Post by Okwes on May 24, 2007 13:50:40 GMT -5
Tribe seeks repeal of provision
By John E. Mulligan And Katherine Gregg
Journal Staff Writers
PROVIDENCE — Nearly a decade after his first high-profile effort to free the Narragansett Indians from having to secure state and local voter approval before opening a gambling hall on their tribal land in Charlestown, U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy says he is ready to pick up where he left off.
After meeting with tribal leaders and their lawyers in Washington this week, Kennedy said he will seek a congressional hearing on “the fairness” to the tribe of the so-called Chafee amendment that, in effect, made the Narragansetts abide by the same state gambling-approval laws as any commercial gambling operator.
As of yesterday, an aide said, Kennedy had not yet broached the subject with U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall, the West Virginian who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources on which he sits.
But Kennedy, in an interview, said he hoped his committee would not only delve into the impact the amendment has had — and continues to have — on the Narragansetts’ sovereign-status and gambling ambitions, but also find a way to help the oft-thwarted tribe.
In November, more than 63 percent of voters statewide and locally defeated a proposal to change the state Constitution to allow a Harrah’s-financed Narragansett Indian casino on non-tribal land in West Warwick. After a series of failed earlier efforts in West Greenwich and along the Providence waterfront, the tribe is now talking about building a slot parlor on its own land on the same scale as Newport Grand.
Specifically, the tribe seeks repeal of a 1996 provision inserted in federal Indian gambling law by Congress — at the behest of the late Rhode Island Sen. John H. Chafee — that has the effect of requiring the Narragansetts to win both state and local voter approval before they can build a casino, or any other kind of gambling hall, on their Charlestown land.
Other federally recognized tribes need no such approval to pursue their own gambling ventures in states that already permit certain types of gambling, which the Narragansetts cite as evidence they have been unfairly singled out.
But Chafee insisted he was merely closing the inadvertent “loophole” that the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created in the state’s 1978 land-settlement agreement with the tribe. And the Narragansetts are not the only tribe excluded from the IGRA.
A 1998 federal court decision said: “the Narragansetts are not the only tribe excluded from IGRA and subjected instead to state gaming law. The Catawba Indians, the Passamoquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation and the Wampanoag tribal Council of Gay Head have also regained lands through legislative settlements in which they accepted general state jurisdiction over tribal lands.”
Yesterday, the Narragansetts’ chief sachem, Matthew Thomas, said the tribe hopes Kennedy can convince his colleagues to view its plight as “an issue of fairness, not gaming.” He went from one congressional office to another on Tuesday with the tribe’s local lawyer, John Killoy, and its Washington lawyers, from Anderson & Tuell.
But this is the second time around for Kennedy, whose first challenge will be winning over the other members of Rhode Island’s all-Democrat delegation in Washington.
In May 1998, he was given a rare opportunity as a freshman in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s House to not only preside over a hearing into the same issues, but also to summon Republican Chafee, Sen. Jack Reed, then-Rep. Robert Weygand and then-Gov. Lincoln Almond to defend the exclusion of the tribe from IGRA’s privileges. While the hearing was described at the time as good theater, it was indecisive in political terms.
Yesterday, Reed said while he reiterated to tribal members his support for tribal economic development, he remains flatly opposed to repealing the Chafee amendment.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. James Langevin said he is willing to hear what the tribe has to say, and does not object in principle to the notion of hearings on the Chafee amendment. But his own position hasn’t changed, she said: “Right now, he does not support repealing it, nor has the tribe asked him to do that at this point.”
New U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s position is less clear. Without a specific bill in front of him, spokeswoman Alex Swartsel said Whitehouse could not speculate on his position, but he opposes the expansion of gambling and that would “guide” whatever position he ultimately takes.
As for Kennedy, spokeswoman Robin Costello said he, too, personally opposes the expansion of gambling in Rhode Island and voted against the Narragansetts’ proposed West Warwick casino in November, but “he feels the Chafee amendment impedes the sovereign rights of the Narragansetts.”
As recently as 2004, Kennedy was quoted as saying that any further efforts to change the Chafee amendment would be futile as long as the rest of the delegation supports the status quo. Asked yesterday what has changed since then, Costello said: “This is a new day with a new Congress and there is no reason not to take another look at the issue.”
In a brief interview yesterday, Kennedy said he remains convinced that the amendment was “a bad precedent” in the broader context of federal Indian law because of its ramifications for the sovereign status of tribes. But he said he “made it clear” to the Narragansetts that a narrow repeal of the Rhode Island-related law may not have the “legs” to pass unless it becomes a higher priority for national organizations representing the interests of Native Americans.
jmulligan@belo-dc.com
By John E. Mulligan And Katherine Gregg
Journal Staff Writers
PROVIDENCE — Nearly a decade after his first high-profile effort to free the Narragansett Indians from having to secure state and local voter approval before opening a gambling hall on their tribal land in Charlestown, U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy says he is ready to pick up where he left off.
