[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 5, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H1675-H1687]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1145
           NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT AND POLICY COMMISSION ACT

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill 
(H.R. 497) to create the National Gambling Impact and Policy 
Commission, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 497

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Gambling Impact and 
     Policy Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.

       There is established a commission to be known as the 
     National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission (in this Act 
     referred to as the ``Commission'').

     SEC. 3. MEMBERSHIP.

       (a) Number and Appointment.--
       (1) Generally.--The Commission shall be composed of 9 
     members, appointed from persons specially qualified by 
     training and experience to perform the duties of the 
     Commission, as follows:
       (A) three appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives;
       (B) three appointed by the majority leader of the Senate; 
     and
       (C) three appointed by the President of the United States.
       (2) Consultation Before Appointment.--Before the 
     appointment of members of the Commission (including to any 
     vacancies), the appointing authorities shall consult with 
     each other to assure that the overall membership of the 
     Commission reflects a fair and equitable representation of 
     various points of view.
       (3) Timing of Appointments.--The appointing authorities 
     shall make their appointments to the Commission not later 
     than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Designation of the Chairman.--The Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives and majority leader of the Senate shall 
     designate a Chairman and Vice Chairman from among the members 
     of the Commission.
       (c) Period of Appointment; Vacancies.--Members shall be 
     appointed for the life of the Commission. Any vacancy in the 
     Commission shall not affect its powers, but shall be filled 
     in the same manner as the original appointment.
       (d) Initial Meeting.--No later than 60 days after the date 
     on which all members of the Commission have been appointed, 
     the Commission shall hold its first meeting.
       (e) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman.
       (f) Quorum.--A majority of the members of the Commission 
     shall constitute a quorum, but a lesser number of members may 
     hold hearings.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--It shall be the duty of the Commission to 
     conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of--
       (A) gambling in the United States, including State-
     sponsored lotteries, casino gambling, pari-mutuel betting, 
     and sports betting; and
       (B) existing Federal, State, and local policy and practices 
     with respect to the legalization or prohibition of gambling 
     activities and to formulate and propose such changes in those 
     policies and practices as the Commission shall deem 
     appropriate.
       (2) Matters studied.--The matters studied by the Commission 
     shall include--
       (A) the economic impact of gambling on the United States, 
     States, political subdivisions of States, and Indian tribes, 
     both in its positive and negative aspects;
       (B) the economic impact of gambling on other businesses;
       (C) an assessment and review of political contributions and 
     their influence on the development of public policy 
     regulating gambling;
       (D) an assessment of the relationship between gambling and 
     crime;
       (E) an assessment of the impact of pathological, or problem 
     gambling on individuals, families, social institutions, 
     criminal activity and the economy;
       (F) a review of the demographics of gamblers;
       (G) a review of the effectiveness of existing practices in 
     law enforcement, judicial administration, and corrections to 
     combat and deter illegal gambling and illegal activities 
     related to gambling;
       (H) a review of the costs and effectiveness of State, 
     Federal, and Tribal gambling regulatory policy;
       (I) an assessment of the effects of advertising concerning 
     gambling, including--
       (i) whether advertising has increased participation in 
     gambling activity;
       (ii) the effects of various types of advertising, including 
     the sponsorship of sporting events;
       (iii) the relationship between advertising and the amount 
     of the prize to be awarded; and
       (iv) an examination of State lottery advertising practices, 
     including the process by which States award lottery 
     advertising contracts;
       (J) a review of gambling that uses interactive technology, 
     including the Internet;
       (K) a review of the extent to which casino gambling 
     provides economic opportunity to residents of economically 
     depressed regions and to Indian tribes;
       (L) a review of the effect of revenues derived from State-
     sponsored gambling on State budgets; and
       (M) such other relevant issues and topics as considered 
     appropriate by the Chairman of the Commission.
       (b) Report.--No later than 2 years after the Commission 
     first meets, the Commission shall submit a report to the 
     President and the Congress which shall contain a detailed 
     statement of the findings and conclusions of the Commission, 
     together with its recommendations for such legislation and 
     administrative actions as it considers appropriate.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings and Subpoenas.--
       (1) The Commission may hold such hearings, sit and act at 
     such times and places, administer such oaths, take such 
     testimony, receive such evidence, and require by subpoena the 
     attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production 
     of such materials as the Commission considers advisable to 
     carry out the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Attendance of witnesses.--The attendance of witnesses 
     and the production of evidence may be required from any place 
     within the United States.
       (3) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued under paragraph (1), the Commission 
     may apply to a United States district court for an order 
     requiring that person to appear before the Commission to give 
     testimony, produce evidence, or both, relating to the matter 
     under investigation. The application may be made within the 
     judicial district where the hearing is conducted or where 
     that person is found, resides, or transacts business. Any 
     failure to obey the order of the court may be punished by the 
     court as civil contempt.
       (4) Service of subpoenas.--The subpoenas of the Commission 
     shall be served in the manner provided for subpoenas issued 
     by a United States district court under the Federal Rules of 
     Civil Procedure for the United States district courts.
       (5) Service of process.--All process of any court to which 
     application is to be made under paragraph (3) may be served 
     in the judicial district in which the person required to be 
     served resides or may be found.
       (b) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out the provisions of this Act. Upon request of the Chairman 
     of the Commission, the head of such department or agency may 
     furnish such information to the Commission.
       (c) Detail of Government Employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status or privilege.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Subject to the limitation 
     provided in subsection (e), each member of the Commission who 
     is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government shall 
     be compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--Subject to the limitation provided in 
     subsection (e), the members of the Commission shall be 
     allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of services for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment of an 
     executive director shall be subject to confirmation by the 
     Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--Subject to the requirements of 
     subsection (e), the executive director shall be compensated 
     at the rate payable for level V of the Executive Schedule 
     under section 5316 of title 5, United States Code. The 
     Chairman of the Commission may fix the compensation of other 
     personnel without regard to the provisions of chapter 51 and 
     subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, 
     relating to classification of positions and General Schedule 
     pay rates, except that the rate of pay for such personnel

[[Page H1676]]

     may not exceed the rate payable for level V of the Executive 
     Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals which do not 
     exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.
       (e) Limitation.--No payment may be made under the authority 
     of this section except to the extent provided for in advance 
     in an appropriation for this purpose.

     SEC. 7. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on 
     which the Commission submits its report under section 4.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). Pursuant to the rule, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
[Mr. Frank] each will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission 
Act (H.R. 497) would create a national commission to study the economic 
and social impact of gambling in our country.
  The legislation is the concept of our colleague, and my good friend, 
Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia. This measure is on the floor of the 
House largely because of his articulate advocacy and persistence. A 
study of the impact of gambling on our society--focusing on both its 
positive and negative aspects--will be a helpful tool for policymakers 
at the Federal, State, and local government levels. Frank Wolf has 
identified a very important public policy issue and he deserves high 
praise for his efforts.
  On September 29, 1995, the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 
H.R. 497. At that time, we heard from 15 witnesses, including 8 Members 
of Congress. Also, subsequent to our hearing, the committee received 15 
additional statements for the record from other interested 
organizations and individuals.
  During our hearing, we heard virtually every point of view on 
gambling and its effects. For example, we had testimony on the problem 
of compulsive gambling. We also heard from a university professor 
focusing on the economic aspects of gambling--that is, job creation, 
impact on tourism, State and local government revenue, et cetera. We 
also heard testimony from the chairman of the National Indian Gaming 
Association, documenting how the emergence of an Indian gambling 
industry in recent years has had a positive impact on employment, 
economic development, and overall self-sufficiency for Indian tribes. 
Still others testified regarding the relationship between gambling and 
crime, including organized crime.
  Based upon this extensive committee record and personal study, I 
concluded that a study commission on gambling in the United States is a 
good idea. As the Washington Post proclaimed in its headline for an 
editorial endorsing the bill: ``For Once, a Useful Commission!'' The 
Post went on to observe that ``commissions can * * * play the useful 
role of bringing to national attention issues that were previously 
submerged or debated in fragmentary ways.''
  In my view, it is particularly timely for us to have a balanced, 
impartial, and comprehensive look at whether or not the spread of 
gambling is good for this country. Over the last two decades, legalized 
gambling has expanded extensively throughout our country. Currently, 48 
States allow some form of legalized gambling. We have State-conducted 
lotteries, riverboat gambling, Indian gambling, and casino gambling. 
For better or worse, gambling has become a commonplace part of the 
American culture. Just this week, the Washington Post illustrated the 
explosive growth of gambling:

       What had been a mob-infested vice has become state-approved 
     fun--a new national pastime. While 70 million people attend 
     professional baseball games each year, 125 million go to 
     government-sanctioned casinos. Adults now spend more money 
     gambling than they spend on children's durable toys. Three 
     times more pilgrims from around the world visit the pyramid-
     shaped Luxor Hotel in Las Vegas than visit Egypt. Casinos 
     rake in more profits than movie houses and theaters and all 
     live concerts combined.

  The Washington Post, March 3, 1996 at A1.
  Many believe that this widespread expansion of legalized gambling has 
had numerous negative effects. In some instances, this conclusion is 
undoubtedly true. For example, many opportunities to gamble are now 
available to minors who are not ready to make a mature judgment about 
the nature of this kind of activity. Furthermore, compulsive gamblers 
frequently have a negative, sometimes tragic, impact on their families.
  The traditional linkage between gambling and crime is also an obvious 
concern. To give just one example, a GAO report issued in January 
concluded that ``the proliferation of casinos, together with the rapid 
growth of the amounts wagered, may make these operations highly 
vulnerable to money laundering.'' General Accounting Office, ``Money 
Laundering--Rapid Growth of Casinos Makes Them Vulnerable,'' GAO/GGD-
96-28, B-259791 (January 1996) at 2. As gambling continues to spread, 
these negative effects and others spread with it.

