government services and build for their future versus a few rich investors running the business for their own personal income.

Another example is down in Milwaukee at the Potawatomi Bingo Casino. They put millions of dollars into that economy there. I have personally toured the quadrants of the inner city where there is a strong need and where the Potawatomi Casino pumps millions of dollars into there and into other charities. In addition to all that, every holiday they put in over $700,000 to 16 programs. It is called "The Miracle on Canal Street." In addition to that, they send a regular lump sum payment to the Bad River and Red Cliff Indian communities who have pretty much a tourism industry in Northern Wisconsin.

I just wanted to highlight that example. Nationwide, our figure is somewhere between $68 million to $70 million that Indian tribes give to charities, Indian and non-Indian alike. That is our latest figure.

The CHAIRMAN. I would certainly encourage you to continue to pull together any statistics like that. I think it gives Indian tribes a clear defense against some of the accusations that I think are unfair accusations. I was not very happy with that Time Magazine article either. It was rather one-sided.

Mr. STEVENS. President Tex Hall, Chairman Ron Allen, Chairman Anthony Pico, and I personally went to the Boston Globe, sat with them, and tried to provide them with the best education we could. Business Weekly just wrote a very narrow article recently. The unfortunate part about that is that Time avoided us and avoided the truth. These people talked with us for 1 hour and still wrote story about isolated incidents and refused our references to give them the story.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any kind of a public relations plan, for lack of a better word, or a contract with anyone to try to get the truth out or put a better face on Indian gaming?

Mr. STEVENS. Absolutely. I was actually trying not to talk about Time Magazine today. I was just trying mostly to talk about that initiative. It is a national public relations initiative. It is cochaired by Mark Brown from Mohegan and Darren Marques from San Manuel. We have been in operation for 5 months. We currently have a plan that gets out there and tells the real story, a proactive story. We also do have a public relations director. When that Time article first hit, we papered the Hill with about everything we could get to tell people the true story.

In our legislative summit this winter, legislators like yourself and others came and were a recipient of that clarification. Again, the tribal leaders refused to operate that way. They told us that this is a public relations initiative that we are going through right now. We raised somewhere between $400,000 to $500,000 to do ads and different types of things like that, to tell the proactive true story about Indian gaming.

They have stepped up to the plate, but they do not want to step up in response to Time. They want to step up to enhance and talk about the good things that are happening throughout Indian country.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me shift the questions to your relationship with NIGC. You mentioned that some of the consultation comes after the fact rather than before.

Mr. STEVENS. It was strictly regarding the budget request.

The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say that you think that the budget request should be disseminated to tribes before?

Mr. STEVENS. Absolutely. That is the strong point we are trying to make. We want those budget increases to come to the tribe.

The CHAIRMAN. The budget requests are already a matter of record when they request them through this committee or through the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. STEVENS. The main thing is that they have to pay for it. That is the reason that I stand on that strong point that it has to come through the tribes.

Mr. VAN NORMAN. There was an unusual process last year. If you recall, the President came out with his appropriation request in January as normal. We relied on the Administration's request and talked to our member tribes about it. They supported the $2 million appropriation requested.

Then there was a delay in the passage of that bill from its normal passage in September up until January. In a 1-month period between the end of December and January, frankly, the Appropriations staff changed gears. There was no real public acknowledgment of that until the bill became available, which was only a couple of days prior to passage.

The CHAIRMAN. I have to tell you that last year was a really unusual year, as you probably know. It was the first time in 28 years that we did not finish our appropriations process. We had to do it the following year with some new members that were not even here when we framed up things the year before. You probably know that. We ended up passing a omnibus package of, I think, 10 of the 13 bills that we did get passed when we should have the year before.

Everything was a little unusual. Very frankly, when you put that much paperwork together, no one-no single staff or no Senator— knows everything that is in there. Some things go through that should not. It is as simple as that. We dropped the ball in getting the job done in the Senate, and in the House, too. Hopefully that will not happen again.

Mr. VAN NORMAN. We want to thank you because we thought we had a clear statement from the authorizing committee over to the appropriators. We hope that this year the authorizing committee dialog will be heated by the appropriators.

Mr. STEVENS. We are not asking for a rollback on this thing. We want to move forward and help get our jobs done. We respect NIGC's role in this. We are not asking for a rollback. We are just asking for future increases and consultations with the tribes.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Inouye and I are on both committees, as you probably know. I know he will do his best, and I will certainly will, too.

