Restriction on Off-Reservation Indian Gaming Fails to Pass House
Gaming
Cape Cod Times
Paul Crocetti
Boston University News Service
September 14, 2006
WASHINGTON–A vote in the U.S. House of Representatives Wednesday failed to restrict Indian tribes from building off-reservation gambling facilities. As a result, in states where casinos are legal, Indian tribes with state approval can continue to acquire land outside their reservations for gaming purposes.
The House voted Wednesday, 247-171, to suspend the rules and pass the Restricting Indian Gaming to Homelands of Tribes Act, leaving it 43 votes shy of passage. Votes to suspend House rules require a two-thirds majority to pass.
The Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head opposed the bill, as did most tribes, according to Donald Widdiss, the tribal council chairman.
“It will have a long way to go if it ever wants to see the light of day again,” Widdiss said.
The Gay Head tribe has looked to build a casino in the past and might in the future, he said.
“It depends on whether the state allows Class III gaming,” Widdis said, referring to Foxwoods-style gambling, “and if they do, we are considering it. But they’re not at this point.”
U.S. Rep. William Delahunt (CQ), D-Mass., voted against the bill. According to Steven Broderick, Delahunt’s press secretary, the Congressman would have preferred a full and open debate on the bill rather than a vote to suspend the rules and pass it.
Rep. Richard Pombo, R-Calif., who co-sponsored the legislation with Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., expressed disappointment Wednesday that the bipartisan effort failed.
“We did not secure enough votes to pass the bill under House rules designed for non-controversial measures,” he said. “How this bill could be considered controversial – outside Indian gaming circles, of course – is beyond me.”
The practice that enables Indian tribes to set up casinos off-reservation, often near tourist areas, is “a threat to communities,” Pombo said.
According to Melissa Mazzella DeLaney, a spokeswoman for the House Resources Committee, there are no immediate plans to re-file the bill.
“It’s hard to say where it’s going to go,” she said. “There are so few days on the legislative calendar. Leadership gave us this chance to reform the act.”
She said she was unsure why so many voted against the bill when in committee it passed, 27-9.
####
