Amicus Curiae Brief — Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho

Supreme Court brief1995

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

eae —_—

f Supreme court, “te.

- FILE)

No. 95-275 - » 199s

In the Supreme Co Béice OF THe Litna |

OF THE

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1995

COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE,

Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF IDAHO,

Respondent.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION,

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS,

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

COMMUNITY, AND

SISSETON WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE

LEVINE & ASSOCIATES

JEROME L. LEVINE*

FRANK R. LAWRENCE

2049 Century Park East, Suite 710

Los Angeles, California 90067

(310) 553-8400

BLUEDOG, OLSON & SMALL

KURT V. BLUEDOG

ANDREW M. SMALL

5001 Southgate Office Plaza,

Suite 500

Minneapolis, MN 55437

*Counsel of Record

Bowne of Los Angeles, Inc., Law Printers (213) 627-2200

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..............

II.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............-

ITI.

pict) a errr oer renee

A. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION

CONFLICTS WITH A DECISION OF

THE SECOND -CIRCUIT ..........0.4..

THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION DE-

PARTED FROM THE ACCEPTED AND

USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL PRO-

CNET Sic swcscceNedvadedsccscdseee

1. The Ninth Circuit’s Holding Is Contrary

to IGRA’s Plain Language and Legislative

History, Which Anticipate That Tribes

and States Will Negotiate over the Extent

to Which State Laws May Apply to

Class III Gaming on Indian Lands .....

2. The Ninth Circuit Rewrote IGRA, Shift-

ing the Burden of Proof from States to

WE ds trc usec hee tee ce kaknanees

THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECIDED A

FEDERAL QUESTION OF VITAL IM-

PORTANCE TO INDIAN TRIBES

WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD

BE, SETTLED BY THIS COURT........

TABLE OF CONTENTS

| Page

D. THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECIDED A

FEDERAL QUESTION IN A WAY THAT

CONFLICTS WITH APPLICABLE DECI-

SIONS OF THIS COURT 2... ccc ccevce 16

1. The Ninth Circuit’s Approach Represents

a Dramatic Diminution of Tribal Sover-

eignty, Without the Express Congressional

Authorization That This Court’s Decisions

eee ee re at ne 16

2. Congress’ Use of Identical Language

Describing the Scope of Class II and

Class III Gaming Requires That Language

Receive the Same Meaning............ 17

3. Congress Used a Legal Term of Art —

“Permits” —in IGRA, Which Must be

Interpreted According to its Judicially-

Established Meaning ................- 18

IV.

CAING BASES petri rssecres theese ead 20

APPENDIX

PA NE NY Anan semen

Renate teseneiairetcimae- sesnteantie Lins

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Page

Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson,

ae or 8

Badaracco v. C.L.R., 464 U.S. 386 (1984) ......-. 10

Barber v. Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637 (1954) .......-. 18

Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605 coo: ) 18

Bryan v. Itasca County, Minnesota, 426 U.S. 373

a ee eee 17

California v. Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 480

>) eee ee passim

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 3 F.3d

BIO tei Cle, 1993) . 22. c ccc cicccccccceceees 4,12

Coeur d'Alene, 51 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 1995) ...... passim

Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Keystone Con-

solidated Industries, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2006 (1993) 17, 18

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v.

State of Washington, 938 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1991) 19

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188

bg nae 3 ee oe 18

Farrar v. Hobby, 113 S.Ct. 56 (1993) ..-------+>: %

Forest County Potawatomi v. Norquist, 45 F.3d 1079

PUM POMS vou cers csevsecsscrersrsceess: 4

Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, 113 S.Ct. 2151

Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 U.S. 414 (1985) 7

Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Indians v. Wisconsin, 770 F. Supp 480 (W.D. Wis.

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut, 913 F.2d

1024 (2nd Cir. 1990)

Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481 (1973)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page

McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission, 411

CLS BO CERT Ee ocd a os GS eer ee eb deescee: 17

McDermott International, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S.

5ST CIDGED chivas ccd cecncesl es tiers x 18

Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121 (1989) ......... 10

National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care Re-

tirement Corp., 114 S.Ct. 1778 (1994) ......... 6

New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S at

SOE ov cnc ce cnckanceasncecees eerie 12

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 485 U.S. 617, 620

SOOO vc ch cxnncwis ct tlle eae Liao 7

Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979) ....... 7

Ratzlaf v. United States, 114 S.Ct. 655 (1994) ....17, 18

Rhode Island v. Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d

GD CRORE Ce Nard ca ekk tos ce eee ee ties 17

Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wil-

son, 41 F.3d 421 (9th Cir. 1994) ............. passim

Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. State of

Michigan, 800 F. Supp. 1484 (W.D. Mich. 1992) 12

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 11 F.3d 1016

CEIG AR, FOE sa 5 hes cdakdeeeccs neeerenees 12

United States v. Aversa, 984 F.2d 493 (1st Cir. 1993) 18

United States v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, 897

fe. Fi fs ee eee eee 8

Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1896)........ 6

Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959).. .......-.. 17

Willis v. Fordice, 55 F.3d 633 (Sth Cir. 1995)..... 4

Statutes

25 UDA... SOUS CIRO otter Fs 69 ON on 89090 088 passim

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

Fe Ne epee ennes

Public Law 280, 28 U.S.C. section 1360(a).......

Other Authorities

134 Cong. Rec. H 8153 (Sept. 26, 1988) .........

141 Cong. Rec. S 11969-04 (August 9, 1995) .....

Associated Press, For Indians, Budget Cuts Put

Schools in Disrepair, New York Times, Sept. 3,

en SE Ces CNet d Vee bea%'s-s

Deloitte & Touche, A Historical Review of Gaming in

Rie ee ee

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Tribal State Compact List, (January 26, 1995) ..

Hearing Before the Committee on Indian Affairs on

S. 2230, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 226 (July 19, 1994)

KPMG Peat Marwick, Economic Benefits of Tribal

Gaming in Minnesota 1992 .........200000005:

Letter from Sault Area Chamber of Commerce to

Governor John Engler, dated May 13, 1993, Senate

ee ee ere

Madden, Preliminary Estimates of Economic

Impacts Related to Tribal Gaming in South

Dakota, Senate Hearings, May 17, 1974........

Oversight Hearings on the Need for Amendments to

the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act: Hearing Before

the Committee of Indian Affairs, \03rd Cong., 2d

Oe ere ert nr eee ree

Rogers, Senate Ciears Natural-Resources Bill,

Softening Cuts for Arts, But Not Indians, Wall

Street Journal, August 10, 1995...............

S. Rep. No. 446, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1988),

reprinted in 1988 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News

PR PAS et iy er ae Pane ees PET EEE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Testimony «cf Bernard Bousher, Tribal Chairman,

Senate Hearings, April 27, 1994.............-. 15

Testimony of JoAnn Jones, Chair, Wisconsin

Winnebago Nation, Senate Hearings, April 26,

1994... ccccccsvneststeeuenee nls 14

No. 95-275

In the Supreme Court

OF THE

United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1995

COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE,

Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF IDAHO,

Respondent.

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING ASSOCIATION,

SAN MANUEL BAND OF MISSION INDIANS,

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

COMMUNITY, AND

SISSETON WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amicus curiae National Indian Gaming Association (hereinafter

the “Association”) files this brief in support of petitioner Coeur

d’Alene Tribe (hereinafter the “Tribe’’) pursuant to the written

consent of all parties. ' The Association is a national nonprofit

organization representing the interests of more than 130 federally-

recognized tribal governments that depend on gaming under the

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (hereinafter “IGRA” or the “Act”),

25 U.S.C. sections 2701-21, to fund tribal governmental programs

including education, care for the elderly, housing, and health care.

The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, located in southern

California, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, located in

‘The parties’ consent to the filing of this amicus brief is appended hereto.

See Appendix at 2a.

southern Minnesota, and the Sisseton Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, lo-

cated in northeastern South Dakota, are members of the Association

that depend on gaming for vital tribal governmental revenue.

Congress intended IGRA to allow tribes to operate gaming “as a

means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency,

and strong tribal governments.” 25 U.S.C. sec. 2702(1). Tribes’

ability to achieve these goals depends in large part on the extent to

which they can engage in class III gaming, which | is the most

economically competitive form of gaming available.? The Ninth

Circuit has interpreted IGRA in a way that drastically reduces the

types of class III games that may be included in tribal-state

compacts. The Association shares the Tribe’s belief that the Ninth

Circuit's interpretation of the scope of permissible class III gaming

under IGRA is wrong as a matter of law, and that it will, if not

reversed, prevent tribes from achieving Congress’ goals of economic

development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.

For these reasons, the Association respectfully suggests that the

Court grant the Tribe’s petition for a writ of certiorari.

Il.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case satisfies four distinct grounds for granting the Tribe’s

petition. See S. Ct. R. 10.1. First, the Ninth Circuit’s decision

conflicts with a decision of the Second Circuit. Second, the Ninth

Circuit’s decision departed from the accepted and usual course of

judicial proceedings by rewriting IGRA to shift the burden of proof

from states to tribes, and by reaching a holding that is contrary to

the statute’s plain language and legislative history, which anticipate

that tribes and states will negotiate over the extent to which state

laws may“apply to class III gaming on Indian lands. Third, the court

decided an important question of federal law — namely, the test for

*IGRA divides gaming into three classes, which are defined at 25 U.S.C.

sections 2703(6)-(8). Class I includes social or traditional games, while

class II includes bingo and similar games, as well as nonbanking card

games. Class IiI includes lotteries, horse racing, house banked card games,

slot machines, and other casino games, which are commonly operated by

states and private interests. Competition from state and private gaming

enterprises, and the importance of class III gaming in the marketplace,

mean that when tribes are deprived of class III opportunities they are

unlikely to achieve the economic development illustrated infra at section

III(C) of this brief, which occurs when the class III process works.

determining the permissible scope of class III gaming under IGRA

— which has not been, but should be, settled by this court.

Fourth, the court decided a federal question in a way that conflicts

with a number of this Court’s applicable decisions. Specifically, the

Ninth Circuit’s approach would effect a dramatic state law intrusion

on tribal sovereignty, without the express congressional authoriza-

tion that this Court’s decisions require. The Ninth Circuit also

refused to give the same terms, which Congress used in IGRA, the

same meaning, as this Court has suggested is appropriate. Finally,

the Ninth Circuit failed to interpret a term of art in federal Indian

law, which Congress used in IGRA, according to its judicially-

established meaning, as this Court’s decisions require.

Il.

ARGUMENT

A. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH

A DECISION OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

In Mashantucket Pequot Tribe v. Connecticut, 913 F.2d 1024

(2nd Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 975 (1991), the Second

Circuit held that the permissible scope of class III gaming was

determined by the civil-regulatory, criminal-prohibitory, public pol-

icy test articulated by this Court in California v. Cabazon Band of

Mission Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987) (hereinafter “Cabazon

test’’).

In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court,

relying on Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians v. Wilson,

41 F.3d 421 (9th Cir. 1994), amended on denial of rehearing, 95

D.A.R. 10855 (August 11, 1995).? In Rumsey, the Ninth Circuit

expressly held that the Cabazon test does not determine the permis-

sible scope of class III gaming. See Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. at 10859. In

so doing, that court created a direct conflict with the Second

Circuit’s decision in Mashantucket Pequot Tribe. Indeed, the Rum-

sey panel expressly acknowledged its split with the Second Circuit:

>On August 21, 1995, the Ninth Circuit sua sponte issued an order in

Rumsey staying the issuance of the mandate, and asking the parties for

further briefing on the significance of a recently-decided California case. A

copy of the Rumsey order is appended hereto. See Appendix at 183a. Given

the Coeur d'Alene panel’s wholesale reliance on Rumsey, a substantive

modification of the Rumsey decision might well warrant reversal and

remand for reconsideration in this case. Thus this Court should consider

staying this case pending issuance of the mandate in Rumsey.

“we disagree, for the reasons expressed above, with the Mashan-

tucket court’s use of the Class II legislative history to interpret

IGRA’s Class III provisions . . .” Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. at 10861 n. 5.

In addition, six Ninth Circuit judges, dissenting from a denial of a

tribal petition for rehearing en banc in Rumsey, recognized that the

panel decided Rumsey “in a manner that conflicts with the Second

Circuit’s interpretation of the same statutory language.” Rumsey, 95

D.A.R. at 10856. Finally, the inter-circuit conflict encompasses not

only the Second and Ninth circuits, but also the Fifth, Seventh, and

Eighth circuits as well.‘

By adopting the Rumsey analysis, the panel in this case similarly

created a conflict with the Second Circuit. This reason alone

warrants granting the Tribe’s petition.

B. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION DEPARTED FROM

THE ACCEPTED AND USUAL COURSE OF JUDICIAL

PROCEEDINGS

The Ninth Circuit’s decision departed from the accepted and

usual course of judicial proceedings by imposing the full corpus of

state law on tribes, a result which is contrary to IGRA'’s express

language and legislative history. The court also departed from

accepted judicial practice by reversing the burden of proof Congress

allocated in IGRA. Each of these matters are addressed in turn.

1. The Ninth Circuit’s Holding Is Contrary to IGRA’s Plain

Language and Legislative History, Which Anticipate That

Tribes and States Will Negotiate over the Extent to Which

State Laws May Apply to Class [I] Gaming on Indian Lands

By limiting the scope of permissible class II] gaming to narrowly

defined activities affirmatively permitted under state law, and re-

jecting “similar” games even though they do not contravene state

public policy under the Cabazon test, the Ninth Circuit has at-

“Both the Fifth and Seventh circuits have indicated their approval of

using the Cabazon test to determine the permissible scope of class III

gaming, consistent with the Second Circuit's approach. See Willis v.

Fordice, 55 F.3d 633 (Sth Cir. 1995) (affirming, without opinion, the

district court’s decision reported at 850 F. Supp. 523, 531-32 (S.D. Miss.

1994) (applying Cabazon test to scope of class II] gaming)); Forest

County Potawatomi v. Norquist, 45 F.3d 1079, 1083 (7th Cir. 1995) (citing

with approval Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians

v. Wisconsin, 770 F. Supp. 480 (W.D. Wis. 1991), appeal dismissed, 957

F.2d 515 (7th Cir. 1992) ). On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit's rejection

of the Cabazon test is consistent with the Eight Circuit’s approach in

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe v. South Dakota, 3 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 1993).

tempted to subject class III tribal gaming to the full corpus of state

gaming laws. That approach is contrary to IGRA’s plain language

and legislative history, which anticipate that tribes and states will

negotiate over the extent to which state laws may apply to Indian

gaming.

Nowhere in IGRA did Congress express an intent to subject

tribes wishing to engage in class III gaming to the full body of state

gambling laws. IGRA’s findings include the Cabazon test's lan-

guage: they do not so much as hint that Congress desired to subject

Indian tribes to all state gaming laws.’ Nor do Congress’ stated

purposes in enacting IGRA include any suggestion that state law

was to apply whole cloth to tribal gaming. See 25 U.S.C. sec. 2702.

To the contrary, two of IGRA’s express provisions suggest that

Congress did not intend the full corpus of state gaming laws to apply

to Indian tribes.

First, IGRA provides that Indian tribes and states may negotiate

regarding “the application of the criminal and civil laws and

regulations of the Indian tribe or the State that are directly related

to, and necessary for, the licensing and regulation of such activity”

for inclusion in tribal-state compacts governing class III gaming. 25

U.S.C. sec. 2710(d)(3)(C) (1) (emphasis added).° Certainly the

types of class III games that tribes may offer are routinely negoti-

ated and included in tribal-state compacts. See Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tribal State Compact List,

*In enacting IGRA, Congress found in part 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 activity.

25 U.S.C. sec. 2701 (emphasis added). Cf, Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 209.

*IGRA’s Senate Report notes that section 2710(d)(3)(C) should be

read expansively:

Section [2710](d)(3)(C) describes the issues that may be the

subject of negotiations between a tribe and a state in reaching a

compact. The Committee recognizes that subparts of each of the

broad areas may be more inclusive. For example, licensing issues

under clause (vi) may include agreements on days or hours of

operation, wage and pot limits, types of wagers, and size and capacity

of the proposed facility. A compact may allocate most or all of the

jurisdictional responsibility to the tribe, to the state or to any variation

in between. The Committee does not intend that compacts be used as

a subterfuge for imposing state jurisdiction on tribal lands.

S. Rep. No. 446, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1988), reprinted in 1988 U.S.

Code Cong. & Admin. News 3071, 3084 (hereinafter “Senate Report”).

Se |

(January 26, 1995), Appendix at 11-48a. See also Hearing Before

the Committee on Indian Affairs on S. 2230, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess.

226 (July 19, 1994) (statement of Ray Halbritter, Nation Repre-

sentative Oneida Indian Nation of New York) (hereinafter “Hal-

britter Testimony”), Appendix 179a (Oneida-New York compact

determines, inter alia, “the games offered’). If, as the Rumsey panel

opined, individual state gaming laws — as opposed to the state’s

general public policy toward the class of activity at issue — governs

the entire scope of permissible class III gaming that may occur on

Indian lands, section 2710(d)(3)(C) of IGRA would be meaning-

less. Such an interpretation departs from long-accepted judicial

practice. See National Labor Relations Board v. Health Care Retire-

ment Corp., 114 S.Ct. 1778, 1783 (1994) (rejecting interpretation

rendering portions of a statute meaningless); Ward v. Race Horse,

163 U.S. 504, 508 (1896) (“Unless the districts thus referred to

[are to] be taken as controlling the words ‘unoccupied lands,’ then

the reference to the hunting districts would become wholly meaning-

less, and the cardinal rule of interpretation would be violated, which

ordains that such construction be adopted as gives effect to all the

language of the statute’’).

