    [Senate Hearing 118-693]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-693

                            AMERICA'S HIGH-STAKES BET
                          ON LEGALIZED SPORTS GAMBLING

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 17, 2024

                                   __________

                              Serial No. J-118-88

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-196                    WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair

    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota                 Ranking Member
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           TED CRUZ, Texas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    LAPHONZA BUTLER, California          THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                         MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

           Joseph Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1

                                   WITNESSES

    Johnson, Bademosi................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    34

    Baker, Charlie...................................................     3
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
        Responses to written questions...............................    66

    Levant, Harry....................................................    11
        Prepared statement...........................................    42

    Rebuck, David L..................................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    56

    Whyte, Keith S...................................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    59

                                    APPENDIX

    .................................................................
    Items submitted for the record...................................    69

                            AMERICA'S HIGH-STAKES BET
                          ON LEGALIZED SPORTS GAMBLING

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2024

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in Room
    226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin,
    Chair of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Blumenthal, Hirono,
    Padilla, Ossoff, Welch, Tillis, Hawley, Kennedy, and Blackburn.
        Also Present: Senator Schiff.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee will come to order. This is the last scheduled
    meeting of the full Senate Judiciary Committee in this 118th
    Congress. I want to thank all of the Members, and especially
    Senator Graham, who unfortunately does not feel well this
    morning. He won't be joining us. But I want to thank him and
    all the Members on the Republican side, as well as the
    Democratic side, and their staffs for the work we've done
    together. I look forward to working with Senator Grassley in
    the upcoming Congress.
        In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the
    Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, opening
    floodgates for States to legalize sports betting. Once largely
    illegal, sports betting is now legal in over three dozen States
    and the District of Columbia. Professional sports leagues,
    formerly the chief opponents of sports betting now partner with
    sports books and have integrated gambling into their games and
    broadcasts.
        It is virtually impossible to watch a sporting event today
    without being barraged by ads encouraging you to bet or hearing
    from a celebrity endorser about the latest parlay you should
    try, and from the industry perspective, it's a very profitable
    development. Over $30 billion was bet on sports in the third
    quarter of 2024 alone, a nearly 30 percent increase over the
    previous year. But at what cost to the better, at what cost to
    the sport, at what cost to the school or the athlete? Let's
    turn to a video by way of introduction to this hearing.
        [Video is shown.]
        Chair Durbin. While gambling can be a form of entertainment
    when done responsibly, in many cases it is not being done
    responsibly. According to the National Council on Problem
    Gambling, an estimated 2.5 million adults may have a severe
    gambling problem. Another 5 to 8 million are estimated to have
    mild problems.
        With the advent of online sports betting, everyone's cell
    phone is a sports book, providing betting access 24 hours a
    day, 7 days a week. A person with a gambling problem can chase
    the action at the click of a button and rack up ever increasing
    losses, whether on an NFL game or professional table tennis.
        I believe gambling operators must play a greater role in
    preventing addiction on the front end by helping identify
    problem gamblers and directing them to help. Last night I went
    to a reception. A fellow I didn't know came up to me and said,
    ``Thanks for having this hearing.'' And I said, ``What's your
    interest in it?'' He said, ``my son's at an Ivy League school.
    He bets every day. And as fellow students do, too.'' It has
    become so common they hardly even think it's a new phenomenon
    that surely has been going on forever. Well, it was going on to
    some extent, but now it's being institutionalized and
    professionalized.
        Problem gambling is not the only negative side of legalized
    sports betting. As sports betting has spread, the actual games,
    cheering for your team to become less important for many
    individuals who are more focused on the points spread or player
    props. When a bet doesn't hit, angry bettors often take it out
    on the players.
        In a victory over Michigan State at last year's NCAA men's
    basketball tournament, North Carolina star, Armando Bacot had a
    great game scoring 18 points, 7 rebounds. But he didn't have
    enough rebounds to make a certain gambler's bets payoff. Bacot
    reported receiving over 100 messages from gamblers after the
    game berating him because they lost their bets.
        Or consider Carson Barrett, a little used player on
    Purdue's 2024 men's basketball team. In the first round NCAA
    tournament game he played the final minutes of his team's
    blowout win. He even hit a three-pointer in the game's final
    seconds. While this may have been the culmination of a dream
    for Carson, his reward for making the basket and the tournament
    was bettors' messages urging him to kill himself why? His
    basket pushed his team's victory over the 26.5 point spread.
        Athletes, coaches, and officials also deal with temptation
    to adjust their performances to make bets hit. You don't have
    to look too far to find a recent sports betting scandal,
    whether it's NBA player, Jontay Porter, taking himself out of
    games to cash in prop bets or former Alabama baseball coach
    Brad Bohannon giving inside information to bettors about his
    team. These scandals will continue to pop up.
        It is critical that Congress look into sports betting's
    impact on America and determine how the industry should be
    regulated going forward. I thank our witnesses for helping us
    to explore these issues today. Before introducing the
    witnesses, Senator Tillis has told me that he does not have an
    opening statement. So, should I proceed at this point?
        Senator Tillis. Yes, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. Each Senator is going to have 5
    minutes to ask questions after the witnesses testify for 5
    minutes each. Our first witness is going to be Charlie Baker,
    president of the National Collegiate Athletic Association,
    NCAA. Prior to taking his position with the NCAA, Mr. Baker
    served as Governor of Massachusetts for two terms. Welcome.
        Mr. Baker. Thank you very much, Mr.----
        Chair Durbin. We're going to--if you'll hold on just a
    second, I'm going to introduce all the panel, and then swear
    you in, and off we go. We are also joined by Johnson Bademosi.
    Did I pronounce that correctly?
        Mr. Bademosi. Bademosi.
        Chair Durbin. Right. He's a former collegiate and NFL
    football player. After his collegiate days at Stanford, he
    played in the NFL for 9 years, and served as the NFL Players
    Association rep. Thanks for coming.
        We're next joined by Keith Whyte. Mr. Whyte serves as
    executive director at the National Council on Problem Gambling,
    a position he's held since 1998. The National Council serves as
    an advocate to mitigate gambling-related harm.
        Next witness is David Rebuck. Mr. Rebuck served as director
    of New Jersey's Division of Gaming Enforcement for 13 years
    before retiring in 2024. During his time as director, he
    launched online gambling and sports betting, Mr. Rebuck now
    serves as a consultant to the American Gaming Association.
        Our final witness is Dr. Harry Levant. Dr. Levant is the
    director of gambling policy with Public Health Advocacy
    Institute at Northeastern University School of Law. Also works
    as a therapist treating patients struggling with the addiction.
    He's a recovering gambling addict himself and has been in
    recovery for 10 years.
        So, first I'm going to administer the oath and then we'll
    take the testimony. So, if you-all please rise and raise your
    right hand.
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chair Durbin. Let the record indicate that all the
    witnesses, thank God, have answered in the affirmative. And
    Governor Baker, why don't you start?

    STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE BAKER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
              ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

        Mr. Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank you
    for this opportunity, and I want to thank the Members for the
    Committee for being here as well.
        As NCAA president, I see evidence every day of how much
    more complex the issues student athletes face today compared to
    what I experienced as a college basketball player some 45 years
    ago. In response, the NCAA has delivered transformative, long-
    overdue changes to address the modern student athletes' needs.
        For example, the association now provides all student
    athletes with access to post eligibility health insurance for
    injuries and mental health concerns that occurred while they
    were playing. Similarly, all Division 1 schools must provide
    elevated health and wellness benefits, guaranteed scholarships,
    and other academic support services.
        One emerging issue that certainly wasn't present during my
    playing days is the rapid expansion of legal sports betting.
    This is another area where we're deeply engaged in protecting
    and supporting student athletes. We've engaged experts to
    monitor contests for integrity issues. We've surveyed college
    students to find out how prevalent sports betting is. We've
    ramped up efforts to educate student athletes about the rules
    and the dangers of sports betting on campus virtually and
    through social media.
        We also monitor social media around our games. We refer the
    abusive, threatening, coercive, or downright criminal activity
    we uncover to the platforms, or in some cases, to law
    enforcement. It's important to note that a significant portion
    of this abusive content contains references to sports betting.
        There's no doubt that the rise of sports betting has
    impacted the NCAA and student athletes in a significant way,
    but none of the consequences are as challenging as the
    harassment and coercion student athletes are experiencing.
    We've conducted four different surveys over the last several
    months, and each one shows 10 to 15 percent of Division 1
    student athletes have been harassed by bettors, more so in
    basketball and football, but in other sports as well.
        Student athletes publicly revealed they get demands for
    money from unhappy bettors for trivial things that don't impact
    the result on the field. But it doesn't stop there. Many have
    received death threats from bettors and they also receive other
    in-person threats and accusations directed at them while
    they're leaving or coming onto the field of play.
        And unlike professional athletes, college students attend
    classes and live on campus. They're accessible to students and
    fans, some of whom in fact are probably the gamblers yelling at
    them when they're playing their game. Those differences
    increase the opportunity for threatening, coercive behavior
    across a massive number of participants and contests, and
    create senseless risk.
        In many States, gambling regulators lack the authority to
    ban bettors for harassment. Instead, they rely primarily on the
    industry to share information across State lines. While we
    believe these disparities in State laws clearly warrant federal
    action, the NCAA is not waiting. We're lobbying States one at a
    time to make changes. West Virginia joined Ohio to pass
    legislation codifying anti-harassment measures related to
    sports betting.
        The West Virginia delegate who proposed the legislation
    represents areas bordering Pittsburgh. He noted the limited
    impact involuntary exclusion lists have when bettors can easily
    jump across State lines. In addition to West Virginia and Ohio,
    legislators and regulators ranging from New Mexico to Wyoming
    have advanced policy changes aimed at protecting student
    athletes from harassment by bettors.
        Despite the progress and the betting industry's persistent
    pushback, too many States with legal betting lack adequate
    protections for student athletes. That's why we're lobbying
    States to eliminate prop bets on individual student athletes.
    We understand sports betting's here to stay, and why it's
    better to have it regulated than not.
        While we work effectively with many in the gambling
    industry to uncover integrity issues, we disagree with the
    casinos on the issue of prop bets. On issue of prop bets, we
    believe that when bettors can't gamble on college athletes'
    individual performances, they're far less likely to attempt to
    scrutinize, coerce, or harass student athletes. And several
    States ban these types of bets for good reason.
        Before we started our campaign, 23 of the soon-to-be 39
    States with sports betting permitted those bets. Today, only 19
    still do. Should this Committee develop legislation regulating
    sports betting, we strongly encourage banning prop bets on
    college sports. We also encourage federal authorities to do
    more to crack down on black market betting sites. We believe
    these sites are where many of the underage students who report
    betting are placing their bets.
        Lastly, federal legislation offers a significant
    opportunity to strengthen sport leagues' ability to investigate
    integrity issues. I want to thank you once again for having me
    this morning, and I look forward to your questions and answers.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baker appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Governor. Mr. Bademosi.

