[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10912-S10916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE EXPLOSIVE GROWTH OF GAMBLING IN THE UNITED STATES
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in November of last year, when I announced
I would retire from the Senate after 1996, President Clinton suggested
that with the freedom from political restraint I now have, and with
slightly more credibility because political opportunism would not be
the immediate cry of critics, I should, from time to time, make
observations about our Nation, where we are going, and where we should
go.
One of the marks of our civilization, virtually unnoticed as we
discuss the Nation's problems, is our fastest-growing industry:
gambling.
Local governments, Indian tribes, and States--all desperate for
revenue--increasingly are turning to what appears to be a quick and
easy solution: legalized gambling. And, temporarily, it often works.
Poverty-stricken Indian tribes suddenly have revenue. Cities like East
St. Louis, IL, with every possible urban malady, find themselves with
enough revenue to at least take care of minimal services.
There are four basic questions:
First, how rapidly is this phenomenon growing?
Second, what are its advantages?
Third, what are its disadvantages?
Fourth, is there a role for the Federal Government to play, and
should it play a role?
Gambling is not a new phenomenon. The Bible and early historical
records tell of its existence. Gambling surfaced early in U.S. history,
then largely disappeared as a legal form of revenue for State and local
governments. It remained very much alive, however, even though illegal,
in the back rooms of taverns and in not-so-hidden halls, often with
payoffs to public officials to ``look the other way'' while it
continued. I particularly remember traveling overseas and back while in
the U.S. Army. The troop ship became one huge gambling operation with
dice or cards, activity slowed only by the occasional walking tour of a
conscientious officer whose coming would be foretold by someone taking
the voluntary watch for his fellow enlisted men--and they were then all
men--who gambled. After the watchman's signal, suddenly that portion of
the ship's deck or hold could meet the highest puritanical standards.
Within seconds of the disappearance of the dreaded officer, the games
would begin again. Participation had no appeal to me, not primarily for
moral reasons, but I have always been too conservative with my money to
enjoy risking it that way. What I remember about those shipboard
activities was the enormity of the stakes that could be built up--
enormous for enlisted men on meager salaries in 1951-1953--and the
ability of some of my friends to continue their activity with almost no
sleep.
Gambling's appeal, particularly for the idle--and a troop ship is
loaded with them--is clear.
Early in our Nation's history, almost all States had some form of
lottery, my State of Illinois being no exception. When Abraham Lincoln
served in our State legislature from 1834 to 1842, lotteries were
authorized, and there apparently was no moral question raised about
having them. In 1839, for example, the Illinois House of
Representatives voted unanimously to authorize a lottery to raise funds
``for the purpose of draining the ponds of the American bottom'' in the
vicinity of what is now East St. Louis, an area that to this day has a
severe drainage problem, and a city that today has a significant
gambling presence.
In Illinois and other States the loose money quickly led to
corruption, and the States banned all forms of gambling. Illinois
leaders felt so strongly about it, they put the ban into the State
constitution. For many years, Louisiana had the only lottery, and
[[Page S 10913]]
then in 1893--after a major scandal there--the Federal Government
prohibited all lottery sales. Even the results of tolerated but illegal
lotteries could not be sent through the mail.
But the lottery crept back in, first in New Hampshire in 1963, and
then in 36 other States. Last year States sold $34 billion in lottery
tickets. Forty-two States now have some form of legalized gambling.
Even States that technically outlaw gambling frequently manage to have
some form of it. In one of the more peculiar decisions by Illinois
Supreme Court justices--dependent for reelection at that time on
campaign contributions--they ruled that betting money on horses was not
gambling, because the ability of the horse and the skill of the rider
were involved. Gambling is when everything is left to chance, they
argued.
What we know as casino gambling was legal only in Nevada, then in New
Jersey and now in 23 states. From a small enterprise in a few States,
gambling has matured. In 1974, $17 billion was legally wagered in the
Nation. By 1992, it reached $329 billion, and it is now over $500
billion. Three-fourths of the Nation's citizens now live within 300
miles of a casino. One article reports, ``Airlines are exploring the
installation of back-of-seat slot machines on some flights.'' [``A Full
House,'' by Rob Day, Hemisphere, October, 1994.] Other nations--
particularly poorer ones--are expanding gambling operations. Within our
country, the magazine Gaming and Wagering Business reports, ``Old
attitudes have been shattered. Barriers are crumbling, and doors have
been flung open.'' [Dec. 15, 1991-Jan. 15, 1992.]
