[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 87 (Thursday, June 13, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6195-S6196]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  LEGAL GAMING ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the issue about which 
much has been said recently, the so-called need for a Federal gaming 
study.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is advised that some 
time ago we were to have gone to certain Federal Reserve Board 
nominations.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we set aside 
the pending business and that I be able to speak as in morning 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BRYAN. I thank the Chair for advising me of the parliamentary 
situation.
  Mr. President, I was commenting, we have had much discussion in the 
media, on the floor and as part of the national dialog of the need for 
a so-called Federal study of gaming. The integrity of the legal, 
legitimate entertainment industry, one which is of primary importance 
to the economy of my State, has been repeatedly impugned.
  One Member of the other body took the House floor to call those who 
work in the gaming entertainment industry a group of ``roaches.''
  I want to cut through some of this rhetoric and set the record 
straight. Excessive rhetoric has been used to drown out a constructive 
dialog and a careful deliberation about a legitimate issue: the rapid 
growth of gaming across America.
  Opponents of legalized gaming have resorted to character 
assassination, guilt by association, and distortion of the views of 
those with whom they disagree.
  The time, Mr. President, has come to say, ``Enough is enough.''
  At the outset, it is imperative to step back from this emotional 
rhetoric by gaming critics and to observe that gaming entertainment in 
all forms would not be expanding without demand for this form of 
entertainment. Simply stated, the American consumer, not the 
Government, has decided to spend his or her precious recreational 
dollar in this fashion. For example, 30 percent, or 32 million 
households, made a total of 125 million visits to casinos across 
America in 1994. The total number of casino visits rose to 150 million 
in the following year of 1995. In many respects, this growth in casino 
visits is not surprising, given the changing nature of gaming 
entertainment in general and casino gaming in particular.
  Since the late 1980's, casinos have become what the experts 
characterize as ``destination resorts'' which offer more than the 
various games of chance normally associated with the casino. These 
destination resorts now offer a range of additional entertainment 
experiences, including a variety of sporting events and recreational 
activities, theme dining experiences, unique shopping, Broadway-quality 
shows, and many other attractions.
  If casino entertainment was not providing solid value for the dollar 
spent, consumers would not be patronizing these establishments. It is 
somewhat puzzling that those who are defenders of the free market and 
proponents of State regulation are quick to second-guess consumers and 
States on this policy question.
  Advocates of legislation to create a Federal gaming study commission 
have stressed in their public statements and in testimony before 
various congressional committees that the limited purpose of this 
commission was to study the socioeconomic effects of all forms of 
gambling and to give policymakers at the local, State, and Federal 
level the data they need to make educated decisions.
  I might just say parenthetically that there has been no request 
generated by local or State government, that I am aware of, of calling 
upon the Federal Government to conduct such a study. But that is 
ostensibly what they claim.

  They have consistently emphasized that no one, least of all the legal 
gaming industry, should fear anything that is just a study.
  Mr. President, the gaming entertainment industry in my own State has 
absolutely nothing to fear from a fair and unbiased study. Nevada's 
tough regulation has made this industry a model for other States, which 
have adopted gaming, to follow and, indeed, is an international or 
global model.
  However, what is going on here is a crusade by those who want to 
destroy an activity that they do not like, and that, Mr. President, is 
dangerous. The principal premise for the proposed commission advanced 
by its antigaming opponents is that States and local governments lack 
the ability to acquire and act on objective information in the face of 
well-financed attempts to put casinos in. This simply does not square 
with reality.
  No State--and I repeat, Mr. President, no State--has approved new 
casino gaming for several years. For example, 7 of 10 gaming 
initiatives were defeated in 1994, and no new casino gaming was 
approved by a new jurisdiction in 1995.
  Let me just comment parenthetically. From a parochial perspective, 
representing my State, I am not an advocate for the expansion of casino 
gaming in other jurisdictions. But the point needs to be made that that 
is a decision which States, local governments, free from Federal 
interference, ought to be able to make on its own.
  Those who have an established agenda decided to elevate this 
commission from one to study the impact of gaming to one that is 
designed to investigate the operation of a legalized gaming industry.
  While many of those who support a study have good intentions and 
prefer a reasonable approach, they are being drowned out by those 
extremists whose goal is the destruction of this industry. The loudest 
voices calling for a gaming study are those who want to shut down a 
legal industry in a State which has chosen to allow gaming. They 
believe they possess a superior moral barometer and should tell us what 
is right and what is wrong.
  They feel the same way on other aspects of our society, and we know 
not what will be their next target. What I want to do today is to give 
you a more fair picture of the legal and highly regulated gaming 
industry in my own State.
  In Nevada, the gaming entertainment industry provides 43 percent of 
the $1.2 billion annual State general revenue. This is the source that 
finances the essential operations of State government; first and 
foremost, education.
  The gaming entertainment industry accounts for more than 50 percent 
of Nevada's employment, either directly or indirectly. The gaming 
industry in Nevada has today extensive regulation and oversight, 
involving day-to-day onsite supervision by State gaming control 
authorities, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Treasury Department 
unit which handles currency transaction issues.
  In fact, when the Treasury Department testified before the U.S. 
Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee recently, they had 
high praise for the regulation of currency transactions in the State of 
Nevada.
  The regulation of gaming is not perfect. We have worked long and hard 
in Nevada to establish a tough regulatory system that is a model for 
how such a system should be run.

