This is about legalizing Predatory Gambling by removing local control.
Federally recognized Tribes receive taxpayer-funded subsidies with no oversight, some is clearly misspent and fails to appropriately aid tribal members. Both Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun have continued to receive taxpayers' largess, even when Tribal Casinos were immensely profitable. Was it reasonable to subsidize Tribes that pay each adult member + $100,000 tax-free per year?
Massachusetts currently has 2
federally recognized Tribes, with other Tribes awaiting approval.
Any Carcieri Fix would remove state and local
control and it would seem that much work is needed to convince the Massachusetts delegation that this is not an appropriate solution.
Recently, during a meeting with Congressman Kennedy, he indicated his support for a Carcieri
Fix.
This outdated article offers the positions of some --
The issue has split the Democrats who are in charge of both the House
and the Senate, including those in the Massachusetts delegation. Sen. John
Kerry and Reps. Stephen Lynch of South Boston, Michael Capuano of Somerville,
John Olver of Amherst, and Bill Delahunt of Quincy, who is retiring, favor the
change. Delahunt’s district, which includes the South Shore and Cape Cod and the
Islands, is the home base of both of the tribes.
[As we know, Delahunt is currently lobbyist for the Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribe.]
Proponents like Lynch say it’s only fair to treat all Indian tribes the
same. The court decision, he says, was a “slap in the face” to American Indians,
threatening “tribal sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and
self-determination.”
But Rep. Barney Frank of Newton, whose district would be home to both of the proposed Indian casinos in Fall River, opposes the so-called Carcieri fix because it would potentially allow tribes to open gambling facilities on trust land even if local officials opposed them. He insists that decisions on gambling should be made at the state and local level, not by the federal government in cooperation with the tribes. He nevertheless supports the Massachusetts tribes’ efforts to acquire reservation land in Fall River for a casino because the local community strongly supports the effort.
But Rep. Barney Frank of Newton, whose district would be home to both of the proposed Indian casinos in Fall River, opposes the so-called Carcieri fix because it would potentially allow tribes to open gambling facilities on trust land even if local officials opposed them. He insists that decisions on gambling should be made at the state and local level, not by the federal government in cooperation with the tribes. He nevertheless supports the Massachusetts tribes’ efforts to acquire reservation land in Fall River for a casino because the local community strongly supports the effort.
Please contact Ed Markey, as well as your Congressman to oppose this legislation.
....includes language which would overrule
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Carcieri vs. Salazar, and permit newly
recognized Indian Tribes to take land-in-trust, thereby removing it from state
and local control.
If this bill receives Congressional approval, it will
drastically affect communities across the United States. Urge the members of
your congressional delegation to take whatever action is required to remove this
pending bill. #666.
REMOVE THIS BILL FROM THE house resource committee now
#666. Sponsored by Ed Markey from Massachusetts!
Markey--
Call 202-225-2836
Fax 202-224-0092
30 states (*including RI) are opposed to a Carcieri
fix.
17 states wrote an amicus brief supporting the case,
They are:
Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah.
17 states’ attorneys general wrote a letter supporting
the Supreme Court after the Carcieri opinion was released.
The 11 additional states that support the decision
are:
Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri,
Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania.
Markey's bill could help Mashpee casino plan
U.S. Senate hopeful Edward Markey shakes hands with
supporters outside the Statehouse in Boston on Monday.
TAUNTON —
As the Massachusetts Gaming Commission continues to evaluate whether to open southeastern Massachusetts to commercial casino applicants, a piece of federal legislation could be the latest card on the table.
Congressman Edward Markey, D-Mass., has sponsored a bill — H.R. 666 — that would eliminate questions surrounding the federal government’s ability to take land in trust for American Indian tribes such as the Mashpee Wampanoag, who are working to build a casino on land in East Taunton.
“This legislation has been the priority for Indian tribes since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2009,” Markey said in a statement his office provided to the Taunton Daily Gazette. “As the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee that has responsibility for Native American issues, I’ve supported legislation to correct the flawed ruling, which held that the Secretary of the Interior may only take land into trust for Indian tribes under federal jurisdiction as of 1934.”
The Mashpee, who didn’t receive federal recognition until 2007, currently have no reservation land, but hope to establish an initial reservation through a land-in-trust application that’s pending with the Department of the Interior. The tribe cannot open a tribal casino without possessing sovereign land.
In the 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the language contained in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 means that the federal government cannot take land in trust for tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction at the time of the act.
