[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 190 (Thursday, November 30, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17871-S17872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE ODDS AREN'T WORTH IT

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, during the November elections, 
voters in 19 communities from seven States were asked to voice their 
opinion on the expansion of gambling. Many of these initiatives pitted 
grassroots efforts and coalitions against well-financed gambling 
interests. Election results supported more gambling in only 4 of the 19 
communities.
  It is difficult to determine whether this represents a shift in 
public opinion. However, it is clear that in order to make informed 
decisions at the ballot box, voters need objective and authoritative 
information. Conflicting claims remain unresolved. Nagging questions 
linger.
  A recent editorial from the Boston Globe, ``The Odds Aren't Worth 
It,'' clearly describes the need for a national study. I as that it be 
printed in the Record.
  The editorial follows:

     [From the Boston Globe, Saturday, City Edition, Nov. 25, 1995]

                        The Odds Aren't Worth It

       Gambling tempts high-rolling risk-takers, it tempts the 
     luckless with little to lose, and it tempts politicians. 
     Since Atlantic City mortgaged Boardwalk to the chance 
     industry 18 years ago, legalized gambling has expanded with 
     amazing speed. Where once there were only two states that 
     allowed or sponsored gambling, now there are only two--Utah 
     and Hawaii--that don't.
       In the past few weeks, however, what had seemed an 
     inexorable acceleration has suddenly slowed to a trickle as 
     voters and public officials across the country have fastened 
     on gambling's dubious benefits and hidden costs.
       Last week the Connecticut Senate rejected Gov. June 
     Rowland's plans for a mammoth casino in Bridgeport. What had 
     seemed a done deal was undone. In Maryland, a study 
     commission recommended against increased gambling there, and 
     most politicians agreed. On election day this month, voters 
     in Washington state and Jefferson City, Mo., killed proposals 
     to expand gambling, and voters in three Massachusetts 
     communities rejected casinos; only New Bedford voted yes.
       Now Congress is considering proposals to set up a national 
     study commission that would examine the history of legalized 
     gambling, explore the tradeoffs and provide credible data on 
     which states and municipalities could make their own choices. 
     The chief sponsors are Sen. Paul Simon of Illinois, a 
     Democrat, and Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia, a Republican. 
     President Clinton and Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana, a 
     Republican seeking to challenge Clinton, both support it. 
     Wolf believes that the commission will be approved, possibly 
     before Christmas.
       It should be. What is needed most urgently is a sober study 
     that will sort out the conflicting claims--not only the moral 
     arguments but also the actual economic and social effects.
       Clearly, many people like to gamble. In Mississippi, which 
     has had a no-limits attitude since 1992, a gaming publication 
     estimated that $29.7 billion was wagered in 1994--an amazing 
     $2.1 billion more than the state's total taxable retail 
     sales. The phenomenal growth of the Foxwoods casino in 
     Connecticut hints at the demand that might be tapped.
       Yet what are the economics of gambling? It is an industry 
     that creates no wealth but 

[[Page S17872]]
     only redistributes it--mostly from the poor to the rich, and often the 
     rich are not even local people. A good study would provide 
     the details.
       But the signs are obvious. In the subway, and advertisement 
     for the lottery portrays a pastel rainbow with a pot of gold 
     at the end. Right next to it is a public service announcement 
     describing how to apply for food stamps. The striking thing 
     is that the two messages are addressed to the same audience: 
     People who can't even afford to buy their own food without 
     government help are encouraged by the government to throw 
     what little they do have at a mirage.
       Lotteries may turn out to be the most regressive form of 
     state gambling. One of the few arguments for them other than 
     the revenue they raise is that they closely mimic the illegal 
     numbers games that have thrived in many communities, 
     therefore drawing money away from organized crime.
       Casinos raise additional concerns. Successful ones do 
     provide jobs, and some older cities have looked to casinos as 
     potential saviors. New Bedford is as good an example as any. 
     With textiles and other industries gone and fishing on the 
     wane, people in New Bedford are desperate for help. They 
     voted nearly 3-1 for a casino this month. And they argue that 
     half the cars in the Foxwoods lot are from Massachusetts 
     anyway, so the state is exporting the gambling dollar 
     needlessly.
       Yet other casino towns have found not only that crime and 
     vice rise rapidly with gambling but that the net effect on 
     the economy is not salutary. Local restaurants and other 
     retail businesses suffer; the problem of addiction to 
     gambling, including among young people, grows; and in many 
     places population drops. Also, the casino sometimes drives 
     out better options. In Bridgeport, for instance, city 
     officials said last week they would dust off a waterfront 
     development plan--one that might provide stronger economic 
     stimulation in the long run than gambling. The plan had been 
     sidetracked by the casino proposal.
       A solid study would give substance to all these questions.
       Those selling New Bedford on a casino may be no different 
     from the hucksters touting the pot of gold at the end of the 
     pastel rainbow. What provides the spice, as with all 
     gambling, is the fact that someone, sometime, actually wins 
     the gold. But many cities and states have found the odds are 
     no better for them than for the gamblers whose pockets they 
     empty.

                          ____________________