Las Vegas Visitor Statistics

28,214,362 people visited Las Vegas in 1994.

78 percent of 1994 visitors have visited Las Vegas more than once. 1994 visitors

had visited Las Vegas an average of 8.8 times during the last 5 years.

The average visitor to Las Vegas stayed four days. 92 percent of Las Vegas visitors are over the age of 21.

60 percent of those visiting Las Vegas during 1994 said that vacation or pleasure was the main purpose of their trip. 92 percent of 1994 visitors gambled while in Las Vegas. On average, 1994 visitors spent five hours a day gambling. The average gambling budget for 1994 visitors to Las Vegas was $479.

88 percent of 1994 visitors to Las Vegas were "very satisfied" with their trip to Las Vegas and planned to return.

• 66 percent of those visiting Las Vegas in 1994 were married. 61 percent have some college education. 91 percent were either employed or retired. 4 percent were homemakers. 3 percent were students. The median age of those visiting Las Vegas in 1994 was 46. 54 percent had an annual income of $40,000 or more.

Source: 1994 Las Vegas Visitor Profile Study, Las Vegas Convention and Visitors
Authority

aga3:kw/agadata/lvvisit.doc

APPENDIX 6.-STATEMENT OF GAIASHKIBOS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

NW

1. Introduction.

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest, largest, and most representative Indian advocacy organization in the United States, comprised of some 190 Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages. The NCAI was begun in 1944 in response to federal policies of "termination" whereby the unique federal trust relationship was severed, and “assimilation” whereby Indian people were encouraged to blend into the larger culture. These policies were disastrous for Indian tribal governments and people who are just now beginning to recover the equilibrium lost in the 1940s and 1950s.

As NCAI is dedicated to ensuring the long-term survival and health of tribal governments, I respectfully submit this Statement on behalf of our member tribes concerning H.R. 497, “(a) bill to create the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission".

2. The Establishment of a New Federal Commission

At a time when this Congress is attempting to rein in big government, reduce federal outlays, and strip away the layers of stifling bureaucracy, Section 2 of H.R. 497 purports to create a new federal agency the "National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission". The Commission's primary duty is “to conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of gambling in the United States and existing Federal, State, and local policy and practices with respect to the legalization of prohibition of gambling activities and to formulate and propose such changes in those policies and practices as the Commission shall deem appropriate." (emphasis added). This legislation grants to the new Commission broad latitude in terms of both matters reviewable and its authority to propose and recommend changes in local and tribal gaming policies and practices.

2.A The Commission's Scope of Review

The Commission is mandated to review the economic impacts of gaming on the nation, the states, political subdivisions, and Indian tribes; the economic impact of gambling on "other businesses"; political contributions and influence of gambling businesses and promoters on the development of public policy regarding gambling; what relationship there is between gambling and crime; and a host of other issues relating to the impacts of gaming.

2

Any discussion of the significance of gaming dollars to tribes must first acknowledge the fact that federal appropriations available to Indian tribal governments to provide services and foster growth are rapidly dwindling. Because of the trust relationship and the obligations of the Federal government, appropriations to tribes are non-discretionary dollars. Despite the nondiscretionary nature of Indian programs, efforts to reduce federal budget deficits are resulting in massive funding reductions in Indian programs. As federal dollars become scarce, the need for services and material goods is increasing and Indian gaming, which is but one avenue of economic development for Indian tribes, is helping to meet the demands for capital, jobs, and development.

In Indian country, the economic impacts on tribes, surrounding communities, and other businesses have been positive and significant. For many Indian tribes and surrounding non-Indian communities, gaming activities are the only business and economic development initiatives that have generated substantial streams of revenue. There are, in addition, beneficial multiplier effects associated with Indian gaming which encourage and perpetuate secondary and tertiary economic activities on and near Indian reservations.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss the many benefits of Indian gaming. For example, in San Diego County alone, Indian tribal gaming facilities have been responsible for the creation of more than 1,500 new jobs with a payroll of more than $22 million dollars. The Sycuan Band, located in San Diego County, employs 800 people, 84% of whom are non-Indians. In the State of Minnesota, Indian gaming has grown to become the seventh largest employer in the entire state, and in the State of Connecticut, Indian gaming will generate more revenues to the state than its largest corporate taxpayer, which happens to be one of this nation's preeminent defense

contractors.

The impact of Indian gaming on other businesses is similarly positive and significant. A recent study of Indian gaming in the State of Wisconsin ' determined that the 15 Indian tribal casinos employ 4,500 people, 2000 of whom are non-Indian, and spend $62 million dollars** annually in purchases of goods and services supplied by surrounding businesses. According to the study, one-half of these 4,500 people were previously unemployed and 20% were welfare recipients. Other tribes have reported significant reductions in other social service delivery programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

In addition to these positive impacts, there are significant effects stemming from the increased purchasing power of tribal employees, Indian and non-Indian, who purchase food, housing, clothing, transportation, fuels, and a host of other necessities of life. Finally, the ripple effects of casino visitors spending millions of gaming-related tourist dollars cannot be underestimated. Indian reservations are starved for private capital, basic infrastructure, and activities to foster value-added activities and employment opportunities. Indian gaming helps to

1 Similar results were found in studies on Indian gaming in the States of Minnesota and Michigan; see "Speaking The Truth: Three Studies of The Positive Impact of Indian Tribal Gaming", by National Indian Gaming Association, 1993 edition.