    STATEMENT OF JOHNSON BADEMOSI, FORMER NFL PLAYER, THE NATIONAL
      FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION (NFLPA), WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Bademosi. Chairman Durbin, Members of the Committee
    thank you for convening this hearing to address the critical
    issue of legalized gambling in sports, and for considering a
    possible legislative solution that would address issues of
    player safety, game integrity, and addiction prevention.
        I'm Johnson Bademosi, a native Washingtonian, Stanford
    graduate, 9-year NFL veteran, and sports fanatic. I remember
    two-a-day practices, and playing high school football games on
    Buchanan Field, which is less than a mile from where I sit
    today. I began playing team sports to make friends, and
    striving to earn a football scholarship because as a nurse, my
    single mother did not earn a salary that could pay the current
    cost of college tuition.
        President Teddy Roosevelt's quote regarding the man in the
    arena has always arrested me as particularly poignant. ``We all
    admire the athletes in the arena because of their intense
    efforts, valiance, dedication, and the fortitude it requires to
    compete at a high caliber, and achieve excellent feats despite
    one or many obstacles.''
        During my experience as a collegiate student athlete and
    when I joined the NFL as a professional 12 years ago, legalized
    gambling in sports, or sports betting as it has come to be, did
    not exist. But the intense scrutiny and external pressures that
    athletes often receive from fans and critics did.
        The sophistication of mobile devices and the rapid growth
    of media platforms has allowed for both fans and critics an
    opportunity to interact directly with the athletes that are
    subjects of their games as a result of legalized sports
    gambling.
        As a result, the rise of legalized sports gambling has
    increased levels of fan engagement, but has introduced more
    stress, new mental health challenges, and has increased the
    number of threats and incidents of harassment to both amateur
    and professional athletes.
        I have to acknowledge that incidents of harassment
    sometimes extend much further than internet exchanges, and
    acknowledge the families who have suffered from emotional
    distress or even the loss of a loved one. Words cannot begin to
    express the profound sorrow I feel that the sports we have
    played to bring our families and communities together have been
    perverted to a point where fans are attacking athletes.
        I know that many of you have been working many terms to
    protect amateur and professional athletes to remain integrity
    and fair play in sports, and we are grateful for your long-term
    dedication to this cause and your willingness to work together
    to help keep our communities safe. I also want to recognize the
    many athletes who have worked to raise awareness on these and
    other issues, push for change, and have collaborated with
    lawmakers on important legislation like the College Athletes
    Protection and Compensation Act, and others, to safeguard
    athletes' health and wellness and to save lives.
        My testimony today will focus on four key areas of
    legalized internet gambling in sports; the effect on players in
    the arena, the influence of fan engagement, the broader
    societal implications, and final congressional recommendations.
        Players have had pressure to perform well for professional
    achievements and to win games, but sports betting has added a
    new and complex layer to this issue. Social media has enabled
    athletes to take control of their brands and market themselves
    in ways not possible for previous generations. However, it has
    also opened an extremely accessible avenue for threats and
    harassment directed toward athletes and their families alike.
        Now, players are targeted by gamblers who seek insider
    information or pressure them to perform, not for the benefit of
    the team, but because the gambler is financially invested in a
    specific performance element of individual athletes. This has
    an overall negative effect on a player's physical security and
    mental state of mind. Examples of this behavior include
    harassment and even death threats like those received by tennis
    pro Renata Zarazua following her U.S. Open loss, or those
    received by one Buffalo Bills kicker for missing a field goal
    this season.
        These episodes have a clear negative impact on a player's
    mental health and overall well-being, and has the likelihood to
    distract a player during the time where focus is needed on the
    field to avoid injury and to perform at the highest levels.
        When the lights are off, the game is over, and the job is
    done, players return home to their families like all other
    citizens. Athletes are constituents and contributing members of
    your communities who patronize the same grocery stores and
    whose children attend the same schools as yours. For most
    athletes, there is no gated community or private security
    force, and yet, they are too often exposed to the threats
    associated with problematic gambling. Player safety on and off
    the field is a priority and safeguards must be put in place.
        While legalized sports gambling has deepened fan engagement
    in sports, it has simultaneously transformed the fan experience
    from enjoying a game to celebrating or lamenting amongst other
    fans, to some bad actors expressing resentment and misguided
    ammunition toward any players perceived to cost a fan money.
    This behavior dehumanizes a player, treating them more akin to
    an analytical statistic. Fans who exhibit this kind of behavior
    should be nowhere near athletes, coaches, or others who are
    there to enjoy the game and cheer on their teams.
        The rapid expansion of legalized gambling has raised
    significant societal concerns, as I'm sure my colleagues
    testifying here today will share. While legalized sports
    gambling generates substantial tax revenue and economic
    opportunities for leagues in partnership with sports betting
    entities, it risks commodifying hope, and devaluing sports as a
    pursuit of skill and integrity.
        The question is whether the commercialization of gambling
    undermines the essence of athletic competition. I believe that
    sports betting can be operated in a way where the integrity of
    the game is not compromised, but that will take significant
    efforts both on and off the field to ensure that gamblers and
    athletes are acting in good faith, and athletes are not put in
    harm's way.
        Congress has a role to play in passing policies that
    reinforce the integrity of the game, while also protecting
    athletes to address these challenges. Players unions
    collectively have endeavored to have player protections
    included in States' legislation such as advocating for
    prohibitions on negative bets, a prohibition on use or purchase
    of player biometric data for purposes of gambling, and ensuring
    full due process rights in sports betting conduct
    investigations by notifying the player and their respective
    labor union of a potential violation.
        Each of these recommendations is critically important. Our
    prohibition on negative bets would ensure that fans are not
    gambling on negative outcomes and therefore do not have an
    incentive to heckle players or encourage negative outcomes at a
    game.
        Prohibiting the use of purchase of player biometric data
    would protect athletes from fundamental invasions of privacy,
    and would ensure that players are in full control of their
    personal health information.
        And finally, ensuring due process rights and conduct
    investigations adheres to the bedrock legal principle of our
    judicial system that should be maintained in sports betting
    investigations.
        In conclusion, while legalized internet gambling in sports
    appears here to stay and can enhance fan engagement, it also
    possesses significant risks, and has an insidious effect on the
    mental health outcomes of players, fan culture, and the
    integrity of sports. A balanced approach that prioritizes
    ethical considerations, player safety and well-being is
    essential.
        Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'm
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bademosi appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thank, sir. Mr. Whyte.

       STATEMENT OF KEITH S. WHYTE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
              COUNCIL ON PROBLEM GAMBLING, WASHINGTON, DC

        Mr. Whyte. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and Members of the Committee, for holding this
    important hearing regarding the impact of the expansion of
    sports gambling in the United States. I'm Keith Whyte,
    executive director of the National Council on Problem Gambling,
    the sole national advocate for those suffering from problem
    gambling and their loved ones.
        NCPG speaks for the 9 million who suffer from a gambling
    addiction and the millions more in recovery. We bear witness to
    the devastating impacts of gambling addiction on individuals
    and their families, and to the effectiveness of services that
    provide hope and help. We can never eliminate the disease of
    addiction, but we can and must make better efforts to prevent
    and treat it.
        Our mission is to lead awareness and advocacy, efforts to
    reduce gambling harm. Since NCPG was founded in 1972, we've
    remained non-partisan and neutral, neither for nor against
    legalized gambling. NCPG members include 35 State affiliate
    chapters, as well as a wide variety of individuals and
    organizations. From counselors, and researchers, to people in
    recovery from gambling, and as well as treatment clinics,
    regulatory authorities, gambling operators, sports leagues, and
    State human services agencies.
        Since 2018, 38 States and the District of Columbia have
    legalized sports betting. In fact, now over half of the
    Senators on this Committee have legal sports betting in their
    State, whereas none did in 2018. Ads for sports betting are now
    run frequently across all media, even in States where sports
    betting is legal. Betting is now ingrained in college and
    professional sports, as you've heard.
        As I said in my testimony before the House Judiciary
    Committee in September, 2018, we were concerned about the
    collision of three trends; vast increases in gambling
    advertising, especially exhortations to gamble during the game,
    advances in technology including mobile, online sports betting,
    and a virtually unlimited menu of betting opportunities on the
    games nowadays, including some of the things Johnson
    mentioned--bets on players individual performance.
        Mobile's online sports gambling technology provides
    opportunities to enhance responsible gambling features
    including setting personalized limits and self-exclusion
    programs, but it also further increases risk factors for
    gambling addiction. And it's clear gambling problems have grown
    over the past 6 years, especially among young, male online
    sports bettors.
        While this increase from 2018 is unprecedented, our 2024
    data shows that the increase in risky gambling behavior appears
    to have leveled off. Though there are still 9 million people,
    as Chairman Durbin said, with gambling problems, and it's far
    too early to assume the rates are stable.
        Many factors affect these rates, including risk factors
    like increased advertising, as well as protective factors such
    as expanded prevention, programming and greater public
    awareness of the harm that can result from a decision to
    gamble.
        While sports betting has garnered enormous public attention
    recently, most Americans did not place a sports bet in the past
    year, and it remains important to recognize that problematic
    gambling behavior extends well beyond sports and demands a
    broader, national public health risk approach. Public health
    involves partnerships with communities, health providers,
    social services, and the gambling industry.
        We have to look intently, but critically, to policies in
    other countries to ensure that our solutions are embedded in
    the Nation's cultural, political, and economic systems. We have
    to recognize that State and Tribal Governments have
    historically overseen gambling in accordance with
    constitutional precedent. Unfortunately, however, many of these
    same governments have never invested in their problem gambling
    programs or created strong responsible gambling regulations.
        While 2023 saw a historic high of $134 million in public
    funding invested in State problem gambling programs, that still
    represents only 50 cents per capita, which is 338 times less
    public funding than is devoted to substance abuse. It's clear
    that State governments have not provided nearly enough support,
    and it's also true that public health is a shared
    responsibility between the States and the Federal Government.
        NCPG therefore strongly supports the Gambling Addiction,
    Recovery, Investment, and Treatment Act introduced by Senator
    Blumenthal this year. The GRIT Act provides critical funding to
    prevent, treat and research gambling addiction without
    increasing taxes or government bureaucracy. Put simply the GRIT
    Act returns nearly half of the sports betting exercise tax
    revenue to State health agencies.
        Increasing access to problem gambling treatment is the most
    important aspect of GRIT, and NCPG estimates that every dollar
    spent to prevent and treat gambling addiction saves government
    at least $2 in criminal justice and healthcare-related social
    costs.
        The evidence is overwhelming that expanded sports betting
    has led to increased harm on a national scale. It is therefore
    essential for Congress to pass Senator Blumenthal's GRIT Act.
    We believe this practical and lifesaving legislation is the
    single most important action Congress can take to address the
    negative impacts of expanded sports betting and gambling in
    general.
        Thank you very much for the time. Happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whyte appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Whyte. Mr. Rebuck.

