My name is Carl Artman, and I am the Assistant Secretary for 

Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to 

be here today to testify on H.R. 2176, a bill to provide for and approve this settlement of certain land claims for the Bay Mills Indian Community, and on H.R. 4115, a bill to provide for and approve certain land claims for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. 

Through the legislation, Congress would approve and ratify 

agreements executed in 2002 between the State of Michigan and 

the Bay Mills and Sault Ste. Marie Tribes. Alternate lands would 

be provided to each tribe in consideration for extinguishing the 

tribe’s claim to the Charlotte Beach, Michigan, lands. 

The Department does not support these bills for several reasons. 

21 

The mandatory Nature of the Land Acquisition Provisions would 

require that the alternative lands be taken into trust even if NEPA 

liabilities exist on these lands. We recommend that any acquisition 

in trust be conditioned upon the land’s meeting applicable environmental standards. 

The mandatory nature of the land acquisition would also preclude consultation with affected tribal, State and local governments 

that takes place under our regulations. 

In addition, section 2710(d) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 

requires a tribe and State to enter into a compact approved by the 

Secretary and that notice of such approval be published in the Federal Register prior to Class III gaming occurring. 

The settlement agreements include many provisions commonly 

found in a tribal State compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, such as: 

The Governor’s concurrence in the trust acquisition of the alternative lands for gaming purposes. 

Tribal payments to the State of Michigan in an amount equal to 

8 percent of the net win derived from all Class III electronic games 

of chance in consideration for limited geographical exclusivity, and 

payments in the aggregate amount equal to 2 percent of the net 

win to the local units of State governments. 

Limitations of the tribe’s Class III gaming operations in Michigan. 

A statement that section 9 of the compact is not implicated by 

provision of the alternative land to the tribe and the Governor’s 

waiver of this provision to the extent it is determined to be implicated. 

However, these bills appear to circumvent the tribal State compact approval process by bypassing the approval of the Michigan 

State legislature. The Department respects tribal and State rights 

and supports the tribal-State compact negotiation and approval 

process. We believe that these provisions would be best in a compact. 

Finally, we’re concerned with the lack of consultation with other 

Michigan tribes that may be impacted by the terms of these settlements, since the legislation would waive section 9 of the Michigan 

compacts to the extent that it is implicated by the settlements. 

This concludes my remarks; Mr. Chairman; and I would be 

happy to answer any questions that the Committee has. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. We welcome your appearance here. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Artman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL ARTMAN

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Carl 

Artman and I am the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, at the Department of the 

Interior. I am pleased to be here today to testify on H.R. 2176, a bill to provide for 

and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community, and on H.R. 4115, a bill to provide for and approve certain land claims of the 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. Because of the potential for liability 

to the United States, and because the settlement agreements go beyond those required for the settlement of a land claim and circumvent an established process, the 

Department cannot support these bills. 

22 

BACKGROUND

H.R. 2176 would approve and ratify an agreement executed on August 23, 2002, 

between the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Bay Mills Indian Community. H.R. 4115 would approve and ratify an agreement executed on December 30, 

2002, between the Governor of the State of Michigan and the Sault Ste. Marie 

Tribe. The settlement agreements provide the basis for Congress to extinguish the 

two tribes’ claims to the Charlotte Beach lands. In consideration for the 

extinguishments of the tribes’ claims, Section 2 of H.R. 2176 would require the Secretary to take into trust for the Bay Mills Indian Community alternative land located in Port Huron, Michigan. Section 1(b) of H.R. 4115 would require the Secretary to take into trust for the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe two parcels of land, one located in Oswego County, subject to the approval of the Village of Vanderbilt and 

the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and the other one located in the 

City of Romulus, Michigan, subject to the approval of the City. 

PROBLEMATIC PROVISIONS

Both bills would establish a 30 day requirement for the Secretary to take land 

into trust for the Tribe once the Secretary receives a title insurance policy for the 

alternative land that indicates it is not subject to any mortgage, lien, deed of trust, 

option to purchase, or other security interest. The mandatory nature of the land acquisition provisions would require that alternative lands be taken into trust even 

if the Department determines that potential liabilities exist on these lands. The legislation precludes the Department from evaluating the subject property to determine 

whether hazardous materials are present. The Department asks that Congress consider the cost to and potential liability of the United States Government with respect to legislative transfers of land into trust, both in this particular instance and 

all future mandatory trust transactions. We recommend any acquisition in trust be 

conditioned upon the lands meeting applicable environmental standards. The mandatory nature of the land acquisition would also preclude consultation with affected 

tribal, State, and local governments that takes place under our regulations. 

In addition, section 2710(d) of the IGRA requires that a tribe and State enter into 

a compact approved by the Secretary and that notice of such approval be published 

in the Federal Register before Class III gaming may occur. 

The settlement agreements include many provisions commonly found in a tribalstate compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA): 

(1) the Governor’s concurrence in the trust acquisition of the alternative lands 

for gaming purposes; 

(2) Tribal payments to the State of Michigan in an amount equal to 8 percent 

of the net win derived from all Class III electronic games of chance in consideration for limited geographical exclusivity, and payments in the aggregate amount equal to 2 percent of the net win from all Class III electronic 

games of chance to local units of state governments; 

(3) limitation of the Tribes’ Class III gaming operations in Michigan; 

(4) the Governor’s forbearance from exercising the State’s unilateral right to renegotiate the Compact pursuant to Section 12(c) of the Compact; and 

(5) a statement that Section 9 of the compact is not implicated by provision of 

the alternative land to the Tribe, and the Governor’s waiver of this provision to the extent it is determined to be implicated. 

However, these bills appear to circumvent the tribal-state compact approval process by bypassing the approval of the Michigan State legislature. The Department 

respects tribal and state rights and supports the tribal-state compact negotiation 

and approval process. Therefore, we believe that these provisions would best appear 

in a compact. 

Finally, we are concerned with the lack of consultation with other Michigan tribes 

that may be impacted by the terms of these settlements since the legislation would 

waive Section 9 of the Michigan compacts to the extent it is implicated by the settlements. 

This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair notes the presence of Steve Chabot of 

Ohio, who is the Ranking Member currently, and also Jim Jordan 

of Ohio. What is this, an Ohio pile-on here, everybody from Ohio? 

Welcome to the hearing, gentlemen. 

23 

We now turn to Chief Fred Cantu, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe 

of Michigan. He has been that chief, having been unanimously 

elected to it in December of 2005; and then he was reelected last 

December. He has been appointed to a vacancy on the tribal council 

in late 2004, and before that had been the chief of the tribal fire 

department. 

Chief Cantu, welcome to the Committee. I don’t know if you’ve 

testified in Congress before, but we’ve read your prepared statement, and now we’re happy to hear your views summarizing your 

position. 

TESTIMONY OF CHIEF FRED CANTU, 

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF MICHIGAN 

Chief CANTU. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is probably my 

third time here in Congress, but thank you. 

My name is Fred Cantu. I’m the Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa 

Indian Tribe. I want to thank the Committee for allowing our tribe 

to testify today. 

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying these bills are very controversial, not just here on Capitol Hill but also in Michigan and 

across Indian country. This is because these bills push the envelope 

past the limits of Indian policy. 

I’ve submitted two items to the Committee which raise serious 

questions about these two bills. 

