"Indian Casino Gaming: Friend or Foe to the Community?" was the title of a panel presented by the Library of Congress on Thursday but debate appeared to tip more towards the friend side of the question.

That doesn't happen too often, especially when it comes to the $16.7 billion and growing Indian gaming industry. Tribal casinos and the problems blamed on them have inspired controversy nationwide and, in some states, can even get a governor elected.

But there weren't many sparks during a wide-ranging discussion in Washington, D.C., featuring five panelists who have worked on different sides of the issue. Speaking on the subject were three tribal members, an author who has written about the world's largest casino and someone from the gambling addiction camp.

The mix guaranteed a diverse set of opinions on tribal gaming and whether it has helped Indian and non-Indian communities. Yet in spite of the range in views, all but one panelist was generally positive about the industry and its impacts.

The dissenting voice, though, wasn't Keith Whyte of the National Council on Problem Gambling. He pointed out that his group is eager to work with tribes and even has a joint program with the National Indian Gaming Association, which was represented its deputy director, Victoria Wright, a member of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Tribe of Massachusetts.

The criticism instead came from Cynthia Abrams, a member of the Seneca Nation of New York who is the director of alcohol and other addictions and health care for the United Methodist Church. She noted the church strongly supports tribal sovereignty but opposes gambling of all forms.

But her disapproval of the way tribal casinos are run stems more from her heritage than the church's teachings. She said a gaming compact her tribe signed with the state of New York "chipped away at historic treaty rights. That's very disturbing."

Abrams said tribal leaders are making decisions that aren't in the best interests of their own communities. The Seneca Nation, for example, signed a loan agreement with a 29 percent interest rate. One casino executive is being paid a "sinful" amount of money, she said.

Yet Abrams was most disturbed by what she termed a loss of Indian spirituality. Tribal people have traditionally respected their relationships with outside communities but gaming has changed that, she said.

"When did we start caring about ourselves and stop caring about others in the world?" she asked.

The views were a contrast to those expressed by Chris Karnes, a member of the Tuscarora Nation of New York and lawyer who works for tribes. While he said his tribe doesn't have a casino, he supports gaming because it has enabled tribes to reclaim land, build housing and diversify their economies.

"Indian people are compassionate people," he said. "they strive to take care of their own. They strive to cure others."

Armed with a slew of statistics, Wright sought to underscore gaming's positive impacts on local, state and national communities. Tribes have reduced unemployment, improved health and welfare and have created 500,000 jobs with casinos, she said.

"Overall, the local communities are benefiting," Wright said.

Kim Eisler, author of "Revenge of the Pequots," a book about the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, said a casino has turned a previously "powerless" tribe into a worldwide success. He said opponents of gaming are not motivated by altruism but by greed.

"It's jealousy," he said. "It's all financial."

Whyte pointed out that 48 states have legalized gaming but fewer than half of all federally-recognized tribes have casinos. He said tribes are sometimes unfairly asked to shoulder all the costs related to problem gaming when responsibility lies on states as well.

"It would be like asking California to share with Washington when they had a bad budget year," he said.

Whyte said the social costs of gambling are estimated at $5 billion a year and will continue to increase as the tribal and non-tribal industry grows. While problem gambling affects about 7 million Americans, gambling addiction itself is considered rather rare, he added.

One subject that generated agreement among panelists was the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. Asked to describe the pros and cons of the law, they all focused on the negative aspects.

"I think the IGRA was basically a fraud," Eisler said, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled tribes were free to operate gaming free of state interference. "I think it created needless litigation. ... This act is all smoke and mirrors, totally meaningless, Congressional ineptitude."

"I don't think it's been effective," Abrams concurred. She said the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the National Indian Gaming Commission aren't doing a good job of protecting tribal members from negative aspects of gaming compacts, management contracts and consulting agreements.

Wright said the law was a "compromise" that will always need tweaking, particularly in the area of revenue-sharing. "States will always want more," she said.

Karnes called IGRA an "infringement" on tribal sovereignty that gave states an opening in an area previously closed to them. He criticized Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) for threatening to open the state to non-Indian gaming unless they share $350 million a year.

"It's a shakedown," Karnes said. "He's asking for protection money."

The panel was presented as part of American Indian Heritage Month at the Library of Congress.

Relevant Links:
Library of Congress - http://www.loc.gov