In the spring of 2000 Chair Greg Sarris sought restoration of his tribe’s Federal rights through an Act of Congress with the help of Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma). During the introduction of her bill Ms. Woolsey testified that “a unique aspect of H.R. 946 is that it specifically contains a clause that restricts gaming, gaming on land that is taken into trust for the tribe.” Ms. Woolsey further testified: “[The Tribe’s] sovereign decision—and I repeat, sovereign decision—to choose other means of economic vitality is out of respect for preserving the current character of the North Bay, and a commitment to our community that their quest for restoration is not to establish gaming,” (House of Representatives Committee on Resources Oversight Hearing, CR, 5/16/00, p.52, 1060995).
In his testimony before Congress, Mr. Sarris said: “As a result of Proposition 1A in California, one of the provisions or stipulations is that tribes cannot establish gaming on newly acquired trust land. So if we were to establish or find a larger tract of land [other than the one acre in Graton, California set aside by the Restoration Act] where we could have gaming, we couldn't have it,” (CR, 5/16/00, p.61 1060995).
Because the Tribe agreed to restoration on a “restored” acre of land with a gaming restriction, Ms. Woolsey designed her legislation to speed up the land to trust process by stating that, upon application, the Secretary of the Interior “shall” take the Tribe’s land into trust.
When Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced identical legislation in the Senate (S. 2633) she echoed Ms. Woolsey’s comments: “This bill is unique in that it contains a clause whereby the tribe permanently waives any right to casino-style gambling on their land,” (CR, 5/25/00, F4463). When the Graton Rancheria Restoration Act came to the Senate floor for a vote Ms. Boxer said: “As passed in the House of Representatives, this bill included language that waived the tribe's gaming rights. I supported that language, as did the Graton Rancheria and the local community. However, it was clear that the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian Affairs would not support the language. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs have offered an amendment that removes the no-gaming clause. In his statement accompanying the amendment, Senator Inouye asserts that the no-gaming clause is unnecessary because the Graton Rancheria have no intention of conducting gaming,” (CR, 12/11/00, S11759).
Sometime between the winter of 2000 and the spring of 2003, the Tribe negotiated a contract with Station Casinos to help them build and manage gaming operations on newly acquired land. The Tribe’s legal right to gaming is not in question or dispute. On the other hand their ability to purchase and have land taken into trust for that purpose without the usual and customary review by the Secretary of the Interior is of great concern to the hundreds and thousands of people who live in the surrounding urban area.
Two years ago Senator the Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed legislation that would stop this casino dead in its tracks. She said: “The changes we are seeking today are extremely modest. We are not reversing any restoration of the tribe. We are not infringing on Native American sovereignty. We are not even blocking the casino proposal. We are only seeking to give the State and the local community a voice in the process. They were promised the Tribe would not open a casino. That promise was broken, so the least we can do is ensure a normal review will take place,” (CR, 6/26/03, S8732).
Please contact Senator Feinstein and ask her to resubmit her legislation.
