[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 165 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14863-S14870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 1999

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 158, S. 692.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 692) to prohibit Internet gambling, and for 
     other purposes.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on the Judiciary with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

                                 S. 692

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Internet Gambling 
     Prohibition Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON INTERNET GAMBLING.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 50 of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``Sec. 1085. Internet gambling

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Bets or wagers.--The term `bets or wagers'--
       ``(A) means the staking or risking by any person of 
     something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a 
     sporting event, or a game of chance, upon an agreement or 
     understanding that the person or another person will receive 
     something of value based on that outcome;
       ``(B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to 
     win a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is 
     predominantly subject to chance);
       ``(C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 
     3702 of title 28; and
       ``(D) does not include--
       ``(i) a bona fide business transaction governed by the 
     securities laws (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(47) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 
     78c(a)(47))) for the purchase or sale at a future date of 
     securities (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of 
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(10)));
       ``(ii) a transaction on or subject to the rules of a 
     contract market designated pursuant to section 5 of the 
     Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 7);
       ``(iii) a contract of indemnity or guarantee; or
       ``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance.
       ``(2) Closed-loop subscriber-based service.--The term 
     `closed-loop subscriber-based service' means any information 
     service or system that uses--
       ``(A) a device or combination of devices--
       ``(i) expressly authorized and operated in accordance with 
     the laws of a State, exclusively for placing, receiving, or 
     otherwise making a bet or wager described in subsection 
     (f)(1)(B); and
       ``(ii) by which a person located within any State must 
     subscribe and be registered with the provider of the wagering 
     service by name, address, and appropriate billing information 
     to be authorized to place, receive, or otherwise make a bet 
     or wager, and must be physically located within that State in 
     order to be authorized to do so;
       ``(B) an effective customer verification and age 
     verification system, expressly authorized and operated in 
     accordance with the laws of the State in which it is located, 
     to ensure that all applicable Federal and State legal and 
     regulatory requirements for lawful gambling are met; and
       ``(C) appropriate data security standards to prevent 
     unauthorized access by any person who has not subscribed or 
     who is a minor.
       ``(3) Foreign jurisdiction.--The term `foreign 
     jurisdiction' means a jurisdiction of a foreign country or 
     political subdivision thereof.
       ``(4) Gambling business.--The term `gambling business' 
     means--
       ``(A) a business that is conducted at a gambling 
     establishment, or that--
       ``(i) involves--

       ``(I) the placing, receiving, or otherwise making of bets 
     or wagers; or
       ``(II) the offering to engage in the placing, receiving, or 
     otherwise making of bets or wagers;

       ``(ii) involves 1 or more persons who conduct, finance, 
     manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such 
     business; and
       ``(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous 
     operation for a period in excess of 10 days or has a gross 
     revenue of $2,000 or more from such business during any 24-
     hour period; and
       ``(B) any soliciting agent of a business described in 
     subparagraph (A).
       ``(5) Information assisting in the placing of a bet or 
     wager.--The term `information assisting in the placing of a 
     bet or wager'--
       ``(A) means information that is intended by the sender or 
     recipient to be used by a person engaged in the business of 
     betting or wagering to place, receive, or otherwise make a 
     bet or wager; and
       ``(B) does not include--
       ``(i) information concerning parimutuel pools that is 
     exchanged exclusively between or among 1 or more racetracks 
     or other parimutuel wagering facilities licensed by the State 
     or approved by the foreign jurisdiction in which the facility 
     is located, and 1 or more parimutuel wagering facilities 
     licensed by the State or approved by the foreign jurisdiction 
     in which the facility is located, if that information is used 
     only to conduct common pool parimutuel pooling under 
     applicable law;
       ``(ii) information exchanged exclusively between or among 1 
     or more racetracks or other parimutuel wagering facilities 
     licensed by the State or approved by the foreign jurisdiction 
     in which the facility is located, and a support service 
     located in another State or foreign jurisdiction, if the 
     information is used only for processing bets or wagers made 
     with that facility under applicable law;
       ``(iii) information exchanged exclusively between or among 
     1 or more wagering facilities that are located within a 
     single State and are licensed and regulated by that State, 
     and any support service, wherever located, if the information 
     is used only for the pooling or processing of bets or wagers 
     made by or with the facility or facilities under applicable 
     State law;
       ``(iv) any news reporting or analysis of wagering activity, 
     including odds, racing or event results, race and event 
     schedules, or categories of wagering; or
       ``(v) any posting or reporting of any educational 
     information on how to make a bet or wager or the nature of 
     betting or wagering.
       ``(6) Interactive computer service.--The term `interactive 
     computer service' means any information service, system, or 
     access software provider that operates in, or uses a channel 
     or instrumentality of, interstate or foreign commerce to 
     provide or enable access by multiple users to a computer 
     server, including specifically a service or system that 
     provides access to the Internet.
       ``(7) Interactive computer service provider.--The term 
     `interactive computer service provider' means any person that 
     provides an interactive computer service, to the extent that 
     such person offers or provides such service.
       ``(8) Internet.--The term `Internet' means the 
     international computer network of both Federal and non-
     Federal interoperable packet switched data networks.
       ``(9) Person.--The term `person' means any individual, 
     association, partnership, joint venture, corporation (or any 
     affiliate of a corporation), State or political subdivision 
     thereof, department, agency, or instrumentality of a State or 
     political subdivision thereof, or any other government, 
     organization, or entity (including any governmental entity 
     (as defined in section 3701(2) of title 28)).
       ``(10) Private network.--The term `private network' means a 
     communications channel or channels, including voice or 
     computer data transmission facilities, that use either--
       ``(A) private dedicated lines; or
       ``(B) the public communications infrastructure, if the 
     infrastructure is secured by means of the appropriate private 
     communications technology to prevent unauthorized access.
       ``(11) State.--The term `State' means a State of the United 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, or a commonwealth, territory, or possession of the 
     United States.
       ``(12) Subscriber.--The term `subscriber'--
       ``(A) means any person with a business relationship with 
     the interactive computer service provider through which such 
     person receives access to the system, service, or network of 
     that provider, even if no formal subscription agreement 
     exists; and
       ``(B) includes registrants, students who are granted access 
     to a university system or network, and employees or 
     contractors who are granted access to the system or network 
     of their employer.
       ``(b) Internet Gambling.--
       ``(1) Prohibition.--Subject to subsection (f), it shall be 
     unlawful for a person engaged in a gambling business 
     knowingly to use the Internet or any other interactive 
     computer service--
       ``(A) to place, receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager; 
     or
       ``(B) to send, receive, or invite information assisting in 
     the placing of a bet or wager.
       ``(2) Penalties.--A person engaged in a gambling business 
     who violates this section shall be--
       ``(A) fined in an amount equal to not more than the greater 
     of--
       ``(i) the total amount that such person bet or wagered, or 
     placed, received, or accepted in bets or wagers, as a result 
     of engaging in that business in violation of this section; or
       ``(ii) $20,000;
       ``(B) imprisoned not more than 4 years; or
       ``(C) both.
       ``(3) Permanent injunctions.--Upon conviction of a person 
     under this section, the court may enter a permanent 
     injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or 
     otherwise making bets or wagers or sending, receiving, or 
     inviting information assisting in the placing of bets or 
     wagers.

