Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be here, and I appreciate the time. I had a rather long and probably very boring speech drawn out, and I have decided not to read this speech after having heard so much this morning. It was politically correct, it was something that was going to get me in no trouble whatsoever, but I just don't feel it is appropriate to go through it. I think that it is obvious from everything you have heard today that organized crime is rampant, is rampant -- I don't mean a little bit -- is rampant on the Indian reservations. People know it; people talk about it. I watched the FBI discussing the fact that they had virtually no agents checking, and I just wondered to myself, I wonder what J. Edgar Hoover would have said about this. What is happening on the Indian reservations is known by the Indians to a large extent. I don't believe anything is being done about it. And, to be honest with you, I think if you knew some of the characters that you are dealing with, I think they would be afraid to do anything about it. In Atlantic City and in Las Vegas we have the FBI, many, many folks from the FBI, we have our own people, we have the U.S. attorneys, we have sheriffs, we have marshals, we have everything watching every move. As Congressman Torricelli said, they really know me better than I know myself, everybody, from the Casino Control Commission all the way up or down. It is really an incredible situation that I have to go through in terms of checks. Every check I sign, every document I sign is scrutinized by, not one, not two, but in many cases three, four, and five different groups of people, and in the end I am not saying that things can't be done wrong, I am not saying that things can't happen, but people are going to get caught; they are absolutely going to get caught. I have witnessed so many different things, and I can't tell you. We have an industry in Atlantic City that has contributed $2.5 billion to the Casino Revenue Fund. That is a fund set up for senior citizens and the disabled. Two things can happen, and this is big money. This is, 9.25 percent of every dollar gets sent to the senior citizens and to the disabled in New Jersey and beyond, and beyond in terms of groups of people. If this continues as a threat, it is my opinion that it will blow, it will blow sky high, it will be the biggest scandal ever or one of the biggest scandals since Al Capone in terms of organized crime, and it is going to destroy an industry that is a legitimate industry, an industry that is watched carefully by everybody. This will be a scandal. Congressman Miller, I believe, will be very embarrassed by it, I believe a lot of you folks that are standing there, I believe honestly knowing that what you say is perhaps not as correct as you would like to make it sound. I believe that there is going to be a lot of embarrassed and a lot of red faces. But to sit here and listen as people are saying that there is no organized crime, that there is no money laundering, that there is no anything, and that an Indian chief is going to tell Joey Killer to please get off his reservation is almost unbelievable to me. I listen about sovereign nation, the great sovereign nation, and yet $30 billion to all of the various programs was contributed to the sovereign nation for education, for welfare, for this, for that. I listened as to sovereign nation, and yet the sovereign nation and the people of the sovereign nation have the right to vote in our country. I listen as to sovereign nation, all of the medical, all of the other treaties. I want to know, can Indians sign treaties with foreign nations? Can they go and sign a treaty with Germany? The answer is no. How is it a sovereign nation? It is only a sovereign nation in that Indians don't have to pay tax, and what you have -- what you have is, you have a very interesting dichotomy. We are paying $2.5 billion worth of tax. The Indians don't have to pay tax. Nobody is more for the Indians than Donald Trump. And you ask about competing. I love to compete. Nobody likes -- and I think many of you folks up there know for a fact that I love to compete. But I like to compete on an equal footing. I am competing and paying hundreds of millions of dollars in tax. My so-called -- as you would call them -- opponent -- and they are not an opponent -- but my opponent is competing and paying no tax. It is not a fair situation. It is not fair to the States. If, in fact, Indian gaming were allowed in northern New Jersey, the Fund for Senior Citizens would be totally destroyed, the fund for medical care and all of the other uses that this tax money is paid for would be totally destroyed, and I think that is a real big problem. And one other thing I might add. We talk about Indians like gaming is going to be the salvation. You have a group of Indians in Connecticut. I have heard 300, I have heard 400. It is a casino that is far and away the most profitable in the world because, again, they don't pay tax. Why don't they distribute some of the funds to all of the other Indians throughout the United States that don't have a location of Connecticut right next to New York City and right next to Boston? Why is it that the Indians -- we talk about these 300 Indians which, by the way, was rather recently formed -- why don't they make their contributions to all of the Indians? You have probably a profit on that, I would estimate, of $400 or $500 million. This goes to a total of about 300 to 400 Indians. Why don't we make contributions? Why doesn't this money get taxed, and why doesn't this money be distributed throughout the United States to Indians who locationally can't have a reservation where you would have a casino because the casino is too far away from the population? So I listened to what has gone on today, and truly I am amazed, and I am disappointed. I am disappointed as a citizen. When I have to sit here and listen to people saying that everything is just peachy-dory, it is not, folks. It is going to blow. It is just a question of time, and when it blows you are going to have a lot of very embarrassed faces sitting right where you folks are sitting right now. Thank you very much. [Begin Written Statement] Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the privilege of appearing before you today on this important issue. Thank you. Bob, for that warm introduction, and thank you for being here with me today. Your presence clearly indicates the importance of this matter to the people of New Jersey. I'm Donald Trump. Tm from New York where I develop, restore and create new properties and hotels. As Bob Torricelli noted, I also operate three casinos in Atlantic City under license from the State of New Jersey and that is why I am here today. Those casinos have stockholders and bondholders other than myself. As Chairman of the Board of these casinos, I represem their interests as weU. Much has been said in recent weeks about the big casino interests -- people like Donald Trump taking on America's native people. Trump and all the moneyed, muscle crowd attacking minorities. That isn't the case at all. In a sense, this has little to do with the Indians. Neither I nor my colleagues in the industry oppose the right of our first countrymen to seek economic determination and to secure their futures. As you know, many people in our industry are helping Indian tribes accomplish that goaL I am not here to quarrel with Indians. But I and others do have a quarrel with the federal government And when it comes time for a single citizen to stand up to the power and resources of Washington, all of us, including Donald Trump, are just members of John Q. Public. A little guy against the biggies. But America is a great country and even little guys, in this case even Donald Trump, have some rights. And states also have some rights in our constitutional system. We believe that in this case the rights of Donald Trump), the residents of New Jersey and the state itself are quite synonymous. As stated, I operate