        STATEMENT OF DAVID L. REBUCK, FORMER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
    GENERAL, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE DIVISION OF GAMING ENFORCEMENT,
                         MOORESTOWN, NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Rebuck. Good morning, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and distinguished Members of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
    today about the regulation of legalized sports betting in New
    Jersey. My name's Dave Rebuck and I served as director of the
    Division of Gaming Enforcement in New Jersey from 2011 to 2024,
    and have recently retired from public service.
        As background on the division, it is a law enforcement
    agency that is responsible for the regulation of New Jersey's
    retail and online casino industry, and its retail and online
    sports wagering operations performed by State casinos and its
    racetracks. During my tenure as director, I led a strategic
    overhaul of the State's gaming laws, which included
    spearheading new initiatives to ensure compliance with the
    existing laws and the gaming's industry's compliance with new
    and soon to be regulated forms of gaming.
        In 2013, New Jersey became the second State to launch
    online casino gambling, and in 2018, after protracted legal
    battle in which the State ultimately prevailed, DGE under my
    direction oversaw the development and implementation in New
    Jersey's framework for legalized sports wagering.
        My testimony has been submitted. I do not intend to read it
    to you today, but I am here today as a proud advocate for
    State-led regulation of legal gaming, including sports wagering
    and to explain why the States and Tribal jurisdictions that
    oversee sports wagering and not the Federal Government are best
    equipped to address the issues presented.
        However, let me highlight to you some important points to
    provide you with the confidence that the past successes in
    effectively and efficiently regulating a multitude of gambling
    activities by States and Tribal jurisdictions will continue
    with sports wagering. First, I want to emphasize that
    legalizing and regulating sports wagering is fundamentally
    about protecting consumers, the vulnerable, the underaged,
    preventing fraud and ensuring the suitability of all entities
    to engage in gambling and their integrity of operations.
        Second, many States like New Jersey, have enacted
    constitutional bans on gambling. However, our citizens through
    constitutional referendums have steadily acted to remove those
    bans. For example, in New Jersey, a multitude of well-regulated
    legal gambling options exist for decades before sports
    wagering, including betting on horse racing, creation of State
    lottery, gambling on bingo, raffle sales wagering on boardwalk,
    and arcade games, and establishing casinos.
        Third, not unlike virtually every commercial function in
    our country, the confluence of the internet access and
    historical retail gambling games has substantially expanded the
    landscape of how citizens desire to engage in gambling. The
    total capacity for gambling today is as large as ever because
    its citizens desire the freedom to choose to engage in
    activities that were in the past prohibited.
        Wagering on sports is clearly defined by this new freedom.
    Before legalization, millions of people wagered billions of
    dollars annually through illegal operations and often committed
    fraud, evaded taxes, and in many instances are tied to
    organized crime. These illegal operators offer no protections
    leaving Americans vulnerable to identity theft and worse.
        Today, every State in this Nation has illegal gambling,
    including sports wagering available readily to its citizens.
    The ease of access to these websites can be viewed by anyone
    while in the State and violating State and federal laws, and
    they are flaunted with impunity.
        And finally, I do not underestimate the challenges that
    come with regulating sports wagering such as responsible
    gambling and ensuring compliance with regulatory standards.
    However, States are already addressing these challenges head on
    with many adopting best practices like mandatory self-
    exclusion, partnership with addiction treatment providers,
    partnerships with universities such as our partnership with
    Rutger University to engage in evidence-based research in order
    to best assign practices reducing gambling harms.
        Finally, I want us to indicate the industry is also well
    engaged in this research. They recognize the critical
    importance also to sustain their operations, but deploying best
    practices for responsible gaming and reduced problem gaming
    harm. They recently established a responsible online gaming
    association. The investment of $20 million is a profound
    commitment to engage in research that will identify, implement,
    and propose best practices for responsible online gaming that
    is performed by them.
        In closing, I urge the Committee to respect the successes
    the States have achieved in regulating in the past and federal
    oversight is clearly not needed. Federal core operation on
    certain issues have already begun, and we look forward to
    continue with collaborating with agencies like FinCEN,
    Department of Justice to do good work.
        Thank you for your time, and I look forward to answering
    any questions continuing in the future.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rebuck appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Rebuck. Dr. Levant.

     STATEMENT OF HARRY LEVANT, LP.D, MA PCC, ICGC-I, JD, DIRECTOR
      OF GAMBLING POLICY AND CERTIFIED GAMBLING COUNSELOR, PUBLIC
    HEALTH ADVOCACY INSTITUTE AT NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF
                       LAW, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