First, I have submitted correspondences of the Department of Interior discussing and rejecting the request to prosecute these 

claims because of the view—they view them as unwinable. 

I also submitted testimony—testimony submitted by the Sault 

Ste. Marie Tribe in 2002 opposing the Bay Mills claim and attacking its validity. 

It is important to note that these land claims have never been 

independently verified by anyone. In fact, the Bay Mills Indian 

Community claim was rejected by the State and Federal courts; 

and the letters I have submitted show the U.S. Department of Interior believes the claims fail on its merits and cannot be won. But 

there are many questions that need to be examined. 

According to the former Sault Tribe chairman, this whole land 

claim was a scam from the start. According to detailed testimony 

the Sault Tribe gave in 2002 and which I’ve submitted with my 

written testimony, the Charlotte Beach claim was conceived by a 

Detroit area casino who developed it specifically as a vehicle to obtain a casino, not to settle a lands claim. 

We would ask that this Committee to investigate the detailed 

charges made by the Sault Tribe in their testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 2002. 

We also believe these bills undermine the Michigan gaming compact, which specifically required that no tribe conduct off-reservation gaming without a revenue agreement from the other tribes in 

Michigan. This is a blatant attempt by these two tribes to evade 

their obligation under the compact which was specifically reviewed 

and approved by the Michigan legislature. 

Furthermore, this legislation would have Congress ratify a tribal 

State compact for the first time in history, which undermines the 

24 

intent of IGRA and circumvents the authority of the Michigan legislature. 

Our tribe is deeply concerned that these proposed casinos are to 

be located in the ancestral lands of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian 

Tribe. Neither the Bay Mills Tribe nor the Sault Tribe has any ancestral connection to these lands, and the Indians Claims Commission has ruled on this on two separate occasion. 

During the February 6, 2008, hearing in the House Resource 

Committee, one Member of Congress remarked that these bills 

were solely about settling the lands claim and nothing about—to do 

with gaming. If that is the true goal, we believe the validity of this 

claim should be proven. 

To that end, we respectfully recommend that this Committee remove the gaming provision from this legislation and have the appropriate Federal agencies determine whether these lands claims 

are legitimate. If they find that these claims are legitimate, we 

would ask that they make a determination as to the value of the 

claim and an appropriate compensation for those claims. This 

would ensure that these land claims have merit and would ensure 

the tribe are properly compensated if these claims exist. 

While these bills may be good for two tribes and their nonIndian 

developers, we believe it is bad policy for Indian country and urge 

the Committee to reject these bills. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks, Chief Cantu. We appreciate you being 

here one more time in the Congress. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cantu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHIEF FRED CANTU

My name is Fred Cantu and I am the Chief of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian 

Tribe. I want to thank the committee for allowing our Tribe to testify today. 

Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying these bills are very controversial—not just 

here on Capital Hill—but all across Indian Country. Tribes across the country are 

waiting to see if Congress will actually allow two Tribes to get casinos on lands 350 

miles from their reservations to settle a land claim that has never been validated 

by a single court or the federal government. In fact, the Bay Mills Indian Community’s claim was rejected by both state and federal courts, and has also been rejected 

by the United States Department of Interior. 

These land claims have never been independently verified by anyone—and these 

bills raise more questions than they provide solutions. These claims would lower the 

standard for the establishment of a legitimate land claim and would invite other 

tribes to seek land claim settlements for casinos without any independent 

verification of the validity of such claims. In fact it could be argued that the long 

history and ill treatment received by tribes across the country could support similar 

claims that are at least as compelling as those raised in these bills. 

If Congress passes these bills, you will have Tribes across the country lined-up 

before Congress seeking casinos for land claims that have never been proven valid. 

We have not found one instance in which Congress has granted a Tribe a casino 

and a gaming compact for settling a land claim, much less the type of an unsubstantiated and questionable claims presented here. 

These bills would establish a dangerous precedent and must be rejected by Congress for the sake of Indian gaming. What separates Indian gaming from private 

gaming is that Tribes are restricted to gaming on Indian Lands—not wherever they 

feel it is most profitable. If Congress begins authorizing Tribes to establish reservations 350 miles from their existing reservations and designates those lands for gaming, it will completely undermine the whole premise of Indian gaming. And that is 

why Mr. Chairman, no other Tribe supports these bills. 

Our Tribe is also deeply concerned that these proposed casinos are to be located 

in the ancestral lands of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe. Neither the Bay Mills Tribe 

25 

nor the Sault Tribe has any ancestral connection or claim to these lands and the 

Indian Claims Commission has ruled on this on two separate occasions. 

We also believe these bills undermine the Michigan Gaming Compact which specifically requires that no Tribe conduct off-reservation gaming without a revenue 

agreement from the other Tribes in Michigan. Very simply—this is a blatant attempt by these two Tribes to evade their obligations under the Compact, which was 

specifically reviewed and approved by the Michigan State Legislature. Furthermore, 

this legislation would have Congress ratify a Tribal/State compact for the first time 

in history—which undermines the intent of IGRA and circumvents the authority of 

the Michigan Legislature. 

During the February 6, 2008, hearing in the House Natural Resources Committee, 

one Member of Congress remarked that these bills were solely about settling a land 

claim and had nothing to do with gaming. If that is the true goal, we believe the 

validity of this claim should be proven. To that end, we respectfully recommend that 

this Committee remove the gaming provisions from this legislation and have the appropriate federal agencies, determine whether these land claims are legitimate. If 

they find these claims are legitimate we would ask that they make a determination 

as to the value of the claim and the appropriate compensation for those claims. This 

would ensure that these land claims have merit and would ensure the Tribes are 

properly compensated if these claims exist. 

But there are many questions that need to be examined. According to the former 

Sault Tribe Chairman, this whole land claim was a scam from the start. According 

to the Sault Tribe, the Charlotte Beach claim was conceived by a Detroit area attorney who developed it specifically as a vehicle to obtain a casino—not to settle a land 

claim. We would ask this committee to investigate the detailed charges made by the 

Sault Tribe in their testimony before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in 

2002. 

Mr. Chairman, IGRA was meant to promote economic development on Indian reservations—not to reward Tribes who scheme with non-Indian developers. 

While these bills may be good for two Tribes and their non-Indian developers, it 

is simply bad policy for Indian Country. We would hope the Committee does the 

right thing and rejects these bills. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. I’m now turning to a partner of the law firm 

Greene, Meyer & McElroy. An attorney, Alicia Walker, a law graduate from Georgetown Law School, is our witness today. She’s been 

representing Indian tribes for quite a while. She’s here today on behalf of the Sault Tribe. 

Welcome to the Committee hearing. 

TESTIMONY OF ALICE E. WALKER, ESQUIRE, 

SAULT STE. MARIE CHIPPEWA TRIBE 

Ms. WALKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Unlike Chief Cantu, this is my first time testifying before Congress, so I didn’t get the button quite right. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. 

As you noted, my name is Alice Walker. I’m from Boulder, Colorado, a partner in the law firm of Greene, Meyer & McElroy. We 

have represented the Sault Tribe for more than 20 years on a variety of issues, and I am here today representing the Sault Tribe on 

the settlement of the Charlotte Beach land claim. 