three casinos in Atlantic City. Actually, although a lot of people seem to think I know little about the business, I am the largest individual casino operator in the world. I say that modestly as you would expect However, in New Jersey, I and my colleagues don't merely operate casinos for our own fun and profit We are economic partners with the state. The first 9.25 percent of every dollar we take in goes to New Jersey -- off the top -- off our gross, not our net Eight percent of that goes to support the Casino Revenue Fund (CRF). This is a state program we fund which supports seniors and the disabled. It allows seniors to buy prescription drugs for $5.00, offsets their property taxes, helps reduce their electricity bills and provides other services like home health care. It offers our seniors and disabled both security and dignity. In 1992 New Jersey casinos provided $255 million to this fund. Since 1978 when Atlantic City's first casino opened, our industry has provided S2ii billion to the CRF. The next 1.25 percent of gross casino revenue goes to a state agency, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority (CRDA). We are the sole funding source of that organization. Last year we provided $40 million to the CRDA which invests these funds in public projects throughout New Jersey. Through 2009, it is estimated the CRDA will invest $654 million in Atlantic City, $413 million in southern New Jersey and $297 million in northern New Jersey. This money has and will continue to build housing, day care centers, senior citizen complexes and shopping centers in all of the state's urban areas. It's a lot of money, and it's for worthwhile causes. Some 75,000 New Jerseyans and their families are working because of our business; more than 43,000 directly in Atlantic City. We employ well over half of the city's entire work force. In 1992 alone we paid more than a billion dollars in wages and benefits to our people. More than $5 billion of investment, that's right $5 billion of private capital has made Atlantic City the economic base of the entire southern half of New Jersey. We represent over 4 percent of the state budget. We have accomplished all this under the most restrictive regulatory standards in the country. We are the most highly regulated business in any capacity in any venue. We pay the state over $60 million annually for our own regulation. That's correct -- we pay to regulate ourselves although state regulation is separate and apart from us and beyond reproach. As I said, our regulation is stiff. Each of my businesses is relicensed on a biannual basis. As of now, I must personally requalify each year. All key employees must do so. This is no easy process. Every activity and transaction are checked by the State Police. Some eighty pages of documentation; associations, personal and business checks; family background; and resources. It is totally pervasive. Actually, I am told that some of the owners of sports franchises in our country would not qualify for licensure in New Jersey casino industry. I can state without fear that we are solid corporate citizens operating a clean and honest entertainment business. Both we and New Jersey are proud of this record and rightfully so. Do you wonder, therefore, why we are so deeply concerned, even paranoid, that Indian tribe operations are not similarly regulated. Do you know what would happen to our reputations, our businesses if organized crime gained a foothold in any of the Indian operations. I am not suggesting that organized crime has done to although there have been numerous articles in the press that this has happened. It is the mere possibility that scares us. A scandal in any Indian casino operation would reflect on us, rub off on our industry. Our honesty, our integrity, our reputations would be compromised at once. It is an old story -- guilt by association. Years of work down the drain. We know that Indian tribes want clean and honest operations. However, we also know that people involved in advising some of the tribes, those operating and funding certain of their operations, are not subject to the strict licensing and qualifying regulations in place in New Jersey and other states. Yes, we are concerned, very concerned. The federal government has unleashed a process without regard to the economic or social consequences to the stau in which the activity takes place. However, I am not in law enforcement so I will let the law enforcement people discuss these matters. I am here to talk about what could happen in New Jersey if this process were applied there. I would like to trace for you what would happen to us, our employees and their families, our seniors and disabled if the federal government is unilaterally determined to recognize an Indian tribe in northern New Jersey near New York Qty. Please note I used the word would; not what could happen. First of all, an Indian casino operation in northern New Jersey would be the economic death knell to Atlantic City. Much of our market, which we and the state, our economic partner, have worked hard to create and protect, would disappear. No one will ride two hours in traffic to do the same thing that they could do in fifteen minutes or a half hour. We would lose jobs -- a lot of them because casinos would be forced to close in a dwindling market. New Jersey's public investment in a new convention center, in airport development would be seriously compromised. Millions spent on new infrastructure and highway development would have been wasted. Atlantic City, even today, is a state resource and treasure which would be immediately undermined. Let's forget Donald Trump and the casino industry for a moment. What about New Jersey citizens. Certainly the millions for seniors and the disabled and reinvestment would decrease quite measurably. The money will not be replaced by an Indian casino. What about the state? Would New Jersey be able to assure itself that its public policy of strict regulation would be maintained? Not to the extent that it now controls the regulation of gaming in Atlantic City. Under existing laws, no state has prerogative over Indian gaming. Therefore, the state would be powerless to carry out regulatory policy over these operations. It is quite a dichotomy. New Jersey, which has prided itself as the state with the strictest form of casino regulation, could be forced to accept lesser standards for Indian tribes operating within its state. Such is the nature of State-Indian compact negotiations where states are forced to accept less than optimum regulatory measures out of fear that they will be sued by Indian tribes for not negotiating in "good faith.""" And what about workers. Did you know, for example, this week at the AFL/CIO meeting in San Francisco that some of our largest unions, the Service Workers, the Seafarers, the Operating Engineers and the Restaurant and Hotel Workers joined to form the Riverboat and Indian Gaming Service Trade Council? The purpose of the council is clear-cut: to protect workers. Do you know why? Because federal laws, like the Taft-Hartley, like the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board do not apply. They also cease to exist at the tribal land doorstep. At present, union workers even in states like New Jersey, would have no federally or state protected rights or the ability to organize in casinos operated on tribal lands. The unions hope to do something about this. They hope to gain the right to recognition, the right to organize if they so choose. Quite frankly, I hope they have better luck than we have had so far. So gentlemen, the issue is really not Donald Trump and the moneyed casino interests against various Indian tribes. The issue is whether our government in recognizing the legitimate rights of our native Americans will simultaneously assure that the rights of our state's own citizens, our workers, our seniors and, yes, even Donald Trump, are not bargained away or stomped upon in the process. That is the reason that myself and others are supporting