Let me ask about the consultation. Do you have some kind of a draft policy that you would like to give to us, or to the NIGC to start the discussion about consultation before the fact?

Mr. STEVENS. I think that we could provide it. I do not know that Phil would be excited about that.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you provide it to us and we will try to excite Phil. [Laughter.]

Mr. STEVENS. I think that we would love to do that. Again, with respect to Chairman Hogen, we would continue to assert that. If it would be more helpful in black and white, we would love to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. If you would at least provide it to us, I would appreciate that.

Mr. STEVENS. We will make sure we do that.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I have no further questions. If we do, I will send them to you in writing, if you would get back to us in writing. Other Senators may do the same.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you for appearing today.

With that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN MCCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

Mr. Chairman and Vice Chairman, thank you for scheduling today's hearing to evaluate the role and funding of the National Indian Gaming Commission [NIGC], the Federal agency responsible for oversight of Indian gaming. It is critically important to check-in and continue congressional oversight on issues associated with the regulation of Indian gaming.

Senator Inouye and I, as the original authors of the Indian gaming law envisioned that Indian gaming would grow exponentially, given the right political climate and economic opportunities. We instituted the National Indian Gaming Commission to be the official oversight agency, responsible for implementing and monitoring different regulatory aspects of the industry as well as enforcing against criminal activities.

More than 14 years later, Indian gaming is a $13-billion industry and growing fast. The largest casino in the world is a tribal casino and many others are fast becoming world class casinos. By no means am I critical of that success. Indian gaming has afforded economic opportunity and success where the Federal Government has failed to meet its responsibilities to aid tribal communities for such fundamental services such as education and health care.

Considering the steady growth, we also need to continually evaluate the Commission's ability to respond to that growth. It's been acknowledged in prior hearings before this committee that the NIGC has been limited in fully meeting its responsibilities by the lack of adequate resources to match the growth of the industry. The limitations on the agency have also been highlighted by several investigative reports, including those in recent Time Magazine profiles, which have characterized the National Indian Gaming Commission as "the impotent enforcer" with bare-bones resources and staff to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.

Those of us most familiar with Indian gaming and the Indian gaming law recognize the bias of those reports. However, there is an underlying message in such reports that should compel our response and encourage all of us to provide a more informed status of the Indian gaming industry.

The ability of the NIGC to fulfill its statutory role is very important, since the industry itself has changed dramatically since 1988. The NIGC is currently responsible for monitoring 300 gaming facilities with a current budget of $8 million and employing 77 staff. By way of comparison, the New Jersey Casino Control Commission spends $59 million and hires a staff of 720 to monitor 12 casinos in Atlantic City. This is an important point considering that Indian gaming is now believed to generate more revenue than Las Vegas and Atlantic City combined.

If we are to defend the integrity of Indian gaming then we must defend it by ensuring the strongest possible regulation and highest standards, equal to the regulation of non-Indian gaming. An immediate point of concern from the NIGC's testimony today is the fact that the NIGC has only four auditors on hand to deal with what the NIGC describes as "the only mechanism" to determine "with any certainty the extent to which specific operations are at risk of theft or loss or may be engag(25)

ing in practices that jeopardize the integrity of the games conducted." The NIGC will also report today on its limitations in preventing any major criminal elements or individuals from unduly profiting from Indian gaming.

Another point of discussion today is the funding for the Commission itself, which is 100 percent from fees assessed on gaming facilities. While the original Indian gaming law did set a limit of fees assessed on certain tribal facilities to support the operations of the NIGC, the Act has since been amended twice in recognition of the limitations facing the NIGC to carryout its responsibilities to match the growth of the industry. The latest change raises the agency's fee assessment ceiling to $12 million for fiscal year 2004, which according to the NIGC will provide significant help, but the agency anticipates that further resources will still be necessary for future years.

My friends in Indian country know that I am a strong supporter of Indian gaming, and of tribal self-governance to increase self-sufficiency for tribal communities. I don't think anyone here would question the benefit of gaming revenues to support tribal economies and services. The issue at hand is whether we are sufficiently supporting the agency or hampering it by imposing restrictive limitations.

The NIGC will testify today about the need to "modernize IGRA" to conform with the industry boom. I think there is merit to this discussion. I emphasize to the National Indian Gaming Association that the purpose of such discussion is not to compromise tribal regulation or sovereignty, but to strengthen it.

I look forward to additional hearings by this committee to consider other regulatory issues association with Indian gaming.