3

meet these demands by generating revenues and fostering mutually beneficial relationships with other businesses such as grocers, hotels, service stations, food and beverage dealers, and suppliers of other goods. In short, the economic impacts from Indian gaming are substantial, positive, and are helping hundreds of thousands of Indians and non-Indians alike in meeting the basic demands of life. In the larger sense, Indian gaming has helped rein in the skyrocketing unemployment and reduce high levels of welfare dependence plaguing Indian reservation economies. By providing a ready source of revenue to Indian tribal governments, gaming dollars are used to rehabilitate dilapidated housing units; construct and maintain water and sanitation facilities; and to pay for police, fire, ambulance, and educational services to their members.

Section 4(a)(2(H) of the bill is couched in terms of “costs and benefits” leading the uninformed to believe that the regulation of Indian gaming is not cost-effective for either the tribes or the federal government. This is simply not true. As the real party in interest, Indian tribes have the most to gain by maintaining the integrity of their games, and therefore Indian tribes are engaged in intensive self-regulation of their gaming activities. At the federal level, the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC) monitors and regulates certain aspects of Indian gaming. The functions of the NIGC are paid for both by federal appropriations ($1 million in FY95 and a proposed $1 million for FY96), as well as substantial “fees" on tribal operations to fund the very commission that regulates Indian gaming.

As mandated by the IGRA, Indian tribes pay a statutorily mandated percentage of revenues from their class II gaming operations to finance the operations of the NIGC.2 Given the background check functions, and the large number of tribe-management company agreements it must review, the NIGC has performed well given its funding limitations. In addition, it should be remembered that the benefits provided by Indian gaming are done within a system regulated by tribes and the Federal government.

2.B. Regulation by States and Makeup of the Commission

In terms of the "scope" of the proposed Commission's mandate, most disturbing from the tribal perspective is Section 4(a)(2)(H) which requires the Commission to conduct “a review of the costs and effectiveness of State and Federal gambling regulatory policy, including whether Indian gaming should be regulated by States instead of the Federal government...”. (emphasis added). Realizing the complexities of our federal system, the Framers designed the Constitution so that the federal government is charged with certain fundamental obligations including "Indian affairs". Like national defense, supervision of the public lands, and protection of basic liberties, Indian affairs simply cannot be turned over to the states. Indian tribes are unique entities with which the federal government entered solemn and extant treaties, and by virtue of those agreements the U.S. has a special legal and political relationship with Indian tribal governments.

2 IGRA requires class II operations to be levied to carry out the functions of the National Indian Gaming Commission. IGRA provides for a graduated fee structure of between 0.5 percent and 2.5 percent on the first $1.5 million dollars in gross revenues; and a ceiling rate of not more than 5 percent on gross revenues in excess of $1.5 million dollars. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2717(a)(2)(A).

3

By virtue of the U.S. Constitution and the Indian Commerce Clause3 Indian affairs is an area of near-exclusive federal domain and cannot simply be returned to the states as are other federal programs and responsibilities. Since the 1987 Supreme Court decision in California v. Cabazon and Morongo Bands of Mission Indians, which formed the statutory basis for the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, it has been recognized that the regulation of Indian gaming is a matter for the federal government.

4

As a result of major concessions of tribal sovereignty as embodied in the 1988 IGRA, there is significant State involvement in the form of class III compact negotiation and completion. To increase state involvement any more than now exists would result in an unacceptable erosion of tribal sovereignty and autonomy and would seriously damage the tribes' ability to govern themselves. H.R. 497 calls for a nine-member panel to be appointed from "persons specially qualified by training and experience". The bill states that “one of these nine members “should be a Governor of a State". In addition, three members each are to be appointed by the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President, respectively. Presumably, the insertion of the set-aside for State Governors was made in large part to the fact that State gaming policy and practice could be reviewed by the Commission. We oppose this proposal regarding appointments because it does not provide for an appropriate degree of Indian tribal involvement.

3. Conclusion

Mr. Chairman, Indian gaming has brought unprecedented change to those tribes that for years were entirely dependent on the federal government. The success some tribal governments have achieved has not been matched by any other type of business venture. Understanding the reasons for H.R. 497, we nevertheless strongly object to the potential for greater state regulation of Indian gaming, and we strongly oppose non-involvement of Indian tribes in the make-up and appointment powers of the proposed Commission.

With proposed massive reductions in federal appropriations for Indian programs, tribes are not in the position of funding yet another layer of bureaucracy, and are certainly not in the position of paying an income tax on their gaming revenues as has been proposed by the House Ways and Means Committee. This proposed Commission will absorb precious federal dollars at a time when its existence is of questionable necessity. Numerous studies of the type contemplated by H.R. 497 have already been undertaken at the tribal and federal level regarding Indian gaming and they do not reveal a compelling need for the type of Commission proposed by H.R. 497. In light of this, we see no justifiable reason to expend federal and tribal resources to duplicate efforts already made.