[[Page S6196]]

  The State of Nevada employs 372 regulators and charges the gaming 
industry $19 million on an annual basis to see that only legitimate 
interests are involved in gaming and that the games of chance are 
conducted honestly and fairly.
  Despite Nevada's success with gaming, I would be the first to admit 
that legalized gaming may not be the best choice for every community, 
and I have repeatedly expressed my concern that Indian gaming 
regulation in some States is far too lax.
  Some States have unrealistically looked at gaming to solve all of 
their financial problems; a panacea, if you will. And some States have 
rushed into gaming without the proper regulatory controls, and the 
results have been disastrous. Any State or community that chooses to 
legalize gaming should do so with its eyes open and with a strong 
commitment to strict regulation and control.
  I am confident, however, that States are more than qualified to make 
these type of decisions on their own without the intrusion of the 
Federal Government.
  I am proud of what I did in Nevada in my 6 years as Governor at a 
time when the industry worked with me to improve the industry's 
operation. The chairman of the Nevada Gaming Control Board is Bill 
Bible, the son of a highly respected colleague of ours, U.S. Senator 
Alan Bible. Bill Bible is tough, he is honest, and he is effective. 
Nevada's gaming regulations reflect his commitment to making sure that 
our industry is regulated completely and thoroughly.
  The fact is that today the legalized gaming industry is a legitimate 
business, as legitimate as any business on the Fortune 500 list. More 
than 50 publicly traded companies, all regulated by the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, own gaming interests. The financial operations of 
these concerns are carefully scrutinized by market analysts, market 
regulators and investors of all kinds. All these companies file 10K's, 
or similar forms, with the SEC.

  The stocks of these companies are widely traded on major public stock 
exchanges, including the New York Stock Exchange and overseas markets. 
Stocks of gaming and gaming-related companies are broadly held by major 
institutional investors, such as pension funds and other retirement-
related funds, including the California Public Employees Retirement 
System, the Colorado Public Employees Retirement System, the New York 
State Teachers Retirement Fund, the Wisconsin Investment Board and 
Harvard University.
  The gaming entertainment industry employs over 1 million people 
throughout the United States, paying $6.8 billion in salaries in 1994. 
The industry paid more than $1.4 billion in taxes to State and local 
governments in 1995, along with an estimated $6 billion to $7 billion 
more paid by other forms of gaming entertainment, such as State 
lotteries, sports betting, horse and dog racing.
  While Las Vegas is proud to be the gaming entertainment capital of 
the world, Nevada is far from alone as a gaming industry base. Jobs, 
entertainment, taxes and positive economic effects are felt in States 
as economically and politically diverse--New Jersey, Mississippi, 
Illinois, Connecticut, Minnesota and Iowa. Indeed, some forms of gaming 
entertainment are legal in 48 of the 50 States.
  The industry will spend an estimated $3 billion on new construction 
in 1996, with billions more slated to be spent on construction projects 
over the next several years. This construction creates demands for 
goods and services sold by companies around the country for everything 
from construction materials to architectural services.
  The true agenda of the industry's critics is an agenda of ending 
legalized gaming, as the title of the group ``National Coalition 
Against Legalized Gaming'' states in bold letters.
  My response is simple: in this country, adults are free to make their 
own decisions about where, when, and how to spend their entertainment 
dollars.
  It is indeed ironic, at a time when many decry the power of the 
Federal Government and seek a return to more State and local control 
and personal freedom, that some of the very same people who assert this 
as their philosophy are people who seek to establish a national 
commission in this case, without requiring involvement of State 
government officials, to determine how best to oversee a State-
regulated industry.
  None of this is to suggest that gaming entertainment, like any other 
major business, particularly one which hosts millions of visitors each 
year, does not have its share of public issues and challenges. For 
example, in all of the recent commentary, little if anything has been 
said about the serious effort made by individual companies and the 
industry as a whole to address concerns about problem gaming.
  The industry recently announced the creation of a multimillion dollar 
commitment to the new National Center for Responsible Gaming.
  The companies involved in gaming entertainment are recognizable names 
like Hilton, ITT, and Harrah's.
  These companies engage in a wide range of community activities.
  These companies are run by highly respected business leaders such as 
Terry Lanni, Bill Bennett, Clyde Turner, Dan Reichartz, Bill Boyd, and 
many others I could mention who are recognized for the business acumen 
well beyond gaming circles.
  When a Member takes the floor to call a hard-working, law abiding 
industry a group of ``roaches'', it is time for a return to civility, 
to disagreeing without being disagreeable or disingenuous, in order to 
permit a rational debate on matters pertaining to the gaming industry.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
as in morning business for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Iowa for 
permitting me to go on his time.

                          ____________________