        Dr. Levant. Good morning. You will hear often this morning
    the words responsible gaming. This is code for gambling
    industry, self-regulation, and State control. I am here this
    morning to offer Congress a different approach to regulating
    the industry from a prevention of harm perspective as an issue
    of public health.
        I'm grateful to Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and
    the distinguished Members of this Committee for the opportunity
    to offer testimony regarding the public health crisis created
    by the unprecedented expansion of online sports gambling. It is
    my hope this is the start of public dialog and debate, which
    will result in Congress enacting much needed legislation to
    bring comprehensive public health reform and regulation to the
    sports gambling industry.
        I serve dual roles as director of gambling policy with the
    Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern University
    School of Law, and as an internationally certified gambling
    addiction counselor. This permits me to clinically treat
    patients and families suffering with gambling addiction while
    simultaneously serving as a researcher and policy advocate
    working for public health reform.
        I'm also a gambling addict in recovery. I made my last bet
    on April 27, 2014, and on that same night, nearly took my own
    life with gambling addiction. The risk of suicide is
    omnipresent. Research shows that one in every two people
    suffering will contemplate suicide and one in five will
    attempt. In the grips of my addiction, I devastatingly hurt
    many people who had loved and trusted me. This included
    clients, friends, my kids, and the people closest to me.
        Personal carnage related to gambling addiction destroys the
    most trusted and intimate relationships often beyond repair.
    Gambling addiction took my mind, my soul, body, and conscience
    that left me broken, battered, and homeless. I was
    unrecognizable to myself. The only thing I had remaining was my
    name.
        On February 15, 2015, I stood in the courtroom in
    Philadelphia, a court where I had practiced law for more than
    two decades and where my father had practiced for more than
    half a century. In the presence of the court, the clients I had
    betrayed, my children and more, I pled guilty to the financial
    crimes committed in throes of my gambling addiction. On that
    day, I pledged under oath to the court that if I could get well
    and find recovery, I would give back by doing everything in my
    power to prevent others from suffering.
        I come before this distinguished body filled with a deep
    sense of gratitude, respect, and purpose. The mission has never
    been more important. We are presently witnessing the early
    years of a fast-building public health crisis and a time is now
    for Congress to act. We have known for more than 12 years that
    gambling is an addictive product, a gambling disorder and
    addiction similar to heroin, opioids, tobacco, alcohol, and
    cocaine.
        With every other addictive product, government regulates
    the advertising, promotion, distribution, and consumption.
    Sadly, with gambling the exact opposite is occurring. The
    gambling industry business model is designed to deliver
    constant and nonstop action on every phone, tablet, and
    computer. With the use of technology and AI, the industry and
    its sports and media partners have turned every micro moment in
    each game or event into more and more gambling action from the
    speed of the next pitch, football snap, basketball shot, as the
    Chairman mentioned, even ping pong from Eastern Europe.
        The gambling industry and its sports partners have taken
    sports away from the children, families, and American people.
    Sports have become the equivalent of a nonstop slot machine.
    Understand, I am not opposed to sports gambling. In fact, I
    support its properly regulated legalization, however, I am
    vehemently opposed to what has happened in just 6 years. What
    has been launched on the American people is a newly created AI-
    generated online gambling business model, which delivers a
    fundamentally different, defectively designed and inherently
    dangerous product to every phone, tablet, computer, and TV.
        The gambling industry has expanded to include once
    unthinkable partnerships, which include sports leagues, teams,
    owners, players, the world's largest media and tech companies,
    social media, AI, and State governments themselves all are
    acting in concert to deliver online gambling at light speed and
    ensure the action never stops. The new AI-fueled business model
    will inexorably result in increased gambling addiction and
    gambling related harm. I see this every day in my practice as a
    clinician.
        So, how did we get here and why is it essential that
    Congress act now? There are two quick answers to this question.
    First, online sports gambling is a fundamentally different and
    more dangerous product than ever could have been imagined. In
    fact, DraftKings recently purchased an AI company called
    Simplebet. So, the DraftKings now owns the technology to
    deliver targeted AI-generated gambling to each individual user.
        The second follows the money. Sports leagues teams, owners
    and players now sell their data to the gambling industry. Every
    single sport. The industry then turns this data into instant
    micro betting opportunities where the action never stops. The
    industry having spent billions, with a B, to acquire this data
    has only one way to recoup their money and turn a profit.
    They're selling the widgets in the marketplace. They are
    converting this data into more and faster, instant gambling
    action. And that is a matter of public health.
        I don't come here only to warn, I come armed with public
    health policy solutions, and I hope we'll address many of these
    during the Q&A. I'm presently privileged to work with Senator
    Blumenthal and Congressman Tonko. I look forward to working
    with many more of you, and I invite your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Levant appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks Dr. Levant. Appreciate it. Each of us
    is going to have 5 minutes to ask questions on the panel, and
    that's not nearly enough time. When I took a look at this
    issue, there are so many aspects to it and so many people
    affected by it. I hope we can at least open the discussion
    today. We certainly won't exhaust the subject by many means.
        Governor Baker, I'm going to start with you, but I'm going
    to ask the panel to listen to the question. Perhaps they'll
    want to give their own opinion. So, we live at a time where a
    prospect basketball, football prospect in high school could be
    lured with tens of thousands of dollars to a college to play a
    sport.
        Perfectly legal. And that young man in this example that
    I'm using here, may come from a family that has had no
    experience with any money at all in their lives. Very modest
    family, just happened to have a star athlete in their
    household. He goes to the school, starts off on the basketball
    team, and at some point, becomes quite a player of repute,
    reaches out to many others to encourage them to follow him in
    sports.
        Comes a day when his college roommate says, I need to talk
    to you before the next game. Between you and me, I'm going to
    ask you to do one thing, just one. I promise I'll never ask
    again. Miss the first two half shots and I'll never bother you
    again. And then he says, that's it. Just miss the first two.
    You may do that already, but I need you to do that for me. He
    goes out in the game and is tempted by the possibility of doing
    that thinking it's a rather harmless request, not knowing
    what's behind it all.
        And we can all guess what might be behind it all, at risk
    is not only that athlete and his future, if that's ever
    discovered, but the integrity of sports itself. Going back to
    105 years ago in the Black Sox scandal, gambling and sports
    have been a lethal combination. Pete Rose is further evidence
    of that.
        So, we're in a situation where college sports are now
    reaching a level of massive investments for NIL and other
    incentives to bring students to school or to put them in
    portals, move them to another school, and betting is on top of
    it. As a head of the NCAA representing schools all across
    America. How do you view this phenomenon?
        Mr. Baker. Well, I certainly share your concern about what
    in essence is an example that involves a prop bet. And one of
    the reasons why we've been working hard to get all States to
    prohibit prop bets on college sports is, for example, for
    exactly the reason you just raised.
        I've actually talked to student athletes who have told me a
    hundred versions of exactly the same story you just told me,
    which is the pressure that they feel, social pressure and other
    pressure from classmates, schoolmates, people they know,
    friends, people around the sports community to do certain
    things that aren't going to affect the outcome of the game, but
    will absolutely help ``somebody make their number''.
        And that's part of the reason why for us, this prop betting
    issue in particular is so fundamental. I mean the example that
    you used about Armando Bacot having what he thought was a
    pretty good game in the tournament in which UNC actually won
    and getting more than a hundred messages directed on him
    because he didn't get ``enough rebounds.''
        Those stories are everywhere. And I think one of the most
    fundamental opportunities that we have to take at least some of
    the pressure off a lot of these young people is to get props
    bets out of the system. It's an enormous problem for them, and
    it creates an incredible amount of harassment, social pressure,
    and abuse. Period.
        Chair Durbin. So, let me congratulate Senator Tillis for
    landing at his State university, Bill Belichick, one of the one
    of the legends.
        [Laughter.]
        Chair Durbin. One of the legends.
        Mr. Baker. I was going to bring that up. We're quite
    familiar with him in Massachusetts.
        Chair Durbin. So, this last week they published his
    contract in more detail than I think usually is disclosed how
    much he's being paid and so forth, and the people he's going to
    hire to be part of his operation from the NFL. Interesting
    investment in talent for the university. And then at the last
    item was $20 or $23 million that is going to be used for
    incentives to bring athletes to the university. This is a big
    money operation. I'm not so naive to believe University of
    North Carolina is unique in this situation, but with all this
    money coming in and gambling superimposed on top of it, how do
    we preserve anything that looks like a credible sporting event,
    let alone amateur-type athletics?
        Mr. Baker. It's too bad that Senator Welch just left
    because I was planning to congratulate him on the fact that
    University of Vermont won the D1 National Soccer Championship
    last night. About as amateur a team as you're going to find
    competing in Division 1. I think the part of our objective on
    dealing with the money is this settlement that we've negotiated
    with a number of plaintiffs on a series of cases that typically
    involve NIL and other stuff that date back 10 years.
        And the point behind settling these cases was on our side
    to create structure around enhancing the benefits and the
    opportunities and the rev share for student athletes who play
    in programs and at schools that have really significant success
    in athletics. And I think that is ultimately, if we can succeed
    in getting this thing done. We got preliminary approval from
    the judge earlier this year, and she is going to have her final
    hearing on this in April.
        I do believe this will make it possible for us to create
    structure around this. And on some level, honestly, I think the
    fact that we could be in a position to put literally hundreds
    of millions of dollars directly into the hands of young people
    through their athletic performance and their schools will in
    some respects help on some of these larger issues associated
    with sports betting.
        But the abuse and the harassment and the beat down, not to
    mention the social pressure that you talked about that they
    deal with right now in this space because of the prop bet
    element that's attached to this is not going to go away unless
    we manage to figure out some way to get prop bets out of
    college sports. And that's why we've been spending so much time
    going State to State to make that happen.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Governor. Before I turn to Senator
    Tillis, Mr. Bademosi, a lot of people in Chicago are paying a
    lot of attention to Gonzaga graduates now. We thank you for
    being here today. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you all for being here today.
    Governor, I have hated the New England Patriots----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. Since the infamous snowplow
    game against my Miami Dolphins.
        Mr. Baker. I remember.
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. When I lived in Boston. But
    now I've found a way to actually have a warm place in my heart
    for at least one person associated with the Patriots.
        Mr. Baker. Appreciate that.
        Senator Tillis. I guess at full disclosure, I don't bet.
    The only bets I make are with my brothers, and the payoff
    involves acts of public humiliation. So, I'm so sorry for Mr.
    Levant what you're going through, but I do, I'm glad that, that
    we're having the hearing today to talk about getting this
    right, because I think too many States are getting it wrong. I
    think of the 38 States have legalized sports betting, 34 have
    prop betting, for example----
        Mr. Baker. Smaller number than that. We've managed to--it's
