[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.
____________________