[[Page S14864]]

       ``(c) Civil Remedies.--
       ``(1) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United 
     States shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to 
     prevent and restrain violations of this section by issuing 
     appropriate orders in accordance with this section, 
     regardless of whether a prosecution has been initiated under 
     this section.
       ``(2) Proceedings.--
       ``(A) Institution by federal government.--
       ``(i) In general.--The United States may institute 
     proceedings under this subsection to prevent or restrain a 
     violation of this section.
       ``(ii) Relief.--Upon application of the United States under 
     this subparagraph, the district court may enter a temporary 
     restraining order or an injunction against any person to 
     prevent or restrain a violation of this section if the court 
     determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, 
     that there is a substantial probability that such violation 
     has occurred or will occur.
       ``(B) Institution by state attorney general.--
       ``(i) In general.--The attorney general of a State (or 
     other appropriate State official) in which a violation of 
     this section allegedly has occurred or will occur, after 
     providing written notice to the United States, may institute 
     proceedings under this subsection to prevent or restrain the 
     violation.
       ``(ii) Relief.--Upon application of the attorney general 
     (or other appropriate State official) of an affected State 
     under this subparagraph, the district court may enter a 
     temporary restraining order or an injunction against any 
     person to prevent or restrain a violation of this section if 
     the court determines, after notice and an opportunity for a 
     hearing, that there is a substantial probability that such 
     violation has occurred or will occur.
       ``(C) Indian lands.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and 
     (B), for a violation that is alleged to have occurred, or may 
     occur, on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4 
     of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703))--
       ``(i) the United States shall have the enforcement 
     authority provided under subparagraph (A); and
       ``(ii) the enforcement authorities specified in an 
     applicable Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 
     of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2710) shall be 
     carried out in accordance with that compact.
       ``(D) Expiration.--Any temporary restraining order or 
     preliminary injunction entered pursuant to subparagraph (A) 
     or (B) shall expire if, and as soon as, the United States, or 
     the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of 
     the State, as applicable, notifies the court that issued the 
     order or injunction that the United States or the State, as 
     applicable, will not seek a permanent injunction.
       ``(3) Expedited proceedings.--
       ``(A) In general.--In addition to any proceeding under 
     paragraph (2), a district court may, in exigent 
     circumstances, enter a temporary restraining order against a 
     person alleged to be in violation of this section upon 
     application of the United States under paragraph (2)(A), or 
     the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of 
     an affected State under paragraph (2)(B), without notice and 
     the opportunity for a hearing as provided in rule 65(b) of 
     the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (except as provided in 
     subsection (d)(3)), if the United States or the State, as 
     applicable, demonstrates that there is probable cause to 
     believe that the use of the Internet or other interactive 
     computer service at issue violates this section.
       ``(B) Hearings.--A hearing requested concerning an order 
     entered under this paragraph shall be held at the earliest 
     practicable time.
       ``(d) Interactive Computer Service Providers.--
       ``(1) Immunity from liability for use by another.--
       ``(A) In general.--An interactive computer service provider 
     described in subparagraph (B) shall not be liable, under this 
     section or any other provision of Federal or State law 
     prohibiting or regulating gambling or gambling-related 
     activities, for the use of its facilities or services by 
     another person to engage in Internet gambling activity that 
     violates such law--
       ``(i) arising out of any transmitting, routing, or 
     providing of connections for gambling-related material or 
     activity (including intermediate and temporary storage in the 
     course of such transmitting, routing, or providing 
     connections) by the provider, if--

       ``(I) the material or activity was initiated by or at the 
     direction of a person other than the provider;
       ``(II) the transmitting, routing, or providing of 
     connections is carried out through an automatic process 
     without selection of the material or activity by the 
     provider;
       ``(III) the provider does not select the recipients of the 
     material or activity, except as an automatic response to the 
     request of another person; and
       ``(IV) the material or activity is transmitted through the 
     system or network of the provider without modification of its 
     content; or

       ``(ii) arising out of any gambling-related material or 
     activity at an online site residing on a computer server 
     owned, controlled, or operated by or for the provider, or 
     arising out of referring or linking users to an online 
     location containing such material or activity, if the 
     material or activity was initiated by or at the direction of 
     a person other than the provider, unless the provider fails 
     to take expeditiously, with respect to the particular 
     material or activity at issue, the actions described in 
     paragraph (2)(A) following the receipt by the provider of a 
     notice described in paragraph (2)(B).
       ``(B) Eligibility.--An interactive computer service 
     provider is described in this subparagraph only if the 
     provider--
       ``(i) maintains and implements a written or electronic 
     policy that requires the provider to terminate the account of 
     a subscriber of its system or network expeditiously following 
     the receipt by the provider of a notice described in 
     paragraph (2)(B) alleging that such subscriber has violated 
     or is violating this section; and
       ``(ii) with respect to the particular material or activity 
     at issue, has not knowingly permitted its computer server to 
     be used to engage in activity that the provider knows is 
     prohibited by this section, with the specific intent that 
     such server be used for such purpose.
       ``(2) Notice to interactive computer service providers.--
       ``(A) In general.--If an interactive computer service 
     provider receives from a Federal or State law enforcement 
     agency, acting within its authority and jurisdiction, a 
     written or electronic notice described in subparagraph (B), 
     that a particular online site residing on a computer server 
     owned, controlled, or operated by or for the provider is 
     being used by another person to violate this section, the 
     provider shall expeditiously--
       ``(i) remove or disable access to the material or activity 
     residing at that online site that allegedly violates this 
     section; or
       ``(ii) in any case in which the provider does not control 
     the site at which the subject material or activity resides, 
     the provider, through any agent of the provider designated in 
     accordance with section 512(c)(2) of title 17, or other 
     responsible identified employee or contractor--

       ``(I) notify the Federal or State law enforcement agency 
     that the provider is not the proper recipient of such notice; 
     and
       ``(II) upon receipt of a subpoena, cooperate with the 
     Federal or State law enforcement agency in identifying the 
     person or persons who control the site.