Bob Torricelli's legislation and also why I filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior. I'm a citizen, and I believe it is my right to protect myself and my companies when the government refuses to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Trump, let me start out by exercising the prerogative of the chair in asking the first question. You mentioned the words "rampant organized crime infiltration on Indian gaming.""" Yes, sir. Have you presented this evidence to the FBI or to this committee? Do you have documentation of that? Well what I have is, I have many, many instances of events one after another -- organized crime figures, killings, deaths, laundering of money. I mean I could read them to you. Frankly, this would have been much more interesting to read than my own testimony. That is why I decided not to read my testimony. Wisconsin, White Earth tribe, all the Apache Tribe -- all instances one afl:er another. I have more instances here. You folks know that. I really believe you know that, and I could give you any documentation I have. Now, this is without having people watching. This is with listening to an FBI person saying that he has got no men -- no men, zero -- assigned to the reservation. At the Taj Mahal, I spent more money on my security and my security systems than most Indians spend in building their entire casino, and I will tell you, without that kind of security equipment and that surveillance equipment and the numbers of people, you cannot police it. But what you really also need is, you need government help. When the bad guys come in, when the tough guys come in, you have got to have somebody behind you. There is nobody behind these people. There is nobody there. There is nobody there to help, and when the tough guys go up and they say what they want, I truly don't believe -- I truly do not believe, and I don't believe you believe, that anybody is going to do anything about it. They are going to get everything they want. Well, Mr. Trump, I don't agree with that. Let me just say, we want your evidence. Now you have detailed that in your opening statement. We want to investigate this. This committee is not trying to cover anything up. We are interested in this issue. You have basically stated that the problem seems to be that the FBI doesn't have any people, or is that correct? I think it is far beyond that. I think that people have got paper bags over their faces and nobody's looking. Everybody, it seems to me, from even just a common sense standpoint, knows what is going on. Everybody knows what is going on. I can tell you this. In New Jersey you have what is called a black list, or a list of people that we are not allowed to do business with. These people were a constant source of irritation. I can supply the list of names if you would like the list of names. But it was a large list of names, and these were not very good people, and some of them were plenty rough. These people were a constant irritation, a constant problem. We weren't supposed to, but they were always trying to get in, trying to be down there, trying to do whatever they do, and it was a constant source. One of my executives told me the other day, "The only good thing about the Indian reservation is that we don't see these people any more Mr. Chairman? Mr. Torricelli. May I address your question? I was a young lawyer in our governor's office in New Jersey when we legalized casino gaming, and I think that experience will help answer your question. We were extraordinarily naive. We passed good laws to keep organized crime out of the casinos, and I am proud of what we did. A year hadn't gone by when they were monopolizing vending machines, and then laundry operations. You will never find the presence of organized crime without an intense effort. It is said there are none so blind as those who will not see. I didn't come here to embarrass the FBI today in my questioning. It was simply to point out that this will take a concerted effort. Mr. Trump may, by chance, come upon a name, as I have in these 22 instances, from the popular media, but I will assure you, if the popular media can find 22 States with organized crime involvement in a cursory look, a dedicated effort by the FBI is going to find something more substantial. I first came to this issue in an interesting way. I heard constituents of mine were raising money to create a management company in South Dakota to run an Indian bingo hall. I knew who they were, and I knew they were connected, and I got curious with the issue. That case isn't here, never been written about, nobody even knows about it. But this will not come from citizens rushing to the FBI, it will come because we have a concerted effort to establish laws, to regulate, and then to fine. I agree with my colleague. Let me ask my last question to Mr. Trump. Yes, sir. Did you submit this list to the FBI at any time? This was a list that was given to me by lawyers of various things that are currently going on and investigations and, by the way, convictions, many convictions on the list. I am not a law enforcement officer. I am not supposed to be going around checking Indian reservations. That is what you have the FBI for, and they are very capable, the most capable. But that is not my job. My job is to come here and tell you that from a standard of the largest casino operator in the world, which I am, I will tell you that there is no way the Indian gaming is going to be controlled and not be totally taken advantage and, in my opinion, totally taken over in almost every instance, totally taken over, by the mob. There is no way that the Indians are going to protect themselves from the mob. There is no way. I think most of you people sitting up there honestly believe that. I don't know that that is going to affect your judgment, but I believe that you honestly believe that. From a common sense standpoint, from a practical standpoint, there is no way the Indians are going to protect themselves from the mob. But we have no evidence that the FBI has checked any of the 22 instances out, You can't have evidence when the FBI doesn't have one man assigned to Indian gaming. How can you have evidence? That is exactly the point. You need armies of people, armies of people to check. Every check that they have written, you have got to check those checks. You have got to see who is supplying the meat, who is supplying the potatoes, who is supplying the potato chips. You have got to check every supplier going into that Indian reservation. The checking is a joke. The checking is a joke, and you have got to do something because this will be the biggest crime problem in this country's history, in my opinion. Let me just conclude by making a formal request to you, Mr. Trump, that you provide this committee with all the available data, documentation, that you and my colleague have discussed today. It would be an honor. Thank you. The gentleman from Wyoming. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just some brief questions, and if you have brief answers, that could be nice. Mr. Torricelli, I am pleased that you are as interested in the States' role. That is not always the case here in the Congress. Many of the compacts have included agreements on taxes, on regulation. Why didn't New Jersey enter into one of those? Well, in fact, New Jersey has not yet been sued. My guess is, we are going to have a problem in New Jersey if the Ramapough Indians are able to establish themselves as a legitimate tribe. They will go to court, and, under the current state of Federal law, have a very good chance of succeeding, in which case New Jersey will have an unregulated casino, untaxed, to compete with our other 18 casinos -- 12 casinos. So you don't have any tribes that qualify under the law now? No, but unfortunately we are getting very close in what, in my judgment, is an aberration. We do not actually have any legitimate Indian tribes in New Jersey, in my judgment. Mr. Trump, you have not concealed your concern about competition with your investments, and I understand that. Would you be satisfied if the State regulated these other casinos? Well, I think that it is a very sad thing for the States. I can tell you that I believe it is 49 out of 50 governors are totally against what has taken place. I know that for a fact Governor Cuomo was forced to sign a pact that he totally didn't want to sign. The communities are up in arms in upstate New York, totally up in arms, and it has just gotten out of control. You see, I have a very big psychological problem here. I really don't know if it is possible to protect all of the people from all of these reservations. You have too many sources in terms of organized crime, you have just too many places, and so we can say, well, we will put 500 FBI agents on each reservation. But from a practical standpoint you can't do that. So with all of these reservations opening up, and literally opening up on a daily basis, it seems to me, I don't know if it is physically possible, physically possible, for law enforcement to any longer protect. Before, you had Las Vegas and you had Atlantic City, and I used to hear stories that there were more agents assigned to Las Vegas and Atlantic City than to any other major city in the United States. Now I don't know if that is correct or not, but I believe it was very correct. In fact, it was even a substantial amount more. I don't believe that you have enough people when you start getting into this many reservations. The money is too much, and it is there, and it is too easy. It is too easy to skim if you don't have the right law enforcement. It is too easy to skim if you don't have the right procedures. It is too easy to launder money if you don't have the right procedures and the right law enforcement. So I think you folks have a real problem. I'll be honest. I think you have a real problem. You created a monster. When you were in Las Vegas and when you were in Atlantic City, you had two places, and you can have 500 agents in each place, and you can do your number. But when you start having 100 and 150 locations all over the place, I think you have created yourself a real mess. So you have basically opposed to gambling outside of Atlantic City and Las Vegas? I am opposed to gambling when it can't be policed, and I don't believe the Indian reservations can be policed, there's too many of them, and especially when people claim sovereignty when, in fact, there is nothing sovereign. It is only sovereign in that they don't pay taxes. Someone indicated -- it wasn't you, obviously -- that casinos were very concerned about their image; if it became known, as you say it is generally known, that organized crime is there, they wouldn't patronize them. Wouldn't that be the case? Why are you concerned? Well, I am very concerned about the Indians' image in terms of gaming because when it blows -- and, as I said before, it will blow -- that is going to taint the entire industry, including Atlantic City and including Las Vegas. When it is learned about the laundering and all of the skimming and all of the cheating and everything else that can go on unabated at the Indian reservations, people aren't going to say that is just Indian reservations, they are going to say that is Atlantic City, that is Las Vegas, despite the fact that Trump has hundreds and hundreds of people in each casino policing and making sure everything is legit, they are not going to say that. They are going to say that gaming is a dirty business, look what happened at this particular casino. So when it blows, it is going to be a huge story. There is no doubt about the fact it is going to blow. It is just a question of time. But that is going to taint the whole industry, including the legitimate industry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. The chair recognizes the gentleman from Hawaii. Mr. Trump, you said you don't have any problem with competition. That is absolutely correct, sir. There have been suggestions by the Internal Revenue Service and other governmental agencies' representatives this morning that, with some modification of the 1988 gaming laws, that regulation -- administrative oversight could be put into place. Now do I understand you to say that if that is the case, then you are perfectly willing to compete? I can get other representatives of the Internal Revenue, I believe, to say the exact opposite. I can get representatives of the FBI, I believe, to say the exact opposite. That is not my question. I do not believe that you can correct this situation. I do not believe Why do you not believe that? I do not believe that by just Does that have something to do with Indians? No. It has something to do with organized crime. Organized crime can get the Indians but not to you? No. I don't believe that organized crime can stay with us for a very long period; they will be caught. I do not believe they can be caught on an Indian reservation. I am not saying that we can't have individual transactions go wrong, but they will be caught. We have every check and balance. I am talking beyond law enforcement. We have every check and balance. But do you know what is nice about us? We can say, "Hey Why are the Indians incapable of doing that? If you look at their security systems, if you look at what they have installed in their casinos Try answering my question. If you look -- I am not saying anything Try answering my question. I am answering your question very nicely, sir. No, you are not. You are avoiding answering the question. I mean I don't think you want to hear the real answer. That is the problem. If you look The real answer is, you don't believe that if the same regulations with respect to the IRS, the same kind of Banking Security Act, the same kind of vigilance is put forward on Indian reservations and with respect to gambling and gaming where Indian tribes are concerned, your contention is, they will not be able to exercise the same vigilance that takes place in Atlantic City at your casinos or in Nevada. My contention is that there are too many places, and if they are going to go under the cry of sovereignty where they don't have the same powers -- where this Government doesn't have the same police powers over them, I say that there is absolutely no way that you are going to keep the mob out of the Indian reservations, and therefore Let's move to the question of sovereignty. And therefore that cannot be met. Let's move to the question of sovereignty then. You indicate that they don't pay taxes. I didn't indicate they don't pay taxes. I said they are not paying taxes on casinos, and they are not paying taxes on That is because the profits from it are to go to the reservations. Oh really? What about the $400 million profit Yes, the profits by law. What about the $400 million profit that they get, the 300 Indians? If you would -- Mr. Trump, if you would get less rhetorical and more back to the facts, I think we could get somewhere with this testimony. The profits go back to the reservation, go back for expenditures on behalf of Indians. Therefore, a logical person -- you are the one who has brought up the question of, it stands to reason, and we have to use common sense -- it is common sense that it is in the interests of Indian tribes to see that the games are run honestly, because the more money that comes into the tribe, the more that can be spent on the reservation on behalf of Indian children, on behalf of elderly people, the same people that you have expressed an interest in. Respectfully, sir, I really don't believe you understand, and if you do, then we have a bigger problem. What we have is, when the tough guys, the bad guys, walk on to that reservation, I really don't believe that an Indian leader will be able to tell that gentleman to get the hell off. Like you can, Like I can. You know why? Because I have a lot of backup. I have the United States Government, I have FBI, I have U.S. attorneys, I have all of these people as my backup. They don't have the backup. They want to be sovereign. Have