It is my pleasure to appear before the Committee today to urge 

its support for H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115, both of which would settle 

the long-standing claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and 

the Sault Tribe with respect to lands in Charlotte Beach. The bills 

arise from two settlement agreements. They were entered into in 

August and December of 2002, one between Bay Mills and the 

other between the Sault Tribe. Both of the 2002 settlement agreements contain identical language, except for identification of potential alternative lands. 

26 

The record before the Committee on Natural Resources describes 

in detail the nature of those settlement agreements and the propriety of congressional approval of those settlement agreements so 

that final resolution of the Charlotte Beach land claim may finally 

come to fruition. 

The issue before the Committee today relates to the need for the 

judicial review provision in each of the bills, which states as follows: 

This is the enforcement provision: The settlement of land claim 

shall be enforceable by either tribe or the Governor according to its 

terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action is vested 

in the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Michigan. That provision is section 1(e)(3) of H.R. 4115 and section 

3(c) of H.R. 2176. That mirrors section 14 of the 2002 settlement 

agreements which provide that to the extent there is a dispute or 

controversy involving the terms of this settlement, the parties 

agree that all actions or proceedings will be tried and litigated only 

in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 

The judicial review provisions are consistent with the 2002 settlement agreement and indeed may be viewed as a belt-and-suspenders approach to ensuring that no court other than the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Michigan will have 

jurisdiction over disputes arising under the 2002 settlement agreement. While the judicial review provisions of the bills are consistent with the 2002 settlement agreement, they are not necessary 

in order to accomplish the substantive purposes of the bills, which 

is to finally resolve the long-standing Charlotte Beach land claims 

to the satisfaction of both tribes as well as the Charlotte Beach 

landowners. 

Accordingly, the Sault Tribe does not object to retaining the judiciary review provisions in the bill, since they are consistent with 

the 2002 settlement agreements, or eliminating those provisions, 

since they are arguably duplicative of the underlying agreements. 

On behalf of the Sault Tribe, I look forward to the Committee’s 

consideration of this issue and its referral of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 

4115 back to the House floor. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. We are delighted to have you 

here for your first congressional experience—— 

Ms. WALKER. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS.—before the Judiciary Committee. It will be a 

pleasant experience, I assure you. 

Ms. WALKER. I sure hope so. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Walker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALICE E. WALKER, ESQ. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today on behalf of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. My name 

is Alice E. Walker. I am a partner and shareholder in the law firm of Greene, Meyer 

& McElroy, P.C., located in Boulder, Colorado. Our firm has represented the Sault 

Tribe for more than twenty years on a variety of issues, and I am here today representing the Sault Tribe regarding the settlement of the Charlotte Beach land 

claims. 

It is my pleasure to appear before the Committee today to urge its support for 

H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115, both of which would settle the long-standing land claims 

of the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe with respect to 

27 

lands in Charlotte Beach, Michigan. The bills arise from two Settlement Agreements, entered into in December of 2002, one between the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe 

and the State of Michigan, and the other between the Bay Mills Indian Community 

and the State of Michigan. Both of the 2002 Settlement Agreements contain identical language, except for the identification of alternative lands. The record before 

the Committee on Natural Resources describes in detail the nature of those settlement agreements and the propriety of congressional approval of those settlement 

agreements so that final resolution of the Charlotte Beach land claims may finally 

come to fruition. 

The issue before the Committee today relates to the need for the judicial review 

provision in each of the bills, which states as follows: ‘‘(c) Enforcement—The Settlement of Land Claim shall be enforceable by either the tribe or the Governor according to its terms. Exclusive jurisdiction over any enforcement action is vested in the 

United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.’’ That provision 

is Section 1(e)(3) of H.R. 4115, and Section 3(c) of H.R. 2176. That provision mirrors 

section 14 of the 2002 Settlement Agreements, which provide that ([t]o the extent 

there is a dispute or controversy involving the terms of this Settlement, the parties 

agree that all actions or proceedings will be tried and litigated only in the Federal 

District Court for the Western District of Michigan. 

The H.R. 4115 and H.R. 2176 judicial review provisions are consistent with the 

2002 Settlement Agreement, and indeed, may be viewed as a belt-and-suspenders 

approach to ensuring that no court other than the United States District Court for 

the Western District of Michigan will have jurisdiction over disputes arising under 

the 2002 Settlement Agreements. While the judicial review provisions of the bills 

are consistent with the underlying 2002 Settlement Agreements, they are not necessary in order to accomplish the substantive purposes of the bills, which is to finally resolve the long-standing Charlotte Beach land claims to the satisfaction of 

both Tribes as well as the Charlotte Beach landowners. Accordingly, the Sault Tribe 

does not object to either retaining the judicial review provisions, since they are consistent with the 2002 Settlement Agreements, or eliminating those provisions, since 

they are arguably duplicative of the underlying agreements. On behalf of the Sault 

Tribe, I look forward to the Committee(s consideration of this issue and its referral 

of H.R. 2176 and H.R. 4115 back to the House floor. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Mr. CONYERS. Attorney Tierney, you are welcome here as the 

counsel for the Bay Mills Indian Community. You’ve represented 

them from the beginning of your legal career, and I am looking forward to getting the benefit of your experience as it applies to the 

questions that are now before the Judiciary Committee of the 

House of Representatives. 

Welcome to our hearing this morning. 

TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN TIERNEY, TRIBAL ATTORNEY, 

BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here. 

I have to say, this weather almost prevented me from making it, 

and so I’m glad to be sitting at this table. 

As you’ve indicated, I am here as in-house counsel for the Bay 

Mills Indian Community and representing them and also its President of the Executive Council, Mr. Jeffrey Parker, who was invited 

to testify here today. In his absence, I am sitting in on his behalf. 

As you know, Mr. Parkertestified before the House Natural Resources Committee in February of this year about these two bills; 

and I have provided as an attachment to my one-page statement 

the full text of his submission to that Committee, hoping that way 

to provide sufficient information to you and not to duplicate matters by repeating myself and therefore perhaps preventing more expeditious review of this material. 

28 

I think it is important for all of us to recognize that the reason 

why we have sought these bills is that it requires an act of Congress to settle land claims. That is why the Bay Mills Indian Community has sought legislation to resolve this matter, and that is 

why we are hopefully and respectfully asking for your support in 

having that done. 

I know that the materials that Mr. Parker has presented have 

been in circulation, so I think it best and most appropriate for me 

to offer my assistance, if I can, in answering any questions that 

Members of the Committee might have and thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Tierney follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHRYN L. TIERNEY


KLT-1.eps
29 

ATTACHMENT 


KLT-2.eps
30 


KLT-3.eps
31 


KLT-4.eps
32 


KLT-5.eps
33 


KLT-6.eps
34 


KLT-7.eps
35 


KLT-8.eps
36 


KLT-9.eps
37 


KLT-10.eps
38 


KLT-11.eps
39 


KLT-12.eps
40 


KLT-13.eps
41 


KLT-14.eps
42 


KLT-15.eps
43 


KLT-16.eps
44 


KLT-17.eps
45 


KLT-18.eps
46 


KLT-19.eps
47 


KLT-20.eps
48 


KLT-21.eps
49 


KLT-22.eps
50 


KLT-23.eps
51 


KLT-24.eps
52 


KLT-25.eps
53 


KLT-26.eps
54 


KLT-27.eps
55 


KLT-28.eps
56 

Mr. CONYERS. To our female attorneys, Ms. Walker and Ms. 