Second, Congress’ intention that tribes not be subjected to the full

corpus of state gaming laws and regulations is also evident in 18

U.S.C. section 1166. Section 1166 makes all state gambling laws

applicable on Indian lands, but expressly excludes from the defini-

tion of “gambling” all gambling conducted pursuant to IGRA.’ If

Congress had intended state laws to govern Indian gaming under

compacts, section 1166(c) would be superfluous. Referring to sec-

tion 1166(c), the dissent from denial of rehearing en banc in

Rumsey observed, “under Rumsey... [t]he state has_no duty to

begin negotiations, even though under IGRA a compact may permit

the tribe to operate games that state law otherwise prohibits.”

"Section 1166 provides that:

(a) Subject to subsection (c), for purposes of Federal law, all State

laws pertaining to the licensing, regulation, or prohibition of gambling,

including but not limited to criminal sanctions applicable thereto, shall

apply in Indian country in the same manner and to the same extent as

such laws apply elsewhere in the State... (c) For the purpose of this

section, the term “gambling” does not include —- (1) class | gaming or

class II] gaming regulated by the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, or

(2) class II] gaming conducted under a Tribal-State compact ap-

proved by the Secretary of the Interior under [section 2710(d) (8) ]

that is in effect.

25 U.S.C. sec. 1166 (emphasis added).

Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. at 10856-57 (Canby, J., dissenting) (emphasis

added).

Moreover, IGRA’s legislative history reveals that, in an earlier

version of the Act that did not become law, Congress considered

subjecting tribal class III gaming to state law: “The bill reported to

the House floor in April, 1986, allowed the proposed National

Indian Gaming Commission and the tribes to regulate both class II

and III gaming. Class III gaming would have been regulated in

accordance with State rules and regulations governing such gaming.”

Senate Report at 3073 (emphasis added). The fact that Congress

seriously considered subjecting tribal class III gaming to the full

corpus of state laws and regulations, but rejected that approach in

IGRA, suggests that the Ninth Circuit erred in its interpretation of

the Act. See, e.g., Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 485 U.S. 617,

620 (1988); Herb's Welding, Inc. v. Gray, 470 US. 414, 422

(1985); Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332, 345 (1979).

Despite the complete absence of any expression — much less a

clear expression — of Congressional intent to subject Indian tribes

to the full corpus of state gaming laws, the Rumsey and Coeur

d'Alene panels’ rejection of the Cabazon test embodies just such a

notion. Rumsey ended its inquiry at California Penal Code sections

330, 330a, and 330b, which purport to forbid banking and percent-

age games and slot machines. See Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. at 10858-59.

The State of Connecticut made this same argument in Mashan-

tucket Pequot Tribe. In rejecting that view, the Second Circuit

explained that under Connecticut’s — and now the Ninth Circuit's

~~ erroneous approach:

even where a state does not prohibit class III] gaming as a

matter of criminal law and public policy, an Indian tribe could

nonetheless conduct such gaming only in accordance with, and

by acceptance of, the entire state corpus of laws and regulations

governing such gaming. The compact process that Congress

established as the centerpiece of the IGRA’s regulation of class

III gaming would thus become a dead letter, there would be

nothing to negotiate, and no meaningful compact would be

possible.

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 913 F.2d at 1030-31.

The Second Circuit concluded, contrary to the Ninth Circuit, that

Congress intended that:

“Even if a tribe engages in class II] gaming pursuant to a

compact with the State, it does not necessarily follow that the

tribe is subject to the entire body of State law on gaming. The

tribe and the State may negotiate terms such as ‘the application

of the criminal and civil laws and regulations of the Indian tribe

or the State that are directly related to, and necessary for, the

licensing and regulation of such activity.’ ”

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe, 913 F.2d at 1031 (quoting United

States v. Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe, 897 F.2d 358, 366 n. 10

(8th Cir. 1990) (quoting IGRA, 25 U.S.C. sec.

2710(d)(3)(C)(1))).

The Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of IGRA’s class III provisions

is directly contrary to Congress’ carefully crafted legislative compro-

mise consisting of tribal-state compacts:

After lengthy hearings, negotiations and discussions, the Com-

mittee concluded that the use of compacts between tribes and

states is the best mechanism to assure that the interests of both

sovereign entities are met with respect to the regulation of

complex gaming enterprises such as pari-mutuel horse and dog

racing, casino gaming, jai alai and so forth. The Committee

notes the strong concerns of states that state laws and regula-

tions relating to sophisticated forms of class III gaming be

respected on Indian lands where, with few exceptions, such laws

and regulations do not now apply. The Committee balanced

these concerns against the strong tribal opposition to any

imposition of State jurisdiction over activities on Indian lands.

The Committee concluded that the compact process is a viable

mechanism for setting various matters between two equai

sovereigns.

Senate Report at 3083 (emphasis added). As the dissent from

denial of rehearing en banc in Rumsey noted, Congress’ “whole idea

was to foster these [tribal-state] compacts. That goal is defeated if

the details of the state’s regulatory schemes, allowing some games

and prohibiting others, apply...." Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. 10856

(Canby, J., dissenting).

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe's petition should be granted because,

contrary to Congress’ intent, the Ninth Circuit’s decision subjects

Indian tribes to the full corpus of state gaming laws, a result that

departs from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.*

"See, e.g, Allied-Bruce Terminix Companies, Inc. v. Dobson, 115 S.Ct.

834, 843 (1995) (rejecting a result “directly contrary to the Act’s language

and Congress's intent”). See also Good Samaritan Hospital v. Shalala, \13

S.Ct. 2151, 2157 (1993) (“if the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end

of the matter”); Farrar v. Hobby, 113 S.Ct. 56, 577 (1993) (“this Court is

bound by the choices Congress has made”).

2. The Ninth Circuit Rewrote IGRA, Shifting the Burden of

Proof from States to Tribes

Congress expressly provided in IGRA that: “the burden of proof

shall be upon the State to prove that the State has negotiated with

the Indian tribe in good faith to conclude a Tribal-State compact

governing the conduct of gaming activities.” 25 U.S.C. sec.

2710(d) (7) (B) (ii) (11). As Representative Udall recognized,

GRA “requires the State to bargain in good faith with the tribe

requesting such a compact and imposes the burden of proof on the

State in any court test. Where the State’s refusal to enter into the

agreement is based upon its position that the activity should not take

place at all, it must be incumbent upon the State to make a clear

showing that the activity will have a significant adverse impact upon

the public.” 134 Cong. Rec. H 8153 (Sept. 26, 1988) (Rep. Udall)

(emphasis added).’

*IGRA’s Senate Report confirms the statute's plain language placing the

burden of proof on the states:

the bill allows States to consider negative impacts on existing gaming

activities. That is not to say that the bill would allow States to reject

Indian gaming on the mere showing that Indian gaming will compete

with non-Indian games. Rather, States must show that economic

consequences will be severe and that they will clearly outweigh

positive economic consequences. Burden of proof. — Sec-

tion 11(d)(7) grants a tribe the right to sue a State if compact

negotiations are not concluded. This section is the result of the

Committee balancing the interests and rights of tribes to engage in

gaming against the interests of States in regulating such gaming.

Under this act, Indian tribes will be required to give up any legal right

they may now have to engage in class III gaming if: (1) they choose to

forgo gaming rather than to opt for a compact that may involve State

jurisdiction; or (2) they opt for a compact and, for whatever reason, a

compact is not successfully negotiated. In contrast, States are not

required to forgo any State governmental rights to engage in or

regulate class III gaming except whatever they may voluntarily cede to

a tribe under a compact. Thus, given this unequal balance, the issue

before the Committee was how best to encourage States to deal fairly

with tribes as sovereign governments. The Committee elected, as the

least offensive option, to grant tribes the right to sue a State if a

compact is not negotiated and chose to apply the good faith standard

as the legal barometer for the State’s dealings with tribes in class III

gaming negotiations. While a tribe must show a prima facie case, after

doing so the burden will shift to the State to prove that it did act in

good faith. The Committee notes that it is States not tribes, that have

crucial information in their possession that will prove or disprove tribal

allegations of failure to act in good faith.

Senate Report at 3084.

Congress’ allocation of the burden of proof to the states follows

from its codification of the Cabazon test in IGRA. By incorporating

the Cabazon test into IGRA, Congress logically required a state to

prove that a proposed gaming activity, which it did not wish to

include in a tribal-state compact, violated its public policy. By

rejecting the Cabazon test, the Ninth Circuit, in this case and in

Rumsey, has effectively shifted this burden from states to tribes.

Rumsey would require that tribes prove that each of their proposed

gaming activities are affirmatively authorized by some state law.'°

Rather than the states proving that their fundamental public policy

is offended by the proposed gaming activities — as IGRA and its

legislative history require — under the Ninth Circuit’s decisions, the

tribes would bear the burden of proving the games they seek to

include in a tribal-state compact are allowed by existing state law.

For example, in Rumsey, the court opined that the fact that

California allows banking and percentage games, as well as card

games, does not mean that tribes may engage in banking card

games. See Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. at 10859-60. The court did not

require California to demonstrate that its public policy regarding

gambling — which this Court held to be civil/regulatory in Cabazon

— would be offended by banking card games, while comfortably

tolerating non-banking card games and banking games played with

devices other than cards.

By effectively rewriting IGRA to shift the burden of proof that

Congress established, the Ninth Circuit has departed from the

accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings.’

C. THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECIDED A FEDERAL QUES-

TION OF VITAL IMPORTANCE TO INDIAN TRIBES

WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BE, SETTLED

BY THIS COURT

The interpretation of a federal statute — namely, the test for the

scope of permissible class III gaming under IGRA — is obviously a

question of federal law. See Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 129

(1989). The importance of this question to the 500-plus federally-

recognized Indian tribes in this nation, and their more than one mil-

lion members, cannot be understated. As a study conducted for the

‘The Ninth Circuit held that “IGRA does not require a state to

negotiate over one form of Class III gaming activity simply because it has

legalized another, albeit similar form of gaming.” Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. at

10860.

'' See Badaracco v. C.LR., 464 U.S. 386, 398 (1984) (“Courts are not

authorized to rewrite a statute...”).

Association, which was submitted to Senate hearings on proposed

amendments to IGRA, noted:

The lack of a vital economy on reservations makes it nearly

impossible to improve tribal conditions. This nopeless environ-

ment and constant struggle help to explain the high incidence of

alcoholism and suicide, and the lack of adequate health care in

many tribal communities. According to the 1990 Census, the

poorest counties in the United States are located on Indian

Reservations. There are 3,200 counties in the United States. Of

the poorest 1% (32 counties), 7 are located on Sioux reserva-

tions in South and North Dakota. In addition, several other

Indian Reservations in various counties in the United States

were also listed among the 32 poorest counties.

Deloitte & Touche, A Historical Review of Gaming in the United

States (appended to Senate Hearings, May 17, 1994) (hereinafter

“Deloitte Study”), Appendix at 85a.

In enacting IGRA, Congress found that “a principal goal of

Federal Indian policy is to promote tribal economic development,

tribal self-sufficiency, and strong tribal government.” 25 U.S.C. at

sec. 2701(4). Congress recognized that:

bingo revenues have enabled tribes, like lotteries and other

games have done for State and local governments, to provide a

wider range of government services to tribal citizens and reser-

vation residents than would otherwise have been possible. For

various reasons, not all tribes can engage in profitable gaming

operations. However, for those tribes that have entered into the

business of business, the income often means the difference

between an adequate governmental program and a skeletal

program that is totally dependent on Federal funding.

Senate Report at 3072 (emphasis added).

In Cabazon, this Court recognized the potential scale and impact

of tribal gaming projects:

[ Tribes engaged in gaming] have built modern facilities which

provide recreational opportunities and ancillary services to their

patrons, who do not simply drive onto the reservations, make

purchases and depart, but spend extended periods of time there

enjoying the services the Tribes provide. The Tribes have a

strong incentive to provide comfortable, clean, and attractive

facilities and well-run games in order to increase attendance at

the games. The tribal bingo enterprises are similar to the resort

complex, featuring hunting and fishing, that the Mescalero

Apache Tribe operates on its reservation through the “con-

certed and sustained” management of reservation land and

wildlife resources. New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462

U.S., at 341. The Mescalero project generates funds for essen-

tial tribal services and provides employment for tribal members.

Cabazon. 480 U.S. at 219-20.

Where states and tribes have signed compacts governing class III

gaming, the vital economic benefits Congress sought for tribes

through IGRA have been realized. Existing class II] operations,

which are only possible after a tribal-state compact has been

reached,’ vividly demonstrate the benefits such activities provide:

[T]ribe-owned gaming is an important economic development

activity for Indian tribes. In the States where Indian tribes and

States have worked together on a government-to-government

basis, the objectives of the IGRA have begun to materialize to

the benefit of both governments. Tribes have used gaming

revenues to provide better governmental services for tribal

members, better health care, higher quality education and

employment.

Oversight Hearings on the Need for Amendments to the Indian

Gaming Regulatory Act: Hearing Before the Committee of Indian

Affairs, \03rd Cong., 2d Sess. 69 (1994) (testimony of Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior)

(hereinafter “Deer Testimony”), Appendix at 67a.

Minnesota entered into compacts with tribes soon after IGRA

was passed. As a study conducted for the Minnesota Indian Gaming

Association by KPMG Peat Marwick documented, Minnesota wit-

The Bureau of Indian Affairs reports that as of July 7, 1995, 123 tribes

in 24 States have entered into 139 Tribal-State compacts under IGRA. See

Department of Interior, Tribal-State Compact List, January 26, 1995,

Appendix at 4a. Despite the apparent success for both tribes and states

once a compact is signed, most states which have signed compacts first

compelled litigation. Disagreements about the scope of permissible class

II] gaming are at the heart of most, if not ail, litigation under IGRA. See,

e.g.. Rumsey, 95 D.A.R. 10858; Coeur d'Alene, 51 F.3d 876 (9th Cir.

1995); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, \\ F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 1994)

cert. granted, 115 S.Ct. 932 (1995); Chevenne River Sioux Tribe v. South

Dakota, 3 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. S.D. 1993); Sault St. Marie Tribe of

Chippewa Indians v. State of Michigan, 800 F. Supp. 1484 (W.D. Mich.

1992); Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v.

Wisconsin, 770 F. Supp. 480 (W.D. Wisc. 1991), appeal dismissed, 957

F.2d 515 (7th Cir. 1991). Until such disputes are resolved, tribal and

congressional goals for self-sufficiency and meaningful state participation in

the regulatory process remain frustrated.

nessed remarkable growth of tribal self-sufficiency and freedom

from federal welfare dependency following implementation of class

III compacts. See KPMG Peat Marwick, Economic Benefits of

Tribal Gaming in Minnesota 1992, Appendix at 133-36a. The

number of welfare recipients under the federal Aid to Families with

Dependent Children program in Minnesota decreased by 14 percesit

between 1987 and 1992 in eight non-urban counties with Indian

gaming, whereas statewide the number of welfare recipients in-

creased 17 percent for the same period. See Deloitte Study, Appen-

dix at 98a. Indian gaming has directly created nearly 10,000 jobs for

Minnesotans, and has indirectly created an estimated 20,000 addi-

tional jobs. Jd.

In South Dakota, the positive impact tribal gaming projects have

had on tribes and non-Indians communities is even more pro-

nounced. In written testimony submitted to the Senate Hearings,

Dr. Michael K. Madden, Professor of Economics, University of

South Dakota, reported that prior to Indian gaming, aggregate

tourist spending in the five counties in which tribal governments now

raise money through gaming projects totaled only about $8 million.

By 1993, after the tribes began their class III operations pursuant to

tribal-state compacts, tourist spending had increased in those coun-

ties to about $31 million, an increase of 281 percent. See Madden,

Preliminary Estimates of Economic Impacts Related to Tribal

Gaming in South Dakota, Senate Hearings, May |7, 1974, Appen-

dix at 149a. Professor Madden noted other benefits to Tribal and

State economies:

New wages and salaries in the regions surrounding the tribal

casinos are estimated to be more than $25 million. Because

most regions surrounding the tribal casinos are of low popula-

tion, these added earnings have produced significant relative

impacts on personal income within communities ....

The use of [profits from tribally-owned casinos} vary from

tribe to tribe. Some of the resources have been allocated to

infrastructure improvements relating to the casinos themselves.

Examples include lodging and camping facilities as well as

additions to casino capacity. Other economic development

programs have also been pursued. Training and educational

programs for tribal members have been instituted or expanded

within a number of the tribes.

Id., Appendix at 150-5la.

The Wisconsin Winnebago Nation has nearly 5,000 members, and

was impoverished for many years. The opportunity to use gaming

under IGRA’s compacting process, as the Wisconsin tribes were

able to do only after protracted litigation,’? not only benefitted the

Winnebago Nation in countless ways, but also contributed signifi-

cantly to the community around it. As Tribal Chair JoAnn Jones

- explained to Congress:

Indian gaming is not about gaming. It is about survival and

bringing my people out of the third world conditions that they

have lived in for generations. It is about sovereignty and the

right of one government to operate free from the interference of

another government. Finally, it is about an agreement and

compromise worked out among sovereign governments.

When Congress established the National Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act it said the Act had three purposes: Promote

tribal economic development, self sufficiency, and strong tribal

government. Indian gaming in Wisconsin is doing all of these

things and more.

The Winnebago Nation employs more than 2000 people.

Nearly 80% of these people are employed at our gaming

enterprises. Employment has quadrupled in the last two years.

More than 60% of these employees are non-Indian. More than

300 of our gaming employees came from the welfare roles.

Statewide, Indian gaming jobs took 800 people off welfare and

1400 more from the unemployment rolls. Casino income is the

sole support for the families of nearly 80% of the casino

employees. According to [State] Health & Social Service

Secretary Gerald Whitburn, state aid to Indian families has

dropped. He says that Indian gaming is a major reason for this

drop.