  In addition, the proponents of H.R. 497 have pointed out the lack of 
reliable information about the actual effects of gambling. We simply 
need better and more accurate scientific and behavioral data concerning 
gambling. Because of this lack of information, State and local 
policymakers, who are considering the legalization of gambling in 
various forms, are often vulnerable to exaggerated claims about the 
positive effects of gambling and the prospects for painless revenue 
generation. Just 3 months ago, a Maryland State study commission 
concluded:

       The Maryland Congressional delegation should support the 
     immediate creation of a national commission to study issues 
     related to commercial gaming and should recommend that the 
     commission complete its work within one year.
       States are unable to confidently make decisions about 
     casino gaming because of competitive concerns about the 
     decisions of their neighbors and because of the inadequate 
     data and analysis available to them. The Task Force believes 
     that the proposed national commission on gambling, currently 
     being considered by Congress, could make a significant 
     contribution to public policy development.

  Final Report of the Joint Executive-Legislative Task Force to Study 
Commercial Gaming Activities in Maryland, December 1995, at xiv 
(emphasis added).
  I also want to stress that I have listened to the critics of H.R. 497 
as introduced, and they too have some valid points to make. In 
particular, they said that they do not fear the outcome of an objective 
study. However, they did express concern that the Commission as 
proposed in the original version of H.R. 497 might be biased against 
gambling per se and that it was only charged with looking at the 
negative effects of gambling.
  I believe that this Commission can do the most good if its study is 
as neutral, objective, and comprehensive as possible--considering the 
views of all sides of this issue. In that spirit, I proposed a 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 497, which 
the Judiciary Committee adopted on a voice vote.
  My substitute included the vast majority of the provisions contained 
in H.R. 497 as originally introduced, but it added language so as to 
assure that all points of view would be represented on the Commission. 
Specifically, the bill now requires that the appointing authorities 
consult together to ensure that the overall makeup of the Commission 
fairly and equitably represent various points of view. It also drops 
the requirement that one seat on the Commission go to a State Governor. 
I want to avoid going down the difficult road of specifying which group 
gets what seat on the Commission because I believe that is a decision 
better left to the collective wisdom of the appointing authorities--the 
President, the Speaker, and the majority leader of the other body.
  In addition, the amendments add language that would require the 
Commission to study both the positive and negative aspects of the 
economic impact of gambling. I believe that the opponents of H.R. 497 
will agree that these changes are a good-faith effort to address their 
concerns about the fairness and balance of the Commission.
  At the Judiciary Committee hearing, I heard members of the committee 
express particular concern about the

[[Page H1677]]

issue of advertising concerning gambling activities. Because of that 
concern, the amendment adds language that would require the Commission 
to study that issue. At the suggestion of our colleague, Congressman 
Hoke, we added even further specificity to the advertising language, 
and I appreciate his contribution and his willingness to work with us 
on this issue.
  Senator Dick Lugar, as well as the Governor of my own State of 
Illinois, Gov. Jim Edgar, raised the issue of gambling through the 
Internet and other interactive technologies. The amendment adds 
language directing the Commission to look at this aspect of the issue. 
We have also added language that will require the Commission to study 
the impact of revenue from State-sponsored gambling on State budgets. 
With respect to all of these changes, my thinking is that the more 
comprehensive the Commission's study is, the more useful it will be.
  Another major change the amendment would make is to shorten the time 
period for the study commission from 3 to 2 years. The Maryland study 
commission urged that we make the time period even shorter. This will 
reduce the costs involved with this effort. The amendment also made 
changes of a technical and conforming nature.
  During committee consideration of this bill, Congressman Bono, 
Congressman Schiff, and Congressman Gallegly expressed concerns about 
whether the proposed Commission would end up being overly biased 
against gambling operations in general, and Indian gambling operations, 
in particular. I worked with these members to craft language to amend 
H.R. 497 to address these concerns. These changes include: First, 
language to clarify that the Commission is to study all forms of 
commercial gambling include State lotteries, casino gambling, pari-
mutuel betting, and sports betting; second, language that clarifies 
that the study of political contributions should include all political 
contributions that influence public policy on gambling, not just those 
of gambling operators; and third, language originally suggested by 
Congressman Frank that would require the Commission to study the extend 
to which casino gambling has provided economic opportunity for Indians 
and residents of economically depressed areas. I also agreed to add 
language to the report that further addresses their concerns about the 
fairness of the makeup of the Commission.
  Subsequent to our consideration of the bill, the Resources Committee 
sought and received sequential referral of the bill to review 
specifically its effect on Indian gambling. After its consideration, 
that committee made a suggestion of one amendment that would clarify 
the bill's description of the gambling regulatory policies to be 
studied so that it now includes tribal regulatory policy. I have 
accepted that amendment, and it is part of the substitute text we 
consider today. I want to thank Chairman Don Young for his cooperation 
in this matter. I also want to note that by cooperating with the 
Resources Committee, the Judiciary Committee does not waive any of its 
traditional jurisdiction over Federal gambling statutes and gambling 
issues generally.
  I think all of these changes make the bill more balanced and 
comprehensive, and I appreciate the contributions of all of these 
members in working with us to make this a better bill.
  I have discussed the various changes contained in my substitute 
amendment, as well as the Resources Committee amendment, with 
Congressman Wolf, and he has indicated his full support for all of 
these changes.
  I urge my colleagues to adopt the improvements embodied in the 
committee amendment and to pass H.R. 497 as amended.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada [Mrs. 
Vucanovich].
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
legislation, H.R. 497, which would create a national gambling 
commission to study the impact of gaming on this country. My time is 
short and my opposition is well documented in my testimony last year 
before the Judiciary Committee.
  But I believe, Mr. Speaker, what we are about to do here today goes 
against everything this new Congress is supposed to stand for--and that 
is limiting the ever increasing intrusion of the Federal Government 
into our everyday lives. Gaming and its regulation has been the sole 
responsibility of our individual States and it is my belief that this 
is where that responsibility must remain. Creation of a national gaming 
commission to study the impacts of gaming simply infringes on that 
right and we should be taking a very dim viewpoint of that action.
  Quite honestly, Mr. Speaker, this proposed commission leaves the 
States out in the cold. The proponents claim that the purpose of the 
study is for the States to be well informed about the gaming industry. 
First, let me say that the States are extremely well informed about 
what their job is and they don't need Washington to tell them how to do 
it. After all, they deal with the regulation of gaming on a daily 
basis. But this proposed commission avoids the State's expertise by 
precluding our Governors, State legislators, mayors, and locally 
elected officials from a major role in the study. This is of such 
concern that in a recent letter, Governor Roy Rowland of Connecticut, 
cited his deep concern and specifically requested that State and local 
lawmakers have representation on the commission.
  The approach taken by this bill is the usual Washington-knows-best 
syndrome. Let's just say, I object to that premise.
  This legislation should also require that commission recommendations 
regarding State gaming policy issues must be directed to State and 
local governments. But it does not. Does this mean new costly Federal 
laws or regulations will be implemented on gaming at a time when we are 
working to reduce regulation? And, once again, when our States are the 
best ones to be handling this issue, why are we advocating more Federal 
intrusion?
  A final point I'd like to make is that if we are going to have a 
study, this bill should be inclusive of all forms of gaming present in 
48 of the 50 States including casino gaming, State lotteries, 
charitable gaming, Native American gaming, Internet gaming, sports 
betting, horse and dog racing and other pari-mutuel activities. Why 
does this bill exclude charitable gaming from its study? If you want a 
study on gaming, why are we picking and choosing, rather than including 
every type of gaming?
  Mr. Speaker, we don't need another costly Federal study and we don't 
need more intrusion on our States' right to guide their existence. I 
urge defeat of this bad legislation.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce], a cosponsor of the bill.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 497, the National 
Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act. I wish to commend my 
colleague from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], for his efforts and his leadership 
in bringing this legislation to the House floor today.
  The legislation before us today addresses issues and concerns that I 
have sought to bring to the attention of Congress since 1994. As 
chairman of the Committee on Small Business, I conducted hearings in 
1994 that documented the rapid proliferation of casino gambling 
throughout the United States and examined the economic impact of 
Government-sponsored gambling on small businesses, on individual 
communities, and on the Nation as a whole.
  Based on the findings of those hearings, I introduced in 1994 the 
National Policies Toward Gambling Review Act to authorize a Federal 
study of the economic and social implications of this widespread growth 
of legalized gambling. This proposal, like that introduced by Mr. Wolf, 
creates a new national commission, along the lines of the commission 
that last studied gambling in 1976, and would expand its study to all 
aspects of gambling in all States and localities. I reintroduced my 
bill in the current Congress as H.R. 462, and was delighted to sign on 
Mr. Wolf as my first cosponsor. When he subsequently introduced his 
most similar bill, H.R. 497, I was pleased to sign on as his lead 
cosponsor.
  The 1994 Small Business Committee hearings convinced me that 
widespread legalized gambling has raised serious