Tierney, here’s what I’m thinking about. The Charlotte Beach 

lands have been in private hands since the late 19th century. When 

did your tribes interest in pursuing those lands first manifest 

itself? 

Then think about this with me. Since the land claims are against 

the State of Michigan, what do you imagine the Federal Government has to do with this? 

And, finally, why do the two land settlement agreements break 

with the 1993 compact that both your tribes entered into with the 

State of Michigan, particularly with the issue of sharing revenues? 

And then, Chief Cantu, how easy would it be for the Saginaw 

Tribe to assert a claim like the two asserted here? And if you did, 

what do you think the geographical limits on where you could build 

a casino would play into that? 

I’ll let the ladies start first, and then the Chief will follow up. 

Ms. WALKER. And, Mr. Chairman, I will defer first to Ms. 

Tierney, since she in Bay Mills was the first to pursue the land 

claims, if we start with your first question. 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you. 

The Bay Mills Indian Community has always been federally recognized. It has had that name since it was organized under the Indian Reorganization Act in 1936. But, prior to that, it was considered the Indian people living on or near Sault St. Marie. It is in 

that context that this claim first arose in 1857. 

The efforts to resolve it go back that far; and if you look at Mr. 

Parker’s testimony before the House Resources Committee, he 

gives you a time line starting at the bottom of page 3 and through 

page 4. 

Let me quickly repeat that in a summary fashion. The bank 

sought to protect land that they wished to live on permanently by 

placing it in trust with a Governor of the State of Michigan named 

Kingsley S. Bingham and his successor in office, at the recommendation of the superintendent of the Michigan agency, thinking that that would be the best way to ensure that land speculation, et cetera, could not result in the loss of the land to the Indian 

owners. 

In the 1870’s, for some reason that no one has ever been able to 

determine, the land was placed on the tax roll of Chippewa County, 

which is still the county in which these lands are located, and was 

sold for tax sales in 1874 and 1875. That immediately resulted in 

disputes and claims and requests to the United States to fix this 

matter, to obtain the land back; and that effort went into the following century. 

There is correspondence going back to 1916, 1920, 1925, 1930’s, 

all trying to obtain this land back. The correspondence at that time 

was with the United States, and those documents are referenced in 

materials that Mr. Parker submitted to the House Resources Committee and a copy of which has been provided to this Committee. 

All of that correspondence indicates that the United States does 

not have a role to play in obtaining the land back from the subsequent owners through the tax sales because the United States did 

not own it at the time. The trust was not with the United States. 

It was with the Governor of the State of Michigan. 

57 

In the 1970’s, there was an effort again to bring up this issue to 

the 2415 process, which this Committee, I am sure, is quite familiar with. It was a statute of limitations provision in which claims 

for trespass against lands held for Indian people had to be filed for 

money damages or forever be lost. 

There was an initial deadline of 1976, I believe it was, that was 

extended until the early 1980’s. This claim again was identified 

pursuant to that process and subsequently rejected by the Secretary of Interior, stating that in order for it to be a 2415 claim, 

again title to the land it had to have been at least at one point 

when the trespass occurred in the United States. Because it was 

in trust with the Governor, it was not an appropriate claim under 

28 USC 2415. 

Subsequently to that, Bay Mills sought its own way to resolve 

this matter by filing suit both in Federal court against all the landowners currently holding title in that area, as long as anyone else 

who had an interest in the property—now we’re including banks, 

road commission, anyone who had an appreciable property interest. 

The litigation, as everyone has noted, resulted in a dismissal on 

procedural grounds due to the fact that the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe 

was identified as an indispensable party who could not be joined 

without its consent. 

The case was dismissed. The dismissal was upheld by the Sixth 

Circuit. The efforts to obtain relief from the State of Michigan resulted in a claim filed with its court of claims. That was rejected, 

saying the statute of limitations had run. 

It was only after those efforts were gone through without success 

and the fact that the property owners were still seeking to have relief from the clouds on their title that the effort was made by the 

Governor then of the State of Michigan, John Engler, to sit down 

with the Bay Mills Indian Community and reach an agreement, 

which was made in August of 2002. 

Mr. CONYERS. Chief Cantu, I presume you’re in complete agreement with these observations? 

Chief CANTU. Yes, I believe so. 

Mr. CONYERS. What do you think about the question that I asked 

you? 

Chief CANTU. It’s been a little bit since you asked that question, 

and I would ask if you could repeat that for me. 

Mr. CONYERS. How difficult would it be for the Saginaw Tribe to 

assert a claim like the two that are being put forward by the counsels to your left? 

Chief CANTU. Well, I think that would lower the bar for any land 

claim that would be out there. 

The claims should be verified by a court. Without verification of 

such claims by an act, then, yes, the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe and 

many others could also establish a lands claim anywhere else. 

Mr. CONYERS. What’s your feeling about this conversation we’re 

in, Mr. Artman? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think Ms. Tierney’s recitation of the facts is accurate, and I just want to underline in there that in her recitation 

of the facts this was a settlement of land claims between the State 

and the tribe. As the tribe’s trustee, we weren’t involved in this latter end process. At the very beginning, we provided the money to 

58 

purchase the initial lands which were lost through the tax sales, 

but through this we weren’t involved in it. And, as indicated by Ms. 

Tierney, the 2415—it was rejected under the 2415 claim as well by 

the Department back in the ’80’s. 

You asked about the distance of Chief Cantu and how this 

could—this settlement created additional settlements for other 

tribes. I don’t know that this may set up—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Excuse me, Mr. Artman. Would you mind 

hitting the button? I don’t think your mike is on. 

Mr. ARTMAN. I’m sorry. 

This settlement of a land claim may or may not set up a precedent for additional land claims themselves. I think that a lot of 

that precedence would also have to be rooted in the history that’s 

out there. 

One of our biggest concerns, though, with this is the precedent 

or the road map that this may create to circumvent the Indian 

Gaming Regulatory Act itself, again, by putting in Class III provisions or provisions that you might normally find in a Class III compact that goes through the approval of the tribal council and the 

State itself. And in the State of Michigan I believe that the Attorney General’s opinion is that it has to go through the Governor’s 

office as well as the State legislature. 

You are circumventing the State process, it seems; and then you 

are also circumventing the Federal process as laid out in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act by getting the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Steve Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I’m filling in for the Ranking Member, Lamar Smith, now; and 

he gave an opening statement. So I’ll refer to that opening statement in which Lamar Smith indicated that both Chairman Conyers 

and he opposed these two bills because they would, well, among 

other things, transfer land from Michigan to the two tribes in order 

to build—in which they could build casinos or other gaming establishments. 

And one of his concerns was that building more casinos could 

lead to more people becoming compulsive gamblers and also the 

linkage to higher rates of criminal activity. I share those concerns 

as well, as I know that many other Members of Congress do; and 

I would invite any of the members of the panel to briefly comment 

on that. Because I have one more question in the 5 minutes that 

I have allotted to me, so we can either go down the line or anybody 

can jump right in. 

