Editorial: 'Sham' hearing on off-reservation casinos

Monday, March 17, 2008  

"It was a simple question.

"How did Gov. (John) Engler, in his wisdom, decide where this casino ought to be located?" asked Rep. John Conyers, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The question referred to the former governor's settlement of land disputes with two Upper Peninsula tribes. In exchange for giving up long-standing claims to 110 acres on the St. Mary River, the Bay Mills Chippewa accepted a casino site in Port Huron while the Sault Chippewa took a site in Romulus. Not getting a straight answer, Conyers pressed on.

"I would just like to know, why did they pick locations hundreds of miles from (their reservations)?" he asked in frustration.

Conyers did not get an answer because there was no one on hand capable of giving him one.

You see, the hearing was a sham.

A month ago, when the House Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on the same legislation, its chairman called witnesses from all sides of the debate. To use an Appalachian cliché, Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., had no dog in the hunt. He let everyone have their say.

Not so with Conyers, D-Detroit, who does not hide his fierce opposition to the two casinos. Friday's hearing was the congressional equivalent of a kangaroo court."

Get the Story:
Mike Connell's column: Simple questions go unanswered at sham hearing (The Port Huron Times-Herald 3/16)

Related Stories:
Foes of planned Michigan tribal casinos build opposition (AP 3/15)
Casino bills take one more step (Gannett News Service 3/16)