[[Page H1678]]

questions that few local officials, and American society generally, are 
prepared to address. The hearings also confirmed what a New York Times 
article headline had proclaimed several weeks earlier, that gambling is 
now bigger than baseball as a national pastime. Some 125 million people 
visited casinos in 1994, a whopping 36 percent increase from 92 million 
in 1993. Annual attendance at professional baseball games averaged only 
70 million. Casino revenues increased by a whopping 33 percent between 
1993 and 1994, from $30 billion to $40 billion, and easily exceed the 
combined revenues for other major leisure activities, including movies, 
books, recorded music, spectator sports, theme parks, and arcades.
  Americans wagered $462 billion on all forms of legalized gambling in 
1994, more than the entire gross national product of Communist China. 
More than $360 billion was wagered in casinos in 10 States and on 
Indian reservations in 24 States, most of which were built after 1991. 
All but three States now permit parimutuel betting, slot machines, 
video poker, keno, bingo, or other forms of gambling. And 36 States 
actively encourage gambling with government-run lotteries.
  This is a far different situation than existed when the last national 
commission issued its report on gambling in 1976. Legalized gambling 
was then confined to Nevada, and was under consideration in Atlantic 
City. The focus of the commission's study was the influence of 
organized crime in gambling, not the various economic and social 
implications of widespread gambling across the country. For Nevada, and 
later Atlantic City, gambling provided what experts termed a monopoly 
export economy--the popular conception of gambling as a model for 
economic development in which new jobs, higher tax revenues, and other 
economic benefits are created for a local economy by tourists from 
other locations. This model offered the added benefit of hiding the 
economic and social problems of gambling--including bankruptcies, 
gambling addiction and crime--which tourists simply took home with 
them.
  As gambling has spread across the United States, and even to 
locations on our border with Canada, it has become clear that this 
model of gambling as economic development is no longer effective. 
States and localities now compete with Indian reservations, with other 
States and with other countries to lure potential gamblers or, at 
minimum, to keep their own gambling revenues at home. Casinos that were 
touted as bringing jobs and economic enrichment to communities in 1994 
are now going bankrupt.
  What we now have is an economic model of gambling that the casino 
industry itself refers to as ``convenience'' gambling. Rather than 
confining gambling to specific locations for purposes of economic 
development, gambling is made readily available to all potential 
customers. In a convenience gambling economy, discretionary spending is 
diverted from other forms of entertainment and consumer expenditures to 
casinos and other gambling establishments. Restaurants, hotels, and 
other competing local businesses lose revenues and fail. Scarce 
resources are diverted to the least productive local activities and 
economic wealth becomes concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. In 
short, rather than the economic panacea promised by gambling promoters, 
the opposite of economic development appears to be occurring in many 
communities.

  The social costs of gambling also have become more visible as 
gambling has spread to more locations. However, there is little 
comprehensive data, for example, on the costs of gambling-related 
crimes, on personal losses and bankruptcies or on lost jobs and work 
time due to gambling. Nor do we know the costs inflicted on families in 
terms of gambling-related alcoholism, abuse, divorce, or suicide.
  Recent studies in Iowa and Missouri found that between 3 to 6 percent 
of gamblers become compulsive gamblers and that a large percentage of 
compulsive gamblers resort to crime to cover their losses. Other 
studies have estimated the public costs of each problem gambler, in 
terms of treatment, services and court expenses, as between $13,000 and 
$35,000. Even at the lowest cost estimate, according to witnesses in 
our 1994 hearing, an increase in gambling addiction of only one-half of 
1 percent of a State's adult population would translate into added 
costs of $73 million a year in a small State like Iowa and more than 
$780 million in new costs in a large State like California. Such costs 
could eventually nullify any economic gains from gambling.
  Concern with the economic, social and moral implications of 
Government-sponsored gambling has created something of a public 
backlash against the gambling industry. In the November 1994 elections 
voters from Florida to Wyoming rejected 90 percent of all State and 
local referenda to legalize or expand gambling operations. Last 
November, gambling initiatives were defeated in Washington and 
Massachusetts, while special panels in Maryland and Connecticut 
rejected new casino proposals. This suggest a growing public consensus 
that the pace of future casino development should be more measured and 
that future growth of gambling generally must be given greater scrutiny 
at the local, State, and national levels.
  A report issued in November by a special Maryland task force to study 
casino gambling is particularly instructive and highlights two of the 
most important issues in the legislation before us today. In 
recommending against casino gambling, the task force concluded that 
casino gambling is an issue Maryland cannot address on its own. Since 
the economic benefits of gambling come largely from reductions in other 
consumer spending or by attracting spending from other States, the task 
force said that the issue must be addressed on at least a regional, if 
not national, basis. The task force also concluded that, given the 
limited statistical and economic analysis available, it needed far more 
information to understand all potential consequences of initiating 
casino gambling.
  Contrary to the arguments of some in the gambling industry, the bill 
before us today does not seek to restrict or regulate organized 
gambling, nor is it intended as a preliminary step toward such 
regulation. It merely responds to a growing public demand for more and 
better information about gambling. And it responds to requests by 
officials in Maryland and elsewhere for a broad analysis of gambling 
that can incorporate information from all States and from Indian tribal 
jurisdictions.
  As State and Federal funding for social services and other programs 
continue to decline, local officials will come under even greater 
pressure to heed promises of new revenue and greater prosperity in 
legalized gambling. It is imperative that these officials, and the 
public generally, have all the information available to make reasoned 
and prudent policy decisions.
  Nearly 2 years have passed since I first proposed legislation to 
create a national commission to study gambling. It was needed then, it 
is imperative now. I urge adoption of this important legislation.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chief sponsor of this bill.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong, strong support of this bill. 
The bill has over 150 to 160 cosponsors.
  Let me begin by thanking Chairman Hyde personally for his work on 
this effort. I want to commend the gentleman. I appreciate the good 
work that he has done. I also want to thank Alan Coffey, who I have 
known for about 30 years, for his outstanding work; and lastly for Joe 
Gibson, your staff, and your other staff people who have done a superb 
job.
  This is important. There are now 48 States that have some form of 
gambling, whether it be lottery, casino gambling, and whatever the case 
may be. This is important to stop and take a close look at it. Now, 
there are going to be many other things, and I have spoken from the 
floor on this issue many, many times.
  I believe it is inappropriate, the spread of gambling that has taken 
place in the country. All you have to do is read the Washington Post 
series that was on Sunday and Monday and Tuesday and again tomorrow to 
see that from two States we have grown to roughly 48 States.

[[Page H1679]]

  Let me just say--it is not in my statement--for the record, powerful 
interests in this city have been hired to derail this bill. Prominent 
people in the Republican Party and prominent people in the Democratic 
Party from the K Street corridor have been hired to detract and derail 
and stop this bill.
  This bill is going to pass today by an overwhelming vote. There 
literally is very, very little opposition because it is a fair study 
that the American people want to see. What is the impact with regard to 
economic cannibalization, what impact does it have, and what is the 
impact with regard to corruption and political contributions? What is 
the impact to social aspects with regard to Gamblers Anonymous and 
things like this?
  So we are going to watch it, and I appreciate the efforts in the 
House. It is bipartisan. We have the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] 
and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior]. I remember one day I was 
giving a 1-minute speech and the gentleman from Michigan got up and 
said, ``I want to be on that bill.'' We have come together in the best 
interest of this body.
  In closing, I appreciate the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from 
Georgia [Mr. Gingrich], making this a priority item to bring up, and 
also the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey] in not allowing some of these 
people that are--and I am reluctant to get into their names--who have 
been hired by the gambling interests to derail this bill.
  My closing comment is, I personally care about this almost as much as 
I care about a lot of things that we are taking. I am going to watch 
what happens on this bill. I am going to watch and see what takes place 
over in the Senate.
  What I would ask is those who have some problem with this bill, this 
bill ought to be allowed to pass, whereby we can set up a national 
commission, whether it be for 18 months or 2 years, whereby 9 men and 
women of decency and honesty who are not tied into any particular 
community can look at and examine this issue.
  Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and his 
staff very, very much from the bottom of my heart.
  Mr. Speaker, as the original sponsor of the pending legislation, I 
rise in ardent support of H.R. 497, the Gambling Impact and Policy 
Commission Act and appreciate your scheduling this important 
legislation for floor consideration. Also, I would like to take a 
moment to recognize the diligent efforts of the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and his able staff in guiding this legislation 
through the committee process. It was a pleasure working with Chairman 
Hyde in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 497 is complicated. It would charge the National 
Gambling Impact and Policy Commission with the duty of making an 
objective, comprehensive, and impartial legal and factual assessment of 
gambling. Let me be clear. This legislation does not outlaw gambling. 
It does not tax gambling. It does not regulate gambling. It merely 
recognizes that gambling is spreading throughout the country like 
wildfire and it needs a hard look. This is our responsibility as 
Federal legislators to create a commission to bring together all the 
relevant data so that Governors, State legislators, and citizens can 
have the facts they need to make informed decisions.
  In the early 1970's Congress was concerned about problems related to 
gambling, and it established a commission similar to the one pending 
before the House today. Since the Commission on the Review of the 
National Policy Toward Gambling issued its 1976 report, gambling has 
greatly expanded, and it has grown in many ways that are contrary to 
the recommendations of that early report. In 1976 only two States had 
casino gambling. Today, every State but two have some form of legal 
gambling. According to U.S. News & World Report, people wagered $482 
billion in 1994 on all forms of gambling, 85 percent of which took 
place in casinos in 27 States, most of them built in the past 5 years. 
As gambling proliferates in casinos, on riverboats, on Indian 
reservations and elsewhere, problems such as crime, political 
corruption, cannibalization of existing businesses, gambling addiction, 
family breakups, and suicide appear to be a growing and unfortunate 
consequence. It is time for Congress to take a comprehensive look at 
gambling and its associated problems.
  The gambling industry and its proponents argue that this study is not 
needed because this issue should be left up to the States. Well, 
Governors Lowry, Washington; Bush, Texas; Dean, Vermont; Carper, 
Delaware; Sundquist, Tennessee; Merrill, New Hampshire; Cayetano, 
Hawaii; Voinovich, Ohio; and Racicot, Montana disagree and support H.R. 
497. I have heard from many State attorneys general and legislators who 
also support a national study of gambling. H.R. 497 has received wide 
editorial support as well from papers such as the Washington Post, 
Dallas Morning News, Los Angeles Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, 
Philadelphia Inquirer, Richmond-Times Dispatch, Capital Times, Madison, 
WS, Sacramento Bee, Chicago-Sun Times, Sun-Sentinel, Fort Lauderdale, 
FL. Also, this legislation is supported by the Christian Coalition, 
Traditional Values Coalition, Concerned Women for America, American 
Family Association, Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, and 
others. Recently, a coalition of 16 churches in America wrote the House 
and Senate leadership in support of this important legislation.
  Why do so many Governors, State attorneys general, State legislators, 
and citizens support H.R. 497? The reason is that there exists little 
credible or reliable information about gambling, and much of the 
information that does exist is produced by the gambling industry 
itself. Joseph Tydings and Peter Reuter, chairman and executive 
director respectively of Maryland's Joint Executive Legislative Task 
Force to Study Commercial Gambling, in an opinion article which ran in 
the Washington Post, wrote:

       The problem of legal casino gambling is a national one. . . 
     . 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.