    about 19 that still have it.
        Senator Tillis. So, 19. Good. So, that's a good trend. But
    I'm going to get and time allowed to one suggestion I think we
    should have on a path forward, but I never miss an opportunity
    to bring up--well, first off, there's a lot of money involved
    here.
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Senator Tillis. And there's a lot of headwinds against
    this. And I'd like to give you an example of one of those
    players who I think supports and is making money off of prop
    betting and generally sports betting.
        [Poster is shown.]
        That's the Eastern Band of the Cherokee. Now, how does that
    come up into this hearing? Well, I just happened to be spending
    a lot of quality time with the Eastern Band of the Cherokee
    debating why they're spending all this money that they're
    making off of gambling, trying to prevent a Tribe that has been
    denied recognition for 130 years from getting recognition in
    the State of North Carolina.
        I'm not going to get into the details of this except for
    one William Pipestem who's making millions of dollars in
    targeted lobbying in this case to try and defeat my efforts to
    get a Tribe recognized after 130 years of patent bias, racism,
    and a number of other factors using money that they're deriving
    from sports gambling to do that.
        And believe me, they're going to have an army of people
    raising millions of dollars to prevent us from trying to scope
    this down to a level to where we take, we allow this legal
    market to exist because to Mr. Rebuck's point, it's going to
    exist. So, government has to exist to make it as safe and as
    minimize the impacts as possible.
        I don't believe that you're going to find the Eastern Band
    of the Cherokee, who I believe are just this week announcing a
    new casino, that they're going to be managing in Danville,
    Virginia, all excited about more prop betting, more revenue for
    them. You can take that down.
        I'm kind of curious about the--in some respects, I think at
    abstract the sports betting issue and the marijuana
    legalization issue--at first off, there seems to be a pretty
    substantial correlation between States who have legalized
    marijuana and States who are legalizing sports betting.
        The challenge that we have is we have a patchwork of laws
    now around the marijuana trade, and we have a patchwork of laws
    around the sports betting trade. And so, it really raises the
    question of how can we get to a place where, when a market
    exists and it has persistent for thousands and thousands of
    years, the gambling market, how do we make it safe? How do we
    address the negative consequences which will invariably occur?
    And how do we resource the various agencies to make sure that
    we can do that?
        And I, for one, think that in the same way that hopefully
    next year we'll have this discussion about marijuana, Mr.
    Rebuck, I disagree with you on the lack of need for federal
    guidelines. I do not want, as a matter of federal law, I would
    never vote as a matter of federal legislation to legalize
    gambling at the federal level in the same way that I wouldn't
    for marijuana.
        But I would be very open to an independent commission that
    would be tasked by this body to spend a year putting together
    guardrails and a framework that makes sense so that States who
    choose to have an affirmative vote and a law that is either
    signed by a Governor, overridden by a Governor, that they have
    to conform to certain rules of the road if we do that, if
    Federal Government's going to have to play a role.
        And what concerns me is if we don't, the American people
    don't know the difference between with AI and with the
    sophistication of technology today, if we don't figure out some
    way to authenticate the sports book operations that are
    legitimate to avoid international influences, all the other
    things that we have to look at, you only do that through
    federal supervision. At some point, you have to have the
    resources available to do it.
        So, I think we should start thinking ahead in the next
    Congress. I know you've been an effective Chair, but I don't
    think you're going to get this solved before you pass the gavel
    over.
        [Laughter.]
        And if I'm willing to bet on that incidentally.
        [Laughter.]
        But I think what we need to do is recognize that the
    federal--this is interstate commerce. If you're in a State
    that's not legalized it, you're naive.
        If you don't think they're gambling in the same way, if
    you're in a State that doesn't have pot legal, then you're
    going to the Eastern Band of the Cherokee and buying pot that
    for some reason you can buy in Western North Carolina, there's
    not a legal place. You can transport it out of the Eastern Band
    of the Cherokee's boundary, for example.
        So, maybe we need to start thinking about rules of the
    road. I'm kind of going on the pot angle, but on the gambling
    angle to get this right or it's going to get worse and the bad
    actors are going to exploit more, we are going to destroy a
    game that I'm fanatic over. We're going to destroy this game
    because of all the other pressures that are coming in and
    influencing the product. Thank you all for being here today.
        Dr. Levant. Senator, may I briefly address your comment?
        Senator Tillis. Yes, please,
        Dr. Levant. Senator, I would agree with you that there
    absolutely needs to be a level of federal oversight, and I
    would respectfully suggest that's what Senator of Blumenthal's
    bill the SAFE Bet Act does. It sets minimum federal standards.
    States can regulate more if they like, but it sets minimum
    federal standards, and in so doing, would create the
    opportunity to solve Governor Baker's problem, which I agree,
    with prop bets where we are literally taking young athletes who
    in May, were at their senior prom and are on an athletic field
    in September and people are betting on everything they do.
        Congress could and the SAFE Bet Act does it. SAFE Bet Act
    illuminates college prop bets. It would be a minimum standard.
    Governor Baker is going to exhaust himself going State to State
    to State. However, he's right. And Congress could make that as
    it is in the SAFE Bet Act, one of the minimum federal
    standards. States could do more. They would retain control, but
    Congress would be able to speak. Thank you, sir.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Rebuck, in your
    testimony, you advocate for State-led regulation of legal
    gambling, including sports betting. In my home State of
    California, as you know not just the most populous State in the
    Nation, but for purposes of today's discussion, the largest
    market of any State in the Nation, you cannot talk about gaming
    in any context without respecting the role of our 109 federally
    recognized Tribes.
        The voters of California granted Tribes exclusivity in
    gaming operations nearly a quarter century ago. And this
    commitment must be maintained in any attempts to legalize and
    expand sports betting. Now, in order to maintain a model that
    respects Tribal sovereignty and their exclusive rights to the
    State's gambling industry, California would require a uniquely
    tailored approach to any legislation that integrates sports
    betting.
        Can you discuss how you handled any similar stakeholder
    dynamics in New Jersey when you oversaw the legalization and
    implementation of sports betting there?
        Mr. Rebuck. Your question has to deal with the
    jurisdictional sovereignty of Indian Tribes that are clearly
    recognized under federal law, and I would say are regulated
    today by the Federal Government. The Indian Tribes do not exist
    in Tribal lands in New Jersey. So, to answer specifically your
    question, I did not interact with the Indian Tribes in that
    regard, but I have a high degree of confidence in the
    regulatory ability of Indian Tribes.
        I've met with many of them. We've shared information. A
    number of Indian Tribes today are clearly engaged in sports
    wagering, as was just mentioned in North Carolina. Their
    standards, their regulations flow through the government, the
    Federal Government that has almost a testbed, if you wanted to,
    to work with Indian Tribes to do things that otherwise you
    think they're not doing well today in their efforts.
        The issues in California with the rejection of sports
    wagering was delivered by the disappointment of Indian Tribes
    being not consulted, not involved, and as a stakeholder in what
    direction the State of California would move forward if they
    were to authorize sports wagering.
        Mr. Rebuck. I work closely in New Jersey with three Indian
    Tribes who are licensees and operate in New Jersey, Seminole
    Tribe in Florida, the Mohegan Tribe from Connecticut, the
    Mohawk and Kahnaw Tribe from, actually, Canada. They are very
    talented, very dedicated to ensuring integrity of operations
    exist, suitability exists. They are no different in their
    regulatory authorities than what exists in States today. So, I
    share your concern, and I would suggest you're on the right
    line of absolutely including them in any dialog that has to
    deal with an expansion of sports wagering to their Tribal lands
    or to the States that they're located in.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rebuck. And I want to
    thank you and all the witnesses for testifying on today's
    subject. I would ask not just Chairman Durbin, but the incoming
    leadership of this Committee in the next session, that to the
    extent that we're going to continue to have this conversation
    to continue to explore this area, that we must include the
    perspectives, the voices, the participation of Tribal leaders
    on panels like we're seeing in today's hearing.
        I also want to, and with not a question for Mr. Baker, but
    an invitation for an ongoing conversation, not to go off too
    much on a tangent, but even without the amount of money that
    wagering on collegiate sports is generating there has been an
    issue of the flow of money in collegiate sports and the
    treatment of student athletes.
        How much money in collegiate sports. I mean, Coach
    Belichick's contract is just one of many, many, many examples,
    let alone the amounts of money that we know is going into
    facilities, arenas, stadiums, et cetera. And I raise this
    because it seems that for a long time we've lost sight of the
    term ``student athletes'' which is an NCAA invention, I
    understand. And it's really an athlete student. What comes
    first, the treatment of students, young people, women, and men
    as students first that happen to play a sport or athletes first
    and get an education, if you can.
        I'd like to pursue conversations about some of the reforms
    that we've made in the State of California that pays attention
    to, for example, academic support for student athletes when
    graduation rates by university, by specific program,
    basketball, football, et cetera are or are not at certain
    thresholds.
        You know, what happens to a student athlete's scholarship.
    Should they suffer an injury are they just left out to dry, or
    do we give them ongoing support to complete their education?
    Because if they're student first and athlete second, that's our
    obligation to them. Or when a coach comes in and wants their
    own preferred recruited running back, or point guard, or
    something else.
        So, I know it's been an area of concentration for you since
    you've taken over the leadership at the NCAA, but it seems to
    have gotten lost in the conversation about wagering NILs and so
    much more. So, look forward to continuing with you.
        Mr. Baker. Can I stop for a quick?
        Senator Padilla. Sure.
        Mr. Baker. I just want you to know, I think you'll be
    pleased to know that starting in August, all Division 1
    athletes keep their scholarship whether they play or not, and
    that's their decision. Ten years. They keep their scholarship,
    however long it takes for them to graduate. The post
    eligibility insurance program that will cover any injury that
    they receive while they're playing, if they're still in
    treatment, when they leave school, is going to carry for 2
    years. And there's a whole series of supports for mental
    health, and health, and well-being services and academic
    services as well.
        We just released, I think, about 2 months ago, and we'll
    send it to your office, Senator, the data on graduation rates
    and student athletes across all three divisions graduated at a
    higher rate than any of their peers. No matter how you do the
    math by class, by ethnicity, by race, by gender, it doesn't
    matter.
        They, student athletes, actually have made a lot of
    progress in this area, and I give them, and the schools, they
    attend enormous credit. But I will make sure we send all this
    information to your office. We'll send it to the Committee as
    well.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
    for being here. I appreciate it. Mr. Rebuck, I want to come to
    you. We know that the U.S. is going to be the epicenter, if you
    will, for sports. We've got the World Cup in 26, we've got the
    Olympics in 28, and as we were working on some of this for the
    hearing, I was really surprised to see that 10 percent of
    organized crime revenue is made from sports betting. And that,
    to me, is something that's a little bit concerning, and match
    fixing has become a concern looking at these high-profile
    events that are coming our way.
        And Senator Cortez Masto and I recently sent a letter over
    to the DOJ on this very issue, and I would like for you to just
    comment. You've set up some of these gambling operations, so
    comment a little bit on what more needs to be done to address
