REPRESENTATIVES Tina Sablan and Joseph Leepan T. Guerrero engaged in a heated argument during a break from the House session on Friday over House Bill 22-47, which proposes to allow internet gaming in the CNMI.
Also known as the Internet Gaming Act of 2021, H.B. 22-47 is similar to then-Vice Speaker Lorenzo Deleon Guerrero’s H.B. 21-31, which the House passed in the 21st Legislature. The Senate passed the bill in December last year with significant amendments, but the House did not pass the amended version.
In January 2021, Imperial Pacific International chief executive officer Ray Yumul asked lawmakers to support the internet gaming bill, which, he said, was part of IPI’s “reset and recover strategy.”
He said IPI will strictly adhere to federal and CNMI laws that govern online gaming and money transactions.
Authored by Leepan, H.B. 22-47 is now with the House Gaming Committee chaired by Rep. Edwin Propst.
During the miscellaneous part of the session on Friday, Leepan requested Speaker Edmund S. Villagomez to go back to the bill calendar portion, and ask House Floor Leader Ralph N. Yumul to pull Leepan’s bill from the Gaming Committee and refer it to the Ways and Means Committee because it is a revenue-generating measure.
Leepan said, with the closure of the IPI casino and the tourism industry due to the global Covid-19 pandemic, e-Gaming can be an alternative and viable industry in the CNMI.
“I think this is something that we need to pass. It is a product that was introduced and passed by both houses in the 21st Legislature, but when it came back with all the amendments from the Senate, the House killed it,” Leepan said.
He added that “a lot of investors are willing to open e-Gaming here, but in the absence of…legislation, no investor would want to invest in the CNMI.”
Leepan asked the House leadership to put H.B. 22-47 on the calendar so members could act on it.
Propst asked Leepan to meet with him after the session and discuss the bill and the “concerns” related to it.
Propst said the Gaming Committee is proceeding with the measure very cautiously.
He mentioned a “93-page report of the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network” and “allegations about internet gaming operations.”
He also noted “the failed promises of IPI, which is one of those pushing for the measure.”
“I am concerned,” Propst told Leepan. “If you like, I want to discuss this diplomatically [with you].”
But Leepan echoed Rep. John Paul Sablan’s earlier complaint that the minority bloc’s bills have been “sitting in the committees.”
As for his internet gaming bill, he said there are other interested investors besides the casino operator, referring to IPI.
“This casino industry that we have is a ‘done deal,’ but there are other investors [who want] to establish e-Gaming in the CNMI. They have come in and wanted to see what it takes to have this e-Gaming…. This bill is not by IPI, this is [a] product of the author [himself],” Leepan said.
Rep. Tina Sablan, vice chair of the Gaming Committee, said, “It is not an e-Gaming bill that you have asked to pull out, it is an internet gaming bill, which is very controversial, and which has been…requested by IPI to this body, and is now a subject of oversight by the Gaming Committee.”
She added, “With all due respect colleagues, I don’t think this debate is appropriate at this time. As vice chair of the committee, I would like to invite Representative Leepan to meet with the Gaming Committee and with its chairman. Let us sit down and have this conversation. I do think there are serious concerns that are raised by this internet gaming bill that were [also] concerns in the last Legislature and those issues have not gone away — they are the subject of an investigation right now.”
Rep. Tina Sablan said the matter should be discussed in the “appropriate venue, which is the Gaming Committee that will convene very soon.”
As for the complaint that the leadership is not acting on the minority bloc’s bills, Rep. Tina Sablan told Rep. JP Sablan, “I’d like to invite you to come to our meetings. It will be nice for the authors to participate in the committee meetings.”
The argument became a heated one during recess with Leepan complaining about the measures authored by minority bloc members that are still in committees.
For her part, Rep. Tina Sablan insisted that Leepan was out of order and that the appropriate venue to discuss the concerns of both sides is the Gaming Committee.
The argument between the two lawmakers continued for several minutes, but their words could not be heard by reporters in the gallery because the microphones in the chamber were turned off.
Be the first to comment