       ``(B) Notice.--A notice is described in this subparagraph 
     only if it--
       ``(i) identifies the material or activity that allegedly 
     violates this section, and alleges that such material or 
     activity violates this section;
       ``(ii) provides information reasonably sufficient to permit 
     the provider to locate (and, as appropriate, in a notice 
     issued pursuant to paragraph (3)(A) to block access to) the 
     material or activity;
       ``(iii) is supplied to any agent of a provider designated 
     in accordance with section 512(c)(2) of title 17, if 
     information regarding such designation is readily available 
     to the public;
       ``(iv) provides information that is reasonably sufficient 
     to permit the provider to contact the law enforcement agency 
     that issued the notice, including the name of the law 
     enforcement agency, and the name and telephone number of an 
     individual to contact at the law enforcement agency (and, if 
     available, the electronic mail address of that individual); 
     and
       ``(v) declares under penalties of perjury that the person 
     submitting the notice is an official of the law enforcement 
     agency described in clause (iv).
       ``(3) Injunctive relief.--
       ``(A) In general.--The United States, or a State law 
     enforcement agency acting within its authority and 
     jurisdiction, may, not less than 24 hours following the 
     issuance to an interactive computer service provider of a 
     notice described in paragraph (2)(B), in a civil action, 
     obtain a temporary restraining order, or an injunction to 
     prevent the use of the interactive computer service by 
     another person in violation of this section.
       ``(B) Limitations.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this section, in the case of any application for a temporary 
     restraining order or an injunction against an interactive 
     computer service provider described in paragraph (1)(B) to 
     prevent a violation of this section--
       ``(i) arising out of activity described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(i), the injunctive relief is limited to--

       ``(I) an order restraining the provider from providing 
     access to an identified subscriber of the system or network 
     of the interactive computer service provider, if the court 
     determines that there is probable cause to believe that such 
     subscriber is using that access to violate this section (or 
     to engage with another person in a communication that 
     violates this section), by terminating the specified account 
     of that subscriber; and
       ``(II) an order restraining the provider from providing 
     access, by taking reasonable steps specified in the order to 
     block access, to a specific, identified, foreign online 
     location;

       ``(ii) arising out of activity described in paragraph 
     (1)(A)(ii), the injunctive relief is limited to--

       ``(I) the orders described in clause (i)(I);
       ``(II) an order restraining the provider from providing 
     access to the material or activity that violates this section 
     at a particular online site residing on a computer server 
     operated or controlled by the provider; and
       ``(III) such other injunctive remedies as the court 
     considers necessary to prevent or restrain access to 
     specified material or activity that is prohibited by this 
     section at a particular online location residing on a 
     computer server operated or controlled by the provider, that 
     are the least burdensome to the provider among the forms of 
     relief that are comparably effective for that purpose.

       ``(C) Considerations.--The court, in determining 
     appropriate injunctive relief under this paragraph, shall 
     consider--
       ``(i) whether such an injunction, either alone or in 
     combination with other such injunctions issued, and currently 
     operative, against the same provider would significantly 
     (and, in the case of relief under subparagraph (B)(ii), 
     taking into account, among other factors, the conduct of the 
     provider, unreasonably) burden either the provider or the 
     operation of the system or network of the provider;

[[Page S14865]]

       ``(ii) whether implementation of such an injunction would 
     be technically feasible and effective, and would not 
     materially interfere with access to lawful material at other 
     online locations;
       ``(iii) whether other less burdensome and comparably 
     effective means of preventing or restraining access to the 
     illegal material or activity are available; and
       ``(iv) the magnitude of the harm likely to be suffered by 
     the community if the injunction is not granted.
       ``(D) Notice and ex parte orders.--Injunctive relief under 
     this paragraph shall not be available without notice to the 
     service provider and an opportunity for such provider to 
     appear before the court, except for orders ensuring the 
     preservation of evidence or other orders having no material 
     adverse effect on the operation of the communications network 
     of the service provider.
       ``(4) Effect on other law.--
       ``(A) Immunity from liability for compliance.--An 
     interactive computer service provider shall not be liable for 
     any damages, penalty, or forfeiture, civil or criminal, under 
     Federal or State law for taking in good faith any action 
     described in paragraph (2)(A) to comply with a notice 
     described in paragraph (2)(B), or complying with any court 
     order issued under paragraph (3).
       ``(B) Disclaimer of obligations.--Nothing in this section 
     may be construed to impose or authorize an obligation on an 
     interactive computer service provider described in paragraph 
     (1)(B)--
       ``(i) to monitor material or use of its service; or
       ``(ii) except as required by a notice or an order of a 
     court under this subsection, to gain access to, to remove, or 
     to disable access to material.
       ``(C) Rights of subscribers.--Nothing in this section may 
     be construed to prejudice the right of a subscriber to secure 
     an appropriate determination, as otherwise provided by law, 
     in a Federal court or in a State or local tribunal or agency, 
     that the account of such subscriber should not be terminated 
     pursuant to this subsection, or should be restored.
       ``(e) Availability of Relief.--The availability of relief 
     under subsections (c) and (d) shall not depend on, or be 
     affected by, the initiation or resolution of any action under 
     subsection (b), or under any other provision of Federal or 
     State law.
       ``(f) Applicability.--
       ``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
     prohibition in this section does not apply to--
       ``(A) any otherwise lawful bet or wager that is placed, 
     received, or otherwise made wholly intrastate for a State 
     lottery, or for a multi-State lottery operated jointly 
     between 2 or more States in conjunction with State lotteries 
     if--
       ``(i) each such lottery is expressly authorized, and 
     licensed or regulated, under applicable State law;
       ``(ii) the bet or wager is placed on an interactive 
     computer service that uses a private network;
       ``(iii) each person placing or otherwise making that bet or 
     wager is physically located when such bet or wager is placed 
     at a facility that is open to the general public; and
       ``(iv) each such lottery complies with sections 1301 
     through 1304, and other applicable provisions of Federal law;
       ``(B) any otherwise lawful bet or wager that is placed, 
     received, or otherwise made on an interstate or intrastate 
     basis on a live horse or a live dog race, or the sending, 
     receiving, or inviting of information assisting in the 
     placing of such a bet or wager, if such bet or wager, or the 
     transmission of such information, as applicable, is--
       ``(i) expressly authorized, and licensed or regulated by 
     the State in which such bet or wager is received, under 
     applicable Federal and such State's laws;
       ``(ii) placed on a closed-loop subscriber-based service;
       ``(iii) initiated from a State in which betting or wagering 
     on that same type of live horse or live dog racing is lawful 
     and received in a State in which such betting or wagering is 
     lawful;
       ``(iv) subject to the regulatory oversight of the State in 
     which the bet or wager is received and subject by such State 
     to minimum control standards for the accounting, regulatory 
     inspection, and auditing of all such bets or wagers 
     transmitted from 1 State to another; and
       ``(v) in the case of--

