On Thursday, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairsmet for the second time in three months to discuss the impact of internet gambling. This time, the recent Department of Justice opinion letter saying that the Wire Act only applies to sports betting took center stage and the meeting had a witness lineup that included gambling law expert I. Nelson Rose and Poker Players Alliance (PPA) Litigation Support Director Patrick Fleming. The meeting lasted about 90 minutes and started 30 minutes late.

As onlookers viewed a series of pie charts spread out in the hearing room, Committee Chairman Daniel Akaka (D-HI, pictured above) told the assembled crowd, “This issue is of great importance to tribes. Indian gaming is currently the only form of Federally authorized and regulated gaming in the United States. Currently, tribal gaming makes up 40% of the gaming market in the United States.”

Seneca Nation of Indians President Robert Odawi Porter was the lone member of the first of three panels. His testimony largely focused on the danger Indian tribes could face if their voices aren’t heard: “In recent years, big gaming and state regulatory interests in Nevada and New Jersey have pushed for Federal legislation that would give them monopolistic control of internet gaming in the USA… They are determined to shove Indian gaming away from the table.”

He concluded his testimony by imploring the assembled Senators and their staffers, “Send your colleagues a message that you won’t tolerate any new legal authority that results in job losses in Indian country. Indian nations not only demand a seat at the table, we insist we already own a table and should not have it stolen from us.” The Seneca Tribe employs about 4,000 people in its gaming business alone.

The second panel began with testimony from Kevin Washburn, the Dean of the School of Law Administration at the University of New Mexico. Washburn called for a Federal regulatory framework, saying that the DOJ “created a chaotic atmosphere. It created a situation that has forced Congress’ hand. Congress needs to act here. There is a strong Federal interest in Indian gaming. This was viewed as a very important resource for tribes by the Federal Government… We have to protect this Federal resource for tribes. Tribes need to have access to this resource that’s been so important for their self-determination and self-government.”

Nelson Rose (pictured), who also appeared on the second panel, noted that the DOJ’s memo opened the floodgates for state-based online gaming: “There is no Federal statute that would prevent a state from legalizing virtually any form of internet gambling other than sports betting. States can legalize it, they can form compacts via interstate and even international to form pools of players.” Rose admitted that it’s unclear whether Indian tribes can accept wagers from players located off tribal lands.

You can read an exclusive PocketFives interview with Rose about the DOJ’s Wire Act decision.

S.J. Quinney College of Law professor Alex Skibine rounded out the second panel in the Senate committee hearing and spoke about the unique challenges that some tribes could face: “For many Indian tribes that have state compacts, internet gambling would be legal under these compacts. However, for other tribes, that may not be the case. Those tribes would have a very hard time amending their compacts… Even for those tribes for whom it is legal, they may be restricted to wagering originating on Indian land. This limitation makes no sense when it comes to internet gaming since internet gaming is borderless.”

Skibine added that any potential legislation should recognize tribes as sovereign governments with the authority to regulate gaming. He emphasized that tribes should be able to conduct internet gambling in any jurisdiction where gambling is allowed, there should be no state taxation of tribal gaming revenues, and tribes should not have to amend their compacts to make online gambling a reality.

The third and final panel began with Patrick Fleming (pictured), who hails from New Hampshire and spoke in front of a Senate committee for the first time. Fleming drove home the belief that poker is fundamentally different from other casino games: “Internet poker is not a threat to tribal gaming interests. Poker itself only represents 1% of tribal gaming revenues. It’s clear that, at the very least, internet poker is not a threat to tribal operations. There is a symbiotic relationship between those who play poker online and those who play poker live.”

Indian law attorney Glenn Feldman was the final witness to speak and cautioned Congress not to rush to pass ineffective internet gaming legislation: “Lawful internet gaming in the United States is inevitable. The advice I give all of my tribal clients is, ‘Just saying no is not an effective strategy for dealing with inevitable change.’ Tribes need to be at the table and need to be flexible and smart in their thinking. There is no need to rush to enact Federal internet gaming legislation… Congress would make a serious mistake to rush into internet gambling legislation without the discussion this subject deserves.”

There were virtually no questions from lawmakers in attendance other than follow-up inquiries from Akaka for each panelist. No markup of any bill on Capitol Hill is scheduled.