[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 7, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1153-S1154]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL COMMISSION ON GAMBLING

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I would like to call to the 
attention of my colleagues a recent column in the Washington Post. 
Cowritten by our former colleague from Maryland, Joseph Tydings, the 
column cogently describes the importance of a national study on the 
social and economic impacts of gambling.
  The impacts of gambling are regional, national, and international in 
scope. Local and State governments simply do not have access to the 
information they need to make wise decisions. Although local and State 
task forces and commissions continue to produce reports, these entities 
are not equipped to deal with the regional and national ramifications 
of local and State policies and tend to focus only on the short term. 
As the authors suggest, a national commission would help States a great 
deal.
  Although the column is focused on Maryland, States and municipalities 
across the country are facing the same choices. Strapped for cash, many 
turn to casinos, riverboats, and lotteries. Gambling should not be the 
only choice. Identifying alternative sources of revenue will be 
prominent among the issues considered by a national commission.
  I urge my colleagues to read the column and to work with me and the 
bipartisan group supporting S. 704, the Gambling Impact Study 
Commission Act.
  I ask that the Washington Post column be printed in the Record.
  The column follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 6, 1996]

                   Casino Gambling: Bring in the Feds

                  (By Joseph Tydings and Peter Reuter)

       The recent opening of slot machines at two Delaware race 
     tracks is a small event in itself but is yet another step 
     along the path to coast-to-coast casinos that many states are 
     reluctantly and uncertainly following. Notwithstanding the 
     pressure from the Delaware move, Maryland's Joint Executive 
     Legislative Task Force to Study Commercial Gambling, on which 
     we served as chair and executive director, recommended 
     against casinos last November.
       One of the task force's major conclusions has been largely 
     ignored by the media--namely, that the problem of legal 
     casino gambling is a national one; Maryland cannot deal with 
     this on its own. The problem cries out for attention from the 
     president and Congress. Unfortunately, the casino industry 
     has mobilized cash and lobbyists to prevent federal action on 
     the issue.
       The Maryland Task Force, in its full report, unhappily 
     noted that, lacking a significant federally funded study, it 
     has a very limited basis for making projections of what would 
     happen if Maryland opened its doors to casinos, which 
     nowadays get 70 percent of their revenues from slot machines. 
     Given the limited statistical and economic analysis 
     available, its opposition to casinos reflected a sensible 
     caution.
       Casinos do provide a credible promise of substantial 
     financial gains to those states that are the first in their 
     region to introduce them. Foxwoods casino in Connecticut 
     (owned by the Mashantucket Pequot tribe under 1988 federal 
     legislation that allows Indian tribes to operate casinos on 
     certain tribal lands) now yields that state $115 million in 
     tax revenues. Most of it comes from residents of 
     Massachusetts, Rhode Island and New York who come to play in 
     the world's largest casino. It employs more than 10,000 
     workers, offering good wages and benefits to many who would 
     otherwise have more menial and unreliable jobs.
       Not surprisingly, the state of Massachusetts feels it must 
     also allow slots to compete and is now negotiating with the 
     Wampanoag Indians to let the tribe operate a casino. The 
     state of New York, which created a long legislative and 
     referendum process to prevent a rash decision on casinos, has 
     also responded to Connecticut by starting down a path that 
     could lead to their introduction in 1998.
       But the economic gains that entice states to open their 
     doors to casinos are only substantial if neighboring states 
     aren't competing for the same customers. If Maryland were the 
     only state in its region to allow casinos, it might be able 
     to justify building casinos that relied heavily on spending 
     by Virginians, Pennsylvanians, Washingtonians and West 
     Virginians. However, just as the Foxwoods' success had caused 
     Connecticut's neighbors to move toward casinos, so would 
     Maryland's advantage, if any, be short-lived.
       The case for casinos has an element of vodoo economics--
     namely, the claim that providing a new form of entertainment 
     will increase the economic base of the community or state by 
     increasing local spending. Casino expenditures by Maryland 
     citizens would come entirely through reductions in other 
     leisure spending or even in spending on food, shelter and 
     education. Casinos can provide economic development only by 
     attracting spending from other states. Moreover, if casinos 
     lead to greater consumer spending nationally, then clearly it 
     has to come from reductions in people's savings--scarcely a 
     desirable change for a country that chronically undersaves.
       There are also important social costs to having casinos 
     readily accessible. Many people have difficulty controlling 
     their gambling, particularly in the artificial environment of 
     a casino where liquor is freely offered and the game is 
     available at all hours. Big gambling losses and the obsessive 
     pursuit of gambling opportunities may lead to 

[[Page S1154]]
     family breakdown and loss of productivity and community involvement. 
     Embezzlement would probably rise. Casino patrons might also 
     make attractive victims for criminal offenses. But whether 
     this is a major problem or just a modest incidental to the 
     simple pleasures of millions is still a matter of debate and 
     in need of serious research.
       The opponents of casinos often weaken their case by making 
     exaggerated claims about the social consequences of gambling. 
     Typical is the claim that ``40 percent of all white-collar 
     crimes come from pathological gambling,'' a hardy perennial 
     that appears in all anti-casino writings. It is supposedly 
     the product of the American Insurance Institute. In fact, no 
     such organization exists, and no one has ever been able to 
     locate a copy of a report documenting the claim. Nor is there 
     much more basis for the frequent claim that each problem 
     gambler costs society $30,000 annually.
       An authoritative and independent assessment of the economic 
     and social consequences of casinos would help states a great 
     deal. A federal commission needs to do systematic analysis of 
     the kind that state task forces, with their short time 
     horizons and minuscule budgets (ours had six months and a 
     total of $50,000 for its work), cannot muster. There seems to 
     be strong congressional support for such a commission, 
     notwithstanding aggressive lobbying against it by the casino 
     industry.
       The national commission would also have to focus on the 
     very troubling issue of Indian tribal gambling. Providing 
     Indian tribes with better economic opportunities is clearly 
     an important and legitimate goal, but when those 
     opportunities result in large costs being borne by the entire 
     nation, then the issue needs to be revisited.
       In the meantime, states like Maryland will feel a constant 
     pressure from their neighbors to avoid having good Maryland 
     money turn into Delaware gambling revenues. The growing 
     burden of social services on state finances as the federal 
     government cuts back its support will increase that pressure, 
     so that in the next downturn many states may reluctantly, but 
     irreversibly, become casino states as well. A federal 
     commission and some sensible national policy are needed, as 
     soon.

                          ____________________