       ``(I) live horse racing, made in accordance with the 
     Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.); 
     or
       ``(II) live dog racing, subject to consent agreements that 
     are comparable to those required by the Interstate Horse 
     Racing Act of 1978, approved by the appropriate State 
     regulatory agencies, in the State receiving the signal, and 
     in the State in which the bet or wager originates; or

       ``(C) any otherwise lawful bet or wager that is placed, 
     received, or otherwise made for a fantasy sports league game 
     or contest.
       ``(2) Bets or wagers made by agents or proxies.--
       ``(A) In general.--Paragraph (1) does not apply in any case 
     in which a bet or wager is placed, received, or otherwise 
     made by the use of an agent or proxy using the Internet or an 
     interactive computer service.
       ``(B) Qualification.--Nothing in this paragraph may be 
     construed to prohibit the owner operator of a parimutuel 
     wagering facility that is licensed by a State from employing 
     an agent in the operation of the account wagering system 
     owned or operated by the parimutuel facility.
       ``(3) Advertising and promotion.--The prohibition of 
     subsection (b)(1)(B) does not apply to advertising or 
     promotion of any activity that is not prohibited by 
     subsection (b)(1)(A).
       ``(g) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to affect any prohibition or remedy applicable to a 
     person engaged in a gambling business under any other 
     provision of Federal or State law.''.
       (b) Technical Amendment.--The analysis for chapter 50 of 
     title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:

``1085. Internet gambling.''.

     SEC. 3. REPORT ON ENFORCEMENT.

       Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this 
     Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report, 
     which shall include--
       (1) an analysis of the problems, if any, associated with 
     enforcing section 1085 of title 18, United States Code, as 
     added by section 2 of this Act;
       (2) recommendations for the best use of the resources of 
     the Department of Justice to enforce that section; and
       (3) an estimate of the amount of activity and money being 
     used to gamble on the Internet.

     SEC. 4. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this 
     Act, or the application of such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the 
     remainder of this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and 
     the application of this Act and the provisions of such 
     amendments to any other person or circumstance shall not be 
     affected thereby.


                           Amendment No. 2782

              (Purpose: To provide a complete substitute)

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Kyl, for 
     himself and Mr. Bryan, proposes an amendment numbered 2782.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under 
``Amendments Submitted.'')


                Amendment No. 2783 To Amendment No. 2782

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Maine [Ms. Collins], for Mr. Campbell, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2783 to amendment No. 2782.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 35 of the Kyl-Bryan substitute, after line 18, 
     insert the following:
       (4) Indian Gaming.--
       (A) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the prohibition 
     in this section does not apply to any otherwise lawful bet or 
     wager that is placed, received, or otherwise made on any game 
     that constitutes class II gaming or class III gaming (as 
     those terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 
     Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2703), or the sending, receiving, 
     or inviting of information assisting in the placing of any 
     such bet or wager, as applicable, if--
       (i) the game is permitted under and conducted in accordance 
     with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et 
     seq.);
       (ii) each person placing, receiving, or otherwise making 
     such bet or wager, or transmitting such information, is 
     physically located on Indian lands (as that term is defined 
     in section 4 of Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2703) 
     when such person places, receives, or otherwise makes the bet 
     or wager, or transmits such information;
       (iii) the game is conducted on a closed-loop subscriber-
     based system or a private network; and
       (iv) in the case of a game that constitutes class III 
     gaming--
       (I) the game is authorized under, and is conducted in 
     accordance with, the respective Tribal-State compacts 
     (entered into and approved pursuant to section 11(d) of the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. 2710) governing 
     gaming activity on the Indian lands, in each respective 
     State, on which each person placing, receiving, or otherwise 
     making such bet or wager, or transmitting such information, 
     is physically located when such person places, receives, or 
     otherwise makes the bet or wager, or transmits such 
     information; and
       (II) each such Tribal-State compact expressly provides that 
     the game may be conducted using the Internet or other 
     interactive computer service only on a closed-loop 
     subscriber-based system or a private network.
       (B) Activities under existing compacts.--The requirement of 
     subparagraph (A)(iv)(II) shall not apply in the case of 
     gaming activity, otherwise subject to this section, that was 
     being conducted on Indian lands on September 1, 1999, with 
     the approval of the state gaming commission or like 
     regulatory authority of the State in which such Indian lands 
     are located, but without such required compact approval, 
     until the date on which the compact governing gaming activity 
     on

[[Page S14866]]

