Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)

[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 105 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7971-S7983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

THE NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION ACT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now
turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 449, S. 704, a bill to
establish the Gambling Impact Study Commission.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (S. 704) to establish the Gambling Impact Study
Commission.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill,
which had been reported from the Committee on Governmental Affairs,
with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting
in lieu thereof the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that--
(1) the most recent Federal study of gambling in the United
States was completed in 1976;
(2) legalization of gambling has increased substantially
over the past 20 years, and State, local, and Native American
tribal governments have established gambling as a source of
jobs and additional revenue;
(3) the growth of various forms of gambling, including
electronic gambling and gambling over the Internet, could
affect interstate and international matters under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Government;
(4) questions have been raised regarding the social and
economic impacts of gambling, and Federal, State, local, and
Native American tribal governments lack recent, comprehensive
information regarding those impacts; and
(5) a Federal commission should be established to conduct a
comprehensive study of the social and economic impacts of
gambling in the United States.

SEC. 3. NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION.

(a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a
commission to be known as the National Gambling Impact Study
Commission (hereinafter referred to in this Act as ``the
Commission''). The Commission shall--
(1) be composed of 9 members appointed in accordance with
subsection (b); and
(2) conduct its business in accordance with the provisions
of this Act.
(b) Membership.--
(1) In general.--The Commissioners shall be appointed for
the life of the Commission as follows:
(A) 3 shall be appointed by the President of the United
States.
(B) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives.
(C) 3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the
Senate.
(2) Persons eligible.--The members of the Commission shall
be individuals who have knowledge or expertise, whether by
experience or training, in matters to be studied by the
Commission under section 4. The members may be from the
public or private sector, and may include Federal, State,
local, or Native American tribal officers or employees,
members of academia, non-profit organizations, or industry,
or other interested individuals.
(3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of
the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the
Senate shall consult among themselves prior to the
appointment of the members of the Commission in order to
achieve, to the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable
representation of various points of view with respect to the
matters to be studied by the Commission under section 4.
(4) Completion of appointments; vacancies.--The President,
the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority
Leader of the Senate shall conduct the consultation required
under paragraph (3) and shall each make their respective
appointments not later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act. Any vacancy that occurs during the
life of the Commission shall not affect the powers of the
Commission, and shall be filled in the same manner as the
original appointment not later than 60 days after the vacancy
occurs.
(5) Operation of the commission.--
(A) Chairmanship.--The President, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate
shall jointly designate one member as the Chairman of the
Commission. In the event of a disagreement among the
appointing authorities, the Chairman shall be determined by a
majority vote of the appointing authorities. The
determination of which member shall be Chairman shall be made
not later than 15 days after the appointment of the last
member of the Commission, but in no case later than 75 days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
(B) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the
Chairman. The initial meeting of the Commission shall be
conducted not later than 30 days after the appointment of the
last member of the Commission, or not later than 30 days
after the date on which appropriated funds are available for
the Commission, whichever is later.
(C) Quorum; voting; rules.--A majority of the members of
the Commission shall constitute a quorum to conduct business,
but the Commission may establish a lesser quorum for
conducting hearings scheduled by the Commission. Each member
of the Commission shall have one vote, and the vote of each
member shall be accorded the same weight. The Commission may
establish by majority vote any other rules for the conduct of
the Commission's business, if such rules are not inconsistent
with this Act or other applicable law.

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 the social
and economic impacts of gambling in the United States on--
(A) Federal, State, local, and Native American tribal
governments; and
(B) communities and social institutions generally,
including individuals, families, and businesses within such
communities and institutions.
(2) Matters to be studied.--The matters studied by the
Commission under paragraph (1) shall at a minimum include--
(A) a review of existing Federal, State, local, and Native
American tribal government policies and practices with
respect to the legalization or prohibition of gambling,
including a review of the costs of such policies and
practices;
(B) an assessment of the relationship between gambling and
levels of crime, and of existing enforcement and regulatory
practices that are intended to address any such relationship;
(C) an assessment of pathological or problem gambling,
including its impact on individuals, families, businesses,
social institutions, and the economy;
(D) an assessment of the impacts of gambling on
individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and
the economy generally, including the role of advertising in
promoting gambling and the impact of gambling on depressed
economic areas;
(E) an assessment of the extent to which gambling provides
revenues to State, local, and Native American tribal
governments, and the extent to which possible alternative
revenue sources may exist for such governments; and
(F) an assessment of the interstate and international
effects of gambling by electronic means, including the use of
interactive technologies and the Internet.
(b) Report.--No later than 2 years after the date on which
the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to
the President, the Congress, State Governors, and Native
American tribal governments a comprehensive report of the
Commission's findings and conclusions, together with any
recommendations of the Commission. Such report shall include
a summary of the reports submitted to the Commission by the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and
National Research Council under section 7, as well as a
summary of any other material relied on by the Commission in
the preparation of its report.

SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

(a) Hearings.--
(1) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit
and act at such times and places, administer such oaths, take
such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission
considers advisable to carry out its duties under section 4.
(2) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before
the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to
witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code.
The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be
paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
(b) Subpoenas.--
(1) In general.--If a person fails to supply information
requested by the Commission, the Commission may by majority
vote require by subpoena the production of any written or
recorded information, document,

[[Page S7972]]

report, answer, record, account, paper, computer file, or
other data or documentary evidence necessary to carry out its
duties under section 4. The Commission shall transmit to the
Attorney General a confidential, written notice at least 10
days in advance of the issuance of any such subpoena. A
subpoena under this paragraph may require the production of
materials from any place within the United States.
(2) Interrogatories.--The Commission may, with respect only
to information necessary to understand any materials obtained
through a subpoena under paragraph (1), issue a subpoena
requiring the person producing such materials to answer,
either through a sworn deposition or through written answers
provided under oath (at the election of the person upon whom
the subpoena is served), to interrogatories from the
Commission regarding such information. A complete recording
or transcription shall be made of any deposition made under
this paragraph.
(3) Certification.--Each person who submits materials or
information to the Commission pursuant to a subpoena issued
under paragraph (1) or (2) shall certify to the Commission
the authenticity and completeness of all materials or
information submitted. The provisions of section 1001 of
title 18, United States Code, shall apply to any false
statements made with respect to the certification required
under this paragraph.
(4) Treatment of subpoenas.--Any subpoena issued by the
Commission under paragraph (1) or (2) shall comply with the
requirements for subpoenas issued by a United States district
court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
(5) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to
obey a subpoena issued by the Commission under paragraph (1)
or (2), the Commission may apply to a United States district
court for an order requiring that person to comply with such
subpoena. The application may be made within the judicial
district in which 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.
(c) 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 its duties under section 4. Upon the request of the
Commission, the head of such department or agency may furnish
such information to the Commission.
(d) Information To Be Kept Confidential.--The Commission
shall be considered an agency of the Federal Government for
purposes of section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and
any individual employed by an individual, entity, or
organization under contract to the Commission under section 7
shall be considered an employee of the Commission for the
purposes of section 1905 of title 18, United States Code.
Information obtained by the Commission, other than
information available to the public, as the result of a
subpoena issued under subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2)
shall not be disclosed to any person in any manner, except--
(1) to Commission employees or employees of any individual,
entity, or organization under contract to the Commission
under section 7 for the purpose of receiving, reviewing, or
processing such information;
(2) upon court order; or
(3) when publicly released by the Commission in an
aggregate or summary form that does not directly or
indirectly disclose--
(A) the identity of any person or business entity; or
(B) any information which could not be released under
section 1905 of title 18, United States Code.

SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

(a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission
who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government,
or whose compensation is not precluded by a State, local, or
Native American tribal government position, 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.--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 service 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 and
termination of an executive director shall be subject to
confirmation by a majority of the members of the Commission.
(2) Compensation.--The executive director shall be
compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate payable for
level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title
5, United States Code. The Chairman 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 may not exceed the rate payable for level
V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
(3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government
employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate
Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission without
reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption
or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege.
(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 not to 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.

SEC. 7. CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH.

(a) Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out its duties under section
4, the Commission shall contract with the Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations for--
(A) a thorough review and cataloging of all applicable
Federal, State, local, and Native American tribal laws,
regulations, and ordinances that pertain to gambling in the
United States; and
(B) assistance in conducting the studies required by the
Commission under section 4(a), and in particular the review
and assessments required in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (E)
of paragraph (2) of such section.
(2) Report required.--The contract entered into under
paragraph (1) shall require that the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations submit a report to the Commission
detailing the results of its efforts under the contract no
later than 15 months after the date upon which the Commission
first meets.
(b) National Research Council.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out its duties under section
4, the Commission shall contract with the National Research
Council of the National Academy of Sciences for assistance in
conducting the studies required by the Commission under
section 4(a), and in particular the assessment required under
subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of such section.
(2) Report required.--The contract entered into under
paragraph (1) shall require that the National Research
Council submit a report to the Commission detailing the
results of its efforts under the contract no later than 15
months after the date upon which the Commission first meets.
(c) Other Organizations.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter
into contracts with other entities or organizations for
research necessary to carry out the Commission's duties under
section 4.

SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

For the purposes of this Act:
(1) Gambling.--The term ``gambling'' means any legalized
form of wagering or betting conducted in a casino, on a
riverboat, on an Indian reservation, or at any other location
under the jurisdiction of the United States. Such term
includes any casino game, parimutuel betting, sports-related
betting, lottery, pull-tab game, slot machine, any type of
video gaming, computerized wagering or betting activities
(including any such activity conducted over the Internet),
and philanthropic or charitable gaming activities.
(2) Native american tribal government.--The term ``Native
American tribal government'' means an Indian tribe, as
defined under section 4(5) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory
Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2703(5)).
(3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands.

SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

(a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to
the Commission, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations, and the National Academy of Sciences such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Any
sums appropriated shall remain available, without fiscal year
limitation, until expended.
(b) Limitation.--No payment may be made under section 6 or
7 of this Act except to the extent provided for in advance in
an appropriation Act.

SEC. 10. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the Commission
submits the report required under section 4(b).

Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 704,
the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act, and I urge my
colleagues to approve this important legislation.
I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Stevens, Senator Glenn,
and the Governmental Affairs Committee for their commitment and careful
attention to this important issue. Senator Stevens and the committee
have made significant improvements to the original bill, providing
additional resources and appropriate authorities to

[[Page S7973]]

allow the Commission to conduct a meaningful study of gambling. I also
want to thank the author of bill, Senator Simon, for his steadfast
leadership and dedication to this effort.
I want to share with my colleagues some of my thoughts about this
important issue and about why I believe the Nation would be served by a
national study of gambling.
The rapid spread of legalized gambling in the United States in recent
years has raised concerns in Congress and elsewhere about the social
and economic impacts of gambling on our States and communities.
Throughout our Nation's history, the popularity of gambling has come
and gone, and returned again. Public outcry against casinos and State
lotteries during the post Civil War period led to a ban on gambling
throughout the United States by 1920. During the past 20 years,
however, the gambling industry in the United States has experienced
unparalleled growth and expansion. In 1978 only two States allowed
casinos and a handful of others sponsored lotteries. But today some
form of gambling is legal in 48 States.
Gambling revenues grew more than twice the rate of our Nation's
manufacturing industries in 1990. Americans wager almost a half a
trillion dollars a year and industry profits are estimated to have
reached $40 billion annually.
A major reason for this astronomical growth of gambling is that State
and local governments facing budget shortfalls are desperate for
revenue. State and local government officials all too often accept
gambling as the silver bullet solution to balancing their budgets
without raising taxes. Even if a State or community is reluctant to
host a gambling establishment, it can be drawn over the edge by the
threat that gambling operations may locate in a nearby town or
neighboring State. For many local officials, the legalization of
gambling becomes an economic survival issue rather than a question of
developing sound public policy.
The actions of State and local governments that hope to use gambling
as a solution to financing the needs of their cities and communities
are understandable. Yet, the quick-fix, ready-cash approach can be a
shaky foundation upon which to base an economic development strategy.
As mayor of Indianapolis during a difficult period of economic
uncertainty and social unrest in the late 1960's, I learned that a
community must be built in living rooms, classrooms, and churches.
To strengthen the city's economy, we launched a comprehensive
reorganization of local government, consolidating our city and county.
We cut property taxes 5 times in 8 years, attracted businesses, and
made Indianapolis the amateur sports capital of the world. Indianapolis
is a dynamic and successful city, and it has reduced poverty and crime
that plagues many urban areas.
Long-term growth and prosperity for our communities are most often
earned the old-fashioned way--through hard work, dedication and
commitment to common purpose.
The folks facing the toughest decisions on whether to permit gambling
are leaders at the local level. These officials are frequently
overwhelmed by the size and complexity of proposals made for casinos
and other establishments promising jobs and solutions to local
financial dilemmas. They are often forced to make decisions about
gambling in a vacuum of reliable, unbiased information--information
desperately needed to make sound choices that will affect both the
social and economic future of their communities. This is one area where
the resources of the Federal Government can help communities by
providing them objective, unbiased information they can use to make
their own informed decisions about gambling.
Mr. President, while history is replete with examples of communal
difficulties associated with gambling, it is difficult to determine the
costs--especially in certain human factors related to problem gambling
that include alcoholism, divorce, suicide, family dysfunction, and
criminal activity.
A number of studies have attempted to address the social costs of
gambling; however, they are often regional in focus, limited in scope
or funded by subjective interests. A Federal study commission will
provide a broad-based, authoritative report on this important aspect of
the gambling issue that deserves closer examination.
As a society we appear to have made a piecemeal decision to legalize
a wide variety of gambling activities. But this does not obviate the
need to be mindful of the underlying problems associated with gambling
that lead most of the country to keep it illegal for decades.
We know that the presence of legalized gambling can exacerbate
numerous social problems, including crime, alcoholism, corruption,
suicide, bankruptcy, family dysfunction, and compulsive or addictive
behavior. These side effects can represent an enormous moral and
financial cost to communities.
The gambling industry does not choose to confront these moral
questions. The gambling industry frequently asserts that what it is
providing is an adult entertainment option. Undoubtedly, many adults
can gamble responsibly, have a good time, and sustain the financial
losses that they incur. But we should not deceive ourselves that
gambling is no different than any other entertainment option. Gambling
is a complex and problematic activity both in terms of its economic and
social impact on communities and its economic and psychological impact
on individuals and families.
Gambling-related employment is not comparable to other forms of
employment such as manufacturing. Gambling does not produce a value-
added product or reinvestment in the market economy. Although gambling
operations can contribute lower-paying jobs to a local economy, other
businesses in the region often lose as a consumer spending for goods
and services shifts to a small number of casinos and casino-related
activities.
One does not have to be a gambling prohibitionist to conclude that
our Nation needs to know more about where we are headed.
Mr. President, this legislation creates a 2-year, 9-member commission
appointed by Congress and the President to conduct a comprehensive
legal and factual study of the social and economic impacts of gambling
on States and communities. S. 704 does not propose to further tax,
regulate or limit gambling activities.
The Commission will be charged with compiling all Federal, State and
local laws pertaining to gambling. The Commission also will assess the
impact of gambling on local businesses; the relationship between
gambling and levels of crime; and the impact of problem and
pathological gambling on individuals, families, and the economy.

The Commission will examine electronic gambling involving use of the
Internet. Internet gambling is a new and rapidly growing activity in
the United States and elsewhere. It allows people using personal
computers and credit card accounts to gamble across State lines and
national borders. Internet gambling could have serious international
policy implications for the United States. Very little is known about
the risks associated with citizens who gamble in ``virtual'' casinos
located outside U.S. jurisdiction. We need to learn more about the
Internet.
After 2 years, the Commission will submit a comprehensive report to
the President, the Congress, Governors, and Native American Tribal
governments on its findings. This report will provide objective,
unbiased data and analysis that States and communities can use to make
their own informed decisions about gambling.
Providing the Commission with adequate resources and authority to
perform its duties is essential to developing an authoritative report.
Allowing the Commission to conduct hearings, provide recommendations
and have a limited, but effective level of subpoena power are essential
to achieving this goal. To reduce the cost of the Commission, S. 704
uses existing Government entities--the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations and the National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences--to assist in the Commission's efforts to
compile existing laws and conduct research on problem and pathological
gambling.
Senator Stevens and the Governmental Affairs Committee have worked to
establish a balanced and effective commission that will conduct a
thorough review of the social and economic impacts of gambling. At the
same time, the committee worked to ensure that information gathered by
the Commission would not be misused nor exceed

[[Page S7974]]

the common sense bounds of our Federal system. The bill incorporates
existing privacy laws under title 18 to ensure protection for
individual privacy and for business trade secrets.
The bill allows the Commission to subpoena certain documentation
necessary to carry out its duties as outlined in the bill. The
Commission is allowed subpoena authority to gather additional
information to help the Commission understand documentation received
under subpoena.
I have worked with Senator Simon, Senator Stevens, the Governmental
Affairs Committee and Representative Frank Wolf to gain approval of
this legislation in the Congress because I believe the country would be
served by a Federal study. The House of Representatives approved
similar legislation this year, and the President has indicated his
support for establishing a commission to study gambling. It is my hope
the Senate will give swift approval to this important measure to
examine this pressing national issue. I believe the Commission's work
will be helpful to State and local leaders as they make their own
informed decisions about whether or not to allow gambling in their
communities.
Information is the goal of this Commission. Information will
strengthen the democratic decision-making process.
I urge my colleagues to join me to support passage of S. 704.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 704 as amended
by the Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill establishes a national
commission to study the social and economic impact of legalized
gambling in the United States.
S. 704 was originally introduced on April 6, 1995, by Senator Paul
Simon and Senator Richard Lugar. Currently, there are 25 Senate
cosponsors of this legislation.
On November 2, 1995, the Governmental Affairs Committee held a
hearing on S. 704. At that time, concerns were raised about the
adequacy of the funding levels and the scope of the original bill.
On May 14, 1996, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved a
substitute which was drafted in consultation with the sponsors of the
Senate and House bills and the representatives of various groups.
This bill, as reported by the committee, attempts to address a wide
range of concerns, including balancing the needs of the commission to
get access to information and protecting the rights of individuals to
their personal privacy.
S. 704 as amended creates a nine-member commission--three appointed
by President, three by the Speaker of the House, and three by the
Senate majority leader. The commission has 2 years to conduct the study
and issue a report, which may include findings and recommendations, to
the President, the Congress, the Governors, and native American tribal
governments.
Under this bill, the commission will utilize the expertise of the
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the National
Research Council. This will avoid duplicating work already done by the
Government, reduce the cost of the commission, and ensure that the
States are not left out of the process.
The bill specifies a number of topics that the commission will study,
encompassing many aspects of gambling and its effects, including
problem gambling and gambling on the Internet. It authorizes ``such
sums as may be necessary''--the original bill introduced in the Senate
only provided $250,000 for the commission. Funding for the commission
would be subject to appropriations. The commission will terminate after
completing its 2-year study.
The most recent Federal study of the effects of gambling was
published 20 years ago--the 1976 Commission on the Review of the
National Policy Toward Gambling. At that time, that study cost $3
million--which would be the equivalent of $8.1 million today.
In 1976, only two States--Nevada and New Jersey--had legalized
gambling. Currently, 48 States have some form of legalized gambling,
and since 1988, 21 States have legalized casino gambling.
There has been rapid growth recently in the gambling industry--it is
now a $40 billion industry which includes casinos, riverboats, Indian
reservations, State and interstate lotteries, and electronic gambling.
Despite the growth in this industry, not much current objective data
exists on the impact of legalized gambling in the United States.
Other concerns that the committee addressed include: specifying the
areas to be studied; problem gambling; electronic gambling--such as
gambling on the Internet; requiring the report to be issued to
Governors and native American tribes so that they could make use of the
information; and providing a clear definition of gambling.