  Mr. Speaker, Congress can no longer turn a blind eye to the stories 
of poor mothers playing the slots with their children's lunch money or 
the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal article that indicated that 
more money was bet in casinos, $29.7 billion, in 1994 than was spent on 
all taxable sales, $27.6 billion, in the State. No longer can we ignore 
reports of teenagers so addicted to gambling that they prostitute their 
girlfriends to pay off their mob debts. And Congress will no longer be 
able to disregard accounts of Americans so distraught over their 
mounting gambling debts that their only perceived recourse is suicide.
  Mr. Speaker, America has begun to focus on the issue of gambling and 
its related problems. By passing H.R. 497 today, Congress will take a 
meaningful step toward bringing together all the relevant data so that 
Governors, State legislators, and citizens can have the facts they need 
to make informed decisions.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record four editorials in support of 
this legislation, as follows:

              [From the Saturday Oklahoman, Oct. 28, 1995]

                            Study Could Help

       The battle over legalizing casino gambling in Oklahoma 
     apparently will be fought at the polls instead of in the 
     courtroom.
       Casino proponents have gathered 202,993 signatures on 
     petitions to place the proposal on the ballot, the secretary 
     of state says. A leading opponent says his group believes it 
     would be useless to challenge the petition, based on past 
     Supreme Court rulings. Instead, foes will focus on defeating 
     the proposal, possibly at the time of the presidential 
     primary on March 12. Casino boosters want to question on the 
     November 1996 general election ballot.
       In either case, Oklahomans will have time to study the 
     issue and should try to get all the information they can to 
     help them make their decision.
       Of interest in this respect is an editorial in The News 
     Journal of Wilmington, Del. It raises concerns about casinos 
     due to open this year at Delaware racetracks.
       News stories in the paper estimate perhaps $400 million 
     will be poured into 1,200 slot machines the first year. But 
     the profit to the state would be only $8 million, about 2 
     percent of the wagering. The slot machines would return 90 
     percent or more to the bettors, with the rest going to track 
     owners, purses for the horses, slot machine leases and state 
     administrative costs, according to the paper.
       The editorial worries about the potential for abuse 
     existing in all aspects: gambling contractors, casino 
     employees, bettors, owners and operators. It notes that 
     smaller operations like Delaware's are considered more 
     susceptible to corruption than the big gambling meccas, like 
     Atlantic City and Nevada.
       ``While much is said about the possible benefits from slots 
     to racing and new jobs, businesses and revenue, how much is 
     really known about the influence of organized crime, the 
     potential for political corruption and the social toll on 
     individuals and families?'' the paper asks.
       The editorial supports legislation pending in Congress to 
     establish a National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission to 
     help states evaluate the effects of legalized gambling. Such 
     a study could also prove useful also for Oklahoma as it is 
     confronted by efforts to expand gambling activities in the 
     state.
                                                                    ____


              [From the Indianapolis News, Feb. 29, 1996]

                          Looking at the Facts

       Since it's only a study commission, it might be pertinent 
     to wonder why the gambling industry wants to delay or water 
     down House Resolution 497.

[[Page H1680]]

       This proposal, by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., would establish a 
     national commission to study the economic and social impact 
     of legalized gambling.
       The problem for the gambling industry is the fact that such 
     studies tend to hurt their cause. Researchers who study this 
     business keep finding unpleasant facts and information that 
     make it harder for the industry to make its case to local and 
     state governments.
       University of Illinois economist Earl Grinols, for example, 
     keeps coming up with studies showing that the economic 
     development claims offered by the industry are exaggerated or 
     false. He finds that off-track betting outlets, for example, 
     do not generally bring new economic development to a 
     community but transfer discretionary spending from retail 
     businesses such as restaurants to gambling establishments.
       Additionally, the facts on gambling addiction are 
     devastating to legalized gambling promoters. The financial 
     costs are difficult to pinpoint precisely, but they run into 
     the billions of dollars when all factors are weighed. 
     Families wind up on welfare when fathers or mothers get 
     addicted. Crime increases as the addicted turn to theft, 
     forgery and other such practices to feed this habit. But the 
     human cost is harder to weigh. Some people have committed 
     suicide. Others wind up all but abandoning their children in 
     favor of this form of entertainment.
       Wolf's proposal is timely. Critics claim the issue is a 
     state or local matter. But the federal government allows 
     Indian gambling initiatives to circumvent state or local 
     government jurisdiction, and there are other national 
     implications of legalized gambling's proliferation in recent 
     years.
       Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., has made a proposal similar to 
     Wolf's, offering it in his presidential campaign. Lugar and 
     Wolf have been joined by many other members of Congress. In 
     Indiana, newspaper publisher George Witwer, as a candidate 
     for governor, has called for a state study commission, and 
     legislation in the General Assembly may be adopted to provide 
     for a legislative study committee on the subject.
       The Washington Post warns that the gambling industry will 
     be trying to stop or delay the national proposal in Congress. 
     A recent editorial noted: ``The gambling industry has a great 
     deal of money, has been making large campaign contributions 
     and recently hired some of Washington's most influential 
     lobbyists. We have no doubt that the industry can bring a lot 
     of pressure against this bill and construct some ingenious 
     strategies to weaken it.''
       Congress ought to listen to Wolf, Lugar and others calling 
     for a study commission on this issue. There is much at stake, 
     as such a commission would point out.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Los Angeles Times, Mar. 5, 1996]

                     Taking a Hard Look at Gambling

       Rocked to attention by the explosion of legal gambling 
     across the country in the past two decades, Congress is 
     belatedly, but sensibly, considering legislation calling for 
     a comprehensive national study on the social and economic 
     effects of gambling. Lobbyists accuse government of trying to 
     stack the deck to expand its regulatory reach. But without a 
     study and reliable data, what conclusions can be drawn?
       The bipartisan legislation, endorsed by 143 cosponsors in 
     the House and 16 in the Senate, calls for the creation of a 
     commission to conduct a two-year national study of the 
     effects of gambling. Its recommendations are expected to 
     provide guideposts for states and localities in dealing with 
     legal gambling's transformation from sleepy enterprise to a 
     national economic force.
       As recently as 1984, just two states, Nevada and New 
     Jersey, allowed casino gambling. Today nearly half the states 
     have casinos on land, water or Indian reservations. Only Utah 
     and Hawaii have no state-sanctioned gambling.
       The increase in the number of gambling outlets clearly 
     seems to have changed the public's betting habits. According 
     to the General Accounting Office, between 1984 and 1994 the 
     annual amount bet on legalized gaming--including casinos, 
     lotteries, parimutual betting and sports books--jumped by 
     137%, from $147 billion in 1984 to $482 billion in 1994, more 
     than twice the current annual budget deficit that consumes so 
     much congressional attention.
       Rapid-fire expansion of legal wagering has meant new jobs 
     and tax revenues to state and local governments, but it has 
     also resulted in serious problems. Though most of the 
     evidence is anecdotal, signs of the social and economic 
     downside are proliferating, from housewives blowing monthly 
     household budgets to sharp-suited toughs showing up in town.
       What is the extent of gambling addiction? Has its expansion 
     increased criminal activity? Has political corruption become 
     a problem? Is there a multiplier effect on jobs from gaming? 
     Or does legal betting drain money away from other businesses 
     and drive them into the ground?
       As it now stands, there are no clear answers to these 
     questions. Opponents, including the American Gaming Assn., 
     argue that by involving itself in an expansive gaming study, 
     the federal government is potentially interfering in local 
     matters. But this is only a study. If gambling is the sure-
     fire winner that proponents say it is, there ought to be 
     nothing to worry about.
                                                                    ____


                [From the Washington Post, Oct. 3, 1995]

                            Gambling Nation?

       On the opposite page, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) makes a 
     strong case for his bill to set up a National Gambling Impact 
     and Policy Commission. His point is hard to refute: If the 
     United States' headlong rush into becoming Gambling Nation is 
     a great idea--good for business, for the social order, for 
     government revenues--surely a fair-minded commission would 
     discover such a thing. And please, no talk about ``undue 
     government interference with free enterprise.'' As Mr. Wolf 
     points out, there is absolutely nothing in his bill that 
     involves taxing or regulating gambling. He simply suggests 
     that states and localities that get inundated with pro-
     gambling propaganda--and politicians who get inundated with 
     political contributions from gambling interests--get a chance 
     to see how all the arguments for gambling pan out in reality.
       What needs to be understood in this debate is that the 
     central issue is not the end to all legalized gambling in 
     America--this is not a replay of the arguments over 
     Prohibition. For better or worse, most Americans seemed to 
     accept the situation that existed some years ago in which 
     large-scale casino operations were confined to the states of 
     Nevada and New Jersey. This sent powerful messages: that 
     casino gambling was not a routine activity and that 
     communities had good reason not to turn themselves over to 
     gambling. The nation effectively accepted that many people 
     liked to gamble, but it also accepted that organized 
     commercial gambling was not the sort of activity that ought 
     to become a routine part of life. Implicit in this national 
     compact was an understanding that the potential for crime and 
     political corruption ought to be contained. Call it the 
     enclave theory of gambling.
       Several things have happened since. One is that popular 
     resistance to taxes has moved governments all over the 
     country to sponsor their own forms of gambling through 
     lotteries and other games. The idea was that a portion of the 
     public treasury would be filled with money ``voluntarily'' 
     handed over in bets. Once Atlantic City got going, many 
     economically strapped communities that saw no other way to 
     support themselves figured they too should get a piece of the 
     action. Jobs in casinos look mighty attractive to the 
     unemployed and underemployed, and local officials staring at 
     huge local budget problems tend to look kindly on any new 
     revenue sources. Finally, there was the 1987 Supreme Court 
     ruling legalizing gambling on Indian reservations, which 
     opened up whole new areas of the country to gambling--and 
     gave a new moral justification to casinos as Native American 
     leaders argued that their people were at last getting their 
     due.
       This is how large social changes happen--in small 
     increments that no one notices much until a big 
     transformation has taken place. Mr. Wolf and his allies are 
     suggesting that on gambling, the country look ahead before it 
     is too late, or too complicated, to turn back.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. Faleomavaega].
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the 
distinguished chairman of the committee in a brief colloquy.
  Was it the intent of the Committee on the Judiciary to include the 
U.S. Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions within the meaning of 
the terms ``United States,'' ``States,'' and ``political subdivisions 
of States'' as used in section 4 of this legislation?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is our intent that the U.S. 
Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions be included in H.R. 497, as 
the gentleman has stated.
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the distinguished gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, while having some reservations which I will note later, 
I rise today in support of H.R. 497.
  Mr. Speaker, the amount of gambling has increased considerably in the 
United States over the last two decades. While before many Americans 
were confined to gambling in the States of Nevada and New Jersey, or to 
parimutuel betting, today fully 48 of the States of the United States 
participate in some form of gambling. This has provided a new stream of 
revenue for State and municipal treasuries, which has in turn provided 
additional services to the residents of those States.
  The issues this legislation tries to address are very comprehensive, 
and I commend the chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee for 
trying to address these issues. For most Americans, gambling provides 
leisure-time entertainment. For a small minority, however, many of whom 
are those who least can afford to lose their limited earnings or 
savings, gambling is an addictive, destructive habit. The question is, 
as a matter of public policy, Are the drawbacks to permitting