At this point, let me digress to express my gratitude to scholars who
have studied legalized gambling in the United States, with little
attention and little gratitude from the community at large.
Particularly helpful, as I prepared these remarks, was a book
manuscript I had the opportunity to read by Robert Goodman, a professor
at Hampshire College in Massachusetts. In October, the Free Press will
publish his thoughtful and well-crafted manuscript under the title,
``The Luck Business.'' The subtitle is ``The Devastating Consequences
and False Promises of America's Gambling Explosion.'' John Warren
Kindt, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana, wrote an
excellent article for the Drake Law Review last year, ``The Economic
Impacts of Legalized Gambling Activities,'' and Henry Lesieur, who
heads the criminal justice division at Illinois State University, edits
a magazine in this field, Journal of Gambling Studies. I am grateful to
them and to others who have pioneered research.
What are the advantages of legalized gambling?
It brings in new revenue, at least temporarily and, in some cases,
over a longer period of time.
One of the great weaknesses of American politics today--and one of
the reasons for public cynicism toward those of us in politics--is our
eagerness to tell people only what they want to hear. Polling is a huge
business, and if a poll suggests some stand is unpopular, too many find
a convenient way of changing course, even if the public good is served
by the unpopular action.
An area of high sensitivity is taxation. That problem is compounded
by the fact that at the national level no other industrial nation--with
the exception of Israel--spends as much of its taxation on defense and
interest as does the United States. These bring no direct benefit to
people. Citizens of Germany, France, Great Britain and other nations
pay much higher taxes, but they see health care and other benefits that
we do not have. In addition, their parliamentary systems make it easier
to make tough decisions than our system does.
So when someone comes along and says, ``I have a simple way to get
more revenue for you, and you do not have to raise anyone's taxes,''
that has great appeal to policymakers who must seek reelection. Those
same people say to the policy makers, ``Not only will I provide revenue
for you without taxation, I will be very generous to you when campaign
time comes.'' And they are.
While the promises of what legalized gambling will do for a community
or State almost always are greatly exaggerated, it is also true that
many communities who are desperate for revenue and feel they have no
alternative are helped. I have already mentioned East St. Louis, IL.
Bridgeport, CT, is another example. Small communities like Metropolis,
IL, population 6,734, find that a riverboat casino brings in
significant additional municipal revenue. And while other businesses in
these communities often do not benefit--and some, like restaurants, are
hurt--a poll by the Better Government Association, a highly respected
Illinois civic group, shows that in some communities, the initial
reaction to the riverboat casinos is more positive than negative: Rock
Island/Moline, 83 percent positive, though this has changed;
Metropolis, 76 percent positive; East St. Louis, 47 percent positive;
and Peoria, 64 percent positive.
Some officials in Chicago, desperate for revenue, wish to bring in a
large casino operation with a $2 billion price tag. They say it will
bring 10,000 construction jobs. That alone is significant. The initial
press release said 37,000 construction jobs. And officials in Chicago,
aware there are long-term dangers to the city from such an operation,
also know that unless they solve short-term problems--and that takes
revenue--the long-term picture for the city is not good. The State
government has shown itself largely insensitive to the needs of the
city, dominated as it is by suburban and rural leaders. Faced with a
choice of lectures from the State about long-term problems and what
appears to be easy, significant, immediate revenue, it is not difficult
to understand Chicago's choice. On top of that, they face editorial
prodding. Under a heading, ``Casino A Great Bet For City,'' the Chicago
Sun-Times called a casino ``a cash cow'' and noted: ``The sooner state
law changes to allow land-based casino gambling, the better. And the
sooner Chicago finally gets in on the action, the better.'' [April 17,
1995.] Almost unnoticed has been the report of the Chicago Crime
Commission in response to a request by the Mayor: ``Organized crime
will infiltrate casino operations and unions, and will be involved in
related loan-sharking, prostitution, drug activities * * * and public
corruption.'' [Chicago Crime Commission, 1990.]