     such Indian lands expires (exclusive of any automatic or 
     discretionary renewal or extension of such compact), so long 
     as such gaming activity is conducted using the Internet or 
     other interactive computer service only on a closed-loop 
     subscriber-based system or a private network. For purposes of 
     this subparagraph, the phrase ``conducted on Indian lands'' 
     shall refer to all Indian lands on which any person placing, 
     receiving, or otherwise making a bet or wager, or sending, 
     receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing 
     of a bet or wager, is physically located when such person 
     places, receives, or otherwise makes the bet or wager, or 
     sends, receives, or invites such information.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 692, the 
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. As we move toward passage of 
this landmark legislation, I want to thank especially Senator Bryan, 
the original cosponsor of S. 692, Senator Feinstein, the ranking member 
of the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism, and Government 
Information, and Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. I also want to acknowledge the role of Senator Campbell in 
helping ensure that the legislation addressed issues of concern to 
Indian tribes, and Senator Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee, who helped advance S. 692 notwithstanding his differences 
with some of its features. Finally, I want to thank all of my 
colleagues who joined the legislation as cosponsors following its 
introduction.
  S. 692 enjoys extraordinarily broad public support. Those supporting 
it--ranging from Federal and State law-enforcement authorities to 
religious, consumer, and family groups, from the professional and 
amateur sports leagues to the thoroughbred racing industry--are fully 
identified in the Judiciary Committee report accompanying the bill. I 
want to acknowledge, in particular, the support of the National 
Association of Attorneys General, the National Football League, and the 
National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the constructive role 
played by the American Horse Council, the Major League Baseball Players 
Association, and America Online, which spearheaded a coalition of 
Internet service providers and others interested in this legislation. I 
would particularly like to thank David Remes, Gerry Waldron, Marty 
Gold, Daniel Nestel, and Stephen Higgins, whose hard work and 
diplomatic skills played an important role in securing the passage of 
the bill by unanimous consent.
  The bill we are voting on today, which the Judiciary Committee 
approved in June by a recorded vote of 16-1, is the culmination of 
efforts begun in the last Congress, when Senator Bryan and I first 
introduced legislation to prohibit Internet gambling. That legislation, 
S. 474, was approved by the Judiciary Committee in August 1997 and 
passed by a 90-10 vote as an amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill in July 1998. The Subcommittee on Crime of the 
House Judiciary Committee held hearings on an Internet gambling bill in 
that the last Congress (H.R. 2380) and approved a revised version of 
the bill (H.R. 4427), but the House did not complete action on the 
legislation due to the lateness of the session, and the Senate language 
was not included in the final version of the appropriations measure. 
New legislation, similar to S. 692, has been introduced in the House in 
this Congress, and I am quite hopeful that Internet gambling 
legislation will be enacted into law early next year.
  Mr. President, as documented in the Judiciary Committee's report, 
both the number of Internet gambling sites, and Internet gambling 
revenues, have grown rapidly since Internet gambling first appeared in 
the summer of 1995. Two studies cited by the National Gambling Impact 
Study Commission in its ``Final Report'' to Congress this summer 
indicate that Internet gambling revenues have doubled every year for 
the past three years. One study reported growth from $300 million in 
1998 to $651 million in 1999, and projected revenues of $2.3 billion by 
2001. Another study reported growth from $445.4 million in 1997 to 
$919.1 million in 1998. The Commission noted estimates by the Financial 
Times and Smith Barney that Internet gambling will reach annual 
revenues of $10 billion early in the new millennium. A third study 
cited by the Commission found that the number of online gamblers had 
increased from 6.9 million to 14.5 million between 1997 and 1998. 
According to the Commission, ``virtually all observers assume the rapid 
growth of Internet gambling will continue.''
  It is no exaggeration to say that the Internet has brought gambling 
into every home that has purchased a computer and chosen to go online. 
According to the Department of Commerce, 26.2 percent of U.S. 
households had Internet access at the end of 1998, representing 27 
million households. That percentage will undoubtedly continue to grow 
(millions of other U.S. households have computers but simply have not 
yet chosen to go online) until, not long from now, online home 
computers will be as commonplace as the humble telephone--which, like 
the telegraph before it, seemed as revolutionary and wondrous, in its 
day, as the Internet seems today.

  As a new technology, the Internet presents new problems that current 
law must be updated to address. These problems, which S. 692 is 
designed to remedy, are extensively documented in the Judiciary 
Committee's report. They include, among others, serious harms to our 
young people, who are the most adept users of Internet; harms from 
gambling on professional and amateur sports events and athletic 
performances; and harms relating to pathological gambling and criminal 
activity. It is vital that we legislate to prevent the Internet from 
being used as an instrument of gambling and establish an effective 
mechanism--specifically tailored to this new medium--for enforcing that 
prohibition. In establishing such a mechanism, however, it is also 
important to avoid impeding or disrupting the use of the Internet as an 
instrument of lawful activity. I am confident that S. 602 meets these 
objectives. Moreover, the fact that the legislation is strongly 
supported by the chief law enforcement officers of the States is 
compelling evidence that it strikes the right balance between Federal 
and State authority in this area.
  S. 692 creates a new section 1085 of title 18. It prohibits any 
person engaged in a gambling business from using the Internet to place, 
receive, or otherwise make a bet or wager, or to send, receive, or 
invite information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager, and it 
establishes mechanisms tailored to the Internet to enforce this 
prohibition. The new section provides criminal penalties for 
violations, authorizes civil enforcement proceedings by Federal and 
State authorities, and establishes mechanisms for requiring Internet 
service providers to terminate or block access to material or activity 
that violates the prohibition.
  Because section 1085, as reported by the Judiciary Committee, is 
comprehensively analyzed in the Judiciary Committee's report, I will 
only describe its structure here. Section 1085(a) contains definitions. 
Section 1085(b) contains the prohibitions and criminal penalties. 
Section 1085(c) provides for civil actions by the United States and the 
States to prevent and restrain violations, applicable to persons other 
than Internet service providers. Section 1085(d) establishes 
responsibilities for Internet service providers, enforceable through 
civil injunction actions by Federal and State authorities, and grants 
providers specified immunities from liability. Section 1085(e) 
specifies that the availability of relief under subsections (c) and 
(d), which is civil in nature, is independent of any criminal action 
under subsection (b) or any other Federal or State law. Section 1085(f) 
specifies categories of activities that, if otherwise lawful, are not 
subject to the prohibition of subsection (b). This subsection addresses 
State lotteries, pari-mutuel animal wagering, Indian gaming, and 
fantasy sports league games and contests. Section 1085(f) specifically 
preserves the regulatory authority of the States with respect to 
gambling and gambling-related activities not subject to the prohibition 
of subsection (b), but nothing in section 1085 authorizes 
discriminatory or other action by a State that would otherwise violate 
the Commerce Clause. Section 1085(g) specifies that section 1085 does 
not create immunity from any criminal prosecution under any provision 
of Federal or State law, except as provided in subsection (d), and does 
not affect any prohibition or remedy applicable to a person engaged in 
a gambling business under any other provision of Federal or State law.
  Mr. President, the bill we are voting on today has been modified in 
several

[[Page S14867]]

respects from the version reported by the Judiciary Committee. All but 
one of those modifications affect section 1085. The other affects 
section 3 of the bill, which calls for a report to Congress by the 
Department of Justice two years after enactment.
  Proceedings by Sports Organizations. The bill has been amended by 
adding a new subparagraph (C) to section 1085(c)(2) to authorize a 
professional or amateur sports organization whose games, or the 
performances of whose athletes in such games, are alleged to be the 
basis of a violation of section 1085 to institute civil proceedings in 
an appropriate district court of the United States to prevent or 
restrain the violation. The right of action provided by this 
subparagraph is similar to the right of action for sports organizations 
provided in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, 28 
U.S.C. 3701 et seq., which Congress passed in 1992 to halt the spread 
of legalized sports betting and S. 692 is intended to reinforce. The 
new subparagraph limits proceedings, by sports organizations against 
interactive computer service providers.