The House version introduced by Representative Frank Wolf on January
11, 1995, was passed by the House of Representatives on March 5, 1996,
after some modifications by the House Judiciary Committee.
Unlike the House bill, the original Senate bill did not include
subpoena power. The House bill allowed the commission to subpoena both
individuals and documents. The Congressional Research Service has
indicated that based on a review of commissions created in recent
years, it is unusual to grant broad subpoena power to this type of
commission.
However, recognizing the short period of time in which the commission
has to complete its work and the need to be able to obtain relevant
information, S. 704 as amended grants the commission the power to
subpoena documents.
In order to protect the privacy of individuals, however, information
gathered by the commission must be kept confidential. The bill provides
criminal penalties under section 1905 of title 18 of the United States
Code for the unauthorized disclosure of any confidential personal or
business information.
Any information obtained by the commission--whether voluntarily
provided or provided under subpoena--may not be disclosed to any person
in any manner, except to authorized commission employees; upon court
order, or when released by the commission in aggregate or summary form
that does not directly or indirectly disclose the identity of any
person or business.
In addition, individuals falsifying information to the commission are
subject to criminal penalties under section 1001 of title 18 of the
United States Code.
The commission may serve a subpoena throughout the United States, and
may go to a U.S. district court to enforce it. All subpoenas must
comply with the requirements for subpoenas under the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The commission is required to notify the U.S. Attorney
General at least 10 days in advance of issuing a subpoena. This will
allow the Attorney General time to raise objection if the subpoena is
going to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.
The Congressional Budget Office projects S. 704 as amended will cost
$5 million, roughly equal to their revised estimate for the House
version, H.R. 497. CBO also projects that the costs to State, local,
and tribal governments for complying with information-gathering
requests will be minimal. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous
consent that the CBO's letter on this bill be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 704, the National
Gambling Impact Study Commission Act.
Enactment of S. 704 would not affect direct spending or
receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply
to the bill.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill,
Director.
Enclosure.

congressional budget office cost estimate

1. Bill number: S. 704.
2. Bill title: National Gambling Impact Study Commission
Act.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee
on Governmental Affairs on May 14, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: This bill would establish a commission to
study the impact of gambling in the United States. The study
would cover many issues related to gambling, including the
relationship between gambling and crime and the extent to
which gambling provides revenues to state, local, and Native
American tribal governments. The commission, consisting of
nine members, would have two

[[Page S7975]]

years after it first meets to conduct the study and to
present its findings to the Congress. In addition, the
chairman of the commission would have the authority to
appoint an executive director and other personnel to assist
the commission in performing its duties. The bill would
require that the commission contract with the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the National
Academy of Sciences for assistance in conducting its study.
Finally, the bill would grant the commission the authority to
hold hearings and subpoena documents.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: As shown in
the following table, CBO estimates that enacting S. 704 would
increase discretionary spending by about $5 million over the
next two years, assuming appropriation of the necessary
funds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION

Estimated authorization level. 2 3 ..... ..... .....
Estimated outlays............. 2 3 ..... ..... .....
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The costs of this bill fall within budget function 750.
6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that S. 704 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year
1996, and that the estimated amounts will be appropriated for
each of the next two years. We projected outlays based on the
historical rate of spending for similar commissions.
To estimate the cost of S. 704, CBO assumed that the
commission would hire about 20 people to provide technical
and administrative support, and that the commission would
have other costs similar to those incurred by the first
commission established to study gambling in 1974--the
Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward
Gambling. In total, CBO estimates that the proposed
commission would cost about $5 million over the next two
years. This cost would cover per diem and travel expenses of
the commission's members and witnesses, salaries of the
commission staff, contract expenses and other administrative
costs.
7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal
governments: Public Law 104-4, the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995, defines an intergovernmental mandate as an
enforceable duty imposed on state, local, or tribal
governments, except a condition of federal assistance or a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary federal
program. CBO has determined that providing documents and
information, and answering questions about such information
under threat of a subpoena, constitutes an enforceable duty
on these entities as defined by the law.
Based on information provided to us by eight states with
significant gaming operations and from interest groups
representing state, local, and tribal governments, CBO
estimates that the cost to states, localities, and tribal
governments of providing documents and information to the
commission is unlikely to exceed, on average, $100,000 per
state. Total costs are thus unlikely to exceed $5 million.
They would be incurred over the two-year period during which
the commission is preparing its study.
9. Estimated impact on the private sector: Public Law 104-
4, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, defines a
private sector mandate as an enforceable duty imposed on the
private sector, except a condition of federal assistance or a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary federal
program. S. 704, the National Gambling Impact Study
Commission Act, contains provisions that require the gaming
industry and individuals to provide documents and
information, and to respond to questions about such
information under threat of a subpoena. Those provisions
constitute a private sector mandate. Although the demand for
information by the commission from individual operators could
impose substantial compliance costs in some cases, CBO
estimates that the aggregate annual impact on the private
sector would fall well below the $100 million threshold
specified in Public Law 104-4.
10. Previous CBO estimate: On November 17, 1995, CBO
transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 497, the National
Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on November
8, 1995. The two estimates are similar; we now estimate
federal costs of $5 million over the 1997-1998 period,
whereas our previous estimate for H.R. 497 was $4 million
over the 1996-1998 period. The increase in estimated cost is
attributable primarily to S. 704's provision authorizing
reimbursement of expenses incurred by witnesses at commission
hearings.
11. Impact: Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate:
Susanne S. Mehlman. State and Local Government Impact:
Theresa Gullo, Private Sector Impact: Matthew Eyles.
12. Estimate approved by: Robert R. Sunshine for Paul N.
Van de Water, Assistant Director, for Budget Analysis

Mr. STEVENS. The Clinton administration states that it supports
legislation creating a commission to study the effects of gambling, but
has stopped short of endorsing any specific bill. The Department of
Justice has stated that the substitute addresses many of the agency's
concerns, and have asked that their views be included in the Record.
Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Justice
Department letter outlining the administration views on the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
Hon. Ted Stevens,
Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in regard to S. 704, the
National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act, which the
Committee ordered reported last week. I especially want to
express my appreciation to you for your staff's cooperation
in resolving several concerns expressed by the Department.
As President Clinton recently stated in letters to Senators
Simon and Lugar, the Administration supports the
establishment of this Commission. One of the duties of this
panel is to conduct a comprehensive study, which will include
an assessment of the relationship between gambling and levels
of crime.
The Committee-approved version of S. 704 addresses a number
of issues of concern to the Department of Justice. For
example, section 5(b)(1) gives the Commission the power to
subpoena certain information, but also provides that the
``Commission shall transmit to the Attorney General a
confidential, written notice at least ten days in advance of
the issuance of any such subpoena.'' This provision would
allow the Department to learn in advance who is being
subpoenaed and the subject matter of the subpoena. In
addition to keeping us abreast of what the Commission is
doing, this would permit the Department to object or make our
views known regarding such subpoena.
However, we understand that this provision does not
constitute any kind of approval process. No inference should
be drawn if the Department is notified of the pending
issuance of a subpoena and does or does not object or
comment. For example, such silence should not be construed as
approval or endorsement of the subpoena or its subject
matter. Nor should the presence or absence of a comment be
construed to indicate the presence or absence of a criminal
investigation, on which the Department as a matter of policy
does not comment.
We understand that Section 5(b) does not grant the
Commission authority to subpoena federal agencies. However,
section 5(c) of the bill gives the Commission the authority
to obtain information directly from federal agencies. This
provision says that ``[u]pon request of the Commission, the
head of such department or agency may furnish such
information to the Commission.'' This language is intended to
preserve the ability of a federal agency, including the
Department of Justice, to use its discretion and judgment in
withholding privileged and sensitive information.
We would appreciate it if you would include this letter in
the record of consideration of this legislation. Again, we
thank you and your staff for your cooperation in resolving
these important issues.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there
is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's
program to the presentation of this report.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of
assistance on this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Andrew Fois,
Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong in support of the Stevens
substitute to S. 704--legislation to set up a national commission to
study the growth of legalized gambling in America and its relevant
social, economic, and legal impacts.
Gambling is an industry that is growing rapidly. In 1976--the last
time we studied this issue on a national basis--legalized wagering in
the United States totaled $22 billion, while legalized gaming
approached $3 billion. In 1994, legal wagering exceeded $482 billion,
while legal gaming reached $40 billion. We now have riverboat and land-
based casino gambling in a number of States, and most States operate
their own lotteries. In addition, Indian tribes are increasingly
turning to casino and other forms of gaming as a tool for economic
development. Finally, the gambling industry is looking toward the
Internet and other electronic media as the markets for the future.
This kind of explosive growth in an industry that brings with it both
serious economic and social costs along with benefits is at least a
cause for further study. So I support the establishment of a national
commission. This issue has not been examined on a national or Federal
level for nearly 20 years and I believe that it is time we looked at
gambling in America in greater depth.
The 1976 commission concluded that the regulation of gambling should
be a State responsibility. With the exception of gambling on Indian
lands where