Ms. Walker, I see you going for the buzzer there, so—— 

I had a short answer, and I think that the question really isn’t 

whether we need another casino in Michigan, and whether they 

were going to lead to the bad elements that follow from additional 

casino gambling that the Committee has noted today. Really, the 

question is about whether Congress will participate in the settlement of these very longstanding land claims that, according to testimony, and certainly my review of the record and my participation 

in this process, are quite valid. They are longstanding. 

59 

Ms. Tierney has recited very carefully the history of Bay Mills’ 

efforts to try to get these resolved. I think that focusing on the addition of casinos really takes away from what these bills are really 

trying to accomplish, which is really settling these long-term land 

claims once and for all to the satisfaction of the tribes, the State, 

and the Charlotte Beach landowners. 

Mr. CHABOT. Anybody else want to comment, or should I go on 

to my second question? 

Chief Cantu, did you want to comment? 

Chief CANTU. Thank you. If this was a legitimate land claim, 

then why was testimony given by the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe and 

the Bay Mills Tribe about the importance of developing the gaming, 

how it would create jobs. Our whole position is that this is a valid 

land claim. Let’s take all of those provisions out of there and let’s 

get it settled. 

Mr. CHABOT. Let me go on with my second question. Again, this 

is from Mr. Smith’s opening statement. He indicates that the Progaming National Congress of American Indians itself stated, ‘‘Even 

after the advent of gaming Indian reservations continue to have a 

31 percent poverty rate and 46 percent unemployment rate.’’ They 

also note that Indian health and education statistics are among the 

worst in the country. 

So, again, getting back to the point, and I know that you are 

talking specifically about land claims, but the implications to many 

of us up here is the fact that this could result in additional casinos 

or gaming establishments going up, and many of us consider that 

to be not necessarily in the best interest of the public because of 

the associated ills that go often times with gaming. 

But, again, if one is arguing that there are good things that come 

from this, how do you respond to those continuing high levels of 

poverty and a 46 percent unemployment rate, despite the fact that 

gaming is available on a number of reservations? So if anybody 

wants to touch on that. 

Mr. Artman. I see you going first. 

Mr. ARTMAN. Thank you very much. I think the statistics often 

times don’t show the whole picture. There are some very successful 

tribal casinos out there, there are some unsuccessful tribal casinos 

out there. But the fact remains success is largely driven by location. 

Many of the reservations, in fact, a great majority of the reservations across the United States, are located in the areas that aren’t 

accessible to a market for gaming. So the ills that have affected 

reservations for decades still exist today, even with gaming. 

Gaming is not the cure-all. Tribes across the Nation, with or 

without gaming, are looking for that economic development, whatever that may be. So you still do have large swatches of unemployment throughout Indian Country, crime is larger than the national 

average, and education statistics for the students are lower than 

the national average. These are all things that we tackle on an everyday basis at the Department of Interior, and gaming is just a 

portion of that. 

The issues and ills and successes in Indian Country are difficult 

to categorize under a general category of all of Indian Country. You 

have to look at it on a regional, or even a local basis. 

60 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I note my time has expired, so I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. The Chair notes the presence of Darrell Issa, the 

gentleman from California. But I will recognize Howard Coble now. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Good 

to have you all with us. 

Mr. Artman, does the Indian Gaming Regulation Act require a 

tribe that receives a transfer of land to enter into an agreement 

about the use of that land with the State where the land is located? 

Mr. ARTMAN. There are two portions of that question, or two 

things we have to address in that question, Congressman. First of 

all, the land itself. The land itself comes, before you can game on 

it, the land has to be held in trust by the United States. The 

United States takes the land into trust under the Indian Reorganization Act, the regulations, the 151 regulations specifically a part 

of that. 

During that process, the State has the opportunity, as well as 

local communities have the opportunity to comment on taking that 

land into trust. Where the State plays an even larger role, looking 

at the additional gaming portion of that question, is during the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act Class III compacting process. In order 

to engage in Class III gaming on land that is in trust or on the 

reservation, the tribe and the State have to agree to a compact, and 

then that is submitted to the Department of the Interior. 

So the State certainly has a larger, very large role in the development on how that land will be used for gaming purposes during 

the IGRA process. 

Mr. COBLE. Do these bills ensure that such an agreement will be 

made? 

Mr. ARTMAN. These bills seem to circumvent the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act process by inserting at the congressional level here 

many of the provisions you might normally find in a Class III compact. These are things that are regulations, and I believe even the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress, in drafting that, would 

prefer to be negotiated between the tribal government and the 

State government. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. 

Chief, does the Michigan State Constitution require voter approval for additional gaming establishments? 

Chief CANTU. Yes, it does. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, has the State held a referendum on the plan 

for these lands? 

Chief CANTU. I am not sure that they have. 

Mr. COBLE. Ms. Walker, one side contends that the Michigan 

State Constitution requires voter approval for new gaming establishments, is my interpretation. It is 

furthermore my interpretation that you claim there is exemption 

to the referendum rule for the Indian gaming. 

Now I am going to ask you which of the two positions is accurate, 

and I think you are getting ready to tell me. 

Ms. WALKER. I am getting ready to refer to the letter that John 

Wernet has provided, addressing this very issue as to whether the 

settlement agreements would constitute an amendment of the comVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:13 Aug 12, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\FULL\031408\41419.000 HJUD1 PsN: 41419
61 

pact and thereby whether the amendment of the compact would require voter approval. 

There has been recent Supreme Court decision in the Taxpayers 

of Michigan Against Casinos v. Michigan in which the compacting 

process was upheld. The amendment to the compacting process was 

upheld without requiring a new legislative approval for that 

amendment. 

But getting back to the other underlying issue, whether these 

bills constitute an amendment, it is our view, obviously, that they 

do not, and that is what the Governor has said, that is what the 

testimony before the Natural Resources Committee has determined, that these are not amendments to the compact, and that in 

fact the compact allows these bills to go forward consistent with 

their provisions. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you. 

Ms. Tierney, Mr. Artman is here representing the Department of 

the Interior, who has expressed opposition to these transfers. 

Now what do you say, Ms. Tierney, when one would say that it 

is a perhaps unwise or untimely or dangerous precedent to allow 

the established department procedures to be circumvented? What 

do you say to that? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Actually, sir, I do not believe that this legislation 

controverts established procedures. There is significant and numerous precedents for this body, meaning the Congress of the United 

States, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to accept title in trust 

to land on behalf of a specific Indian tribe. So in that sense, there 

is no precedent being established. In fact, there is also legislation 

that has been passed in previous Congresses not only directing the 

land to be taken into trust, but specifically allowing gaming to 

occur. There are references to those particular provisions in Mr. 

Parker’s testimony. I am not going to bore everyone by trying to 

find it while I sit here. 

So in that sense, I am not sure what Mr. Artman has in mind 

by stating that this is setting precedent or circumventing procedures in a way that has never occurred in the past, because it has. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I know you like us to conclude before 

that red light illuminates. 

Mr. CONYERS. Take all day. 

Mr. COBLE. You are a very generous Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Hank Johnson, the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask who 

owns the land in Port Huron and in Romulus that your two tribes 

would receive in these land deals. 

Ms. TIERNEY. The Bay Mills Indian community’s legislation and 

agreements specifically identify particular parcels, both of which 

are currently in private hands, both of which are subject to understandings that the title to them will not transfer out of private 

hands unless or until this legislation is enacted. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So land is owned by some person who, or entity 

that is not identified currently. Would you wish to reveal that? I 

am sure it is public record. 