Testimony of JoAnn Jones, Chair, Wisconsin Winnebago Nation,

Senate Hearings, April 26, 1994, at 68, Appendix at 158-59a. A

survey of tribal government gaming employees in Wisconsin re-

vealed that 820 employees in 1992 had been welfare recipients prior

to going to work for a tribe’s gaming project, saving the State

approximately $1.6 million and the federal government $1.4 million.

Deloitte Study, Appendix at 100a.

In Michigan, the Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, with

a citizenship of approximately 20,000 members, has experienced

similar results, most of which came after the State of Michigan,

following five years of negotiation and litigation, entered into tribal-

"See Lac du Flambeau, 770 F. Supp. 480.

state compacts.'* The tribe is the sole owner and operator of all its

gaming operations. See Testimony of Bernard Bousher, Tribal

Chairman, Senate Hearings, April 27, 1994, (hereinafter “Bousher

Testimony”), Appendix at 164a. Like the Wisconsin Winnebago

Nation, which employs over 300 persons in connection with surveil-

lance, security and internal accounting controls,’* the Sault St.

Marie Tribe has invested substantial resources in order to satisfy the

congressional mandate of providing gaming entertainment that is

conducted fairly and honestly, not only for the tribe, but for the

customers as well. Bousher Testimony, Appendix at 166a. See, 25

U.S.C. § 2702(2). And like the experience in other states, many of

Sault St. Marie’s patrons are tourists, thus developing the economies

of both the reservation and the greater community as well. See, e.g.,

Letter from Sault Area Chamber of Commerce to Governor John

Engler, dated May 13, 1993, Senate Hearings, April 26, 1994,

Appendix at 170-71a. Mayor Bruce J. Dodson of nearby St. Ignace,

Michigan, reports that in an area formerly suffering from a 47

percent unemployment rate, “every able bodied person is now

working in a three county area... the Tribe has certainly been one

of the main contributors.” Appendix at 174-75a.

In New York State, the Oneida Nation, which had a 44 percent

unemployment rate in 1990, is now the second largest employer in

Central New York. Halbritter Testimony, Appendix at 179a. The

Oneida Nation’s transformation has been typical of other tribes that

finally obtained the tribal-state compact Congress envisioned:

Thanks to revenue from the casino, the Nation is able to house,

feed, and educate its people, to nurture and enhance the

Oneida’s unique culture, to repossess ancestral homeland, to

significantly benefit the local community, to research and

develop other business enterprises, and to otherwise provide for

the seven generations yet to come as our culture requires us to

do.

Id., Appendix at 179a.

The uses of gaming revenues on Indian reservations permitted by

IGRA, see 25 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(2)(B), reinforces the importance

of tribal governmental participation in this burgeoning aspect of the

entertainment and leisure industry. According to the KPMG Peat

Marwick study, for example, in 1992 Minnesota tribes provided over

$17 million for tribal housing, $39.5 million in direct services to

tribal members, and $800,000 in charitable donations. Another

“See Sault St. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 800 F. Supp. 1484.

'’ See Jones Testimony, Appendix at 157a.

$4 million was generated for human services and tribal educational

programs. See KPMG Peat Marwick study, Appendix at 126a.

Gaming revenue is likely to become even more important to tribal

governments and their members in the future, particularly in light of

Congress’ contemplated cuts to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ budget

of approximately $200,000,000, amounting to more than 25 percent

of the agency’s budget. Discussing the impact these cuts will have,

Senator McCain, Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs,

noted that: “the proposed cuts we are talking about will devastate

Indian country. They strike at reservation services and reservation

programs. They strike at Indian families and individual households.

They strike at the practical ability of tribal governments to govern.”

141 Cong. Rec. S11969-04 (August 9, 1995), Appendix at 50-51a."°

In contrast to the success stories outlined supra, Assistant Secre-

tary Deer specifically noted the difficulties caused by non-compact-

ing states: “In those States that have refused to negotiate with tribes,

the tribes’ efforts at achieving economic stability and self-sufficiency

have been effectively frustrated.” Deer Testimony, Appendix at 67a.

All of the benefits discussed supra have arisen from class III gaming

conducted under tribal-state compacts in which the scope of permit-

ted games was set by reference to the Cabazon test. If let stand, the

Ninth Circuit’s rejection of the Cabazon test will, contrary to

Congress’ intent, deny the hundreds of tribes located in the western

United States the opportunity to develop economic self-sufficiency

and strong tribal governments. See 25 U.S.C. sec. 2701(4).

In sum, the proper interpretation of the scope of class III gaming

under IGRA is a federal question of vital importance to this nation’s

Indian tribes and surrounding non-Indain communities.

D. THE NINTH CIRCUIT DECIDED A FEDERAL QUES-

TION IN A WAY THAT CONFLICTS WITH APPLICA-

BLE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT

1. The Ninth Circuit’s Approach Represents a Dramatic Dimi-

nution of Tribal Sovereignty, Without the Express Congres-

sional Authorization That This Court’s Decisions Require

It is well-settled that “Congress has acted consistently upon the

assumption that the States have no power to regulate the affairs of

'*See also David Rogers, Senate Clears Natural-Resources Bill, Soften-

ing Cuts for Arts, But Not Indians, Wall Street Journal, August 10, 1995, at

A2, Appendix at 58a; Associated Press, For Indians, Budget Cuts Put

Schools in Disrepair, New York Times, Sept. 3, 1995, Appendix at 62a.

Indians on a reservation.” Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 220

(1959). Thus “State laws generally are not applicable to tribal

Indians on an Indian reservation except where Congress has ex-

pressly provided that State laws shall apply.” McClanahan y. Ari-

zona State Tax Commission, 411 U.S. 164, 170-71 (1973)."”

The clarity with which Congress must speak if it truly intends to

subject tribes to state laws is apparent in Bryan's holding that Public

Law 280, 28 U.S.C. section 1360(a), did not give the named states

civil regulatory jurisdiction over tribes. See Bryan, 426 U.S. at 377-

79. This Court noted that “Congress kn[ows] well how to express its

intent directly when that intent [is] to subject... Indians to the full

sweep of state laws.” Id. at 389 (emphasis added)."*

In holding that IGRA subjects tribes to the full corpus of state

gaming laws, Rumsey and Coeur d'Alene ignored this Court's

previous decisions requiring that any such incursion into tribal

sovereignty be clearly expressed by Congress. As the discussion

above at section I11(B) (1) of this brief illustrates, Congress did not

clearly intend to subject tribes to state law, but rather intended that

tribes and states negotiate over the extent, if any, to which such laws

will regulate gaming on Indian lands.

2. Congress’ Use of Identical Language Describing the Scope of

Class I] and Class I] Gaming Requires That Language

Receive the Same Meaning

The Ninth Circuit held that the word “permits” “has different

meanings with respect to class II and class III gaming.” Rumsey, 95

D.A.R. at 10860, 10861, & n. 4. Thus the Rumsey panel declined to

recognize that “[a]} term appearing in several places in a statutory

text is generally read the same way each time it appears.” Ratzlaf v.

United States, 114 S.Ct. 655, 660 (1994); Commissioner of Internal

Revenue v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., 113 S.Ct. 2006,

2011 (1993).

'" See also Cabazon, 480 U.S. at 207 (state laws may only be applied to

tribal lands “if Congress has expressly so provided”); Bryan v. Itasca

County, Minnesota, 426 U.S. 373, 376 n. 2 (1976).

‘8 See also Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 504 n. 22 (1973) (observing

that Congress generally employs “clear language of express termination

when that result is desired”) (collecting examples); Rhode Island v.

Narragansett Indian Tribe, 19 F.3d 685, 702 (Ist Cir. 1994) (because of

the “strong congressional bias... against policies that would promote

Indian assimilation ... we are of the view that acts diminishing the sover-

eign rights of Indian tribes should be strictly construed”).

IGRA, like the statute at issue in Ratzia/, uses a “single formula-

tion” — the “permits” language — which “is called into play” in

more than one place in the statute, namely, in sec-

tions 2710(d)(1)(B) (class III), and 2710(b)(1)(B) (class II).

“If courts can render meaning so malleable, the usefulness of a

single ... provision for a group of related code sections will be

eviscerated and... almost any code section that references a group

of other code sections would become susceptible to individuated

interpretation.’ "’ Ratzlaf, 114 S.Ct. at 660 (quoting United States v.

Aversa, 984 F.2d 493, 498 (ist Cir. 1993) (en banc)).

This rule of construction has particular force in this case because

the only other reference in IGRA to scope of gaming, which is found

in the Congressional Findings section of the Act, 25 U.S.C. sec.

2701(5), does not distinguish between class II and class III gaming

activities. Instead, Congress’ Findings quote the Cabazon test as the

standard for determining all scope of gaming questions. See 25

U.S.C. sec. 2701(5) (“Indian Tribes have the exclusive right to

regulate gaming activities on Indian lands if the gaming activity is

... conducted within a State which does not, as a matter of criminal

law and public policy, prohibit such gaming activity”).

3. Congress Used a Legal Term of Art — “Permits” — in

IGRA, Which Must be Interpreted According to its Judi-

cially-Established Meaning

This Court has held that, as a general matter of statutory

construction, when Congress uses a term of art that has been defined

by prior judicial interpretation, federal courts assume “Congress

intended it to have its established meaning.” McDermott Interna-

tional, Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 (1991) (“we assume that

when a statute uses such a [maritime law] term [of art], Congress

intended it to have its established meaning”).'°

'? See also Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Keystone Consolidated

Industries, Inc., 113 S.Ct. at 2011; Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417

U.S. 188, 201 (1974) (“where Congress has used technical words or terms

of art, ‘it (is) proper to explain the terms by reference to the art or science

to which they (are) appropriate’); Bradley v. United States, 410 U.S. 605,

609 (1973) (“Rather than using terms in their everyday sense, ‘(t)he law

uses familiar legal expressions in their familiar legal sense’); Barber v.

Gonzales, 347 U.S. 637, 641 (1954)(“While it is true that statutory

language should be interpreted whenever possible according to common

usage, some terms acquire a special technical meaning by a process of

judicial construction”).

In the field of federal Indian law generally, and in reviewing the

extent to which state laws apply on Indian tribal lands specifically,

the term “permits” has acquired a special meaning by a process of

judicial construction. After applying the civil-regulatory, criminal-

prohibitory test, this Court concluded in Cabazon that “California

permits a substantial amount of gambling activity.” Cabazon, 480

U.S. at 211 (emphasis added).””

The Ninth Circuit has interpreted the term “permits” in IGRA,

section 2710(d)(1)(B), in a way that is contrary to its established

meaning as a term of art in the field of federal Indian law. In so

doing, the Ninth Circuit has interpreted IGRA in a way that

conflicts with applicable decisions of this Court holding that judi-

cially-defined terms of art are to be given their established meaning.

See also Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v. State of

Washington, 938 F.2d 146 (9th Cir. 1991) (“the issue is whether or not the

Washington law relating to speeding should be classified as either crimi-

nal/prohibitory or civil/regulatory. If the former, then Washington possess

jurisdiction and its law can be enforced, but if the latter then such power is

lacking. Laws which absolutely prohibit certain acts fall into the first

category, while those generally permitting certain conduct but subject to

regulation are within the second”) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).

IV.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the Association and amici tribes respectfully

request that this Court grant the Tribe’s petition for a writ of

certiorari.

Dated: September 18, 1995

Respectfully submitted,

LEVINE & ASSOCIATES

JEROME L. LEVINE*

FRANK R. LAWRENCE

2049 Century Park East, Suite 710

Los Angeles, California 90067

BLUEDOG, OLSON & SMALL

Kurt V. BLUEDOG

ANDREW M. SMALL

5001 Southgate Office Plaza

Suite 500

Minneapolis, MN 55437

*Counsel of Record

. ate 7

ip 7 -

= oe

ad = 7

~~ i> rer

n _ = "eit

CC ae

7 pee a ee

i. he

é a _

; (“a

freee

Zw.

2 : be =

_ - Hy

ia a 7 a 7 = y

7 : Re ;

- "S450 on es em!

. 0 re ae wal Te =. oe sy

ee ee ee ieee

~ eae eae = @ is

hy ‘ev A | An Pa gee 1: — t ra a if

- og ? 7 a ae — 1 se

ithe. v? . , aie Te > a - —

no 4 Se ih opi eS

in S ae io ee * 2a: ee a

=, | _ » on a 47 1

— = aN S - an tw

o ~ a _ = =a) et F

=) e ily Ts = ,

_ 7 = va ye :

7 ¢

_ 7 : ;

“—

Appendix 1

$5 Pe ae

Raymond C, Givens

Givens, Funke & Work

424 Sherman Avenue, Suite 308

P.O. Box 969

Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83814

Telephone: (208) 667-5486

No. 95-275

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE,

Petitioner,

VS.

STATE OF IDAHO,

Respondent.

CONSENT TO AMICUS CURIAE

COME NOW the parties through their respective coun-

sel to give notice to the Court that the parties consent to the

filing of a brief amicus curiae by the National Indian

Gaming Association in this case.

DATED this 6th day of September, 1995.

DAVID G. HIGH

David G. High

Attorney for Respondent

State of Idaho

DATED this 7th day of September, 1995.

RAYMOND C. GIVENS

Raymond C. Givens

Attorney for Petitioner

Coeur d’Alene Tribe

os - 1 al a am ‘ 7 = ;

Appendix 2

ler

TRIBAL-STATE COMPACT LIST

TRIBAL INFORMATION FOR THOSE

WITH APPROVED

TRIBAL-STATE COMPACTS AS OF JULY 7, 1995

123 TRIBES — 24 STATES — 139 COMPACTS

36 AMENDMENTS/ADDENDUMS

THIS LIST IS MAINTAINED AND UPDATED AS NEW COM-

PACTS/AMENDMENTS ARE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE COMMIS-

SIONER, (202) 219-4068.

* Tribe has compact(s) with more than one state.

** Tribe has more than one compact for different types of

games.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Arizona — 16 Tribes

Ak-Chin Indian Community .......---+se seers

Cocopah Tribe of Arizona .....-. +. seeeererees

Colorado River Indian Tribes........----+eeeees

Fort McDowell Mohave-Apache Indian Community

Fort Mohave Indian Tribe ........ 6-0-0 eee euees

Gila River Indian Community .......-----s++0:

Hualapai Tribe.........--0- cere rece rrereees

Kaibab Paiute Tribe ........----- eee ceeeeeeees

Pascua Yaqui Tribe........--0:- seer rererreee

Quechan Indian Tribe.......- +--+ eee r ee rrees

San Carlos Apache Tribe .......------ essere:

Tohono O’Odham Tribe ......-.--- 0 eee eeeees

Tonto Apache Tribe .........-----+eeeerrecres

White Mountain Apache Tribe ........-----++>>

Yavapai-Apache Indian Community........-----

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe ....--.--- +++ ee eee rreees

California — 5 Tribes

Barona Band of the Capitan Grande of Diegueno

Mission Indians ......-.-----eecceceecerees:

Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians.......

San Manuel Band of Serrano Mission Indians ....

Sycuan Band of Diegueno Mission errr

Viejas Group of Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno

Mission Indians .........-------+resrrttree?

Colorado — 2 Tribes

Southern Ute Indian Tribe.......-.----s+eeees

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe .......---- es ee eeerees

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Connecticut — 2 Tribes

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe....................

Mohegan Indian Tribe ........................

Idaho — 2 Tribes

CO CAG TH oo ovis ce en eae

SUNNY BUN 5 van cuce vouveseotete. Soe

Iowa — 3 Tribes

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska .....................

Sac and Fox Tribe of Mississippi in Iowa ........

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska..................

Kansas — 2 Tribes

Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska.............

Prairie Band of Potawatomie Indians of Kansas ...

Louisiana — 3 Tribes

Michigan — 7 Tribes

Bay Mills Indian Community ..................

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa

i Tr Tee en ee

Hannahville Indian Community.................

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community..............

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Wes aoe ei ec

Re ee

all cs Wd Re

Sales AP Reh Mente heb Bel DOE eB ie Ho Megh Stas te!

LE NES CN LE EAT SE eh RE tthe TO Re NER i TE EBS ite Bd ARNE R A Ptiae,

ia 7 BENEATH Tedd

FS ICS AE NDA PIN DG A FRE RN an CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Minnesota — 11 Tribes

Bois Forte Band of Minnesota Chippewa (Nett

EOD ca vvvcarcdssdevessucerehenss reese s

Fond Du Lac Band of Minnesota Chippewa ......

Grand Portage Band of Minnesota Chippewa .....

Leech Lake Band of Minnesota Chippewa........

Lower Sioux Indian Community .....-------++>:

Mille i-acs Band of Minnesota Chippewa .......-

Prairie Island Community of the Minnesota

Mdewakanton Sioux .......---eeee sete rreees

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.........---

Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community.......

Upper Sioux Indian Community ........---++++:

White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa .......

Mississippi — 1 Tribe

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians .....--.---.

Montana — 4 Tribes

Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck

Reservation... ....-cccccccecereecccercere:

Chippewa-Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s

Maemervatiol ...... 0. c ccc e ccc c cee rcereseeees

Cees TOR cnc ccc cnc c cc crccesveneeeerenes

Northern Cheyenne Tribe......------- sees s0ee?

Nebraska — | Tribe

Omaha Tribe of Nebraska ........----- eee eee

Nevada — 3 Tribes

Fort Mojave Tribal Council .....------+-++++00>

Las Vegas Paiute Tribe.......--------ssrrerees

Moapa Band of Paiute Indians ......--------->:

Ww Ww

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

New Mexico — 14 Tribes

Be ee

Mescalero Apache Tribe....................05.

Pe es we Ye Salis SMa odie ks

Bo AS ERE Se eee

a ff RR tr nt ee ee Seen ee

ee ee

eo A ee ee

UM So oe docaowaccekcn.

North Carolina — | Tribe

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians ..............

