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

72–539 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–237

ENFORCING THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY

ACT: THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN

GAMING COMMISSION AND TRIBES AS

REGULATORS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 28, 2011

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

LORETTA A. TUELL, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

DAVID A. MULLON JR., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on July 28, 2011 ............................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Akaka ................................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 45

Statement of Senator McCain ................................................................................. 12

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES

Hummingbird, Jamie, Chairman, National Tribal Gaming Commissioners/

Regulators ............................................................................................................. 22

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24

Luger, J. Kurt, Executive Director, Great Plains Indian Gaming Association .. 32

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35

Morago, Sheila, Executive Director, Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association ...... 36

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38

Meskill, John, Director, Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission ........................... 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Stevens, Jr., Ernest L., Chairman, National Indian Gaming Association; accompanied by Mark Van Norman, Executive Director ..................................... 15

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17

Stevens, Hon. Tracie, Chairwoman, National Indian Gaming Commission ....... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

APPENDIX

Monteau, Harold A., Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 51

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. John Barrasso to: 

John Meskill ...................................................................................................... 54

Sheila Morago ................................................................................................... 55

(1)

ENFORCING THE INDIAN GAMING

REGULATORY ACT: THE ROLE OF THE

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION

AND TRIBES AS REGULATORS 

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. 

Aloha and welcome to the Committee’s oversight hearing. 

This hearing is on enforcing the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: 

The Role of the National Indian Gaming Commission and Tribes as 

Regulators. 

When the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act was passed by Congress in 1988, Indian gaming was a $100 million industry. Today, 

it is a $26 billion industry and there are 236 Tribes operating 422 

gaming facilities in 28 States. 

It is important that such a growth industry is well regulated for 

Tribal Governments, patrons and the beneficiaries of the gaming 

revenues, the Tribal members. The Tribes, as the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming, have the greatest interest in making 

sure their operations are well run. 

Tribal Governments use these gaming revenues to fund essential 

government services such as education, health care, cultural programs and Tribal infrastructure. But the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act also created a role for States and the Federal Government, thereby setting up a three-tiered regulatory scheme for Indian gaming. 

Today, there are approximately 2,800 regulators at the Tribal 

level; 500 at the State level, and 100 at the National Indian Gaming Commission. Tribal Governments spend approximately $250 

million each year to fund their gaming commissions. The National 

Indian Gaming Commission is funded at $16 million annually. 

At today’s hearing, we will hear from Tracie Stevens, the Chair 

of the National Indian Gaming Commission. We are looking forVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
2

ward to learning about her first year in office, the Commission’s activities during the past year, and their plans going forward. 

We will also hear from regulators and Tribal gaming organizations who are on the ground every day protecting the integrity of 

Indian gaming. 

I would like to remind our witnesses that they have five minutes 

to present their oral testimony, and their full written testimony 

will be entered into the record. The hearing record will also remain 

open for two weeks so any other interested parties are welcome to 

submit written testimony for the record. 

At this time, I would like to ask Senator Barrasso for any opening statement he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your holding the hearing, because as you have looked into 

the statistics, I agree. I found the same things. According to the 

National Indian Gaming Commission, gross revenues for Indian 

gaming in 2010 was over $26 billion. That is a lot of money and 

the activities that generate that kind of money must be regulated 

effectively. 

Obviously, gaming is a cash business and keeping the business 

clean is critical. No one, be it contractors or vendors or players or 

employees, should illegally benefit at the expense of the Tribe or 

the gaming public. 

According to the National Indian Gaming Commission 2009 Compliance Report, most Tribes did comply with the key regulatory requirements. The 2010 Compliance Report is not yet available to 

provide us with the most current information. However, these reports do not assess how theft and crime at Indian gaming facilities 

have been addressed. Also, some feel that the decision in the Colorado River Indian Tribes case has unduly limited the oversight role 

of the National Indian Gaming Commission. 

Of course, many Tribes disagree with that view, so hopefully the 

Committee is going to be able to hear from the Commission on that 

issue, as well as from the Tribal witnesses. 

So, again, thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Senator Udall, any comments? 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. I would put my statement in the record so we 

can proceed to the witnesses. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

The regulation of Indian Gaming is an important and difficult issue. It is important that Tribal sovereignty is respected and maintained while the existing laws 

and regulations are implemented. 

I look forward to hearing from the Chair of the National Indian Gaming Commission. I know Ms. Stevens has been in this position for about a year now, and that 

this is the first time is several years that there has been a fully appointed commission. 

3

I am encouraged to hear that Chairwoman Stevens’ focus on conducting meaningful government-to-government consultation with Tribes has continued throughout 

the last year since her appointment. I look forward to hearing more about how that 

consultation is going. 

There are many issues relating to gaming that Tribes and the NIGC have been 

grappling with over the past years. I look forward to hearing the views of the panel 

on the future of Indian Gaming regulation, and what is needed in this area.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. It will be made part of the 

record. 

I would like to now welcome our first witness. Ms. Tracie Stevens 

is the Chairwoman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. 

Ms. Stevens, please proceed with your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TRACIE STEVENS, CHAIRWOMAN, 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman 

Barrasso and Members of the Committee for inviting me to testify 

here today. 

My name is Tracie Stevens and I am a member of the Tulalip 

Tribe. It is an honor to appear before you in my capacity as Chairwoman of the National Indian Gaming Commission. With me today 

is Commissioner Dan Little. I would also like to take a moment to 

recognize my Vice Chairman from Tulalip Tribe, Glen Gobin, who 

is also in the audience. 

Today, I will provide a brief overview of the status of Tribal gaming and an update on the Commission’s progress with our four priorities: consultation and relationship-building; technical assistance 

and training; a review of the Commission’s regulations; and a review of agency operations. 

Currently, 240 federally-recognized Tribes operate a total of 422 

Tribal gaming facilities in 28 States. Tribal growth gaming revenues for 2010 essentially mirror 2009 revenues of $26.5 billion. Approximately half of Tribal gaming operations generate annual gross 

gaming revenues of $25 million or less. Even modest revenues enable Tribal governments to provide much- needed services to Tribal 

members and create jobs in communities otherwise suffering from 

high unemployment. 

IGRA establishes a framework under which Tribes, States and 

the Federal Government regulate Indian gaming. Within the Federal Government, multiple agencies take part in ensuring the integrity of the industry, including DOJ, FBI, Treasury’s FinCEN, 

and BIA Law Enforcement. NIGC works in cooperation with these 

law enforcement agencies to share information that may potentially 

indicate a criminal violation of law. 

In addition to NIGC, Tribal governments collectively employ approximately 5,900 Tribal gaming regulators and States collectively 

employ approximately 640 people to regulate Tribal gaming. Thus, 

NIGC, Tribes and States combine to employ over 6,600 people to 

regulate Indian gaming. 

I would now like to turn to our efforts on consultation and relationship-building. We are in the final stages of revising our Tribal 

consultation policy. It is through meaningful government-to-government consultation that the NIGC will be able to make well informed, fully considered decisions concerning regulations and policies. 

4

As part of our relationship-building, we work closely with the 

FBI, DOJ, and U.S. Attorneys’ Office when we receive information 

indicating a violation of criminal law. This relationship-building 

strengthens the collective ability of Tribes, States and the Federal 

Government to protect Indian gaming. 

The Commission believes a strong, well-targeted technical assistance and training program can preempt the need for additional 

regulations or for enforcement actions, can reduce compliance 

issues, and can enhance operations, performance and integrity. 

Since June 2010, we have provided 831 instructional hours of 

training to over 2,800 Tribal leaders, Tribal regulators and casino 

operations. We are also reviewing our training catalogues with 

input from Tribes on how best to tailor NIGC training to meet the 

needs of Tribal regulators and the industry. 

Training and technical assistance will be an evolving process 

which will be aligned with Tribal needs, as well as to ensure the 

integrity of the industry. 

The Commission is also in the process of reviewing its current 

regulations, examining their effectiveness, and seeking input from 

Tribes, and also the public in an effort to identify areas of improvement and any needed changes. We are proceeding in a manner in 

which the Commission strives to circulate preliminary discussion 

drafts for public comment before proceeding with the rulemaking 

process. 

As part of our regulatory review, we are examining Class III 

minimum internal control standards, or otherwise known as MICS 

in light of the CRIT decision. All Tribes have adopted internal controls. Tribes and the public universally support Class III MICS. We 

have heard a variety of suggested approaches to the CRIT decision 

as discussed more fully in my written testimony. 

Let me be clear, however, that the Commission will solve this 

issue in a manner that ensures the integrity of the industry and 

that Tribes receive the revenues generated by Tribal facilities. 

As part of our regulatory review, we have held 11 consultations 

throughout the Country, including a consultation that is being held 

right now at the Department of Interior and these transcripts from 

this consultation and comments are posted on our website as they 

become available. 

We are also working to ensure that the NIGC in the 21st century 

is the smartest, more transparent and better equipped agency that 

continues to be responsive and adapted to the needs of the Tribal 

gaming industry. We have partnered with OPM to evaluate our operations and identify areas of improvement. 

The Commission is committed to focusing resources and maximizing cooperation and coordination with Tribal, State and Federal 

agencies. 

In conclusion, I want to stress my commitment to enforcing the 

law. While the overwhelming majority of Tribal facilities are model 

businesses and our goal is to keep Tribes in compliance, make no 

mistake: serious violations have serious consequences. When a 

third party unlawfully managed a facility and took unconscionable 

amounts of revenue that should be going to develop Tribal health 

and welfare, I issued a violation and ordered them to pay those 

Tribal funds back. 

5

When Tribes operate facilities in disregard of the law, I work 

with State and Federal authorities to shut them down. I do not 

hesitate to refer criminal matters to the FBI and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices and I will continue to do so to ensure that Tribes are 

the primary beneficiaries of Indian gaming. 

That concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Stevens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TRACIE STEVENS, CHAIRWOMAN, NATIONAL INDIAN

GAMING COMMISSION


728a1.eps
6


728a2.eps
7


728a3.eps
8


728a4.eps
9


728a5.eps
10

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Chairwoman Stevens, your Commission has placed an emphasis 

on training and technical assistance for Tribal regulators. Have you 

noticed a decrease in enforcement actions as a result of increased 

training for regulators? 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, for your question. 

My sense is that it is, although this particular initiative is a 

long-term initiative and we have been in office for a year and we 

are, like I said, revamping our curriculum. Technical assistance 

and training is a statutory requirement for the NIGC, but the Commission firmly believes that technical assistance and training help 

Tribes stay in compliance. Our basic principle is what we call ACE: 

assistance, compliance and enforcement, and in that order. And 

technical assistance and training is an essential component of that 

principle. 

We have held 92 trainings since June of last year, with 2,800 

attendees, 830 training hours, and over 200 Tribes represented. 


728a6.eps
11

Now, I do want to clarify. We see training and technical assistance a little differently. Training we have these classroom-style 

trainings that we plan. Sometimes we do this for individuals and 

sometimes we do this for regional Tribes so that we can meet with 

multiple Tribes and conduct training. 

Technical assistance, on the other hand, is unique to the situation to the Tribes, and it is our field staff, which I have to commend in our Enforcement Division and our Audit Division and our 

General Counsel’s Office, who work with Tribes on a day-to- day 

basis. Every day, they are talking to Tribes, providing assistance 

and guidance to keep them in compliance. And that is ongoing. 

As I said, I think my sense is that it is helping. We do talk to 

our enforcement staff on a regular basis. They can keep us informed and they are in most cases able to keep Tribes in compliance and keep enforcement actions down and teach Tribes how to 

stay in compliance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

After you became Chair of NIGC, you committed to undertaking 

a comprehensive review of the Colorado River decision and determining whether legislative action is necessary. Where are you on 

that review process? And do you have any recommendations for 

whether legislation is necessary? 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, for your question. 

I do recall that conversation last year, and we set out immediately on looking at what I call the post-CRIT world. The decision 

was made five years ago and I wanted to know more about what 

the landscape was for Class III minimum internal control standards, and directed the staff at the NIGC to start researching that 

particular topic. 

Our preliminary research shows that there are 24 States that 

have Class III gaming compacts; 15 of those 24 States require the 

Tribes to adopt comprehensive minimum internal control standards 

that are as stringent as the NIGC’s. That is 83 percent of the gross 

gaming revenue. 

An additional nine Tribes’ compacts require Tribes to adopt specific controls or to develop their own internal controls. As I said in 

my opening statement and in my written testimony as well, is that 

all Tribes have minimum internal control standards. 

As part of this review, we have included the particular topic in 

our regulatory review that we are undergoing that I detailed in my 

written testimony, and are discussing this issue with Tribes to get 

a better understanding of where they are in their particular region 

or their State or with their compacts, and how this impacts them. 

In terms of a recommendation, we are still in the process of reviewing what Tribes have to say because there have been a number 

of different ways that this could affect Tribes. As I said, if 24 

States require this in compacts, I am a little concerned about upsetting an apple cart there. But as I mentioned in my written testimony, this may be a hybrid approach that we may have to take in 

light of the decision. 

We have heard from Tribes, some suggestions from Tribes that 

the NIGC MICS are left in place or that we provide guidance. We 

have also heard suggestions that this be addressed in Tribal- State 

12

compacts and others suggest that NIGC MICS may be adopted into 

Tribal ordinances. 

As I said, we are still in the process of addressing this administratively and we want to solve this particular matter in a way that 

is respectful to all three sovereign governments: Tribes, States and 

the Federal Government. 

The CHAIRMAN. So from what you have just said, you look at 

doing it administratively. 

Ms. STEVENS. We are doing that right now. I understand there 

is not any legislation, and without language, I couldn’t comment in 

the absence of language. But I am trying to address this administratively and be respectful to all the agreements that are out there 

with the States and with the Tribes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Now, I would like to call on Senator McCain for your questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The question that I asked you I guess it was seven months ago, 

do you believe that there is a need for a legislative fix to the CRIT 

decision as it is known as. I ask you that question again. 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Senator, for your question. 

Like I mentioned to Chairman Akaka, at this time I would be remiss in trying to respond to language that I don’t see. 

Senator MCCAIN. I don’t understand that logic. There is a problem as a result of the CRIT decision. That is the ability or lack of 

capability of the Indian Gaming Commission to have access to 

records and do the investigative work that was envisioned when 

the legislation was passed. Being the coauthor of that legislation, 

I am very intimately familiar with it. 

Now, I ask you the question again seven months later. Is there 

a need for a legislative addressing of the impact of the CRIT decision? Now, how that is written would be the second step, I might 

say. The first step is, is there a need for a legislative result, seven 

months later. I asked that question in the beginning. You said you 

would consult and find out and give me an answer. You are not 

giving me an answer today. 

Ms. STEVENS. Well, as I said in my response to Chairman Akaka, 

we are still in the process of discussing this with Tribes. 

Senator MCCAIN. I see. And how much longer will you be in this 

process of discussing? 

Ms. STEVENS. Right now, we are scheduled for the next six 

months. 

Senator MCCAIN. So it will be 13 months from the time that you 

were made the chairman before you are able to reach a conclusion 

on this issue. That is really remarkable. 

Are you aware that there was an FBI raid on the Choctaw casino 

in Mississippi last Tuesday, I believe it was, or July 13th? 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes, I am. 

Senator MCCAIN. Do you know anything about that? 

Ms. STEVENS. That is an active investigation right now, Senator, 

and as much as I would like to provide you with information, I 

would not be able to. 

13

Senator MCCAIN. You do know about it? 

Ms. STEVENS. Yes, I do. 

Senator MCCAIN. According to testimony, you have also held 

eight consultations ‘‘to develop more effective ways to consult with 

Tribes,’’ according to your testimony. So in other words, you have 

had eight consultations on how to consult. 

Ms. STEVENS. I guess you could put it that way. That is one way 

to look at it. It is in response to the President’s memo on consultation with Tribal governments and being respectful to Tribes, an 

also examining our consultation policy. We would like to talk to 

Tribes before we change the policy. 

Senator MCCAIN. Well, may I say your predecessor had a strong 

opinion about whether there was a need to address legislatively a 

CRIT fix. I think it is really remarkable it is going to be 13 months 

before you could reach a conclusion whether there should be a legislative fix or not. I guess it is another incredible waste of the taxpayers’ dollars. 

