2 News
The Grand Ronde Review
casta The future rides on state andtdBdfuirtnony
viffia ffMttaftfr miTOgia mQ3 mMmmmmsm
Ten years ago when Congress en
acted the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act (IGRA), tribal gaming was made
up of sporadic tribal involvement in
bingo and other relatively innocuous
games of chance. A decade later,
legislative interest in Indian gaming
has never been higher. Interest al
ways runs high when billions of dol
lars are involved, and gaming sup
porters and detractors are lining up
across the country, protecting and
defending their positions.
Local and federal lawmakers ex
press concern if not outright fear
that the industry is growing too fast
and too loose. Supporters of gaming
view this bureaucratic anxiety with a
skeptical eye, calling it a "backlash"
against long-overdue Indian success.
There is no denying that in recent
months officials have introduced or
spoken publicly about measures to
curb, control, or share in the
booming business of Indian gaming.
Consider these recent developments:
Earlier this year New York Gov.
George E. Pataki said his state de
serves a portion of any revenues re
alized from a casino Seneca Nation
leaders are considering opening on
their ancestral land. The governor
criticized the previous gubernatorial
administration for failing to cut that
kind of deal when the Oneida Nation
opened a similar casino.
Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., pro
posed measures that would redirect
federal funding earmarked for gam
ing tribes turning huge profits, sug
gesting that such funds might instead
be better put in the hands of the under-funded
Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA).
Whether these moves are motivated
by concern or bureaucratic resent
ment, it appears that the face of In
dian gaming is poised for change, if
not by legislation, then by modifica
tions from within the industry. For it
appears that, fiscally speaking, in
some ways Indian gaming may be a
victim of its own success.
"All of this is a backlash from Con
gress and its constituents," said Pe
ter Homer, president of the National
Indian Business Association. "They
feel Indians can't manage their own
government. They don't trust them
to manage themselves. There's a lot
of jealousy. They feel Indians are
getting too big for their britches."
Homer believes the gambling busi
ness is just that a business.
"These are Indians in business, tak
ing risks," he said. Government pro
posals for profit sharing among tribes
or agencies strikes him as the "silli
est idea I've ever heard of. You don't
penalize companies for having suc
cess. You don't ask IBM or Micro
soft to give money to their competi
tors. This is just punishing an Indian
tribe for making a profit."
Professor William Thompson, de
partment of public administration at
the University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
sees government intervention differ
ently. "We don't penalize companies
for turning a profit, but we also don't
allow monopolies to exist either. It's
a special privilege to have a casino
license. That privilege is a recogni
tion (by the authorities) that Indians
need economic growth."
The question of sustained economic
growth has everything to do with the
future of Indian casinos. Some tribes
have seen huge profits during the last
decade others have fared less well.
The monetary future of gaming
depends, like the real estate market,
on location, location, location.
What judicial power tribes do wield
changed dramatically in March 1996.
In a pivotal decision, the U.S. Su
preme Court ruled that Congress
when drafting IGRA had overex
tended its authority by permitting
tribes to sue states in pursuit of gam
ing compacts. It was a decision that,
in the words of Sen. Ben Nighthorse
Campbell, R-Colo., "turned the
good-faith negotiations process up
side down."
It was clear that in the future, tribal
relationships with their respective
states would play a pivotal role in
determining the fate of gaming.
Later that year, then-Arizona Gov.
Fife Symington took the Supreme
Court's decision to heart and an
nounced he would not enter into any
new compacts with the tribes in the
state, nor would he renew any exist
ing compacts when they expired.
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa In
dian Community responded by suc
cessfully ) working to put proposition
201 on Arizona's ballot that year.
Proposition 201 required the gover
nor to negotiate tribal compacts. That
measure was approved by almost
two-thirds of the state's voters.
Campbell's Indian Gaming Regu
latory Improvements Act of 1998 is
designed to soothe tensions between
states and tribes by introducing an
"alternative compact negotiation pro
cess" between the two parties.
The bill will also "prohibit the ac
quisition of off-reservation lands for
gaming activities unless the tribes and
the state agree to do so," Campbell
said.
In introducing the bill, Sen.
Campbell said, "Like all attempts at
compromise, few parties will be com
pletely satisfied. It will both please
and disappoint the states as well as
the tribes."
An aide who works with the Senate
Indian Affairs Committee described
Campbell's bill as being "in limbo."
Currently Campbell is soliciting re
sponses from tribal and state repre
sentatives. "At this point, the most controver
sial aspect seems to be its attempt to
limit the ability to turn non-Indian
property into gaming land," said the
aide. When asked about reaction to
Campbell's proposal for "minimum
government standards," she said:
"Gaming is under much higher scru
tiny than ever before. It's a much
more visible industry. Most tribes
seem to support some kind of mini
mum standards."
George Scovine, director of Indian
Gaming for the Bureau of Indian Af
fairs, had no comment on Campbell's
recommendations. He did say,
though, that the BIA is currently pro
posing its own changes to IGRA.
Those changes involve the Secretary
of the Interior being given authority
to negotiate compacts should states
decline to negotiate with tribes.
The future of that proposal is also
in doubt. "Our department is closely
watching all proposals involving
IGRA, but in the past those propos
als haven't gotten very far," Scovine
said. "And they will continue to go
that way as long as tribes and states
can't agree."
Reprinted in part from "American Indian Re
port," August 1998.
Grand Ronde Reservation lands grow
Tribal trust lands officially become part of reservation
On October 2 the U.S. Senate passed
a bill designating 191 acres of land pur
chased by the Grand Ronde Tribe and
held in trust by the U.S. government
to reservation status.
The bill also gives the Secretary of.
Interior authority to approve leases
on the Tribe's trust lands for up to 99
years.
The 191 acres include the location
of the Grand Meadows and pending
Elders housing developments, Grand
Ronde Gaming Commission office,
cemetery, old depot and remaining
tribal lands around Spirit Mountain
Casino.
Although regarded as a technical
amendment, the bill comes only a few
weeks after the 10-year anniversary
(September 9) marking the Tribe's re-
acquisition of 9,811 of the original
60,000 acres that once comprised the
Grand Ronde Reservation.
Since reservation lands then restored
to the Tribe are unsuitable for con
struction and dwelling, last month's
occasion marks the first time since be
fore the Tribe was terminated in 1954
that it has had official reservation lands
on which members could live.
The amendment was passed unani
mously thanks to the efforts of Sen.
Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Gor
don Smith (R-OR) who convinced the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs
to accept the bill as is, according to a
report from tribal lobbyists on Capi
tol Hill.
It is expected that the bill will soon
be signed into law by President
Clinton.