State governments are no more loaded with courageous leaders than is
the Federal Government. They need revenue to solve their problems. In
Illinois, for example, state support for public higher education has
dropped from 70 percent of the costs in 1980, to 37 percent today,
almost a 50-percent cut. [Here, I digress to observe that States have
been partially bailed out by Federal aid to students. We hear a great
deal from States about unfunded mandates. We hear much less from States
about sizable grants from the Federal Government.] Faced with needs in
education at all levels, with growing health care costs that afflict
both Federal and State governments, and with decaying cities and
decaying infrastructure, the States have two options: Tell people the
truth and ask for the taxes to pay for these needs, or combine the
growing practice of issuing bonds, states don't call them deficits and
find some ``easy'' source of revenue, like legalized gambling. The
courageous path is too infrequently taken.
Revenue from lotteries, race horse gambling, and riverboat casinos
brings Illinois government approximately $820 million a year. That is
State government revenue alone. I have made no attempt to calculate
what revenue is lost because of money not being spent in other
enterprises in the State. Most of those who wager in Illinois are from
Illinois. When they spend on gambling, that is money that would
otherwise go to clothing stores, groceries, and other businesses. That
means less revenue to the State from those businesses. Also not
calculated in the $820 million State revenue is the loss caused by the
increased problem of gambling addiction.
Early promises to use Illinois lottery money for education have been
technically complied with, but State support for education has declined
substantially as a percentage of income for local schools since the
lottery became a reality.
Wisconsin, not a big gambling State, has 17 native American casinos.
A study completed in April concluded: ``Overall, the state gains $326
million in net revenue from the presence of the casinos.'' They added
this caution: ``However, this figure is reduced substantially--to
$166.25 million--when
[[Page S 10914]]
even the lowest estimated social costs of compulsive gambling are
included in the calculations. With mid-range estimated social costs,
the overall impact becomes negligible, while with higher social-cost
estimates, the impact becomes clearly negative.'' [The Economic Impact
of Native American Gaming in Wisconsin, by William Thompson, Ricardo
Gazel and Dan Rickman, published by the Wisconsin Policy Research
Institute.]
Indian reservations have misery as their constant companion.
Unemployment rates, alcoholism rates, suicide rates, and poverty
indexes all combine to paint a grim picture that should be a matter of
shame for our Nation. Not only has the Federal Government been weak in
its response to these needs, but State governments, sometimes dominated
by prejudice against native Americans, often have been even worse.
Listen to this Department of Health and Human Services report, given to
a Senate committee this year: ``In 15 of the 24 states with the largest
native American populations, eligible Tribes received nothing in 1993
from the more than $3 billion in Federal funds [Title XX and Title IV-E
child welfare services and protection programs] the States received. In
the other nine States, Indians received less than three percent.''
[George Grob, Deputy Inspector General, HHS, April 5, 1995, Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs.]
It should not surprise anyone that tribal leaders who want to produce
for their people seize what some view as a legal loophole that our
courts and laws have created to get revenue for their citizens; 115
tribes now have some form of casino gambling. The gross revenue for the
17 tribes in Wisconsin is $655 million. And about one-fifth of that
revenue comes from people who live outside of Wisconsin, higher than in
most States, much lower than Nevada or Atlantic City. Connecticut is
the prime example of a small tribe gaining big money. A casino operated
by the Manshantucket Pequot Tribe in Ledyard, CT, brings in
approximately $800 million in gross revenue annually. Native American
leaders who see long-term harm to their tribes from the gambling
enterprises are hard-pressed by those who see immediate benefits, and
not too much hope for sizable revenue outside of gambling.
What are the disadvantages of legalized gambling?
The distinguished Nobel Prize-winning economist, Paul Samuelson, has
warned us: ``There is a substantial economic case to be made against
gambling. It involves simply sterile transfers of money or goods
between individuals, creating no new money or goods. Although it
creates no output, gambling does nevertheless absorb time and
resources. When pursued beyond the limits of recreation * * * gambling
subtracts from the national income.'' [Economics, McGraw-Hill, 1970.]
A high official in Nevada told me, ``If we could get rid of gambling
in our State, it would be the best thing that could happen to us. I
cannot say that publicly for political reasons. But major corporations
that might locate their principle offices here or build plants here
don't do it. They know that gambling brings with it serious personnel
problems.''
Personnel problems are but one disadvantage, but they are real.
People can become addicted to gambling, as they can to drugs or alcohol
or smoking.
My mother belongs to a church in Collinsville, IL, that had a fine
substitute teacher at its Lutheran school. Unknown to the teacher's
family, she had been visiting a gambling boat. Money the family thought
had gone to pay the rent and family bills had, instead, gone into
wagers. One day, she left a message for her family, drove her car to a
shopping center and killed herself.