[[Page S7976]]

there is a shared Federal-State role, that is currently the case. But
given the rapid growth of the industry in America in recent years, the
proper role of the States and the Federal Government on this issue
needs study and examination. There are important federalism and
sovereignty questions that need to be answered. I don't have the
answers--I'm not sure any of my colleagues do either. That's why
establishing a commission to study gambling and to advise Federal,
State, local, and tribal policymakers is both necessary and worthwhile.
Some might argue that this commission represents an intrusion on states
rights. I don't agree. This commission does not have the power to
regulate, only to make recommendations. It is a study commission, not a
regulatory body.
This substitute represents a considerable improvement from the
original S. 704. The commission's charter has been strengthened. It
will assess: the impact of existing policies and practices concerning
legalized gambling; the impact of pathological gambling on individuals
and families; the relationship between gambling and levels of crime;
the growth of electronic or Internet gambling; and the extent to which
alternative sources of revenues could be developed for State, local,
and tribal governments. Based on its examination of these issues, the
commission will then make appropriate recommendations to policymakers
at all levels of government.
The substitute includes my proposal that the commission contract with
the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to assist in producing the
study, with a particular emphasis on employing the NAS to study the
problem of pathological gambling. This may be the most pernicious
aspect of the growth of legalized gambling and we don't have much
knowledge about it. We read the occasional story in the newspaper about
some of the elderly cashing their social security checks to play the
slot machines; teenagers gambling on the internet; the poor getting
hooked on the lottery or keno; or others committing suicide under the
weight of crushing casino debts. But we don't have much national or
aggregate information on problem gambling and how it is being affected
by the rapid growth of the industry. With its scientific expertise, the
NAS is the ideal organization to gather and analyze this information.
The commission is also directed to utilize the Advisory Commission on
Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] to review existing State and local
laws and policies on gambling, including existing enforcement and
regulatory practices that address crime and gambling. Earlier drafts of
the substitute had ACIR carrying out all the responsibilities of the
commission. I thought that was too much for ACIR to do, first, because
some of the aspects of the study are outside the scope of ACIR's
expertise and second, because some in Congress have unfortunately
succeeded in nearly zeroing out ACIR's appropriation, thus making it
difficult, if not impossible, for ACIR to carry out the commission's
work. This version wisely focuses ACIR to look at the Federalism
aspects of the gambling issue, where ACIR's expertise would be most
helpful and where it will need less funding to do the work.
The Stevens substitute does grant the commission limited subpoena
authority. Some have argued that subpoena power gives the commission an
open license to conduct a witchhunt in a legitimate industry. These
arguments have been raised in discussing the House version, which
grants the commission unlimited subpoena authority and charges it with
such missions as investigating organized crime and political
corruption. The Senate bill is different. We don't have the commission
looking into organized crime or political corruption. Its mission is to
focus on the broader socio-economic impact of gambling, with the only
matter relating to crime that the commission is to look at is the
correlation between gambling and crime rates. This would be valuable
information for states or communities who are considering legalizing
gambling in their jurisdictions.
The Stevens substitute does grant the commission power to subpoena
documentary information. I think such subpoena authority is needed to
ensure that the commission has access to all the documents it needs to
carry out its work in a thorough and independent manner.
I would point out that the 1976 commission had subpoena authority. I
would like to read an excerpt from a letter from Charles Morin,
Chairman of the 1976 Commission, to Congressman Frank Wolf, sponsor of
the House bill.
The 1972-76 commission had subpoena power and, because of
that, we never had to use it--in other words, when you have
the power you will get cooperation. Obviously, the power need
not be unrestricted and Congress may see fit to provide
safeguards and, if the power were to be abused and there were
non-compliance, the commission would be forced into court to
compel compliance--something it would be most reluctant to
do. On the other hand, if it were used legitimately, it would
mean that information had been withheld for a reason--which
is why you must have the power! And in the normal instance,
as we found out from our years of experience, the knowledge
that we had the power and would not hesitate to use it
provided all the persuasion we needed.

I think Mr. Morin sums up pretty well why subpoena power is needed.
But he does note that Congress may wish to put some parameters and
limits around the commission's subpoena power. We've done that. The
commission may only subpoena documentary information, and that is only
after those who possess the materials fail to supply them as requested
by the commission. The commission cannot subpoena witnesses to compel
public testimony. This should satisfy those who are concerned that the
commission might misuse its subpoena authority to create some sort of
public spectacle. The commission may also issue a subpoena in order to
help it understand the materials already obtained pursuant to that
authority, and the choice is given to the respondent to submit answers
either through a sworn deposition or written interrogatories under
oath. Finally, we require the commission to issue written notice to the
Attorney General at least 10 days in advance of issuing any subpoena.
Still, some remained concerned that the commission would misuse its
subpoena authority to publicly disclose confidential business
information, or violate the privacy of certain individuals who gamble.
So we added an additional safeguard. We placed the commission under the
Trade Secrets Act, Federal law which carries with it both civil and
criminal penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of confidential
business information by any Federal employee. Serious violations of the
act can lead to a jail sentence of up to one year. The Trade Secrets
Act applies to all Federal employees and officers of the Federal
Government and we would extend its application to the members and
employees of the commission.
So we have put some limits on the commission and set up penalties if
those limits are violated. Those who might argue that we have created
some renegade commission are misguided. We have granted the commission
the powers it needs to carry out its mission, but we've also ensured
that penalties exist for those who abuse those powers.
There are a couple of points I would like to clarify in the
legislation since we did not file a report on it. First of all, we are
making one change to the bill since the markup. We are correcting
language in Section 5 to ensure that the Trade Secrets Act covers not
only subpoenaed information, but information voluntarily supplied to
the commission. Without this change, people would be discouraged from
voluntarily supplying confidential business information to the
commission as it would otherwise not be protected. Our change also
includes a provision that ensures that the Trade Secrets Act applies
only to confidential business information. Business or other
information that is currently available to the public or already in the
public domain, such as information in trade publications, journals,
magazines, 10(k) filings, etc., would not be covered by the act. The
commission should be able to publicly discuss and release information
that is already in the public domain without fear of facing some
frivolous lawsuit.

The commission, under section 5(b)(2), is allowed to issue additional
subpoenas to further its understanding about materials already produced
by that means. The respondent, again, has the choice as to how to
comply--either by a sworn deposition or through written interrogatories
under oath. In my view, it is crucial to discuss what the

[[Page S7977]]

