[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.

                          ____________________