North Dakota — 3 Tribes

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Oregon — 8 Tribes

Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpeua and

Siuslaw Indians .......---+eeeeree eerste

Coquille Indian Tribe ...-.-.- ++ 02s ererrrrees

Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians ....

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rondo

COmMUMITY oe cee c cece eerernceress

The Klamath Tribes ........--- esse eerrerreee

The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon

Umatilla Indian Tribe.......----: secrete tre:

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs

Reservation of Oregon......-----2+eeeer errr

Rhode Island — | Tribe

Narragansett Indian Tribe ....-.------++0s0000

South Dakota — 9 Tribes

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe .....------++ss0>)

Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.......-----s eect errr

Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe .....---- +--+

Lower Brule Sioux Tribe ......------ seer errre:

Oglala Siowx Tribe ......----- essere errr

Rosebud Sio:x Tribe.......----seee errr ttre:

Sisseton-W #2peton Sioux Tribe.......-----+++->

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe .....------++ssere)

Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.......----

10a

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Washington — 12 Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation . .

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe of Washington .......

Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe...................-.

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe ............-.---005-

Nookback Indian Tribe of Washington...........

Dns CERES TLD cic occ ccvccrcecceecene

oo yy he Peer rrrerrrrrer ieee

Squaxin Island Indian Tribe....................

Genes THING onc cc ccc ccccvccscccccsuses

Swinomish Indian Tribal Community............

Tulalip Tribes of Washington...................

Upper Skagit Indian Tribe ............ccecceees

Wisconsin — 11 Tribes

Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa

NS ET OS re ro ee ee ee ee

Forest County Potawatomi Community ..........

Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior

RE Pe OE er ee eee re

Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Sursi:or Chippewa

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin...........

Oneida Tribe of Indiana of Wisconsin ...........

Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa ......

St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin ........

Sokaogan Chippewa Community...............-

Stockbridge-Munsee Community of Mohican

ce Oo ee ee er

Wisconsin Winnebago Indian Tribe .............

i a i i

—

leat!

lla

ARIZONA — 16 TRIBES

AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY

Chairman

Rt. 2, Box 27

Maricopa, Arizona 85007 (602) 568-26: 8

Compact approved 3/!'°/93; published 3/31/93

Superceded by Compaxi approved 7/30/93; published

8/18/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track Pari-

Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse

Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

COCOPAH TRIBE OF ARiZONA

Chairman

Bin G |

Somerton, Arizona 85350 (602) 627-2102

Compact approved 8/17/92; published 8/24/92

Suspended by Compact approved 7/30/93; published

8/18/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES

Chairman

Route 1, Box 23-B

Parker, Arizona 85344 (602) 669-5271

Compact approval 7/29/94; published 8/9/94

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

i ki i it

12a

FORT McDOWELL MOHAVE-APACHE INDIAN

COMMUNITY

President

Post Office Box 17779

Fountain Hills, Arizona 852699 (602) 990-0995

Compact approved 12/23/92; published 12/30/92

Superseded by Compact approved 7/30/93; published

8/18/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE*

Chairperson

300 Merriman

Needles, California 92363 (610) 326-4591

Compact approved 10/22/93; published 11/10/93 i

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on |

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY

Governor

Post Office Box 97

Sacaton, Arizona 85247 (602) 562-3311

Compact approved 8/1/94; published 8/18/93 |

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

HUALAPAI TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box 179

Peach Springs, Arizona 86434 (602) 769-2216

Compact approval 4/15/94; published 4/26/94

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

l3a

KAIBAB PAIUTE TRIBE

Chairperson

Tribal Affairs Building

Pipe Spring, Arizona 86022 (602) 643-7245

Compact approved 4/8/94; published 4/26/94

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

Chairman

7474 S. Camino De Oeste

Tucson, Arizona 85746 (602) 883-2838

Compact approved 7/30/93; published 2/18/94

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE

President

P.O. Box 11352

Yuma, Arizona 85364 (619) 572-0213

Compact approved 1/7/94; published 1/14/94

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

a et ee ee

l4a

SAN CARLOS APACHE TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box O

San Carlos, Arizona 85550 (602) 475-2361

Compact approved 10/25/93; published 11/10/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

TOHONO O’ODHAM TRIBE

Chairman

Post Office Box 837

Sella, Arizona 85634 (602) 383-2221

Compact approved 7/30/93; published 8/18/93 :

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track Pari-

Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse

Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

TONTO APACHE TRIBE

Chairperson |

Tonto Reservation #30

Payson, Arizona 85541 (602) 474-5000

Compact approved 8/11/93; published 8/18/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track Pari-

Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse

Racing; Pari-Mutual Wagering on Dog Racing

WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE

Chairman

Post Office Box 700

Whiteriver, Arizona 85941 (602) 338-4346 i

Compact approved 7/30/93; published 8/18/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track Pari- q

Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse

Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

15a

YAVAPAI-APACHE INDIAN COMMUNITY

Chairman

Post Office Box 1183

Camp Verde, Arizona 86322 (602) 567-3649

Compact approved 8/11/93; published 8/18/93

Gaming Devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

YAVAPAI-PRESCOTT TRIBE

President

530 East Merritt Street

Prescott, Arizona 86301-2038 (602) 445-8790

Compact approved 7/15/92; published 7/21/92

Suspended by Compact approved 8/11/93; published

8/18/93

Gaming devices; Keno; Lottery; Off-Track

Pari-Mutuel Wagering; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on

Horse Racing; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Dog Racing

CALIFORNIA — 5 TRIBES

BARONA BAND OF THE CAPITAN GRANDE OF

DIEGUENO MISSION INDIANS

Chairman

1095 Barona Road

Lakeside, California 92040 (619) 443-6612

Compact approved 6/23/92; published 6/30/92

Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

CABAZON BAND OF CAHUILLA MISSION

INDIANS

Chairman

84-235 Indio Spring Drive

Indio, California: 92201 (619) 342-2593

Compact approved 3/27/90; published 4/02/90

Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

l6a

SAN MANUEL BAND OF SERRANO MISSION

INDIANS

Chairman

5438 North Victoria Avenue

Highland, California 92346 (714) 862-8509

Compact approved 3/26/91; published 4/02/91

Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

SYCUAN BAND OF DIEGUENO MISSION

INDIANS

Spokesperson

5459 Dehesa Road

E] Cajon, California 92021 (619) 445-2613

Compact approved 10/10/90; published 10/18/90

Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

VIEJAS GROUP OF CAPITAN GRANDE BAND OF

DIEGUENO MISSION INDIANS

Chairman

Post Office Box 908

Alpine, California 92201 (619) 445-3810

Compact approved 6/25/90; published 6/29/90

Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

COLORADO — 2 TRIBES

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN TRIBE

Chairman

Post Office Box 737

Ignacio, Colorado 81137 (303) 563-4033

Compact approved 10/01/92; published 10/08/92

Slot Machines; Blackjack; Racing; Off-track Betting;

Keno; Lottery

UTE MOUNTAIN UTE TRIBE

Chairman

Towaoc, Colorado 81334 (303) 565-3751

Compact approved 7/06/92; published 7/10/92

Blackjack; Poker, Slot Machines; Keno

17a

CONNECTICUT — 2 TRIBES

MASHANTUCKET PEQUOT TRIBE

Chairman

Box 160 — Indiantown Road

Ladyard, Connecticut 06339 (203) 536-2681

Compact approved 5/24/91; published 5/31/91

Blackjack; Poker; Dice; Money-Wheels; Roulette;

Baccarat; Chuck-a-Luck; Pan Game; Over & Under;

Horse; Race Game; Acey-Ducey; Best the Dealer;

Bouncing Ball; Lottery; Pari-Mutuel Wagering-Animal

Races-Off Track Simulcasting on Reservation by

Telephone; Pari-Mutuel Wagering-Jai Alai; Video

Facsimiles—any Game of Chance

MOHEGAN INDIAN TRIBE

Chief

27 Church Lane

Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 (203) 848-9252

Compact approved 5/17/94; published 12/16/94

Blackjack; Poker; Dice; Money-Wheels; Roulette;

Baccarat; Chuck-a-Luck; Pan Game; Over & Under;

Horse Race Game; Acey-Ducey; Beat the Dealer;

Bouncing Ball; Lottery; Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Betting

on Animal Races; Pari-Mutuel Betting thru

Simulcasting on Animal Races; Pari-Mutuel Betting on

Jai Alai; Pari-Mutuel Betting on Dog Racing;

Pari-Mutuel Betting on Horse Racing; Video

Facsimiles on any Game of Chance; Telephone Betting

on any Lottery Game; Off-Track Pari-Mutuel

Telephone Betting on Animal Races

18a

IDAHO — 2 TRIBES

COEUR D’ALENE TRIBE

Chairman

Tribal Headquarters

Plummer, Idaho 83851 (208) 274-3101

Compact approved 2/5/93; published 2/12/93

Lottery; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horses, Dogs,

Mules; Simulcast of Racing

KOOTENAI TRIBE ~

Chairperson

P.O. Box 1269

Bonners Ferry, Idaho 83805-1269 (208) 267-3519

Compact approved 10/29/93; published 11/10/93

Lottery; Pari-Mutuel Wagering on Horses, Dogs,

Mules; Simulcast of Racing

IOWA — 3 TRIBES

OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA*

Chairman

Post Office Box 368

Macy, Nebraska 68039 (402) 837-5391

Compact approved 2/24/92; published 2/28/92

Dice Games; Slot Machines; Video Games of Chance;

Wheel Games; Simulcasting Card Games; Sport Bet-

ting Pools & Sports Betting; Lotteries; Parlor Games

SAC AND FOX TRIBE OF MISSISSIPPI IN IOWA

Chairman

3137 F Avenue

Tama, Iowa 52339 (515) 484-4678

Compact approved 4/24/92; published 4/30/92

Superseded by Compact approved 5/18/95;

published 6/23/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of Iowa

ee eT

19a

WINNEBAGO TRIBE OF NEBRASKA

Chairman

Winnebago, Nebraska 68701 (402) 878-2272

Compact approved 4/22/92; published 4/30/92

Lotteries; Keno; Pari-Mutuel Betting on Simulcast

Horse or Dog Races; Video Games of Chance; Slot

Machines; Twenty-one; Red Dog; Roulette; Big Six;

Craps; Poker, Sports Betting Pools; Sports Betting;

Parlay Cards

KANSAS — 2 TRIBES

IOWA TRIBE OF KANSAS AND NEBRASKA

Chairman

Route 1, Box 58A

White Cloud, Kansas 66094 (913) 595-3258

Compact approved 6/26/95; published 7/6/95

Blackjack; Poker; All other banking and non-banking

card games; Craps; All other banking and non-banking

dice games; Roulette; Baccarat-chemin de fer, Wheel

of Fortune; Keno; Games of chance utilizing electronic

gaming equipment comparable to that authorized for

the Kansas Lottery; All other Class III games of

chance authorized by the State in a compact with any

Indian tribe.

20a

PRAIRIE BAND OF POTAWATOMI INDIANS OF

KANSAS

Chairperson

14880 K Road

Mayetta, Kansas 66509 (913) 966-2255

Compact approved 6/26/95; published 7/6/95

Blackjack; Poker; All other banking and non-banking

card games; Craps; All other banking and non-banking

dice games; Roulette; Baccarat-chemin de fer, Wheel

of Fortune; Keno; Games of chance utilizing electronic

gaming equipment comparable to that authorized for

the Kansas Lottery; All other Class III games of

chance authorized by the State in a compact with any

Indian tribe.

LOUISIANA — 3 TRIBES

CHITIMACHA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

Chairman

Tribal Center

Post Office Box 661

Charenton, Louisiana 70523 (318) 923-4973

Compact approved 6/18/93; published 7/6/93

Amended 6/3/94; published 6/14/94

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Roulette;

Craps; Poker; Mini-Baccarat; Keno

COUSHATTA TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

Chairman

Post Office Box 818

Elton, Louisiana 70532 (318) 584-2209

Compact approved 10/29/92; published 11/04/92

Amended 2/21/95; published 3/1/95

Electronic Games of Chance, Baccarat; Mini Baccarat;

Blackjack; Roulette; Craps; Poker, Keno

2la

TUNICA-BILOXI TRIBE OF LOUISIANA

Chairman

Post Office Box 311

Mansura, Louisiana 71351 (318) 253-9767

Compact approved 11/10/92; published 11/19/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Roulette;

Craps; Poker; Baccarat; Mini-Baccarat; Keno

MICHIGAN — 7 TRIBES

BAY MILLS INDIAN COMMUNITY

Chairman

Route 1

Brimley, Michigan 49715 (906) 248-3241

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice Games; Wheel Games; Roulette; Banking

Card Games; Electronic Games of Chances; Keno

GRAND TRAVERSE BAND OF OTTAWA AND

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

Chairman

Route 1, Box 135

Suttons Bay, Michigan 49682 (616) 271-3538

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice Games; Wheel Games; Roulette; Banking

Card Games; Electronic Games of Chance; Keno

HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY

Chairman

N14911 Hannahville Boulevard Road

Wilson, Michigan 49896-9728 (906) 466-2342

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice.Games; Wheel Games; Roulette; Banking

Card Games; Electronic Games of Chance; Keno

22a

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

Chairman

Center Building

Route 1, Box 45

Baraga, Michigan 49908 (906) 353-6623

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice Games; Wheel Games; Rivulette; Banking

Card Games; Electronic Games of Chaiice; Keno

LAC VIEUX DESERT BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

Chairman

P.O. Box 446

Watersmeet, Michigan 49969 (906) 358-4577

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice Games; Wheel Games; Roulette; Banking

Card Games; Electronic Games of Chance; Keno

SAGINAW CHIPPEWA INDIAN TRIBE

Chief

7070 East Broadway Road

Mt. Pleasant, Michigan 48858 (517) 772-3700

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice Games; Wheel Games; Roulette; Banking

Card Games; Electronic Games of Chance; Keno

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA

Chairperson

206 Greenough Street

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan 49783 (906) 635-6050

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 11/30/93

Craps; Dice Games; Wheel Games; Roulette; Banking

| Card Games; Electronic Games of Chance; Keno

RS Na hb atin

otter

hen

ea ne eal ih ad ee ee

23a

MINNESOTA — 11 TRIBES

BOIS FORTE BAND OF MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA

(NETT LAKE)**

Chairman

Post Office Box 16

Nett Lake, Minnesota 55722 (218) 757-3261

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 3/27/90;

published 4/02/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/29/91; published

10/03/91

FOND DU LAC BAND OF MINNESOTA

CHIPPEWA**

Chairman

105 University Road

Cloquet, Minnesota 55720 (218) 879-4593

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 3/27/90;

published 4/02/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91; published

10/03/91

GRAND PORTAGE BAND OF MINNESOTA

CHIPPEWA**

Chairman

P.O. Box 428

Grand Portage, Minnesota 55605 (218) 475-2279

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 3/27/90;

published 4/02/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91; published

10/03/91

24a

LEECH LAKE BAND OF MINNESOTA

CHIPPEWA**

Chairman

Rt. 3, Box 100

Case Lake, Minnesota 56633 (218) 335-8200

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 8/15/90;

published 8/21/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91: published

10/03/91

LOWER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY**

President

Rural Route 1, Box 308

Morton, Minnesota 56270 (507) 697-6185

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 3/27/90;

published 4/02/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91: published

10/03/91

MILLE LACS BAND OF MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA **

Chairperson

Star Route

HRC 67, Box 194

Onamia, Minnesota 56359 (612) 532-4181

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 6/25/90;

published 6/29/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/ 25/91; published

10/03/91

+ Slee Rt! ke Ene,

25a

PRAIRIE ISLAND COMMUNITY OF THE

MINNESOTA MDEWAKANTON SIOUX**

President

1158 Island Boulevard

Welch, Minnesota 55089 (612) 385-2554

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 3/27/90;

published 4/02/90

Amended 4/27/91; published 4/30/91

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91; published

10/03/91

RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS**

Chairman

P.O. Box 550

Red Lake, Minnesota 56671 (218) 679-3341

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 9/02/91;

published 8/09/91

Amended 9/09/92; published 9/16/92

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/23/91; published

10/03/91

Amended 9/09/92; published 9/16/92

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX

COMMUNITY**

Chairman

2330 Sioux Trail, NW

Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372 (612) 445-8900

Compact - Video Games of Chance appvd. 3/27/90;

published 4/02/90

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91; sublished

10/03/91

26a

UPPER SIOUX INDIAN COMMUNITY**

Chairperson

Post Office Box 147

Granite Falls, Minnesota 56241 (612) 564-2360

Compact - Video Games of Chance approved

11/16/90

Amended 4/21/91; published 4/30/91

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91; published

10/03/91

WHITE EARTH BAND OF MINNESOTA

CHIPPEWA**

Chairman

Post Office Box 418

White Earth, Minnesota 56591 (218) 983-3185

Compact - Video Games of Chance approved

11/08/91; published 11/13/91

Compact - Blackjack approved 9/25/91; published

10/03/91

MISSISSIPPI — 1 TRIBE |

MISSISSIPPI BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS

Tribal Chief

Post Office Box 6010

Philadelphia, Mississippi 39350 (601) 656-5251

Compact approved 1/15/93; published 1/29/93

Amended 10/29/94; published 11/09/94

Craps; Roulette; Blackjack; Poker; Baccarat-Chemin

De Fer, Slots

27a

MONTANA — 4 TRIBES

ASSINIBOINE & SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT

PECK RESERVATION

Chairman

Post Office Box 1027

Poplar, Montana 59255 (406) 768-5155

Compact approved 6/24/92; published 6/30/ 92

Amended 9/01/92; published 9/08/92

Amended 4/07/93; published 4/14/93

Video Machines for Keno/Poker/ Bingo; Simulcast

Racing; Lottery

CHIPPEWA-CREE TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY’S

RESERVATION

Chairman

Rocky Boy Route, Box 544

Box Elder, Montana 59521 (406) 395-4282

Compact approved 10/01/93; published 10/20/93

Video Gambling Machines for Bingo/Draw

Poker/Keno; Simulcast Racing; Calcutta Pools;