verb ``to understand'' means in this regard. Indeed, it is a relatively
new term of art in defining subpoena authority. A very narrow reading
would limit such a subpoena to helping the commission understand only
what is written on a page. I do not subscribe to this very restrictive
interpretation and certainly do not think it is our intent to do so.
Questions about the facts and circumstances beyond the four corners of
a document--how it was developed, who was responsible for writing and/
or approving it, and under what context--may be well necessary and
crucial to augment the commission's understanding of the materials at
hand and carry out its duties. I think the commission should have such
authority and use it, if necessary, to clarify and supplement the
information contained in the documents themselves. That's the only way
the commission will be able to fully comprehend the meaning and context
of any subpoenaed documents.
This commission will be closely watched by many, including those with
the power and resources to tie the commission up in costly litigation.
It is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA], a statute
which requires compliance with open meetings and public access, but
also a statute that allows litigation, something we've seen a
significant amount of in the last several years with various executive
branch commissions and taskforces. So I would urge the commission at
its first meeting to read FACA and to closely adhere to its
requirements.
We've given the commission significant latitude in establishing its
own rules and procedures of operation. I would urge that at its very
first meeting that the commission establish those procedures, and not
wait until later when some issue arises and the commission has not set
appropriate rules to deal with it. In particular, the commission should
establish its rules for the issuing of subpoenas in their first
meeting, and not wait to establish those rules just before the
commission is actually considering issuing a subpoena.
In closing, I want to thank Senators Simon, Lugar, and Lieberman and
their respective staffs for working with Senator Stevens and I to
develop this legislation. It is a well thought out proposal that will
ensure a thorough, balanced, and fair examination of gambling in
America. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Stevens in
a colloquy regarding the enforcement of a subpoena issued by the
Gambling Impact Study Commission. The vast majority of Federal
commissions created by Congress in recent years have not possessed
subpoena power. Of the few commissions in the past that have been
granted subpoena power, and in this case I support it, the authority to
enforce a subpoena was typically placed with the U.S. Attorney General.
For example, legislation which established the National Indian Gaming
Commission, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Commission on
Government Procurement, and the President's Commission on Organized
Crime expressly specified the Attorney General's involvement in any
action to enforce a subpoena.
The language of S. 704, the Gambling Impact Study Commission Act,
provides that ``* * * the Commission may apply to a U.S. district court
for an order requiring that person to comply with such subpoena.'' It
is my understanding that the Attorney General, which has expertise in
this type of matter, could be asked by the commission to seek
enforcement of a commission subpoena, and it is often the case that the
Attorney General is asked to do so.
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. We have been in contact with the
Department of Justice [DOJ] and have been advised informally the DOJ
would not object to enforcing a subpoena issued by the commission. In
fact, they have been operating under the assumption that they would be
called upon to enforce such a subpoena. There are many other Government
bodies which use DOJ to enforce subpoenas and they are fully staffed to
handle such requests.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, a matter that I would like to clarify with
the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Simon, involves two interrelated
issues regarding the Commission's study of the role of advertising in
promoting gaming. First, unlike the Commission's other areas of study,
advertising is a constitutionally protected right of communication
between buyers and sellers of legal products. Second, the Federal
Government, through the Federal Trade Commission, already exercises
broad enforcement and regulatory authority over false and deceptive
advertisements in general, including those for gaming.
My question to my colleague is whether the Commission will be mindful
of the unique first amendment liberties for advertising, and of the
FTC's already existing regulatory authority over false and deceptive
advertising when the Commission assesses and evaluates the impact of
gaming advertisements.
Mr. SIMON. My answer to my friend from Nevada, Senator Bryan, is an
unequivocal yes on both counts. As my colleague points out, the first
amendment freedom of commercial speech provides important liberties for
advertising. It is my hope and intention that the Commission will grant
special attention to the first amendment implications of its
recommendations and avoid trespassing upon any constitutionally
protected freedoms of commercial speech when it formulates its policy
recommendations.
Moreover, as my friend from Nevada points out, section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act empowers the FTC to prevent ``unfair or
deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.'' It is my hope and
intention that the Commission will take this fact into account and, to
the extent practicable and appropriate, will incorporate the FTC's
existing authority and expertise over false and deceptive advertising.
Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Stevens in
a colloquy regarding the privacy rights of individual citizens who
engage in legal gambling activities.
The Gambling Impact Study Commission Act (S. 704), which I
cosponsored and support, is intended to conduct a thorough study of
issues related to legalized gambling. Private citizens who engage in
legal gambling activities, dine in a casino restaurant or stay in a
casino hotel, should also have their right to privacy protected.
The sponsors of this bill and other Members of the Senate have been
careful to state that the intent of this bill is to conduct a thorough
study of the gaming industry while protecting the privacy rights of
individual gamblers. I understand that this legislation addresses the
privacy issue by prohibiting the release of individual information
unless it is in aggregate or summary form and that there are sufficient
criminal and civil penalties to prevent public release of such
information. In addition, this legislation is intended to be consistent
with any other law which offers privacy protection to American
citizens, including the Privacy Act of 1974.
Would you agree that the intent of this legislation is to provide the
Commission with the necessary tools to gather the information it needs
while protecting the privacy rights of Americans? It is my
understanding that it is estimated that between 4 and 6 percent of
gamblers are compulsive gamblers. Is it correct to assume that,
although the Commission can subpoena the information, it would not have
a need for the personal records of private citizens, including the vast
majority of individual gamblers who are not considered compulsive
gamblers?
Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct on all counts. This legislation
fully protects the privacy rights of American citizens.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the record should reflect that had this
matter been decided by a roll call vote, I would have voted in the
negative.
I believe this legislation to be unwarranted, invasive, and
potentially capable of doing more harm than good. It is indeed ironic
that this Congress, which professes to be a States rights Congress has
chosen to take action on a bill that affects an inherently State
matter.
While this bill enjoys overwhelming support--even from some in the
gaming industry--I believe it establishes a poor precedent. We should
not be creating commissions to study lawful industries governed
predominantly by State law. Nevada's regulation of gaming works well.
As the former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I know

[[Page S7978]]

first-hand the many benefits resulting from this successful
relationship.
Notwithstanding over 200 studies of gaming, the proponents of this
legislation argue that yet another study is warranted. I believe the
most recent impetus for greater examination is but the camel's nose
under the tent. Opponents of legalized gaming seek to use this
commission as a means to increase both Federal regulation and taxation
of gaming. Ultimately, in my opinion, they will not be satiated until
this law abiding industry is either outlawed or regulated to death. I
wish to disabuse them of any notion that they will succeed in their
endeavors without a fight.
It is difficult to even grant this commission the benefit of the
doubt. While I have some hope that the commission will appreciate
Nevada's model of modern gaming operations I am concerned that it will
focus on those stories where gaming has failed. The well organized
special interests lined up against lawful gaming operations have
consistently demonstrated their willingness to find only one side of
the debate. It is imperative that those who are appointed to this
commission include people of good will and impartiality who are capable
of examining this industry from an unbiased perspective. It does not
need headline seekers intent on magnifying a few unique negative
stories and painting a broad-brush gloom and doom picture that would
unfairly taint Nevada's No. 1 employer.
Perhaps my greatest objection to this measure, however, is the
unwarranted inclusion of subpoena power. In this Senator's view, we
should not be empowering congressionally appointed commissions with
such broad subpoena authority for a study of gaming. Permitting the
exercise of such a coercive tool only invites mischief and abuse by
those who are hostile to the gaming industry.
I realize it is the prerogative of the majority to set this Congress'
agenda and prioritize those issues that should be addressed. I do not
believe the formation of this unwarranted commission is, or should be,
a priority. Again, this is a matter of States rights.
Today, by voting against this bill, I realize I represent but the
smallest minority. However, I believe my concerns about the potential
for abuse and officious intrusion are entirely warranted. There is not
a doubt in my mind as to the ultimate agenda of the antigaming
extremists. It is my sincere hope that my fears are proved wrong. I
wish I could stand before this body and say I look forward to reading a
responsible and insightful report on gaming. Unfortunately, while this
commission may be created with the best of intentions, there is too
much opportunity for it to do mischief and promote unwarranted
proposals. That said, I will be steadfast in my own monitoring of its
evolvement and agenda.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to register my strong
opposition to S. 704, the Gaming Impact Study Commission Act. While
this bill is improved over the egregious version that passed the House,
I still believe this is a waste of taxpayer's money and has the
potential of becoming a witch-hunt instead of a legitimate study. If
this turns into a witch-hunt, it could have a chilling effect on
leglaized gaming nationwide and have a devasting effect on the economy
of my State of Nevada.
Advocates of legislation to create a Federal Gambling Study
Commission have stated the purpose of the commission is to study the
socioeconomic effects of all forms of gambling and to make
recommendations to Congress. They consistently emphasize that no one,
least of all the legal gaming industry, should fear just a study.
While the gaming-entertainment industry has nothing to fear from a
fair and unbiased study, anti-gaming groups have tried to skew this
study into looking at only one side of the issue and to turn this into
a crusade.
The argument has been advanced that a Federal commission is needed to
look at the impacts of the spread of gaming because State and local
governments lack the ability to acquire and act on objective
information in the face of well-financed attempts to put casinos or
other gaming-entertainment operations in their area.
The reason why this premise is false is that even without the
assistance of a Federal commission, jurisdiction after jurisdiction has
actually decided not to approve an expansion of gaming. 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 or
video poker was approved by a new jurisdiction in 1995.
The proposed commission is a Federal solution in search of a
nonexistent State problem: States are free to make their own decisions
on whether to permit gaming, one way or another.
Still others attack legalized gaming as some insidious form of
entertainment that must be banned. The fact is today the legalized
gaming industry is as legitimate a business as any of the Fortune 500.
More than 50 publicly-traded companies, all regulated by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, own gaming interests. The stocks of these
companies are owned by millions of Americans around the country.
The gaming-entertainment industry directly and indirectly employs
over one million people throughout the United States, paying $6 billion
in salaries in 1994 alone. The casino gaming-entertainment industry
paid more than $1.4 billion in taxes to State and local governments in
1994 with an estimated $6 to $7 billion more paid by other forms of
gaming-entertainment, such as State lotteries, horse and dog racing.
Nevada is proud to be the gaming-entertainment capital of the world.
Nevada's gaming industry provides 43 percent of the $1.2 billion
annually going into the State's general fund. About $215 million from
gaming revenues is dedicated to the State's university system and
another $400 million goes to kindergarten through grade 12 education
programs.
None of this is to suggest that the gaming-entertainment industry,
like any other major business, particularly one which hosts millions of
visitors each year, does not have its share of public issues and
challenges to address. The industry, to its credit, is making a serious
effort to address concerns about problem gaming. For example, the
industry recently made a multi-million dollar commitment to a new
national center for responsible gaming which last week chose the
Harvard Medical School's division of addiction for a $140,000 grant to
study problem gaming.
This all leads me back to the question of why we need to spend
taxpayers dollars to study gaming.
Again, this bill is better than the House version which contains an
openended, unrestricted authority for the commission to issue
subpoenas. In the House version, there are almost no protections on
what could be subpoenaed and what they could do with this information.
I do not believe gaming is appropriate for all locations. Each
community should weigh the merits and decide if they want gaming, and
if they do, what types of gaming and under what conditions do they want
it.
I am concerned that in certain jurisdictions gaming is not being
adequately regulated. Nevada's gaming industry is closely monitored
with the State regulatory body employing 375 individuals. Unless the
regulation is improved in certain jurisdictions, including Indian
casinos, we may see problems down the line. We should make it a
priority to improve this regulation.
I regret some groups have seized this issue to make a full court
press against all gaming. Gaming-entertainment is a legitimate, highly-
regulated industry that is being unfairly maligned. It has made
significant contributions to the Nation's economy and I am proud of the
benefits it has brought Nevada.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent months, the gaming industry
has come under considerable attack here in Washington. And as a senator
who represents thousands of ordinary people who are employed by the
industry, I want to come to their defense.
Mr. President, if you believed some of the rhetoric around here, you
would think that gaming is the root of all evil. Yet millions of
Americans gamble, whether in the form of State lotteries, office pools,
race track betting, church bingo, or casino gaming. For these citizens,
gaming is fun, it is exciting, and, if pursued in moderation, it need
not do any harm.
Gaming is also an important part of our economy, and provides jobs
and opportunities for thousands of our citizens. Nationwide, casinos
provide jobs

