[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 108 (Monday, July 22, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H8035-H8044]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT AND POLICY COMMISSION ACT

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

       Senate amendment:
       Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

     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

[[Page H8036]]

     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, 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, 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

[[Page H8037]]

     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).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois [Mr. Hyde] and the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Frank] 
will each control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, today we consider the Senate amendment to the 
National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act (H.R. 497). H.R. 497 
creates a temporary, 2-year national commission to study the economic 
and social impact of gambling in our country. The Commission will 
conduct a study and make recommendations--it will not have any power to 
regulate the gambling industry in any way.
  At the outset, I want to give special recognition to our colleague 
and my good friend, Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia. This much-
needed measure is here today largely because of his advocacy and 
persistence. Congressman Wolf has identified a very important public 
policy issue and he deserves high praise for his efforts. I also want 
to recognize the herculean efforts of Mr. Wolf's outstanding staffer, 
Will Moschella. During the pendency of this bill, Mr. Moschella has not 
only been of invaluable assistance in its passage, but he has also 
graduated from law school, passed the bar exam, and gotten married.
  When H.R. 497 passed the House on March 5, 1996, I pointed out the 
extensive record that supports this legislation. On September 29, 1995, 
the full Judiciary Committee held a hearing on H.R. 497. At that time, 
we heard from 15 witnesses, including 8 Members of Congress. Subsequent 
to our hearing, the committee received 15 additional statements for the 
record from other interested organizations and individuals.
  During our hearing, we heard virtually every point of view on 
gambling and its effects. For example, we had testimony on the problem 
of compulsive gambling. We also heard from a university professor 
focusing on the economic aspects of gambling--for example, job creation 
by gambling enterprises, gambling's impact on tourism, and gambling's 
impact on State and local government revenue. We also heard testimony 
from the chairman of the National Indian Gaming Association who 
documented how the emergence of an Indian gambling industry in recent 
years has had a positive impact on employment, economic development, 
and overall self-sufficiency for Indian tribes. Still others testified 
regarding the relationship between gambling and crime, including 
organized crime.
  Based upon this extensive committee record and personal study, I 
concluded that a study commission on gambling in the United States is a 
good idea. As the Washington Post proclaimed in its headline for an 
editorial endorsing the bill: ``For Once, a Useful Commission!'' The 
Post went on to observe that ``commissions can play the useful role of 
bringing to national attention issues that were previously submerged or 
debated in fragmentary ways.''
  After passage of H.R. 497 in the House, some in the gambling industry 
continued to have concerns about this bill, particularly with respect 
to the subpoena power. Congressman Wolf and I worked many hours with 
Senator Stevens, Senator Lugar, Senator Simon, and other members of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee in the other body and the interested 
outside groups to try to resolve these concerns. After lengthy 
negotiations, we came to the resolution embodied in the Senate 
amendment to H.R. 497. Although neither side got everything that it 
wanted, I am satisfied that we have reached a reasonable compromise. 
The final work product will allow the Commission to conduct its study, 
while, at the same time, it allays the fears of those who thought the 
subpoena power would be overly intrusive.
  These negotiations have only reinforced my view that it is a 
particularly good time to have a balanced, impartial, and comprehensive 
look at whether or not the phenomenal growth of gambling is good for 
this country. Currently, 48 States allow some form of legalized 
gambling. We have State-conducted lotteries, riverboat gambling, Indian 
gambling, and casino gambling. We need to know the implications of this 
growth. Just before House passage of this bill, the Washington Post 
described the explosive growth of gambling:

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

  The Washington Post, March 3, 1996, at A1.
  This expansion of legalized gambling has undoubtedly had negative 
effects. For example, many opportunities to gamble are now available to 
minors who are not ready to make a mature judgment about this kind of 
activity. Also, compulsive gamblers frequently have a negative, 
sometimes tragic, impact on their families.
  The traditional linkage between gambling and crime also concerns me. 
To give just one example, a GAO report issued in January concluded that 
``the proliferation of casinos, together with

[[Page H8038]]

the rapid growth of the amounts wagered, may make these operations 
highly vulnerable to money laundering.'' As gambling continues to 
spread, these negative effects and others spread with it.
  In addition, H.R. 497 will address the lack of reliable information 
about the effects of gambling. We need better scientific and behavioral 
data concerning gambling. Because of the lack of hard information, 
State and local policymakers, who are considering the legalization of 
gambling, may often be misled by exaggerated claims about the positive 
effects of gambling and the prospects for painless revenue generation. 
Last December, a Maryland State study commission concluded:

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

  Final report of the Joint Executive-Legislative Task Force to Study 
Commercial Activities in Maryland, December 1995.
  I have listened to the critics of H.R. 497 during this process--
during Judiciary Committee consideration, during House consideration, 
and during our negotiations with the other body. They have made some 
good arguments, and when they have, we have worked hard to address 
those issues. In my statement during the debate on House passage of 
this bill, I described the many changes we made in the bill during 
Judiciary Committee consideration. I will not repeat that discussion 
here, but I would like to describe briefly the most important ways in 
which the Senate amendment differs from H.R. 497 as passed by the 
House.
  Both versions contain a list of matters to be studied. The Senate 
amendment compresses the list that was in the House-passed version, but 
it generally covers the same topics. In addition, the Senate amendment 
makes clear that the items listed are only the items that the 
Commission must, at a minimum, study. This list does not in any way 
limit other topics that the Commission may choose to study.
  The House-passed version gave the Commission broad subpoena powers 
for both witnesses and documents. The Senate amendment narrows this 
power. Under the Senate amendment, the Commission still has broad 
authority to subpoena documents. However, the Commission must first 
vote to issue the subpoena and give the Department of Justice 10 days 
notice. The notice provision does not in any way allow the Department 
to veto or stop a Commission subpoena. However, it does allow the 
Department to notify the Commission if the Commission's subpoena has 
the potential to interfere with a pending investigation.
  The subpoena power provision states that the Commission may issue a 
subpoena if a person fails to supply information requested by the 
Commission. This phrase is intended to encourage the Commission to 
begin with voluntary requests for information. However, it is not 
intended to provide any legal basis to challenge a subpoena issued by 
the Commission.
  If, after receiving documents, the Commission requires further 
information necessary to understand the documents, it may ask written 
questions or take a deposition on the documents. Whether there will be 
written questions or a deposition is at the option of the recipient. 
The phrase ``necessary to understand'' should be read broadly to 
include questions about how a document was developed, who wrote it, and 
other similar matters of context.
  Finally, the Senate amendment provides that the Commission may not 
release, except to its employees and contractors, any nonpublic 
information it receives unless it is ordered to do so by a court or 
unless the information is released in an aggregate or summary form that 
does not reveal the identity of any person or business and does not 
reveal any information protected under 18 U.S.C. 1905--that is, trade 
secret and proprietary information. These privacy protections in 
section 5(d) are not intended to limit in any way the Commission's 
ability, and indeed, its responsibility, to make criminal referrals to 
appropriate prosecuting authorities if it discovers evidence of 
criminal activity. In addition, the privacy protections of section 5(d) 
apply only to information that the Commission has already received. 
They do not in any way limit the scope of the information that the 
Commission may seek.
  The Senate amendment adds a section 7 that was not included in the 
House-passed version. This section requires the Commission to contract 
with the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the 
National Research Council for assistance with conducting certain 
aspects of the study. The Advisory Commission of Intergovernmental 
Relations will assist in cataloging all of the various laws and 
regulations governing gambling. The National Research Council will 
assist in assessing problem gambling. This innovative addition will 
both reduce the costs of the Commission and take advantage of expertise 
that already exists within the Government.
  The Senate amendment also adds a definition section that was not 
included in the House-passed version. I want to note that the 
definition of State has the effect of including the U.S. territories 
within the study. The Representatives of the territories requested that 
they be included during debate on the House floor.
  Finally, the Senate amendment contains the requirement from the 
House-passed version of an advance appropriation before any money can 
be spent. This language prevents the various authorizing provisions for 
salaries and expense reimbursement from being construed as 
entitlements.
  Although I preferred the subpoena provisions that were contained in 
the House-passed version, I believe the compromise reached in the 
Senate amendment is a reasonable and fair one. I further believe that 
this solution is politically realistic, given the short time left in 
this Congress. Overall, the bill is balanced, comprehensive, and fair.
  I appreciate the contributions of Senator Lugar, Senator Simon, 
Senator Stevens, the other members of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee of the other body, and the many members of the interested 
outside groups who have made this bill possible. I want to thank the 
members of the House Judiciary Committee who took a particular interest 
in this legislation in committee--Congressmen Hoke, Bono, Gallegly, and 
Schiff. I appreciate the cooperation of Chairman Young of the House 
Resources Committee for his cooperation during House consideration of 
this bill. Finally, I want especially to thank Majority Leader Trent 
Lott for allowing this bill to come to the floor. I know that he had 
personal concerns about it, and I appreciate his setting those aside 
and allowing the other body to work its will.
  I have discussed the various changes contained in the Senate 
amendment with Congressman Wolf, and he has indicated his full support 
for concurring in the Senate amendment so that this bill can become law 
this year.
  I urge my colleagues to concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 497 
and send this important piece of legislation on to enactment.
  Before concluding, I also want to thank Joseph Gibson of our 
Judiciary Committee staff for his outstanding work on H.R. 497. 
Joseph's excellent legal work and sound judgment were pivotal in 
resolving many difficult issues on this complicated matter. I commend 
him for a job very well done.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by this piece of legislation. It is an 
act of repudiation of several of the principles that the majority has 
said it was governed by. In some cases I am glad to see the repudiation 
because I was not too crazy about the principles; in other cases I like 
the principles and I am sorry to see them eroded.
  But let us look at what this bill does. The expansion of gambling has 
on the whole been a matter of decisions by the States. It is true that 
there is a Federal statute which grants the rights of

[[Page H8039]]