[[Page H1681]]

gambling so destructive that legal gambling should be restricted or 
eliminated?
  While I am not a gambler, as I noted earlier, gaming activities are 
being used by almost all States for public purposes. Gaming operations 
are also now being used by American Indians throughout our country to 
raise money for improvements to schools, hospitals, and roads on their 
Indian reservations. As a member of the Committee on Resources, I am 
especially concerned that Indian gaming not be unfairly targeted should 
this legislation become law.
  My concern is that there may be individuals who want to use this bill 
in an attempt to stop or curtail gaming throughout the United States, 
and that this opposition is centered on moral grounds but more 
particularly, that this is an attack on the successes which have been 
achieved by American Indians through gaming.
  If this were truly a moral concern, why is the Commission being 
empowered to study only gaming? Why not also include the study of 
alcohol consumption, the use of cigarettes and tobacco among teenagers 
and adults, and abortion, too? Are those activities any more or less 
moral than gaming?
  Again, for those who may be determined to eliminate Indian gaming, I 
find it very unfair to target only gaming in this Commission. Those of 
us on the Committee on Resources are familiar with the long-standing 
problems within Indian country. By most, if not all measures, our 
American Indians are at the bottom of the ladder when it. comes to 
housing, income, education, or any other measure of economic 
development. Here are a few facts which portray the dismal conditions 
in which many of our first Americans live.

  I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the locations of the 
reservations on which many American Indians now live, are not locations 
of their choosing. Many tribes were forcibly moved to these 
reservations from much more desirable locations at which they could and 
did provide for themselves.
  Fact: the life expectancy of an American Indian is 47 years; the life 
expectancy of all Americans is 78 years.
  Fact: the 1990 census determined that 30.9 percent of our Nation's 
Indians live in poverty; the poverty rate for the U.S. population was 
13.1 percent.
  Fact: in 1991, the unemployment rate on Indian reservations was 45 
percent; for the United States, when that number goes above 7 percent 
we take significant action to reduce it.
  I could go on, but I think my point is clear: the Indians are in 
trouble, and they can use whatever assistance is available.
  Mr. Speaker, through the judicious use of gaming operations, Indian 
country is slowly pulling itself up the ladder of life. Indian gaming 
is a well-regulated system that is serving its purpose remarkably well. 
No one is forced to gamble and all the profits received by the tribes 
go directly to tribal uses. The U.S. Government does not have the money 
to make all the capital improvements needed on the reservations, and 
through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, Congress has established a 
system to pay for improvements in Indian country through voluntary, 
private contributions. After 500 years of mistreatment, this is one 
Indian program I feel good about--it is voluntary, efficient, and 
privately funded.
  I have heard accusations that Indian gaming is fraught with criminal 
activity including Mafia and other syndicate-type operations, but the 
truth is these allegations have been investigated by Federal 
authorities and they are unfounded. In fact, at hearings I helped 
organize, the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified before the 
House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs during the 104th Congress that 
there is no truth to these allegations. Indian gaming is a well-
managed, highly regulated activity providing widely disbursed public 
benefit.
  I appreciate the willingness of the Committee on Judiciary to remove 
some of the most egregious anti-Indian-gaming provisions contained in 
H.R. 497, as it was introduced. Given Congress' efforts over the years 
to monitor and regulate this activity, I am concerned that other 
amendments offered by the Committee on Resources were not included in 
the legislation to ensure Indian gaming received fair consideration. 
For example, given the extent to which Indian gaming is federally 
regulated, and the complexity of those regulations, I believe it would 
be beneficial to include on the Commission persons with an expertise in 
this area.
  I also want to express my concern with the limited time in which the 
Committee on Resources was afforded to consider this bill. H.R. 497 was 
referred to the Committee on Resources for the period beginning 
December 21, 1995, through February 28, 1996, most of which time the 
House was adjourned or in pro forma session.
  Finally, I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Hyde for his 
willingness to include the territories in this legislation.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs].
  (Mr. RIGGS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. RIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the gentleman in a 
brief colloquy.
  Is it the intent of the Committee on the Judiciary that the 
Commission be free to study the public safety costs that gambling 
operations, including those operations on Indian reservations, impose 
on local government and local law enforcement agencies?
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RIGGS. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. HYDE. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is our intent the commission would be 
free to study the public safety cost that gambling operations, 
including those operations on Indian reservations, impose on local law 
enforcement agencies. I believe that is implicit in subparagraphs A, D, 
G, H, and M of subsection 4(a)(2).
  Mr. RIGGS. I thank the gentleman. I strongly support the legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to Members' attention a matter of 
importance brought about from the proliferation of gaming operations in 
northern California.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the National Gambling Impact 
and Policy Commission Act. I believe, however that it is important to 
clarify one aspect of the legislation.
  Like many other regions of hte Nation, the Indian tribes in northern 
California are establishing gaming operations in order to provide a 
much needed source of revenue for depressed rural areas.
  While, I support the efforts of native American communities to 
establish a self-sufficient form of revenue, the residual impacts of 
the gaming operations on local communities are having unanticipated 
consequences.
  Not long ago, the Elem Indian colony, in Lake County, CA, erupted in 
5 days of shooting over control of two casinos where video poker and 
pool are played. On more than one occasion, the county swat team and 
law enforcement officials have been called to the scene to prevent the 
continuation of hostilities between the two competing factions. 
Tensions on the reservation are high and are directly attributable to 
the operation of the gaming facilities.
  The resulting hostilities have been a drain on local law enforcement. 
The county government is not recompensed for its services relating to 
the reservation.
  I would hope that the Commission would study the financial and public 
safety costs of Indian gaming operations on county and municipal law 
enforcement.
  Although the legislation does not directly address this topic, I have 
noticed that section 4, subsections D, G, and H, include reviews 
relating to crime and the effectiveness of law enforcement and 
regulatory polity as it relates to Indian Gambling. It would seem to me 
that the Commission should address the impact and cost of native 
American gaming operations on county law enforcement.
  It is my hope that the Commission will address the concerns of 
northern California communities, and communities across the Nation that 
reside near native American gaming facilities?
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, I rise in support of H.R. 497, for it covers an area 
that provides information for all of us to move forward and to ensure 
that gambling is not hurtful.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation, 
which establishes a nine-

[[Page H1682]]