In a relatively affluent Chicago suburb, a 41-year-old man committed
suicide after using more than $11,000 in credit card advances for
gambling. He shot himself after leaving a gambling boat. Police found
$13 in his pocket.
More typical is the experience of a friend, a professional man, who
attended a statewide meeting of an association with which he is
affiliated. While he went to the meetings, his wife went to a riverboat
casino and ``got hooked.'' She spent all the money she had and used all
the available money from her credit cards, close to $20,000. Her
husband knew nothing about it until he checked out of the hotel and
found his credit cards could not be used because they had already
reached their maximum. In this family, the situation has worked out,
but that is not true for many.
A retired Air Force colonel has written me about the problem of
casino gambling near Keesler Air Force Base that offers part-time work
to personnel stationed there, but also 24-hour-a-day gambling
availability and has brought serious problems of addiction and the
social and criminal problems that go with it for the men and women
stationed there.
Gambling addiction is a serious problem. We know that men are more
likely to become addicted than women, that the appeal of gambling is
greater for low-income people than those of above average income, that
there are approximately 9 million adults and 1.3 million teenagers with
some form of gambling behavior problem and that the availability of
gambling enterprises--their closeness to where a person lives--causes a
significant increase in the addiction problem. Nationally, less than 1
percent 0.77 percent of the population are compulsive gamblers, but
when enterprises are located near a population, that number increases
two to seven times.
The greatest growth is among teenagers. University of Maryland
football fans were stunned recently to read that their
all-American quarterback had been suspended by the NCAA for four games
because of betting on college games. The spread of gambling among
teenagers has spilled over onto college campuses, and Maryland's
football problem is evidencing itself on many campuses, a highly
publicized tip of a much more serious iceberg.
Costs to society of the problem gambler vary from the most
conservative estimate of $13,200 to $30,000 per year. I have no idea
which figure may be correct, but we know there are costs. Arnold Wexler
and his wife, Sheila Wexler, did a study for Rutgers University and
noted:
Compulsive gamblers will bet until nothing is left:
savings, family assets, personal belongings--anything of
value that may be pawned, sold or borrowed against. They will
borrow from co-workers, credit union, family and friends, but
will rarely admit it is for gambling. They may take personal
loans, write bad checks and ultimately reach and pass the
point of bankruptcy. . . . In desperation, compulsive
gamblers may panic and often will turn to illegal activities
to support their addiction. (1992)
Prosecuting attorney Jeffrey Bloomberg of Lawrence County, SD,
testified before a U.S. House committee on his experiences dealing with
Deadwood, SD, a small community that became the first place outside of
Atlantic City and Nevada to legalize casino gambling. He said they were
promised ``economic development, new jobs and lower taxes.'' Instead,
casinos flourished, but other businesses did not. Businesses that
provide ``the necessities of life such as clothing are no longer
available * * * and customers of the town's only remaining grocery
store walk a gauntlet of slot-machines as they exit with their
purchases. For the most part, the jobs which were created earn minimum
wage or slightly better and are without benefits. As for the claim that
gambling brings tax relief, this simply has not proven true. Real
property taxes for both residential and commercial properties have
risen each and every year since gambling was legalized. Crimes of
theft, embezzlement, bad checks and other forms of larceny have
increased. Our office has also seen an increase in the number of child
abuse and neglect cases as a result of gambling. These run the spectrum
from the children left in their cars all night while their parents
gamble, to the children left at home alone while their parents gamble,
to the children left at home alone while single mothers work the casino
late shift, to the household without utilities or groceries because one
or both parents have blown their paycheck gambling. Government is
hooked on the money generated by gambling and in the long term the
ramifications of this governmental addiction will be just as dire as
for the individual who becomes addicted to gambling.'' (Sept. 21,
1994--House Committee on Small Business.)
One study conducted for insurance companies suggests that 40 percent
of white collar crime can be traced to
[[Page S 10915]]
gambling. Usually those involved have no prior criminal record.
The suicide rates for problem gamblers is significantly higher than
it is for the general population. One out of five attempt suicide, a
higher rate than for alcoholism or drug addiction.
Pathological gamblers are much more likely to be violent with their
spouses and abuse their children. Children of these gamblers generally
do worse in school and have a suicide rate twice that of their
classmates.