Fantasy Sports Leagues; Fishing Derbies & Betting on

Natural Occurrences; Lotteries; Shake-a-Day &

Shaking for Music or Drink; Raffles; Live Keno;

Sports Pools; Tab Games

CROW TRIBE

Chairman

Post Office Box 159

Crow Agency, Montana 59022 (406) 638-2601

Compact approved 6/30/93; published 7/12/93

Amendment approved 9/19/93; published 9/28/93

2nd Amendment approved 11/5/93; published

11/30/93

Video Gaming Machines; Simulcast Racing; Calcutta

Pools; Fantasy Sports Leagues; Lotteries; Fishing

Derbies; Raffles; Live Keno; Betting on Natural Occur-

rences; Shake-a-Day; Sports Pools; Tab Games

28a

NORTHERN CHEYENNE TRIBE

President

Post Office Box 128

Lame Deer, Montana 59043 (406) 477-8283

Compact approved 4/15/93; published 5/3/93

Correction to Notice 5/14/93; published 6/3/93

Superseded by Compact Approved 12/ 13/93;

published 12/27/93

Video Gaming Machines; Simulcast Racing; Calcutta

Pools; Fantasy Sports Leagues; Lotteries Fishing

Derbies; Betting on Natural Occurrences: Lotteries;

Shake-a-Day; Raffles; Live Keno; Sports Pools; Tab

Games

NEBRASKA — 1 TRIBE

OMAHA TRIBE OF NEBRASKA*

Chairman

Post Office Box 368

Macy, Nebraska 68039 (402) 847-539]

Compact approved 12/31/90: published 1/08/91

Keno; Lottery Ticket Drawings; Big Six; Big Nine;

Card Wheel; Color Wheel; Fruit Wheel; Horse Race

Wheel; Money Wheel: Roulette; Chuck-a-luck; Sic Bo

NEVADA — 3 TRIBES

FORT MOJAVE TRIBAL COUNCIL*

Chairperson

500 Merriman Avenue

Needles, California 92363 (619) 326-459]

Compact approved 3/27/90: published 4/20/90

Casino Type Gaming

29a

LAS VEGAS PAIUTE TRIBE

Chairperson

Number One Paiute Drive

Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 (702) 386-3926

Compact approved 9/9/94; published 9/21/94

Casino Type Gaming

MOAPA BAND OF PAIUTE INDIANS

Chairperson

Box 340

Mospa, Nevada 89025 (702) 865-2787

Compact approved 12/9/94; published 12/22/94

Slots Only

NEW MEXICO — 14 TRIBES

JICARILLA APACHE TRIBE

President

P.O. Box 507

Dulce, New Mexico 87528 (505) 759-3242

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

MESCALERO APACHE TRIBE

President

P.O. Box 176

Mescalero, New Mexico 88340 (505) 671-4495

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

30a

PUEBLO OF ACOMA

Governor

P.O. Box 209

Acoma, New Mexico 87034 (505) 522-6604

Compact approved 04/24/95; published 5/15/93

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New Mex-

ico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF ISLETA

Governor

P.O. Box 1270

Isleta, New Mexico 87022 (505) 869-3111

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF NAMBE

Governor

P.O. Box 117BB

Nambe Pueblo, New Mexico 87501 (505) 455-2036

Compact approved 04/24/95; published 05/15/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF POJOAQUE

Governor

Route 11, Box 71

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 455-2278

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

Ate ee

3la

PUEBLO OF SANDIA

Governor

Box 6008

Bernalillo, New Mexico 87004 (505) 867-3317

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class II] games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF SAN FELIPE

Governor

P.O. Box 4339

San Felipe Pueblo, New Mexico 87001 (505) 867-3381

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF SAN ILDEFONSO

Governor

Route 5, Box 315-A

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505) 455-2273

Compact approved 06/02/95; published 06/12/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF SAN JUAN

Governor

P.O. Box 1099

San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico 87566 (505) 852-4400

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

32a

PUEBLO OF SANTA ANA

Governor

2 Dove Road

Bernalillo, New Mexico 87004 (505) 867-3301

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA

Governor

P.O. Box 580

Espanola, New Mexico 87532 (505) 753-7326

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF TAOS

Governor

P.O. Box 1846

Taos, New Mexico 8757] (505) 758-9593

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

PUEBLO OF TESUQUE

Governor

Route 5, Box 360-T

Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (S05) 983-2667

Compact approved 3/15/95; published 3/22/95

Any or all Class III games that, as of the date of this

compact, are permitted within the State of New

Mexico for any purpose.

33a

NEW YORK —2 TRIBES

ONEIDA INDIAN NATION

Nation Representative

Post Office Box 1 - West Road

Oneida, New York 13421 (315) 697-8251

Compact approved 6/4/93; published 6/15/93

Baccarat; Bang; Beat the Dealer, Bell Jars; Best Poker

Hand; Big Nine; Big Six; Blackjack, Card Wheel;

Chuck-a-Luck; Color Wheel; Craps; The Fruit Wheel;

Hazard; Horse Race Game; Horse Race Wheel; Joker

Seven; Keno; Merchandise Wheels; Mini-Baccarat;

Money Wheel; Pai Gow; Red Dog; Acey Deucey;

Roulette; Super Pan Game; Under & Over Seven

ST. REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE

Head Chief

Community Building

Hogansburg, New York 13655 (518) 358-2272

Compact approved 12/6/93; published 12/13/93

Amended 1/19/95; published 1/30/95

Baccarat; Bang; Beat the Dealer; Bell Jars; Best Poker

Hand; Big Nine; Big Six Blackjack; Card/Color/Fruit

Wheel; Chuck-a-Luck; Craps; Hazard; Horse Race

Game; Horse Race Wheel; Joker Seven; Keno; Mer-

chandise Wheels; Mini-Baccarat; Money Wheel; Pai

Gow; Red Dog; Acey Deucey; Roulette; Super Pan

Game; Under & Over Seven

NORTH CAROLINA — 1 TRIBE

EASTERN BAND OF CHEROKEE INDIANS

Principle Chief

Qualla Boundary

P.O. Box 455

Cherokee, North Carolina 28719 (704) 497-2771

Compact approved 9/22/94; published 10/3/94

Raffles; Video Games of Chance

34a

NORTH DAKOTA —5 TRIBES

DEVILS LAKE SIOUX TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box 359

Fort Totten, North Dakota 58335 (701) 766-4221

Compact approved 12/17/92; published 12/30/92

Pari-Mutuel Racing Addendum approved 8/3/93; pub-

lished 8/18/93

Slot Machines; Video Lottery Terminals; Blackjack;

Poker; Pari-Mutuel; Sports & Calcutta Pools; Pull-

tabs; Raffles; Keno; Punchboard & Jars; Paddlewheels;

Craps; Indian Dice

SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE*

Chairman

Route 2 - Agency Village

Sisseton, South Dakota 57262 (605) 698-3911

Compact approved 1/25/93; published 2/3/93

Amended 7/1/94; published 7/13/94

Slot Machines; Paddle Wheels; Blackjack; Poker;

Keno; Sports & Calcutta Pools; Pari-Mutuel & Simul-

cast Betting; Raffles; Punchboards; Craps; Indian Dice

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE*

Chairman

Post Office Box D

Fort Yates, North Dakota 58538 (701) 854-7231

Compact approved 12/8/92; published 12/21/92

Video Lottery Terminal; Slot Machine; Paddle Wheel;

Blackjack; Poker; Keno; Sports & Calcutta Pools;

Pari-Mutuel

35a

THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF FORT BERTHOLD

Chairman

Post Office Box 220

New Town, North Dakota 58763 (701) 627-4781

Compact approved 12/03/92; published 12/11/92

Addendum approved 3/01/94; published 3/10/94

Video Lottery; Slot Machines; Blackjack; Poker, Keno;

Punchboards; Paddlewheels; Craps; Indian Dice; Pari-

Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA

INDIANS

Chairperson

Belcourt, North Dakota 58316 (701) 477-6451

Compact approved 11/27/92; published 12/03/92

Pari-Mutuel Racing Addendum apprvd. 7/14/93; pub-

lished 7/29/93

Video Lottery; Slot Machines; Blackjack; Poker, Keno;

Punchboards; Paddlewheels; Craps; Indian Dice; Pari-

Mutuel Wagering on Horse Racing

OKLAHOMA — 2 TRIBES

MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

Chief

P.O. Box 1326

Miami, Oklahoma 74355 (918) 542-1445

Compact approved 04/07/95; published 04/20/95

Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Simulcast Horse Wagering

TONKAWA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairperson

P.O. Box 70

Tonkawa, Oklahoma 74653 (405) 628-2561

Compact approved 10/28/94; published 11/09/94

Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Simulcast Horse Wagering

36a

OREGON — 8 TRIBES

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF COOS, LOWER

UMPQUA AND SIUSLAW INDIANS

Chairman

455 South Fourth

Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 (503) 267-5454

Compact approved 2/3/95; published 2/16/95

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

COQUILLE INDIAN TRIBE

Chairman

295 S. 10th

P.O. Box 1435

Coos Bay, Oregon 97420 (503) 267-4587

Compact approved 2/1/95; published 2/16/95

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

COW CREEK BAND OF UMPQUA TRIBE OF

INDIANS

Chairman

2400 Stewart Parkway, Suite 300

Roseburg, Oregon 97470 (503) 672-9405

Compact approved 11/20/92; published 11/30/92

Amended 1/17/95; published 1/30/95

Video Lottery; Keno

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE GRAND RONDE

COMMUNITY

Chairman

P.O. Box 638

Grand Ronde, Oregon 97347 (503) 879-5211

Compact approved 6/10/94; published 6/17/94

Amended 2/21/95; published 3/1/95

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

37a

THE KLAMATH TRIBES

Chairman

P.O. Box 436

Chiloquin, Oregon 97624 (503) 783-2029

Compact approved 2/13/95; published 2/24/95

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ

INDIANS OF OREGON

Chairman

P.O. Box 549

Siletz, Oregon 97380 (503) 444-2532

Compact approved 3/14/95; published 3/22/95

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

UMATILLA INDIAN TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box 638

Pendleton, Oregon 97801 (503) 276-3165

Compact approved 2/2/94; published 2/15/94

Amended 10/6/94; published 10/18/94

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE WARM

SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON

Chairman

P.O. Box C

Warm Springs, Oregon 97761 (503) 553-1161

Compact approved 3/6/95; published 3/13/95

Video Lottery; Keno; Off-race Course Mutuel

Wagering

38a

RHODE ISLAND — 1 TRIBE

NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE

Chief Sachem

P.O. Box 268

Charlestown, Rhode Island 02813 (401) 364-1100

Compact approved 8/29/94; published 12/16/94

Blackjack; Poker; Caribbean Poker; Pai-gow; Dice;

Money-Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-a-Luck;

Pan Game; Over & Under; Horse Race Game;

Acey-Deucey; Beat the Dealer; Bouncing Ball; Sic Bo;

Red-dog; Any Game of Chance authorized in NJ, NV

& CT; Any Lottery Game including Keno/Number/

Lotto; Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Betting on Animal

Races Pari-Mutuel Betting thru Simulcasting on

Animal Races; Pari-Mutuel Betting on Jai Alai/Dog

Racing/Horse Racing; Video Facsimiles of any Game

of Change; Slot Machines; Telephone Betting on any

Lottery Game; Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Telephone

Betting on Animal Races

SOUTH DAKOTA — 9 TRIBES

CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box 590

Eagle Butte, South Dakota 57625 (605) 964-4155

Compact approved 11/19/93; published 12/03/93

Blackjack; Poker, Slot Machines

CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box 658

Ft. Thompson, South Dakota 57339 (605) 245-2221

Compact approved 4/09/92; published 4/15/92

Amended; published 4/08/93

Blackjack; Poker; Slot Machines

39a

FLANDREAU SANTEE SIOUX TRIBE

President

P.O. Box 283

Flandreau, South Dakota 57028 (605) 997-3891

Compact approved 7/30/90; published 8/02/90

Blackjack; Poker; Slot Machines

LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE

Chairman

Lower Brule, South Dakota 57548 (605) 473-5561

Compact approved 9/04/91; published 9/17/91

Amended 4/07/92; published 4/14/92

Blackjack; Poker; Slot Machines

OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE

President

Pine Ridge, South Dakota 57770 (605) 867-5659

Compact approved 10/14/93; published 10/28/93

Blackjack; Poker, Slot Machines

ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE

President

Rosebud, South Dakota 57570 (605) 747-2381

Compact approved 4/06/93; published 4/14/93

Blackjack; Poker, Slot Machines

SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBE*

Chairman

Route 2 - Agency Village

Sisseton, South Dakota 57262 (605) 698-3911

Compact for Slot Machines approved 3/25/91; pub-

lished 4/01/91

Amended 9/24/93; published 10/07/93

Amended 1/26/95; published 2/16/95

Compact for Video Lottery approved 11/26/92;

published 12/04/91

STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE*

Chairman

P.O. Box D

Fort Yates, North Dakota 58538 (701) 854-7231

Compact approved 12/08/92; published 12/21/92

Blackjack; Poker; Slot Machines

YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Chairman

P.O. Box 248

Marty, South Dakota 57361 (605) 384-3641

Compact approved 6/13/91; published 6/19/91

Blackjack; Poker; Slot Machines

WASHINGTON — 12 TRIBES

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE CHEHALIS

RESERVATION

Chairperson

P.O. Box 536

Oakville, Washington 98568 (206) 273-5911

Compact approved 2/22/93; published 3/04/93

Amended 04/04/95; published 04/20/95

Blackjack; Money-Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-Gow; Chemin De Fer; Craps; 4-5-6;

Ship-Captain-Crew; Horses; Beat the Dealer, Over-

Under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse Race; Sweet

Sixteen; Sport Pools; Sic-Bo; Caribbean Stud Poker;

Lottery; Keno; Instant Tickets; Punch Boards; Pull-

Tabs

40a

4la

JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE OF

WASHINGTON

Chairman

305 Old Blyn Highway

Sequim, Washington 98382 (206) 683-1109

Compact approved 4/20/93; published 5/03/93

Amended 3/10/95; published 3/22/95

Blackjack; Caribbean Stud; Baccarat; Chemin de Fer,

Red Dog; Pai Gow; Moneywheel Chuck-a-luck;

Craps; 4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew, Horse (stop dice);

Beat the Dealer, Over-Under Seven; Horse Race; Sin-

gle & Double Zero Roulette; Beat My Shake; Sweet

Sixteen; Sic-Bo; Sports Pools; other Table Games;

Lottery type games; Punch Boards; Pull-Tabs

LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

Chairperson

1666 Lower Elwha Road

Port Angeles, Washington 98002 (206) 452-8471

Compact approved 2/11/93; published 2/19/93

Blackjack; Money-Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat, Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-gow, Chemin De Fer, Craps; Blackjack;

4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew; Horses; Beat the Dealer,

Over-Under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse Race;

) Sweet Sixteen; Sport Pools; Sic-Bo; Caribbean Stud

) Poker, Lottery; Keno Instant Tickets; Punch Boards;

Pull-Tabs

42a

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

Chairperson

39015 172 Avenue, SE

Auburn, Washington 98002 (206) 939-331]

Compact approved 4/23/93: published 5/06/93

Baccarat; Beat My Shake; Beat the Dealer; Blackjack;

Chemin De Fer, Chuck-a-Luck; Craps; Poker; 4-5-6;

Horses; Horse Race: Money-Wheel; Over-Under

Seven; Pai-gow; Poker; Red Dog; Roulette; Satellite

(off-track) wagering on horses; Ship-Captain-Crew:

Sic-Bo; Sports Pools; Sweet Sixteen; Punchboards;

Washington State Lottery

NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE OF WASHINGTON

Chairman

P.O. Box 157

Deming, Washington 98224 (206) 592-5176

Compact approved 4/23/93; published 6/23/92

Amendment approved 7/11/94: published 7/20/94

Amendment approved 4/03/ 95; published 4/12/95

Blackjack; Money Wheel: Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-gow; Red Dog; Chemin De Fer, Craps;

4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew; Horses (stop dice); Beat

the Dealer; Over-Under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse

Race; Sweet Sixteen Sports Pools; Sic-Bo; Poker; Any

other table games authorized for play in Nevada:

Punch Boards; Pull-Tabs

43a

PORT GAMBLE S’KLALLAM

Chairman

31912 Little Boston Road NE

Kingston, Washington 98346 (206) 297-2646

Compact approved 03/31/95; published 04/12/95

Baccarat; Beat My Shake; Beat the Dealer; Blackjack;

Caribbean Stud Poker; Chemin De Fer, Chuck-a-luck;

Craps; 4-5-6; Horses (stop dice); Horse Race; Money

Wheel; Satellite (off-track); Wagering on Horse

Races; Over-Under Seven; Pai-gow; Poker, Red Dog;

Roulette; Ship-Captain-Crew; Sic-Bo, Sweet Sixteen;

Any other table games authorized for play in Washing-

ton; Punchboards; Pull-Tabs; State Lottery

: QUILEUTE TRIBAL COUNCIL

Chairman

P.O. Box 279

La Push, Washington 98350-0279 (206) 374-6163

Compact approved 2/13/95; published 2/24/95

Blackjack; Money-wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-luck; Pai-gow; Red Dog; Chemi De Fer, Craps;

4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew; Horse (stop dice); Beat the

Dealer, Over-under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse

Race; Sweet Sixteen; Sports Pools; Sic-Bo; Punch-

boards; Pull Tabs; Any other table games authorized

for play in Washington; Keno

44a

SQUAXIN ISLAND INDIAN TRIBE

Chairperson

Southeast 70 Squaxin Lane

Shelton, Washington 99040 (206) 426-3442

Compact approved 9/17/93; published 10/07/93

Amendment approved 04/04/95; published

04/20/95

Baccarat; Beat My Shake; Beat the Dealer; Blackjack;