you read the gaming law? Yes, I have read the gaming law. Then you know perfectly well that the tribes have at their ability to come in, the Department of the Interior, the gaming commissions, the States themselves under the compact regulations. What you are sa3ang is Have they ever done it? Is that they will not be able to -- they certainly won't be able to do it if they don't get the cooperation of the States or of the Federal Government, and what we are here to see happens is that Indian tribes that have had their rights violated in every single instance with every single treaty, at least as far as this Member is concerned and I think this committee is concerned and Members of this Congress are concerned, is not going to happen again. If you want competition, and you say you do, I think you are going to be able to get it, and they will come under the same kind of competition, under the same kind of regulations and vigilance as you are calling for. Sir, I think you are kidding yourself, respectfully, and I would just like to add, you have in Connecticut a tribe that is going to make, I think, $500 million profit -- profit -- this year. I believe that tribe has 300 members, maybe it has 400, but it has a very small number of members. I would like to know, when you say they go back and they give the money to themselves and they reinvest, do you think it is appropriate that the 300 people who happen to have lucked out in a sense by having a reservation between Manhattan and Boston -- do you think it is appropriate that that money be spent on those 300 people, or do you think maybe, now maybe, that money should be spread for all Indians all over the Nation, many of which don't have the luck of being next to Boston or New York City? It is probably at least as appropriate as all the money that was taken in all the leveraged buyouts and the mergers and all the other kind of activity that took place Mr. Trump. Right, and put a lot of people to work. Among the two or 300 people in New York City over the last decade and a half. And put a lot of people to work, sir. So do the casinos. Mr. Abercrombie, may I respond to your points? Certainly. I think that as you seek answers to your own questions. I beg your pardon? I am sorry. As you seek answers in your mind to your own questions, I think there are several things you should keep in mind. First, we have the reality of an inspector general's report which cites not the theory but fact that Indians themselves are being cheated by management companies and sometimes their own leadership to the tune of millions of dollars. Second, the principal problem of keeping organized crime off these reservations isn't only one of law enforcement agencies finding them, but in many of these instances it isn't even against the law. There is nothing, per se, against the law for an Indian tribe to go to a company to manage its casinos which has organized crime figures in it; no law is violated, no regulation. Third, on the question of the compacts, your point would be well taken on the question of the State compacts if everybody had a State compact and those State compacts all provided for what you cited. A third of the reservations have no compacts. Many of the remainder, as in the State of New York, as Mr. Trump cited, reached compacts under the pressure of Federal courts, they did not want to do so, and all of them do not provide for the provisions that you cited. Therefore, the kind of agreements that you would hope would be in place, on money laundering, on background checks simply, tragically, do not exist. Thank you, Mr. Torricelli. I think that is the reason that we are holding the hearings. I can assure you that this Member is paying close attention to what you are suggesting, is paying close attention to the suggestions from the IRS and the other law enforcement individuals that have appeared before us, and as far as I am concerned, I think if we can address those problems, then maybe many of the contentions now being made will be taken care of. Finally, let me say for the record that I think that while the passion involved in this discussion to this point is understandable, I think it is a disservice, at a minimum, to the Indian tribes which have come under the gaming law as passed in 1988 to indicate that they would be any less interested in keeping organized crime out, any less capable of making that kind of commitment, and that it is a vestige of a patronizing attitude, not from you, Mr. Torricelli, but a vestige of a patronizing attitude on the part of the general public should they accept Mr, Trump's contention that they are incapable of dealing with this situation, of presumably even wanting to deal with this situation. That I do not think will succeed with this committee, and as far as that is concerned, Mr. Trump I never said that, sir, and I think you know I never said that. If you want to pursue that line of reasoning, if you want to pursue that line of argument with the public, I can guarantee you that it is not going to succeed in this Congress. I don't think, Mr. Abercrombie, that anybody believes the Indian tribes do not want to keep organized crime off the reservations. They have a greater incentive to keep them off the reservations than any of us have. We understand that. I think it is Mr. Trump's testimony that, given the use of force and intimidation, it is very difficult that, even if known, but largely the problem is that it is not known. I spoke of the insidious ways that organized crime tried to work its way into Atlantic City. It took an extraordinary effort to expose it. I think it is our combined belief that that is just very hard to do without the resources. Finally, Mr. Abercrombie, I want to note to you that in what I think is the only bill before the committee dealing generally with the problem of corruption in Indian gaming, my legislation calls completely for equity. I do not eliminate opportunities for Indians, only put all citizens on the same basis with the same regulatory responsibilities and rights, no special advantages, but certainly no discrimination. I would not be a part of discrimination against anyone, and I would invite you to review my legislation. I think you will see it is fair from that perspective. As I indicated, in conclusion, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Torricelli, I am paying close attention to your legislation and will fully take it into account, I can assure you. Thank you. The chair recognizes the Minority Member from California, and I would ask that the gentleman from Hawaii chair briefly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Torricelli, as you know, I am from California. We are near another gambling area that is even larger than Atlantic City, Las Vegas. There are lots of people who would like to own a casino in Southern California. I believe 50 cents out of every gambling dollar that goes to Las Vegas, I have been told, come out of Southern California or California. So there is a lot of pressure in California to put Class 3 gaming. At the present time in California we only have Class 1 and Class 2 gaming. As I understand it, the National Indian Gaming Commission can only regulate Class 2 gaming in California, yet in San Diego we have reservations involved in what anyone would define as Class 3 gaming. I also understand that no regulation of any kind is taking place on the revenue that is being generated out of that Class 3 gaming. The sourcing for the slot machines, the revenue that is generated from those machine, it is not under the purview of the National Indian Gaming Commission to regulate Class 3 gaming because Class 3 gaming is not allowed in California. So we have a significant problem. In California also, near my district, in Palm Springs, the Caliente Indians have entered into an agreement with Caesar's would to build an 80,000-square-foot casino in downtown Palm Springs. There are other major casino operators who are now actively looking around Southern California to get involved