[PPAdc]

The PPA would welcome 2+2s thoughts on follow-up questions to specific panelist. These questions can be submitted by members of the Committtee and we already have some tee'd up who are willing to do so. One area we did not drill down deep enuff on in the hearing was the proposed regulations. Specifically, I would have liked a line of questions that forced the Treasury witness to respond to why they do not define "unlawful internet gambling" in the proposed regulations and why they felt that U.S. financial institutions (ie private industry) was in a better position to do so.

Further, I would like to see DoJ/Treasury follow Rep. Goodlatte's logic on states rights. It would seem to me that a federal bill and corresponding regulations (the UIGEA) which seeks to block "unlawful internet gambling" transaction unilaterally without consideration to whether a state has said an acitivty is unlawful does not protect states rights, but rather unsurps them.

Please know that we have a top notch crew in Washington working on your behalf. This hearing will not be the last movement on this issue before Congress leaves for the year.

Seperately, Annie and I met with a member of Congress after the hearing (he was not a member of the Committee) but important nontheless. He told us that after Iraq and Immigration, Internet poker was the issue his office had recieved the most mail/email/calls about. He will also be signing on as a cosponsor to Wexler/Frank/Berkeley this week. I only share this cause I believe it demostrates the power of individual contact with members of Congress. Let work together to build more sucess!

John A. Pappas
PPA, Executive Director