[[Page S7979]]

for over 365,000 Americans. In Atlantic County, NJ, casinos directly
supply one out of three jobs. Last year, 33 million people visited
Atlantic City, more than any other city in America.
Mr. President, in 1976, the voters of New Jersey decided that they
wanted Atlantic City to have casinos. That was a democratic decision
that reflected the views of our electorate. Nobody forced New Jerseyans
to vote that way. They evaluated the benefits of gaming, and they made
their choice.
As a result of that decision, revenues generated by the gaming
industry in New Jersey have provided literally hundreds of millions of
dollars for various projects throughout the State. They have financed
the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans Memorial. They have built hundreds of
homes. They have renovated day care centers, a bus terminal, and a
trauma center.
They also have helped improve the lives of countless numbers of
people living in the area. In Atlantic City, the number of families on
Aid to Families with Dependent Children has dropped by about 30 percent
since the first casino opened.
The more than $1 billion from casino property taxes paid since 1978
have lowered the burden on other property owners and supported schools
in Atlantic County. Taxes on casino revenues have supported
pharmaceutical assistance to the elderly, nursing and boarding home
care and assistance with utility bills for senior citizens and the
disabled.
Mr. President, in the past, some casinos have been tied to organized
crime and other problems. But it is unfair to assume, as some do, that
these problems are inevitable. Atlantic City's casinos are the most
regulated in the country, perhaps the world. And the history of the
last two decades is that, by and large, this regulation works.
Mr. President, I met recently with the heads of the New Jersey
casinos. And I can tell you that the industry is not concerned about a
study, if it is conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
But, Mr. President, I have real concerns about the likelihood that
the commission to be established by this legislation will not be
impartial. The whole impetus for this legislation seems to be coming
from the Christian Coalition and others who are on a moral crusade
against the industry. Maybe some of my colleagues believe that Ralph
Reed and others only want an objective evaluation of this industry. But
I doubt it. Instead, Mr. President, this study seems designed to lay
the groundwork for a massive attack on the gaming industry. An attack
that serves the political goals of a radical fringe.
I want to acknowledge that, as with many other products and services,
some people who gamble do so to excess. And that can be a very serious
problem. Compulsive gamblers can destroy themselves and their families
with just a few rolls of the dice, and they need help. We should not
ignore their plight. In the case of other addictions, we've encouraged
public education efforts which have proven to be the most effective
deterrent to excesses. I would encourage States and localities to
consider such efforts, if appropriate. However, for the overwhelming
majority of people, gaming is a complement to a vacation or the
equivalent of going to a movie on Saturday night. It is recreation.
And, in the case of Atlantic City, the tourism industry is making great
efforts to diversify and provide attractive convention facilities and
opportunities for family vacations. I would hate to see these efforts,
and the contribution they make to our State's economy and communities,
hurt by a political witch hunt.
So, Mr. President, I hope that the commission's study will prove to
be objective, balanced, and fair. And I hope its conclusions are
reasonable and rational. However, if this study simply leads to
punitive legislation, which will hurt the hundreds of thousands of men
and women who work in our casinos and related jobs, I will fight it
every step of the way.
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 704,
legislation to establish a national gambling impact study commission.
In the past few years, we have witnessed the rapid proliferation of
the gaming industry across the Nation--initially under Indian tribal
ownership and more recently by State governments. In my home State of
Kansas, the casino and slot machine issue has been hotly debated. Race
tracks and river boat gambling have been established in the Kansas City
area, and both the Kickapoo and Potawatomie Nations have plans to
expand certain gaming facilities on tribal lands.
I realize that gaming can provide tremendous revenues for State and
local economies, particularly for Indian tribes wishing to improve
reservation conditions and provide employment opportunities. In this
regard, gaming has produced positive results. However, growing evidence
indicates gambling has some harmful side effects. A particular concern
focuses on reports that gaming causes the breakup of families,
suicides, increased teenage gambling, corruption, and the closing of
main street stores.
Mr. President, I think an impact study would help Americans better
understand the unintended social and economic effects the gaming
industry is having on our families and communities. I also believe we
have a responsibility to bring together all the relevant data so that
Governors, State legislators, and citizens can make more informed
decisions about gambling in their home States.
Concerns have been raised in the Senate regarding the commission's
original subpoena authority. As my colleagues have already stated,
however, those concerns were addressed by the Senate Committee on
Government Affairs when it adopted the Stevens substitute amendment on
May 14. In my view, the final measure represents a balanced approach--
one that addresses individual privacy rights and business trade
concerns but also provides the commission the authority and resources
necessary to thoroughly examine this issue.
This legislation has drawn broad, bipartisan support in Congress. I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 704.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there is a shadow creeping across the
American landscape. It thrives in some of the poorest of our urban and
rural communities. It threatens our towns and cities with economic
cannibalism. It undermines our political process with a flood of cash
into the campaign coffers of our politicians. It preys upon the
weakness of the poor, the elderly, and the young with the promise of
easy money. It undermines the family with pathological addition and
spousal and child abuse, and neglect.
Mr. President, what is this menace? We know it all too well. It is
gambling. An industry that, just a few years ago, was frequently
pursued by law enforcement agencies from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation down to rural county sheriffs is today touted as the
economic savior of communities across America. And it is increasingly
embraced and promoted by State and local government across the country
as the answer to chronic government funding problems.
Mr. President, the gambling industry is booming. In 1988, only two
States--Nevada and New Jersey--permitted casino gambling. By 1994, 23
States had legalized gambling. During this time, casino gambling
revenue nearly doubled. In 1993, $400 billion was spent on all forms of
legal gambling in American. Between 1992 and 1994, the gambling
industry enjoyed an incredible 15 percent annual growth in revenues.
Many of my colleagues would look at this performance and say ``good
for them.'' Many would cite the gambling industry as an American
success story. I am not so enthusiastic. There are many unanswered
questions regarding the hidden costs of rolling out the welcome mat for
the gambling industry. Many of the promises made by the gambling
industry--of jobs, economic growth and increased tax revenues--are
dubious at best. The statistics on the devastating impact on our
families are beginning to roll in. Concern about teenage gambling
addition is growing as more and more teens are lured by the promise of
easy money. Crime and suicide numbers are sky-rocking in communities
where gambling has taken root.
Mr. President, it is time to take a good, hard, objective look at the
gambling industry and the gambling commission proposed in this bill is
an important step toward getting the facts.
Critics of a gambling study commission claim that this is purely a
State

[[Page S7980]]

issue, that there is no Federal role. This claim will not bear
scrutiny. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly provides
Congress authority over issues of interstate commerce. Mr. President,
surely a one half trillion dollar-a-year industry, in which parent
corporations own and operate facilities in multiple States, can be
considered interstate commerce. Further, gambling interests are
involved in political campaigns in virtually every State, and crime
associated with gambling does often cross State lines. Finally, given
the potentially devastating impact of pathological gambling on the
American family, it is critical that this Federal commission be
established to gather the facts on the explosion of legalized gambling.
Opponents of this commission have raised many charges against it.
They have claimed that the commission is a tool of the religious right.
they have claimed that the commission will become a witch hunt against
the gambling industry.
Mr. President, these claims are unfounded. The appointment of
commissioners will be equally divided between the executive branch and
the two Houses of Congress, ensuring that no faction may dominate the
work of the commission. Further, Mr. President, the scope of the
commission is clearly established within this legislation, which will
prevent commission members from embarking on unrestricted
investigations of the industry. Finally, this legislation enjoys broad
bipartisan support, across both ideological and political lines, in
both the House and Senate. President Clinton has indicated his support
for this commission. The national media and newspapers across the
country have been unanimous in advocating this gambling study
commission.
Mr. President, in recent years the gambling industry has preyed
increasingly on struggling rural communities. These communities have
been targeted with millions of dollars in promotional money and
lobbying. They are lured by the promise of booming economic
development, new jobs and expanded tax revenues.
There can be little doubt that this promise has held true in the
short-run for some communities. What many communities are beginning to
discover, however, is that in the medium and long term, gambling takes
a lot more from our communities than it gives. These costs are measured
in broken families and broken lives.

