|
|
 | THE INDIAN GAMING ISSUE Monday, March 4, 1997 |
|---|
Pose your questions to Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-NY) and Tim Wapato, executive director of the National Indian Gaming Association.
NewsHour Links:
August 15, 1996:
A report on the outcry in California over video slot machines on Indian run casinos.
July 15, 1996:
Spencer Michaels reports on the explosive growth of gambling in local communities.
Outside Links:
Two pieces of legislation introduced into the 105th Congress by Rep. Solomon The Fair Indian Gaming act and the Indian Gaming Tax Reform act.
Indian Gaming: Profit, Prayer or Prophecy? A Web site that looks at the pros and cons of Indian gaming.
An overview of the history of Indian Gaming.
"The so-called Indian casinos are a joke. Their management is often about as Indian as I am... Why don't the Indian casinos making hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars help their own people?"
With this remark on February 2, 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney sparked a national debate about Indian gaming, a topic that has been simmering in communities across America.
Supporters of Indian gaming, under the umbrella of the National Indian Gaming Association, were quick to point out that Rooney had his facts wrong. Casinos, they say, have employed thousands who were once on welfare, have provided many more direct and indirect jobs in the states they are in, and have helped to build clinics, schools and day-care centers on Indian Reserves that once had little, if any, infrastructure.
Indian gaming began in earnest in the late 1980's after a series of court cases led to the right of Indians to set up gaming halls on their reserves free from control and taxation by local and state authorities. A framework of federal regulation was laid out in the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
In 1995, Indian casinos earned estimated revenues of $5 billion, with profits of $1 billion. The Foxwoods casino, run on the Mashentucket-Pequots reserve in Ledyard, Connecticut, is the biggest in casino in the country and has earnings of just under $1 billion a year.
Of the country's 557 Indian tribes, around 1/4 have casinos. Of those, 48 have earnings of over $10 million a year, the rest earn less. Casinos are by far the largest source of income for the country's 2.1 million Indians, who have the highest rates of unemployment, poverty and disease of any ethnic group in the country.
Problems have arisen over the ability of reserves to purchase land with casino earnings and place these lands into trust, which takes them off the local tax rolls. Rep. Jerry Solomon, an advocate of greater regulation and taxation of Indian casinos, had this to say in a 1996 speech.
"The local community is experiencing this loss of tax at the same time it must spend for greater services to meet the increased traffic and road problems, as well as the increased demand for emergency services. Also included in these revenue costs are the increasing number of depleted businesses. Indians are setting up non-gaming, untaxed businesses and are attracting customers who would otherwise spend their dollars on local businesses."
There have also been accusations of corruption and mob influences in the running of casinos. And complaints from established, non-Indian casinos that Indian casinos represent unfair competition.
Our forum asks: Should there be greater regulation of Indian gaming? What do Indian tribes owe to their neighboring communities when they open a casino? Does the government have the right to interfere in what is a way of escaping poverty for many reserves? What sort of middle ground can be achieved?
Tim Wapato, Executive Director of the National Indian Gaming Association and Rep. Jerry Solomon's (R-NY) answers to your questions are below.
Questions asked in this forum:
- What do Native Americans owe us?
- Should Indian casinos be under the same restraints as Commercial casinos?
- What can be done about gambling addiction?
- Why interfere with Indians now that they are finally helping themselves?
- What can be done to solve the land/tax issue that arises with Indian casinos?
A question from Frank Chambless of Heflin, Alabama:Last week I was in the Everglades of south Florida. While there I visited the Big Cypress Reservation and saw their gambling facilities in Hollywood. Their businesses have been very prosperous. They employ many Native and Non-Native people. The people out on the reservation there had nice housing, schools, medical facilities, wholesome entertainment (rodeo, music concerts, recreation-sports). Many of them had nice new cars. I was told that each tribal member receives a $2,000 monthly check from the profits of the Tribe. I think it is great!
Do France and Italy tax Monaco on its gambling profits? Should they?
Just how beholden should Native American peoples be to the United States Government? What do Native American peoples owe us, really?
The question we are arguing is just what level of autonomy, sovereignty are we willing to allow Native American people.