    match fixing and these harms.
        Mr. Rebuck. Thank you for that question. I can relate to
    you what New Jersey did when we won the case in PASPA. I
    approached in the Governor's office, at that time Governor Phil
    Murphy, with the question of, we need to work out, reach out to
    the plaintiffs, the leagues, and the NCAA, because they will
    have to be our partners to ensure the integrity of their
    matches, the training and education of their athletes. The
    structure that they have for overseeing compliance issues in
    gambling are at the highest level, and we will work with them.
    But first, we----
        Senator Blackburn. So, you're looking for a partnership?
        Mr. Rebuck. We have a partnership because what we did, I
    can tell you today, 6 years later, and Governor Baker can
    comment on this, there have been massive investments of money
    by the professional leagues, not only for structure----
        Senator Blackburn. So, you're confident enough is being
    done.
        Mr. Rebuck. I am confident we are on a good path.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Mr. Rebuck. In this industry, you should never be confident
    with the status quo.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Mr. Rebuck. You should always look to new ways and new
    technologies that allow for information to be shared and risk
    assessments to be implemented.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay great. Let me move on. Mr. Levant,
    I want to come to you. Thank you for your op-ed on KOSA. I know
    Senator Blumenthal and I appreciate that support. And he and I
    have worked tirelessly to make certain that kids are protected
    in the virtual space. And one of the things that is so
    troubling is that there are not protections against gambling
    for kids in the virtual space. It seems to be pretty easy,
    unfortunately, and we know that it is harmful, it is addictive,
    and what more can be done to keep children from participating.
        Dr. Levant. Senator, thank you for the question, and thank
    you for your leadership on this issue. There are two initial
    thoughts that come to mind. The first deals with the overall
    normalization of the relationship between gambling and sports.
    If you are a 12-year-old child, you don't know sports without
    it being attached to gambling.
        I urge the Members of the Committee to watch a primetime
    basketball game on network television. And you will see that
    during the pre-game show at three o'clock in the afternoon. The
    pre-game show is sponsored by a gambling company. They're
    talking about betting, they are making suggestions for betting.
    Gambling has taken over sports, and for children, the
    normalization of gambling, which is a known addictive product,
    and making it part of sports is one of the most long-term
    problematic aspects of this.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Dr. Levant. The second thing, Senator, is I'm not going to
    do it right now. I have my phone in my pocket. I don't have an
    account. I'm a person in recovery from gambling addiction, but
    with two clicks of my thumb, I could get into an online sports
    book, just like a 9-year-old could. That's not to make a bet,
    but it's to see all of the gambling activity. It is ridiculous
    to me that each State permits this. There are age barriers to
    making bets, but not for looking.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. My time is inspiring, and I do
    want to move on, and I want to have further conversations with
    you on that.
        Dr. Levant. Certainly. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn. Before I turn it back, Governor Baker, I
    want to highlight with you my concerns over some of the
    harassment that happens to our athletes online, especially our
    female athletes. I will visit with you separately. I am still
    disappointed that there is not an NCAA policy to protect women
    in competition. You all have had time to do this. Our female
    athletes deserve it. And if you're going to partner up on
    gambling and other things, and we applaud that, you have got to
    make certain that you are protecting women's sports for women.
        We hear about this every single week from female collegiate
    athletes and their concerns. You-all have the ability to do
    better. It is important that you do better, and it is
    important, it is imperative that you protect opportunity for
    women in sports. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am very
    appreciative to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.
    And to the witnesses who are here today, not only for
    appearing, but for your good work and your help to me in
    drafting the SAFE Bet Act and the GRIT Act, Mr. Whyte, Mr.
    Levant, Mr. Baker, particularly.
        You know, we are in the midst of a sports betting boom,
    that is one of the most severe public health problems today. It
    is the cause of addiction for millions of Americans with severe
    gambling problems. It's tearing apart families, literally
    divorces, abandonment. It's a criminal justice problem when
    people get into trouble and they have to pay back the debts
    that they owe. When I was U.S. Attorney, I prosecuted extortion
    and enforcement by the gangs. And of course, it is an
    unemployment problem. And a mental health, behavioral health
    problem.
        You know the nomenclature, and the techniques, and the
    sophistication of the trading practices here make Wall Street
    look like child's play. The risk-free bet, the throttling, the
    targeting of losers customizing bets to those who are losing
    and throttling back the winners. I mean, the plethora of
    techniques is staggering here, all to the benefit of the
    corporations that are profiting here.
        And Mr. Baker, as you may know, colleges initially were
    partners in some of these efforts. I wrote to 66 of them, and
    they stopped the partnership that promoted gambling on their
    campuses. And so there really is a kind of shamelessness here.
        I want to ask for your support for the SAFE Bet Act, which
    would establish minimum national standards. Right now, we have
    a patchwork of half-hearted regulation. The SAFE Bet Act would,
    in effect, also provide more public health benefits to try to
    provide some relief to people who are now addicted. And those
    minimum standards would be set by the Department of Justice.
    States would still have responsibility, but they'd have to meet
    those minimum standards that would eliminate the kinds of
    promotions, ads, pitches, and deceptive techniques that right
    now are so rampant.
        So, let me just ask you, in the interest of time, would all
    of you support the SAFE Bet Act? Let me go down with Mr. Baker
    first.
        Mr. Baker. I'm familiar with certain elements of it. I'm
    not familiar with all of it. I can tell you the elements I am
    familiar with we do support. And the one thing I would add to
    some of the stuff you've talked about is when you have 39
    States that have legalized sports betting, in every single
    State the data they collect is different. Who they can share it
    with is different. And how they can and who they can share it
    with is different.
        And so you have a situation where it is really hard to get
    kind of a national sense about what's going on. New Jersey
    probably has one of the best data collection programs in the
    country, but I think the, I think the data thing in particular
    should not be underestimated as an opportunity. And I love the
    fact that your legislation basically prohibits props on college
    sports. It would save me a lot of running around.
        Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Bademosi.
        Mr. Bademosi. I'm not familiar with every detail of the
    SAFE Bet Act. But in the interest of protecting the health and
    wellness of the athletes, and protecting the athletes against
    universities and these entities that are in partnership with
    betting companies, they're literally like--I support it.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Whyte.
        Mr. Whyte. As with NCAA, there's a lot of details in there
    that we really like, but because it starts by prohibiting
    sports betting, at least temporarily, the National Council must
    remain neutral because we're neutral on legalized gambling.
        Mr. Rebuck. Senator, I really don't represent here, anybody
    but myself and my comments in my written testimony and my oral
    indicate that this is not a good bill to move forward. Because
    I believe after 6\1/2\ years of litigation to the States to
    earn the rights, constitutional rights to have sports wagering,
    that we are entitled to do the best we can to regulate and deal
    with the issues that are highlighted here, which I agree many
    of them need to be continued to be dealt with in ways that we
    can improve upon.
        That being said, aspects of your bill that talks about the
    need for safeguards, the need for guardrails, the need to work
    on responsible gaming aspects of reducing the risk of people
    falling in the harm, those are all shared by every jurisdiction
    today that engages in gambling. And as you well know, we have
    10 States right now, 7 of which are represented by Members here
    that have no legal sports wagering.
        Senator Blumenthal. No legal sports betting.
        Mr. Rebuck. No legal sports wagering.
        Senator Blumenthal. No legal sports betting. A lot of
    sports betting. Illegally. And I appreciate your support. I've
    run out of time. Mr. Levant.
        Dr. Levant. Having helped office and Congressman Tonko
    write the bill, my answer is yes, and I'm prepared to answer
    any questions about why the bill sets appropriate public health
    standards by the Federal Government. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. About 90 percent
    of my personal philosophy is don't hurt someone unless they're
    trying to hurt you. Don't take other people's stuff and leave
    me alone. So, I'm pretty libertarian when it comes to gambling.
    Within reason, if someone wants to gamble, they can. But I do
    want to ask you this, Mr. Rebuck, can you name me one form of
    legalized gambling where the house doesn't have a decided
    advantage?
        Mr. Rebuck. The gambling industry always has the advantage,
    as you are correctly indicating.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay.
        Mr. Rebuck. The point is that the consumers----
        Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry to cut you off. I just don't
    have much time. Governor Baker the NCAA exists, in part, to
    promote fair competition in collegiate sports. Does it not?
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Could you speak in the mic for me?
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. A transgender woman is a biological male.
    Is that correct?
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. And a biological male is always going to
    have a physical and physiological advantage competing in a
    collegiate sport against a biological female. Isn't that true?
        Mr. Baker. There's not a lot of research on it, but it's
    certainly debatable.
        Senator Kennedy. You think it's debatable?
        Mr. Baker. I think it's debatable.
        Senator Kennedy. Wait, you don't think that a biological
    male has an advantage every time competing against a biological
    female? Is that your testimony?
        Mr. Baker. No, I think defined the way you defined it, yes,
    I would agree with you. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. So, you agree with me? Okay.
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. So, why does the NCAA, why do you--your
    job is to promote fairness in collegiate sports. Why do you
    support allowing transgender women who are biological males to
    compete against non-transgender biological females?
        Mr. Baker. Over the course of the past 2 years, five
    Federal court cases involving this question--let me finish,
    five Federal judges have all sided with participation as the
    standard. This is a very----
        Senator Kennedy. So, you're saying you don't have a choice?
        Mr. Baker. I'm saying that under the current dynamic, there
    is not clarity on this issue, legally.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, why don't you exhibit leadership and
    demonstrate leadership and provide clarity? If you agree with
    me.
        Mr. Baker. Well, first of all----
        Senator Kennedy. The purpose of the NCAA is to promote fair
    competition, and if you agree with me that in every single
    instance a biological male is going to have an unfair advantage
    over a biological female, then why don't you just say, ``Look,
    in America, you can be whomever you want to be, but in terms of
    fair competition in a collegiate sport, transgender women who
    are biological males are not going to be allowed to compete
    against non-transgender women who are biological female.''
    Boom. Done. Why don't you take that position, Charlie?
        Mr. Baker. Because Federal courts have already taken the
    position that they do have the right to compete. Five times in
    the past 2\1/2\ years.
        Senator Kennedy. You can disagree and be sued. Why don't
    you demonstrate some leadership?
        Mr. Baker. I would love to work with you folks on creating
    clarity around this question.
        Senator Kennedy. I'm sorry, but look, I'm sure the NCAA is
    a good organization. I just can't figure out what you folks are
    good for. I know you take in bucket loads of money and you
    share some of it. You make that money off the backs of these
    kids. Your predecessor, who was a good man, took home $2.8
    million a year in salary. I'm not going to ask you what you
    make, but I bet you didn't take a pay cut.
        You take in bucket loads of money. We got problems in
    collegiate sports with the transfer portal, and the NIL, and
    now gambling, and biological males, you allowing biological
    males to compete against biological females. And you folks at
