On March 31, 2000 the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission (PSGSC) released its Final Report. The PSGSC was formed in January, 1999, in direct response to state concerns about the make-up and process of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC). Public sector officials were concerned that state’s rights (and the lottery industry) were not adequately represented by the NGISC, so state Senator Steven Geller of Florida formed the PSGSC in order to give voice to the concerns of the public sector.

Recommendations on Indian Nation Governmental Gaming

NIGA Chairman Rick Hill was appointed to serve on the PSGSC to represent the concerns of Indian Nations. This was not an easy post. It became clear that the PSGSC was interested in promoting increased state authority in Indian affairs, not limited to gaming or to compact negotiations. One of the PSGSC’s original recommendations was that states could include any issues, not simply gaming issues, in Class III compacts. After intense pressure from Chairman Hill, the PSGSC altered that recommendation to read that states and Indian Nation governments could negotiate non-gaming issues in separate forums and that there should be no linkage between these negotiations and Class III gaming compact negotiations.The other PSGSC recommendation that directly impacts Indian Nations is one that addresses land-into-trust. The PSGSC Final Report recommends that "lands not recognized as tribal lands at the time of IGRA’s passage should be excluded from Indian gaming." Chairman Hill vehemently protested this recommendation at the PSGSC meeting in Orlando, but was out-voted.

Chairman Hill’s Minority Report

In spite of the PSGSC’s positive findings on Indian Nation governmental gaming, the recommendation on land-into-trust is deeply troubling and needed to be countered with the facts. Therefore, Chairman Hill issued a Minority Report to the PSGSC. This Minority Report is included in Appendix D of the Final Report and can also be downloaded in its entirety from this Website. A few of the Minority Statements are excerpted below.

Minority Statement on Land into Trust

One of the PSGSC’s recommendations on Indian Nation Governmental Gaming is that "lands not recognized as tribal lands at the time of IGRA’s passage should be excluded from Indian gaming." This recommendation has no support in the testimony or findings of the PSGSC and in fact contradicts the text of page 80 of the PSGSC’s Final Report. Moreover, the PSGSC acknowledges that Section 20 of IGRA "limited the power of the Secretary of the Interior to take land into trust off reservation for gaming purposes" and that this provision "was inserted into IGRA in response to state demands."The PSGSC Final Report frames the "land into trust" issue as a "disagreement between states and tribes". This is an inaccurate and simplistic portrayal of a complex historical and legal issue. Trust status for tribal land has a long and deliberate history in Federal Indian policy. In general, trust status was meant to protect tribal lands from non-Indian land speculators by requiring that the Secretary of the Interior approve all land sales to non-Indians. This "extra step" was meant both to dissuade non-Indian speculators from targeting Indian resources and to provide protection for Indian landowners who might have been tempted to sell their land in order to survive. Trust status for Indian land means that the Federal government retains the title for the land and the tribal community retains the benefit use and occupancy. As a result, tribal trust lands cannot be used as collateral by tribal communities. Additionally, trust lands cannot be taxed by the states since they are technically "owned" by the Federal government. In spite of the land into trust process, however, many tribal communities were dispossessed of their land base, either through Federal relocation programs, removal policies or outright land theft. Contemporary tribal communities are attempting to reclaim these lost homelands for a host of reasons, including, but certainly not limited to, economic development. Because the Secretary of the Interior must approve all transfers, the process is long, arduous and costly. Many transfers never take place, even for non-gaming purposes.Despite the proven success of Indian Nation economic development in partially alleviating unemployment, substandard housing and other problems in many of America’s poorest communities, states continue to resist Indian Nations’ attempts to build on this success by fighting "land-into-trust" applications. The PSGSC Final Report does not outline the arguments forwarded by states in their resistance to land-into-trust acquisitions, it only declares that "states are concerned" about "new groups" who wish to "take advantage of opportunities for gaming." However, the fears of states are vastly overdrawn.Since 1988, only 18 parcels of land have been acquired by tribal communities for gaming purposes. Of those 18 parcels, only 2 were off reservation. The remaining 16 were lands that were at one time allotted to non-Indians within the original reservation borders or lands contiguous to the reservation. There is a public perception that Indian Nations are purchasing great amounts of land for gaming purposes. This is simply not the case. As Rick Hill stated in the NGISC Final Report, "there really is no reason for anyone to fear land-into-trust acquisitions. It’s not like Indian nations will ever be able to buy back the entire country."

Minority Statement on Internet Gaming:

Why Tribal Governments are Uniquely Qualified to Operate Legal Online Casinos

One of the findings of the Public Sector Gaming Study Commission (PSGSC) is that increasing the availability of legalized gambling in the United States has been a great success. The Final Report of the PSGSC also accepts the theory that once an activity is legalized, social norms develop that regulate people’s behavior more effectively than any public policy possibly could. However, the PSGSC’s Final Report then recommends that Internet gambling be made illegal, in spite of a clear finding that legalization and regulation have successfully curbed other forms of illegal gambling in the United States (such as sports betting and numbers rackets).Here I will outline my argument that of all the casino and bingo operators in the United States, Indian Nation governments are uniquely qualified candidates for operation of online casinos and bingo.The primary non-moral arguments against Internet casinos are:

• No accountability to the player, such as a guaranteed payout.
• No effective minimum standards for regulation, such as fairness of play or prevention of fraud.
• The possibility of infiltration by organized crime.
• The inability to establish an effective ‘taxation’ strategy.
• The accusation that Internet gambling contributes to pathological gambling without supporting societal costs such as awareness and counseling programs.

Indian governmental gaming operations can address each of these arguments and are uniquely qualified to offer legitimate, regulated and accountable Internet gambling operations.First, Indian governmental gaming operations can be held accountable to players. Because tribal governmental operations are physically located within the geographic boundaries of the United States, unlike off-shore or illegal operations, they cannot set up "disappearing" sites that fail to pay out winnings.Indian governmental gaming operations are already highly regulated. Because the facilities, to be legal, must be located within the jurisdiction of the Indian Nation government, and because that jurisdiction is within the geographic boundaries of the United States, enforcement of regulations would be no more difficult than for land-based operations. Effective oversight would also be as effective a deterrent to fraud as it is for land-based operations.Indian Nation governmental gaming has never been infiltrated by organized crime (something that cannot be said for other traditional casino industries). Due to the geographical and jurisdictional uniqueness of tribal reservations, and to the highly effective regulatory environment within which tribal governmental gaming operates, online operations by tribal governments would remain insulated from the reach of organized crime.Indian Nation governmental gaming already has an effective "tax strategy" for gaming operations–taxation at 100%. Since the tribal government owns and operates the business, there would be no "tax haven" flight. Additionally, all revenues would be used to support government operations, a very efficient tax strategy.Indian Nation governmental gaming already contributes a greater portion of its revenues to addressing the societal costs of gambling than any other segment of the gambling industry. These voluntary contributions stemmed from a commitment to building a healthy community. This same philosophy points to Indian Nation governments as the most socially responsible of potential online gaming operators.