Angie Craig: “What I want to point out is that there is an established procedure in dealing with laws which impact Indian gaming. Mr.…”

“What I want to point out is that there is an established procedure in dealing with laws which impact Indian gaming. Mr. President, the Kyl bill ignores this procedure and changes IGRA without the input of the Indian Affairs Committee or the National Indian Gaming Regulatory Commission. The Kyl bill does this in a number of ways, including placing new restrictions on tribal gaming operations, overrides and nullifies existing State tribunal pacts, makes illegal some forms of Indian gaming determined by the courts to be authorized under IGRA. Those who would support the bill claim that it does not impact IGRA. I cannot agree with that argument. If it, in fact, sought no change in IGRA, why do they then oppose the amendment that would guarantee no change? Because that is exactly what my amendment does. The truth of the matter is that the bill severely limits authority granted IGRA. The Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. Let me repeat: The Craig amendment does not expand Indian gaming. And that would be argued by the Federal courts. The amendment would only protect a gaming enterprise if it were already legal under IGRA. The amendment would only protect a gaming enterprise that was already sanctioned by a State-tribal compact, the very kind of thing that this Congress set up in the law that created IGRA. The amendment would not allow for any form of new Indian gaming.”