in casinos in Southern California believing that they can get into Class 3 gaming. I am hopeful, because I have talked to the district attorney, and I know our chairman has, and to the governor of the State of California, who is very concerned about Class 3 gaming coming to California, and we want to stop that, and that is one of the reasons that I am supportive of your legislation. But do you have any comment on that? Why isn't the Federal Government, the FBI, the Justice Department, stopping Class 3 gaming in California if, in fact, it is not allowed? I think largely, Mr. Calvert, in defense of the FBI, they haven't been given the mandate or even the authority. It was never the intention of this Congress, in my judgment, it certainly was not the intention of this Member, in an attempt in the Indian Gaming Act to restore equity to Native Americans, to allow them to have the special advantage of operated casinos outside the purview of the law, but indeed that is largely what has happened. This is something almost unique in American economic history. We created an industry which now we must return to regulate, rather than at its inception devising a regulatory scheme. Whether or not we can do it, I do not know, but it is largely, I think, out of control. The biggest problem in California, I think, we have 94-plus Federally-recognized tribes in the State of California, more than any other State in the Nation by a wide, wide margin. I have listened to the testimony on enforcement. If, in fact. Class 3 gaming to California, which some argue may happen, how are we going to regulate Class 3 gaming in the State of California with 94 Federally-recognized tribes spread throughout the State of California from urban areas to rural areas, with the limited manpower of law enforcement that we have today? We have a crime bill that is up; we are arguing over dollars to fund that. How are we going to fund regulating 94 Federally-recognized tribes? And, in fact, could that even occur? Mr. Calvert, the fact is, you are not. The resources would be so vast, the manpower so enormous, it probably is not possible. I think that is part of the testimony that was previously given. In Atlantic City and Las Vegas, we had the advantage of defined geographic areas and a limited number of participants. We are now, today, discussing 125 Indian gaming establishments. We could well in the next century have a thousand, based on the number of tribes and the applications. The kind of control we have seen in the past simply will not exist in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Miller. George Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my 19 years on this committee, I don't know when I have heard more irresponsible testimony than I just heard from this panel. You have cast upon the Indian nations of this country a blanket indictment that organized crime is rampant on their reservations. You have suggested that the corollary to that is that where there are compacts somehow State governments are party to that without their knowledge, in spite of the FBI testimony that this is not a significant problem. Mr. Trump, in one sentence you say, "They are the most capable of agencies I just find it incredible. This hearing is held for the purposes of recognizing that Indian gaming does present an opportunity to organized crime, to members of the tribe who have larceny in their heart, and to people who do business with them who want to take advantage of them however, and everybody recognizes that. So to come here and to suggest that you have some additional knowledge of the extent of organized crime beyond what the FBI, the IRS, the Treasury, and others have suggested, and then to suggest the reason you have that is because you know this -- you don't know this; you suspect this perhaps, you don't know this, because it is just -- you know, it is just not there; it is just not there. The list of cases that you hold up, a substantial portion, because I can't tell because they come from newspaper reports, are previous to this law when many of these activities were illegal in and of themselves, they were being challenged in court -- 1985, 1984, 1981. You tell us that somebody had somebody run their gaming operation on the Barona Rancheria but he couldn't get a license from the Nevada Gaming. We don't know why. We don't know why he was disqualified in Nevada or whether that is grounds for disqualification. It may be. I am not presenting the evidence, you are presenting the evidence. But you are suggesting that each an every one of these cases indicate organized crime, that they indicate a lack of sophistication. In fact, many of these cases were brought because the Indian tribes themselves went to law enforcement agencies. They discovered they were being duped, you know, and to equate them -- to equate them now with an industry in New Jersey or Nevada, you know, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in the month -- what did you take in September, $200 and some million in New Jersey? We are all aware of this. Mr. Trump, you are quite wrong. They have every right to go to the FBI, the U.S. attorney, the Treasury Department. We have Federal trust relationships which give them direct access. They didn't in these cases, sir. You don't know that. Well, they are cases, they are convictions. You can go and get the case number. The Rincon case was brought by the tribe, one faction of the tribe that said, "We are being ripped off by another faction of the tribe We have got many cases. Sir, we have got many cases in here. I don't think you have seen them. I am sure you do. There are many cases in your industry where you didn't go, law enforcement came through the door before you went through their door. But are we going to have a blanket indictment of all casino owners? As a politician, you know, I am kind of sensitive to the word "all I certainly never said that, and I certainly don't appreciate the fact that you are putting words in my mouth because it is incorrect, and I have great respect for the Indians, and if I were -- and if I were running a reservation and was under the auspices of this ridiculous Act that was passed, I would have the same difficulty as the Indians keeping organized crime out, I, me. So that is not a blanket When you don't know -- you don't know. Excuse me, sir. That is not a blanket indictment of anybody. You don't know that they are having a difficulty. Well, you can't know when you have no FBI agents assigned to the Indian reservations, sir. You don't have any FBI agents assigned to you. Oh really? How many FBI agents are in Las Vegas right now? How many FBI agents are assigned to Atlantic City? Why didn't you ask that question? Why are they there, Mr. Trump? They are there because they think there is organized crime, They are there to stop crime. So why aren't they there with respect to the Indian reservations? Because they believe that your industry is attractive to organized crime. Look, you have got a totally closed mind on the subject, sir. No, no, no, I don't, Mr, Trump. We could walk in here with the greatest proof in the history of the world, and frankly, your mind is so closed, for whatever reason, that I can't believe it. But you don't have them? You don't have them? If you really want to study this, when you tell me that there are no FBI agents assigned to the Indian reservations and yet you have tremendous numbers in Las Vegas and Atlantic City -- tremendous numbers, in fact, two of their largest places -- I want to tell you something, you have a long way to go, and, for whatever reason, you have a closed mind, I don't know why. Perhaps you could tell me. No, Mr. Trump. I have a closed mind against evidence that is not substantiated. I have a closed mind against statements that are made about other people in generalities. You are going to be very embarrassed in two years, sir. I have a closed mind if you go on a radio show and you say, "Now some drunken Indians want to come down here an open a reservation.""" I