    the NCAA don't do anything except sit there, watch, cash your
    checks, and suck on your teeth.
        Mr. Baker. I would argue that we've made a lot of progress
    on a bunch of those issues.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, why don't you take a position on
    transgender, biological males competing against females? You
    just told me it wasn't fair.
        Mr. Baker. There's a federal standard on this is one that
    we would work with you on, if you wish to work on it.
        Senator Kennedy. Why don't you do it on your own?
        Mr. Baker. Because we're a national governing body and we
    follow federal law.
        Senator Kennedy. That's what you're there for. Why don't
    you stand up and say in front of God and country federal law is
    wrong, and the NCAA believes in fair competition. We also
    believe inequality. If you want to in America, you can be
    whatever you want to be. You can be whomever you want to be,
    but our job is to promote fairness in sports.
        Mr. Baker. Our job----
        Senator Kennedy. Biological males are not going to be
    allowed to compete against biological females. Why don't you go
    to Amazon and buy a spine online and take a stand?
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kennedy. Next is Senator
    from Vermont--Senator Schiff, I'm sorry, from California.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
    holding this hearing, which has been fascinating. Learned a lot
    about sports betting. Just asking my collegiate age son about
    it, and learned just how extraordinarily popular it is, how it
    really has become a cultural phenomenon on college campuses.
    Governor Baker, just want to say, I'm originally from
    Framingham. Have a lot of Schiff family and Glovsky family
    still in the State. All who speak very highly of you, and you
    manage to leave after two terms as popular as when you went in,
    which is a remarkable feat for any Governor these days in these
    challenging times. So, congratulations.
        I wanted to ask a couple questions, and Governor, I'd like
    to ask you just very generally. Sports have always been a
    dominant feature on campus, and they contribute so much to the
    life of a campus, and not just the student athletes, but all
    the students and alumni and drive a lot of the resources to the
    campuses.
        Now, this seems to be so accentuated by sports betting,
    driving more attention, more money, more resources to this one
    part of campus life. Is there a risk that everything else
    becomes overwhelmed by all the money going into sports and
    sports betting on campuses? And how do campuses preserve some
    balance in the light of that, in the contract that the Chairman
    was talking about Bill Belichick, and how much is devoted to
    this one feature?
        And the second question for anyone is how does this
    throttling work where people who are successful or throttle
    down and can't compete as much can't bet as much, and people
    who are losing their shirt are targeted. Have States tried to
    regulate that as they have with prop betting, and I think prop
    betting should be banned. It sounds like it does nothing but
    create enormous problems for athletes. But how does this other
    phenomenon, a throttling work, and is there any justification
    for it?
        Mr. Baker. I can speak to the first question, not so much
    to the second one. I would just say that the first of all,
    there are, you know, there's 500,000 student athletes. There
    are 1,100 schools, and for the vast majority of them, the
    experience on campus is not driven in many respects by a really
    significant growth in revenue. I mean, most of them look a lot
    like they looked when they were playing these games 5, 10, 15,
    20 years ago. But they teach all the same lessons that all
    sports teach in terms of your ability. And by the way, Senator,
    congratulations, University of Vermont, a classic example of
    one of those kinds of schools that won the D1 soccer
    championship yesterday.
        Senator Schiff. You can continue.
        Mr. Baker. I can continue. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Schiff. Let's not forget the Broncos Division 2
    leaders in California,
        Mr. Baker. Of course, the Broncos. Yes, that's right. Cal
    Poly.
        Senator Schiff. I'm feeling competitive with Vermont right
    now.
        Mr. Baker. But those are great examples of exactly what
    we're talking about. I think the big issue for us coming in has
    been enhance the benefits that we make available to student
    athletes. Come up with a model, working with the plaintiffs in
    several particular cases to create a model to provide
    additional benefits to the kids who play at the schools that
    make the most money, and then do what we can, especially in
    this space to provide as much protection to them as we can and
    to give them a lot of guidance and advice.
        We run the largest sports betting integrity program on a
    per game basis in the world. We also run the largest in-person
    education program for student athletes, athletes of any kind
    anywhere in the world around sports betting, and we've put a
    tremendous amount of effort into driving this conversation
    around prop betting and have had a fair amount of success to
    the point where we have 19 States left, we need to move.
        But and we also track all the abuse and harassment that
    comes at student athletes who participate in our major
    championships and created a fair amount of public conversation
    about that when we released that data earlier this year.
        I think the challenges, especially at the highest end are
    profound. And I think we should be doing everything we can to
    help kids there. And in particular, the prop. That one is a
    great opportunity to do something in the right direction.
        Mr. Whyte. Senator, if I may, to your point about the
    prevalence of wager on campus, Charlie's group did a survey
    that showed the majority of young male college students have
    placed a sports bet in the past year. The other striking
    finding from our study is that one of the biggest predictive
    factors of sports betting is educational status. Unlike other
    forms of gambling where it's negatively correlated, the higher
    your education, the less likely you are to bet in America
    today. The more education you have, the more likely you are to
    bet on sports. So, there's this cohesion now of sports and
    athletics. I mean, I'm sorry, athletics in education, which
    we've always had, but now that gambling is so tied in with
    sports. Now education is one of the biggest predictive factors.
    We don't see that with sports betting anywhere else in the
    world, and we don't see that with any other form of gambling in
    America. So, there's a real concern about how we reach these
    young, educated men who have this huge propensity to bet on
    sports and unfortunately are at highest risk for gambling
    addiction.
        Dr. Levant. Senator, may I take the second part of your
    question very quickly. I run a patient treatment group. And my
    patients know I'm here today, and I asked them if there was one
    message I could deliver, and 14 of the 15 all told me the same
    thing. And that is let elected officials know how they are
    targeted to keep them gambling.
        I'll make an offer to you that I've done with Senator
    Blumenthal, Congressman Tonko, done with the New York Times,
    and CNN, and CBS. I would gladly sit down with your staff
    members, any staff member, and show you while we watch a game
    together, how the rapid fire and the VIP programs keep people
    in action. I think Members of this Committee need to be
    educated on that so it can be addressed.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Schiff. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Baker, if I
    could just start with you. I confess I didn't understand your
    answer to Senator Kennedy's question about the safety of women
    in the sports of the NCAA overseas. Did you say the federal law
    requires the NCAA to permit biological men to play in women's
    sports?
        Mr. Baker. No. I said there have been five cases in Federal
    court in the past 18 months, and in all five of them, Federal
    judges sided with participation.
        Senator Hawley. Okay. I thought you told him the reason the
    NCAA couldn't take a position on this--in fact, you have taken
    a position on it. You're affirmatively permitting biological
    men in women's sports. But you to him it's because of federal
    law. There's no federal law that requires it. Right. The
    relevant federal law is the Title IX. Is it not? You're
    familiar with Title IX.
        Mr. Baker. If guidance on this issue from Title IX or
    guidance with respect to discrimination law would be----
        Senator Hawley. Title IX is already the law. Title IX
    says----
        Mr. Baker. Federal judges have ruled on----
        Senator Hawley. It's 20 U.S.C Section 1681A. By the way,
    let's just dispense with that canard. No Federal court has
    ordered the NCAA to include biological men in women's sports.
    Right. Actually, there's not a single case that is ordered the
    NCAA to do so. Correct.
        Mr. Baker. That's pretty much what they decided in----
        Senator Hawley. No, don't say pretty much. We're talking
    about the law here. Yes, I know. And you, and you actively
    disassembled to Senator Kennedy just a second ago. It's not
    true that the NCAA has been ordered by any court. Number one,
    it's not true that federal law requires you to include
    biological males. In fact, Title IX explicitly says, ``No
    person in the United States shall on the basis of sex, be
    denied the benefits of any educational program or activity
    receiving federal financial assistance.'' You are in court at
    this moment arguing that Title IX doesn't apply to the NCAA,
    which is astounding to me, given the amount of money, federal
    money the NCAA gets.
        But let me just ask you this. A total of five teams, five
    women's volleyball teams, Wyoming, Southern Utah, Utah State,
    Nevada, and Boise State, all forfeited, had to forfeit seven
    games in their conference play, NCAA conference play this past
    year, women's teams, because a biological male under your rules
    was playing on a rival's team. How is that not denying them the
    benefits of the sport? Why is this fair to women?
        Mr. Baker. And when that issue went to Federal court, the
    judge sided with participation.
        Senator Hawley. No, the NCAA did not go to court. No, that
    is not true.
        Mr. Baker. The Federal judge made the decision with respect
    to the issue you just raised.
        Senator Hawley. Your rules have not been tried in Federal
    court and your rules explicitly permit biological males in
    women's sports. And I am asking you why is that fair to the
    women? All of these women on these teams had to forfeit games
    and therefore a chance to compete in the championship because
    of your rules. And I want to know why is that protective of
    women? That's my question.
        Mr. Baker. So far, the Federal Government, on the court
    side, has issued decisions several times----
        Senator Hawley. No, I'm not asking about the courts. I know
    what the courts have done. Not one of them has----
        Mr. Baker. That's their interpretation of federal law.
        Senator Hawley. This is your policy, which you will not
    defend because frankly, it's indefensible. Why are you, Mr.
    Baker, why are you allowing biological men to play in women's
    sports?
        Mr. Baker. Because we believe that's consistent with
    federal policy.
        Senator Hawley. Your testimony is you believe you're
    compelled to do it by federal law. You would change it
    otherwise.
        Mr. Baker. I said in my opening comments to Senator
    Kennedy, the clarity on this issue at the federal level would
    be very helpful.
        Senator Hawley. Oh, that is such a cop out. In other words,
    somebody else, please do it for us. Keep sending us the money.
    We'll go to court and argue that Title IX doesn't even apply to
    us.
        Mr. Baker. We do not take a dime in federal money. Not a
    dime.
        Senator Hawley. Is that why you're arguing Title IX doesn't
    apply to you?
        Mr. Baker. Yes. Part of it, yes.
        Senator Hawley. You honestly think you shouldn't be subject
    to Title IX.
        Mr. Baker. We don't believe we currently are in Federal
    court----
        Senator Hawley. It's amazing. Absolutely amazing. You're
    have a pending lawsuit right now from female athletes who are
    suing you because you allow biological men, not only in their
    sports, but also in their locker rooms. Why do you do that, by
    the way? Why do your guidelines allow biological men into
    women's locker rooms without the women's consent, without the
    women's foreknowledge? Why do you do that?
        Mr. Baker. That's not what our guidelines say.
        Senator Hawley. They do say that. I've got them right here.
    Your guidelines say that transgender student athletes should be
    able to use the locker room, shower, and toilet facilities in
    accordance with their gender identity. Here they are right
    here.
        Mr. Baker. And then everybody else should have an
    opportunity to use other facilities if they wish to do so.
        Senator Hawley. Okay. So, the burden's on the women. So, if
    the women then want to move to a different facility, in other
    words, if they want to abandon their own locker room, you're
    saying that that they should have to do that. So, in other
    words, it's their problem.
        Mr. Baker. No, we put a fair--we put a significant amount
    of emphasis on what the local's plans are. And we make sure
    that everybody----
        Senator Hawley. What does that mean? The local's plans?
        Mr. Baker. Whoever it is that's hosting the event.
        Senator Hawley. You have guidelines that instruct them what
    the best practices are. And your guidelines say that biological