Indian tribes, in return for their having given up rights to property, 
by the way. The Indian tribes did not get this right to conduct 
gambling one-sidedly. They gave up, as a result of this act, some 
substantial property claims.
  But Indian gambling is only a part of what is being studied here. If 
this is a bill to study and look at the Indian Gaming Act, it would 
have been a different story. It would have come out of a different 
committee. Much of the impetus for this comes from the feeling of the 
Members of Congress, apparently very much on the majority side, too, 
that we cannot trust State and local officials to make good decisions 
without our supervision.
  I have to say I think the chairman of the committee has been very 
responsible and has helped improve the bill. It is a better bill than 
before. But even in his own comments, for instance, he said, I noted 
here, that we need to do a study because currently State and local 
policymakers are often misled.
  Well, I have tended to believe that myself. I have felt that there 
were times when State and local policymakers would be misled and the 
Federal Government should intervene to try and prevent that. I had not 
expected to find such enthusiastic and overwhelming support from the 
Republican side, so I am glad to have it.
  I hope people will, when they read these remarks in the Record, go up 
a column or two to the distinguished chairman. Let us get the point 
here: State and local policymakers are often misled, but do not worry, 
State and local policymakers, the Federal Government here comes riding 
to your rescue.
  So here we will keep State and local policymakers from being misled 
as often, and it is not simply a case of their being misled. I was 
particularly pleased when the chairman said that one of the problems 
States face, and I quite seriously agree with him on this one, and I am 
glad to have his affirmation of it because it is a central policy 
point, he said the problem is when States go to make decisions, they 
are sometimes unable to make the decisions they might like because of 
competitive pressures from other States. That is a profoundly important 
point.
  We live in one national economy in which a State's desire to make 
certain decisions can be circumscribed by competitive effects. That is 
true with gambling. It is true with minimum wage. It is true with the 
level of medical care we provide for the poor. It is true with 
environmental protections. Indeed, I believe it is truer with regard to 
these economic issues.
  So once again, I am glad to have the chairman articulate and the 
majority overwhelmingly about to vote in both branches to establish the 
principle that, given the competitive pressures that exist on the 
States in this one national economy, Federal intervention is sometimes 
called for.
  Now, it is true this does not, in and of itself, impose a Federal 
policy. But the premises are that the States are not doing a good 
enough job and the Federal Government must come to their aid, that they 
are uninformed in some cases. We have to have a study so they will not 
be misled by bad information. They are coerced and circumscribed by 
competitive pressures, I agree.
  Now I have long felt that this body has very few people in it who are 
conscientiously and thoroughly dedicated to the proposition that we 
should always prefer States' rights or always prefer Federal rights. In 
fact, I believe the overwhelming majority of Members believe that 
decisions should be made at that level of government where they are 
most likely to agree with the outcome. When it comes to some things, 
some people are for States' rights, and when it comes to other things, 
other people are for State's rights.
  I do not think that is hypocritical or inconsistent at all, because 
one needs not have a preference for one or the other. The error, it 
seems to me, is to assert a preference when one does not really exist. 
I think this shows when people think the States have been given too 
much gambling, and that is clearly what we are talking about.
  People here think, on the majority side as well as the minority side, 
Republicans as well as Democrats, that the States, ill-informed as they 
often are apparently, subject to competitive pressures, are not making 
the right decisions, so we, the Federal Government, will try to extend 
a restraining influence and not in this bill by any legislation yet, 
but it certainly seems to me that we are laying the predicate for some 
legislation.
  That is one principle, the principle before States rights. So much 
for the States' ability to do what they want. Let us talk about the 
next one, and that is the right of individuals to make their own 
decisions with their own money, because clearly what is most driving 
this is the notion that we cannot trust the American people to make 
their own decisions, because there are people here who believe that 
individuals who work hard for their money go out and gamble too much.
  I do not doubt people gamble too much. I do not doubt that a lot of 
people do a lot of things too much. I had not thought it was the role 
of this Federal Government to start making those individual choices for 
people.
  We have State decisions to allow private businesses in many, many 
States to set up places where individuals can voluntarily go and pay 
their money for gambling. In fact, I have had people say, ``Well, you 
know, it is terrible because it just teaches them to get rich.''
  I have talked a lot about gambling. I have a proposal for an Indian 
casino in the district I represent, overwhelmingly supported by the 
people there, including the working people who want to get jobs there, 
and I have talked to a lot of people about gambling. Most of them do 
not think they are going to get rich. They enjoy it.
  A lot of older people rent buses and go to various casinos because 
this is a form of recreation for them, and they get together, they get 
on the bus, they go down, they gamble, they like it. These are not 
stupid people. None of them are unaware of the odds. None of them think 
they are going to be rich overnight.
  A percentage of people, a small percentage, it is true, abuse this. 
They have an obsessive problem. There are people who have obsessive 
problems about drinking, about eating, about doing a lot of things. A 
rational society which honors the choices that individuals make with 
the money they earn themselves provides programs to deal with the 
obsessive problem but does not try to restrict other adults from doing 
that.
  But again, permeating this is this notion that people really cannot 
be trusted to make these decisions. So much for the theoretical 
framework of States' rights. So much for this notion that we will let 
individuals make their own choices. The Federal Government is going to 
have to restrain people from doing this.
  Then we get into the question of fiscal responsibility. Now, this 
bill is not going to cost a lot of money, but whatever it is going to 
cost is extra money that we do not need to spend. There will be nine 
commissioners here. I guess they will be called commissioners; I do not 
know. Maybe they will be called moral censors, whatever they will be 
called, the nine elders who will stop the States from being misinformed 
and keep the people from unwisely spending their own money.
  They will be compensated at the annual rate of $104,000 a year plus 
per diems if they go to meetings. There are nine of them. It is a 2-
year deal. I do not know how often they are going to meet. They have 
incentives, obviously, to meet a lot. They have an executive director 
who gets $114,000 a year. They are going to pay witness fees. They were 
going to go around and have meetings. Clearly several million dollars 
will be spent here.
  One of the mistakes the people on the Democratic side have made in 
the past is to talk as if several million dollars of Federal money is 
not a serious expenditure. Of course it is. Of course when we spend 
several million dollars of public money, particularly when we are in a 
deficit situation, that is a problem.
  Why, then, is the Federal Government about to spend millions of 
dollars, and by the way, the legislation is silent on the amount. There 
is no cap here. It authorizes ``such sums.'' That is because I think in 
part some people did not want to limit the amount. I had proposed some 
amendments in committee to try and limit the amount. It is not limited 
to $2 million or $5 million or $10 million.
  Theoretically, the nine commissioners, if they meet a lot, could 
make, each of them, close to $100,000 a year on

[[Page H8040]]

a 2-year basis; the executive director, the other staff, transcripts, 
travel, witness fees. So we are talking millions of dollars.