After meeting with tribal leaders and their lawyers in Washington this week, Kennedy said he will seek a congressional hearing on “the fairness” to the tribe of the so-called Chafee amendment that, in effect, made the Narragansetts abide by the same state gambling-approval laws as any commercial gambling operator.
As of yesterday, an aide said, Kennedy had not yet broached the subject with U.S. Rep. Nick J. Rahall, the West Virginian who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources on which he sits.
But Kennedy, in an interview, said he hoped his committee would not only delve into the impact the amendment has had — and continues to have — on the Narragansetts’ sovereign-status and gambling ambitions, but also find a way to help the oft-thwarted tribe.
In November, more than 63 percent of voters statewide and locally defeated a proposal to change the state Constitution to allow a Harrah’s-financed Narragansett Indian casino on non-tribal land in West Warwick. After a series of failed earlier efforts in West Greenwich and along the Providence waterfront, the tribe is now talking about building a slot parlor on its own land on the same scale as Newport Grand.
Specifically, the tribe seeks repeal of a 1996 provision inserted in federal Indian gambling law by Congress — at the behest of the late Rhode Island Sen. John H. Chafee — that has the effect of requiring the Narragansetts to win both state and local voter approval before they can build a casino, or any other kind of gambling hall, on their Charlestown land.
Other federally recognized tribes need no such approval to pursue their own gambling ventures in states that already permit certain types of gambling, which the Narragansetts cite as evidence they have been unfairly singled out.
But Chafee insisted he was merely closing the inadvertent “loophole” that the passage of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act created in the state’s 1978 land-settlement agreement with the tribe. And the Narragansetts are not the only tribe excluded from the IGRA.
A 1998 federal court decision said: “the Narragansetts are not the only tribe excluded from IGRA and subjected instead to state gaming law. The Catawba Indians, the Passamoquoddy Tribe and Penobscot Nation and the Wampanoag tribal Council of Gay Head have also regained lands through legislative settlements in which they accepted general state jurisdiction over tribal lands.”
Yesterday, the Narragansetts’ chief sachem, Matthew Thomas, said the tribe hopes Kennedy can convince his colleagues to view its plight as “an issue of fairness, not gaming.” He went from one congressional office to another on Tuesday with the tribe’s local lawyer, John Killoy, and its Washington lawyers, from Anderson & Tuell.
But this is the second time around for Kennedy, whose first challenge will be winning over the other members of Rhode Island’s all-Democrat delegation in Washington.
In May 1998, he was given a rare opportunity as a freshman in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s House to not only preside over a hearing into the same issues, but also to summon Republican Chafee, Sen. Jack Reed, then-Rep. Robert Weygand and then-Gov. Lincoln Almond to defend the exclusion of the tribe from IGRA’s privileges. While the hearing was described at the time as good theater, it was indecisive in political terms.
Yesterday, Reed said while he reiterated to tribal members his support for tribal economic development, he remains flatly opposed to repealing the Chafee amendment.
A spokeswoman for U.S. Rep. James Langevin said he is willing to hear what the tribe has to say, and does not object in principle to the notion of hearings on the Chafee amendment. But his own position hasn’t changed, she said: “Right now, he does not support repealing it, nor has the tribe asked him to do that at this point.”
New U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s position is less clear. Without a specific bill in front of him, spokeswoman Alex Swartsel said Whitehouse could not speculate on his position, but he opposes the expansion of gambling and that would “guide” whatever position he ultimately takes.
As for Kennedy, spokeswoman Robin Costello said he, too, personally opposes the expansion of gambling in Rhode Island and voted against the Narragansetts’ proposed West Warwick casino in November, but “he feels the Chafee amendment impedes the sovereign rights of the Narragansetts.”
As recently as 2004, Kennedy was quoted as saying that any further efforts to change the Chafee amendment would be futile as long as the rest of the delegation supports the status quo. Asked yesterday what has changed since then, Costello said: “This is a new day with a new Congress and there is no reason not to take another look at the issue.”
In a brief interview yesterday, Kennedy said he remains convinced that the amendment was “a bad precedent” in the broader context of federal Indian law because of its ramifications for the sovereign status of tribes. But he said he “made it clear” to the Narragansetts that a narrow repeal of the Rhode Island-related law may not have the “legs” to pass unless it becomes a higher priority for national organizations representing the interests of Native Americans.
jmulligan@belo-dc.com