    men can go in and use the women's locker rooms if they want to.
    What the women want has nothing to do with it. They're not
    mentioned in here at all. Correct? It's right here. You just
    reaffirmed them in May of this year. I've got them. I'm reading
    them. I got them off your website.
        Mr. Baker. I believe our guidelines give people optionality
    with respect to how they choose to use their facilities.
        Senator Hawley. Optionality? What it says is, transgender
    student athletes will be able to use the locker room, shower,
    and toilet in accordance with their gender identity. That means
    men will be able to use the women's locker rooms. And as Riley
    Gaines and others have testified before this Committee, that
    means if a man, biological man, wants to use their locker room,
    they just have to accept it or else the women have to go
    somewhere else. They've got to go find an alternative. Why is
    that fair?
        [Points at witness.]
        Mr. Baker. We told the local folks who've hosted our
    tournaments, they need to create accommodations for the people
    who are playing.
        Senator Hawley. You know, so it's the feds. On the one
    hand, it's the locals on the other hand, the only person who
    doesn't seem to bear any responsibility in this is you and the
    NCAA who are the governing body. And your testimony here today
    is you're not even subject to Title IX.
        Mr. Baker, I can't tell you how disappointed this makes me.
    But not just disappointed, frankly, infuriated for the student
    athletes who are suffering because of your policies, and you
    won't even defend them. You won't even take responsibility.
    It's outrageous. It's totally outrageous.
        Chair Durbin. Senator, your time has expired. Senator
    Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank the
    witnesses. Thanks for the shout out. Going back to gambling,
    could you talk a little bit more about what the emotional
    pressure is on the student athletes. Mr. Baker, Governor Baker?
        Mr. Baker. Well, my first suggestion to all of you would be
    to talk to some of the kids who are on your campuses about this
    issue and ask them to show you some of the stuff that shows up
    in their phones, which we've seen or sit behind the bench at
    one of their contests and listen to the noise that's directed
    at them from people in the stands.
        Part of the reason we released the results of the data we
    collected from our previous engagements with championship data
    collection was to point out to people how aggressive, and in
    some cases, brutal, the incoming a lot of these young people
    get.
        Senator Welch. That's all pressure from bettors.
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. Who want an outcome, in fact,
    holding them accountable----
        Mr. Baker. In one of our championships, we literally put
    24/7 police protection around one of the teams because of the
    legitimacy of the threat that they received from a bettor when
    we showed it to local law enforcement.
        Senator Welch. And how much pressure is there on kids to
    participate in this sports betting, the athletes themselves?
        Mr. Baker. They get a lot of pressure from their--I mean,
    this is something I would--I mean, this may have all been
    before your time, thank God.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Baker [continuing]. But a big part of the abuse that's
    coming from the stands also involves classmates, schoolmates,
    friends who literally talk to them in a way where they
    basically say, ``Look, you're my friend. I'm not looking for
    you to lose a game. I just need you to miss the first two free
    throws.''
        Senator Welch. And that's the prop bet?
        Mr. Baker. And that's the prop bet.
        Senator Welch. Bademosi, you want to speak to that?
        Mr. Bademosi. Yes. I could comment on it. I think I think
    the pressure comes--or one is an athlete succumbs to pressure
    when they're in need, and if they don't have the money to buy a
    meal or pay for gas, then they might succumb to that pressure.
        Senator Welch. They've got opportunity. They got the need
    that you mentioned.
        Mr. Bademosi. Yes. Now, some universities take better care
    of their athletes than others.
        Senator Welch. All right. I want to ask another question
    about marketing and the use of AI that you've all described.
    One of the questions I have that hasn't been a topic of this
    hearing is the concentration of the betting industry in three
    or four companies.
        And Senator Lee and I have sent a letter to the FDC really
    inquiring about whether there are antitrust issues here. And,
    obviously, in any market, not just this one competition's
    important. And one question I have is whether the more we allow
    for competition, some companies may have better practices than
    others. I don't know if that would be helpful or not. But I'd
    be interested, sir, in your comments on that.
        Dr. Levant. Senator, I believe it goes to the need for
    minimum federal standards because some of these companies have
    become so large. And I specifically mentioned in my opening
    testimony, DraftKings, who has recently purchased an artificial
    intelligence----
        Senator Welch. Company. Right, I heard that.
        Dr. Levant. So, what they have is the capacity not only to
    control markets, but to use the technology to target vulnerable
    customers with the most addictive forms of what's called micro-
    betting.
        Senator Welch. So, you get that capacity, that's an
    incredibly powerful marketing device because people are
    susceptible to that addiction, that micro-targeting on the
    betting.
        Dr. Levant. And that's why what the SAFE Bet Act does is it
    specifically addresses as a federal standard the standards for
    in-game micro-betting. So, that while the Justice Department
    deals with issues such as competition, what from a public
    health perspective Congress can deal with is which forms of
    these bets should actually be permitted and which are simply
    too dangerous from a public health perspective. And that's what
    the SAFE Bet Act would do, sir.
        Mr. Whyte. Senator, if I may, in some sense arguing about
    what types of bets to limit, and prohibit, or allow, ignores
    the fundamental nature of addiction, which is that it
    flourishes regardless of legalization or regulation. And which
    is why we support the GRIT Act that would provide for the first
    ever federal support for States like Vermont to establish the
    kinds of prevention, treatment, and research we need to address
    this.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. I understood you wanted the
    States to be able to make the decisions, but it seems to me
    that it helps the State. I used to be a State legislator. If
    there are standards you're not then arguing about
    exceptionalism where there's some self-interest at stake in
    terms in the form of revenue. So, why would that be a problem,
    from your perspective?
        Mr. Rebuck. Well, let me comment first on the harassment of
    student athletes. I share that concern. Everybody shares that
    concern, as Governor Baker understands. New Jersey
    affirmatively reached out to every Division 1 college in its
    State and made it very clear to them.
        If at any time a student comes to you, an athlete, or any
    student, you have an affirmative duty to refer that matter to
    law enforcement. And this assistant attorney general has State
    troopers who are prepared to engage in investigations and use
    all the tools at our disposal if they are a gambler to go
    after----
        Senator Welch. I don't mean to interrupt, but I'll
    interrupt.
        Mr. Rebuck. Go ahead.
        Senator Welch. Well, what Governor Baker said was that a
    lot of the harassment is around the prop betting.
        Mr. Rebuck. That's gambling.
        Senator Welch. Right. But why wouldn't that help you rather
    than have all this after-the-fact investigation and protection
    of assets?
        Mr. Rebuck. Because here's the end results----
        Senator Welch. Just prohibit prop betting. So, the students
    here don't get hammered on that.
        Mr. Rebuck. We have 10 States that have no gambling at all.
    We have 15 States that have bans against betting on in-State
    college events in their State, including their student
    athletes. The letter I reached out to and referred to, many of
    these cases I wish they had been referred to us to investigate,
    and handle, and treat as criminals. The response to that in New
    Jersey is very low and, in many times, many ways non-existent.
    I'm not saying harassment doesn't exist. I'm just saying the
    tools are there to make a fortune.
        Senator Welch. My time is up. Thank you very much.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Welch. Although this is a
    hearing that is nominally dedicated to the issue of gambling,
    and sports, and like, other issues have arisen. I want to give
    Governor Baker an opportunity to complete a few answers that he
    may not have had a chance, but I'd like you to ask you a
    question or two. How many athletes are there in the United
    States in NCAA schools?
        Mr. Baker. 510,000.
        Chair Durbin. How many transgender athletes are you aware
    of?
        Mr. Baker. Less than 10.
        Chair Durbin. Less than 10 out of 510,000.
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Chair Durbin. Are you governed when it comes to the policy
    of the NCAA by State law?
        Mr. Baker. Of course.
        Chair Durbin. So, if 25 of the 50 States currently say that
    transgender children can play in sports according to their
    gender identity, you're bound by that standard.
        Mr. Baker. Yes.
        Chair Durbin. Is there anything else you'd like to say on
    this subject?
        Mr. Baker. I think part of our challenge is dealing with a
    very murky set of court decisions at the State and federal
    level around this issue, which creates a certain lack of
    clarity around our policy because our policy ultimately needs
    to comply with federal policy. Which is why guidance either on
    the regulatory side or on the statutory side would be very
    helpful.
        Chair Durbin. 510,000 athletes. Ten, Ten transgender
    athletes nationwide?
        Mr. Baker. Or less.
        Chair Durbin. I assume the NCAA is also concerned with
    other issues in women's sports?
        Mr. Baker. The harassment that I speak of is far more
    prevalent in major women's championships than it is in men's
    championships. And in fact, the data that we put forward from
    our major championships last year showed that the worst
    examples of online threats, abuse, and harassment were being
    directed at women basketball players playing in our women's
    basketball tournament.
        That in many respects, I think, is not as well-known as it
    should be. We try to do a pretty good job to promote it, and
    make clear to people that that was in fact the championship
    that had the most brutal and the most troubling, and the
    nastiest collection. And all we know of is what shows up on
    their public handle. We don't know what's on the stuff they're
    getting in their direct messages.
        We talked to a lot of the folks who played in those
    tournaments and they said the stuff that comes in on their DMs
    is a lot worse than the stuff that we see on their public
    handle.
        Chair Durbin. I wish my colleagues who share my concern in
    yours for the future of women's sports could have heard your
    testimony. I think it's very important. I want to thank all of
    you for joining us today. This is not the end of this
    discussion, but only the beginning. And as we see, there are
    many aspects to this whole issue in terms of the future of
    sports, treatment of athletes, colleges, and basically, gaming
    industry nationwide, which is a very viable and important part
    of the economy and whether or not it will establish standards
    that are sensitive to the individuals who are being affected by
    the current standards.
        As I said at the outset, this is the last meeting of the
    Senate Judiciary Committee, last scheduled meeting. It's been
    my honor to serve as Chairman. I wish everyone the very best.
    The Senate Judiciary Committee will stand in recess and
    adjournment.
        [Whereupon, at 11:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118shrg61196/pdf/CHRG-
        118shrg
        61196-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Chair Durbin:

     Advocacy & Legal Affairs Committee of Stop Predatory Gambling,
        statement.....................................................     2
     Amar, Vikram David, statement....................................     4

     Bernal, Les, statement...........................................     6

     Campaign for Fairer Gambling, statement..........................    10

     Campaign for Fairer Gambling Report One, statement...............    19

     Campaign for Fairer Gambling Super Bowl 2024, statement..........    42

     Fagan, Michael K., statement.....................................    46

     Fiore, Teresa (EPIC), statement..................................    48

     Frank, Eric, statement...........................................    49

     Kindt, John, statement...........................................    51

     Miller, Bill, (AGA), statement...................................    54

     Moms Against Gambling, statement.................................    75

     Moms Against Gambling Exhibit A, statement.......................    78

     Moms Against Gambling Exhibit B, statement.......................    97

     NERA Economic Consulting--prepared for the Campaign for Fairer
        Gambling-New Jersey, statement................................   105

     Nower, Lia, statement............................................   105

     Texans Against Gambling, statement...............................   172

                                    [all]