                              {time}  1230

  So here is what we have: An area where the States are on the whole 
competent to legislate constitutionally, and again, if we were talking 
about Indian gaming this would be a different story, but this goes far 
beyond Indian gambling. That is a Federal responsibility. This deals 
with State and local, and there have been efforts to focus on State and 
local.
  In fact, the gentleman from Illinois read a quote from the Washington 
Post, and the Washington Post reporter seemed to be upset that more 
people went to see the pyramids in Nevada then went to see the pyramids 
in Egypt. Now, I have to say it would have seemed to me, according to 
good Republican principles of limited Government, not the slightest 
business of anybody here that more people wanted to see the pyramids in 
Nevada than the pyramids in Egypt. What, are we in charge of which 
pyramids people see? Are we now doing the cultural advice for people? 
``Oh, no, you cannot go look at those pyramids, they are too gaudy. Go 
look at the other pyramids.''
  I do not think we should be in the pyramid picking business. I do not 
think we should be spending several million dollars of Government funds 
because the Washington Post does not like which pyramids people go to 
see. That is what this is about. That is what motivates this.
  So while I am glad to see the Republican Party backing away from this 
rigid States rights principle, acknowledging that competitive pressures 
can drive the States, acknowledging the States might be misinformed and 
need more Federal help, while I am glad to see they think sometimes the 
Federal Government must come to the aid of individuals, although I 
disagree with the degree of intervention here, I would hope they would 
hold to a more libertarian principle and in general not use the fact 
that people pick the wrong pyramids as the basis for spending millions 
of dollars, and I wish we would not find new ways to spend Federal 
money.
  This is several million dollars new to the Federal Government, not 
spent before. So I am against this bill. I think it is a bad idea. I 
believe that while people might want to look at the Indian Gaming Act 
alone, to go into the whole area of States and local spending and to 
decide that what we really need is a federally funded study costing 
millions of dollars, which subpoena power to go around and essentially 
tell the States they are doing a bad job of regulating gambling, to 
tell the American people they are going to look at the wrong pyramids 
and not spending their own money wisely, that is not a very good idea 
and I think the time of the Congress and the money of the Federal 
Government could be better used.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf].
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the 
diligent efforts of the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], the 
chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, and to personally 
thank him for his very effective efforts on this and so many other 
things, from aiding the Contras to bring democracy to Nicaragua to many 
of the other things on which he has taken the leadership on this floor, 
and I appreciate it very much. I also appreciate his very able staff 
for helping guide this legislation through the legislative process. It 
was a pleasure working with the gentleman to bring this bipartisan bill 
here.
  The chairman should be pleased, as I know he is, with the work of 
Joseph Gibson of his staff who worked hand in glove with my staff to 
move this legislation through the House.
  The chief sponsors of the Senate legislation also deserve great 
support for their effort in the Senate. Senators Simon and Lugar worked 
tirelessly to bring it up. I also appreciate the work of Senator Coats, 
Senator Stevens, and Senator Glenn, the chairman and ranking member 
respectively of the Committee on Governmental Affairs. I also want to 
thank Senators Lieberman, McCain, Thompson, and Warner for their help 
in moving the bill.
  I also want to acknowledge, as the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] 
did, the work of the members of my staff, just about all of whom have 
assisted with some aspect of this legislation. Particularly, I 
appreciate the teamwork of William Moschella, my senior legislative 
assistant and counsel, and David Whitestone, who serves as my press 
secretary.
   Mr. Speaker, the establishment of the National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission is essential to the Nation's understanding of what the 
incredible expansion of gambling in America means to our everyday 
lives. Newspaper and editorial writers around the country almost daily 
chronicle the tragic stories of people addicted to gambling. Compulsive 
and pathological gamblers often commit suicide, prostitute themselves, 
resort to robbery, burglary, larceny, and embezzlement to fuel their 
habit.
  Gambling has been known to literally destroy families. I have 
received calls and letters from around the country relating the sad 
dramas associated with compulsive gambling. The gambling industry has 
not taken seriously the magnitude of the problem, or it has been trying 
to sweep it under the rug.
  One of the most startling and unfortunate consequences of gambling 
has been the amount of public corruption attendant to it. Industry 
spokesmen claim that the days of Bugsy Segal and Joseph Bonano are 
behind it. The industry, they claim, is composed of law abiding 
companies which report to stockholders instead of organized criminal 
enterprises. The industry, more than any other, however, has been 
connected to unprecedented levels of political corruption in recent 
years. The confluence of money, politics, and power has wreaked havoc 
in many States and local jurisdictions.
   Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before the body because it is 
a serious effort to study the issue of gambling in the United States. 
In some respects the Senate amendment changed it, but it was a good 
compromise.
   Mr. Speaker, I am going to watch the progress of the commission 
carefully to make sure that the commission does its work in a 
nonpartisan and objective way. We will follow its progress to make sure 
the job that Congress has delegated to it is performed in a 
professional and effective manner. I will also monitor the amount of 
lobbying pressure to which the commission is subjected.
  I believe the legislation before us gives the commission all the 
powers and tools that it needs. In closing, I again want to thank the 
staff that has done such an effective job, Senator Lott on the Senate 
side and the Senators that I mentioned, my staff and the staff of the 
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Hyde, Joseph Gibson and others, and, last, 
the chairman. I want him to know that I know the pressure and I know 
what has gone on around here, and he should know I am eternally 
grateful. I am still young enough to have heroes, and he is one of the 
three or four people around here who is one of my heroes.
  I thank the gentleman from Illinois for yielding time to me. At this 
point, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my 
remarks and include therein extraneous materials.
  Mr. Speaker, as the original sponsor of legislation establishing a 
national commission to study the social, economic, and legal impact of 
gambling, I rise in strong support of H.R. 497, the Gambling Impact 
Study Commission Act. As gambling proliferates in casinos, on 
riverboats, on Indian reservations, dog and horse tracks and elsewhere, 
problems such as crime, political corruption, cannibalization of 
existing businesses, gambling addiction, family breakups, and suicide 
are a growing and unfortunate consequence. This legislation will create 
an unbiased, bipartisan nine-member commission to finally take a 
comprehensive look at these problems.
  I would like to take a moment to recognize the diligent efforts of 
the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and his able staff in 
guiding this legislation through the legislative process. It was a 
pleasure working with Chairman Hyde in bringing this bipartisan bill to 
the floor. The chairman should be pleased with the work done by Joseph 
Gibson of his staff who worked hand in glove with my staff to move this 
legislation through the House. They spent many hours assisting, 
consulting,

[[Page H8041]]

and meeting with Senate staff to iron out any differences or concerns 
that there may have been.
  Last Wednesday, July 17, the full Senate passed by unanimous consent 
H.R. 497 with an amendment. Despite public pronouncements of the 
gambling industry in support of an unbiased study, tremendous lobbying 
pressure was brought to bear on Senators to kill or gut this bill. It 
is a tribute to this deliberative body in the world that such 
pressures, which clearly represented the opposition of a small but 
powerful minority, were not able to thwart the will of the vast 
majority of the Congress and American people. I would like to publicly 
thank Senate majority leader Trent Lott who, notwithstanding some 
concerns he had about the legislation, exerted great leadership in 
bringing H.R. 497 to a vote in the Senate. He is a man of his word, a 
man of honor and integrity.
  The chief sponsors of the Senate legislation also deserve great 
credit for making this legislation a reality. Senator Simon and Senator 
Lugar worked tirelessly to forge consensus and bring this legislation 
up despite a packed Senate floor schedule. I also appreciate the work 
of Senator Coats who helped move the process along. Senators Stevens 
and Glenn, chairman and ranking member respectively of the Senate 
Government Affairs Committee, deserve congratulations for working 
together, listening to various points of view, and forging ahead with a 
viable plan. I also commend the efforts and support of Senators 
Lieberman, McCain, Thompson, and Warner for their help in moving this 
legislation in the right direction.
  There are many Senate staffers who had something to do with moving 
this bill along and I appreciate all of their efforts. I would like to 
publicly thank a few, namely Bob Healey, Michael Stevenson, Kyle 
McSlarrow, David Crane, Sebastian O'Kelly, Christine Ciccone, and Earl 
Comstock for all they did to make this legislation a reality.
  Finally, I want to acknowledge the tireless work of the members of my 
staff, just about all of whom have assisted with some aspect of this 
legislation at some time during the last 2 years. Particularly, I 
appreciate the teamwork of William Moschella, my senior legislative 
assistant and counsel, and David Whitestone who serves as my press 
secretary.
  Mr. Speaker, establishment of the National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission is essential to the Nation's understanding of what the 
incredible expansion of gambling in America means to our everyday 
lives. Newspapers and editorial writers around the country almost daily 
chronicle the tragic stories of persons addicted to gambling. 
Compulsive and pathological gamblers often commit suicide, prostitute 
themselves, and resort to robbery, burglary, larceny, and embezzlement 
to fuel their habits.
  Gambling has been known to literally destroy families. I have 
received calls and letters from around the country relating the sad 
dramas associated with compulsive gambling. I have included an 
editorial from the Times Picayune regarding the almost epidemic 
problems of compulsive gambling among Louisiana's young people.