I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator McCain. 

Senator Udall, your questions? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Akaka. 

Ms. Stevens, when you visited the Committee last year for a 

similar hearing on gaming, you expressed intentions to increase 

government-to-government relations with the Tribes. How has that 

effort been going? Have you been successful? Where do you need 

to do more work? How are you ensuring that all Tribes are able 

to give input in any future changes in regulations made by the 

NIGC and whether they game or not? And what is the status of 

your draft consultation policy? 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Senator, for your questions. 

Upon coming into office, the three commissions met and we 

mapped out these four priorities that I mentioned today both orally 

and in my written testimony. 

The first thing that was on our list is improving our consultation 

process. We have changed our formatting. When we consult with 

Tribes, we do it in a group forum so that Tribes can hear what 

other Tribes have to say. We can hear common problems and common solutions and it is an exchange and it is a dialogue. 

The other thing that we have done is we have brought out to 

Tribes the NIGC to areas that don’t normally see the NIGC. So we 

are going to rural areas and putting the burden of travel on the 

NIGC. 

We also give adequate and timely notice prior to a consultation 

so that Tribes can make arrangements to attend. And if they are 

unable to attend, we put our transcripts on the Internet. They are 

always available and have comment periods that allow Tribes time 

if they are unable to meet with us in person to give us their comments on any policy or changes that we may be considering. 

And our draft consultation policy right now, we received input 

through those eight consultations that Senator McCain mentioned, 

so that we could look back and see what worked previously, what 

didn’t work previously, and consider what Tribes had to say before 

we started changing our policy. 

14

We drafted a policy with Tribal input and we issued it in April. 

We had about a 60-day comment period for that draft consultation 

policy. We are in the process of reading those comments from 

Tribes and we will be finalizing that. And overall, we have had 

very supportive comments from Tribes on our revamped and revised consultation policy. 

Senator UDALL. Can you give me, and maybe you can’t because 

of the status of this, but how the comments have been going? And 

have they appreciated the consultation process that you have developed, and that kind of thing? 

Ms. STEVENS. What we have heard so far is an appreciation for, 

one, timely notice; two, inclusion prior to drafting anything and 

that goes to honoring Executive Order 13175 that states that Federal agencies should talk to Tribes first before making changes. 

And that is one particular area that Tribes have been very supportive of. 

And then finally just the change in format. It took everybody a 

little while to get accustomed to the new roundtable format, but it 

has been very helpful to have our format structured that way so 

that we can have very candid conversations. And so far, it has been 

very supportive. 

I have to say, Tribes don’t always agree with what I have to say 

and we are finding that out through our regulatory review process. 

But just because we don’t agree, doesn’t mean we can’t be respectful. 

Senator UDALL. One of the major complaints I hear with my 

Tribes in New Mexico, 22 Tribes, and some have gaming and some 

don’t, is the word. You used the word consultation. And I think the 

fact that you are going out in advance before doing regulations and 

consulting and spending the time with them and giving them notice, I think that really makes a difference. It may take some time, 

slow down some of the rest of the things you are doing, but it is 

something that I think is a sore point with many Tribes, that when 

it comes to various governmental agencies that the word consultation is there, and yet the governmental agencies don’t do it. 

And so I think they appreciate the effort that you are taking, and 

I look forward to this Committee being briefed on that as we move 

forward. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

I would like to say mahalo, thank you very much, Chairwoman 

Stevens, for your testimony and your comments. We want to wish 

you well, and as I look forward to the future, we need to make 

every effort to keep things just and I think you folks are striving 

to do that. 

And so I want to wish you well and to keep in touch with you 

on matters that affect the Indian Tribes. So thank you again for 

being here. 

Ms. STEVENS. Thank you, Chairman, I look forward to keeping 

the Committee informed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

I would like to invite the second panel to the witness table: Mr. 

Ernest Stevens, Jr., Chairman of the National Indian Gaming AsVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
15

sociation and Mr. Jamie Hummingbird, Chairperson of the National Tribal Gaming Commissioners and Regulators. 

Welcome to the Committee. It is good to have you here and hear 

your testimony. 

Mr. Stevens, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF ERNEST L. STEVENS, JR., CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED

BY MARK VAN NORMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Mr. STEVENS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Udall. It 

is an honor to be here this afternoon. I want to thank you for this 

opportunity to testify on the role of Tribal governments as regulators in Indian gaming operations. 

I would like to ask that my written statement be placed in the 

hearing record. My statement includes a number of statistics that 

reinforce what Indian gaming means to Indian Country and lists 

the significant benefits to our State and local government neighbors. 

Indian gaming is Tribal self-determination. Gaming is an exercise of inherent authority affirmed, confirmed and guided by the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in the record. 

Mr. STEVENS. IGRA is largely a result of the Cabazon Supreme 

Court case. That decision recognized President Reagan’s policy to 

support Tribal self-government and self-sufficiency; 237 Indian 

Tribes nationwide have made the Act work. 

For many Tribes, Indian gaming is first and foremost about jobs 

and rebuilding Tribal communities. For many Indian people, Indian gaming has provided them with their first opportunity for 

quality employment. And more importantly, it is bringing entire 

families back to Indian Country. We like that, Mr. Chairman. We 

are excited about that. 

In 2010, Indian gaming generated a total of more than 600,000 

direct and indirect jobs. These jobs go to Indian and non-Indian 

alike. Without question, we are putting people to work. 

In times when States are struggling to meet budget shortfalls, 

Indian Tribes are going out of their way to help make up the difference. In many States, Indian gaming charitable contributions 

are working to prevent layoffs of teachers, health care providers 

and public safety officials. 

In little more than 30 years, Indian gaming has helped to begin 

to rebuild many struggling Native communities. New reservation 

economies are enhancing living conditions throughout Indian Country. Because of Indian gaming, Tribal governments are stronger, 

people are healthier, and an entire generation of Indian youth has 

hope for a better future. 

So that is what is at stake. Tribal governments understand that 

this progress wouldn’t be possible without a strong regulatory system and Tribes have committed significant resources to regulation. 

IGRA established a three-tiered system of regulation. The Act provides for a system of joint regulation by Tribes and the Federal 

Government for Class II gaming. With regard to Class III gaming, 

the regulatory system developed between Tribal and State governVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
16

ments through the compacting process. In addition, NIGC maintains a strong oversight role with respect to Class III gaming. 

As a result of this three-tiered system, Indian gaming is subject 

to more stringent regulation and security than any gaming operation in any jurisdiction of the United States. This system employs 

3,400 regulators and staff to protect Indian gaming. In 2010 alone, 

Tribes spent approximately $345 million to regulate their operations. We are not perfect. People have tested our systems, but 

these people have been convicted, lost their gaming license, and 

terminated never to work in our industry again. 

Against the backdrop of comprehensive regulation, the FBI and 

the Justice Department have repeatedly testified that there has 

been no substantial infiltration of organized crime in Indian gaming. This is not an accident, Mr. Chairman. The system is costly. 

It is comprehensive. And our record and experience shows that it 

is working. 

I would like to acknowledge the current Administration for its 

commitment to agency-wide Tribal consultation. At the Department 

of Justice, the increased cooperation and coordination between 

Tribal gaming regulators, Tribal police and the U.S. Attorneys 

sends a strong message that any crimes in Indian Country or 

against Indian gaming operations will be dealt with in accordance 

with the law. 

Senator, if I can, I want to introduce Mr. Stanley Rocky 

Papasodora, a long-time Indian gaming regulator. Rocky is the Director of Security for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. Rocky is 

standing. I want to introduce Rocky quickly because he is the 

Chairman of the Tribal Gaming Protections Network, a national 

group of national regulators and security personnel. 

Now, Rocky would be the first to tell you. He is an old boxer so 

he still has that name, but his name is Stanley Papasodora, and 

he is one of our leaders in this regulatory industry. And his Tribe 

flew him out here to stand with us. 

But he coordinates a national effort nationwide of national regulators and security folks that talk about cheats and scams throughout this Country. And he would be the first to tell you that the 

strength lies within the more local and regional. But they have to 

communicate because one goes here, the other one is going someplace else. And we are on top of it and these Indian security personnel are on top of it, and we stop crime because of it regularly. 

Thank you, Rocky. 

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome. Nice to have you here. 

Mr. STEVENS. NIGA appreciates the increased government-togovernment consultation on the part of the NIGC. Consultation has 

begun to repair relationships with Tribal governments, which also 

has led to increased coordination and further improvements to regulation. 

That said, there are several areas where we must work towards 

improvement. Given the complex nature of the regulations, the frequency of revisions, there is a significant need for increased training and technical assistance. In addition, there is a longstanding 

need to bring stability and clarity to Class II Indian gaming. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that Indian 

gaming is working. It is rebuilding Tribal economies, benefitting 

17

non-Indian communities, and providing hope for future generations 

of Indian people. We are mindful of what is at stake and the Tribes 

nationwide are committed to maintain a strong, seamless and comprehensive system of regulation. Much of the credit of this success 

goes to the Tribal leaders, Mr. Chairman, who make the decisions 

to spend $345 million each year to regulate their operations and to 

the thousands of men and women who are the day-to-day frontline 

regulators of the Indian gaming operations just like Mr. 

Papasodora and obviously Mr. Hummingbird, too. I am looking to 

my right. I am right-handed. 

Mr. Chairman and to the Committee, this concludes my remarks. 

I am trying to stay within my time limit, but again, the emphasis 

I want to make to you, Mr. Chairman, is these people have given 

their life and their heart to protect our industry. We are doing a 

great job and work very hard at it, and we spend a lot of resources 

doing so. 

Thank you for hearing my comments today, Mr. Chairman and 

Mr. Senator, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stevens follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNEST L. STEVENS, JR., CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL INDIAN

GAMING ASSOCIATION

Introduction 

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Ernest Stevens, Jr., Chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) and a member of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin. NIGA is 

an interTribal association of 184 federally recognized Indian Tribes united behind 

the mission of protecting Tribal sovereignty and preserving the ability of Tribes to 

attain economic self-sufficiency through gaming and other economic endeavors. I 

want to thank the Committee for this opportunity to provide our views on the role 

of Tribal governments and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) as regulators of Indian gaming operations. 

Indian Tribes As Governments 

I testified one year ago today before this Committee about the general state of 

Indian gaming. As I did then, I again would like to first place Indian gaming in 

proper context, by briefly providing some background about the Constitutional status of Indian Tribes in the United States, and discuss briefly what Indian gaming 

means to Indian country. 

As this Committee well knows, before contact with European Nations, Indian 

Tribes were independent self-governing entities vested with full authority and control over their lands, citizens, and visitors to their lands. The Nations of England, 

France, and Spain all acknowledged Tribes as sovereigns and entered into treaties 

with various Tribes to establish commerce and trade agreements, form wartime alliances, and preserve the peace. 

The United States Constitution specifically acknowledges the importance of trade 

with Tribal governments in the Commerce Clause, which states that ‘‘Congress shall 

have power to... regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several 

states, and with the Indian Tribes.’’ U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 

3. The United States also entered into hundreds of treaties with Tribal governments. Through these treaties, Tribes ceded hundreds of millions of acres of Tribal 

homelands to help build this great Nation. In return, the United States promised 

to provide for the education, health, public safety and general welfare of Indian people. The U.S. Supreme Court later acknowledged that this course of dealing with 

Tribal governments established a trust relationship between Tribes and the United 

States, with accompanying obligations on the part of the United States towards Indian people. 

Over the past two centuries plus, the federal government has fallen far short in 

meeting these solemn treaty and trust obligations. In the late 1800’s, the United 

States adopted and implemented a policy of forced Assimilation, whereby the federal 

government took Indian children from their homes, and placed them in military and 

religious boarding schools where they were forbidden from speaking their language 

18

or practicing their Native religions. The concurrent policy of Allotment sought to destroy Tribal governing structures, sold off treaty-protected Indian lands, and had 

the result of further eroding Tribal land bases and devastating Tribal economies. 

Finally, the Termination policy of the 1950’s again sought to put an end to Tribal 

governing structures, eliminate remaining Tribal land bases, and attempted to relocate individual Indians from Tribal lands with the help of one-way bus tickets to 

urban areas with the promise of vocational education. 

These policies resulted in death of hundreds of thousands of our ancestors, the 

taking of hundreds of millions of acres of Tribal homelands, the suppression of Tribal religion and culture, and the destruction of Tribal economies. The aftermath of 

these policies continues to plague Indian country to this day. 

Tribal Government Self-Determination 

Time and time again, these policies were revealed as failures. The persistence and 

perseverance of Indian people demonstrated to the federal government that Indian 

country was not going to fade away. On July 8, 1970, President Nixon formally repudiated the policy of Termination and adopted a policy supporting Indian Self-Determination, which seeks to improve Indian education, fosters Tribal culture, and 

enhances Tribal economic development, among other goals. Self-Determination remains the Indian Affairs policy of the United States to this day. Tribal governments 

have seen progress in rebuilding their communities as a result of the Self-Determination policy. 

In the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Tribal governments took self-determination to 

heart, and opened the first Indian gaming operations to generate governmental revenue to fund essential Tribal government programs and meet the shortfalls in the 

federal obligations to provide for Indian education, health, and the general welfare 

of Indian people. 

State governments and commercial gaming operations challenged the rights of 

Tribes to conduct gaming on their lands. These challenges culminated in the Supreme Court case of California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 

(1987). The Cabazon Court upheld the right of Tribes, as governments, to conduct 

gaming on their lands free from state control or interference. The Court reasoned 

that Indian gaming is crucial to Tribal self-determination and self-governance because it provides Tribal governments with a means to generate governmental revenue for essential services and functions. 

In 1988, one year after the Cabazon decision, Congress enacted the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). The stated goals of IGRA include the promotion of Tribal 

economic development and self-sufficiency, strengthening Tribal governments, and 

establishing a federal framework to regulate Indian gaming. The Act also established the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC). While there are dozens of 

forms of gaming in America, the NIGC is the only federal commission to regulate 

any form of gaming in the United States. 

IGRA did not come from Indian country. A number of Tribal governments strongly 

opposed the federal legislation. The Act is far from perfect, and the U.S. Supreme 

Court has added to its imperfections. However, for nearly 23 years, more than 200 

Tribes nationwide have made IGRA work to help begin to rebuild their communities 

and meet the stated goals of the Act. 

State of Indian Gaming 

Indian gaming is the Native American success story. For more than three decades, Indian gaming has proven to be the most successful tool for economic development for many Indian Tribes. In 2010, 236 of the 565 federally recognized Indian 

Tribal governments operated gaming to generate revenue for their communities. 

Many Tribes have used revenue from Indian gaming to put a new face on their 

communities. Indian Tribes have dedicated gaming revenues to improve basic 

health, education, and public safety services on Indian lands. We have used gaming 

dollars to improve Tribal infrastructure, including the construction of roads, hospitals, schools, police buildings, water projects, and many others. Gaming revenues 

also enable Tribes to diversify their economies beyond gaming. Because of capital 

provided by gaming, Tribes have invested in renewable energy projects, retails operations, manufacturing and other entrepreneurial ventures. 

For many Tribes, Indian gaming is first and foremost about jobs. Indian gaming 

is a proven job creator, establishing and fostering over 600,000 direct and indirect 

American jobs in 2010. Indian gaming has provided many individual Indians with 

their first opportunity at work. Just as importantly Indian gaming is bringing entire 

families back to Indian country. Because of Indian gaming, reservations are again 

becoming livable homes, as promised in hundreds of treaties. These American jobs 

19

go to both Indian and non-Indian alike. Without question, we are putting people to 

work. 

Indian gaming also benefits federal, state, and local governments. A June 2011 

National Public Radio report, titled ‘‘Casino Revenue Helps Tribes Aid Local Governments,’’ acknowledged that revenue from the Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington 

helped prevent additional layoffs at the local Everett, Washington prosecutor’s office. The article also noted to the $1.3 million that the Tulalip Tribes recently gave 

to the local school district after they heard about possible budget cuts and teacher 

layoffs. These same scenarios are taking place in more than a hundred local jurisdictions throughout the United States, saving thousands of jobs for American health 

care workers, fire fighters, police officers, and many other local officials that provide 

essential services to children, elders, and others. 