  Advertising and promotion of Non-Internet Gambling. The bill has been 
amended by adding a new paragraph (4) to section 1085(d) to address the 
responsibilities and immunities of an Internet service provider 
relating to the use of its facilities by another person to advertise or 
promote non-online gambling. Paragraph (4) generally mirrors the 
approach of paragraph (1), which addresses the responsibilities and 
immunities of an Internet service provider relating to the use of its 
facilities by another person to engage in online gambling activity. 
Paragraph (4) provides that, if specified conditions are met, a 
provider shall not be liable, under any provision of Federal or State 
law prohibiting or regulating gambling or gambling-related activities, 
or under any State law prohibiting or regulating advertising and 
promotional activities, either (1) for content, provided by another 
person, that advertises or promotes non-Internet gambling activity that 
is unlawful under such Federal or State law, arising out of any of the 
activities described in section 1085(d)(1)(A)(i) or (ii); or (2) for 
content, provided by another person, that advertises or promotes non-
Internet gambling activity that is lawful under both Federal law and 
the law of the State where the gambling activity is being conducted. To 
be eligible for immunity under paragraph (4), a provider must, among 
other things, offer residential customers at reasonable cost computer 
software, or another filtering or blocking system, that includes the 
capability of filtering or blocking access by minors to Internet 
gambling sites that violate section 1085. Paragraph (4) provides for 
injunctive relief under specified circumstances.
  Horse Racing. The bill has been amended by adding language to 
subsection (f)(1)(B)(v)(I) to recognize, expressly, the authority of 
the State in which the bet or wager originates to prohibit or regulate 
the activity relating to live horse races described in subparagraph 
(B). this authority was implicit; the amendment makes it explicit.
  Indian Gaming. The bill has been amended to address Indian gaming by 
adding a new paragraph (4) to section 1085(f). The new paragraph 
specifies that the prohibitions of section 1085 regarding the use of 
the Internet or other interactive computer service do not apply to any 
otherwise lawful bet or wager that is placed, received, or otherwise 
made on any game that constitutes class II gaming or class III gaming 
(as those terms are defined in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act), or 
the sending, receiving, or inviting of information assisting in the 
placing of any such bet or wager, as applicable, if four conditions are 
met.
  First, the game must be one that is permitted under and conducted in 
accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
  Second, each person placing, receiving, or otherwise making such bet 
or wager, or transmitting (i.e., sending, receiving, or inviting) such 
information, must be physically located in a gaming facility on Indian 
lands when such person places, receives, or otherwise makes the bet or 
wager, or transmits such information.
  Third, the game must be conducted on a closed-loop subscriber-based 
system or a private network.
  Fourth, in the case of a game that constitutes class III gaming, the 
game must be authorized under, and be conducted in accordance with, the 
respective Tribal-State compacts that govern gaming activity on the 
Indian lands on which each person placing, receiving, or otherwise 
making such bet or wager, or transmitting such information, is 
physically located when such person places, receives, or otherwise 
makes the bet or wager, or transmits such information. In addition, 
each such Tribal-State compact must expressly provide that the game may 
be conducted using the Internet or other interactive computer service 
only on a closed-loop subscriber-based system or a private network.

  To illustrate one application of the fourth condition, suppose that 
Person A, a player who is physically located on Indian lands in 
Florida, by using the Internet or other interactive computer service, 
places or makes a bet or wager with Person B, a person operating or 
employed by a casino who is physically located on Indian lands in 
Idaho. To be lawful under section 1085 in this illustration, the game, 
among other things, must be one that is expressly authorized (1) by the 
compact that governs gaming activity on the Indian lands in Florida on 
which Person A is physically located when he places or makes the bet or 
wager, and (2) by the compact that governs gaming activity on the 
Indian lands in Idaho on which Person B is physically located when the 
bet is placed, received, or otherwise made. In addition, both compacts 
must expressly provide such gaming activity may be conducted using the 
Internet or other interactive computer service only on a closed-loop 
subscriber-based system or a private network.
  Paragraph (4) further provides that the requirement of compact 
language expressly allowing the game to be conducted using the Internet 
or other interactive computer service, if a closed-loop subscriber-
based system or a private network is used, as set forth in paragraph 
(4)(A)(iv)(II), shall not apply in the case of gaming activity, 
otherwise subject to section 1085, that was being conducted on Indian 
lands using the Internet or other interactive computer service on 
September 1, 1999, with the approval of the State gaming commission or 
like regulatory authority of the State in which such Indian lands are 
located, but without the compact language required by paragraph 
(4)(A)(iv)(II). The exemption applies only until the date on which the 
compact governing gaming activity on such Indian lands expires 
(exclusive of any automatic or discretionary renewal or extension of 
such compact), and only to the extent that the gaming activity is 
conducted using the Interned or other interactive computer service on a 
closed-loop subscriber-based system or a private network. This 
exemption avoids the need to renegotiate compacts currently in effect 
if the specified conditions are satisfied. The exemption waives only 
the requirement of subparagraph (A)(iv)(II). It does not in any manner 
waive the compact authorization requirement of subparagraph (A)(iv)(I), 
the physical location requirement of subparagraph (A)(ii), the closed-
loop or private network requirement of subparagraph (A)(iii), or any 
other requirement of subparagraph (A).
  To use the previous illustration, if the compact that currently 
governs gaming on the Indian lands in Florida on which Person A is 
physically located when Person A places or makes the bet or wager does 
not expressly specify that the game may be conducted using the Internet 
or other interactive computer service (if a closed-loop subscriber-
based system or a private network is used), the game may nevertheless 
be conducted on those Indian lands using the Internet or other 
interactive computer service (if a closed-loop subscriber-based system 
or a private network is used), notwithstanding section 1085, until that 
compact expires, if the game was one that was conducted on those Indian 
lands in Florida using the Internet or other interactive computer 
service on September 1, 1999, with the approval of the gaming 
commission or like regulatory authority of Florida. After the compact 
expires, however, any gaming

[[Page S14868]]