Rep. Solomon responds:
There is no doubt that many Indian casinos are generating a large amount of revenue, some of which is redistributed to members of the tribe that owns the casino.
My opposition to Indian casino gambling is the same as my opposition to casino gambling in general. It creates negative effects on families and communities, including increased alcoholism, drug abuse, crime and welfare dependency. It simply is wrong to tie the hands of state governments with respect to the scope of Indian gambling and still expect them to pay for additional law enforcement and welfare benefits that will result from this type of activity.
As for whether France and Italy tax Monaco on its gambling profits, the answer to that question is not relevant to this issue. Those nations have sovereign relationships. Tribes, notwithstanding their "sovereign" status, are subject to Congress' plenary power under the Constitution to regulate Indian Tribes, including their gambling activities. That is what my legislation would do. Tim Wapato responds:
Q: Do France and Italy tax Monaco on its gambling profits? A: No!
Q: Should they?
A: No! Monaco is a sovereign nation and controls its internal affairs including taxation and uses of revenue generated by gaming.
Q: How beholden should Indians be to the United States government? What do Native American peoples owe the U.S. really?
A : Indian governments entered into letgally binding, agreements with the U.S. government. These agreements are called treaties The Tribes gave up vast amounts of land and ceded title to the U.S. government. The U.S.government agreed to protect theTribes and provide for the health, education and welfare of the Tribes in perpetuity, FOREVER.
Tribes do not owe the U.S. - -- it is the other way around. Every treaty that was ever signed between a Tribe and the U.S. - over 800 treaties - has been broken by the United States.
Q - What level of sovereignty should we allow Native American Tribes?
A: Most people do not understand the nature of Indian Tribes. Indian Tribes are not an ethnic group. Indian Tribes are not a special interest group. Indian Tribes are sovereign governments. When the European governments came to this continent in the 1400's and 1500's, they found Indian Nations. All of the foreign powers signed treaties with the Tribes. Nations do not sign treaties with special interest groups - they only sign treaties with sovereigns. The U.S. govenunent did not give Indian Tribes sovereignty; Tribes always possessed sovereignty and still do.
A question from Joe Mathis of Waxhaw, N.C.:
It seems to me that Indian business which do not have the same governmental restraints upon them that U.S. businesses endure should be regarded as foreign and subject to the same controls deemed necessary to ensure they don't enjoy unfair advantage. Do you agree?
Rep. Solomon responds:
You are absolutely correct that Tribes should not enjoy unfair advantage over neighboring non-Tribal citizens. Likewise, non-Tribal citizens of a State should not enjoy unfair advantage over a neighboring Tribe.
My legislation, the Fair Indian Gaming Act (H.R. 334), would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 to level the playing field between States and Tribes in the area of casino gambling. At the present time, if a Tribe wants to conduct gambling and makes a formal request to the State, federal law requires the State to permit the same type of gambling as it allows its own citizens.
Problems arise over the scope of the gambling being allowed by the state. For instance, New York prohibits casino gambling in its state constitution. However, because it allows charitable games of chance on a limited basis (ie. twice a week), the state could not oppose a tribe's request to conduct the same games on permanent, 24-hour a day, seven day a week basis in a casino setting. That is wrong and my legislation would correct it. States should not be placed in the position of either eliminating all charitable games of chance or begin forced to open the door to casino gambling all across the board. Yet that is what the current law can lead to.
Tim Wapato responds:
No! Since this discussion is about Indian gaming - many people take up the mantle that Indian gaming should be taxed and regulated like commercial gaming. That type of an argument is a diversionary smoke screen. Indian gaming is governmental gaming. It is comparable to a state lottery. States use a lottery as a revenue raising devise. Indian Tribes use the revenue from Indian gaming to fund governmental infrastructure- building schools, medical clinics, roads, elder care, child care, college scholarships, etc. You do not hear anyone, particularly any politician suggesting that you tax a state lottery. Yet many people want to tax an Indian Tribe. By the way, every person that works at a Tribal casino, or any Tribal member who receives a per capita payment from proceeds of Indian gaming pays IRS income tax at the rate of whichever tax bracket they are in.