In 2010, Indian gaming generated close to $13 billion for federal, state and local 

governments budgets through compact and service agreements, indirect payment of 

employment, income, sales and other state taxes, and reduced general welfare payments. Despite the fact that Indian Tribes are governments, not subject to direct 

taxation, individual Indians pay federal income taxes, the people who work at casinos pay taxes, and those who do business with Tribal casinos pay taxes. As employers, Tribes also pay employment taxes to fund social security and participate as governments in the federal unemployment system. Indian Tribes also made more than 

$100 million in charitable contributions to other Tribes, nearby state and local governments, and non-profits and private organizations. In short, Indian gaming has 

become a vital piece of the national economy. 

As this Committee has highlighted over the past several years, much more needs 

to be done. Indian gaming is not a cure all, and many Tribal communities continue 

to suffer the devastating effects of the past failed federal policies. Too many of our 

people continue to live with disease and poverty. Indian health care is substandard, 

violent crime is multiple times the national average, and unemployment on Indian 

reservations nationwide averages 50 percent. Again, only 236 of the 565 federal recognized Tribes are able to use gaming as a means of economic development. 

To broaden the economic success of Indian gaming, NIGA is working with our 

Member Tribes to further encourage Tribe-to-Tribe giving and lending. Through our 

American Indian Business Network, we work to highlight the benefits of hiring Native owned businesses and procurement of Native produced goods and services. Empowering Tribal entrepreneurs and Tribal government owned businesses, will serve 

to further diversify and strengthen Tribal economies. 

In addition, we applaud the ongoing efforts of the NIGC to adopt a regulation to 

implement the Buy Indian Act. The Buy Indian Act, states simply: ‘‘so far as may 

be practicable Indian labor shall be employed, and purchases of the products of Indian industry may be made in open market in the discretion of the Secretary of the 

Interior.’’ 25 U.S.C. 47. Such a regulation should give preference to qualified Tribal 

government-owned and individual Indian-owned businesses when the NIGC procures goods or services. These efforts fully comport with the stated goals of IGRA 

to foster Tribal economic self-sufficiency. 

While much more must be done, Indian gaming has proven to be one of the best 

available tools for Tribal economic development. Indian gaming has helped many 

Tribes begin to rebuild communities that were once forgotten. Because of Indian 

gaming, our Tribal governments are stronger, our people are healthier, and an entire generation of Indian youth has hope for a better future. 

Tribal Government Regulation of Indian Gaming 

That’s what is at stake. Tribal governments realize that none of these benefits 

would be possible without a strong regulatory system to protect Tribal revenue and 

to preserve the integrity of our operations. 

With regard to regulation, IGRA established a three-tiered system. This Committee’s 1988 report on the Act makes clear the original intent for the regulatory system under the Act:

‘‘[IGRA] provides for a system of joint regulation by Tribe and the federal government for Class II gaming on Indian lands and a system of compacts between 

Tribes and states for regulation of Class III gaming. The bill establishes the 

NIGC as an independent agency within the Department of the Interior. The 

Commission will have a regulatory role for Class II gaming and an oversight 

role with respect to Class III gaming.’’

Senate Report 100–446, at 1 (Aug. 3, 1988).

This regulatory system vests local Tribal government regulators with the primary 

day-to-day responsibility for regulating Indian gaming operations. This only makes 

20

sense, because no one has a greater interest in protecting the integrity of Indian 

gaming than Tribes. 

This framework contrasts from the failed framework of criminal jurisdiction in Indian country where Tribes rely on federal officials to investigate and prosecute 

crimes that occur on Indian lands from offices and courtrooms that are often located 

hundreds of miles from Indian country. Despite recent reforms, this system is a 

proven failure. Washington, D.C. is simply not equipped to police Indian lands or 

make local decisions for Tribal communities. 

While Tribes take on the primary day-to-day role of regulating Indian gaming operations, IGRA requires on coordination and cooperation with the federal and state 

governments (in the case of Class III gaming) to make this comprehensive regulatory system work. The Tribal, state, and the federal governments must all work 

hand-in-hand to ensure the effective regulation of Indian gaming. 

Under the Act, the NIGC has direct authority to monitor Class II gaming on Indian lands on a continuing basis and has full authority to inspect and examine all 

premises on which Class II gaming is being conducted. 

Class III gaming is primarily regulated through a framework established through 

individual Tribal-state gaming compacts. Here the two sovereigns agree upon a 

framework to regulate Class III gaming based on arms length negotiations. As noted 

above, Congress intended that the NIGC would maintain an oversight of Class III 

gaming. As a result, under the Act, the NIGC:

• reviews and approves Class III Tribal gaming regulatory laws and ordinances;

• reviews Tribal background checks and gaming licenses of Class III gaming personnel;

• receives and reviews annual independent audits of Tribal gaming facilities, including Class III gaming (all contracts for supplies and services over $25,000 

annually are subject to those audits);

• approves all Tribal management contracts; and

• works with Tribal gaming regulatory agencies to ensure proper implementation 

of Tribal gaming regulatory ordinances.

This comprehensive system of regulation is expensive and time consuming, but 

Tribal leaders know what’s at stake and know that strong regulation is the cost of 

a successful operation. Despite the Recession, Tribal governments have continued to 

dedicate tremendous resources to the regulation of Indian gaming. In 2010, Tribes 

spent more than $345 million on Tribal, state, and federal regulation:

• $250 million to fund Tribal government gaming regulatory agencies;

• $80 million to reimburse states for state regulatory activities negotiated and 

agreed to pursuant to approved Tribal-state Class III gaming compacts; and

• $16 million to fully fund the operations and activities of the National Indian 

Gaming Commission.

The Indian gaming regulatory system employs more than 3,400 expert regulators 

and staff to protect Indian gaming. Tribal governments employ approximately 2,800 

gaming regulators and staff. Among the ranks of Tribal regulators are former FBI 

agents, BIA, Tribal and state police officers, former state gaming compliance regulators, military officers, accountants, auditors, attorneys and bank surveillance officers. In addition, state governments employ more than 500 state gaming regulators, 

staff and law enforcement officers to help Tribes regulate Indian gaming. At the federal level, the NIGC employs more than 100 regulators and staff. 

In addition to the NIGC, a number of other federal officials help regulate and protect Indian gaming operations. Tribes work with the FBI and U.S. Attorneys offices 

to investigate and prosecute anyone who would cheat, embezzle, or defraud an Indian gaming facility—this applies to management, employees, and patrons. 18 

U.S.C. § 1163. Tribal regulators also work with the Treasury Department’s Internal 

Revenues Service to ensure federal tax compliance and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to prevent money laundering. Finally, Tribes work 

with the Secret Service to prevent counterfeiting. 

Tribal governments have also invested heavily in high tech state-of-the-art surveillance and security equipment, and employ professional personnel to operate 

these systems. Tribal surveillance systems are on par with the best systems in the 

gaming industry, and exceed standards employed by state and commercial gaming 

operations. 

Against this backdrop of comprehensive regulation, the FBI and the Justice Department have repeatedly testified that there has been no substantial infiltration 

21

of organized crime on Indian gaming. This system is costly, it’s comprehensive, and 

our record and our experience shows that it’s working. 

NIGA is encouraged by the Administration’s rededication to agency-wide government-to-government consultation with Indian Tribes. On November 5, 2009, President Obama issued an Executive Memorandum directing each federal agency to submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a detailed plan 

to implement the policies and directives of Executive Order 13175. Over the past 

two years, all agencies have submitted and have begun to implement Tribal consultation plans, and many have established offices of Tribal government relations. 

These offices have opened countless doors and programs to Tribes in agencies that 

were previously closed to Indian country. 

With regard to Indian gaming, at the Department of Justice, the increased cooperation and coordination between Tribal gaming regulators, Tribal police, and 

U.S. Attorneys sends a strong message that any crimes in Indian country or against 

Indian gaming operations will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

NIGA also appreciates the increased consultation on the part of the NIGC. Increased consultation has begun to repair frayed relationships with Tribal governments, and has led to increased coordination, and further improvements to regulation. 

NIGA is working with the NIGC to improve several areas, including training and 

technical assistance, Class II gaming regulations, and the facility licensing regulations. Tribal governments are encouraged by the NIGC’s ongoing regulatory review. 

While these areas are detailed in comments to a variety of NIGC proposed rules, 

I will focus my testimony on the need to review regulations relating to Class II gaming. 

Class II Indian Gaming 

Congress, in enacting IGRA, struck a careful balance among the respective interests of three sovereigns: Tribal, federal, and state governments. That balance was 

critically upset by the Supreme Court’s 1996 decision in Seminole Tribe v. Florida,

which found that a state could refuse to negotiate Class III Tribal-state gaming 

compacts in good faith. This decision has resulted in a number of states (that condone and regulate other forms of gaming) exercising veto authority over Class III 

Indian gaming. As a result, Indian Tribes in these states rely solely on Class II 

gaming to generate governmental revenue to provide essential services to meet the 

many needs of their communities. 

For most of the past decade, the NIGC has created great uncertainty in the area 

of Class II Indian gaming. With little Tribal input, the NIGC in past years developed unworkable gaming classification standards that went beyond the statutory 

authority granted to the Commission in IGRA and that threatened the economic viability of Class II gaming. Many of these proposed regulations sought to limit Class 

II games to only those in play in 1988. This view stands in direct conflict with congressional intent. The Senate Committee Report to IGRA states the following:

The Committee specifically rejects any inference that Tribes should restrict 

Class II games to existing game sizes, levels of participation, or current technology. The Committee intends that Tribes be given the opportunity to take advantage of modern methods of conducting Class II games and the language regarding technology is designed to provide maximum flexibility.

Senate Report 100–446, at 9 (Aug. 3, 1988).

To better meet these intentions, the NIGC should make it a priority to revisit regulations that affect Class II Indian gaming in consultation with all Tribal governments and Tribal regulatory agencies. Specific areas with regard to Class II gaming 

that deserve a closer look include the Class II Minimum Internal Control Standards, 

technical standards for Class II gaming, and self-regulation of Class II gaming, 

among other areas. 

In this area, NIGA acknowledges the significant efforts of the Tribal leaders, Tribal regulators, and industry experts of the Indian Gaming Working Group. This 

Group invested a considerable amount of time and thought into comments and proposals to improve this area of the law and bring it closer to the original congressional intent. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act has worked well to promote 

‘‘Tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong Tribal governments,’’ as 

Congress intended. Indian gaming is a true success story for Indian country and the 

Nation as a whole. 

22

Tribal governments are mindful of what’s at stake, and Tribes nationwide have 

committed significant and precious resources to maintaining a strong, seamless, and 

comprehensive system of regulation. Much of the credit for this success goes to the 

Tribal leaders who made the decision to spend more than $345 million to regulate 

their operations, and to the thousands of men and women who are day-to-day front 

line regulators of Indian gaming operations. In short, Indian Country is proud of 

its gaming regulatory history and we are working hard to ensure that Tribal gaming 

regulation remains strong into the future. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee this concludes my remarks. Again, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify today.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much for your testimony. 

And now we will hear from Mr. Hummingbird. Will you please 

proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE HUMMINGBIRD, CHAIRMAN,

NATIONAL TRIBAL GAMING COMMISSIONERS/REGULATORS 

Mr. HUMMINGBIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to say on behalf of the National Tribal Gaming Commissioners and Regulators that I am pleased to appear before you 

today to provide insight into the regulatory side of the Indian gaming industry from the perspective of a Tribal gaming regulator. 

As Mr. Stevens mentioned, my name is Jamie Hummingbird. I 

am a member and citizen of the Cherokee Nation where I serve as 

the Director. And I have been serving in my capacity as a regulator 

for 13 years. Before that, I had served in various capacities with 

the nation and have served my nation for 20 years. 

Prior to the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or 

IGRA, in 1988, Tribal gaming regulatory authorities, or TGRAs, 

played a pivotal role in overseeing the conduct of gaming offered 

on Indian lands. It was in the pre-IGRA era that the regulatory 

principles and responsibilities of gaming regulators were established and continue to be the foundation for each TGRA today, 

namely the protection of Tribal assets, protecting the integrity of 

the gaming environment, and accountability of the gaming operations. 

One constant concept in the minds of Tribes and TGRAs as these 

principles were expressed was that they were and remain an exercise of the Tribe’s inherent sovereign authority to determine the 

conduct of its operations. The IGRA required Tribes to draft gaming ordinances establishing their respective gaming regulatory authorities. The Act further clarified the role of Tribal gaming regulators by specifying that Indian Tribes have the exclusive right to 

regulate gaming on Indian lands. 

In seeking balance of interests of the Federal Government and 

the State governments, IGRA also created the National Indian 

Gaming Commission to provide Federal regulatory oversight and, 

as necessary, various States were expected to utilize their existing 

regulatory bodies or to create them pursuant to the terms of a Tribal State compact. 

Further, IGRA allowed Tribes to offer games that were not expressly prohibited within the State in which they reside, and IGRA 

created gaming classifications and designated responsibility for regulating the various classes of gaming where Tribes are the sole regulators of Class I gaming and the primary regulator in Class II 

gaming, with the NIGC maintaining and oversight role. 

23

Tribes also share responsibility for regulation with States under 

the terms of the Tribal-State compacts. 

The Tribal gaming ordinances which are subject to the review 

and approval of the Chairman of the NIGC, fulfill basic requirements for Tribal propriety, revenue distribution, audits, the environment, public health and safety, and management background 

investigations. 

Tribal gaming regulatory authorities must evaluate their gaming 

environment and devise rules and regulations that are fitting to 

their unique circumstances. As extensions of the gaming ordinances, these regulations clarify the duties, authorities and methods by which Tribal gaming facilities are to be governed. 

The regulations address the licensing of gaming facilities, individuals and vendors, approval of games that are to be offered, handling tort and prize claims, surveillance, security, auditing and 

overseeing compliance with environmental and public health and 

safety activities. 

Tribes also utilize internal control standards as a tool to gauge 

a gaming facility’s level of compliance with applicable laws and regulations. There are numerous other tools and processes that are 

utilized in these efforts, beginning with the employment of qualified personnel. 

Currently, and has been stated previously, the Tribal gaming industry is directly or indirectly responsible for employing over 

600,000 individuals where there are approximately 4,000 Tribal 

gaming regulators monitoring and ensuring the maximum effective 

level of compliance with all gaming laws and regulations. 

TGRAs also maintain strong lines of communication with Federal 

law enforcement agencies, among them the Internal Revenue Service, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, the Office of Foreign Asset Control, and the Secret Service. Tribes also maintain 

healthy relationships with the State and the NIGC regulatory offices as they each have a role to play in the regulation of Indian 

gaming. 

Over the past several decades, Tribal gaming facilities have increased the level of sophistication of their gaming activities by 

using technology available as provided for by IGRA. Tribal regulators have also attained highly sophisticated levels of security and 

the qualifications of regulatory personnel have also increased. It is 

not uncommon for a TGRA to employ credentialed professionals 

such as certified fraud examiners, certified internal auditors, network security administrators and background investigation specialists. Each of these disciplines aids in the development and the refinement of Tribal gaming regulations and internal controls. 

The TGRAs must remain up to date as technology advances. In 

the recent past, gaming vendors have introduced wireless gaming 

and systems-based gaming and presently Internet gaming has become a topic that has garnered a great deal of attention by everyone in the gaming industry, including Tribes. And this issue and 

its potential impact on Tribal gaming will be carefully monitored 

by Tribes. 

In conclusion, Chairman Akaka, while everyone involved in Indian gaming can probably agree that the IGRA is less than perfect, 

it has proven to be a stable base for regulation. The IGRA has surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
24

vived numerous amendment attempts due to the many successes 

that we have shown that overshadow its relatively minor shortcomings. 

Tribes have consistently demonstrated substantial compliance 

with all Tribal, Federal and where applicable, State laws and regulations. Tribal gaming regulators are capably performing the due 

diligence necessary to protect the Tribes and are proud of our history of protecting the integrity of the Indian gaming industry. 

The responsibility of regulating Tribal gaming facilities is a task 

that Tribal gaming regulators take very seriously, and it is the obligation to our Tribal citizens that drive us to excel. 