on those Indian lands using the Internet or other interactive computer 
service is subject to the requirement of express approval (limited to 
use of a closed-loop subscriber-based system or a private network) in 
subsequent compacts governing gaming activity on those Indian lands.
  Rule of Construction. The bill has been amended by adding a new 
paragraph to section 1085(g) to make even more explicit that, except as 
provided in subsection (d), section 1085 does not create immunity from 
any criminal prosecution under any provision of Federal or State law. 
This amendment responds to a concern expressed by Senator Leahy.
  Report on Enforcement. Section 3 of S. 692 has been amended to 
require the Justice Department to include in the required report to 
Congress further information specified by the Gambling Impact Study 
Commission in its ``Final Report''.
  Mr. President, S. 692 is urgently needed to address a serious social 
problem. It reflects the very best thinking on how to update existing 
law to meet the challenges of a new technology. I respectfully urge its 
passage.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have long been an advocate for 
legislation that ensures that existing laws keep pace with developing 
technology. It is for this reason that I have sponsored and supported 
over the past few years a host of bills to bring us into the 21st 
Century.
  This same impetus underlies my support of legislation to ensure our 
nation's gambling laws keep pace with developing technology, 
particularly the Internet. The Department of Justice has noted that 
``the Internet has allowed for new types of electronic gambling, 
including interactive games such as poker or blackjack, that may not 
clearly be included within the types of gambling currently made 
illegal. . . .'' This new technology clearly has the potential to 
diminish the effectiveness of current gambling statutes.
  Vermonters have spoken clearly that they do not want certain types of 
gambling permitted in our state, and they do not want current laws to 
be rendered obsolete by the Internet. Vermont Attorney General William 
Sorrell strongly supports federal legislation to address Internet 
gambling, as do other law enforcement officials in Vermont.
  I believe, therefore, that there is considerable value in updating 
our federal gambling statutes, which is why I voted for S. 692, the 
``Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,'' during Senate Judiciary 
Committee consideration. I support the bill as a step forward in our 
bipartisan efforts to make sure our federal laws continue to keep pace 
with emerging technologies.
  I do, however, have concerns that S. 692 might unnecessarily weaken 
existing federal and state gambling laws.
  My first concern is that the bill provides unnecessary exemptions 
from its Internet gambling ban for certain forms of gambling activities 
without a clear public policy justification. For example, the bill 
exempts parimutuel wagering on horse and dog racing from its ban on 
Internet gambling. The sponsors of S. 692 have offered no compelling 
reason for this special treatment of one form of gambling. Indeed, the 
Department of Justice is ``especially troubled by the broad exemptions 
given to parimutuel wagering, which essentially would make legal on the 
Internet types of parimutuel wagering that are not legal in the 
physical world,'' according to its June 9, 1999 views letter on S. 692.
  Broad exemptions from the Internet gambling ban also contradict the 
recent recommendations to Congress of the National Gambling Impact 
Study Commission. After 2 years of taking testimony at hearings across 
the country, the Commission has endorsed the need for Federal 
legislation to prohibit Internet gambling. But the Commission clearly 
rejected adding new exemptions to the law in such a ban.
  Indeed, in a letter to me dated June 15, 1999, Kay C. James, Chair, 
and William Bible, Commissioner, of the National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission, wrote:

       The Commission recommends to the President, Congress, and 
     the Department of Justice (DOJ) that the Federal government 
     should prohibit, without allowing new exemptions or the 
     expansion of existing federal exemptions to other 
     jurisdictions, Internet gambling not already authorized 
     within the United States or among parties in the United 
     States and any foreign jurisdiction. (emphasis in the 
     original)

  My second concern is that the bill unnecessarily creates a new 
section in our Federal gambling statutes, which may prove inconsistent 
with existing law and established legal precedent. Instead of updating 
section 1084 of title 18, which has prohibited interstate gambling 
through wire communications since 1961, S. 692 creates a new section 
1085 to title 18 to cover Internet gambling only. Creating a new 
section out of whole cloth with different definitions and other 
provisions from existing Federal gambling statutes creates overlapping 
and inconsistent Federal gambling laws for no good reason.
  According to its views letter on S. 692, the Department of Justice 
believes overlapping and inconsistent Federal gambling laws can be 
easily avoided by amending section 1084 of title 18 to cover Internet 
gambling:

       We therefore strongly recommend that Congress address the 
     objective of this legislation through amending existing 
     gambling laws, rather than creating new laws that 
     specifically govern the Internet. Indeed, the Department of 
     Justice believes that an amendment to section 1084 of title 
     18 could satisfy many of the concerns addressed in S. 692, as 
     well as ensure that the same laws apply to gambling 
     businesses, whether they operate over the Internet, the 
     telephone, or some other instrumentality of interstate 
     commerce.

  I want to thank the sponsors of the legislation, Senators Kyl and 
Bryan, for addressing my third concern in their substitute amendment. I 
was concerned that the bill might unnecessarily create immunity from 
criminal prosecution under State law for Internet gambling. Any new 
immunity would have been in sharp contrast to existing Federal law, 
which specifically does not grant immunity from State prosecution for 
illegal gambling over wire communications.

  To address this concern, the substitute amendment adds a new Rules of 
Construction section, section 2 (g)(1), which I authored. This section 
makes it clear that, except for the liability limits provided to 
Interactive Computer Service Providers in section 2 (d) of the bill, S. 
692 does not provide any other immunity from Federal or State 
prosecution for illegal Internet gambling.
  Indeed, the New York Attorney General recently prosecuted an offshore 
Internet gambling company, World Interactive Gaming Corporation, for 
targeting New York citizens in violation of State and Federal anti-
gambling statutes. This past July, the New York State Supreme Court 
upheld that prosecution.
  As a former State prosecutor in Vermont, I strongly believe that 
Congress should not tie the hands of our State crime-fighting partners 
in the battle against Internet gambling when we do not mandate Federal 
preemption of state criminal laws for other forms of illegal gambling. 
Instead, we need to foster effective Federal-State partnerships to 
combat illegal Internet gambling.
  During our consideration of the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act in 
this Congress and the last, the sponsors of the bill and members of the 
Senate Judiciary Committee have improved and refined the bill on a 
bipartisan basis. The bill now applies only to gambling businesses, 
instead of individual betters. This will permit Federal authorities to 
target the prosecution of interstate gambling businesses, while rightly 
leaving the prosecution of individual bettors to the discretion of 
state authorities acting under state law.
  As Senators continue to work together to enact a ban on Internet 
gambling, we should keep these words from the Department of Justice 
foremost in our minds: ``[A]ny prohibitions that are designed to 
prohibit criminal activity on the Internet must be carefully drafted to 
accomplish the legislation's objectives without stifling the growth of 
the Internet or chilling its use as a communication medium.''
  I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle and the administration to enact into law carefully drafted 
legislation to update our Federal gambling statutes to ensure that new 
types of gambling activities made possible by emerging technologies are 
prohibited.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I express my deep appreciation and 
thanks to Senator Kyl for his diligent

