Date: 1999-07-14
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. I think many of the points have been made. but let me suggest that. in two instances. the suggestion was that we need this amendment because an Indian tribe was seeking to build a reservation on some land that they would purchase that was not part of their trust lands or not part of their reservation. In that instance they cannot build that casino. That land cannot be taken into trust under the existing law today without the Governors approval. That has been true in a number of different States. Whether it is in Cape May or whether it is in Florida. to take lands into trust for that purpose under IGRA is not allowed without the approval of the Governor. In other instances. this Congress has decided that lands would be given to Indian Nations. and the restrictions were that they could not be used for gaming purposes. because that decision was made both in some cases by the tribes who were seeking recognition and seeking the lands and those who did not. But let me just say that this amendment is a very dangerous amendment. because this is not about States rights. Thig is about whether or not we try and nullify the sovereign rightsof the Indian Nations in this country. Because as we now recognize. and as we recognized when we passed IGRA. the Indian Nations have a right to engage in gaming if. in fact. that State is engaged in gaming. That is settled. We put in IGRA so that it could be a process by which the State would then .be included in that decisionmaking process. There would be a process to develop a compact in the case of Class I gaming if the State had Class III gambling. The problem comes when the State does not bargain in good faith. and then the State goes and hides behind the immunity. that they cannot be sued. that somehow. then. that ends the process. That is why IGRA- envisions the Secretary of Interior then coming in as a trustee for the Indian Nations. an arbiter of this to try to put together a process by which then the Indians can have the rights that they are guaranteed under the Constitution. So this is not about usurping the States rights. It is about protecting the Indians rights. H5526 co Again. as said by a number of people here. if States do not want casino gambling. all they have to do is outlaw casino gambling. We had a ballot measure to allow Indians in California to have casino gambling. to have slot machines. which we do not readily have in California. or it is open to discussion. A big campaign was run against that. It was run by the Nevada gaming and hotel people. They did not think California should have gambling. It looked to me like somebody trying to protect market share. not a high moral- principle. But the fact of the matter is the State decided that they wanted to go ahead and have these compacts. and the Governor and the Indian Nations are now working out those compacts to provide for some form of Class I gambling. That is the process that is at work. But in some instances. even in the early days in Arizona. the Governor said no. But we cannot be arbitrary here because they have .a right to this. That is why -we created this escape valve measure. That now is being challenged in court. Properly so. People have a right to do that. The State of Florida and Alabama have sued over these regulations. The Committee on Appropriations made the wise decisionto wait and see what the outcome of that lawsuit was before we put our thumb on one side of the scale of justice here. So this amendment. not only is misguided in terms of the problems that people have in fact described. because those are -taken care of. and the Governor can keep that from happening. but it is also misguided in terms of the effort that somehow this is about a protection of States rights when. in fact. the law recognizes the problem when a State simply says we will have Class I gambling in our State. we just will not allow the Indian Nations to do it. The Supreme Court says they have a right as sovereign nations to engage in those same activities that are legal in those States. If we have a law that says it is not legal. then they cannot engage in that. But recognizing the sovereignty of these nations and their trusted responsibility and all the history that goes along with it. the court said they have a right to engage in that same legal activity. This is an amendment to strike that down. because this is an amendment that lets the chief executive officer of a State in the most arbitrary fashion decide that he will not approve or she will not approve a compact. and the game is over. That is contrary to the sovereignty of these nations. It is contrary to the IGRA legislation thatwas passed by this Congress. I think it is contrary to the best judgment of the Committee on Appropriations to await the outcome of the court in making this determination. I hope that we vote against the WeldonBarr amendment. It is an ill-