On behalf of the National Tribal Gaming Commissioners and 

Regulators, I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you 

today and welcome any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hummingbird follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMIE HUMMINGBIRD, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL TRIBAL

GAMING COMMISSIONERS/REGULATORS

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Vice-Chairman Barrasso, and Members of the 

Committee. My name is Jamie Hummingbird, Chairman of the National Tribal 

Gaming Commissioners/Regulators and member of the Cherokee Nation where I 

serve as Director of the Gaming Commission. 

The National Tribal Gaming Commissioners/Regulators is an organization comprised of Tribal gaming regulators from across America whose purpose is to promote 

the exchange of thoughts, information and ideas in the pursuit of regulatory practices that are consistent, stable, and fair. 

On behalf of the National Tribal Gaming Commissioners/Regulators I would like 

to express our thanks for begin provided the opportunity to offer comments before 

the Committee from the perspective of a Tribal gaming regulator. I would also like 

to thank the Committee and the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) for 

the approach you have undertaken in seeking input from Tribes and their Gaming 

Commissions and Agencies in a transparent manner. 

The following comments are based upon the views of the membership of the National Tribal Gaming Commissioners/Regulators (NTGCR) experiences and their familiarity with the subject of today’s hearing. Hopefully the comments will assist 

with a better understanding as to the manner by which the day-to-day regulators 

of Indian gaming operations view the role of the NIGC and the Tribal regulators 

in regard to their specific responsibilities. 

Defining the Regulatory Structure 

Prior to the enactment of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA; the Act) in 

1988, each Tribe’s Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authorities (TGRA) played a pivotal 

role in overseeing the conduct of gaming offered on its respective Indian lands. It 

was in this pre-IGRA era that the principles of regulation, roles and responsibilities 

of gaming regulators were established, namely: protection of the Tribe’s assets; protection of the integrity of the gaming environment; and accountability of the gaming 

operations. These principles of regulation were included as part of the IGRA and 

remain the foundation for each TGRA today. 

One constant concept incorporated in the regulations developed by the various 

Tribes and their TGRAs was that they were and remain an exercise of the Tribe’s 

inherent sovereign authority to determine the conduct of their own affairs. This concept, although stated in a different manner, was articulated in the discussions and 

hearings held by the Select Committee on Indian Affairs leading up to the passage 

of and contained within the bill that would become the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act, Senate Bill 555. This concept of Tribal sovereign authority is reflected in the 

primary goal of the IGRA, which is to ‘‘preserve the right of Tribes to self-government.’’ The senate report discussing S. 555 stated:

‘‘In determining what patterns of jurisdiction and regulation should govern the 

conduct of gaming activities on Indian lands, the Committee has sought to preserve the principles which have guided the evolution of Federal-Indian law for 

over 150 years. The Committee recognizes and affirms the principle that by virtue of their original Tribal sovereignty, Tribes reserved certain rights when enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
25

tering into treaties with the United States, and that today, Tribal governments 

retain all rights that were not expressly relinquished.’’

The Committee also sought to balance the interests of the states and the federal 

government along with those of the Tribes. The language contained in the IGRA 

provided the foundation on which the Indian gaming regulatory structure would be 

built. 

IGRA required Tribes to draft gaming ordinances that established their respective 

regulatory authorities to preside over the regulation of gaming activities occurring 

on Tribal lands. The Act further clarified the role of Tribal gaming regulators at 25 

USC 2701 by specifying:

‘‘The Congress finds that...

(5) Indian Tribes have the exclusive right to regulate gaming activity on Indian lands if the gaming activity is not specifically prohibited by Federal 

law and is conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity.’’

The Act also created the NIGC to provide the federal presence in the Indian gaming regulatory realm. When necessary, the various states were expected to utilize 

their existing regulatory bodies or create them pursuant to the terms of a Tribalstate compact. 

With the advent of game classifications, games were placed in various categories 

which were subject to different regulatory systems. The responsibility for regulating 

the various classes of gaming was delineated as follows:

Class I Gaming—social or traditional games played as a part of Tribal ceremonies or celebrations falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribes.

Class II Gaming—bingo, pull-tabs, instant bingo, non-house banked card games 

and other similar games wherein the Tribal gaming regulatory authorities were 

established as the primary regulators over gaming activities with the NIGC providing oversight.

Class III Gaming—all other forms of gaming that are not Class I or Class II, 

which are traditionally considered slot machines, horse-racing, and house 

banked card games, could only be played in accordance with the terms of a Tribal-state compact in which regulatory responsibility was shared between the 

states and Tribes.

Tribal Gaming Regulatory Authorities—Roles and Responsibilities 

IGRA required Tribes to enact gaming ordinances, subject to the review and approval of the Chairman of the NIGC, that provides six (6) basic requirements:

1. The Indian Tribe will have the sole proprietary interest and responsibility for 

the conduct of any gaming activity;

2. Net revenues from any Tribal gaming are not to be used for purposes other 

than:

a. to fund Tribal government operations or programs;

b. to provide for the general welfare of the Indian Tribe and its members;

c. to promote Tribal economic development;

d. to donate to charitable organizations; or

e. to help fund operations of local government agencies;

3. Annual outside audits of the gaming, which may be encompassed within existing independent Tribal audit systems, will be provided by the Indian Tribe 

to the Commission;

4. All contracts for supplies, services, or concessions for a contract amount in 

excess of $25,000 annually (except contracts for professional legal or accounting services) relating to such gaming shall be subject to such independent audits;

5. The construction and maintenance of the gaming facility, and the operation 

of that gaming is conducted in a manner which adequately protects the environment and the public health and safety; and

6. There is an adequate system which ensures that background investigations 

are conducted on the primary management officials and key employees of the 

gaming enterprise and that oversight of such officials and their management 

is conducted on an ongoing basis.

26

In order to fulfill this mandate, TGRAs must evaluate their Tribe’s gaming environment and devise a set of rules and regulations that is compatible with their 

unique circumstances. As extensions of the gaming ordinances, these regulations 

clarify the duties, authorities, and methods by which Tribal gaming facilities are to 

be governed. The licensing of gaming facilities, individuals and vendors, approval 

of games that are to be offered, handling tort and prize claims, surveillance, security, auditing, and overseeing compliance with environmental, public health and 

safety activities. 

Tribes also utilize internal control standards as a tool to gauge a gaming facility’s 

level of compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As you may be aware it 

was the National Indian Gaming Association (NIGA) and the National Congress of 

the American Indians (NCAI) Tribal Leaders Task Force in the 1990’s that had the 

foresight to organize a group composed of Tribal regulatory professionals to develop 

Tribal Minimum Internal Control Standards based upon gaming industry standards. 

This group developed the first set of Tribal Minimum Internal Control Standards 

(MICS) that was later adopted by the NIGC as its MICS as a regulation. Since that 

time the NIGC has called upon Tribal professionals to review and/or assist in the 

development of various Indian gaming regulations. 

In addition since the development of the NIGA/NCAI Task Force, Tribes developed their own internal policies, procedures, and regulations in regard to day-to-day 

regulation. The NTGCR has assisted Tribes in developing their own internal regulations and procedures that have assisted many if not most TGRAs to be independent 

of the possible influence of Tribal politics. 

Numerous other tools are utilized in these efforts, none more effective than the 

employment of qualified personnel. The array educational and training skill sets of 

regulatory personnel range from former law enforcement and former military personnel to accountants, auditors, surveillance, and information systems professionals. 

This does not include other professionals retained by gaming regulators in the performance of their duties, such as professionals in the areas of law, environmental 

health, and risk management. 

It is estimated that there are over 628,000 persons employed by or in service to 

Tribal gaming facilities. These persons are employed by the gaming facility, vendors, and third-party lessees. The vast majority of these individuals must successfully complete a background investigation in order to be considered eligible to work 

in a Tribal gaming facility. Most often, the background investigation is performed 

by the TGRA, but may also be conducted by a state regulatory agency pursuant to 

a Tribal-state compact. The results of all investigations are provided to the NIGC 

for their review. Further, these investigations are performed at regular intervals 

after a person and/or vendor receives their initial gaming license, a large number 

of which must undergo the process on an annual basis. 

Currently, there are an estimated 3,500 individuals directly employed by Tribal 

gaming regulators that oversee all Tribal gaming operations on a daily basis. In addition, the National Indian Gaming Commission directly employs roughly 100 people 

to carry out its responsibilities. After accounting for the regulatory staff employed 

by the respective state gaming agencies and there are approximately over 4,000 individuals that monitor and ensure the maximum level of compliance with all gaming 

laws and regulations across the nation in Indian country. 

These resources, including those utilized by the state and federal governments, 

are paid for by Tribes. Some individual TGRAs, by virtue of the number and/or size 

of their gaming operations, maintain operating budgets that rival that of the NIGC. 

According to data contained in the NIGA 2009 economic impact report on Indian 

gaming, there are 237 Indian Tribes operating 446 gaming facilities in 28 states. 

As a part of this, Tribes spent over an estimated $350 million in the following areas 

to regulate Indian gaming:

• $260 million to fund Tribal gaming regulatory authorities; 

• $80 million to fund state regulatory agencies; 

• $14 million to fund the National Indian Gaming Commission.

TGRAs also call upon outside agencies as necessary to address issues warranting 

their particular expertise. Tribal, federal, and/or local law enforcement may assume 

control over any potential criminal activity. Likewise Tribal prosecutors, local district attorneys, or the United States Attorney General’s office may prosecute any 

crime identified at a Tribal gaming facility. Across the country, state and federal 

attorneys have successfully prosecuted those that would jeopardize the integrity of 

the gaming facilities. 

The Department of the Treasury, through its various agencies, receives regular 

contact from Tribal gaming regulators and casino personnel as a part of maintaining 

strict oversight of transactions. Whether complying with the requirements of the InVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
27

ternal Revenue Service, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or the Office 

of Foreign Asset Control, Tribes maintain strong lines of communication with federal agencies. 

Tribes also work closely with the Secret Service in the event any potentially counterfeit currency is confiscated. These relationships have led to several major arrests 

and prosecution of the offenders. Tribes have also assisted federal task forces investigating money laundering. These same cooperative relationships have been established with local police departments and sheriff’s offices. 

Indian Gaming—Past, Present, and Future 

Tribes have historically maintained a regulatory presence at its gaming facilities 

since their inception. This presence, although similar to the current state of Indian 

gaming regulation, began at a time when the number of Tribes participating in 

gaming and the number of facilities they operated were a fraction of the number 

currently in operation. The early regulatory systems were simpler in nature and relied heavily on records to be maintained either manually or within limited electronic 

data systems. 

Over the past several decades, Tribal gaming facilities began to expand their locations and increased the level of sophistication of its gaming activities by using the 

technology available at the time as permitted by the IGRA. Tribal regulators also 

grew in sophistication. Now, Tribal gaming facilities and regulators use state-of-theart surveillance systems and computer monitoring systems to keep a watchful eye 

over Tribal assets and gaming facility activities. 

In addition to utilizing the newest technology to assist in overseeing Tribal gaming operations, TGRAs have become more adept in using qualified third parties for 

support. It is not uncommon for a Tribal gaming regulatory authority to employ individuals with credentials such as Certified Fraud Examiner, Certified Public Accountant, Certified Internal Auditor, Software Engineer, Systems Administrator, 

and Network Security Administrator, Pre-employment Screening and Background 

Investigation Specialist to name just a few. Each of these disciplines has aided in 

the development or refinement of Tribal gaming regulations and internal controls. 

Educating Tribal gaming regulators is a continual process, requiring constant 

monitoring of the gaming environment in an effort to prepare for emerging technology as well as changes in the legislative setting. TGRAs have led the way in developing meaningful regulations for their operations and continue to impact regulation development at the state and federal level. Tribal working groups working in 

various states as well as those formed to address federal regulations offer a collaborative means to creating effective and efficient regulations. 

That is not to say that once a regulation has been adopted that the process ends. 

Regulations must be regularly reviewed to determine their validity and effectiveness 

in relation to the state of the gaming industry. For example, in the past several 

years, gaming vendors have introduced wireless gaming and systems-based/serverassisted games. Most recently, Internet gaming has become a topic that has garnered a great deal of attention by everyone in the gaming industry, including 

Tribes, regardless of their role. This issue and its potential impact on Tribal gaming, 

like so many other developments in the gaming industry over the past three decades, will be carefully monitored by Tribes so that a system of regulation can be 

established. 

Several amendments to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act have been proposed 

over the years. Two (2) of the more recent proposed amendments focused on off-reservation gaming and expanding the role and authorities of the National Indian 

Gaming Commission in light of the decision rendered in the Colorado River Indian 

Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission, 466 F.3d 134 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(i.e. 

the CRIT case). Tribes, too have sought to amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory 

Act so to address the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the Seminole Tribe 

of Florida v. Florida, et. al., 517 U.S. 44, whereby the Court ruled that IGRA requires compacts are to be negotiated in good faith by both the states and Tribes. 

While everyone that deals with Indian gaming may agree that the IGRA is less 

than perfect, it has proven to be a stable base on which so much has been built. 

The Act has survived numerous amendment attempts due in large part to the great 

many successes that overshadow the few failures that have been experienced. Tribes 

have consistently demonstrated substantial compliance with all Tribal, federal, and, 

where applicable, state laws and regulations. These facts have been attested to by 

both state and federal oversight officials. 

Conclusion 

Indian gaming had humble beginnings, as did the Tribal gaming regulators. The 

growth of Indian gaming under the IGRA has contributed to success of Tribal ecoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
28

nomic development and has led to the building of world-class gaming facilities. 

Along the way, Tribal gaming regulators have evolved into world-class regulators. 

The responsibility of regulating Tribal gaming facilities is a task that Tribal gaming 

regulators take very seriously. It is the obligation to our people that drives us to 

excel. 

It is our membership’s belief that Tribal gaming regulators are capably performing the due diligence necessary to protect the assets of the Tribes and are proud 

of our history of protecting the integrity of the Indian gaming industry.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hummingbird. 

Mr. Stevens, thank you so much for your statement. Let me specifically ask you this question about an issue. Do you think the Colorado River decision weakened Class III regulation at the Tribal 

level? 

Mr. STEVENS. No, sir. Absolutely not. I believe that our systems 

are as strong or stronger today than they were five and a half or 

so years ago when this decision came down. 

Indian Country, and many of them are in the room today, has 

been real responsible about developing regulations to protect our 

industry. I think Mr. Hummingbird has the honor of not just representing his own Tribe, but working with all these Tribes to put 

together a solid foundation in Indian gaming regulatory responsibility, and we believe that we are on top of the game. We don’t 

think we are perfect, but every day we are working hard to get better at it, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is good to hear that. 

Mr. Hummingbird, how has the role of Tribal gaming regulators 

changed in the 23 years since IGRA was enacted? 

Mr. HUMMINGBIRD. The Tribal gaming regulators today have 

seen their potential augmented by the work that has been done in 

the last 23 years. In those early days of Indian gaming under 

IGRA, the systems were much simpler. The operations were a little 

smaller. But as the years have seen the growth of Indian gaming 

just increase almost exponentially, so too has the experience and 

the effectiveness of Tribal gaming regulators. 

We have learned what the IGRA’s intent is. We have made IGRA 

work. We are on the frontlines every day looking to advance, as 

Mr. Stevens just mentioned, looking for ways to improve what it 

is that we do. And not just because it is a requirement under 

IGRA, but because it is a part of our fulfillment of our obligation 

to our Tribe. We always seek to do better. We always want to stay 

ahead of the curve because we know there that things are out there 

that are coming our way. 

Just as we started this journey 23 years ago, I don’t think anybody really contemplated where IGRA would take Tribes in the 

gaming arena. But now that we have had that 23 years and we 

have seen what has happened over the past two decades, we can 

anticipate and expect to have that same experience in the future. 

So we are always looking to evolve. We are always looking to advance. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you for those remarks. You know 

that as you become more successful, as you are seeing, it requires 

stronger regulations and I am glad to hear that you are keeping 

up with that. 

I have a question for both of you. There are some who believe 

IGRA should be opened up to revision. What are your thoughts on 

29

whether IGRA needs to be revised? And what, if any, legislative 

changes would you recommend? 