didn't say that, sir. Quote it, I didn't say that. Who said that? Who said that? I would like an apology right now, because I didn't say that, Mr, Miller, Imus opened the broadcast -- excuse me, Mr, Imus said that, Mr, Trump, Okay, Could I please have an apology? You can have an apology. Thank you, sir. Is this you discussing Indian blood: "We are going to judge people by whether they have Indian blood That probably is me, absolutely, because I'll tell you what, if you look -- if you look at some of the reservations that you have approved -- you, sir, in your great wisdom, have approved -- I will tell you right now, they don't look like Indians to me, and they don't look like Indians. Now maybe we say politically correct or not politically correct. They don't look like Indians to me, and they don't look like Indians to Indians, and a lot of people are laughing at it, and you are telling how tough it is, how rough it is, to get approved. Well, you go up to Connecticut, and you look. Now, they don't look like Indians to me, sir. Thank God that is not the test of whether or not people have rights in this country or not, whether or not they pass your look test. Yes. It depends whether or not you are approving it, sir. No, no, it is not a question of whether I am approving it. It is not a question of whether I am approving it. Mr. Trump, do you know in the history of this country where we have heard this discussion before: "They don't look Jewish to me.""" Oh really? They don't look Indian to me. "They don't look Italian to me."" And that was the test for whether people could go into business or not go into business I want to find out -- well, then, why are you approving -- you are approving for Indian. Why don't you approve it for everybody then, sir? If your case is nondiscriminatory, why don't you approve for everybody? You are saying only Indians -- wait a minute, sir. You are saying only Indians can have the reservations, only Indians can have the gaming. So why aren't you approving it for everybody? Why are you being discriminatory? Why is it that the Indians don't pay tax but everybody else does? I do. Why is it that I pay tax? Why is it that senior citizens get tremendous benefits from the taxes that a certain industry does but the Indians aren't contributing to that? Why aren't the Indians -- excuse me, sir. Why aren't the Indians that are making all the money in Connecticut, which is the most successful of the Indian reservations -- why aren't they spreading the wealth with the other Indians, sir? Why don't you do something for the other Indians that are living in total poverty? Because -- you know why? Because their reservation is too far away Mr, Trump, if you will give the chairman a chance to 2inswer your questions, I am sure he will. I am sure he will, absolutely. Well, don't ask the questions if you don't want an answer. I think I know the answer from him. Well, no, no. Let's go through it. Why don't they spread the wealth? That is the question. Mr. Trump Why don't they spread the wealth? Mr. Trump -- Mr. Trump, it is my time. Mr. Trump, the chairman has the time now. Mr. Trump, why don't the Indians spread the wealth to the other Indian nations that don't have gambling when they don't have a responsibility to? You cite that one of the great benefits is that New Jersey senior citizens can get prescription drugs at $5. What about the Pennsylvania senior citizens that leave their money in New Jersey? What about the Washington, D.C., senior citizens that leave their money in New Jersey, the people from New York and Connecticut, the people you are there to attract? What about all of our constituents from California that go to Nevada and leave their money there? Why don't they get $5 prescriptions? Because you don't have a legal obligation to do so. You did so because you wanted gaming to come to New Jersey. This was a negotiated agreement. The Connecticut agreement is a negotiated agreement between the State of Connecticut and the tribe in Connecticut. Hardly negotiated, sir. It was really forced down people's throats, wouldn't you say? Okay, now, let's Do you think Governor Weicker -- do you think Governor Weicker -- do you think Governor Weicker considers that a negotiated agreement, sir? Mr. Trump, let... Wasn't that forced down his throat? Mr. Trump Mr. Trump Mr. Chairman and Mr, Trump, you asked a series of questions. The chairman is going to give you the answers. If you would kindly let him complete the answer, then you can go on. After this colloquy, then I am going to move ahead. We have other panels here, Mr, Miller, You asked the other question, why did the Indians get the reservations? Mr, Trump, I didn't ask that question. Mr, Miller, Well, you said why do we discriminate? No. I said -- I didn't ask that question. Mr, Miller, Okay, You ask the question again. Mr, Trump. Do you want me to ask another question? No. Ask that question you asked. I said to you, you have a group of Indians, I think, that has a reservation in Connecticut that is making, I believe, perhaps in excess of $500 million. There are a total of 400 people or 300 people, or a very small amount of people in that particular tribe. To make $500 million for 300 people, I ask you -- and this is a Federal pact, this is done with the auspices of your office and allowed through the auspices of your office -- why isn't that wealth, if you are so concerned, sir, about the Indians, which I think you should be, and I think it is a great concern -- if you are so concerned with the impact and the welfare of the Indians, why do you allow 300 people to make $500 million? Why don't you say that that money has to be distributed around so that other people can be helped, so that medical care in other locations in the United States, where you have Indians that are truly living in poverty, so that they can be taken care of? How can you allow this to happen? And what we are really doing, and getting off the subject -- you know and I know that this is going to blow. Mr, Miller. No, Mr. Trump, I don't know that. Oh, you don't know it? No. Mr, Trump, Well, I'll tell you what, I'll see you in about two years, and we will see who is right, sir. Well, let's go down that -- just for a second, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Calvert said -- what did you say, Caesar's, is looking for a management agreement? You have tried to get a management agreement I have not. You have not? Mr, Trump. I have not. Your corporation hasn't- I have not, sir. That will be your second apology, I hope. I have not tried. Mr, Miller. Well, I have a letter here from Mr. Bunce who talks about your various contacts regarding the possibility of your involvement in a venture, the Agua Caliente, and I will Mr. Trump. Mr. Who? Mr. Bunce, in his capacity as legal counsel. I will enter this into record. Legal counsel of who? The Agua Calientes. Oh, you mean somebody wrote to me asking for -- that is not my people writing, sir. No. He says, "I am writing at your request.""" At my request? Concerning your various contacts regarding the possibility of your involvement Sir, that is somebody writing a letter to me, I am not writing a letter to them. I don't blame them for wanting Caesar's has asked? Is that your information? Others in your industry are seeking management contracts with various Indian gaming operations either existing or in future. Is that correct? That is true. I think that is true, yes. So what is the conclusion to be drawn from that? That they, too, will have no ability No, the conclusion is, hey, this thing is running rampant, they are running public companies for the most part, they might as well get on the ship. But they know, and if they were down here testifying, they know that when you have this many entities, this many -- they know, they are professionals -- that you cannot control the mob, you cannot control the organized crime, you are not going to do it. Willy Sutton So they are making this decision Willy Sutton -- excuse me, sir -- Willy Sutton said