Our communities are being sold on the vision of becoming another Las
Vegas. They are being promised tourist dollars and booming economic
growth. The reality is different. The preponderant majority of gamblers
on riverboats and in this new breed of casino are from the local
community. Essentially, the gambling industry is cannibalizing the
local economy.
A 1994 study of riverboat gambling in Joliet, IL found that 74
percent of all players came from within 50 miles of Joliet. A similar
study of gambling in Aurora found that 70 percent of all players came
from the immediate Aurora area, with only 3 percent coming from outside
the state of Illinois. Henry Gluck, the CEO of Caesar's World casino
firm told a 1994 New York State Senate hearing on gambling that the
potential for casinos to attract outside dollars, and I quote, ``truly
applies to a few major cities in the United States.'' I doubt that this
is the message that the people of Harrison County, IN are getting from
the gambling industry.
It is becoming increasingly clear that these casinos provide little
additional value to local economies and tend to shift money out of
local businesses. Casinos are one-stop entertainment. They provide
meals, drinks and everything else. Players simply take entertainment
dollars that would normally be spent at local restaurants, bowling
alleys, baseball parks, and movie theaters and spend them at the
casinos. This is not economic growth. It is economic churning.
Crime is another critical issue that this Commission will examine.
Traditionally, organized crime has been synonymous with the gambling
industry. There is every indication that its influence is still
present. However, just as important are the more local concerns of
dramatic increases in theft and violence that has followed the growth
of gambling in America. A study conducted by ``U.S. News and World
Report'' found that crime rates in communities with gambling are nearly
double that of the national average. Examining assault, burglary, and
larceny, the report found 1,092 incidents per 10,000 population in 1994
in communities where gambling is present. The national average for
these crimes is of 593 per 10,000 people. U.S. News concluded that ``*
* * towns with casinos have experienced an upsurge of crime at the same
time it was dropping for the Nation as a whole. They recorded a 5.8
percent jump in crime rates in 1994, while crime around the country
fell 2 percent.'' This same study found that in 31 locations that got
new casinos crime surged 7.7 percent in the first year following the
introduction of the casino.
Deadwood, SD legalized casino gambling in 1989. Five years later
serious crimes had increased by 93 percent, forcing the community to
double the size of its police force. In Central City, CO assaults and
thefts increased by 400 percent in the first 2 years after gambling's
introduction.
Mr. President, our Nation is all too aware of the toll that crime
takes on our cities and towns. It is critical that we come to
understand how gambling acts as a catalyst for criminal activities and
provide these facts to communities that face decisions about inviting
this industry into their local economies.
Another area of concern is that of pathological gambling. For decades
now our Nation has struggled with the demon of addiction. In the past,
this problem has taken the form of drugs and alcohol. However, the
rapid expansion of gambling injected a new narcotic into the Nation's
bloodstream. Problem and pathological gambling is on the rise. The
National Council on Problem Gambling places the number of Americans
with serious gambling problems at around 5 percent. Most studies
confirm this estimate. However, as gambling becomes more pervasive,
this number is increasing. What does this mean?

As with other addictive behaviors, gambling impacts the individual,
their families, their job, virtually every aspect of their lives.
Marital problems--separation and divorce, spousal and child abuse and
neglect, substance abuse, and suicide are all side-effects of problem
gambling. Durand Jacobs, an individual who has done outstanding
research on the impact of gambling, conducted a study of 850 Southern
California high school students. He discovered that ``children with
gambler parents experienced almost twice the incidence of broken homes
caused by separation, divorce, or death of a parent by the time they
were 15 years old.'' Another study, published in the Journal of
Community Psychology, found that about 10 percent of the children of
compulsive gamblers had been the victim of physical abuse of the
gambler parent. Fully one-quarter of the children in the study suffered
``significant behavorial or adjustment problems.''
Ronald Reno, in his study on the ``Dangerous Repercussions of
America's Gambling Addiction,'' cites a gamblers anonymous study that
found that 78 percent of spouses of gamblers threatened separation or
divorce with nearly half carrying through on their threat.
Harrison County, MS, an area of intense gambling activity,
experienced a 149-percent increase in the divorce rate the year
following the introduction of riverboat gambling. A study in Deadwood,
SD, found that reports of domestic abuse have risen more than 50
percent since the advent of legalized gambling. Central City, CO,
experienced a six-fold rise in child protection cases in the first year
following casino gambling's introduction.
Mr. President, perhaps the most disturbing fact about the spread of
gambling is the danger it poses to children. As with other addictive
behaviors, our children are most vulnerable to gambling addiction.
The March 1996 edition of ``Policy Review'' tells the story of Joe
Kosloski. Joe, then 16, won a little money at a bowling tournament.
Taking the money, he and some friends headed for the Atlantic City
casinos. Despite being only 16 at the time, these kids got in. Joe got
on a roll, and parlayed his winnings into a couple of thousand dollars.
Like most gamblers though, Joe's luck did not last. His fever for
gambling, unfortunately, did.

[[Page S7981]]

Once the cash ran out, Joe opened credit accounts in the names of
family members and used cash advances and credit cards to gamble. When
Joe's scam finally came crashing down on him, he had amassed a $20,000
debt. At 20 years of age, with no previous criminal record, he is in
Pennsylvania Federal Prison for credit card fraud.
Mr. President, it had been my intention to offer an amendment to S.
704. As currently written, the bill would provide the Commission the
power to subpoena documents only. In my view, this substantially limits
the Commission's ability to do its work. The gambling industry is a
one-half trillion dollar a-year cash business. Many of the insidious
tactics used by the gambling industry to bilk people out of their money
must be considered by the commission in order to understand fully the
modern business of gambling. These techniques range from themeing--the
development of themes within the casino to attract and hold people
there for longer periods of time--to various techniques to entice
people to place more frequent or higher wagers. Here I quote from a
``U.S. News and World Report'' article of March, 1994:

A decade ago, most casinos bothered to gather data only on
high rollers. Now they use slot-club cards to snare the meat-
and potatoes guy, too. After filling out a survey and
receiving an ATM-like card, slot junkies insert them into a
``reader'' built into almost all slot machines. In a distant
computer room, casinos track the action 24 hours a day, down
to the last quarter.
Players who use the cards the longest get the most comps,
somewhat like a frequent-flier giveback. At the Trump Castle
in Atlantic City, an internal document shows that 64 percent
of all slot players now use the Castle card. The cardholders
lost $109 million to the slots last fiscal year, or about
$101 per player per trip. Slot players who never bothered
with the card, by contrast, lost $31 per trip on average.

Mr. President, it is my strong belief that this Commission should
have full subpoena power to encourage the cooperation of gambling
industry figures to appear before the Commission. In order to ensure
that this bill was brought to the floor and passed, in order to ensure
that there is no delay in getting to the facts, I agreed not to offer
this amendment. However, I am here to serve notice that, at the first
indication that the gambling industry is dodging the Commission, I will
be back here to offer legislation to broaden the Commission subpoena
power.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about State
sponsored gambling. In most States this takes the form of lotteries.
However, in many States, including Indiana, the lottery has opened the
door to scratch tickets, horse racing, casinos, the works. At last
count, 48 States have become involved in some form of gambling. Mr.
President, given the concerns I have laid out, there is something very
disturbing about States promoting gambling as a solution to economic
development and shrinking tax bases. To quote the late Dr. Richard C.
Halverson, our former chaplain, this State sponsored gambling is
nothing short of a tax on the character of our people. It is
dereliction of our public duty to use gambling to solve Government
revenue problems.
Annual lottery sales now approach $32 billion. Yet the virtue of
gambling as a revenue source is dubious at best. Money Magazine
estimates that States keep only about one-third of total revenues
generated from lotteries. Further, many States rely on lottery revenue
to fill revenue gaps rather than lower taxes. Many States claim to use
the lottery to fund education. However, the proportion of State
spending on education has remained relatively unchanged.
Perhaps most disturbing, Mr. President, is that as States are being
flooded with gambling cash, the tide of political scandal is rising.
Across the country, State legislators are grappling with how to stem
the tide of gambling interest dollars and the corruption that follows
it. And Congress is no exception. Gambling dollars are also finding
their way into our campaigns. Mr. President, I feel strongly that the
Commission should examine this problem in detail.
In closing, Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Lugar and Simon
for getting this bill passed. It was no easy task. In addition, I
reiterate my concern and my warning regarding the subpoena issue. If
the gambling industry throws its lawyers at the Commission the way they
have thrown their lobbyist at Congress, I have little doubt that we
will revisit this issue.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a managers'
amendment at the desk be deemed considered and agreed to, the bill be
deemed read the third time, the Senate proceed to the House companion
measure, Calendar No. 344, H.R. 497, and all after the enacting clause
be stricken and the text of S. 704 be inserted in lieu thereof, the
bill be deemed read the third time, and passed, the motion to
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements or colloquies
relating to the measure appear at this point in the Record. Finally, I
ask that S. 704 be returned to the calendar.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want the
Record to reflect when the voice vote is done, or whatever the
procedure is to get this matter passed, that I be recorded as voting
``no'' and that I be allowed to insert in the Record a statement
regarding this legislation dealing with the unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like that to be a part of the
request.
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I make the same request.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I add that to the unanimous-consent request.
I ask to include the statement and position of both of the Senators
from Nevada. Mr. President, without their cooperation, this would not
be possible. Like them, I have some reservations, but they have helped
work out the problems, and I think they should get the opportunity to
be recorded against this Commission, even though they have agreed to
let it go on a voice vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The bill (H.R. 497), as amended, was deemed read the third time, and
passed.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to recognize the diligent efforts of
the Senators who have been working on this Commission. Senator Lugar,
from Indiana, has been very helpful. He is one of the two original
sponsors. He has been ably assisted in our effort to clear out problems
by Senator Coats from Indiana. Several Senators had some amendments
they were interested in on both sides of the aisle, and they have
agreed to withhold those. There was also, of course, the very fine work
of Senator Simon to help work through problems on the Democratic side
of the aisle. Without their cooperation, efforts, and commitment to
this, it would not have happened. In fact, I would not have been
pushing for it personally.
So I commend them. I would be glad at this point to yield the floor
so they can make statements.
One final person, if I might, Mr. President. I would like to also
commend the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee who had this
hot potato in his lap and managed to work it out in a way so that we
can get it approved by unanimous consent. I thank him for that work.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has been
very patient with us this afternoon. He repeatedly sought the floor. We
have urged him to delay. I now ask that, in morning business, he be
recognized so that he may make his statement for 12 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall
not--I would like to speak for 2 minutes on the bill.
Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask this. I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Faircloth be recognized for 12 minutes, Senator Simon for 2 minutes,
and Senator Kennedy for 3 minutes as though in morning business so that
we can get that out of the way. Then we will go back to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be
recognized as if in morning business for 12 minutes.
Mr. SIMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I reserved the right
to