Ms. TIERNEY. I do not have the specific names. I can provide 

that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is it individuals? 

62 

Ms. TIERNEY. The owners of record, they are on the title as recorded in the register of deeds office for St. Clair County. I just 

don’t want to give the wrong information. I would like to check in 

order to provide it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How was it that those lands were arrived at as the 

ones that would be subject to the Indian claim? 

Ms. TIERNEY. These were lands that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. I mean I am sure that these particular parcels 

that you have in mind are a part of a large—I mean it is part of 

the State of Michigan. 

Ms. TIERNEY. They are. 

Mr. JOHNSON. How is this particular part of the State selected 

for this particular action? 

Ms. TIERNEY. For the Bay Mills Indian community, and I can 

only speak for Bay Mills, and defer to counsel for the Sault Tribe 

on the other matters, Port Huron was identified by then Governor 

Engler as a location that he would like to see gaming be available. 

So we looked at that area closely and found that it would be one 

in which we were willing to enter into an agreement to accept land 

in return for the Charlotte Beach property. 

Ms. WALKER. Thank you. The situation is similar for the Sault 

Tribe in that the Governor indicated areas that could use economic 

development, and looking to the casinos as a source for that purpose. The Sault Tribe has three options for the land acquisition; 

one is in Romulus. We have been talking about Romulus today, but 

there are really three options under the bill. One is Romulus, one 

is Flint, and the other is land in Oswego County. 

So there are options for purchasing those. They are in private 

ownership in this time. But they are areas that, as Ms. Tierney 

noted, would support economic development and that the tribe is 

examining for the propriety of substituting them for the Charlotte 

Beach land claims. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So these are lands in private hands in the State 

of Michigan; the United States has no particular claim to the property, if you will? 

Ms. WALKER. Not at this time. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But now in this legislation you would be looking 

for the United States to ratify an agreement between the Governor 

and the tribes to settle a Federal claim? 

Ms. TIERNEY. There is a Federal law, sir, the Indian Trade and 

Intercourse Act, which was first enacted by the United States in 

the early 1800’s, the one that we still refer to now was passed in 

1834, which specifically prohibits Indian land from being disposed 

of without the consent of Congress. It is still the law of the country. 

That is why we are here. We need Congress’ consent to relinquish 

our claim. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Relinquish to the Federal Government? 

Ms. TIERNEY. To the Charlotte Beach property, that is correct. 

That is the property we have been talking about earlier that I had 

indicated had been lost because of tax sales. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It is not owned by the Federal Government either, 

is it? 

Ms. TIERNEY. No. 

63 

Mr. JOHNSON. Does the Federal Government assert some kind of 

interest in that property, Mr. Artman? 

Mr. ARTMAN. No, we do not. 

Mr. JOHNSON. So the Federal Government would simply just ratify an agreement between the State and the private parties and 

that would then, according to this legislation, automatically entitle 

the property to a Class III gaming license. Is that what we are 

talking about here? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Under this legislation, that is correct. This would 

mandate that the United States take into trust this land, and all 

claims would be relinquished, and according to legislation, gaming 

could occur on that land. 

Mr. CONYERS. Would the gentleman from Georgia yield for a follow-up on his questions? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I will. 

Mr. CONYERS. How did Governor Engler in his wisdom decide 

where this casino ought to be located? 

Ms. TIERNEY. That is not something I am privy to. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I mean, Mr. Artman, do you have other instances in your experience where a Governor determines where a 

casino outside of the reservation itself is located is going to be? 

Mr. ARTMAN. There has been precedent with—as mentioned earlier, there has been precedent with regard to taking land into trust, 

perhaps even through the congressional process, that has resulted 

in gaming. One such case was with the Seneca in New York, another was Wyandot in Oklahoma and Kansas. 

Mr. CONYERS. They weren’t hundreds of miles away from the reservation. 

Mr. ARTMAN. Arguably, no, they weren’t. 

Mr. CONYERS. Arguably. I mean they either were or they weren’t. 

I suggest to you that we are looking for some history where a Governor in his wisdom decides that hundreds of miles away from the 

Indian reservation let’s start a casino, ladies and gentlemen. I 

guess the Indian reservations say who are we to object to the Governor’s wisdom. And here we go. 

Now we are being asked, as Johnson has brought out, now the 

government is being asked to retroactively, the Congress, ratify all 

of this and say look, let’s make it legal, let’s get this over with, and 

let’s forget the fact that there are several unusual, to me, unusual 

factors about this matter. 

Is that too disingenuous? Isn’t that what we are doing here 

today? That is what is proposed to be done by the Congress. Right? 

Ms. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, may I comment, please? With respect to other gaming facilities in which a Governor has agreed to 

a distance location, I think the good example is the Forest County 

Potawatomi facility in Milwaukee, which is over 200 miles away 

from the reservation lands. This exists. This has happened. There 

are several situations in which this occurs. I think Seneca is another example. They have got a casino in Niagara, which is far 

away from the town of Salamanca. 

Mr. CONYERS. This is a regular process. 

Ms. WALKER. For approval of a land claim? 

Mr. CONYERS. Look, this is either irregular or ordinary. 

Ms. WALKER. I think it is regular. 

64 

Mr. CONYERS. In each of those cases I would just like to know, 

since the overwhelming majority of casinos are granted for the immediate benefit of the reservations and communities of the Indian 

tribes, but now it seems like somewhere along the line, historically, 

if you are right, people are saying well, and in those two instances 

I would want to know why did they pick hundreds of miles away 

from the casino. 

Mr. Artman. 

Mr. ARTMAN. In the case just brought up, the Forest County Potawatomi, that, and along with two others, the Forest County Potawatomi was actually the longest of the two-part determination 

process. But that doesn’t set a precedent for what is occurring here 

today. The Forest County Potawatomi, along with two others, we 

have only approved three two-part determinations, all went 

through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act two-part determination. 

It went through the Secretary approval process, in which we reviewed it, analyzed it under certain conditions, and then the State 

approved it as well. 

Now certainly the State may have played a role in placing that 

particular gaming location in that area, but that was also done 

through the Federal law at the administrative level and not here 

at Congress. What we are concerned about is the precedent set 

here in Congress for circumventing that administrative process as 

set forth in IGRA. 

Mr. CONYERS. What Congressman Johnson and I are trying to 

figure out, going back to the Michigan cases, why did they pick 

these two plots of land to do a casino? He put on a blindfold and 

went to the map and stuck a pin in and said aha, Sault or Port 

Huron; another blindfold, Romulus, Michigan. Is that how it happened? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I don’t believe so. 

Mr. CONYERS. I don’t think so either. 

Ms. TIERNEY. I believe the best place to look perhaps is the testimony in support of this legislation that was done in 2002 before 

the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in which a statement was 

presented in testimony given by Lance Boldrey, the Deputy Legal 

Counsel for Governor Engler. 

Mr. CONYERS. But what did he say? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I will have to defer to the text itself. I believe that 

there was an explanation as to the process by which the Governor 

agreed to those locations. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. Johnson, should I invite you for any conclusion before we 

turn to our colleague from California? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think you have clarified sufficiently. I will yield 

back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Darrell Issa. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have gone a long way 

toward setting the record straight. There is nobody on this Committee I think that represents more native American tribes and 

bands than I do. There is nobody on this Committee I think that 

would begin to be as dedicated to tribal sovereignty as I am. I don’t 

say that out of brag, I say that because I have some of the best 

65 

examples of Native Americans who, throughout the Spanish period, 

were mistreated, nearly exterminated, taken off their aboriginal 

lands, taken to missions, where three-quarters of them died. 