Chemin De Fer; Chuck-a-Luck; Craps; 4-5-6; Horses

(stop dice); Horse Race; Money-Wheel; Satellite

(off-track) wagering on horses; Roulette; Over-Under

Seven; Pai-gow; Red Dog; Ship-Captain-Crew; Sic-Bo;

Sweet Sixteen; Punchboards; Pull-Tabs

SUQUAMISH TRIBE

Chairman

Box 498

Suquamish, Washington 98392 (206) 652-7362

Compact approved 03/17/95; published 03/31/95

Blackjack; Money-Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-gow; Red Dog; Chemin De Fer; Craps;

4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew; Horses; Beat the Dealer;

Over-Under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse Race;

Sweet Sixteen; Sic Bo; Sport Pools; Poker; Jackpot

Poker and other forms of poker, Satellite (off-Track);

Wagering on Horse Races; Keno and Keno-type

games; Other Table Games Authorized by the State;

Tribal Lottery; Horse Racing; Punch Boards; Pull-Tabs

45a

SWINOMISH INDIAN TRIBAL COMMUNITY

Chairman

P.O. Box 817

La Conner, Washington 98257 (206) 466-3163

Compact approved 2/11/93; published 2/19/93

Amended 03/17/95; published 03/31/95

Blackjack; Money-Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-gow; Red Dog; Chemin De Fer, Craps;

4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew; Horses; Beat the Dealer;

Over-Under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse Race; |

Sweet Sixteen; Sic Bo; Sport Pools; Other Table |

Games Authorized by the State; Tribal Lottery; Horse

Racing; Punch Boards; Pull-Tabs

TULALIP TRIBES OF WASHINGTON

Chairman

6700 Totem Beach Road

Marysville, Washington 98270 (206) 653-4585

Compact approved 9/25/91; published 10/03/91

Amended 7/20/92; published 7/24/92

Amended 12/07/93; published 12/20/93

Amended 03/17/95; published 03/31/95

Blackjack; Money Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-gow; Red Dog; Chemin de Fer; Craps;

4-5-6; Ship-Captain-Crew; Horses (stop dice); Beat

the Dealer, Over-Under Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse

Race; Sweet Sixteen; Sport Pools; Sic-Bo; Poker; Any

other table games authorized for play in Nevada;

Punch Boards; Pull-Tabs

46a

UPPER SKAGIT INDIAN TRIBE

Chairman

2284 Community Plaza

Sedro Woolley, Washington 98284 (206) 856-5501

Compact approved 2/19/93; published 03/04/93

Amended 04/04/95; published 05/18/95

Blackjack; Money-Wheel; Roulette; Baccarat; Chuck-

a-Luck; Pai-gow; Chemin De Fer; Craps; 4-5-6; Ship-

Captain-Crew; Horses; Beat the Dealer; Over-Under

Seven; Beat My Shake; Horse Race; Sweet Sixteen;

Sports Pools; Sic-bo; Keno; Instant Tickets; On-Line

Games; Lottery; Punch Boards; Pull-Tabs; Other Au-

thorized Table Games

WISCONSIN — 11 TRIBES

BAD RIVER BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR TRIBE OF

CHIPPEWA INDIANS

Chairman

P.O. Box 39

Odanah, Wisconsin 54861 (715) 682-7111

Compact approved 3/30/92; published 4/03/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

Chairman

P.O. Box 346

Crandon, Wisconsin 54520 (715) 478-2093

Compact approved 8/04/92; published 8/10/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

LAC COURTE OREILLES BAND OF LAKE

SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

Chairman

Route 2, Box 2700

Hayward, Wisconsin 54843 (715) 634-8934

Compact & Ist Amendment approved 4/13/92;

published 4/20/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

47a

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR

CHIPPEWA

President

P.O. Box 67

Lac du Flambeau, Wisconsin 54538 (715) 588-3303

Compact approved 6/23/92; published 7/01/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

MENOMINEE INDIAN TRIBE OF WISCONSIN

Chairman

P.O. Box 397

Kashena, Wisconsin 54135 (715) 799-5100

Compact approved 8/03/92; published 8/10/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN

Chairman

N7210 Seminary Road

Oneida, Wisconsin 54155 (414) 869-2772

Compact approved 1/24/92; published 1/30/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

RED CLIFF BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

Chairman

P.O. Box 529

Bayfield, Wisconsin 54814 (715) 779-3701

Compact approved 3/04/92; published 3/10/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

ST. CROIX CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF WISCONSIN

Chairman

Post Office Box 287

Hertel, Wisconsin 54845 (715) 349-2195

Compact approved 3/04/92; published 3/10/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

48a

SOKAOGAN CHIPPEWA COMMUNITY

Chairman

Route 1, Box 625

Crandon, Wisconsin 54520 (715) 478-2604

Compact approved 2/06/92; published 2/13/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

STOCKBRIDGE-MUNSEE COMMUNITY OF MOHI-

CAN INDIANS OF WISCONSIN

President

Route |

Bowler, Wisconsin 54416 (715) 793-4111

Compact approved 4/15/92; published 4/23/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

WISCONSIN WINNEBAGO INDIAN TRIBE

Chairman

P.O. Box 667

Black River Falls, Wisconsin 54615 (715) 284-9343

Compact approved 7/30/92; published 8/05/92

Electronic Games of Chance; Blackjack; Pull-Tabs

49a

Appendix 3

50a

1995 WL 470060 (Cong.Rec.)

141 Cong.Rec. S11969-04

Congressional Record — Senate

Proceedings and Debate of the 104th Congress,

First Session

Wednesday, August 9, 1995

*S11969 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

APPROPRIATIONS, 1996

The PRESIDENT pro tempore.

The clerk will report the bill.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 1977) making appropriations for the Depart-

ment of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes.

Pending:

Domenici amendment No. 2296, to restore funding for

programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. INHOFE).

The Senator from Mexico is recognized.

Mr. DOMENICI.

I yield 5 minutes of the 15 minutes that I have to the

distinguished Senator from Arizona <Mr. McCAIN>.

Mr. McCAIN.

Mr. President, the proposed cuts we are talking about will

devastate Indian country. They strike at reservation services

and reservation programs. They strike at Indian families and

Sla

individual households. They strike at the practical ability of

tribal governments to govern.

Let me quote from a letter I received from the Quinault

Indian Tribe in Washington State, regarding the proposed

cuts in H.R. 1977:

These provisions . . . will mark the beginning of a new era

of broken promises and hostility toward Indian nations

which is unbecoming to the Senate and to a great Nation

like the United States.

I would like my colleagues to understand the practical

effect on just three tribes of these cuts.

The Pine Ridge Reservation of the Oglala Sioux Tribe,

located in the poorest county in our country, a place 10,000

members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe call home. Nearly

67 percent of its residents live in poverty, compared to the

national average of 13 percent. Nearly one-third of the

people living.on the reservation are unemployed. The me-

dian income of households and families on the Pine Ridge

Reservation is *S11970 under $11,000, which is less than

one-third the national average for American households and

families.

The Oglala Sioux Tribe had an $8,191,000 tribal priority

allocation base of funding in fiscal year 1995. Under this cut,

they would directly reduce the Oglala Sioux funding base to

$5,996,000, a $2 million cut.

In the case of the Quileute Tribe in Washington, they

would receive a cut from $547,000, to $393,000. I might

mention that nearly 90 percent of the Quileute Tribe fami-

lies with children under the age of 6 are living in poverty,

and one out of three are unemployed.

The San Carlos Apache Tribe would receive a cut of

some $1.6 million out of a $6 million tribal priority. And this

is what the United States meant when we promised the San

52a

Carlos Apache in a solemn treaty that we would legislate

and act to secure their permanent prosperity.

Mr. President, let me quote the respected jurist, U.S.

Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who addressed this

Nation’s treatment of American Indians in his dissent in the

case called F.P.C. versus Tuscarora:

It may be hard for us to understand why these Indians

cling so tenaciously to their lands and traditional tribal way

of life . . . the lands of their reservation are <not> the most

fertile, <nor> the landscape the most beautiful, <nor

are> their homes the most splendid specimens of architec-

ture. But this is their home — their ancestral home. There,

they, their children, and their forebears were born. They,

too, have their memories and their loves. ... There may be

instances in which Congress has broken faith with the

Indians....I regret that <we will> ... break faith with

this dependent people. Great nations, like great men, should

keep their word.

Mr. President, we have broken our bond with these

people. We have denied them the full benefits derived from

their lands and resources. We have denied them authority

over their own affairs. And under this bill, we would deny

them the funds they desperately need to address the wide-

spread poverty and hopelessness that are a part of everyday

life on the reservation.

I reserve the remainder of my time for Senator

DOMENICI.

Mr. DOMENICI.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

The PRESIDING OFFICER.

Five minutes.

53a

Mr. DOMENICI.

I yield 3 minutes to Senator INOUYE.

Mr. INOUYE.

Mr. President, I have only a few observations to add to

the other statements that have been made by the chairman

of the Budget Committee and the chairman of the Commit-

tee on Indian Affairs.

Last evening, the chairman of the Interior Subcommittee

informed the Members of this body that the policy which

guided the subcommittee’s action in distributing 45.6 per-

cent of the reductions in the Interior Department’s budget to

the Bureau of Indian Affairs is one that is aimed at speeding

up the process of Indian self-determination and self-govern-

ance by sharply reducing funds that go directly to tribal

governments for the provision of basic government services

for reservation citizens — services such as fire protection,

law enforcement, the assurance of health and safety, and the

protection of the general welfare of tribal communities.

Our colleagues will recognize that this initiative is not

dissimilar from that which is being proposed in the area of

welfare reform — which is the idea of moving responsibili-

ties out of the Federal Government and placing those

responsibilities closest to the people — empowering local

communities to address the challenges which confront citi-

zens at that level.

But, Mr. President, I believe we must examine carefully

what is being proposed under the auspices of self-govern-

ance and self-determination, because in the context of

reform, we have not and are not asking other Americans to

experience a 26-percent reduction in the programs upon

which they have come to rely.

Rather, we talk about cutting the budget for Federal

programs by 5 to 7 percent over the next 5 to 7 years.

54a

In stark contrast, we would tell the Indian people that the

programs which support the very infrastructure of their

governments must be reduced by 26 percent in just | year.

In stark contrast to the reform measures that we have

been debating in recent days, we would tell the Indian

people that we are going to shore up and protect the Federal

bureaucracy that absorbs 90 cents of every dollar we appro-

priate for Indian programs and instead, we are going to

drastically reduce the ability of tribal governments to ad-

dress the needs of their citizens at the local level.

Mr. President, this is not a proposal that will empower

tribal governments.

This is a proposal that will devastate the ability of Indian

governments to serve the most basic needs of their citizens.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I under-

stand all too well the constraints and the competing de-

mands that are placed on each of our subcommittees and I

understand the challenges with which the chairman and

former chairman of the Interior Subcommittee are faced. In

the last few days, representatives of the Interior Department

have spread horror stories around this body about the impact

on each Member’s State if funds are taken from any of the

six accounts we propose to use as offsets.

One Member is told that the Minerals Management

Service office in Alaska will be closed. Another member is

told that the wildlife refuges in his State will be closed.

There is a story for every Member — and it is always that all

of the Interior programs in his or her particular State will be

the programs that bear the brunt of our proposed reductions.

Unfortunately,. these are the kind of desperate and dishon-

est tactics that are employed when resources become scarce.

But I would ask my colleagues, Mr. President, to examine

the relative reductions to other programs in Interior, and to

understand that a 26-percent cut in the programs that go

5Sa

directly to the Indian tribal governments is a reduction of a

size and proportion that we have not asked any of the other

Interior programs to bear. it is a matter of simple equity that

brings us to this threshold today.

Mr. President, we do have a responsibility to preserve and

protect this Nation’s resources, but we also have a responsi-

bility that we, as a nation, undertook long ago — when we

encouraged the Indian nations, by force and solemn com-

mitments, to give us their lands. This responsibility — this

trust responsibility — for Indian lands and resources, and to

assure the survival of the Indian people — is no less sacred.

Mr. DASCHLE.

Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished

chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator DOMENICI

and the distinguished vice-chairman of the Committee on

Indian Affairs, Senator INOUYE, in a colloquy on their

amendments to H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior

appropriations bill and the Earth Resources Observation

System <EROS> Data Center.

Mr. DOMENICI.

Mr. President, Senator INOUYE and I would be happy

to discuss the amendment with the Senator from South

Dakota.

Mr. DASCHLE.

Mr. President, before discussing the EROS Data Center,

I would like to take this opportunity to commend my

colleague on the Budget Committee and my colleagues on

the Indian Affairs Committee for offering their amendment

to the Interior appropriations bill. { strongly support their

efforts to restore $200 million to the Bureau of Indian

Affairs tribal priority allocations account, nonrecurring pro-

grams, and other recurring programs.

56a

The existing level of funding for the Bureau of Indian

Affairs <BIA> and tribal programs is extremely inade-

quate. The objective of the BIA is to encourage and assist

Indian people to manage their own affairs under the trust

relationship to the Federal Government. To carry out this

objective, the BIA is responsible for assisting Indian tribes

in the development and implementation of effective pro-

grams for their self-sufficiency and advancement.

Historically, the BIA has never been funded at a level

that meets the needs of Indian people. The reductions in the

BIA tribal priority allocation account recommended by the

Interior Appropriations Committee will have the potential

to further decrease and eliminate many important programs

such as tribal courts, law and order, social services, roads,

and housing needs that are so important to tribal self-

sufficiency.

Mr. DOMENICI.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind remarks

and completely agree that the funding *S11971 contained in

the fiscal year 1996 Interior appropriations bill for the BIA

and tribal programs is simply inadequate.

S7a

Appendix 4

58a

The Wall Street Journal

Thursday, August 10, 1995

Senate Clears Natural-Resources Bill,

Softening Cuts for Arts, But Not Indians

By David Rogers

Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a nearly $12.1

billion natural-resources bill after agreeing to soften House

cuts from government funding for the arts and humanities.

The National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities

would each receive $110 million for the fiscal year beginning

Oct. 1 —a one-third cut from current levels, but about

$10.5 million more than the House approved last month for

each agency.

Moreover, the Senate would strike restrictions making the

NEA funds available only when the House has passed a

separate reauthorization bill. Across the political spectrum,

individual Republicans showed little appetite for the House

leadership’s plan to terminate funding in 1997.

Adopted 92-6, the underlying bill reflects the strong

influence of Western senators who won concessions for

ranching, timber and mining interests even as the chamber

voted to impose deep cuts on Indian-related programs.

Indian Health Service funding would be effectively frozen at

$1.96 billion, but the Bureau of Indian Affairs would be cut

16%, or more than $220 million below what the House has

proposed.

The same give-and-take about spending priorities is seen

in a larger $36.6 billion transportation bill brought to the

floor last night by the Senate Appropriations Committee. To

help build a reserve for education and environmental pro-

grams elsewhere in the budget, the panel goes much further

ena

59a

than the House in scaling back highway, transit and airport

funds. In an early test, the chamber voted 68-30 to override

the objections of two Pennsylvania Republicans and uphold

a nearly 44% cut in mass-transit operating assistance.

Within the natural-resources bill, the cuts from Indian

programs fall hardest on those accounts funding hundreds of

often-small tribal governments. Again Republicans were

among those protesting, and Senate Budget Committee

«Chairman Pete Domenici (R., N.M.) angrily complained

the cut was a “glaring mistake” and threatened the “termi-

nation of Indian self-determination.”

Nonetheless, on a 61-36 roll call, the Senate rejected a

Domenici amendment to shift $200 million from other

accounts to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. By an almost equal

margin, members later killed a second attempt by his New

Mexico colleague, Democratic Sen. Jeff Bingaman, to re-

store $26.6 million for the Office of Indian Education.

The debate was striking given Mr. Domenici’s standing as

one of the leading architects of the GOP drive to balance

the budget. The New Mexico Republican was matched

against one of his early proteges on the budget panel, Sen.

Slade Gorton (R. Wash.), who chairs the appropriations

subcommittee overseeing the annual natural-resource bill.

“We are distributing reductions that were forced on us,”

said Mr. Gorton. While reminding all sides of their enduring

friendship, the two men waged a testy war of charts and

conflicting numbers that seemed almost a satire of the larger

budget debate.

In related action, the Senate:

— Approved a 90-day moratorium to block federal

grazing-land regulations due to take effect this month.

— Amended an existing law to toughen penalties in

cases of “tree-spiking” — a practice used by some

60a

antilogging protesters in the West. The provision would

make it easier for timber companies to show the eco-

nomic damages needed to meet the threshold for crimi-

nal prosecution. In cases that result in serious bodily

injury, the provision allows for imprisonment of up to

40 years.

— Voted to end the moratorium on government

processing of “patent” applications to allow mining

companies to take title of federal lands where they have

staked mineral claims.

— Restored $4.5 million for Fish and Wildlife en-

dangered-species programs and upheld funding for the

release of wolves in the West and Southeast.

6la

Appendix 5

Ba”

; rae! aii

62a

New York Times

Sunday

Sept. 3, 1995

For Indians, Budget Cuts Put Schools in Disrepair

OGLALA, S.D., Sept. 2 (AP) - In the cramped, musty

baesment of the Loneman School, Frank Rapp points at two

threats to the hundreds of Oglala Sioux students who attend

classes upstairs.

They are the aged boilers that strain to keep the school

warm during harsh prairie winters on the Pine Ridge Indian

Reservation. Dan Two Bulls, the school custodian, must

trudge down the narrow concrete stairs twice a day to turn

them on and off, said Mr. Rapp, the school president. “If

something happens to him it might blow,” he said.