A survey of compulsive gamblers found 22 percent divorced because of
gambling, 40 percent had lost or quit a job due to gambling, 49 percent
stole from work to pay gambling debts, 23 percent alcoholic, 26 percent
compulsive overeaters, 63 percent had contemplated suicide and 79
percent said they wanted to die. (Henry Lesieur and Christopher
Anderson.)
Treatment for gambling compulsion is rarely covered by health
insurance policies, though physicians often will simply list depression
as the cause for needed therapy, and that may be covered. A national
conference will be held in Puerto Rico in September to discuss the
growing problem of gambling addiction.
State lotteries disproportionately receive money from--and target--
the poor. While it is true that the purchases are voluntary and provide
some entertainment, as a society we should be providing more
substantial exits from poverty than the rare lottery victory. A bill
before the Illinois legislature sponsored by Representative Jack Kubik
to prohibit cashing welfare checks at race tracks, off-track betting
parlors, and riverboat casinos died a quiet death.
Compounding all of this, State and local governments who receive
revenue from legalized gambling often are its promoters, both to bring
gambling in and to sustain it. Governments get hooked. While States
receive revenue from alcohol and tobacco sales, no governmental unit--
to my knowledge--promotes alcohol and tobacco. Generally governments
appeal to our strengths, not our weaknesses. But gambling is different.
Billboards are erected in poor areas to promote the Illinois Lottery.
``This could be your ticket out,'' one proclaimed. If the State of
Illinois had billboards promoting whiskey, beer or cigarettes, there
would be a public outcry. The Pennsylvania lottery unashamedly
advertises: ``Don't forget to play every day.'' And of course the poor
are the ones who succumb to that lure.
Industries that want to bring in casinos are generous with their
promises. The poverty of Atlantic City would be virtually eliminated,
the scenario read, but it did not happen. Poverty has not diminished,
and problems with gambling addiction are up. Since the advent of the
casinos, 40 percent of the restaurants not associated with the gambling
enterprises have closed, and one-third of the city's retail business
has closed. Unemployment in Atlantic City is now the State's highest.
Crime is up significantly--almost tripled--and the population has
dropped by one-fourth. Industrial consultant Nelson Rose told U.S. News
and World Report: ``Atlantic City used to be a slum by the sea.
Now it's a slum by the sea with casinos.'' (March 14, 1994.)
But not only Atlantic City has been affected. A study of crime
patterns along non-toll roads between Atlantic City and New York City
and Atlantic City and Philadelphia found a significant increase in
crime rates (Simon Hakim and Joseph Friedman.)
The Better Government Association of Illinois survey of 324
businesses in towns with riverboat casinos found that 51 percent of the
firms said riverboats had either no effect or a negative effect on
their business. Of the 44 percent who gave a positive response, half
said the lift their businesses got was minimal. Three percent said
their business has been ``helped a lot.'' (1994 survey.) A Chicago
Tribune survey found a similar result. An Aurora, IL riverboat casino
gets all but 1 to 2 percent of its business from within the State, and
the Tribune reported:
``The casino is killing the small businesses in this area,
and they claimed it would help us,'' said Mario Marrero,
former owner of the Porto Coeli Cafe and Bakery, a block from
the casino.
As soon as the casino opened a year ago, Marrero saw his
business drop by half, from about $4,000 a month to $2,000 a
month, he said.
In May, he was forced to close after nearly five years in
business. (June 28, 1994.)
Gambling's effect on government is more than income from gamblers and
expenditures for dealing with problem gamblers and increased crime.
Gambling operators are major contributors to campaigns--in the
millions--and employ expensive lobbyists at both the State and Federal
level. A few gambling enterprises have formed the American Gaming
Association and employed a former chairman of the Republican National
Committee as its chief executive. Gaming is an influence to be reckoned
with in dozens of State capitals, and its influence will grow markedly
in Washington. In Illinois, the lobbyists for gambling include a former
Governor, a former attorney general, two former U.S. attorneys, a
former director of the State police, a prominent former judge, a former
mayor of Chicago and at least seven former State legislators. All of
this is legal.
But gambling in Illinois has also been associated with the illegal.