          [From the New Orleans Times Picayune, July 14, 1996]

                       Gambling and Young People

       Louisiana's first study of the effects of gambling shows 
     some disturbing statistics that should give policy makers and 
     voters much to think about as the state considers the future 
     of gambling here.
       A team of researchers led by Louisiana State University 
     professors Jim Westphal and Kenneth Miller conducted 
     telephone surveys last fall in an effort to find out how 
     often people gamble, what their favorite games are and how 
     much money they spent. The researchers also tried to 
     determine people's ability to control their gambling and its 
     effect on their lives.
       The results, released this week by the Department of Health 
     and Hospitals, indicate that Louisiana residents aren't 
     handling gambling too well, particularly young gamblers. One 
     in seven Louisiana residents, 18 to 21, are compulsive 
     gamblers. What's more, Louisiana's young gambling addicts are 
     in worse shape than in other states studied, spending twice 
     as much a month on gambling as their counterparts elsewhere. 
     Compulsive gambling among young people here is triple that of 
     adults and is second only to alcohol abuse for that age 
     group.
       The study showed that 182,000 Louisianans--more than 4 
     percent of the population--have gambling habits that range 
     from moderate to severe and as many as 57,000 of them have 
     addictions that could be classified as pathological.
       ``That's enough people to fill Tiger Stadium,'' said Gov. 
     Foster, who said that he will support legislation to curb 
     gambling addiction, particularly among the young.
       Researchers were limited by the lack of studies in other 
     states, despite the nationwide gambling boom. They could 
     compare Louisiana only to six other states, Montana, North 
     and South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Georgia. But that 
     data indicated that pathological gamblers in Louisiana are in 
     more trouble, spending almost twice the monthly average on 
     their habit, $660 compared to $300.
       Researchers who did the study believe that the reason is 
     availability. Louisiana, with its 12 riverboat casinos and 
     15,500 video poker machines, has a gambling site every 6.2 
     square miles.
       This study should raise serious questions about the 
     proliferation of gambling and, in particular, its effect on 
     young people. Legislators and other state officials will have 
     to weigh the social cost of bring up a crop of gambling 
     addicts, particularly since experts say that most 
     pathological gamblers begin their habit in adolescence.
       The study is already prompting legislators such as Sen. Jay 
     Dardenne, R-Baton Rouge, to say that a law should be passed 
     making 21 the legal limit for gambling. That is now true only 
     for casino gambling. Sen. Dardenne, who sponsored the 
     resolution calling for the study, said that he also wants to 
     push to have gambling prevention made part of the school 
     curriculum.
       As Louisiana begins to grapple with the question of 
     gambling, particularly the election on local option this 
     fall, the problem of gambling addiction deserves attention.
       The researchers' experience show that too many states, 
     Louisiana included, have rushed headlong into legalized 
     gambling without really knowing the social cost. This study 
     provides some much needed and timely insight.

  The gambling industry has not yet realized the magnitude of the 
problem or has been sweeping it under the rug. This issue can no longer 
be ignored and this commission will help us understand the problem so 
that it may be addressed.
  On of the most startling and unfortunate consequences of gambling has 
been the amount of public corruption attendant to it. Industry 
spokesmen claim that the days of Bugsy Segal and Joseph Bonano are 
behind it. The industry, they claim, is composed of law abiding 
companies which report to stockholders instead of organized criminal 
enterprises. The industry, more than any other, however, has been 
connected to unprecedented levels of political corruption in recent 
years. The confluence of money, politics, and power has wreaked havoc 
in many State and local jurisdictions. Louisiana, for example, has been 
rocked by political scandal and more indictments are on the way. I have 
included a recent Associated Press story which ran in the Times 
Picayune regarding the indictments for the Record.

          [From the New Orleans Times Picayune, July 15, 1996]

               Big Names Indicted, Gaming Task Force Says

                       (By The Associated Press)

       Shreveport--The dice are about to come up snake eyes for 15 
     to 20 people, including some big names, say people in the 
     task force investigating gambling corruption in Louisiana.
       ``Within the next two weeks you will see big numbers of 
     arrests,'' said Capt. Ed Kuhnert, State Police coordinator of 
     the task force of Louisiana State Police and FBI agents.
       Indictments have been prepared and are being reviewed by 
     federal prosecutors, said Rick Dill, FBI agent-in-charge in 
     New Orleans.
       Task force officials said the yearlong undercover 
     investigation is expected to produce charges against and 
     arrests of some prominent people.
       Last August, FBI wiretap transcripts were filed in open 
     court as part of requests to subpoena records from lawmakers 
     and people connected with Louisiana's gambling business.
       That meant the end of the long political careers of two 
     prominent state senators named as taking money from gambling 
     interests, although they weren't indicted.
       Larry Bankston, D-Port Hudson, Chairman of the Senate 
     committee overseeing gambling, dropped out of a re-election 
     campaign; B.B. ``Sixty'' Rayburn, D-Bogalusa, was defeated.
       Sources close to the probe said indictments are imminent, 
     The Times of Shreveport reported Sunday.
       The conviction this past week of former state Alcohol 
     Beverage Commission head Ray Holloway is the latest in a long 
     string of cases made by the task force on gambling.
       Holloway was found guilty of aiding an illegal gambling 
     business and obstructing justice. He resigned his job in the 
     Caddo Parish purchasing department after his federal case 
     became public earlier this year.
       The task force, with offices in New Orleans, Baton Rouge 
     and Shreveport, has been successful over the past two years.
       The most prominent case was the FBI's infiltration of the 
     New Orleans organized crime family, the top echelon of which 
     went down with 24 defendants in Operation Hardcrust.
       FBI agents, investigating a suspected bookmaking operation 
     at a New Orleans deli, picked up conversations indicating 
     three La Cosa Nostra families--the rekindled Marcello family 
     of New Orleans and the Gambino and Genovese families of New 
     York--were infiltrating Louisiana's video poker industry.
       Twenty-one defendants pleaded guilty. The three who went to 
     trial were convicted on all counts.
       Operation Hardcrust awed federal law enforcement 
     authorities ``because it involved,

