Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 28 (Tuesday, March 5, 1996)

[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.

____________________