[[Page S7982]]

object subject to my being acknowledged for 2 minutes to speak on this
bill. I do not think that the request was granted.
Mr. STEVENS. The request was granted, Mr. President. We had committed
to Senator Faircloth first, if the Senator does not mind.
Mr. SIMON. I would like to speak for 2 minutes on the bill which was
just passed, if I may. I think my colleague from North Carolina would
yield to me.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield to the Senator from Illinois for the 2
minutes, if I may then go.
Mr. SIMON. I thank him.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator kindly yield to me 1
minute following the Senator from Illinois? I am on the same bill.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I also yield to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, respectively we have already yielded to
the Senator from Massachusetts following the Senator from North
Carolina. If our request is going to be honored, I hope we will adjust
this accordingly.
Does the Senator from Virginia seek to speak on the same bill as the
Senator from Illinois?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct; the same bill on which I
am a cosponsor.
Mr. STEVENS. May I suggest that the Senator from Illinois be
recognized for 2 minutes, the Senator from Virginia for 1 minute, the
Senator from Massachusetts 3 minutes, and the Senator from North
Carolina will have his 12 minutes.
I rephrase my unanimous-consent request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank a number of my colleagues for their
help on creating the commission that has just passed, assuming the
House acts favorably.

Particularly, I would like to thank my colleague from Indiana,
Senator Lugar. Senator Warner from Virginia has been very helpful.
Senator John Glenn was helpful. Senator Stevens was helpful. And a
number of others that I should acknowledge, as well as Michael
Stevenson of my staff. What we have just done is to say, let us look at
this problem. I think we owe that to the Nation, and I appreciate our
colleagues doing that.
The fastest growing industry in our Nation today is legalized
gambling. Is this good for the Nation? Is it not? Should it be slowed
somewhat? No one suggests that we are going to close down Las Vegas or
Atlantic City. But I think we ought to look at this problem and see
what the dimensions of that problem are and what we ought to do. That
is what the commission bill does.
I thank my colleagues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to join in thanking the principal
sponsors of the bill--the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from
Illinois and the Senator from Alaska and also my distinguished
colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Frank Wolf. I
have been working as a team with Frank Wolf. It is essential for
America simply to listen and learn about the growth of gambling. Then
we can decide for ourselves. States and individuals can decide for
themselves. But this bill will start a vital educational process.
I am privileged to have been a part of the effort which has succeeded
today. We did not get everything we wanted. But we have certainly made
a start, and, if necessary, there may be a sequel to this piece of
legislation in the future.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I applaud passage of the Gambling Impact
Study Commission Act. It has been apparent for some time that a
reasonable consensus had been reached on providing the Commission with
reasonable powers and duties, and I congratulate the leadership for
bringing this important bill to the floor.
I also congratulate Senator Stevens for maneuvering this legislation
through a tricky legislative process. Senators Lugar and Simon have
done a remarkable job of keeping public attention on this issue. And
Representative Wolf from my home State of Virginia has certainly been a
leader in steering this legislation through the House of
Representatives. I have enjoyed working with all of them to make sure
that the facts about gambling are laid before the people so that they
and their representatives can make fully-informed decisions about
gambling in their States and communities.
Mr. President, we all know that the benefits of gambling are often
easy to see--tax revenues for the States, jobs created in casinos,
attention paid to cities or States with exciting games and lotteries.
These benefits are very evident in a number of our communities around
our country.
The problem is that the downsides of gambling are harder to see. If a
teenager gets addicted to gambling, or a father loses his family
savings, the effects on their families, their employers, and their
friends, are difficult to quantify. And just as there is no doubt that
the benefits of gambling are real, these hidden costs are very real
indeed.
This Commission will be an unbiased factfinding body to analyze the
effects of gambling. The Commission will have a number of important
topics to consider, including: gambling addictions, reliance by States
on gambling revenues, advertising, the effect of increased gambling
operations on Native American communities and reservations,
relationships between gambling and crime and alcoholism, and effects of
gambling on other types of businesses and entertainment. The Commission
will have a full plate of issues to consider and I am confident this
bill will provide it the resources and time for thorough investigations
and recommendations.
The gambling industry has spoken out against the investigatory tools
this bill gives the Commission and I can understand their concern that
the Commission be even-handed. I believe the compromise reached
concerning the scope of the Commission's use of subpoenas and hearings
responds to those concerns. For the Commission's conclusions to be
reliable, it must have good information from the industry--without this
cooperation, the Commission would be no more useful than the incomplete
and biased studies States and localities have had to rely upon in the
past.
The Commonwealth of Virginia has considered a number of types of
gambling over the past several years. It has adopted some, such as a
State lottery, while rejecting others like riverboat casinos. The new
Commission will be able to provide the Virginia legislature, executive
branch, and citizens with more accurate facts as they continue to
debate the future of gambling in the Commonwealth.
I do not favor federalizing regulation of the gambling industry--this
bill does not require or foresee any Federal response to the findings
made by the Commission. It is a fact-finding act. Seeing the growing
importance of gambling in our society, however, I have concluded that
discovery of these facts for consideration by the States may be more
important than any new Federal legislation.
Again, I congratulate the leadership and sponsors, and I hope that
this legislation can be enacted in the very near future.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized
according to the agreement.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank Senator
Faircloth.
Mr. President, speaking today at a private high school in
Minneapolis, candidate Bob Dole--formerly Senator Bob Dole, who should
know better--offered the American people what he called an ``Education
Consumer's Warranty.'' But candidate Dole was not being candid about
the facts.
He did not hesitate to bash teachers and students. But many of his
criticisms were based on blatant misinformation, and he offered no
solutions to the problems he mis-identified.
Candidate Dole said that test scores and literacy are dropping. In
reality, math and science scores on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress are up since 1982--for 9- 13- and 17-year olds. In
addition, American students finished second among 31 nations in a 1992
study of reading skills.
Candidate Dole said that students are taking fewer courses in basic
subjects. The opposite is true. In the early 1980s, only 13 percent of
high school graduates had 4 years of English and at

[[Page S7983]]

least 3 years of math, science, and social studies. By 1990, according
to the National Center for Education Statistics, 40 percent of high
school graduates had taken at least those basic courses.
Candidate Dole said that SAT scores are dropping. He was right 10
years ago, but he is very wrong now. In 1983, SAT scores had been
dropping for a decade. In the 1990s, they are rising. The national
average score for the class of 1995 was 910, the highest since 1974.
Candidate Dole also said that dropout rates are rising. In fact, more
students are finishing high school and going on to college than ever
before. The high school dropout rate has been cut by a third--from 17
percent in 1967 to 11 percent in 1993. Almost 90 percent of students
are graduating from high school. Between 1980 and 1993, the proportion
of high school graduates going to college increased--from 49 percent to
62 percent.
Despite these improvements, much more needs to be done, and I commend
candidate Dole's new-found support for education. As Senate majority
leader, he helped lead the Republican attempt to slash funds for
education. He even wanted to slash support for safe and drug free
schools by more than half. But now he agrees that every student has the
right to be safe in school.
Candidate Dole voted to cut support for reading and math by $1
billion last year. Now he rightly agrees that all students need a solid
grounding in basic subjects.
Candidate Dole voted against the Improving America's Schools Act in
1994, which encourages greater parent involvement in the full range of
educational decisions for their children. Now he rightly says parental
participation is a key component of successful education.
Obviously, when it comes to education, candidate Dole has a difficult
time escaping his anti-education record.
By contrast, President Clinton is the ``Education President.'' He has
worked tirelessly and effectively to improve education since he was
elected in 1992. He led the opposition to the Republicans' attack on
education last year, and he has proposed a budget that invests
significantly more in education in the years ahead, and while still
achieving a balanced budget in the year 2002.
If Americans want an Education President, they already have one. Any
``Education Consumer'' would be well-advised to go with the proven
product, not a candidate who is suddenly discovering the error of his
past ways.
Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
(The remarks of Mr. FAIRCLOTH pertaining to the introduction of S.
1968 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

____________________