[[Page H8042]]

     literally, the dismantling, through criminal indictment, of 
     the entire upper echelons of the New Orleans Mafia family,'' 
     First Assistant U.S. Attorney Jim Littin of New Orleans said. 
     ``As a result of that, we deem it the most significant 
     organized crime prosecution in the state of Louisiana.''
       The U.S. Justice Department considers the task force an 
     extremely successful operation, Littin said.
       ``This task force's penetration of the re-emergence of a 
     dormant organized-crime family was beyond a lot of people's 
     imagination even a few years ago,'' he said.
       Dill said, the task force has been successful because ``it 
     is a melding of talent.''
       The State Police investigators are ``very good, the cream 
     of the crop. They know the gambling laws in and out,'' Dill 
     said.
       FBI agents bring investigative expertise and federal fraud 
     laws.
       ``The combination of the two brings results,'' Dill said.
       Since Gov. Foster appointed Col. Rutt Whittington to head 
     the State Police, trooper cooperation has gone up, Dill said.
       ``If I need 20 troopers to help in a search, they're 
     there,'' he said.
       Another reason for the success of the team is its 
     dedication to rooting out corruption, Kuhnert said.
       ``We have put together a small group of people who are very 
     intense, very dedicated and very qualified,'' he said. 
     ``We're actually just getting started.''
       The legitimate gambling industry welcomes the scrutiny 
     because it increases public confidence, said Anthony 
     Sanfilippo, general manager of Harrah's Casino Shreveport.
       ``It's important that investigations reveal any type of 
     inappropriate behavior,'' he said.
       Despite the task force's success, however, its members 
     won't say they have rid Louisiana's gambling industry of 
     corruption.
       ``The legal gambling industry is itself a magnet for 
     corruption and organized crime,'' Littin said.
       He said investigators believe organized crime gets nearly 
     all its money from gambling, legal and illegal.
       ``We can never rest assured at any point that we have 
     rooted (out) all the corruption,'' he said. ``It is a dicey 
     industry to fool with.''

  In the early 1970's Congress was concerned about problems related to 
gambling, and it established a commission similar to the one Congress 
is within minutes of creating. Since the Commission on the Review of 
the National Policy Toward Gambling issued its 1976 report, gambling 
has greatly expanded, and it has grown in many ways that are contrary 
to the recommendations of that early report. In 1976 only two States 
had casino gambling. Today, ever State but two have some form of legal 
gambling. According to U.S. News and World Report, people wagered $482 
billion in 1994 on all forms of gambling, 85 percent of which took 
place in casinos in 27 States, most of them built in the past 5 years. 
This explosive growth has produced deleterious side effects that have 
high moral, social, and economic costs.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the legislation before the body today because 
it is a serious effort to study the issue of gambling in the United 
States. This legislation is not perfect, and I would have drafted some 
sections differently. But this is a body of compromise. To forge 
agreements, one must be willing to consider points of view and 
perspectives that are different from one's own.
  In some respects, the Senate amendment represents those political 
choices and compromises, and I applaud the Senate for breaking the 
gridlock and moving H.R. 497 this far. I believe, for example, that the 
section in the bill on subpoena power is one such political compromise. 
It is adequate but not perfect. It was drafted, not with an eye toward 
technical perfection, but rather it was drafted to forge political 
compromise and consensus--something that Congress does daily.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned, I would have drafted some 
provisions of this legislation differently. I also mentioned that some 
provisions of the Senate amendment were drafted to achieve political 
consensus and compromise. For example, I believe the rewrite of the 
House subpoena power language was unnecessary and was done to ease an 
irrational fear that the Commission would conduct a witch hunt. This 
would not happen and such discussion was a diversion from the real 
issues such as underage gambling and political corruption. I have 
included for the Record a letter from the chairman of the Commission on 
the Review of the National Policy Toward Gambling which bears this 
point out.

                                               Washington, DC,

                                                      May 7, 1996.
     Hon. Frank R. Wolf,
     CHOB,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Wolf: As you know, I served as Chairman of 
     the Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward 
     Gambling for the four years of its existence (``the 1972-1976 
     Commission''), whose Report was filed with the President and 
     the Congress on October 15, 1976. I have previously provided 
     your office with a copy of this Report and its accompanying 
     addenda (``the 1976 Report'').
       I have had, as you might suspect, a greater than normal 
     interest in the progress of gambling in the United States 
     over the ensuing decades, and especially during the past five 
     of six years which have witnessed a worrisome proliferation 
     of casino openings, often under the shelter of Indian tribal 
     ownership. I have followed your own efforts to create a new 
     gambling commission to once more look into what has become a 
     major growth industry. I agree with you completely, and I am 
     taking the liberty of adding some additional thoughts, which 
     I emphasize are purely personal opinions and do not 
     necessarily reflect the opinions of anyone in my former law 
     firm from which I have retired and for which I am now ``Of 
     Counsel.''
       With a proper mixture of pride and modesty, I would refer 
     you to the Report of the 1972-1976 Commission, with specific 
     attention to our recommendations concerning casinos and (that 
     most cynical of retrogressive taxation) state lotteries. As I 
     have observed, if anyone tried to sell corporate securities 
     with the failure to disclose material facts so characteristic 
     of state lottery promotion, he would be sent to prison. This 
     is certainly the cruelest and most indiscrimate form of 
     gambling and should be fiercely attacked. I see no signs that 
     our recommendation (the 1976 Report, 159) that ``the States 
     must take care to inform the public fully as to the odds and 
     character of the games being offered, and to avoid any 
     misleading practices in its advertisements and promotional 
     activities . . .'' was greeted recommendation was followed by 
     this one:
       ``Should [the States] fail in this responsibility, Congress 
     should consider giving the Federal Trade Commission the 
     explicit authority to set and enforce compulsory 
     guidelines.''
       I am as much a foe of big Federal government as the next 
     person, but the point may have been reached where this is a 
     national problem.
       And so, perhaps, is casino gambling. The unavoidable 
     dangers to the public interest in installing casino gambling 
     in metropolitan areas are too obvious to ignore, and the 
     1972-1976 Commission recommended that this be permitted 
     ``only in rare instances and extraordinary circumstances.'' 
     Another in-depth study is certainly now called for, and I 
     believe the results will be shocking. The billions of dollars 
     flowing across crap, roulette and blackjack tables is not 
     coming from people who can afford to lose. The social cost of 
     this phenomenon will be measured in human suffering, broken 
     homes, official corruption and crime, and it is only the 
     extent of this that is open to question.
       I note that although there is nearly unanimous lip service 
     paid to the need for a new gambling commission, the major 
     issue is whether or not the Commission should have subpoena 
     power to compel testimony and the production of documents. 
     Obviously such a Commission is meaningless without this 
     power, at least to the extent necessary to fulfill its stated 
     purpose. The 1972-1976 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 against its abuse 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 
     suppose the specter of a ``rogue'' Commission strewing 
     subpoenas throughout the land has been cited as being 
     intolerable, but the very fact that membership on the 
     Commission is bipartisan and dictated by Congress, and that a 
     subpoena presumably would have to be authorized in each 
     instance by the members of the Commission negates the 
     possibility of this happening. All this would seem to lead to 
     the conclusion that the opponents of the any power of 
     subpoena do, in fact, have something to conceal, which again 
     leads to the decision that it is indeed necessary.
       There is no doubt that the national policy toward gambling 
     must again be examined, and this time with considerably more 
     urgency than the last time. Please be assured that I am quite 
     willing to help at any time--without cost to the government.
           Yours very truly,
                                                 Charles H. Morin.