Those who are left today in California have returned to their aboriginal lands. They have sought over the last 100 years to regain 

some small portion of the reins that they operated under. But in 

every case, the land in trust that they enjoy today, small or large, 

represents some portion of the land that they can lay a legitimate 

claim to, going back a long time, actually long before our records. 

The Constitution says that we, the Congress, have the right to 

regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several 

States and with Indian tribes. Now, it doesn’t say that Indian 

tribes are American Indians. And there is a reason for that. 

I want to get to a number of questions. We don’t have American 

Indians, we have Indians of aboriginal regions. They have independent rights in those regions. They do not have rights beyond 

those regions. I think that is well thought of in the Constitution. 

We have made exceptions. Certainly, the Trail of Tears created 

a situation in which we took people’s historic areas and now thousands of them are living in Oklahoma and other States. We made 

allowances for that. We made allowances for our sins of the past, 

not for a selection in order to promote Indian gaming. 

Let me go through a couple of things. First of all, Mr. Artman, 

they have made a selection of land. They have not bought it in fee 

simple. Instead, they have made an agreement to purchase it. In 

your opinion, aren’t they making the agreement to purchase that 

is really not contingent on land in trust, it is really contingent on 

Indian gaming, it is really contingent on the value added? They 

have offered enough money for land to be purchased not for tribal 

purposes, but directly for casino purposes, and that is the reason 

they haven’t bought it in fee simple today, isn’t that true? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Not having seen the actual documents, the option 

document for the land, I can’t speculate as to what the purposes 

are. This is something though, a practice that we often times see 

with regard to land in trust, that the option isn’t exercised until 

the very last minute going into trust. Often times in those same 

situations those are related to gaming. And the condition precedent 

for gaming is that the land be in trust. 

Mr. ISSA. In fact, land in trust is a procedure we do to take off 

the tax roll and into trust as a Federal asset on behalf of the tribe. 

We do that because of tribal purposes. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ARTMAN. Yes. By taking it into trust, certain privileges and 

immunities are accorded to that land. 

Mr. ISSA. Didn’t we pass the IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, anticipating that this would be one of many of a portfolio of activities that tribes on their reservations could do? The act 

in no way, shape, or form said go out and buy land. The act intended and required that it be their land in order to have a casino 

on it, land in trust. Even if they already had fee land that they 

owned, that was never available for gaming. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ARTMAN. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act essentially 

frames an already existent right in States where tribes are located 

if there is Class III gaming already occurring in those States. 

66 

Mr. ISSA. So, in a nutshell, this is reservation shopping in absolute terms, correct? Is there anyone there that can dispute that this 

doesn’t look, act and smell like reservation shopping for the purpose of Indian gaming? Even the others on the panel. Let’s be honest, this is a selective selection not for purposes of Indian housing, 

not for a tribal health center; this is for an operation that in fact 

is a casino. 

Is anyone going to try to sit here, under oath, we are under oath, 

doesn’t matter, lying to Congress is a felony, anyone going to tell 

me that is not true, or they believe by some convincing evidence 

that it is not true? 

Thank you. That is an important point to get across. 

Ms. WALKER. I would like to respond, if I could. Thank you. 

Mr. ISSA. Just to that question. 

Ms. WALKER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ISSA. Do you say, yes or no, that this land is for some other 

significant purpose besides the primary purpose of operating a casino for benefit to the tribe? Yes or no. 

Ms. WALKER. Yes, it is. 

Mr. ISSA. What is that other purpose? 

Ms. WALKER. The other purpose is to provide revenues to allow 

the tribe to support itself. 

Mr. ISSA. Sorry. I asked the question. The correct answer is no 

other purpose than to provide revenue to the tribe. It is a casino 

to provide revenue to the tribe. 

Ms. WALKER. It is a casino to provide revenue to the tribe. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, thank you. I have got very little time. The Chairman has been indulgent already, and there is a lot more to cover 

because this is an important constitutional issue and it is one that 

I think this Committee has to take very seriously. 

I represent—my State represents over 100 Indian tribes. We will 

just talk about Jamul, an Indian tribe near the Mexican border. 

They have less than four acres. They were driven nearly into extinction. 

Is there any reason, Mr. Artman, today that the Jamul Tribe, sitting near the Mexican border, in a rural, poor area, with only four 

acres at this time, should not be able to bid and buy this land 

against that tribe? It is 1,500 miles, 2,000 miles. Is there any reason that this tribe is any more entitled to go 300 miles than my 

very poor Jamul Indians or my La Jolla Indians, neither one of 

whom have a location convenient for casino gaming and both of 

whom would benefit tremendously by this opportunity? 

Mr. Artman. 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think if you look at the Indiana Reorganization 

Act and 151 regulations, clearly you are going off reservation to do 

something at this point. As I stated in a memo on January 3 to our 

regional director in our Office of Indian Gaming, we need to, by the 

mandates of the regulations that have been on the books for decades, give a greater scrutiny to any desire to move off reservation, 

and the further you go, the greater the scrutiny. 

Now if Jamul wanted to move to Charlotte Beach, I think certainly we would give that a lot of scrutiny, as we would anyone 

that would want to move 300 miles. 

67 

Mr. ISSA. Let’s be a little more close in then. The Jamul Indians 

or the La Jolla Indians only have to go 30 or 40 miles to get to 

some very profitable casino sites that are already operating. Thirty 

or forty miles. If we allow this land in trust for the purpose of gaining revenue through casino gaming to occur 250, 300 miles away 

outside of an area that if the tribes were all still in tact the neighboring tribe would not let them in, not beyond maybe a meal. They 

would not be allowed to move in and take over land. 

If we allow it, is there any reason that we wouldn’t have to essentially have a domino effect that every other poor tribe wanting 

revenue would be able to select downtown Los Angeles, downtown 

San Francisco, Dallas, Houston, any other city that was, let’s say, 

within 250 miles? Is there any basis that somehow this tribe, these 

two tribes have any more entitlement than hundreds of tribes 

around the country who do not happen to have the ideal gaming 

location but do have a gaming location within 250 or 300 miles? 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think you have hit upon one of our biggest concerns when we were developing the January memo, in that you are 

opening it up greatly for any other tribe to go great distances. If 

you allow one tribe to go a great distance, then you do begin to 

open it up for all tribes to be able to consider it. 

Certainly, there is going to be that opportunity to have a greater 

market elsewhere. When do you stop, what are the limitations. 

These are the things we consider all the time. 

Mr. ISSA. I am going to ask one more question. 

Mr. Artman, it is a little outside of your direct knowledge, but 

I think you are the most appropriate to answer this, and I think 

the Chairman would appreciate this. We also sit together on an 

antitrust task force. We are very cognizant on this Committee that 

another Committee regulates commerce, but we deal with whether 

or not government or private enterprise operates in a monopolistic 

way. 