Back in 1964, as a State legislator, I co-authored an article for
Harper's magazine titled, ``The Illinois Legislature: A Study in
Corruption.'' It did not enhance my popularity in that body, but it did
some good, and I am pleased to report that today the Illinois
Legislature--in ethics, and in quality--is a much improved body over
that period. But whenever there is easy money floating around, the
temptation for corruption is present. We have had two Governors in our
State's history go to prison, one because of payoffs from legalized
gambling. I recall particularly the deal worked out in which--on the
same day--the sales tax in our State was increased from 2 cents to 3
cents, which then included food and medicine, and the tax on two
politically well-connected racetracks was reduced by one-third. Every
State legislator knew what was going on.
Organized crime has frequently been a problem with gambling, whether
legal or illegal. Big money attracts them. And it is big money.
Last year, one riverboat casino in Illinois netted--not grossed--$203
million. The Chicago Tribune (March 28, 1995) reported that two
politically well-connected Illinois men were offered $20 million if
they landed a casino in our State for a Nevada firm. When contacted by
the Tribune, they said they had other offers that were higher.
The gambling elite are not only generous employers of lobbyists, they
are multimillion dollar donors to political campaigns, and the
combination makes them politically potent. The unsavory and unhealthy
influence of lobbyists and legislators as a protector of this rapidly
growing industry means sensible restraint will not be easily achieved.
But there is another side to that story. Public opinion is not with
the gambling gentry. Even after well-financed campaigns, when there are
referenda on whether legalized gambling should be expanded in a State
or community, rarely do those initiatives win. Every referendum on a
gambling casino held last year lost, and in the big one, Florida, it
lost decisively. Donald Trump may have helped when he told the Miami
Herald a few weeks before the referendum: ``As someone who lives in
Palm Beach, I'd prefer not to see casinos in Florida. But as someone in
the gambling business, I'm going to be the first one to open if
Floridians vote for them.'' Florida Commerce Secretary Charles Dusseau
did an economic analysis of gambling possibilities in Florida and came
to the conclusion it would hurt the State.
Opposition to legalized gambling also brings together an unlikely
coalition. For example, Ralph Reed, executive of the Christian
Coalition, and the liberal State Senator Tom Hayden of California,
agree on this issue.
To those who wish to go back to an earlier era in our nation's
history when legalized gambling was abolished, my political assessment
is that is not possible. But restraint is possible.
I have introduced legislation, cosponsored by Senator Lugar, to have
a commission, of limited duration and a small budget, look at this
problem. Congressmen Frank Wolf and John LaFalce have introduced
somewhat similar legislation in the House. My reason for suggesting the
limited time--18 months--and the small budget, $250,000, is that
commissions like
[[Page S 10916]]
that often are the most productive. One of the finest commissions the
Nation has had, the Commission on Foreign Languages and International
Studies, produced its report in a little more than 1 year on a small
budget and had significant influence.
Let a commission look at where we are and where we should go. My
instinct is that sensible limits can be established.
For example, what if any new gambling enterprise established after a
specific date had to pay a tax of 5 percent on its gross revenue. Those
who are already in the field who are not too greedy should support it
because it prevents the saturation of the market. Financial wizard
Bernard Baruch said of those who invest in the stock market, ``The
bears win and the bulls win, but the hogs lose.'' Gambling enterprises
that are willing to limit their expansion are more likely to be long-
term winners. And those who know the problems that gambling causes
should support this idea because of the limitations.
Or suppose we were to move to some form of supplement to local and
State revenue again. States, Indian tribes, and local governments that
do not have any form of legalized gambling would be eligible for per
capita revenue-sharing assistance. It would require creating a source
of revenue for such funding, but would bring some relief to non-Federal
governments who do not want gambling but are desperate for additional
revenue. There is no way--let me underscore this--of reducing the
gambling problem without facing the local revenue problem.
Congressman Jim McCrery, a Republican from Louisiana, has proposed
that lotteries--now exempt from Federal Trade Commission truth-in-
advertising standards--should be covered. Why should the New York
lottery be able to advertise: ``We won't stop until everyone's a
millionaire.''
These are just three possible ideas. The commission could explore
others. The commission can look at how we deal with gambling
opportunities that will surface later this year on an experimental
basis on cable television and the Internet. How significant could this
become? None of us knows.
We do know that two-thirds of problem gamblers come from a home where
at least one parent had a problem with alcoholism. Should we be dealing
more seriously with alcoholism, in part to deal with the gambling
phenomenon?
These and other questions could be studied by a commission.
What should not be ignored by Congress and the American people is
that we have a problem on our hands. We need to find sensible and
sensitive answers.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, do I have time reserved under a previous
order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
____________________