Another Voice / Indian casinos
Laws are purposely mangled to permit gambling
On June 25, a struggle took place in the House of Representatives involving casino gambling that is highly pertinent to Buffalo. Reps. John Dingell and John Conyers fought from opposing corners.
Dingell wants an Indian casino in Port Huron, but wanted to “legislatively” bypass Department of Interior review. Conyers argued that would be wrong. After vigorous debate, an overwhelming majority defeated the attempt, 121 to 298.
So how is this relevant to Buffalo? First, and very importantly, the 1990 Seneca Nation Settlement Act passed by voice vote in both the House and Senate in 1990. There was no dissent. Yet there was and is strong opposition to casino gambling in Congress; and there was and is strong opposition to bypassing Interior Department consideration.
The Michigan controversy illustrates that. The chief sponsor of the 1990 act stated repeatedly that no one ever contemplated casino gambling as “part of” any settlement. Even a “suspicion” of gambling would have prompted vigorous debate, and a recorded vote.
Second, the 1990 act was not a land claim. The words “land claim” were never in the title of the bill.
Third, the word “gambling” never came up in committee hearings or floor discussions. It was never contemplated, much less “legislatively intended.”
Fourth, the Senecas at that time overwhelmingly opposed gambling. It is ludicrous to suggest that casino gambling was “part of” any settlement.
To be sure, a select few did see an opportunity. A 1988 law permits certain narrow exceptions for gambling, i. e., if land is placed into trust as part of the settlement of a land claim.
So, this group brought a lawsuit in 1993 claiming title to Grand Island and a portion of Niagara Falls, hoping for a settlement permitting gambling. But the state wouldn’t go along, and in 2002, these Senecas lost the case.
They then concocted the argument that the 1990 act, dealing basically with Salamanca, permitted gambling in Niagara Falls and Buffalo. I considered that preposterous, but I didn’t know how influential lobbyists for then-Gov. George Pataki and the Senecas would be, and how closely the Bush administration would “cooperate.” If the interior secretary would do nothing, the 1988 law would deem it approved.
How could she do nothing? The 2006 congressional testimony of the inspector general of the Department of the Interior, Earl E. Devaney, might be instructive:
“Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior. . . . Numerous OIG reports . . . have chronicled . . . intricate deviations from statutory, regulatory and policy requirements to reach a predetermined end . . .” (emphasis added). This “non-decision decision” should be reconsidered, and ruled a pernicious deviation “from statutory, regulatory and policy requirements to reach a predetermined end.”
John J. LaFalce represented Western New York in Congress from 1975 to 2002.