he robbed banks, he said that is where the money is. Well, the mob is going into the casinos, and what they are doing is, they are going into the Indian casinos because, sir, that is where the money is, but also that is where the lack of enforcement is. Why is your industry- Sir, that is where the lack of enforcement is. Why are members of your industry going there when obviously Because they want to make money. Wait a minute. If they were to be involved with organized crime or any kind of criminal activity, it would, I assume, under both Nevada's law and New Jersey's, would reflect on your ability to continue to hold a license, would it not? Because they want to make money, sir, because they really want to make money, and I have -- you know, I have a great love for this country. I happen to be It is quite possible for a reservation to enter into a gaming contract, management contract, with somebody in your industry -- I don't know about other people on the outside, these companies that are being formed -- but in terms of your industry, to enter in with the Mirage or with Caesar's or former executives of those people who have their own private operations. An Indian tribe could enter into that and have a great bulwark against organized crime because that operator would have to say, "I cannot do business with you people I didn't say the companies are honest. I said the regulatory process is honest. The regulatory process is a huge and cumbersome thing that, in the end But there clearly is a way -- there clearly is a way Do you want me to answer the question? There clearly is way for those casinos to do business outside of organized crime because they are doing business with people who have a great stake The regulatory Is that not true? The regulatory process- I understand the regulatory process. The regulatory process, in a limited number of locations, can keep casino gaming honest. When you open up hundreds of locations randomly without even State control -- I am not saying State or anything, but without any control -- there is no way to keep that honest, whether I run it, whether Caesar's runs, whether the Indians are running it. There is no way. You have too many places, you have too much money involved. The mob is going to take over it. It is starting to come out. It will start coming out a lot more, and in two years, sir, you are going to be a very embarrassed man. Mr. Trump and Mr. Miller -- Mr. Miller you will have the concluding remark. Let's just understand one thing. Thank you, sir. Speaking of running things, I am running the committee. So Mr. Miller will conclude in as much as he is the chairman. You want to keep suggesting that somehow there is no regulatory scheme for these reservation gaming sites. The fact is, there is in almost every instance. Obviously, where you have compacts the governors are concerned about their citizens as you are, and we now have, I don't know, what, 26 governors that have entered into compacts with various tribes. They have had no choice, sir. You have the whole regulatory scheme of the Gaming Commission. Most of the cases you cite were before the Gaming Commission. They have the memorandum of understanding with the FBI. The tribes have under the trust relationship a direct access to the FBI, to the Treasury Department, to the Attorney General of the United States, You keep wanting to paint this picture as somehow these people are off just willy-nilly doing business. The fact is, that isn't. Many of the contracts that were cited in the evidence you presented -- to date, when they were signed they weren't under the scrutiny. The Secretary didn't have to approve them. Today the Secretary does. The arrangement in New Jersey, as I think you pointed out, isn't allowed, the potential arrangement isn't allowed under the existing law, as Senator Inouye testified. I appreciate the theory, but it isn't allowed under the existing law. The fact is, if they entered into a management agreement, that management agreement would have to be signed off by this Secretary of the Interior. So the suggestion you have painted is that somehow these people are doing -- you used the term "deregulated"" or ""unregulated Sir, I will just give you a quick answer, and then the Congressman will give you a much more appropriate answer to something else. I will tell you that, you asked me about governors, and you said the governors are routinely signed. The governors are being forced These are hard bargainers. Sir, they are not hard bargaining, because if Mario Cuomo didn't sign his pact in Syracuse, the Indians were going to court, and they would have won on summary judgment based on the ridiculous law that was passed, okay? So it is not hard bargaining. He sat there and he had absolutely no choice. Lowell Weicker, who I have great respect for, fought and fought and fought and ultimately was bludgeoned into having to accept this, and he is not happy about it, and Connecticut is not happy about it, and Connecticut is a total disaster over Indian gaming. Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump. They have created a monster. Mr. Abercrombie. Thank you, Mr. Trump. Mr. Torricelli, in as much as you are also a part of the panel, we will conclude this panel with your remarks. Mr. Torricelli. Thank you. Hesitant though I am to engage in this conversation And then we will move on to our next exciting panel. Allow me just to conclude for a moment simply with this. There is much that is not known on the problems of Indian gaming. The intention here today was to reflect simply on a few things that we do know. The inspector general has concluded that there is fraud and abuse that is costing Indian tribes millions of dollars. We have attempted to establish that there are not sufficient Federal resources, indeed an absence of FBI and IRS presence, to deal with the problem of money laundering and the presence of organized crime. We cannot, we could never, come before you, Mr. Chairman, to the degree that you would like with evidence to establish this fact. That was not our intention. It was not our intention to prove everything that has taken place, simply the absence of what we know. But in all fairness, I think we are approaching this in a reverse fashion. To cite that Caesar's or other legitimate institutions have management contracts or will be involved in the industry hardly is the way to approach the problem. It is not enough that there are some legitimate people in the industry, the problem is that there are illegitimate people in the industry. We can't be satisfied because there are a few good participants, even that most are good participants. The fact that some are not, I think that is how the issue should be approached. The legislation I have submitted to this committee for its review is simply this. That the negotiating process is not working. Yes, Mr. Miller, if there were compacts in all States legitimately and honestly agreed to on an equal basis, we would not have a problem. Forty of these casinos are operating with no compacts, no State agreements whatsoever. As has been testified, many of them, as in the States of New York and Connecticut, were against the wishes of the States because they were going to be compelled by Federal courts. I have submitted legislation that is simple on its face. I do not believe any industry in this country should be the reserve of any group. I know one person who has come here today testifying against any discrimination, me. Any citizen of this country that wants to operate casino gaming should be able to do so on an equal basis, same law, same taxes, same investigations, same regulations, period, no distinctions. You make the grade, or you do not. That is the legislation that I have given you, that it be regulated and done fairly with revenues returned. That is the suggestion I give to you. I hope we have made a contribution. We have tried to do so. I leave it to you for your review. Thank you very much, Mr. Torricelli. Thank you very much, Mr. Trump. Thank you, sir.