Mr. Stevens? 

Mr. STEVENS. I apologize. I didn’t introduce Mr. Van Norman because I didn’t want to cut into my five minutes. So if I could, I 

want to introduce Mr. Mark Van Norman. He is the Executive Director of the National Indian Gaming Association. He is a lawyer 

and long-time veteran here in Washington, D.C., and he is a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. I would like to have him 

give a quick summary of NIGA’s position regarding that, as directed by the Tribal leadership. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We would love to hear from him. 

Mr. T4Van Norman. Thank you, Senator. 

We feel that there is already a strong system in place under the 

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act and that the NIGC does have authority. And they have been going out to Tribes to conduct reviews 

of the Tribal audits that are submitted to them on an annual basis. 

In addition, they have authority under the Act to review the 

Tribe’s enforcement of the Tribal gaming regulatory ordinances 

that the NIGC approves. So when they go out for these audits, they 

can also review the Tribe’s performance under their own Tribal 

laws. 

And this is a good system because it recognizes Indian sovereignty and self-determination and gives a level of oversight from 

the Federal Government that is not unduly intrusive on the legislative authority of Tribes. So we believe that the system is strong 

that is in place. 

One failing that there has been is that the Supreme Court struck 

down the safeguard for the Tribal-State compact system, and the 

Tribal-State compact system is set up as a system for two 

sovereigns, the Tribe and the State, to sit down and negotiate a 

regulatory framework and issues related to Class III gaming. 

And good faith is presumed on the part of the State, but if the 

State refuses to negotiate or does not negotiate in good faith, the 

Tribe may commence litigation. But in the Seminole case, the Supreme Court said that Congress did not have authority to waive 

the State’s 11 th Amendment immunity. And we feel that if there 

were any legislation that that is the primary issue to be addressed. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hummingbird? 

Mr. HUMMINGBIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that, just as Mr. Van Norman has stated, I think Tribes 

would not necessarily be in favor of opening up IGRA to amendment simply because what we have built and what we have come 

to know as Indian gaming regulation has been made possible and 

has functioned well under the terms of IGRA as it is currently 

written. 

However, IGRA is open. I would highly suggest and highly recommend that there be equal representation. That there would be 

a good process that would allow Tribes and States and the Federal 

Government to maintain a level of parity that is equal to all. 

30

It is important I think to have regulatory input into such discussions as individuals in my field offer a great deal of insight into 

what constitutes and what can help lead to the development of 

meaningful regulation or meaningful policy. 

But in short, I would say that IGRA is working fine. There is an 

old saying, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hummingbird. 

Mr. Udall, I’ll ask for your questions. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

Mr. Hummingbird, in your testimony you spoke about Tribal 

gaming regulatory authorities. How can the NIGC be more effective 

in supporting Tribes in establishing their gaming regulations and 

monitoring? And does the technical assistance provided by NIGC 

help? And how could that be more effective? 

Mr. HUMMINGBIRD. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

I think the role and the efforts that Chairwoman Stevens and 

her administration have undertaken are very beneficial to Tribes. 

I applaud the approach that she has taken with the consultations 

in seeking out from Tribes their input on what their needs are, as 

I believe that is one of the primary responsibilities that the NIGC 

has under IGRA. 

Tribes have come a long way. We are very effective at what we 

do, but that does not mean that we sit on our laurels and don’t look 

to grow, and that we don’t look to advance. And as people come 

into the regulatory world, as oftentimes turnover does lead to new 

people coming in, it is important to get the technical assistance and 

technical training out to Tribes. But it is important also for the 

NIGC to know what kind of training is needed out there and make 

a very targeted approach to meeting the needs of the Tribes. 

So I think the process that Chairwoman Stevens has undertaken 

will lead to a much better and a much more effective approach in 

providing the technical assistance that Tribes need. 

Senator UDALL. And your sense is that the Tribal regulators, 

they get a lot of assistance and they are getting additional assistance from the NIGC, and that is an ongoing process that as it 

needs to be. 

Mr. HUMMINGBIRD. And continuing education is always a neverending process. Organizations such as mine, we provide training to 

Tribal regulators specifically. NIGA provides training and there are 

other areas for that, but NIGC has a unique role to play in this 

and I think that they are on the right track to meeting that goal. 

Senator UDALL. Shifting direction back to Mark Van Norman 

and Mr. Stevens on this issue of opening IGRA up, as I understood 

Mark’s testimony, what he was saying is that if there was any area 

that Congress ought to look at it is this whole good faith negotiation area. And what you can have happen is the statute says that 

there should be good faith negotiations between States and Tribes. 

But if it doesn’t happen, then Tribes have no place to go, basically. 

Is that what we are saying? I mean, they can go to court, but 

we have the ruling that the statute did not waive the 11th Amendment immunity. And so they can go to court, but then the State’s 

put up immunity so there is no place for them to go. 

How many Tribes are in that situation now? Do you have a sense 

of that? Somebody is whispering in your ear there. 

31

Mr. T4Van Norman. We have a sense that Tribes have actually 

been very active in terms of engaging with the States and engaging 

with the public. And that there is a high level of support for Indian 

gaming among the public. We have been doing polling for years 

and what we have seen is a level of about 65 percent public support. When people have a little bit of opportunity to come out to 

Indian Country and see the facilities, you see the support going up 

to 75 percent or more. 

So some of the Tribes who have been frustrated in the compact 

process have been able to go to the ballot and have successfully 

done initiatives to get some of their compacts going. 

We have other Tribes, as in New Mexico, that have worked with 

the legislature to get compacts going. California, they have waived 

the 11th Amendment immunity, but there have been some Tribes 

that have been frustrated by the States raising 11th Amendment 

immunity. I think Montana, it would be an issue up there. 

So that is still an outstanding issue. We had a case in the Fifth 

Circuit and the court was split on the Secretary’s regulations that 

were intended to fill that gap, and two of the judges said the Secretary either didn’t have the authority or had not done it right. 

And one of the judges said the Secretary was spot-on. 

So that is an area that if there were going to be any legislation 

that Tribes would like to see remedied. I think in general, as 

Chairman Hummingbird mentioned, Tribes are not eager to amend 

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act because I think folks are not 

convinced that Tribal rights would increase through that legislative 

process. 

Senator UDALL. And so really what you are saying is that there 

are other avenues, though. There may not be avenues in court, but 

there may be avenues to go to public opinion. You can go to the 

legislature. You can get a referendum or some process you have 

citizens vote on. So there is some of that going on. 

And I know in New Mexico, the Governors, whether it is Democrats or Republicans, know that there are gaming facilities out 

there and they are enjoyed by people that like to go there. And so 

if an issue comes up of another Tribe wanting to do something, 

they are willing to negotiate with them. But I guess there are some 

areas where Tribes are blocked. 

Mr. T4Van Norman. Well, I could think of in Louisiana, there is 

one of the Tribes that is more newly recognized and the other 

Tribes have compacts, but then they were not able to get a compact 

and the Governor more recently has not been willing to negotiate 

with the Tribe that was newly recognized. 

So there are situations where the Tribes are completely blocked. 

But Tribes have worked hard under the Act to make the Act work. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, and I think that statement is very true, 

your last statement. They have worked very hard to make it work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for your courtesy. Sorry about 

going over a little bit there. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. Chairman, if I could, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator, I wanted just to tag onto the question of training and 

technical assistance. NIGA has advocated for many years that this 

be made a high priority. Now, we are, as Chairman Hummingbird 

has indicated, encouraged by the current National Indian Gaming 

32

Commission’s posture regarding this as a priority. But we appreciate you asking that question because it is something that is very 

important to us and something that will help us to build the integrity in our operations. It is something that is of high priority of the 

184-member Tribes that we represent. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your responses. I want 

to tell you that your responses have been valuable to us and will 

help us proceed with you. And again, I want to stress that it is important that we keep in touch and continue to work together on 

these issues. 

So I want to thank you very much for being here today and helping us in this respect. 

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We will make sure this 

information gets out to our member Tribes. And they will utilize 

their voice maybe to submit comments through the written process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. 

Thank you, Mr. Hummingbird. 

Mr. HUMMINGBIRD. Thank you for the opportunity to be here 

today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Now, I would like to invite the third panel to the witness table: 

Mr. J. Kurt Luger who is Executive Director of the Great Plains 

Indian Gaming Association; Ms. Sheila Morago, Executive Director 

of the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association; and Mr. John 

Meskill, Executive Director of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission. I want to welcome you to the Committee. 

Mr. Luger, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF J. KURT LUGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

GREAT PLAINS INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LUGER. But I am going to throw some quantitative figures 

at you that you very seldom get to hear. 

I represent 36 Tribes in the Great Plains region, that is Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Iowa, Kansas and 

Nebraska. So I go from Kansas to the Texas border. You can see 

why I have to wear a hat on my bald head to get by. 

With that said, first of all, I want to give you our feelings on 

NIGC currently. We feel they are on the right track. Unfortunately, 

Senator McCain left here kind of in a huff, which is getting to be 

predictable, and quite frankly, we are getting tired of it. 

But the current NIGC has quantified in this regard. They have 

complied with Indian Educators v. Kempthorne. That is important 

to us. It is Indian preference in our Indian bureaucracies, Executive Order 13175 supported by Clinton, Bush and Obama. During 

Chairman Stevens’ tenure, she has complied with that. Chairman 

Hogan, her predecessor, would not. 

What does it say? Respect for Tribal self-government and sovereignty, provide Tribes with maximum administrative discretion 

as possible, encourage Tribes to develop their own policies to 

achieve objectives, defer to Tribal standards where possible, and 

otherwise preserve the prerogatives under Indian authority. 

I don’t see anything too darn wrong about that. 

33

Let’s take North Dakota, for example. My dear friend, then Governor Hoeven, now Senator Hoeven, presided over three terms of 

our compact process. I have a strong message from our Tribes. We 

would like more respect for our Tribal Gaming Commissions. We 

know what the score is. We know damn well that we need to keep 

our customers satisfied and that we have to keep our doors open 

vis-a-vis three tiers of regulation. We are not idiots. 

If we don’t comply and we don’t regulate, we have no revenue. 

We have no option. We must be credible to our customers and we 

damn well are. 

Senator McCain picked out one FBI case, one out of a $26 billion 

industry. That is a pretty damn good record. He doesn’t say anything about the ones we have caught using our State and gaming 

compact people, our Tribal officials and Federal officials. It is a success story. 

In North Dakota, my little five operations in a State of 800,000 people spent $7.1 million in regulatory costs last year. They have 

325 regulators in our field in these little tiny, small, modest operations. We are regulated upon regulation upon regulation. In South Dakota, they spent $6.5 million in regulatory expenses 

last year. All the North Dakota Tribes and South Dakota Tribes 

have worked diligently through a State gaming compact process 

that needs to be recognized. We are under the gun. We meet every 

two years with our State Minority Leaders, Majority Leaders, Attorneys General, the Governor’s Office. How are things going and 

do we need to make any adjustments. 

I would think that Senator Hoeven would tell you he has a pretty 

good understanding of how these relationships work. And obviously, being the authorizing body for three terms and felt more 

than comfortable with it, he certainly was satisfied and so was his 

Attorney General, both Republican. 

Our compacts provide GAAP IGRA standards for accounting, regulation, testing, reporting for machines to the State, regulations for 

table games, background checks conducted by the State Attorney 

General’s Office, and licensing standards by our Tribal Gaming 

Commissioners, random inspections by the State Attorney General’s Office. He can call up anytime and look at any dang thing 

he wants to, and Tribal gaming commissioners. 

I know for a fact, and I am sorry that Senator Hoeven was not 

feeling well today, but he has a great respect for the Tribal nations. 

You can see by the amount of votes that he won in that State to 

take this seat. And part of that, a large part of it is the way he 

handled one of the largest business we now operate which is gaming. 

And to think that we might need more regulation, I use Senator 

McCain’s words, talk about a waste of taxpayers’ expense in a recession we want to consider more regulation on our industry? I 

don’t get it. Approximately, look at the economic impact. We are 

the epitome of IGRA in my region; 4,000 full-time working people 

in the States of North and South Dakota with full benefits, including insurance. That is unheard of when I grew up there. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Udall, other Members of the Committee, you 

have known of projects over decades and decades that have failed 

and failed, but by God, this one didn’t. It provided the employment 

34

feature. It provided us the relationship with the financial institutions to finally get a loan once in a while. It has enhanced our relationships regionally, locally, and politically. 

In 2010, our in-State purchasing in North and South Dakota was 

$125 million; 122 communities in North Dakota got checks from 

our casinos; 91 communities in the State of South Dakota got 

checks from our casinos. It is working. 

Federal and State reporting requirements, that would be a problem. We do have some redundancy in there, but that seems to be 

formatting in nature, things that can take place. 

And I have to stop to say hello to my dear and good friend, Senator Hoeven. I just got done bragging you up, Senator. I am sorry. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LUGER. You will see it in the testimony. And as Senator 

Hoeven sits, I am here to tell you that I doubt there are few in 

Congress, and I am bragging on Senator Hoeven’s part, that would 

have the unique responsibility of dealing with these treaty issues 

on a day-to-day basis in the Executive Branch for three terms. And 

he left there, I could not say that this man would have any more 

respect for our Tribal membership, our veterans, and our businesses than you can have. 

And I am here to tell you, I am ready to answer the two questions. We damn well don’t need a legislative fix. It is the last thing 

we need. The predecessor he was talking about in my opinion and 

many in Indian Country was a personal bone and it is time to bury 

that bone. There has been no ill effects out of the Colorado River 

case. We are more astute than that. If anything, our radar screens 

went on even higher to make sure that there wasn’t. But the fact 

remains that you can go out to the Attorney General’s Office and 

the Governor’s Office and say what is wrong out there in Indian 

Country. Where are all these crimes taking place? 

And I am here to tell you under Governor Hoeven, his Attorney 

General and their law enforcement people, our Tribal gaming enforcement people, and our State law enforcement people worked together. And whenever we did find a problem, the only question was 

where could we send them to the maximum jurisdiction for sentencing? And it was a cooperative effort led by this fine gentleman 

right here, now Senator Hoeven. 

And in closing, I would like to say that it has almost become predictable for this legislative fix to come up and I can’t see how it 

would ever get into law anyway. I just don’t see a legislative track 

for it because I am telling you, for me, as I am here testifying, that 

I don’t see the need for it. There is no hue and cry for it out there 

in the Executive Branch world and our State governments or their 

Attorneys General office. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Honorable Members of the 

Commission for their continued support of our veterans, our beloved veterans. They need care of their in-service and when they 

come back from service. Senator Hoeven is a perfect example of 

somebody that went out of his way to do everything he could. He 

has buried several of our Tribal members; has been there; has seen 

the sorrow; has seen the needs. 

35

And with that said, I cannot thank you enough to the Members 

I know on this Committee of your previous support for our veterans’ affairs. 

And the last thing is, and I reflect directly on this man here as 

well as myself, the flood damage on the Missouri River. Please 

don’t forget that. That is a huge story that is not being played out 

in the media. Our good Senator lost his own home. I lost my home. 

There are many others out there that have and it still continues 

today. 

So I want to thank the Members of this Committee for their 

time. I am honored to be here and stand ready to answer any questions that you have of me. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Luger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. KURT LUGER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GREAT PLAINS

INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION

Good Morning, Chairman Akaka and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

inviting me to testify this morning. 

My name is Kurt Luger and I am a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe. 

I grew up on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in North Dakota on my family 

ranch and my family operates a grocery store and small business in Fort Yates, 

North Dakota. 

I serve as the Executive Director of the Great Plains Indian Gaming Association 

which covers North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Wyoming, and 

Montana. GPIGA was in 1997, and we have 289 Tribes as Members. Together these 

Tribal nations exercise jurisdiction over fifteen (15) million acres of federal trust 

land. 

At GPIGA, our mission is to bring together the federally recognized Indian Nations in the Great Plains Region who are operating gaming enterprises in a spirit 

of cooperation to develop common strategies and positions concerning issues affecting all gaming Tribes; to promote Tribal economic development and its positive impacts within the Great Plains; to provide pertinent and contemporary information 

for the benefit of the GPIGA member nations; to draw upon the unique status of 

those Great Plains Indian Nations which have treaties between themselves and the 

United States; and to provide our Member Tribes with information about national 

legislation and issues affecting Tribal economic development. 