member Commission to study gambling in the United States--including 
gambling on Indian reservations, State-sponsored lotteries, casino 
gambling and sports betting.
  Gambling has become an important part of American life. Americans are 
betting and losing more money each year than it spends on all spectator 
sports combined. Gambling has also become a major source of revenue for 
many State governments. I am concerned, however, that we do not 
completely understand the impact of gambling on our society.
  Just yesterday, the Washington Post reported the story of a Louisiana 
woman who became addicted to video poker. She described it as an 
addiction as powerful as any drug. This woman squandered her entire 
savings, including a trust reserved for her grandson's education, on 
the video poker games which are in many of the State's bars and 
restaurants. Do State governments that push gambling have any 
responsibility for people who become hooked was just one question that 
the article asked.
  The Commission established by this bill would be required to conduct 
a comprehensive, legal and factual study of the impact of gambling on 
Federal, State, and Tribal governments in an attempt to answer some of 
the questions that have arisen from the Nation's new obsession.
  The Commission would also study the influence of political 
contributions on the development of public policy regulating gambling, 
as well as the relationship between gambling and crime. The bill 
requires the Commission to review the effectiveness of existing 
practices in law enforcement, judicial administration, and corrections 
to combat and deter illegal gambling and illegal activities related to 
gambling. The bill also directs the Commission to study the effects of 
advertising and whether it increases participation in gambling 
activities.
  America has become a gambling nation. This bill will study the 
effects, both positive and negative, of our new favorite pastime and I 
believe it is important to do so.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior], the minority whip.
  (Mr. BONIOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, I do not come at this issue as a Pollyanna. 
I mean, I have on rare occasions bought a lottery ticket and played the 
ponies in my day.
  I must be very frank with you, Mr. Speaker, I watch this gambling 
explosion now in the last two decades since 1974. It really has become 
something we as a country really need to look at and study.
  Two decades ago we spent $17 billion on gambling in this country; in 
1994, $482 billion. Americans lost $40 billion of what they bet, more 
than 6 times what they spent on all spectator sports combined, and 
while 70 million people attend professional baseball games each year, 
125 million go to government-sanctioned casinos. Adults spend more 
money gambling than they spend on children's durable toys. Lottery 
ticket sales have increased 829 percent since 1982.
  Something is going on, and you can relate it to a lot of different 
things; the stagnant wages of 80 percent of the population who have not 
seen an increase in wages basically, real increase, since 1979, may 
attribute to that. I mean, are we really to the point the American 
dream means pinning your hopes on a weekly basis on the lottery?
  We have got to look at this. There are serious social implications 
with respect to gambling. Gamblers Anonymous, in Illinois, did a study. 
A third of the people said they lost or quit their jobs because of 
gambling. Seventy-six percent said they missed time from work because 
of gambling. Forty-four percent had stolen from work to pay for 
gambling debts. It goes on and on and on.
  I am conflicted by this issue, because of how the native Americans in 
our country have been become resourceful and done well economically 
because of this, and I understand that concern, and it is a legitimate 
concern that we have to face.
  But it seems to me, with all of this proliferation of gambling in the 
country, we need to really have a serious, rational look at it, and I 
support the efforts on the part of my colleagues bringing this up, and 
commend the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from 
Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Utah 
[Mrs. Waldholtz].
  Mrs. WALDHOLTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 497, 
the National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act, of which I am 
proud to be a cosponsor.
  I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf] and the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] for their leadership on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, we dearly need a commission to study effects of gambling 
in the United States. One only needs to read the front page of last 
Sunday's Washington Post to understand why. Legalized gambling in the 
United States has exploded 2,800 percent in the last two decades, from 
$17 billion in 1974 to $482 billion in 1994.
  As has been earlier stated, Americans lost $40 billion of what they 
bet, more than 6 times what Americans spent on all spectator sports 
combined. We need to ask ourselves what this explosive growth is doing 
to our economy, our communities and to our families.
  There is disturbing evidence of urban decay, public corruption, 
despair and suicide among addicted gamblers. We must know for certain 
what the net effects of legalized gambling are.
  The stakes are too high to let these questions go unanswered, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this important legislation so that we can 
have the facts as we make decisions about what role gambling should 
play in our country.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Kildee].
  (Mr. KILDEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, the question we face today is not whether 
one is for or against gaming. The fact is that gambling has been part 
of our society for a long, long time--and it probably will continue to 
be that way. The question we face today is what role should the Federal 
Government play in regulating gambling. I am not sure what that role 
should be. I am not convinced that today's system of checks and 
balances is broken. Today, the States have been used as the primary 
regulatory body that oversees commercial gaming. Like my friend from 
Massachusetts, I thought the Republicans would be happy knowing that 
the States are regulating gaming operations--much like the Republicans 
want the States to regulate WIC, school lunch programs, welfare, and 
Medicaid.
  But if this study is going to happen, it should not be used as a 
vehicle to attack Indian gaming and the sovereignty of tribal 
governments. Mr. Speaker, if one was reading the Washington Post this 
morning, they may be led to believe that Indian tribes who engage in 
gaming are basically unregulated entities operating casinos across the 
country. But as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. The 
fact is that Indian gaming is the most heavily regulated gaming 
industry in America. The tribes have three layers of regulatory bodies 
they have to deal with. The tribes themselves have their own law 
enforcement and court systems to provide oversight on the reservations. 
And tribal regulatory and control standards are generally equal or 
greater than State or industry standards. The tribes must also deal 
with a host of Federal regulators--including the Department of Justice, 
the FBI, the IRS, and the Department of Interior. And as a result of 
the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988, the States have also been 
given a role to limit Indian gaming during the compact process.

  Mr. Speaker, another fact is that in Indian country, the money 
generated from gaming must, by law, be used for purposes to benefit the 
tribes. Today, the tribes employ 140,000 people nationwide, with about 
85 percent being held by non-Indians. The tribes have used their gaming 
dollars to build schools, homes, and health clinics to better serve 
their members. But I have some real concerns about this bill. I am 
concerned that while this Commission will focus a great deal of its 
time on Indian gaming, there is no guarantee that a person from Indian 
country will even be a member of the Commission. I hope any Senate bill 
will include a provision requiring two members of the Commission be 
from federally recognized tribes who engage in gaming. Finally, Mr.

[[Page H1683]]

Speaker, I remain deeply concerned that there are some people in the 
House who would like to use this bill as a vehicle to attach amendments 
that would be detrimental to Indian gaming. If this bill passes the 
House and moves over to the Senate, I would hope that body would reject 
any attempt to add such amendments to this bill. Such a move would be 
unwise and counterproductive. It would lead many people who support 
this bill, to actively oppose it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Guam 
[Mr. Underwood].
  Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me.
  I rise in support of H.R. 497, which would establish a national 
commission to study the impact of gambling in America.
  Numerous studies have been conducted on the impact of gambling, 
studies which have generated a variety of conclusions, largely 
dependent on who funds them.
  This commission will be unique in that it will hopefully provide an 
objective and dispassionate view of the economic and social effects of 
gambling. This kind of information is vital if we are to make 
responsible decisions about commercial and governmental gambling.
  If gambling continues to generate popularity as a revenue-generating 
mechanism, we will need accurate information in order to help State, 
territorial, local governments, and Indian tribes make decisions about 
gambling.
  Earlier in this debate, the gentleman from American Samoa [Mr. 
Faleomavaega] and the chairman, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], 
entered into a colloquy to clarify the roll of territories in this 
legislation. I support the effort of my friend in that regard.
  I am especially interested in what the commission's findings will 
reveal about the affects of gambling on our local economies. My home of 
Guam is considering legalizing casino gambling as a way to attract more 
tourists to our island. I do not think it is necessary, but we need 
information in order to make that decision better and more effective 
for our local community.
  Support H.R. 497.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr. Richardson].
  (Mr. RICHARDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise against the bill because of its 
negative impact on native Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, a National Gambling Commission is in many ways an 
unnecessary intrusion by the Federal Government into the business of 
State and local and tribal governments. It will cost millions of 
dollars to fund the Commission and its study, which can surely be put 
to better use.
  There is no evidence that such a study is even necessary. The 
gambling operations of the native American tribes, which would be one 
of the subjects of this study, have shown no evidence of any connection 
with organized criminal activity. The bill does not provide a 
requirement that there be native American members of the Commission.
  The bill's study does not cover all forms of gambling.
  Indian gambling has produced hundreds of thousands of jobs, both 
directly and indirectly, and has been of tremendous economic benefit. 
This is the first time that the tribes have been able to bring in a 
significant amount of revenue, and they have used it for hospitals, 
schools, and other improvements to their communities.
  Creating this Commission will create another Federal bureaucracy 
which will have subpoena power.
  Regardless of one's position on whether gambling is a positive or 
negative force, the States and localities must decide for themselves, 
and they are already doing so.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Speaker, I proudly represent the Second District of 
New Jersey, which includes Atlantic City and the casino industry in 
Atlantic City. New Jersey also has a State lottery and racing and other 
types of legalized betting.
  In turn, New Jersey is able to provide programs for senior citizens, 
programs for the disabled and programs for schoolchildren that would 
not be there if it were not for this source of revenue.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not an area for the Federal Government to get 
involved in. It is an area that has been run by the States. It is an 
area that has been based on the approval by the people of those States.
  Gaming includes a wide variety of activities in States. It involves 
racing, lottery, sports betting, charitable gaming, and the casino 
industry.
  I would like to at least suggest that this study be completed by 
those involved in the industry at the State and local level, those who 
know it best, and that its results be shared with States and local 
governments, and that if Federal issues are to be examined, that the 
agenda should focus on Indian gaming and gaming on the Internet.
  I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, what this study is going to find. It is 
going to find that there were a lot of jobs that were created because 
of the industry, good-paying jobs, with good benefits. It is going to 
find that has been a reduction in the welfare roles because people have 
been put to work. It is going to find a highly regulated industry that 
is extremely well run. It is going to find that services provided to 
the elderly and disabled would not have been there if this industry 
would not be allowed to flourish, and it is also going to find that 
educational funds for our children have been enhanced because of the 
revenues that they receive from the gaming industry.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana 
[Mr. Roemer].
  (Mr. ROEMER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would like to begin by saluting the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] for his hard work on this particular bill.
  We are hearing a lot about what this bill is and what it is not. I 
think one of our former Presidents once said, ``Education is expensive, 
but ignorance is even more expensive.'' This bill is about educating 
the American people. It is not about mandating the States. It is about 
getting information out to the people about what the gaming industry 
and the gambling is doing to our small businesses and our families and 
our wages. That is what this is about.
  I recommend the ``Luck Business'', by Robert Goodman, to see some of 
the devastating consequences that gaming is having in our small 
communities.
  Second, this is about values. Our values in American society are not 
to say to our children, ``Go out and win the lottery. We are going to 
go out to 7-Eleven and buy enough tickets and go gaming and gambling, 
and that is the way to make the American dream.'' It is about hard work 
and sacrifice and commitment.
  So let us study and see what this proliferation of gambling is having 
on American families and American small businesses. That is all this 
bill does.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Miller], the ranking member of the 
Committee on Resources, which should have had jurisdiction over this 
bill.
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
resolution, and I want to commend the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Wolf] for bringing it to our attention and the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] and the Committee on the Judiciary for reporting it.
  I wish that our committee would have spent more time on it because of 
its significant impact on Indian gaming in this country.
  But I think with the proliferation of gambling in the United States, 
we have got to ask these questions. We have got to start to have some 
answers as to the real impacts of gambling. There is a lot of impact 
that appears at first, and a lot of it appears positive, but there are 
obviously some ongoing studies, anecdotal evidence from communities 
that

[[Page H1684]]

some of it that is so positive in the beginning maybe turns out not to 
be the case later.