America’s tribal schools are crumbling because of budget

cuts, inefficiency and neglect by the Federal Bureau of

Indian Affairs and Congress, Mr. Rapp and other tribal

school leaders say. The nation’s 187 schools supported by

the bureau have an estimated backlog of $650 million to

$800 million in needed repairs.

Across reservations, thousands of children are crammed

into dilapidated classrooms with inadequate ventilation,

plumbing and fire-escape routes, officials say. Many school

buildings have not met fire or safety codes for years.

Loneman was condemned in 1991.

John Tippeconic, the director of the bureau’s Office of

Indian Education Programs, calls the crumbling schools “a

major, major problem.”

“In some cases we are probably putting some kids in

danger, in unsafe conditions,” he said.

63a

At Little Wound School In Kyle, a girl lost several fingers

after they were crushed by a metal door the school did not

have the money to replace.

While officials of the Fond Du Lac Chippewa tribe in

northern Minnesota wait for a new building, 200 students

are taught in trailers and a converted storage building.

Loneman’s plumbing dumped untreated sewage into a

creek until officials complained to the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency.

In treaties with the Sioux and other tribes, the Federal

Government promised to educate American Indian chil-

dren. The Bureau of Indian Affairs is required to finance

tribal schools at the per-student average for their state, but

the rule is not giving the bureau enough money for schools,

Mr. Tippeconic says.

An advisory committee to the Office of Indian Education

Programs concluded in 1991 that “schools are grossly un-

derfunded.” That year, the bureau spent an average of

$2,538 a student. The average for 1994-95 fell to $2,515.

In South Dakota, off-reservation public schools spent an

average of $4,045 a student for 1994-95. Loneman received

$2,907 a student last year, Mr. Rapp said.

Last year, the bureau’s schools received 84 percent of the

money they requested. This year, the Senate passed a

budget that cut $31 million for the schools, including

$10 million for school repair and $13.6 million for new

construction.

About 47,000 students attended the bureau’s schools last

year, and by 1996 that number could rise to 50,000,

Mr. Tippeconic said.

Bureau officials estimate that enrollment in Indian

schools in the Dakotas and Nebraska will grow by 50

percent, or about 12,500 students, within five years. Yet

64a

construction plans call for buildings to accommodate only

560 more students. Little Wound School serves about 900

students in facilities designed for 650.

In the hot months at the beginning and end of each school

year, the students endure stifling schoolrooms.

“They get sluggish; they won’t learn,” said the facilities

manager, Jim Whirlwind Horse. “But you see smiles on

their faces because they don’t know any different. They

think everywhere is like this.”

65a

Appendix 6

66a

INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE NEED FOR

AMENDMENTS TO THE

INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT

MAY 17, 1994

WASHINGTON, DC

PART 3

67a

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADA E. DEER,

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and members of the

Committee, I am pleased to be here with you today to share

with you the experiences of the Department of the Interior

in administering provisions of the Indian Gaming Regula-

tory Act (IGRA). I am accompanied by Mr. John Duffy,

Counselor to the Secretary, who will present the Depart-

ment’s testimony.

I do however, want to make some general comments on

Indian gaming before Mr. Duffy offers the Department’s

testimony. The President’s remarks in his historical meeting

with the tribes, the follow-up Listening Conference and my

10 months as Assistant Secretary all make clear that tribe-

owned gaming is an important economic development activ-

ity for Indian tribes.

In the States where Indian tribes and the States have

worked together on a government-to-government basis, the

objectives of the IGRA have begun to materialize to the

benefit of both governments. Tribes have used gaming

revenues to provide better governmental services for tribal

members, better health care, higher quality education and

employment. In several non-Indian communities tribal

gaming has proven to be a catalyst for their revitalization. In

those States that have refused to negotiate with tribes, the

tribes’ efforts at achieving economic stability and self-

sufficiency have been effectively frustrated. Moreover, in

some highly publicized conflicts, protracted and costly liti-

68a

gation has resulted creating a major disincentive for tribes

and States to work cooperatively.

Second, while at times tribes may feel overwhelmed and

frustrated, I believe they have shown great determination,

hope, and in most cases, willingness to work with the States

to reach amicable resolutions.

Although the implementation of the IGRA has some-

times been contentious and difficult, overall our experience

has been positive. To date we have approved 107 compacts,

12 amendments representing agreements between 90 tribes

and 19 states.

In closing I want to say that we will continue to support

Indian gaming as an important means of economic develop-

ment. And, as Assistant Secretary, | am prepared to work

with the tribes in their efforts to provide direction and

leadership on this critical issue.

Thank you.

69a

EEE

Appendix 7

70a

INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE NEED FOR

AMENDMENTS TO THE

INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY ACT

MAY 17, 1994

WASHINGTON, DC

PART 3

Tla

Deloitte &

Touche is Ss ast aa es eS es

A Historical Review

of Gaming in the

United States

April 26, 1994

72a

‘ ;

“ 4, Aig : i Ae --

‘ \ a Ad DM ee Cee ae

Er, BEM. Oty EN 0 OE ees. 8":

oat. 68 6s

ming Associa on |

TE ARC IER La

Treesarer

than Small

Bannock Tribe

ida Tribe of lnciians

Chairman

aniel Tucker ‘jake Viarrial

004 Pennsylvania Avenuc. SE

Washington, OC 20003

Carcwteoe Darecior Pubia Reletwns Derecior

S. Timothy Wapato A. Gay Kingman

Colville Coniederacd Tribes Cheyenne River Sioun

—-s - iestahes ide

% ot ae

'.* ets

‘ ae *

| ogee ‘ike

GR) i, hie ® pe BO ety i iy

Sariion A A 7

RR We ves, ead ot re oe

*; ak

ts. 25

. - Fe —.

}

14a

HISTORY OF US GAMING

Origins of U.S. Gaming

The United States is in what has been referred to as the

“third wave” of legalized gaming, in that this is the third

time that gaming, in one form or another, is available

virtually everywhere in America. The first wave of gaming

began in the colonial era and lasted through the Civil War.

The second wave began after the Civil War and lasted

through the early twentieth century when most forms of

gaming throughout the U. S. were banned. The third wave

began in 1964, with the passage of legislation legalizing a

lottery in New Hampshire.

Lotteries dominated the first wave and were used to help

finance the colonization of America. As such colonization

took place, the popularity of the lotteries increased and they

were used to finance projects too massive for traditional

government or private financing sources. Institutes of higher

learning such as Harvard and Princeton were financed in

part from tax proceeds generated by lotteries.

The nation’s first lotteries were considered respectable

and not a form of gaming, but rather, a voluntary form of tax

collection patronized by the most respectable citizens. By

1831, lotteries were sponsored by cight states and wagers

exceeded $66 million, five times the annual federal budget.

By the time the Civil War started, scandals and swindles

plagued the lotteries and a wave of morality swept the

nation. This soon led to the abolition of lotteries, and the

first wave of legalized gaming receded.

The second wave of legalized gaming followed the Civil

War. Lotteries made a comeback and other forms of gaming

proliferated. This comeback was the strongest in the Recon-

structed South as a means of dealing with the extreme

financial difficulties that resulted from the war. Gaming also

7Sa

thrived in the frontier cities of the West and in most major

urban areas.

During the 1840s and 1850s, the gold and silver strikes in

California and Nevada caused an influx of miners and others

into those territories. Gaming became an integral part of the

boomtown atmosphere. Gaming also thrived in the cities of

San Francisco, Kansas City and Denver, all of which were

known as gaming capitals in the 1850s. During this period,

anti-gaming legislation was passed but was not effective and

only served to drive gaming underground where it was

tolerated if not supported by law enforcement officials.

However, the second wave did not persist, and by 1910,

the year Nevada banned casinos, legal gaming was virtually

non-existent in the U.S. By the 1930’s casinos had returned

to Nevada and horse race wagering had returned to twenty-

one states. Lotteries were not legalized again until 1964

when such activity was legalized in New Hampshire, and,

according to some experts, this ushered in the third wave of

legalized gaming in America.

Despite a weak economy the gaming industry in the U.S.

has exhibited an impressive growth rate. The morality argu-

ment has lessened as governments and churches become big

players. The industry has become a huge economic and

social force. Players are demanding faster and easier games.

This fundamental value shift is currently changing the form

gaming takes across the country. Gaming is legal in one

form or another in every state (including the District of

Columbia) except Utah and Hawaii. Land based casino

gaming (including casinos on Indian Reservations) is of-

fered in 20 states. In addition, Indian tribes in Florida and

New Mexico operate electronic games such as video poker

without compacts because the states have refused to negoti-

ate with the tribes. Excursion boat (riverboat gaming) is

legal in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, and

Mississippi. Every other state with a major waterway, or

76a

lake is considering riverboat gaming. 38 states (including

Washington D.C.) permit lotteries and remaining jurisdic-

tions where gaming is legal offer various forms of pari-

mutuel wagering.

Tla

venue Analysis

by Gaming

Industry

Segment

, ;* a3.

a+ ss

R 7

~@-*

he tp we

= 7 aa Se

—

——, ‘uk

oa 233 2

wnt red 2 ee a

78a

REVENUE ANALYSIS BY GAMING INDUSTRY

SEGMENT

1992 gaming revenues or win exceeded $29.9 billion a

volume that would rank 19th in the Forbes Sales 500, ahead

of American Express ($26.96 billion) and behind Boeing

($30.184 billion). Lotteries and casinos dominate the US

legal gaming industry accounting for approximately 38% and

34% respectively, of total 1992 gaming revenues. Pari-

mutuels are next in revenue market share at approximately

12%. Indian Reservation gaming accounts for 5% of revenue

market share. Charitable games, bingo, card rooms, and

legal bookmaking account for the remaining 11% of market

share (see exhibit B).

Consumer preference for higher priced lottery games,

continued interest in OTB and slot machines over lower

priced alternatives such as race tracks and table games

changed the composition of gross gaming revenue. This also

increased the average consumer price of gaming from 8.77%

of handle in 1991 to 9.07%.

Gross gaming revenue comprised .592% of US personal

income versus .552% in 1991. Consumer expenditures

(losses) on legal gaming were 6 times greater than the

$4.9 billion Americans spent on box office receipts.

Indian Reservation Gaming

Class III Indian Reservation gaming experienced signifi-

cant growth in revenues. Revenues totaled $1.07 billion,

with an estimated (256%) or $769 million increase since

1991. When combined with Class II revenues, mostly bingo,

the gross gaming revenue totaled $1.5 billion producing an

overall gain in revenues of 108%, or $779 million. Exhibit C

clearly illustrates the growth in Indian gaming since the

passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) in

1988. Although Indian gaming revenues are increasing at a

tremendous pace, Indian gaming revenues are still a small

79a

percentage of total gaming revenues. Exhibits A & B illus-

trate market shares for 1991 and 1992. Exhibit D clearly

shows that the size of Indian gaming revenues is still small

as compared to total gaming revenues (comprising 5% of

total revenues).

There has been some confusion about the actual scale of

Indian Gaming. A widely talked about figure of $6 billion

was publicized. “Gaming and Wagering Business” magazine

attributes this projection to a possible misunderstanding

regarding gambling terminology. Indian casinos win 18% of

drop. Therefore, a $6 billion drop would equate to a

$1.08 billion win which is in line with the original estimate.

Casinos

Casinos won $11.2 billion an increase of $1.1 billion since

1991. Class III Indian Gaming the majority which is gener-

ated by casino games comprised $1.1 billion of the total

casino revenues. However, lotteries still comprised the larg-

est share (38.3%) of the pie but not by a significant amount.

Slot machines in Nevada and New Jersey, cruise ships,

riverboats and land based casinos were all strong performers.

The tend in the mix of casino gaming is moving away from

table games to higher margin slot machines. Slot machines

represented 47% of total Nevada and New Jersey casino

gaming revenues in 1982 versus 65% or $5.83 billion in

1992.

Lotteries

There have been many changes in the lottery market. It is

now comprised of three primary venues: traditional state

number games, instant games, and video lottery terminals.

Since its reintroduction into the US in 1964, the state lottery

has been the engine that has powered the resurgence of legal

gaming:

¢ 38 states including Washington DC permit state

lotteries.

¢ Lotteries are available to more than 80% of the US

population.

* Thus far, lotteries have been economically successful

and relatively free of scandal popularizing and sani-

tizing the game in general.

Aggregate gross revenues from lotteries reached $11.5 bil-

lion, a record 12% increase, a $1.2 billion increase from

1991.

Texas, Georgia, and Nebraska began lotteries in 1992-3.

The successful start of lottery operation in Texas generated

a first year handle which topped $1 billion.

The traditional lottery market is approaching maturity.

Lotteries are diversifying their product lines. The continued

success is highly dependent upon aggressively marketing

lottery games and stimulating the market by diversifying

their product lines.

Video poker and keno will play a key role in the future of

lotteries. Video lottery revenues were up 99% or $120.4 mil-

lion in 1992.

Non-Bingo charitable games

Non-bingo charitable games include pulltabs, punch-

boards, raffles, low-stakes blackjack and other card and dice

8la

games. Gross revenues increased by 4.5% or $55.6 million to

a total of $1.3 billion.

Bingo

Gross revenues from non-Indian bingo halls increased

2.2% to $1.09 billion. This revenue figure is an estimated

figure based on the reported revenues. Each state has

different laws regarding the reporting requirements and

therefore it is probable that there are instances where

revenues have not been reported.

Industry experts believe this market has matured. How-

ever, bingo players stay extremely loyal to their game.

Pari-Mutuels

Pari-mutuel wagering is generally considered to include

on-track, off-track, and inter-track betting on horse racing,

dog racing and Jai-alai. Currently, some form of pari-mutuel

wagering is authorized in all the U.S. states except Alaska,

Georgia, Hawaii, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah,

and the District of Columbia. All of the states with pari-

mutuel wagering have some form of horse racing, approxi-

mately 17 states have greyhound racing, and Jai-alai wager-

ing is in operation in just three states, Florida, Rhode Island

and Connecticut. Pari-mutuel wagering accounted for 12%

of total US gaming revenues in 1992. Gross pari-mutuel

revenue rose slightly (.4%) by $16.1 million to $3.7 billion.

Major innovations in the industry have been off-track

betting, inter track betting and simulcasting races to other

venues, such as casinos. Off-track horse revenues increased

by 12.8% to $110.2 M. Off-track betting comprises 33% of

the industry’s revenues and the share continues to rise.

These innovations have made pari-mutuel wagering more

accessible to bettors, however several studies have shown

that the main effect has been to increase the amount

wagered by existing patrons versus attracting new attendees.

82a

The pari-mutuel industry has been losing its share to other

gaming industry segments and experienced low growth in

total revenues from 1982-1992 (exhibit E). The pari-mutuel

industry will require new and creative marketing approaches

to hold their share of the market.

Non-Nevada Cardrooms

Cardroom revenues increased slightly in 1992, by less

than $1.7 million, to $661 million. Most of these operations

are small but there are many. There are approximately 300

in California alone. However, revenues in those California

cardrooms have stabilized in 1992. Poker-like versions of

pai-gow and super pan-nine and similar games are the major

attractions.

Legal Bookmaking

This market share appears to have matured. Sports bets

fell $9.98 million in 1992 to a three year low of $97.4

million.

re oe oe me

- @ «-.« : .

> a ka ‘Pr 1+ Sees, iT Ve ~ » Ks

BS tr ey RE TY e yee si

re My Peete : att ¢ Bereta

- ‘ a » j “4 sy," i yy" 4 ny wm

i i> vip’

“ . *

- tals 4, 24

A v4 *8): ) my, |

lof Indian

Gaming

84a

HISTORICAL REVIEW OF INDIAN GAMING

Introduction

American Indian Nations embrace a distinct culture,

language and spirit. Casino gaming has been referred to

many as the “return of the buffalo”. The buffalo was used by

the American Indian people for total subsistence, food,

shelter, clothing, children’s games, and trading.

Gaming has replaced the buffalo as the mechanism used

by American Indian people for survival. Today, the proceeds

from gaming are used by Indian Nations for subsistence,

cultural preservation, and to replenish impoverished econo-

mies. Not surprisingly, the spread of Indian Gaming has

spurred controversy. As Indian casinos became more suc-

cessful, competitors have lodged charges of unfair advan-

tages and organized crime infiltration. During a 1992 Senate

hearing on Indian Gaming, Paul Maloney, senior counsel at

the Department of Justice, testified that a special investiga-

tion uncovered no evidence of organized crime infiltrating

Indian gaming. In all cases of crime or robbery, Tribal

governments have brought the crime to justice. Opponents

accuse Indians of exploitation; that they are using gaming as

a means to provide short-term financial growth and enor-

mous benefits. Proponents refer to the intent of IGRA when

allegations of exploitation are raised.

The primary intent of IGRA is to “provide a statutory

basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means

of promoting tribal economic development, self sufficiency,

and strong tribal governments”. Under IGRA, all revenues

from gaming operations are required to be used solely for

governmental or charitable purposes. Gaming revenues are

used to build infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads, sewers,

and water systems and to fund health care and education.

Many reservations do not have sufficient resources and

are located in undesirable regions that cannot support devel-

85a

opment. These tribes have become dependent on federal aid,

as attempts at economic development have failed prior to

the advent of Indian gaming.

Government aid provided to Indians often result in bene-

fiting local communities. This is due to the fact that there is

a scarcity of Indian businesses and high unemployment,

sometimes as high as 80%. A significant portion of the

federal dollars are therefore spent outside the reservation.

The lack of a vital economy on reservations makes it

nearly impossible to improve tribal conditions. This hopeless

environment and constant struggle help to explain the high

incidence of alcoholism and suicide, and the lack of ade-

quate health care in many tribal communities. According to

the 1990 Census, the poorest counties in the United States

are located on Indian Reservations. There are also 3,200

counties in the United States. Of the Poorest 1% (32

counties), 7 are located on Sioux reservations in South and

North Dakota. In addition, several other Indian Reserva-

tions in various counties in the United States were also listed

amongst the 32 poorest counties.