  The language in the House-passed version of H.R. 497 is the orthodox 
way to draft subpoena power language. After comparing the subpoena 
power granted to the Commission on the Review of the National Policy 
Toward Gambling, which was so broad it permitted a single commissioner 
to issue a subpoena, and learning that the Commission never once found 
it necessary to issue a subpoena, one can only conclude that the 
industry's concerns are, at a minimum, overstated, unrealistic, and 
paranoid.
  For example, Sec. 5(b)(1) authorizes the use of subpoenas after a 
person fails to supply information requested by the Commission. This 
subjunctive clause merely states the obvious. Administrative subpoenas 
are usually only issued if the entity fails to comply with an 
information request. This clause is not intended to

[[Page H8043]]

narrow the scope of subpoenas served subsequent to an information 
request. It only means that the Commission should ask first and 
subpoena second.
  I would also like to associate myself with the statement made by 
Senator Glenn regarding the meaning of the words ``to understand'' in 
Sec. 5(b)(2) of the bill. Under this section, the Commission may 
subpoena witnesses for the purpose of understanding material obtained 
by the Commission. There are many reasons to require such testimony and 
the understanding of the documents often will go beyond its four 
corners. The Commission may need to understand the circumstances or 
motivations for producing a document. It may need to know why it was 
produced and why alternatives were not included. To understand a 
document may entail understanding its context, how it was developed, 
why it was developed, what alternatives were considered, and other 
considerations that go into producing documents.
  I would also like to make a point about the duties of the Commission 
and the matters to be studied. This list of items to be studied by the 
Commission is the minimum the Commission should examine. This is 
clearly stated in section 4(a)(2). The commission should review other 
subjects as it deems appropriate.
  Section 4(a)(2)(C) of the House-passed version of H.R. 497 directed 
the Commission to include an assessment and review of political 
contributions and their influence on the development of public policy 
regulating gambling. While the version of the bill that Congress will 
send to the President today does not contain a similar provision, it is 
completely within the prerogative of the Commission to make such an 
assessment.
  Gambling interests are flush with cash and readily contribute to 
local, State and national campaigns. Also, many news reports have 
chronicled the vast sums promised lobbyists and consultants if they can 
convince legislators to permit riverboat gambling or establishment of a 
casino. Many public officials have taken large sums of money as bribes 
from gambling interests and have been indicted for such reprehensible 
conduct. Some say there is nothing worse than a corrupt policeman 
because it is the police who enforce the laws. A corrupt politician is 
equally bad. I urge the Commission to review the very timely and 
important issue of public corruption, political influence, money, and 
power.
  So, even though this legislation is not everything I may have 
preferred, it is a good bill and should be supported by the House and 
sent to the President for his signature.
  Another issue I would like to raise concerns Commission requests for 
assistance from other Federal agencies. There is already a wealth of 
experience and knowledge within the Federal Government about many of 
the issues the Commission will likely address. One of the Commission's 
jobs is to bring all that information under one roof in a usable form. 
Because this is only a 2-year Commission which will have very limited 
funds, Congress provided that departments and agencies of the Federal 
Government provide detailees to the Commission when appropriate.
  I urge any Federal agency asked to assist the Commission to provide 
such assistance and detailees as deemed necessary. The Department of 
Health and Human Services could assist the Commission by providing 
experts on compulsive or pathological behavior or providing experts in 
epidemiological methods and statistical methods of analysis who could 
help the Commission make sense of survey research and demographic or 
medical studies. The Federal Bureau of Investigation may be helpful in 
providing crime information.The Internal Revenue Service and the 
Financial Center may help commissioners understand issues relative to 
money transfers and laundering. General Services Administration staff 
could be helpful in setting up office space for the Commission, and the 
General Accounting Office could help provide economic analysis. I urge 
any Federal department or agency to assist the Commission when at all 
possible.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to watch the progress of the Commission 
carefully to make sure the Commission does its work in a nonpartisan 
and objective way. I will follow its progress to make sure the job 
Congress has delegated to it is performed in a professional and 
effective manner. I will also monitor the amount of lobbying pressure 
to which the Commission is subjected.
  I believe that the legislation before us gives the Commission all the 
power and tools it needs to conduct its business and write an objective 
report. However, if the gambling industry decides to throw its vast 
resources, lawyers, lobbyists and consultants at the Commission or the 
various provisions of this act in order to thwart its work, I will come 
to the well of this House with legislation more like the original House 
bill to ensure that the Commission is successful in completing its 
tasks.
  Because this legislation is only days away from becoming law, I 
beseech the appointing authorities--the President, the Speaker of the 
House, and the majority leader of the Senate--to appoint individuals to 
the Commission who are recognized for their honesty, integrity, and 
objectivity. The Commission should not be loaded with individuals with 
vested interests in the outcome of the report. They should not be 
composed of individuals interested in going to work for the gambling 
industry after they have completed their duties with the Commission. 
Commissioners should be citizens of sound moral character able to 
impartially review the evidence and issues which will come before them 
so that their final product will be a report the American people can 
trust and rely upon.
  Mr. Speaker, the time has finally come to make a detailed study of 
gambling in America. H.R. 497, in the tradition of good government, 
will help get that job done. This is a good bill, and I heartily 
support its final passage and presentment to the President. I urge all 
Members to support this meritorious legislation and yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and I 
hope I do not use all the 3 minutes, but I wanted to respond to my 
friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts, who is one of the very 
effective but selective crusaders for States' rights.
  This is a search for information, this commission, not legislative 
nor regulatory functions, but a search for information that has a 
uniquely national characteristic. The States, important as they are, 
are really not competent to do a national search that involves the 
issue of gambling. So, it may be an intrusion, but it is really not an 
either/or proposition: States' rights versus national intrusion. This 
subject lends itself to national study. So that is all that this is 
going to encompass.
  Some things are best done by the States. Some things are best done by 
the Federal Government, and it is pretty hard to have a hard and fast 
rule. Generally, we Republicans prefer local government over national 
government, but that, again, depends on the circumstance.
  Tort reform, for example, in my judgment, and although I do not speak 
for all my colleagues on the Republican side, lent itself to a national 
solution rather than a State solution. But these are matters we can 
argue about.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HYDE. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. I have no disagreement with what he just said. I do not claim 
to be a crusader for States rights. I have the position I think most 
Members have. I am for the State or the Federal Government deciding 
where we will best get the outcome that I think public policy ought to 
have.
  Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my 
support for H.R. 497, the National Gambling Impact and Policy 
Commission Act. I cosponsored this legislation because I believe it is 
important for us to examine the effect the recent and pronounced 
proliferation of gambling in the United States has had on us as a 
society. This impact study will help Americans better understand what 
the effects of gambling are upon our families and communities.
  Gambling has proliferated in part because State, local, and tribal 
governments faced with budget shortages see gambling as a pain-free 
solution to their problems. But I am concerned that such a quick-fix 
approach to our economic problems will make us overlook not only the 
long-term social problems associated with gambling, but the very fact 
that gambling itself is an inherently weak foundation upon which to 
base long-term growth and development. It is my sincere hope that 
through this study, we can provide local communities, States, and 
tribes the right tools and objective information to decide whether or 
not gambling is the right economic development strategy for them.
  But I also want to make clear that it is my understanding that 
neither this bill nor the commission it creates is intended in any way 
to be construed or used as an excuse to unfairly criticize Indian 
gaming. Indian gambling has, in many instances, helped Indian tribes 
improve reservation conditions and provide jobs where unemployment 
often ranges between 50 and 80 percent. In addition, it is my hope that 
a fair and hones study will help destroy some of the more harmful and 
false myths about Indian gaming. For instance, it is far from the truth 
that all tribes have become rich from Indian gaming. Right not 
approximately 130 out of 553 Indian tribes operate casino style gaming 
in 22 States. A few have become quite wealthy. The vast majority, 
however, of Indian tribes are making only modest profits. Some Indian 
casinos have even folded. And because Indian tribes are required by law 
to plow revenues back into tribal projects and not individual profits, 
Indian tribes have