                              {time}  1215

  I must also say that I am concerned that this resolution starts to 
get into a number of areas that are beyond those generic questions as 
to the impact of gaming on our families and our communities and our 
social structure. Many of the areas where States have made decisions, 
the people have voted to engage in this activity, and we do not get 
back into trying to create some type of Federal regulatory body.
  But I think the resolution on balance is a good one. I would hope 
that the members of the Commission will remain sensitive to the unique 
status of the Indian tribes and the laws and the treaties governing 
those tribes and the laws that govern their ability to conduct gambling 
as a result of State activities in which those tribal lands reside.
  So I hope that this Commission will be productive, and I hope that it 
will be able to report back to us, so that decisions can be made by us, 
I think individually, because I think we are going to find out most of 
these decisions reside with the States, as they have properly in the 
past. But maybe this national Commission will have enough status so 
that local communities and States can make informed decisions before 
plunging into the further expansion of gambling before they know the 
results and whatever the downside may be.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation. I might 
remark, as one from New Jersey, which has a strong gambling casino 
industry, nevertheless I believe this is a study that is long overdue. 
I rise in strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which would 
set up a commission to study the impact of gambling on our Nation. I 
also do this as one from New Jersey a State that has a casino industry 
that is nationally prominent. This study is long overdue and I commend 
my good friend from Virginia for his hard work on this important issue. 
In doing so, he has recognized what many of us have also grown aware 
of--that the moral, social, economic, and political ramifications of 
gambling are far too great to go unaddressed any longer. We must 
carefully evaluate what has become an uncontrollable epidemic that has 
destroyed peoples lives and families.
  All we need to do is look at the staggering statistics on gambling. 
The amount of money legally gambled has skyrocketed by 2,800 percent 
since 1974--from $17 to $482 billion in 1994. Moreover, the $40 billion 
in revenue raised in 1994 from all gambling related activities is more 
than all of the combined revenue raised from movie theaters, sporting 
events, theme parks, cruises, and music concerts.
  The economic impact of gambling on community businesses can be 
devastating. Money that would normally be invested into local economies 
is instead being thrown away at the nearby casino. Local merchants, 
retailers, and restaurantuers are seeing business dry up because the 
money that people used to spend on their goods and services is being 
gambled at the card table, the slot machine, the scratch off lotto 
cards.
  The reality of individual and family owned businesses going out of 
business is exacerbated by the corporate structure of casinos. Casinos 
provide cheap food and entertainment on site in order to keep gamblers 
near the action, and to keep spending money. So, in order for 
restaurants to remain competitive and attract business, or just to take 
advantage of a State's liberal gambling regulations, many restaurants 
generate more money from their video poker machines than they do from 
selling food.
  And, as individual dependency on gambling grows, so too do the loss 
of homes and jobs. Families are faced with bankruptcy and unpaid bills. 
Divorces increase, families break up, and chronic gamblers contemplate 
suicide. Theft and crime increase. Crime rates are twice as high in 
places with gambling. In 1994, towns with casinos saw a 5.8-percent 
jump in crime while the national average fell 2 percent. And, a 7.7-
percent increase was seen at places with casinos in operation for less 
than a year.
  People such as Betty Yakey, a 65-year-old woman from Louisiana, lose 
$190,000 to the lures of gambling. In doing so, she used up her 
grandson's college savings. Other people in Betty Yakey's position sell 
off possessions and file false theft reports to collect insurance to 
feed their habit. This habit not only destroys the life of the gambler, 
but also the lives of spouses and children, and in Betty Yakey's case, 
grandchildren. Gambling is not just an individual problem, but one that 
a whole family must face together. And, it is an issue that must be 
recognized and addressed by gambling interests.

  However, the irony in all of this is that those responsible for 
making sure that gambling habits like Betty Yakey's continue to be fed 
are the same people who are responsible for writing gambling 
regulations and issuing casino licenses. These are our State 
legislators, many of whom have been corrupted by the gambling lobby.
  State legislators facing sagging economies justify gambling with the 
argument that, without the revenue generated by gambling, they would be 
forced to either increase taxes or cut programs. But, they set gambling 
policy having already received huge amounts of money from gambling 
interests within the State. In Illinois in 1995, gambling PAC's 
contributed $1.2 million to State legislators, including almost 
$100,000 each to the Governor and the House Republican and Democratic 
leaders. In Louisiana, gambling put more money into campaigns than the 
next four industries combined. In 1994, gambling interests gave $3.1 
million to parties and candidates, making them one of the top five 
special interest contributors.
  Gambling is a drug, an addiction just like alcohol or cocaine. The 
bottom line is that the gambling industry and State legislatures do 
nothing to stop the promotion of gambling as family entertainment. They 
are willing to watch small businesses fail, crime spread, and families 
fall apart--all to raise revenue, precious revenue. See, gambling is a 
State tourist attraction, as are theme parks and ski resorts. 
Mississippi generates two-thirds of its gambling revenue from out of 
State, mainly from Florida and Tennessee. People flood into Mississippi 
and spend their money, then they leave and take their problems home 
with them.
  It is estimated that Gamblers Anonymous groups have almost doubled to 
over 1,000 since 1990. Is this what we want to perpetuate in the United 
States? State-supported addiction? Is it worth destroying peoples 
lives, families, the moral backbone of our Nation, just to make some 
money? I certainly think not.
  We must move forward and scrutinize the impact of gambling on all 
levels. Support Congressman Wolf's legislation. Our Nation can't afford 
to do without it.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hoke].
  Mr. HOKE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, 
and I appreciate the chairman for bringing this bill to the floor, and 
I appreciate the work of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], as 
well.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a particular interest in one section of this that 
the committee was gracious enough to accept as part of this. I am on 
the committee and was glad to be able to add this.
  It has to do with the effects of advertising concerning gambling. 
Because my concern with respect to gambling advertising, as with the 
advertising of other vices, such as alcohol and tobacco, is that what 
happens is something that is essentially negative and bad, for a person 
gets glamorized and misleads the public into thinking that there is 
something very positive and fulfilling and wonderful and glamorous 
about partaking in this.
  What happens with our legislation is that it calls for a review, 
particularly, and an assessment of the effects of advertising 
concerning gambling, including whether the advertising has increased 
participation in gambling activity, the effects of various types of 
advertising, including the sponsorship of sporting events, the 
relationship between advertising and the amount of the prize that is 
going to be awarded, and an examination of State lottery advertising 
practices, including the process by which States award lottery 
advertising contracts.
  I think it is terribly important, because what it strikes me is 
happening

[[Page H1685]]

is we are undermining and misleading the public with respect to 
creating the false impression that gambling is a legitimate, bona fide, 
way to get rich quick. That is really what is behind so much of the 
advertising.
  I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, and I am very happy about 
this, there was an attempt in the telecom bill to make casino gambling 
advertising legal on television. That had been brought in from the 
other body. When in conference, and I was a conferee on that committee, 
I was able, with the help of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], 
and a number of other people, to make sure that that specific section 
was knocked out.
  Mr. Speaker, we need this to find out exactly what the impact is of 
advertising on gambling.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Torricelli].
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, when the 104th Congress began, it was 
our mandate, it was alleged, to enhance the role of State government, 
to reduce the role of Federal regulations, to ease the burdens on 
industry. And now here we are, a year later, creating a new Federal 
commission to review an industry that has always been the province of 
the State government, an industry about which the Federal Government 
has never been involved and has no expertise. And, to compound the 
problem, this new Commission will all be named by elements of the 
Federal Government. No involvement by the attorneys general, who have 
enforced the laws for 200 years, no role by the State Governors, who 
have had this responsibility, and no role by tribal leaders, who now 
have the fastest growing element of this industry. We have managed to 
ask a recommendation uniquely from the one element of government in the 
entire country with no expertise, no knowledge, and no involvement.
  Mr. Speaker, I see the realities that the Commission may carry the 
day. Let me at least suggest this: The other body has a chance to 
improve it, get the Governors involved, get the industry involved, get 
the tribal leaders involved, to make it a better report.
  While I may still believe that it is the role of the Federal 
Government that is not appropriate and I oppose the commission, let us 
at least for the record make this clear: The gentleman from Virginia 
[Mr. Wolf] in his statement earlier made clear, this Commission does 
not have a mandate for new Federal taxes. It is my belief it does not 
have a role in new Federal regulations. I have heard no Member come to 
this floor talking about new Federal taxes on this industry.
  Let the record at least be clear on this: this is the most taxed, 
most regulated, most inspected industry in the United States today. In 
New Jersey alone we have 1,000 inspectors for 12 casinos. The petroleum 
industry, the chemical industry, the drug industry, none of them have 
that level of involvement. If you own any part of any company involved 
in casino gaming in New Jersey, you, your family, your finances, your 
holdings, are inspected.
  I hope, Mr. Speaker, in the other body we can make this a commission 
that really involves the industry and our States in what is a State 
industry.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the 
chairman of the Committee on House Oversight with reference to this 
legislation.