The National Indian Gaming Commission was established to assist Indian Tribes 

with the regulation of Indian gaming. Under IGRA, Tribal gaming regulators are 

the primary day-to-day regulators of Indian gaming and they regulate Indian gaming under Tribal gaming ordinances, which are approved by the NIGC provided that 

they conform to minimum federal statutory standards. 

It bears repeating that Tribal regulators are the primary regulators of Indian 

gaming. In North Dakota for example, Tribal governments employ more than 325 

Tribal regulators and staff. Tribal governments spend more than $7.4 million on 

Tribal and state regulation of Indian gaming in North Dakota. That’s $1.48 million 

per Tribal government and we run relatively modest operations. In the future, our 

Tribal government’s regulatory efforts and expenditures need to be recognized to 

provide an accurate overall picture of regulatory expenditures in Indian country. 

Naturally, we are concerned about the manner in which the NIGC approaches its 

mission to assist Tribes in regulating Indian gaming. Under the previous administration we found an uncooperative environment and often Tribes were left with the 

impression the NIGC had chosen to write regulations without Tribal input. In addition, we were concerned with the lack of training and technical assistance on those 

regulations to Indian Tribes and Tribal regulators. Under the current NIGC Commission chaired by the Honorable Tracie Stevens, the atmosphere is one of greater 

cooperation and understanding of the role of the Tribal gaming commissions. The 

current Commission has improved the relationship between our Tribal gaming industry and the federal regulatory authority. They have taken sincere steps to improve government to government relationships with our Tribal nations through the 

implementation of a real Tribal consultation policy. The current Commission has 

complied with Indian Educators Federation v. Kempthorne, which ruled that Indian 

preference in hiring applied to all ‘‘positions in the Department of the Interior, 

36

whether within or without the Bureau of Indian Affairs, that directly and primarily 

relate to providing services to Indians . . .’’

The current Commission has taken great strides to strengthen the United States’ 

government-to-government relationships with Indian Tribes. In 2000, President 

Clinton issued Executive Order No. 13175, which directed Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Indian Tribes on Federal rulemaking and agency actions 

that had substantial direct impacts on Tribal self-government, Tribal lands and 

treaty rights. The Executive Order provided that agencies shall adhere to the following criteria:

• Respect for Tribal self-government and sovereignty, treaty and other rights that 

arise from the Federal trust relationship;

• Provide Tribes with the maximum administrative discretion possible; and

• Encourage Tribes to develop their own policies to achieve objectives, defer to 

Tribal standards where possible, and otherwise preserve the prerogatives authority of Indian Tribes.

The Executive Order also directed Federal agencies to consider the need for the 

regulation in light of Tribal interests, take Tribal concerns into account, and use 

consensual mechanisms for decisionmaking, including negotiated rulemaking, where 

appropriate. On September 23, 2004, President Bush issued an Executive Memorandum directing Federal agencies to adhere to Executive Order 13175. On November 5, 2009 President Obama signed a memorandum which directed each agency 

head to submit a detailed plan of how they would implement the policies and directives of Executive Order 13175. With the current Commission’s extensive consultation schedule the Federal-Tribal government-to-government relationship has become 

more meaningful. 

In closing, we encourage the NIGC to continue the direction of cooperation and 

mutual respect for our Tribal economic development ventures.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Morago, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF SHEILA MORAGO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

OKLAHOMA INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION 

Ms. MORAGO. Thank you, Chairman Akaka and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. On behalf of the Oklahoma Indian 

Gaming Association and its 22 member Tribes, allow me to extend 

my deepest appreciation for this opportunity to provide testimony 

to you today. 

My name is Sheila Morago. I am a proud member of the Gila 

River Indian Community. I am the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association, a position I have held for the 

last two months. 

While my tenure at OIGA has recently begun, I have been in the 

business of Indian gaming since 1994. Most recently, I spent eight 

years as the Executive Director for the Arizona Indian Gaming Association. 

Tribal governmental gaming in Oklahoma has come a long way 

from our first days in bingo halls in the early 1980s to now being 

the fourth-largest gaming jurisdiction in the United States, doing 

over $3 billion in business. We are surpassed only by Nevada, California, and New Jersey in size of total gaming revenues generated. 

In 2009, the gross rate of gaming in Oklahoma led the Nation. 

Oklahoma is home to 39 Tribes, 33 of whom engage in gaming as 

a form of economic development. These 33 Tribes operate 111 gaming facilities, which range in size from a fuel stop with a few machines to large, full-scale destination resorts. 

While many think that we have become large overnight, our 

growth has been slow and deliberate. Since the early days in OklaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
37

homa, Tribes have used their gaming revenues to better the lives 

of their Tribal members. Gaming revenue has been used to backfill 

ever-shrinking Federal funds and we have used these revenues to 

educate our children, take care of our elders, improve our infrastructure, and taking to heart the true meaning of IGRA. 

The first Tribal-State compacts were signed in 1992, which allowed horse racing wagers in Tribal casinos. The current compacts 

in Oklahoma were approved by the citizens of the State through 

referendum in 2004. Through these compacts, for the first time the 

Tribes share their revenues from compacted games with the State. 

This revenue-sharing with the State of Oklahoma has now grown 

to exceed $100 million annually. 

While the 2005 compacts expanded Class III gaming options 

available to our customers, Oklahoma remains a very strong Class 

II market. For that reason, we occupy a very unique niche in the 

Indian gaming industry and we understand our business very well 

as evidenced by the continued strong growth of our gaming business. We have applied these lessons learned with every expansion 

we have undertaken. 

We also understand how to regulate our gaming very effectively. 

While I say that with pride, it is not a meaningless boast. The 

Tribal gaming regulators from Oklahoma are among the most highly regarded regulators in the Country. In fact, many State regulators have come to visit our regulators seeking the benefit of their 

expertise. 

One of the reasons Oklahoma Tribes have developed such a 

strong regulatory pedigree is they realized early on that in the development of smart and effective regulations, our Tribal regulators 

had to work closely with our facility operators. This process has 

worked very effectively for many years in jurisdictions like Nevada. 

It has enabled them to promulgate regulations that are workable 

because the regulations are based on real business operations that 

take place in the casinos. 

This regulatory development process has been very important in 

Oklahoma because our Tribes have been leaders in Class II gaming 

to where it is today, including the tremendous technological innovations we have made. 

There are many unique features to our machines. To be smart 

and effective in our regulatory efforts, we have had to develop processes and procedures specifically tailored to Class II gaming. So to 

be honest, our Tribes were disappointed when the prior NIGC 

Chair and his staff did not respect our many years of expertise and 

refused to consider opinions we offered on how the NIGC can best 

write effective regulations, particularly with regard to the Class II 

games. 

We never expected NIGC to agree with us on all matters all the 

time. However, we merely asked for respectful consideration of our 

views. We are very pleased now to say that from our perspective, 

the current NIGC Chair and her staff have taken the time to hear 

our views and to carefully deliberate on how to develop the most 

effective regulations. 

Again, we do not anticipate the NIGC to agree with us on all 

matters all the time. However, we greatly appreciate the respectful 

consideration of our opinions. The OIGA member Tribes have been 

38

pleased with the deliberate pace at which the NIGC has proceeded 

in its regulatory review. It has been our desire to have the most 

effective and efficient regulations, and we believe that it is important to take our time to get it right. 

Unlike commercial gaming, Oklahoma Tribes use their gaming 

revenues for governmental purposes. We are responsible to our 

Tribal members to operate our gaming facilities in the most efficient and effective manner possible in keeping with sound business 

and good regulatory practice. Every dollar that is not wisely spent 

in our gaming operations and regulation are dollars that do not go 

to educate our children, provide health care to our elders, and build 

safer roads or any of the other myriad government responsibilities 

we have. 

This current consultation and regulatory schedule we believe will 

result in the right regulations. Furthermore, it will provide the 

NIGC with the time to ensure they will be able to fulfill their Federal trust responsibilities under IGRA. And finally, having regulations that are drafted so they fit our unique industry will end the 

constant redrafting and reworking of Class II Federal regulations 

that have taken so much time and exhausted Tribal resources that 

are needed badly elsewhere. 

Thank you, Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 

present our views of the OIGA member Tribes. I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Morago follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SHEILA MORAGO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA

INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION

Good afternoon Chairman Akaka, Vice Chairman Barrasso, and distinguished 

members of the Committee. 

On behalf the Oklahoma Indian Gaming Association and its 22 member Tribes, 

allow me to extend my deepest appreciation for this opportunity to provide testimony to you today. My name is Sheila Morago and I am a proud member of the 

Gila River Indian Community. I am the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Indian 

Gaming Association, a position I have held for the last two months. While my tenure at OIGA has really just begun, I have been in the business of Indian Gaming 

since 1994. Most recently I spent 8 years as the Executive Director of the Arizona 

Indian Gaming Association. 

Tribal Governmental Gaming in Oklahoma has come a long way from our first 

days as bingo halls in the early 1980s, to now being the fourth largest gaming jurisdiction in the United States doing over $3 billion in business. We are surpassed only 

by Nevada, California and New Jersey in size of total gaming revenues generated. 

In 2009 the growth rate of gaming in Oklahoma led the nation. 

Oklahoma is home to 39 Tribes, 33 of whom engage in gaming as a form of economic development. These 33 Tribes operate 111 gaming facilities, which range in 

size from fuel stops with a few machines, to large full-scale destination resorts. 

While many may think that we have become large overnight our growth has been 

slow and deliberate. 

Since it’s earliest day’s Tribes in Oklahoma have used their gaming revenues to 

better the lives of their Tribal members. Gaming revenues have been used to backfill ever shrinking federal funds and we have used these revenues to educate our 

children, take care of our elders, improved our infrastructure and taking to heart 

the true meaning of IGRA. 

The first Tribal state compacts were signed in 1992, which allowed horseracing 

wagers at Tribal casinos. The current compacts in Oklahoma were approved by the 

citizens of the state through a referendum in 2004. Through these compacts, for the 

first time, the Tribes shared their revenues from compacted games with the state. 

This revenue sharing with the state of Oklahoma has grown to now exceed $100 

million annually. 

39

While the 2005 compacts expanded the Class III gaming options available to our 

customers, Oklahoma remains a very strong Class II gaming market. For that reason we occupy a unique niche in the Indian gaming industry. And we understand 

our business very well, as is evidenced by the continued strong growth in our gaming businesses. We have applied our lessons learned to each expansion we have 

done. 

We also understand how to regulate our gaming very effectively. While I say this 

with pride, it is not a meaningless boast. The Tribal gaming regulators from Oklahoma are among the most highly regarded regulators in the country. In fact, many 

state regulators have come to visit with our regulators seeking to benefit from their 

expertise. 

One of the reasons the Oklahoma Tribes have developed such a strong regulatory 

pedigree, is they recognized early on that to develop ‘‘smart’’ and effective regulations, our Tribal regulators had to work closely with our facility operators. This 

process has worked very effectively for years in jurisdictions like Nevada. It has enabled them to promulgate regulations that are workable because the regulations are 

based on the real business operations that take place in the casino. 

This regulatory development process has been very important in Oklahoma. Because our Tribes have been the leaders in advancing Class II gaming to where it 

is today, including the tremendous technological innovations we have made, there 

are many unique features to our games. To be smart and effective in our regulatory 

efforts, we have had to develop processes and procedures that are specifically tailored to Class II gaming. 

So to be honest, our Tribes were disappointed when the prior NIGC chairman and 

his staff did not respect our many years of expertise and refused to consider the 

opinions we offered on how the NIGC can best write effective regulations, particularly with regard to Class II games. We never expected the NIGC to agree with us 

on all matters all the time. However, we merely asked for respectful consideration 

of our views. 

We are very pleased now to say that, from our perspective, the current NIGC 

chair and her staff have taken the time to hear our views, and to carefully deliberate on how to develop the most effective regulations. Again, we do not anticipate 

that the NIGC will agree with us on all matters all the time. However, we greatly 

appreciate the respectful consideration of our opinions. 

The OIGA member Tribes have been pleased with the deliberate pace with which 

the NIGC has proceeded in its regulatory review. It has always been our desire to 

have the most efficient and effective regulation, and we believe that it is important 

to take the time to get it right. 

Unlike commercial gaming, Oklahoma Tribes use their gaming revenues for governmental purposes. We are responsible to our Tribal members to operate our gaming facilities in the most efficient and effective manner possible, in keeping with 

sound business practices and good regulatory practices. Every dollar that is not 

wisely spent in our gaming operation and regulation, is a dollar that does not go 

to educate our children, provide healthcare to our elders, build safer roads, or any 

other of the myriad governmental responsibilities we have. 

This current consultation and regulatory promulgation schedule we believe will 

result in the ‘‘right’’ regulations. Furthermore, it will provide the NIGC with the 

time to insure they will be able to fulfill their federal trust responsibilities under 

IGRA. And finally, having regulations that are drafted so they fit our unique industry will end the constant redrafting and reworking of Class II federal regulations 

that has taken so much time and exhausted Tribal resources that are badly needed 

elsewhere. 

Thank you members of the Committee for the opportunity to present the views 

of the OIGA member Tribes, and I stand ready to answer any questions you may 

have.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Meskill, will you please proceed with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN MESKILL, DIRECTOR, MOHEGAN 

TRIBAL GAMING COMMISSION 

Mr. MESKILL. Thank you, Chairman Akaka, Members of the 

Committee and staff. 

My name is John Meskill. I have been the Director of the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Commission since April of 2001. Prior to my 

40

employment by the Mohegan Tribe, I served as the Executive Director of the Mashantucket Pequot Gaming Commission, and before 

that, I served for four and a half years as the Executive Director 

of the State of Connecticut’s Gaming Regulatory Agency, the Division of Special Revenue. 

I was also a member of the NIGC’s Minimum Internal Controls 

Advisory Committee in 2004 and 2005. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today regarding the role of 

Tribal regulators as the primary regulatory authority of Tribal 

gaming operations. In my 19-plus years as a gaming regulator, I 

have seen first-hand the serious commitment the Tribes have to 

protect the integrity of their gaming operations. This commitment 

involves considerable resources expended by the Tribes. 

For example, in fiscal year 2011, the Mohegan Tribe will spend 

over $26 million on regulatory costs for its own employees, including police, public safety and compliance personnel, plus outside 

auditors and an additional $6.8 million for costs assessed by the 

State of Connecticut for regulatory services the State provides related to Mohegan Sun. Detail on these regulatory services and expenses are set forth in schedule A that is attached to my testimony. 

Under the Mohegan Tribe’s compact with the State of Connecticut, I work closely with the State Gaming Agency in administering a comprehensive regulatory framework that is closely tailored to the types of games and scope of gaming which are enjoyed 

under the constant development of Mohegan Sun. 

Under our Tribal-State compact, which was first signed and approved in 1994, the State Gaming Agency and the Commission I 

oversee jointly regulate all aspects of Class III gaming on the Mohegan Reservation through standards of operation and management. 

Each proposed change to the standards of operation and management, which are necessarily frequent, is required to be sent to the 

State Gaming Agency for its review and comment, and in certain 

sensitive areas such as cage operations and technical standards for 

slot machines, State approval is required before such standards 

may be implemented. 

This process, which also includes outside certification, for example, of new gaming equipment, can be lengthy and detailed. So my 

agency appreciates the NIGC as a valuable resource when it comes 

to developing and enhancing standards. However, we also appreciate that the Commission’s role for Class III gaming does not extend a third layer of review and regulation over those standards of 

operation and management, which of necessity need to be adaptable to the needs of a particular Tribal gaming jurisdiction. 

By compact, the State Gaming Agency also licenses Mohegan 

Sun’s gaming employees after a background investigation for each 

employee has been completed by the Connecticut State Police. 

While we don’t always agree with the State on all regulatory 

issues, we are usually able to find common ground in resolving our 

differences. 

In the 15 years the Mohegan Tribe has operated its casino, the 

State has never alleged that the Tribe has failed to comply with 

the provisions of the State gaming compact. 