More recently, gaming has enabled a few tribes to im-

prove their situations considerably. The profits are used to

build road and water systems and healthcare centers, pro-

vide job training scholarships and both home and business

loans to tribal members. More tribes will benefit from

gaming with the proliferation of Indian gaming operations.

Currently, there are 547 tribes of which only 79 (14.4%)

have Class III gaming.

-Legislative and Regulatory Issues

Indian Tribes -are sovereign governments. They have ex-

isted as sovereign governments long before Europeans set-

tled in North America. Treaties signed with settlers in

exchange for land guaranteed the tribes continued ability to

be recognized and treated as sovereign entities. However,

86a

historically state governments have been hostile in recogniz-

ing Indian Tribes as independent entities.

Under the constitution of the United States, the federal

government is obliged to protect tribes from states, who

have often coveted the Indian’s lands and assets, and sought

to impose power over Indian tribes and people.

Several landmark court cases have confirmed this recog-

nition of Indian sovereignty. These court cases include,

Cherokee vs. Georgia, 1831, and California v. Cabazon,

1987. The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), passed

by Congress in 1988, affirms that tribes have the power to

conduct gaming on Indian lands subject to tribal /state

jurisdiction.

Indian Gaming was conducted on many reservations

throughout the US prior to the passage of Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act (IGRA). This legislation was passed in

response to a 1987 federal court decision “California versus

Cabazon” which stated that tribes could engage in forms of

gambling that were not expressly prohibited by the state in

which the tribe is located. The “California versus Cabazon”

case and US supreme court finalized the distinction in

which the court applied a criminal/prohibitory —

civil/regulatory distinction. In other words, if a state regu-

lates gaming, in any form, then gaming falls under civil law

for which Indian nations cannot be prosecuted and the state

is obligated under federal law to enter into compact negotia-

tions with the tribe. If a form of gambling sought by a tribe

is expressly prohibited by the state under criminal law, then

the state can refuse negotiations for particular games on that

basis. The Cabazon case solidified issues surrounding gam-

ing on tribal lands which had previously been questioned.

The purpose of IGRA was to create a balance between

the tribe’s right to conduct gaming on their reservations and

the public interests of the states in which the tribes are

87a

located. IGRA became effective on October 17, 1988. The

goals of the act include tribal economic development, self-

sufficiency and a strong tribal government. The act provides

a framework by which the games are conducted to protect

both the tribes and the state. The act created three classes of

gaming and allocated regulatory jurisdiction over each class

among tribal, federal, and state sovereigns.

* Class I — includes social games solely for prizes of

minimal value or traditional forms of Indian gaming

engaged in by individuals and is subject to exclusive

tribal regulatory jurisdiction.

¢ Class II — includes all forms of bingo and other games

similar to bingo, such as pull-tabs and punch-boards

(electronic or non-electronic), provided these are

played in the same location as bingo games. Class II

also refers to non-banking games that either expressly

allowed or not expressly prohibited by state law and

banking card games in existence in the specified states

of Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana,

and Washington State on or before May 1, 1988.

Class II gaming is subject to tribal regulatory jurisdic-

tion, with extensive oversight by the National Indian

Gaming Commission (NIGC).

¢ Class II] — includes all forms of gaming that are not

Class I or II, including slots, casino games, banking

card games, horse and dog racing, pari-mutuel wager-

ing and jai-alai. Class III gaming is lawful on Indian

lands only if the gaming has been authorized by a tribal

ordinance approved by the chairperson of the NIGC

and such gaming is permitted by the state for any

purpose by any person, organization, or entity, and is

conducted in conformance with a tribal-state compact

entered into by the tribe and the state that is in effect.

The tribal-state compact entered into by the tribe was

proposed by the Nevada congressional delegation on

88a

behalf of the states. The jurisdiction over class III

gaming is left to the tribal-state compact negotiation.

The sovereignty of American Indian tribes was limited by

IGRA which required a tribe to negotiate a compact with

the state. Under IGRA, a tribe must request a state to enter

into compact negotiations. Once a request is made, the state

has an obligation to negotiate in “good faith” to enter into a

compact. The compact must also be approved by the Secre-

tary of the Interior. Jurisdiction is provided to the federal

district court concerning the following:

* Any cause of action by a tribe arising from a state’s

failure to conduct negotiations in good faith.

* An action by a state or a tribe to enjoin any class III

activity conducted in violation of the compact.

« Any cause of action initiated by the Secretary of the

Interior to enforce the Secretary’s authority under

IGRA to enforce mediation procedures.

Today, there have been law suits because some states

have failed to live up to IGRA and negotiate in “good faith”

with tribes. There have been a number of landmark cases

prompted by the proliferation of Indian Gaming. These

cases have clarified gaming issues that IGRA addressed.

Some of the major cases are summarized below:

Mashantucket Pequot Tribe versus

State of Connecticut, 1991

This decision involved the first interpretation of IGRA.

The tribe filed suit in accordance with IGRA requiring the

state of Connecticut to negotiate terms for operating games

of chance on its reservation. The state agreed that “its

limited authorization of the conduct of Las Vegas nights by

nonprofit organizations does not amount to a general allow-

ance of such (casino-style) gaming as the tribe would

institute, and further that such gaming activity is contrary to

89a

the State’s public policy.” The court determined that the

issue was whether the form of gaming sought by the tribe

violated the State’s public policy.

The court reiterated what was stated in the Cabazon case.

“If the intent of state law is generally to prohibit certain

conduct, it falls within the areas of criminal jurisdiction, but

if the state law generally permits the conduct at issue,

subject to regulation, it must be classified as

civil/regulatory.”

The court reasoned that since the state permits certain

casino style games at charity events, the Mashantuckets use

was within the meaning of IGRA, and not against public

policy of the state. The court held that the state was

required to enter into a compact with the Pequot tribe and

that the games conducted in Las Vegas nights were subject

to negotiations as were the rules of conduct for these games.

Lac Du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Indians Versus Wisconsin, 1991

In this case the tribe filed suit against the state under

IGRA because the state failed to negotiate in good faith for |

a gaming compact. The court concluded that “the state is

required to negotiate with the plaintiffs over the inclusion in

a tribal state compact of any activity that includes the

element of prize, chance, and consideration and that is not

prohibited expressly by the Wisconsin Constitution. The

state is required to negotiate casino games such as video,

slot machines, and blackjack with the tribes because the

activities are permitted under Wisconsin law within the

meaning of IGRA.”

The Cabazon case finalized the legal distinction between

criminal/prohibitory and civil/regulatory. In this case it was

determined that Wisconsin’s gaming structure was regula-

tory in nature. The central issue in this case was whether the

state “expressly permits” the type of gaming which the tribe

90a

was seeking to conduct. The Federal court said that the

“inquiry” is whether Wisconsin prohibits those particular

gaming activities. It does not.”

Seminole Tribe of Florida vs. Lawton Chiles, Governor of

the State of Florida, 1994

This case was first filed in the Southern District of Florida

on September 19, 1991. The Seminole Tribe brought suit

against Lawton Chiles, Governor of Florida, to remediate

the alleged failure of the State of Florida to conduct good

faith negotiations for the tribe to establish gaming opera-

tions on their land. The State of Florida dismissed the

claims on two grounds, |) Gaming activities proposed by

the Seminole Tribe are not conducted in the State of

Florida. 2) Pursuant to the Eleventh Amendment, Congress

does not have the constitutional power to enforce “good

faith” requirement of the compact process by explicitly

providing the Tribe a judicial remedy against the state.

On June 18, 1992, the final ruling sided with the Seminole

tribe. The Florida Federal Judge ruled that the Eleventh

Amendment was not a justifiable defense by the states. The

Tribe’s central argument against Florida’s rebuttal was that

IGRA abrogated the State’s immunity when it enacted

IGRA. This ruling was important in that it found that

Congress has the power to abrogate State immunity. Subse-

quently, interlocutory appeal ensued. The appeal resulted in

a finding that Congress did not have the power to abrogate

state immunity, but the tribes should have remedy in “bad

faith” cases. Therefore, the Secretary of the Interior was

directed to implement procedures for the tribes in lieu of a

compact with the states.

The State's Use of the 10th and 11th Amendments

Congress included a provision in IGRA that the states

and tribes negotiate a compact for those games being

2 ee

9la

considered by the tribe. The states have responded to IGRA

by using the 10th and 11th amendments to block the

establishment of Indian Gaming Facilities. The state’s basic

Strategy is to refuse to negotiate all or certain kinds of

Class III games (such as slot machines, card games, pari-

mutuel racing etc.). If a tribe feels the state has failed to

negotiate in good faith, IGRA says that the tribe can sue the

state for failure to negotiate.

The states have been using the 10th amendment as a

defense because it reads the powers not delegated to the

federal government by the constitution are reserved for

individual state governments. The state therefore cannot be

compelled by the federal government to act on anything that

is not stated in the constitution. This is disputed by the

tribes.

States have been using the 11th amendment as a defense

when tribes file suit against them for allegedly negotiating in

bad faith. The 11th amendment says that a state cannot be

sued by individuals based on federal legislation, that a state

has immunity from such lawsuits unless congress makes it

clear that immunity does not apply. One response according

to Jerry Strauss, an attorney representative for several tribes

is “Congress has the power to abrogate state immunity and

nobody disputes that Congress intended to do that when

writing IGRA.”

When the tribe seeks an appeal by taking the state to

court the state dismisses the suit on the grounds of sovereign

immunity as defined in the 11th amendment. The amend-

ment bars suit by individuals against a state to enforce rights

conferred by federal legislation, in the absence of clear

congressional intent to authorize such suits.

92a

Recent Agreements

In 1993, the Mashantucket Pequots tribe agreed to pay

the state of Connecticut 25% of slot machine revenue in

return for a monopoly on slots.

On April 25, 1994 Governor Weicker Jr. settled the

Mohegan’s land claims in exchange for permission to oper-

ate a casino. In this new agreement, the Pequots and the

Mohegans will share the gaming business. The new compact

extends to all casino games in return for $160 million in

payments from the tribes. This agreement could be dis-

solved if the legislature legalizes not just slot machines, but

any gambling off the reservation. If the agreement is dis-

solved the state would be forfeiting the tribes’ millions. This

agreement raised the barrier to any gaming company other

than Indians to operate casinos in Connecticut.

93a

A EConomic

Impact Studies

94a

REVIEW OF ECONOMIC IMPACT STUDIES

Introduction

There have been several studies which show the positive

effects of Indian Gaming on reservations and the economy.

The Indian Casinos stimulate economic growth due to direct

and indirect impacts. For example, direct impacts are the

wages paid to employees as well as the purchases from

suppliers. For purposes of illustration, let us review the

economic impact of the wages paid to employees of the

casino. The casino employees have the means to consume

and they will therefore spend a portion of their payroll on

goods and services both on and off the reservation. The

producers of these goods now have extra incomes and they

will in turn spend a portion of their income. This process will

continue. Thus an endless chain of secondary consumption

and respending is set in motion by the primary investment

(in this example the casino employees’ wages.) This is what

is referred to as the multiplier effect. Spending stimulates

additional or induced spending in addition to employment.

There are other positive economic effects such as decrease

in unemployment and public assistance expenditures.

Although different methodologies have been used there

are a number of common findings which are revealed in a

majovity of the studies:

¢ Increases in tribal revenues to support Indian govern-

ment services, economic development, and self-

sufficiency

¢ Increases in employment (Indian and non-Indian)

* Reduction in public assistance expenditures

* Creation of induced spending and induced employment

¢ Increases in the number of out-of-state visitors which

stimulates visitor spending

¢« Increases in tax revenues

95a

¢ Decrease in crime rates.

Thess studies also prove that the Gami*g operations not

only benefit the Indian community but the surrounding

regions as well. As will be explained in several of the studies,

more often than not the casinos employ a higher percentage

of Non-Indian employees. An estimated 78% of casino

gaming employees are non-Indians.

The following studies have been reviewed and the key

findings will be highlighted in this report:

¢ The Economic Impact of Sycuan Gaming Center on

East San Diego County — prepared by McGladrey &

Pullen CPA’s and Consultants

¢ Economic Benefits of Tribal Gaming in Minnesota —

prepared by KPMG Peat Marwick

¢ The Economic and Fiscal Impact of American Indian

Gaming on the Government of the State of Wiscon-

sin — prepared by James Murray, Ph.D.

¢ The Economic and Fiscal Impact of Indian Reserva-

tion Gaming in New Mexico — prepared by Center for

Applied Research

¢ The Economic and Social Effects of Indian-Owned

Gaming Enterprises in Michigan — prepared by Uni-

versity Associates

* The Economic Impacts of Foxwoods High Stakes

Bingo & Casino on New London County and surround-

ing areas — prepared by Arthur Wright and Associates

Key Findings

The Economic Impact of the Sycuan Gaming Center on

East San Diego County

Although there has been a recession in San Diego

County, the Sycuan Gaming Center has experienced tre-

he iy Aa aes

data roe Tope 2

96a

mendous growth. It has impacted the local economy by

creating more than 2,100 jobs in 1993 and generated total

spending of nearly $70 Million.

The population of the Sycuan is only 100 people. The

tribe has operated a gaming operation since 1983 starting

with bingo, then adding card games, OTB and video pull tab

machines. 12 1990 a 67,000 square foot Las Vegas style

casino was built for $3.5 million and then expanded in 1992

for $500 thousand.

There have been positive benefits to the tribe such as no

reliance on public assistance for the last six years. The tribe

has improved the infrastructure and also invested in non-

gaming related ventures to gain long-term economic self-

sufficiency. Proceeds from the gaming center have funded

the following tribal operations:

¢ Medical and dental clinic for iribal members and all

employees including Non-Indians

¢ Pharmacy

¢ Day Care Center

¢ Chapel

¢ Ambulance Service

¢ Library

* Police department

* Fire Department

*« Automotive Shop

¢ Human Resources department

¢ Tribal administrative offices

Gaming revenues have continued to increase significantly.

Gaming revenues include revenves from bingo, pull tabs,

card games, off-track betting, ar i restaurant and conces-

sions. In 1990, the expansion of :%¢ facility allowed for the

inclusion of card games, which is the largest source of

97a

gaming revenues (53.3% of total revenues). Total gaming

revenues increased 28% from $34.0 million in 1992 to an

estimated $43.6 million in 1993.

The largest expenditures for the gaming operation are

operating expenses which totaled $22.1 million in 1993 and

the payroll and payroll taxes which totaled $9.7 million in

1993. Other capital expenditures related to the gaming

center totaled $2.2 million. Total expenditures in 1993 were

$34.0 million.

The revenues less the total expenditures totaled $5.4

million in 1992 and $9.6 million in 1993. These amounts are

referred to as “Proceeds” and IGRA requires that proceeds

be used for the general welfare of tribal members, promoting

economic development, funding tribal government and local

charitable donations.

The following table summarizes the tribes use of

proceeds:

Use of Proceeds 1992 1993

Tribal Government $ 651,000 $1,089,000

Education and Human Services 3,048,000 3,153,000

Per Capita and Direct Services 804,000 930,000

Capital expenses and investments 929,000 4,428,000

Total $5,432,000 $9,600,000

S——o__—__

According to the San Diego Business Journal, the Syct.

Band is the second largest employer in East San /‘:ego |

County with 851 employees in 1993. It is interesting to note

that 90% of those employed by the Gaming Center and

tribal operation are non-Indian.

The economic impact from the Sycuan Gaming Center

and Tribal Operations was $38.6 million for direct expendi-

tures and $31.3 million for induced expenditures resulting in

a total economic impact of $69.9 million.

iia ieiciaaieiaaneainiel

98a

Economic Benefits of Tribal Gaming in Minnesota

The state of Minnesota entered into video games of

chance compacts with 11 tribes between October 20, 1989

and the spring of 1991. The state also entered into blackjack

compacts with 11 tribes between May and August of 1991.

Tribal gaming has resulted in an estimated total of 37,575

jobs from both direct and induced employment. Of this total

9,975 persons are employed directly by the trib! gaming

facility. Indians and non-Indians benefit from the gaming

facility. Indians hold 27% of the jobs and non-Indians hold

73% of the new jobs. The tribal gaming employment was

compared to other employers and it ranked as one of the

largest employers in Minnesota. According to a st:dy con-

ducted by the Minnesota Planning Agency 20,000 indirect

employment jobs are being supported by tribal gaming and

7,600 could be supported by tourism expenditures.

The state has also reduced Public Assistance spending.

The number of Aid to Families with Dependent Children

(AFDC) recipients has decreased by 14% between 1987

and 1992 in 8 non-urban counties with tribal gaming

whereas the statewide number of recipients increased 17%

for the same period.

Gaming revenues increased 173% from 1991 to 1992

totaling $390 million. Video games comprised the largest

share (74.7%) of total revenues.

99a

The largest expenditures were payroll totaling $116.9

million and operations-related totaling $106 million. The

revenue less the operating expenses yielded available pro-

ceeds of $167 million. In accordance with IGRA the tribe

utilized proceeds as summarized below.

Use of Proceeds 1992

Direct services $39.5 million

Human services and education 4 million

Charitable contributions .8 million

General Gov. and trusts 13.4 million

Management fees 8.3 million

Capital expenditure enterprise 32 million

Capital expenditure infrastructure 6.5 million

Housing 17.3 million

Investments and unallocated 45.2 million

Total $167 million

===

The Economic Impact of American Indian Gaming on the

Government of the State of Wisconsin

There are currently 15 Class III gaming facilities owned

by American Indian tribes in the State of Wisconsin. This

study released in 1993 showed the dramatic benefits that

Indian Gaming has had on the state of Wisconsin. The

benefits to the state of Wisconsin from welfare savings, gas

taxes, i

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.