                                     Committee on House Oversight,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                    Washington, DC, March 5, 1996.
     Hon. Henry Hyde,
     Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hyde: On Tuesday, March 5, the House will 
     consider on the suspension calendar, H.R. 497, to establish a 
     Commission to study the impact of gambling in the United 
     States.
       A portion of this legislation directs the Commission to 
     study the impact of campaign contributions on public policy 
     related to gambling.
       Under House Rule 10(h) 12 and 15 the Committee on House 
     Oversight has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to 
     ``corrupt practices'' and ``the raising, reporting, and use 
     of campaign contributions for office of Representative. . . 
     .''
       The parliamentarian has indicated in consultations with the 
     Committee that the consideration of this bill on suspension 
     does not constitute any precedent for avoidance of this 
     Committee's jurisdiction in future matters that relate to 
     campaign finance as a matter of Federal public policy.
       I would appreciate your entering this letter as part of the 
     record during the floor consideration of H.R. 497.
       Thank you very much for your cooperation on this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Bill Thomas,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Ensign].
  (Mr. ENSIGN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I have several contentions with this bill. 
First of all, I have heard testimony over the last year about that this 
bill is just a study, and what is wrong with a study? One of the 
reasons for this study is just to give States the information so that 
they can make the decision about whether they should have gambling 
legalized or not, because there is the assertion made that the States 
do not have the proper information to make that decision at this point.
  The sponsor of this bill, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], his 
own State defeated a State measure that would have legalized gaming in 
Virginia, even though they were outspent, I think it was something like 
16 to 1, by the casino industry to try to legalize it in that State.
  State after State after State is defeating legalized casino gaming. 
It seems that they do have the information to make the decision that is 
proper for their own State. And that is my biggest contention with this 
bill. Where in the Constitution can anyone point out to me that this 
body has oversight over legalized casinos that are regulated by a 
State? Nowhere in the Constitution.
  Now, if one wants to regulate Indian gaming or regulate Internet 
gaming, that is interstate commerce, we certainly have the 
constitutional jurisdiction to do that. But we do not have the 
jurisdiction in this body over regular casinos.
  Second, this legislation should require that the study commission 
make recommendations regarding purely State gaming policy issues, and 
that those recommendations be directed to the States, not to this body. 
Because our biggest fear is that people will take this information into 
this body and make either taxes, which the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Torricelli], referred to, or more regulations. We feel that this 
is a thinly veiled disguise for future regulation of the gaming 
industry. This is purely a State issue that should stay at the State 
and local level.
  Last, let me conclude by saying that to improve this bill we should 
at least have local and State input. People on the gaming commission 
should at least be local mayors, legislators, and State Governors.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Gekas].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, even though the gentleman is bitterly hostile to what we 
are trying to do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Rogers]. The gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Gekas] is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, the cost of this venture into the inquiry on gambling is 
going to be about $4 million. It occurred to me that this Congress, and 
I approve of its measures to a large extent, is seeking ways to cut 
spending, so the $4 million you might say means nothing. We can gamble 
that away in 2 minutes.
  But this same Congress, which is now about to vote $4 million for 
this gambling commission, has eliminated the Administrative Conference 
of the United States, a little, small bureau that was very useful, 
which only cost $1.5 million. We zeroed it out to save $1.5 million. 
And now, in a double or nothing mode, we are doubling the expenditure 
for the purpose of this commission. That is a little odd, and it gives 
me a great discomfort about the priorities that my own leadership is 
trying to set in cutting the budget. That is No. 1.
  Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make one other observation. When the 
gentleman  from  Michigan  [Mr. Bonior] was  at  the  well,  he  very  
properly

[[Page H1686]]

enumerated a lot of different statistics about what others had learned 
and other studies have created about the evils of gambling. That is the 
point.
  We all know what the evils of gambling are. We can call the Library 
of Congress and in 6 minutes get every single report and analysis ever 
made on gambling and have it on this floor for final consideration of 
what evil gambling poses to the American public, and we need no 
commission at all. We have the information at hand. We know it is bad 
when gambling becomes a vice, not just a play thing.
  So I am eager, if at all, to defeat this resolution and go about the 
business of cutting the budget.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
is recognized for 3\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this has been the month of 
self-repudiation by the Republican majority. Last week, the Party of 
Free Enterprise brought forward a bill which said that while the free 
enterprise system can handle telecommunications and computers and 
automobiles, it is not quite up to peanuts or sugar. So peanuts and 
sugar remain exempt from the free enterprise system in this Republican 
bill.
  Now the party that talks about States' rights is planning to spend 
millions of Federal dollars on a study that will, among other things, 
look into the enormous national question of, and I quote from page 6, 
``an examination of State lottery advertising practices, including the 
process by which States award lottery advertising contracts.''
  Apparently the States, now we are going to test them. We are going to 
let them experiment with easier issues like Medicaid, welfare, a few 
things like that. Once they have shown that they can handle Medicaid 
and welfare, then maybe we will let them handle the tough issue of 
lottery advertising contracts.
  Now, how do people who purport to be advocates of States' rights tell 
us we are going to spend millions of Federal dollars to investigate the 
way the States issue lottery contracts, and tell the States how to do 
it better? Because on page 5 it says this commission shall look into 
gambling and make such changes, it says, existing Federal, State, and 
local policy and practices with respect to legalization and propose 
such changes in those policies and practices as the commission shall 
deem appropriate.
  Here come big brother and sister, not out of the goodness of the 
heart, by the way, under this fiscally responsible Congress. These 
people will be paid at an annual rate of $115,000 a year for 2 years, 
depending on how many meetings they have. They can self-pay. They can 
generate meetings for themselves until they myth the $115,000. And they 
will be investigating the States and proposing recommendations and 
changes in what the States do.
  This confirms my view that there is not on the other side any 
consistent belief in States' rights. The people on the other side 
believe that the issue should be decided at that level of government 
where they will like the outcome.

                              {time}  1230

  There are many over there who do not think that people should gamble. 
The States have, from their standpoint, been lax. So forget about the 
States rights stuff. We will stick Thomas Jefferson back on the shelf. 
We will spend millions of dollars to make these recommendations of what 
the States are doing. I presume we will probably be then asked to act 
on these things.
  By the way, whatever happened to the notion of government not 
interfering with individuals? How dare these adults earn money and go 
out and gamble. How dare they offend the morality of some of our 
friends on the other side who do not think it is right.
  I read the Washington Post series. Do my colleagues know what it 
sounded like yesterday? Prohibition of alcohol. Sure, we can find in 
any human endeavor people who abuse it. There are people who smoke too 
much and drink too much and gamble too much and they buy more expensive 
cars than they ought to buy, and there are people who watch too much C-
SPAN and become adversely affected.
  But in a free society, in a free society, particularly people who 
purport to distrust government do not answer that by saying, The 
government will tell you what to do with your money; you are not doing 
it wisely. That is obviously the premise behind this.
  Then, of course, we have the Indians, who have been running casinos 
quite successfully. And they listen to these kinds of assaults on them 
and, as I have said before, I believe that this kind of legislation 
further convinces native Americans that the only mistake in Pat 
Buchanan's immigration policies is that they come 300 years too late, 
because the native Americans have been running the gambling quite 
successfully and they have been benefiting from it. And here comes big 
brother and sister, millions of dollars, forget about the States, 
forget about the Indians, forget about individuals rights. We know 
better and we will tell you what to do. It is wholly inconsistent.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rogers). The gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Hyde] is recognized for 4 minutes.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to quote Shakespeare, and probably 
inartfully, but me thinks ``thou doth protest too much'' seems to hang 
over this Chamber today.
  I have never heard so many Members defending States rights. This is 
virgin territory for them, and I welcome them to the ranks of States 
rights defenders, but I almost began to imagine the Stars and Bars were 
being waved over there with some vigor because, God forbid, the Federal 
Government cross into a State to examine its gaming industry.
  First of all, there is no proposal to regulate here. There is no 
proposal to tax. The only proposal is to recommend changes. We do that 
every day in the thousands. We are great change recommenders. But that 
would be based on a study made of an industry that is indeed an 
interstate industry. It is a national phenomenon, and it deals with 
big, big money. It has an impact on commerce.
  Money that is spent in a casino is not money that is spent in a local 
store or retail outlet, and that is fine. Let people spend the money 
the way they want. Let them gamble up a storm. I once heard about a 
slot machine that took wristwatches when you ran out of money. That is 
all right. Let it happen. But let us know about it. Let us study it. 
Let us find out what the impact is on our society, on our commerce, and 
on the people engaged in this activity.
  It is a legitimate activity. I would never want to declare it 
illegal. But what is wrong with learning something about it? I do not 
think there is anything wrong with it.
  All this bill does is set up a commission. We assume and hope and 
expect that it will be fairly constituted by people of intelligence and 
integrity, and at the end of the 2 years we will know something about a 
major industry dealing with important money in this country. I do not 
see anything wrong with that.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased to support H.R. 
497, legislation to establish a National Gambling Impact and Policy 
Commission to study gambling in the United States and recommend any 
appropriate changes in public policy in light of the Commission's 
findings. The results will provide an objective body of data about the 
gambling industry which does not currently exist.
  This issue is certainly worthy of examination and H.R. 497 is a 
reasonable step on which to proceed. Over the past 10 years various 
types of gambling have spread to most every State. The expanded 
availability of gambling has greatly increased the number of people 
participating in and the amount of money spent on gambling on a regular 
basis. Such a large increase over such a short period of time certainly 
warrants a study of the issue.
  It should be noted that this legislation in no way targets one type 
of gambling over another. Nor, for example, is it intended to 
concentrate on Indian gaming more than charitable gambling or keno more 
than video poker.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member urges support for H.R. 497.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, as a cosponsor of H.R. 497, The National 
Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act, I would like

[[Page H1687]]

to encourage all of my colleagues, both Democrat and Republican to 
support the establishment of such a commission.
  With the recent explosion in the number of casinos across the 
country, concerns have been raised about the effects of expanded 
gambling Advocates of legalizing gambling promise economic growth, 
jobs, and windfall of tax revenues. However, we must also consider the 
negative impacts which include regulatory costs, lost productivity and 
more importantly, the social costs.
  This legislation would create a blue ribbon panel charged with the 
duty of conducting a comprehensive and objective study of gambling in 
the United States. Negative impacts of gambling on State and local 
economies, small businesses and families can no longer be ignored. 
Crime and social problems related to gambling could add to already 
overburdened criminal justice and social welfare systems. This issue is 
of particular concern to myself and my district because of largely 
unrestricted Indian gaming and its impact on the community. But this is 
more than a local issue. It is an issue of National social and economic 
importance.
  Mr. Speaker, the States, local governments and citizens need unbiased 
and factual information about gambling. Gambling must be carefully 
studied to provide citizens with all the information they need when 
deciding whether to allow legalized gambling in their communities. I 
strongly urge all of my colleagues to support H.R. 497.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that the House suspend the rules and 
pass the bill, H.R. 497, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________