41

Over the years, I have also worked closely with NIGC and I have 

a great deal of respect for the wide range of expertise that has been 

assembled at that agency. While the CRIT decision has altered the 

mission of the agency, the NIGC continues to be a valuable resource for Tribal regulators when we seek advice on accounting and 

auditing issues, and questions about gaming technology that they 

have reviewed in other jurisdictions, and best practices for internal 

controls. I have always found the staff at NIGC to be informative 

and responsive. 

And in closing, I also want to thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing to coincide with NIGC consultation, which I am 

also attending with the Vice Chairman of the Mohegan Tribe, 

James Gessner. I know that the Mohegan Tribe appreciates this 

Committee’s longstanding respect for the government-to-government relationships between the Tribes and the Federal Government and the Tribe also appreciates NIGC’s renewed efforts to consult with the Tribes in all aspects of the regulatory rules and rulemaking. 

Again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Members of 

the Committee for the opportunity to testify today. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Meskill follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN MESKILL, DIRECTOR, MOHEGAN TRIBAL GAMING

COMMISSION


728b1.eps
42


728b2.eps
43


728b3.eps
44

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Meskill. 


728b4.eps 728b5.eps
45

Now, we will have questions for you. I would like to defer first 

to Senator Udall for questions. 

Senator UDALL. Chairman Akaka, I would defer to Senator 

Hoeven. I have had an opportunity to question here, and if he has 

any questions or any statement he wants to make, I would let him 

go first. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hoeven? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank all of the witnesses for being here today. 

Kurt, good to see you again. During my 10 years as Governor, 

I had the opportunity to work with Kurt and others on our gaming 

compacts on behalf of Native Americans in our State. And it has 

been a tremendous working relationship. And I think he is right. 

I think if it works that well in other States, it really is not in need 

of a legislative solution. We were always able to come together both 

through the Governor’s Office and through Kurt as our State Director, working with the Tribal Chairman; a tremendous mutual respect and great working relationship. And it has been tremendously beneficial to the Tribe. 

And the other thing is through Kurt’s good work that I hope happens in other States is there was also the opportunity to reach out 

to our legislature and engage them not just on issues that related 

to Tribal gaming, but the whole gamut of other issues that really 

opened a door. The working relationship that was established both 

between the Executive Branch in North Dakota and the Legislative 

Branch with the Tribes through the work we did on our gaming 

compacts opened up the door to other opportunities in regard to 

economic issues, for example, drilling oil wells on particularly one 

of our reservations, which now is a tremendous economic activity. 

And again, I think that relationship really developed out of a lot 

of the work that Kurt had helped facilitate through the gaming 

compacts, but also on social issues, law enforcement, education, as 

well as just the opportunity to build those personal relationships 

that created some bonds and some trust. 

The Luger family also raises and trains horses, and as a matter 

of fact, we had many occasions to ride horses together. Nobody 

trains them better than Kurt and his brother. 

My point being I think you can get things done when you build 

those kind of relationships. So however we approach this at the 

Federal level, it is still going to come back to the people and building those bonds and those relationships and that aspect of trust I 

think to truly make progress. 

So I am really pleased you are here. I think you have so much 

to offer in terms of how to do this. Kurt also worked for Senator 

Daschle at one time, and so he understands not only both sides of 

the aisle, but also the federal-state-Tribal relationship. 

And so I really want to commend our Chairman for inviting Kurt 

to be part of the panel and these other outstanding panel members 

as well. Also, I really would look, Kurt, maybe to you to just I 

guess give us some of your thoughts in terms of as we, I mean from 

either a Federal or a State perspective, what are the three keys to 

46

making sure that we handle these gaming compacts well? And then 

also a couple of keys as we wrestle with some of these tough issues 

like Internet gaming, which can also be very controversial. Just 

your thoughts. 

And then I would ask the other panel members for their 

thoughts in both regards. What makes for a successful State relationship, in your opinion? How do we really make sure we have the 

framework from a Federal perspective to have those successful 

State relationships with the Tribal nations, to just address for a 

minute the Internet gaming issue that obviously is a big issue right 

now. 

Mr. LUGER. The three at the top of the list are very easy for me. 

I practice them every day. One is trust. You have to take the time 

and energy, the Tribes, to engage the legislature and the Executive 

Branch and build those relationships. You have to. There is no 

other way around it. There is no easy cut. People need to know you 

before they trust you. 

Transparency. I think now-Senator Hoeven, then-Governor 

Hoeven will tell you that the key to our relationship was transparency and being able to trust when one said something, we were 

going to stick to it. It is a must in any relationship, and if you don’t 

know somebody, you can’t build to that. 

And the third, i.e. the Internet, is we have to be able to as Tribes 

to be able to report accurately to our State counterparts and our 

colleagues and quantify what the actual data is. What is the score? 

How well are you doing? What are your activities, whether it be 

criminal activities or revenue, things of that nature. 

But I get back to those trusting relationships. This Committee is 

very lucky. This man is committed to Indian Country; has been for 

a long time. And the trust that we got during his Administration 

led to a lot more baloney sandwiches in Indian Country than before 

he got there. And it is key and it is not easy. You have to get to 

know each other and stay engaged. 

And that would be my advice to Tribes not to shy away from 

State legislatures and the Executive Branch; engage them because 

it is part of the story. We have all been used to engaging in the 

Federal end of things, but times are changing. And Senator Hoeven 

and I had a common goal, and we were the epitome of it: jobs, jobs 

and jobs. 

We got 4,000 new jobs in the State of North Dakota. That is hard 

to create. And so if that is what you are looking for, that you want 

your people gainfully employed, their quality of standards brought 

up, you can figure out the obstacles that are in between those two 

central thoughts. 

And again, I cannot tell you, the Committee, that you are going 

to enjoy the presence of our dear former Governor is a tremendous 

fellow and a dear, dear friend. 

Senator HOEVEN. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired, so 

I will defer if that is best. I can come back. I would like to ask 

about Internet gaming for just a minute when there is time, and 

to the other panel members, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Udall? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

47

Kurt, you mentioned the Colorado River case, and I think you 

said, I don’t want to quote you directly, that our radar went up. 

And then you said something, we took additional actions. And I am 

wondering what did that case mean to the three members of the 

panel? And were there things that you did? And any thoughts you 

have on that issue? 

Mr. LUGER. Mostly from a sensitive point of view. We had been 

doing the technical things, but we were beat up badly by the media 

and that is where this disrespect. We kept wondering, well, this is 

one case, one scenario. But at the same time, we felt, the rest of 

us in Indian Country were being disregarded on all the good work 

that we were doing. 

We spend our checkbook and work our buns off I know in the 

State of North Dakota to make sure that our games are clean. And 

I tell you what, if we are not doing that, the Attorney General is 

standing right there with that State Indian compact reassuring 

that it gets a secondary eyeball there. So there is a lot of attention 

to it. 

To answer your question, it would be the sensitivity that that 

case represented to everybody, when in fact our gaming commissions have worked diligently from day one. 

And the other thing I think is forgotten in here, and I know Senator Hoeven knows well about this of a particular case that we had 

in Spirit Lake. We have invested in the best technology out there 

when it comes to security and surveillance. We all have. And that 

stuff is expensive. I can pick the pigment out of your skin in every 

one of my casinos. Just drop a card and I will pick you up. And 

that is expensive and it is top of the line, first class stuff, the same 

thing that Las Vegas uses, if not better and we don’t get credit for 

that. 

And so those are the things that we just doubly check the i’s and 

cross the t’s in making sure that our main thing, and you know 

this, that our customers are assured that when they come into our 

house of entertainment, that the games are credible. 

Senator UDALL. Ms. Morago or Mr. Meskill, do you have any 

thoughts on that issue? 

Ms. MORAGO. Senator Udall, I do. I could repeat everything because I thoroughly agree with Kurt and the other panelists on this. 

But I would like to give you one additional thought process. 

There have been many financial commitments based on current 

law. And one of the things we have to think of is when you change 

current law, what does that do to financial commitments? People 

have loans. People have bonds out. So we have to take a look at 

that, too. And I agree with Kurt completely on the parts and pieces 

where Tribes are doing well on this. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. 

Mr. MESKILL. Senator, I think that probably the CRIT decision 

just reinforced to us what our role was. We always knew we were 

the primary regulator and we knew we were the first line of defense for the Tribe. So I think it just instilled in us that we have 

to do that much better a job and we have to work better with the 

State. 

But I would say that those minimum internal control standards 

that the NIGC has in place. It is about a 100-page document. It 

is a good base document, but every Tribe I have dealt with has inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:30 Jun 14, 2012 Jkt 072539 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\72539.TXT JACK
48

ternal controls that far exceed those MICS. So the Tribes are well 

ahead of the curve anyway, I think. And the CRIT decision I think 

just reinforced that we are the front line. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chairman Akaka. I don’t have any more questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Udall. 

Let me defer to Senator Hoeven for further questions. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, I just wanted to follow up a little bit 

maybe with all three of the panel members on your feelings on 

Internet gaming. Because you know that is a hot topic and an issue 

now. And are having experience, and you see it on the ground 

every day and how it affects people and so forth. I would just like, 

from all three of you, your perspective on it is good, is it bad, how 

should it be addressed, and what the impacts would be. 

Mr. LUGER. Obviously, Senator, as you know better than most, 

is the brick and mortar operations. In a rural setting like the 

States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, are dear friend 

Mr. Udall in your area, and we see it as this. The Federal prohibition has played its role. It is still in play. There is a lot of talk that 

there are a lot of pressures coming from certain States to bring it 

from that direction. 

But as we speak now, Indian Country is very concerned that the 

State gaming compact process be maintained and respected. We 

took years to work those regulatory items; two, that Federal taxes 

are not applied to those. We feel strongly about that. And three, 

that the current foreign operations, and I think somebody quoted 

me the other day that they are now quantifying it as a $10 billion 

industry out there in the Caymans and so on and so forth. 

We need to be assured that there is going to be a fair playing 

field when it comes to regulation. Now, as it is, poker is the only 

game in town. That is what everybody is talking about. But we are 

very concerned that anything that comes down the road that the 

respect for our current Federal-State gaming compact relationship, 

the fact that we feel strongly that this is something that should 

amount to a Federal tax for us, and a strong consideration that the 

brick-and-mortar systems which we in the domestic market are relying upon, especially in North and South Dakota, have a way to 

participate. 

And I will just give you an idea. We are currently talking about 

a consortium and a collective effort. The Internet is a huge place. 

And you know, Senator, if someone puts their little finger up in the 

air, I don’t know if it is ever going to attract enough attention. So 

the branding of that aspect to create a business acumen that we 

have to apply to it is certainly a challenge to us. 

But from a policy point of view, we are very concerned that our 

State gaming compact relationship is reviewed and considered. We 

feel strongly that we shouldn’t be paying taxes with it. And this is 

something that needs to be moved along very, very carefully because of the infrastructure investment that we already have in our 

brick-and-mortar systems. 

Ms. MORAGO. Senator, NIGA came up with some general principles about the Internet last year that all the Tribes agreed upon. 

And having said that, we support all those general principles. 

49

But I think we have to look at it in terms of any past legislation 

that has been put forth that specifically deals with commercial 

gaming. And it gives commercial gaming a real step up on this economic development. And I have to say that we are as capable as 

a commercial gaming entity of doing this economic adventure. 

So while we are looking at this and drafting, I think it is important for us to look at it in terms of commercial and Nevada isn’t 

the only game in town. We are perfectly capable of operating and 

regulating this new adventure. And I think that while you are looking at these proposals being put forward that you have to remember that. This shouldn’t be a monopoly for the commercial gaming 

industry where we don’t have access to it. 

So we think whatever legislation comes down the pike, it has got 

to be open for everybody to have access to it and not just for the 

few people that can do it. 

Mr. MESKILL. Senator, I concur with everything that has been 

said. It seems like Internet gaming is going to happen. It is a question of when. I know the Tribe that I work for if it occurs, they certainly would like to be in a position that they can protect their investment that they have in their facility, you know, the billions of 

dollars that they put into their facility. 

So if consideration is given to the Tribes to participate, it would 

somehow be complementary to the facilities that they have built 

over the years. And I think it is important that the Tribes’ interests are protected when that legislation happens because, as Sheila 

said, if it is left exclusively to the commercial casino operators, 

Tribal gaming is going to suffer greatly. 

Senator HOEVEN. Well, again, I want to thank you. Did you have 

anything else, Kurt, or anyone else to add? If you have any other 

thoughts on Internet gaming because obviously it is something we 

will be dealing with. And so we certainly want your thoughts. 

Mr. LUGER. Briefly, I just happen to have something that I know 

would be of great interest to you. We have six principles that we 

put together from our Great Plains Tribes and I will provide a 

draft to the Committee. But they are as follows. Indian Tribes and 

Tribal governments are ready to operate, regulate, tax and license 

Internet gaming and those rights must not be subordinated by nonFederal authority. Internet gaming authorized by Indian Tribes 

must be available to customers in any locale where Internet gaming is not criminally prohibited. 

Consistent with long-held Federal law and policy, Tribal revenues not be subject to tax. Existing Tribal government rights under 

State compacts must be respected. And five, the legislation must 

not open up the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act for amendments. 

And our sixth plank that we submitting to NIGA is Federal legalization of Internet gaming must provide positive economic benefits 

for Indian Country. 

So thank you very much for your time. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thanks, Kurt. 

Any other thoughts? Again, I want to thank the panel members 

and I want to thank the Chairman for bringing in people who are 

very knowledgeable on this important issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

50

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator, for your questions. 

In the interests of time, I do have questions. I will submit my 

questions for the record. 

It is good to hear from you and directly from the Tribes, and we 

want to maintain that relationship with you and continue to communicate with you on issues that can in some cases improve what 

is happening here. 

One of the questions that we are asking was whether some of 

these changes, if changes are needed, should come administratively 

or legislatively. And so this is what we can work on as we continue 

here. 

And as I said, you have really been successful. Your whole industry is increasing and proceeding quickly. And as a result, I think 

you will agree with me that we need to work hard at keeping up 

with the law and also to apply justice to what we have out there. 

And of course, to continue to help our Tribes with their needs. 

So again, I want to thank you so much and thank the Members 

of this Committee, as well as the staff on both sides of the aisle 

of this Committee for the work that they have done. We will, of 

course, again look down the line and see where we are in regards 

to gaming. And so let’s keep working together on this. 

So let me express again my mahalo and thank you very much to 

the witnesses today. The Committee, like the NIGC and Tribal regulators, takes its oversight role over Indian gaming very seriously, 

and Indian gaming has proven to be the single most effective economic development that the Tribes can participate in, and provide 

services for their Tribal members. 

I am encouraged by what I have heard today from the Federal 

and Tribal regulators. The diligence that you show every day in ensuring that Indian gaming is being conducted as intended under 

IGRA is commendable. 

So let’s continue this, and again thank you very much. 

And this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(51)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD A. MONTEAU, ATTORNEY, ALBUQUERQUE, NEW

MEXICO

Thank you Chairman Akaka and Senators of the Committee for the invitation to 

testify. Unfortunately, I am unable to travel at this time to appear in person before 

the Committee. I take the opportunity to submit the following Written Testimony. 

My testimony today will address the issue of the lack of adherence to the tenets 

of ‘‘Buy Indian and Indian Preference in Procurement, Hiring and Contracting’’ 

within the Indian Gaming Industry and the real and potential loss to Tribal economies and to the future sustainability of Tribal economies. 

I am a Chippewa Cree Indian from Montana and I live in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I am an attorney, having practiced in the area of Federal Indian Law, including 

Indian Gaming, for at least two decades. I am presently unemployed although I do 

realize a small income from writing a periodic column for Indian Country Today 

Media, which is owned by the Oneida Nation of New York. 

My present unemployment/underemployment is actually the genesis of my ongoing advocacy in the area of Buy Indian and Indian Preference in Hiring, Contracting and Procurement, as it pertains to the Indian Gaming Industry and Tribal 

Governmental activities that are supported though federal funds authorized by the 

Indian Self-determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93–638, sometimes 

simply called ‘‘638’’). I believe these two issues are closely related and the solutions 

to one may facilitate a solution to the other. 