[[Page S14869]]

work to help resolve my concerns. This compromise is reflected in 
section 1085. This language is very important to permitting parimutuel 
wagering on horse racing to be exempted from the prohibition on 
Internet gambling that we are enacting.
  The new language makes explicit which was implicit and assures that 
every State has the right to establish requirements for Internet and 
phone wagering that will best serve the public and governmental 
interests of the State and to do so, if it wishes, before such wagering 
takes place. I believe this is so important because it ensures that a 
State will have its traditional authority to safeguard the interests of 
its consumers and racing industry through the regulatory and approval 
process of proposed phone or Internet wagering.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today the Senate considers S. 692, 
entitled the ``Internet Gaming Prohibition Act.'' As my colleagues 
know, I support this measure but from the day this bill was introduced 
I have had concerns about its scope. As Chairman of the Committee on 
Indian Affairs I have been concerned that existing law, namely the 
Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, would be irreparably harmed unless we 
made certain changes to the bill.
  This is an important bill and I support the intent of the bill's 
sponsors to make it more difficult for this kind of gaming to be 
conducted, particularly by underage players.
  If enacted, this bill would prohibit Internet gambling, but make 
exceptions for certain segments of the gaming industry which currently 
use a variety of technologies to enhance traditional gaming.
  It is important for my colleagues to realize that the bill does not 
prohibit all forms of gaming using available high-technology. When I 
reviewed S. 692 for the first time, I realized that certain gaming 
activities currently being conducted by Indian tribes would be 
prohibited by this bill.
  My concerns centered on the fact that the same or similar activities 
were allowed to other entities--such as the states, the horse-racing 
industry and others--that were disallowed to tribes. This fundamental 
inequity is what led me to propose fair treatment for tribal 
governmental gaming.
  In addition to issues of equity, the economic impacts of Indian 
gaming are substantial and should be acknowledged. These revenues 
provide an important source of development capital and jobs for many 
tribes across the country. Contrary to the views many here hold, Indian 
gaming is very highly regulated by federal, state and tribal officials, 
and has been subject to federal law for eleven years.
  I addressed my concerns to the Senate Judiciary Committee in June of 
this year and began discussions on how best to address currently-legal 
Indian gaming in S. 692. My main concerns with drafting any language 
dealing with Indian gaming and the IGRA centered on the following 
requirements:
  1. All gaming must be legal under current federal law;
  2. All class III gaming (casino style) must be conducted pursuant to 
a tribal state compact; and
  3. All aspects of the game must take place on Indian Lands (game, 
player, facility, server, etc.).
  It is critical to note that there is no tribe in the U.S. that is 
currently offering online/Internet betting. Instead, several tribes 
currently use widely-available technology to broadcast bingo to 
numerous operations located on Indian lands or to link class III games 
for the purpose of determining an aggregate betting pool for the 
purpose of offering bigger prizes.
  It is my understanding in supporting the substitute along with my 
amendment, that S. 692 allows tribes to continue their current 
practices regarding the use of technology to enhance the effectiveness 
and profitability of their operations, but does not authorize any tribe 
to operate betting on the Internet as it currently perceived by the 
general public.
  The specific provisions of my amendment address all currently legal 
class II and class III gaming, as defined in the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 2701 et seq.
  Accordingly, for Indian gaming activities to not run afoul of the 
provisions of S. 692
  1. The game must be conducted according to the requirements of IGRA.
  2. All persons making or receiving a bet, or transmitting information 
regarding a bet must be on Indian lands. That means all aspects of the 
game must be located on tribal land, including the person playing the 
game, the actual machine which is the game, and any computer server 
which may be used to keep track of information relating to the play of 
the game. In the case of a satellite (which cannot be located on Indian 
land), all machinery used to receive the signal must be located on 
Indian land.
  3. The game must be conducted on an interactive computer service 
which uses a closed-loop subscriber based service or a private network.
  4. Where class III games are conducted, each tribe participating in a 
network must have a compact which authorizes games to be conducted 
using the technology described, that is, an interactive computer 
service which uses a closed-loop subscriber-based service or a private 
network. It is critical to understand that this means that a tribe must 
have a compact only in the state in which they are located, not that 
they compact with every state in which the network is located.
  5. In jurisdictions where class III gaming is currently using 
technology to link games, but either have compacts which do not 
specifically authorize networked games, or that do authorize these 
games, but do not contain the specific authorization required in S. 
692, the amendment allows them to continue the operations of those 
games until the expiration of their current compact. The current 
language addressing technology that is included in most compacts does 
not contain the exact terminology as defined in S. 692.
  Additionally, there are other states where language that addresses 
the use of technology is not contained in the compact, but the state 
has consented to the use of technology. My amendment contains a 
``grandfather clause'' for those operations, which will run until their 
compacts expire by their own terms. Once a tribe's compact expires, the 
compact must be renegotiated and will be required to contain language 
which conforms to the requirements of S. 692.
  Contrary to the views of some, Indian tribes are not generally 
interested in operating games which are broadcast on the ``world wide 
web'' or the Internet, and in which a person sitting in their home may 
``log on'' to a computer and begin placing bets.
  Indian tribes are, however, interested in continuing the operation of 
the games they currently have, and which they have agreed with their 
states are legal. This amendment allows them to do just that.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1999. I voted against this 
bill when it was brought to the floor last year as an amendment to an 
appropriations bill and again this year when it came through the 
Judiciary Committee.
  I am pleased to see that Senator Kyl was able to reach an agreement 
with Senator Campbell and others to address Indian gaming issues. The 
bill's special treatment of certain forms of gambling was one of the 
reasons I voted against this bill when it was before the Judiciary 
Committee. It allowed state lotteries, fantasy sports leagues, and 
horse and dog track racing to continue to operate over the Internet, 
but prohibited use of the Internet for Indian gaming, which is 
expressly authorized by federal law. Under Senator Campbell's amendment 
to S. 692, Indian gaming can continue to operate over the Internet 
under certain circumstances.
  While I am glad to see the Indian gaming issue addressed, I 
nevertheless remain concerned with the fact that this bill singles out 
one emerging technology, the Internet, to try to attack the broad, 
complex social problems associated with gambling. The Internet is an 
evolving technology, and its full potential as a medium of expression 
has not been reached. While I share some of the concerns about the 
dangers of gambling that have inspired the sponsors of this 
legislation, I am reluctant to start down the path of restricting the 
use of the Internet for any particular lawful purpose. Once we have 
prohibited gambling on the Internet, what will be the next on-line 
activity that we will try

[[Page S14870]]

to ban? We need to be very careful not to create a precedent that might 
stifle the commercial and educational development of this very exciting 
technological tool with unhealthy implications for the First Amendment. 
I fear that this bill starts us down a road in that direction.
  Mr. President, in light of the expressed sentiment of this body last 
year, I did not object to the unanimous consent request to pass this 
bill in the closing days of this session, but I would like the record 
to reflect my continuing opposition to this bill.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
amendments be agreed to, the substitute amendment be agreed to, as 
amended, the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to 
the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment (No. 2783) was agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 2782) was agreed to.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The bill (S. 692), as amended, was read the third time and passed, as 
follows:
  [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future 
edition of the Record.]

                          ____________________