[[Page H8044]]

been able to better the quality of life on their reservations by using 
casino revenues to offer better housing, education, health care, and 
safety to their members.
  My hope is that this commission will study Indian gambling as evenly 
and fairly as non-Indian gaming. If this happens then I have little 
doubt that the study, when completed will give Americans the 
information we need to better understand the positive and negative 
aspects of gaming in the United States.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I rise in opposition to H.R. 497, the National Gambling 
Impact Study Commission. Although the legislation the House is 
considering today is a substantial improvement over previous versions, 
I continue to have many strong reservations with this legislation.
  First and foremost, I see no reason why the Federal Government should 
be involved in a study of a legal, State-regulated industry. The gaming 
industry, like any other entertainment or tourism industry, is subject 
to careful review and oversight by individual States. In my State of 
Nevada, we can see first hand the success of a beneficial relationship 
between the gaming industry and its regulatory agency, the Nevada 
Gaming Commission. These two entities have worked together over the 
years in a manner that benefits everyone--the industry, the State, and 
the millions of tourists that visit Nevada annually. Nevada has 
certainly been the leader and model for other States to follow.
  Second, Mr. Speaker, I believe this commission is a terrible waste of 
taxpayer money. The data and information the commission will collect 
are already available from multiple studies that have already occurred. 
In this time of fiscal constraint, it is ridiculous to expend Federal 
dollars for a duplicative study.
  I continue to resist this legislation because I feel that the 
underlying agenda of this bill is to federally regulate and tax the 
industry. The gaming industry has a huge impact on the economy of 
Nevada and 47 other States in the country. It provides jobs and 
opportunities in communities that would not be available if gaming did 
not exist. While the proponents of this legislation may have good 
intentions, I will be unyielding in my commitment to ensure that the 
intent of this commission does not expand to prohibit this legal 
industry. In addition, I will work with the Speaker, Senate majority 
leader, and the President to ensure that we have an unbiased commission 
that will fairly evaluate the industry and provide a balanced report.
  Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 497 
not only because it is bad for Nevada, but because I believe it is bad 
for America. Again, Congress is spending more money on a study of which 
I question the validity. I question the wisdom of spending millions of 
dollars to create a new Government commission at a time when we are 
struggling to downside the Government and balance our budget.
  While I am pleased that efforts have been taken to limit the subpoena 
powers of the commission, it still baffles me why an advisory 
commission should hold such power. Most advisory commissions created by 
Congress or Federal agencies are not provided with subpoena power. This 
calls in question the very purpose of the gaming commission--and 
whether the commission can be objective.
  Mr. Speaker, objective information on gaming is needed, but I thought 
the 104th Congress was eliminating the Washington-knows-best syndrome. 
This bill just gives that syndrome more fuel for the fire. Gaming has 
always been a State responsibility, and many States have addressed the 
issues relating to gaming in a responsible manner. Getting the Federal 
Government involved not only infringes on States rights, but costs 
taxpayers money that could better be spent in education programs, 
health programs, or to eliminate our Federal deficit. My colleagues, 
you should rethink this issue and ask where you think the citizens of 
your State would rather spend their money. My guess--not on the gaming 
commission created by H.R. 497. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this bill.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Coble). The question on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde] that the House 
suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 497.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the Senate amendment was 
concurred in.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________