I will use my own experience to illustrate the lack of adherence to Indian Preference in the Tribal Gaming Industry. However, I can assure you that my experience is not unique. Indian Small Business Owners are experiencing, on a daily 

basis, what I call the ‘‘Red Ceiling’’, when it comes to their repeated attempts to 

break into the ‘‘Indian Gaming Supply Chain’’ which is now 95 percent dominated 

by non-Indian owned companies. 

I believe that our failure as Tribal People and Tribal Governments to adhere to 

the tenets of Buy Indian and Indian Preference within the Indian Gaming Industry 

may be directly correlated to the lack of Federal Enforcement of Buy Indian and 

Indian Preference requirement in Federal Law, Federal Policy and Federal Contracting; particularly P.L. 93–638 Self-determination Contracting and Self-governance Compacting. What the National Indian Gaming Commission can do about this 

issue is probably limited to ‘‘advocacy’’ and ‘‘encouragement’’ as, the Indian Gaming 

Regulatory Act (IGRA) does not address the issue although the passage of the Act 

was premised on maximizing the benefits of Indian Gaming for Tribes and Tribal 

people. 

I now relate my personal experience. Over the last four (4) years I have submitted 

job applications to some two dozen Tribal Governments, Tribal Business Entities 

and the U.S. Government, most of which have a written law or policy mandating 

Indian Preference in hiring, contracting and Indian Preference. Having served as a 

Presidential Appointee (National Indian Gaming Commission Chairman 1994–1997) 

I have what amounts to SES (Senior Executive Service) experience both in the Federal Government and the Private Sector, I was overqualified for many of these positions. Here is just a sampling of the Tribes or Tribal Business Entities to which I 

applied or sent job inquires to: Seneca Nation of New York, Oneida Nation of New 

York, Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut, Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, Sault Ste. Marie 

Chippewa, Bay Mills Indian Community, Gila River Indian Community, Salt River 

Indian Community, Puyallup Tribe, Snoqualmie Tribe, Stillaguamish Tribe, SaukSeattle Tribe, Blackfeet Tribe, Spokane Tribe, Kalispel Tribe, Coeur d’Alene Tribe, 

Santa Ana Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo, Isleta Pueblo, Colville Tribe, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), National Center for American Indian 

Enterprise Development (NCAIED), National Indian Council on Aging (NICOA), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Office of Special Trustee, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, AMERIND (Indian Housing Insurance Pool), Columbia River Fish 

Commission and Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwa. 

52

Each and every one of these entities either receives federal funds under a ‘‘638’’ 

contract which requires that Indians who meet the minimum qualifications are 

given preference. Almost all have a written Human Resource or Affirmative Action 

Policy or a Tribal Human Resources Law or Tribal Employment Rights Ordinance 

(TERO) that would require that Indians who meet the minimum qualifications for 

a position should be given first preference in hiring. Almost every Tribe that has 

an Indian Gaming Operation has a similar written policy or is subject to the Tribal 

Government Law or Policy on the issue. The problem is not that policies and laws 

do not exist to address this issue; the problem is non-enforcement and improper application of the law. 

While each and every Indian Casino Executive, Board Member or Tribal Leader 

associated with an Indian Casino will tell you that they adhere to Indian Preference; what they really mean is they have a written policy or law. The degree to 

which it is followed by both Tribal Government and Casino Managers is a different 

story. How it’s applied is also problematic. 

I recently wrote for Indian Country Today Media on the issue of the lack of both 

Federal and Tribal enforcement of the Federal Law Requirements of Buy Indian and 

Indian Preference in hiring, contracting and procurement. I have written previous 

articles on the lack of enforcement of Indian Preference, especially as it pertains to 

procurement, within the Indian Gaming Industry. As to the former, enforcement 

falls on the Contract Officers of BIA, IHS, HUD, DOL and other agencies. The Inspectors General of these offices have the investigatory power to investigate complaints. Unfortunately most Indian People do not know that you can even complain 

to these entities. In their mind the Tribes can do what they want and Sovereign 

Immunity protects them against any complaints. As with regard to commerce and 

positions created using Gaming Revenues, this is true. Only Tribal Law and Policy 

applies when Indian Gaming revenues are involved and if the Tribe or Tribal Managers either misapply Indian Preference or don’t apply it at all, there is not one to 

complaint to except perhaps a TERO office, if one exists, the Human Resources Office that did the wrongful application in the first place and the Tribal Government 

itself. 

The lack of enforcement or wrongful application of Indian Preference and Buy Indian in the Indian Gaming Industry has resulted in over 95 percent of the Indian 

Gaming Supply Chain being serviced by non-Indian Companies. Indian Companies 

make up a very small percentage and Tribal Companies and even small percentage. 

We have failed dismally to ‘‘vertically integrate’’ our own industry despite decades 

of talking about it. No incentives seem to exist for such organization like NIGA and 

NCAI to make development of a an on-the-ground strategy a priority. No incentives 

seem to exist for Tribes to make sure their managers in both government and business are properly enforcing Indian Preference and Buy Indian. You would think that 

the potential to create locally owned Indian Businesses and jobs would be enough 

but that has not been the case. One major gaming Tribe just recently made it very 

difficult for local Indian owned companies to obtain goods and services contract with 

its, casino. They cited ‘‘too much money going to just a few Tribal individuals’’. It 

makes one wonder, ‘‘who would they rather it go to?’’. 

About five years ago the National Tribal Development Association (NTDA), which 

was started by my mentor the late John ‘‘Roddy’’ Sunchild, introduced a concept for 

‘‘vertical integration’’ of Tribal and Indian owned businesses into the Indian Gaming 

Supply Chain. NTDA and other convinced NIGA to pass a resolution at it’s convention setting a goal of 10 percent purchasing by its member Tribes from Indian 

owned sources. Not much has happened since then other than a list of Tribal Businesses was made and it turned out to be not such a long list. Also, very few of the 

NIGA member Tribes actually went back to their communities and took action to 

implement and enforce the 10 percent Buy Indian Initiative. There were no local 

Tribal Resolutions or amendments to existing policy and codes or requirements 

placed upon managers to meet the 10 percent goal. It was rendered meaningless. 

Indian and Tribally owned businesses continue to have the door blocked when they 

try to get into the Indian Casino Supply and Service Supply Chain, which some estimates say is in the $15 Billion dollar a year range if you count Tribal Governmental 

spending. Tribal Managers and Casino Managers still appear to enjoy an ‘‘immunity 

by default’’ when they fail to implement honest Buy Indian and Indian Preference. 

This phenomenon of ‘‘immunity by default’’ has spilled over from the Indian Gaming Industry into Tribal Government. Despite the Buy Indian and Indian Preference 

requirements of Federal Law as they apply to ‘‘638’’ Contracts, Compacts and 

Grants, the lack of enforcement by Contracting Officers, and the improper application by Tribal Human Resources and other hiring authorities, results in a ‘‘nullification’’ of the Federal Requirements as well as the expressions in Tribal Law. Sometimes with the tacit approval of the Tribal Governments or Tribal Officers involved. 

53

My recent experience with the Coeur d’Alene Tribe is but one example and there 

are many others. I met the minimum qualifications for their Chief Judge position, 

as advertised, including the Indian Preference qualification, and I was interviewed. 

However, a non-Indian former County Prosecutor was hired. How could that have 

happened under a proper application of Indian Preference? I sought appeal only to 

find out that most of the Tribal Government Executive Team, including the TERO 

Director, were non-Indian. Apparently this Tribe believes and/or has been informed 

by its legal counsel that merely giving Indian a ‘‘chance to apply’’ or ‘‘giving Indians 

‘‘an interview’’ is compliance with Indian Preference. It is not. It defeats the intent 

of Congress when a Tribe applies Indian Preference in this manner. I would have 

no complaints if a Coeur d’Alene Tribal member had been hired as under ‘‘638’’ that 

is permissible. How are we ever going to get our Indian People in charge of our own 

affairs if we pass them over, even if they meet the advertised qualifications, and 

hire a non-Indian? 

You probably have heard the story from other Indian Entrepreneurs, of how hard 

it is to break through the ‘‘red ceiling’’ that keeps us out of the Casino Supply 

Chain. Even when Tribal Officials, such as TERO, open the doors for us, we still 

run into many, many obstacles thrown in our paths by Casino Procurement and 

Marketing Managers. One major problem is that what the ‘‘Buy Indian Preference’’ 

is, even if the Tribe has a written code or policy. It is not defined. So managers, 

including Tribal Government Managers, are free to implement it as they want. As 

a result, Indian Firms are losing bids for as little as a penny an item. You would 

think that being within a penny of the high bid, under a Buy Indian or Indian Preference Policy or Law would make the Indian Firm the winner. It is not happening. 

Are their solutions. Absolutely. I think one solution is an immediate direction to 

BIA, IHS and other federal contracting officers to investigate non-enforcement or 

miss-enforcement by Tribal Contractors to determine how wide-spread the problem 

may be in the governmental sector and to take action to facilitate proper enforcement and the train contractors as to the proper ‘‘preference’’ parameters that will 

be applied. 

This would have a spill-over effect leading to the proper application and enforcement of Tribal law and policy as it pertains to positions, contracts and procurement 

by the Indian Gaming Industry. However, I would encourage the Committee and the 

Congress not to leave the resolution of these issues to chance. As you well know 

their have been challenges to Buy Indian and Indian Preference rules at the highest 

levels of the governmental agencies dedicated to carrying out the Trust Relationship 

of the Federal Government and the Indian Tribes. The Congress must make it clear 

in law and policy that Indian Preference applies from the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary and throughout the entire structure of Bureau of Indian Affairs. The same 

should be done for other Departments and agencies such as Indian Health Service 

and Indian Housing. 

The Congress, particularly this Committee should hold hearings to determine the 

scope of the problem of the lack of enforcement of Buy Indian and Indian Preference 

in Indian Country, including in the Indian Gaming Industry. It should hold hearings to determine why, 23 years after the passage of the IGRA, we still have so few 

Indians in Executive Positions within the Indian Gaming Industry, especially in the 

largest grossing casinos. Congress should also authorize studies from Academia to 

determine the causes of this phenomenon. Congress should also hold hearings as to 

why 95 percent of the services and supply vendors in the Indian Casino Industry 

are non-Indian and what barriers are preventing Indian owned companies from 

breaking into the Indian Casino Supply Chain. Congress should also authorize funding funds developing strategies for stemming the flow of an estimated $15 Billion 

annually that flows away from reservation economies because most purchasing is 

done off-reservation from non-Indian companies and why it is so difficult to create 

Indian owned enterprises to serve our multi-billion dollar per year industry. The 

Committee also may consider amendments to the IGRA that would stimulate the 

adherence to Buy Indian and Indian Preference, especially by the highest grossing 

casino operations. Perhaps NIGA, as well intentioned that its present efforts are on 

this issue, can be asked to ask it’s member Tribes to do more, such as amend local 

law and policy to enforce Buy Indian and Indian Preference locally and make it part 

of the everyday operational procedures of not only the Casino operations but for all 

aspects of Tribal Government. 

I think it is not only ludicrous, but dishonest, for anyone to argue that proper enforcement of Buy Indian and Indian Preference in the Indian Gaming Industry 

would result in lowered profits for Tribes. How insulting to the mentality of Tribal 

people it is to argue that. The amount of money that is involved in a 5 percent or 

10 percent Buy Indian Preference is miniscule in the overall scheme. It is a small 

price to pay for building local businesses owned by Indian People or the Tribe and 

54

which employ Indian People and contribute, in the long run, to a sustainable Tribal 

economy. After all, under the present circumstances the 5–10 percent Buy Indian 

Preference would only apply to less than 5 percent of procurement contracts. The 

other 95 percent non-Indian segment would not even be effected. The argument is 

dishonest and self-serving. 

I thank the Chairman and the Committee for this opportunity to testify and to 

submit written testimony. Please Contact me if there is any further information you 

need or I can be of assistance. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

JOHN MESKILL


728c1.eps
55

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JOHN BARRASSO TO

SHEILA MORAGO

Question 1. How would you measure the effectiveness of the training and workforce to ensure the adequacy of regulation? 

Answer. The most tangible measurement would be a decrease in audit findings. 

One issue of particular importance is that effective training needs to be done to the 

specific regulatory rules of a particular region or area. Many Tribal/state compacts 

have very specific regulatory requirements that are far more detailed that the NIGC 

MICS. Training needs to be specific to those compacts. You don’t want people 

trained on Oklahoma standards when they work in Arizona.

Question 2. What mechanisms are available to track and report on theft, crimes, 

and responses to such occurrences? 

Answer. There are many mechanisms currently in place for any Tribal gaming facility. One of the most important mechanisms are the internal controls of the operation. These internal controls are the rules, policies and procedures that the Tribal 

gaming operation and regulators must follow, and contain an audit trail to follow 

for any policy set forth by the Tribe. The Tribal gaming commission or regulatory 

authority then tracks and reports on any discrepancies in following the controls. If 

the discrepancy appears significant, they will investigate to determine whether it 

is simple error or something worse. Depending on what that is the Tribal gaming 

commission investigation reveals, they can file a report on whether they believe it 


728c2.eps
56

is theft, a crime or a simple mistake. If it is a theft or crime then it will then be 

followed up by the appropriate law enforcement agency. That agency may be the 

state gaming regulatory office, the U.S. Attorney’s office, the NIGC, Tribal police 

and or the BIA.

Question 3. What types of due diligence is involved in these audits and in selecting these vendors? 

Answer. The professional vendors that perform the independent outside audits 

must be independent of the operation, gaming commission and the Tribe. They must 

be specifically trained and skilled in casino audits. There is usually a Request for 

Proposals (RFP) that goes out to the industry and the Tribe makes the selection.

Question 4. Should the vendors be subject to background checks? If not, why not? 

Answer. All vendors that have access to the sensitive information being checked 

by the independent outside audit should go through a background check, unless 

they are a member of a licensed profession (ie. Lawyer or accountant) and have a 

current valid license. Vendors who provide everyday goods and services ideally 

should be subject to background checks, dependent upon the sensitivity of the goods 

or services or the value or volume of annual business that vendor does with the specific operation. The policy decision on where to draw that line is made by the Tribal 

government, through its regulatory authority, and may vary from Tribe to Tribe 

based on numerous factors, such as size of operation.

Question 5. Have there been any studies or reports on the effectiveness of Tribal 

internal controls standards or that compare or describe the different internal control 

standards used by Indian Tribes in their gaming facilities. If yes, please identify any 

such studies or reports. 

Answer. Not to my knowledge.

Question 6. Please provide your own assessment of the impact of Colorado River 

Indian Tribes decision on Indian gaming regulation on the National Indian Gaming 

Commission’s ability to regulate Indian gaming. 

Answer. I believe that the NIGC has access to all the information they need to 

effectively regulate Tribal gaming. The most important piece of information the 

NIGC has access to is the independent audits that have to be filed every year by 

every gaming operation. These audits give the NIGC a window into the gaming operation. Any findings in the audit report should trigger a follow up by the NIGC. 

Additionally, over [90 percent] of Tribes have adopted the past NIGC MICS or 

something more stringent. The NIGC is authorized under IGRA to enforce these 

Tribal laws. 

Independent audits and MICS provide NIGC all the tools they really need.

Question 7. Do you know if any Indian Tribes changed or adjusted their own regulatory strategies in light of, or in reaction to, the decision in the Colorado River Indian Tribes case? If yes, please describe the changes and/or adjustments. 

Answer. Being more familiar with the regulatory structure in Arizona I can say 

the answer is no. The regulatory structure that was set up in Arizona exceeds that 

MICS of the NIGC and was done prior to the CRIT decision. Additionally, it is my 

understanding that no OIGA Member Tribes altered their regulatory procedures in 

response to CRIT, since the Oklahoma compact requires use of the NIGC by the 

Tribes.

Question 8. In your view, has the National Indian Gaming Commission made any 

changes or adjustments in its processes or procedures in light of, or in reaction to, 

the Colorado River Indian Tribes decision? If yes, please describe the changes and/

or adjustments. 

Answer. I don’t believe so. The NIGC still has Minimum Internal Control Standards, which are written into many compacts and Tribal ordinances. They still review 

all audits coming from all the gaming operations and now work closely with those 

operators and regulators to fix any audit findings.

Æ