# Amicus Curiae Brief — Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. Idaho > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_1666%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1995 - **Citation:** 516 U.S. 916 ## 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 i TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............. II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ...............- ITI. pict) a errr oer renee A. THE NINTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION B. 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........ ii 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 ES 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) iV 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 Vv 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 13 15 13 12 16 vi 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 I. 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. 2 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. 3 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). 5 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 | 6 (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 8 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”). 9 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. 10 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...”). 11 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- 12 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. 13 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. 14 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. 15 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. 16 $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. 17 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”). 18 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”). 19 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). 20 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 ae . ate 7 ip 7 - = oe ad = 7 ~~ i> rer n _ = "eit CC ae 7 pee a ee i. he é a _ ; (“a a freee Zw. 2 : be = _ - Hy ia a 7 a 7 = y 7 : Re ; - "S450 on es em! a . 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 : ; “— la Appendix 1 $5 Pe ae 2a 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 = ; 3a Appendix 2 ler 4a 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 REGISTER BY THE INDIAN GAMING MANAGEMENT STAFF, 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. Sa 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 6a TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) E 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 Ta 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 4 8a 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 9a 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 ............. 2 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. 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 the most fertile, the landscape the most beautiful, 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 ... 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 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 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 Copyright (c) 1995, Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 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 ON 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- f 68a gation has resulted creating a majo [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386002_1666%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.