At Saturday's press conference, Assemblyman Bill Magee said that he was questioning the agreement reached because he wondered if it had to do with the Catskill casino deals that are up for grabs among Indian nations.

Magee said that some members of the state Legislature, which will have a say in the agreement, are against giving Indian nations a new casino if they have a pending suit against the state.

"The casinos in the Catskills were not discussed, and a lot of legislators don't want another casino for tribes that have a pending suit against the state," Magee said after the announcement from Gov. George Pataki. "I question if this is a matter of them settling, so the state can now say, OK you can have your casino."

Scott Peterman, president of the Upstate Citizens for Equality, also suggested after Saturday's press conference that the Oneida Nation wanted another casino and that was the reason they agreed to terms that were similar to terms reached a year and a half ago, when negotiations broke down.

Mark Emery, spokesman for the Oneida Indian Nation, said the Nation is looking into proposals for a casino in the Catskills, but the settlement agreement reached had nothing to do with the Catskill casino.

"The land claim issue is something the Oneida Nation has been dealing with for the past 200 years," Emery said. "The casino in the Catskills is something the Nation is looking at, but it's just another business venture, like the opening a casino in Mexico, or other business diversifications. The governor pretty much spelled that out at the press conference."

Emery said the Nation is currently evaluating proposals for the casino in the Catskills, but the settlement agreement and the casino deals are not linked.

"The Nation is taking a look at the economic impact, and looking at the business climate of the area," Emery said.