If we allow opportunistic travel outside of reasonable 

aboriginal territory, reasonable historic tribal lands, if we allow 

it to a group of Americans; in other words, we say well, because 

they are sovereign, we are going to let them make a deal with the 

State, not the Federal Government, deal with the State, and they 

are going to make these moves for purposes of putting casinos up, 

why in the world wouldn’t—and I know Shelly Berkley was here 

a minute ago, and she is not a neutral, and I am, I don’t happen 

to have private casinos in my district—why in the world wouldn’t 

Harrah’s and all the other major casino operators be able to cry 

foul, to say that in fact they should be able to put up right next 

door and around these reservations competing casinos; in other 

words, have virtually unfettered ability to compete, if in fact we are 

going to allow other Americans, and they may be the first Americans, and we do have a special obligation, but once we give up that 

special relationship that comes from their aboriginal claims and we 

simply say well, it’s good for your people to do it and it is going 

to be somehow good for the economy, once we do that, why 

wouldn’t this Committee consider that we have no right to allow 

the States to give to the Indians and keep private enterprise out, 

once we lose the justification of their unique relationship with this 

government? 

68 

Mr. ARTMAN. I think one of the large differences between 

Harrah’s and any Indian tribe is the fact that the Indian tribe is 

a government, and inherent with the government rights comes a 

number of rights and responsibilities. One is the ability to engage 

in gaming similar to the State that it may be located in that does 

Class III. There is that limitation. 

Mr. ISSA. But there is no State in the Union that operates Class 

III gaming. No State. They simply allow private enterprise to do 

it, and that is where the right comes from. I just want to make 

sure we understand. 

Mr. ARTMAN. A lot of these are considered Class III. That is what 

creates that basis for many tribes. Looking at it from the governmental perspective, and this may help to answer a question, and 

you are right, I am not an antitrust expert, but one of the things 

we focus on, one of the concerns we have is the jurisdiction is exercised on the reservation, and that is the highest exercise of jurisdiction. 

Mr. ISSA. Here, we are asked to create a reservation to create 

sovereignty, not in fact to codify a sovereignty that was taken 

away. This is not tribal land and is not being put into trust for purposes of being tribal land, it is being put into trust for purposes of 

being a casino. 

Mr. ARTMAN. That is why we examine in that process very carefully what it will be used for, how far away it is from the reservation. That is why we are asking those critical questions, because 

we don’t want to dilute the exercise of sovereignty for that tribe. 

That is a very important cornerstone. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Artman, I am going to yield back after one last 

question to the Chair. 

In your opinion, this does not pass the sniff test of 

aboriginal tribal land, or the next closest reasonable thing, and 

therefore putting this into trust would not serve the legitimate sovereign rights of these Native Americans, these first citizens. 

Whether or not they go into casinos isn’t the point. The point is 

this is not an appropriate tribal land, and it is not the closest land 

to their aboriginal legitimate claim, is it? 

Mr. ARTMAN. We haven’t had the opportunity to look at those 

documents because this bill and the prior court actions at the State 

level haven’t given the United States the ability to engage in that 

process. Our issues, our concerns with this legislation are in the 

process. It doesn’t allow it to go through the 151 process in which 

we look at those things, nor does it allow the compacts to go 

through the IGRA process also, where we would look at those 

things. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope we have made the 

case that we do need to allow the regular order of this process in 

order to get the facts. I yield. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. [presiding]. Let me thank the witnesses as 

well. We have a vote on the floor. So I will quickly pose some questions, and forgive me if they have been asked and answered. I will 

ask for witnesses to have very succinct answers. 

Chief Cantu, just help me, does your tribe own any casinos at 

this time? 

69 

Chief CANTU. Yes, we do. We own the Soaring Eagle Casino and 

Resort. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Tell me, what do you think is the sense of the 

commitment of the compacts and the trust? Why do you feel that 

the legislation before us pierces that structure that has been put 

in place? 

Chief CANTU. Well, I think that, with Mr. Johnson’s question, 

that the compact requires it, the type of off-reservation gaming be 

approved by other tribes. The tribe agrees with Mr. Artman here 

that the concerns are bypassing the requirements of the compact. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Which is that other tribes have to agree, and 

the tribes that are before us are asking that casinos be put off their 

reservations or their sites? 

Chief CANTU. That is correct. Our ancestral lands. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. On your ancestral lands. 

Chief CANTU. That is correct. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I guess I am confused, Ms. Walker and Ms. 

Tierney. Why would you be doing this? I want to be open minded 

as well, but what is the basis behind at least challenging the compact? 

Ms. WALKER. We don’t believe we are challenging the compact. 

We believe what we are doing is consistent with the compact, and 

that is the nature of the testimony given before the Natural Resources Committee as well. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Which says? 

Ms. WALKER. That this is entirely consistent with the compact. 

The compact does not limit the number of casinos that individual 

tribes may have, and section 9 of the compact that the Governor 

chose not to enforce in the 2002 settlement agreements is a revenue-sharing provision. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. What about the requirement of having the 

other tribes agree to placement? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Section 9 of the 1993 compacts, which is one that 

both Bay Mills and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribes signed with the 

State and approved by the Secretary, does not require approval of 

the other tribes; it simply requires a revenue-sharing if it is a twopart determination fee-to-trust request under section 20 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. You are prepared to share revenue? 

Ms. TIERNEY. We agree with the State that section 9 of the compact is not implicated by our land settlement agreement with the 

State. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. But are you prepared to share revenue? 

Ms. TIERNEY. No, ma’am. It is not required. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Are you in fact suggesting that casinos would 

be on Chief Cantu’s land? 

Ms. TIERNEY. No, I am not. In fact, we have submitted testimony 

and documents to the National Resources Committee, which is also 

in my submission here today, which indicates that the aboriginal 

claims of the Saginaw Chippewa Tribe to the Port Huron area are 

not what Mr. Cantu has indicated. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me ask Mr. Artman very quickly. I am 

going to call this hearing to an end. Can you explain how the U.S. 

would be liable for supporting these bills? 

70 

Mr. Artman. 

Mr. ARTMAN. If the land were taken into trust without going 

through the environmental review process as mandated under 

NEPA, we may be taking land into trust that comes with environmental liabilities. At that point, we would be accepting those liabilities once it goes into trust. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. So whatever liabilities would occur, the U.S. 

Government would have to be responsible for? 

Mr. ARTMAN. That is correct. The way the bill is written, it 

doesn’t give us the opportunity to afford those kind of environmental reviews. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank you very much, all witnesses, 

for your testimony. 

Without objection, Members will have 1 week to submit any additional written questions, for which we will forward and ask that 

you answer as promptly as you can to be made part of the record. 

Without objection, the record will remain open for 1 week for the 

submission of any other additional materials. 

The hearing has helped enlighten the many procedural irregularities involved in these two land deals. Strong concerns have been 

raised about the shortcuts that hack through important legal steps 

that were established to give all voices a chance to be heard and 

to give all issues their due consideration and about the potentially 

indiscriminate spread of casino gaming into all corners of our country if a precedent like this is allowed to gain a foothold. 

The concerns of the Chairman about these land deals and the 

two bills that would bless them for casinos, in disregard of established Federal legal protections and in defiance of the express wishes of Michigan voters, have only increased this morning. The Committee will consider the next appropriate steps accordingly. We 

thank the witnesses all. You have all been heard. 

With that, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