A question from Henry Irving of Bangor, ME:
Gambling is an addiction and has the same detrimental effects on families as alcohol and drug abuse. How do Indians propose that not having regulations similar to those that the rest of America are to the benefit of anyone? And how does the Congressman suggest his legislation will help to alleviate the ills that gambling, Indian or otherwise, brings?
Rep. Solomon responds:
I agree with you about the negative effects of casino gambling. My position is that such consequences are the same, regardless of whether a Tribe or non-Tribe is owning or operating the casino.
Although I oppose casino gambling of any kind, my legislation is actually neutral on the issue of casino gambling. But it does level the playing field between a State and a Tribe when they negotiate over the extent to which a Tribe will conduct gambling. My bill will stop a State from being coerced into allowing more gambling than it allows its own citizens. As I mentioned above, the State has to pick up the tab for increased crime and welfare dependency resulting from these casinos. It deserves to have a substantial say in this process.
Tim Wapato responds:
The Indian Tribes attempt to deal with the problem gamblers, the Tribes in Minnesota won a national award from the National Gamblers Anonymous organization. Tribes did not oppose the Wolf-Symington legislation to establish a National Gambling Impact Study & Policy Commission. We did offer nine amendments to make the study commission more objective. Congress agreed with and adopted eight of those amendments. That study did not come about because of Indian Gaming. It came about because of the expansion of gaming into many states by commercial gaming.
There is a common fallacy that Indian gaming is not regulated and that Indians oppose regulations. Indian gaming is the most highly regulated gaming in the U.S., if not the world. Some state goverments want to control Indian gaming - meaning to regulate it out of existence,. Regulating Indian gaming is a tri-governmentactivity. The Tribe is the primary regulator. The federal government has a trust responsibility to provide oversight to Indian gaming. States can negotiate whatever aspects of their regulations into a compact between the Tribe and the state.
A question from Joe Matheson of Chicago, IL:
Why does the Congressman see the need to interfere with what is finally a way to get Indians off of the public welfare stranglehold? Does Mr. Wapato think that there should be absolutely no further federal invovlement in Indian Gaming?
Rep. Solomon responds:
I personally oppose all casino gambling. However, my bill actually takes no position on the merits of gambling. It does level the playing field so that a state will not be coerced into allowing more gambling than it allows its own citizens. Nevertheless, let me be clear that my bill does NOT allow a state to restrict a Tribe to having LESS gambling than the state allows its own citizens.
I also point out that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate commerce among the States AND Indian Tribes.
Tim Wapato responds:
Mr. Matheson is correct Indian gaming revenues are being used to address problems that have existed on reservations since we have had reservations in the U.S. Indian Tribes are at the lowest end of any social or economic scale in the United States. The infant mortality is by far the worst anywhere. The average lifespan for the Indian male is 47 years. Unemployment rates average 55% on all reservations, reaching over 90% on some reservations. Indian gaming is providing revenue to get out of some of these problems. Indian gaming has created 180,000 direct jobs in gaming and 150,000 indirect jobs since 1992. These are jobs that never existed before. I listed in an earlier response the governmental infrastructure being funded by Tribes.
Tribes can be supportive of the refinement and development of federal minimum control standards. The key work is standards. We do oppose creating federal regulations and a massive bureaucracy to implement them. We support standards along the lines of the standards at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If a state or Tribe meets or exceeds these standards they are deemcd to be self regulating. We believe federal standards could be implemented and that if a Tribe meets or exceeds those standards that Tribes should be self-regulating.
The National Indian Gaming Commission should be funded more adequately and have the resources to certify Tribes and then continually monitor the implementation of the standards.
A question from Bob Jacobson of Portland, OR:
The fact that Indians are buying lands with Casino money and putting them into the Indian trust and thus off of local tax rolls seems to be a serious side effect of this issue. How do the guests suggest that this be best dealt with?
Rep. Solomon responds:
You raise an important issue: whether an Indian tribe should be allowed to place land in trust which has no historical relationship to the Tribe and is not adjacent to existing Tribal lands in trust. I strongly believe that state and local governments should have the final say in the decision-making process for a number of reasons, one of which is the adverse impact that placing lands in trust has on local property tax rolls.
The PBS NewsHour is Funded in part by: Additional Foundation and Corporate Sponsors
Program
Support
From:
Copyright © 1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