“Tribes, like (the) Mashpee that were federally recognized well after 1934, are therefore significantly impacted by the decision and efforts to establish their reservation and create a homeland for their citizens are jeopardized,” said Markey, who is running in the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. “I co-sponsored legislation in the last congress and have reintroduced it with my colleagues in the beginning of this congress.”
The Mashpee have argued that they were under federal jurisdiction long before 1934, even though they weren’t formally recognized.
“While we are confident that the Department of the Interior has the legal authority to take land into trust on our behalf, a clean Carcieri fix would help clear up the confusion caused by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision and would spur economic development across Indian Country,” Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell said in a statement.
Others, however, have questioned the tribe’s ability to establish a reservation.
Under the 2011 state law that legalized casino gambling, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission can only solicit applications for a commercial casino in the southeastern region of the state if it determines the Mashpee are unlikely to meet the requirements to open a tribal casino under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Government official have said the intent of that provision was to ensure that there won’t be more than three casinos statewide.
Congressman Edward Markey, D-Mass., has sponsored a bill — H.R. 666 — that would eliminate questions surrounding the federal government’s ability to take land in trust for American Indian tribes such as the Mashpee Wampanoag, who are working to build a casino on land in East Taunton.
“This legislation has been the priority for Indian tribes since the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2009,” Markey said in a statement his office provided to the Taunton Daily Gazette. “As the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee that has responsibility for Native American issues, I’ve supported legislation to correct the flawed ruling, which held that the Secretary of the Interior may only take land into trust for Indian tribes under federal jurisdiction as of 1934.”
The Mashpee, who didn’t receive federal recognition until 2007, currently have no reservation land, but hope to establish an initial reservation through a land-in-trust application that’s pending with the Department of the Interior. The tribe cannot open a tribal casino without possessing sovereign land.
In the 2009 Carcieri v. Salazar decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the language contained in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 means that the federal government cannot take land in trust for tribes that were not under federal jurisdiction at the time of the act.
“Tribes, like (the) Mashpee that were federally recognized well after 1934, are therefore significantly impacted by the decision and efforts to establish their reservation and create a homeland for their citizens are jeopardized,” said Markey, who is running in the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by John Kerry. “I co-sponsored legislation in the last congress and have reintroduced it with my colleagues in the beginning of this congress.”
The Mashpee have argued that they were under federal jurisdiction long before 1934, even though they weren’t formally recognized.
“While we are confident that the Department of the Interior has the legal authority to take land into trust on our behalf, a clean Carcieri fix would help clear up the confusion caused by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision and would spur economic development across Indian Country,” Mashpee Wampanoag Tribal Chairman Cedric Cromwell said in a statement.
Others, however, have questioned the tribe’s ability to establish a reservation.
Under the 2011 state law that legalized casino gambling, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission can only solicit applications for a commercial casino in the southeastern region of the state if it determines the Mashpee are unlikely to meet the requirements to open a tribal casino under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. Government official have said the intent of that provision was to ensure that there won’t be more than three casinos statewide.
The Massachusetts law authorizes no more than one commercial casino in each of three regions of the state, but southeastern Massachusetts is the only region that’s home to a federally recognized American Indian tribe. Under federal law, any eligible American Indian tribe can open a casino on its own sovereign land in a state in which casino gambling is legal.
The Gaming Commission has discussed whether to open southeastern Massachusetts to commercial casino applicants, but decided to delay a decision. The commission, however, is poised to revisit the discussion at a March 21 meeting at Bristol Community College in Fall River.
H.R. 666 isn’t the first legislative attempt to amend the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 to “fix” the Carcieri decision. In 2011, former Rep. Dale Kildee, D-Mich., who has since retired, filed a virtually identical bill, which Markey co-sponsored. Markey has since succeeded Kildee as ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Kildee’s bill was filed approximately seven months before Massachusetts approved expanded gambling, and more than a year before Taunton passed a local referendum supporting the Mashpee Wampanoag tribe’s casino plan.
Markey’s bill was introduced Feb. 13, then sent to the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs on Feb. 22.
“The people of Massachusetts have rendered their verdict on gaming,” Markey said. “It is coming to our state. In light of that fact, I have supported the state developing a gaming compact with the Mashpee Wampanoag as a way to support revitalizing its tribal culture, providing fundamental health, housing and other government services to its people, and encouraging economic independence.”
Read more: http://www.tauntongazette.com/news/x766878440/Markeys-bill-could-help-Mashpee-casino-plan#ixzz2N31vO4k5
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment