[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 92 (Monday, July 17, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H6057-H6068]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3125) to prohibit Internet gambling, and for other purposes,
as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3125
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 2000''.
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 the following
definitions apply:
``(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 predominantly subject to chance,
upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another
person will receive something of greater value than the
amount staked or risked in the event of a certain 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;
``(iv) a contract for life, health, or accident insurance;
or
``(v) participation in a simulation sports game or an
educational game or contest that--
``(I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single
sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual
performance in any single sporting event;
``(II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge
and skill of the participants with such outcome determined
predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting
events and nonparticipants accumulated individual
performances therein; and
``(III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is
established in advance of the game or contest and is not
determined by the number of participants or the amount of any
fees paid by those participants.
``(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 an individual located within any State must
subscribe and be registered with the provider of the wagering
service by name, address, age, 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) a secure and effective customer verification and age
verification system, updated to remain current with evolving
technology, 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
[[Page H6058]]
``(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 licensed and regulated
by the State in which each facility is located, 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 each State's
applicable 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, which includes the transmission, storage, retrieval,
hosting, linking, formatting, or translation of a
communication made by another person, and including
specifically a service, system, or access software provider
that--
``(A) provides access to the Internet; or
``(B) is engaged in the business of providing an
information location tool (which means a service that refers
or links users to an online location, including a directory,
index, reference, pointer, or hypertext link).
``(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.
``(13) Soliciting agent.--The term `soliciting agent' means
any agent who knowingly solicits for a gambling business
described in paragraph (4)(A) of this subsection.
``(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.
``(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
[[Page H6059]]
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 or
advertising or promotion of 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)(D) following the receipt by the provider of an
order under 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 an order under 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) Court Order to interactive computer service
providers.--
``(A) Application.--A Federal or State law enforcement
agency, acting within its authority and jurisdiction and
having reason to believe 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, may apply ex parte to a United States
magistrate judge for an order to such provider under this
paragraph to take the actions described in subparagraph (D).
``(B) Order.--The magistrate judge shall issue the order
sought under subparagraph (A) upon a showing of probable
cause to believe the particular on line site is being so
used.
``(C) Notice.--Seventy-two hours after the latter of--
``(i) giving notice to the alleged violator of the order
under subparagraph (B); or
``(ii) making reasonable efforts to notify the alleged
violator of the order;
the law enforcement agency shall give the provider a copy of
the court order. At that time the order shall take immediate
effect. An alleged violator may, however, contest the order
by requesting an expedited hearing from the court during that
72-hour period. If the alleged violator does so, the court
shall as soon as possible hold the hearing, at which the law
enforcement agency shall have the burden of establishing by a
preponderance of the evidence that the on line site is being
used in violation of this section.
``(D) Scope of Order.--An order under this paragraph shall
require that the provider 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 order;
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.
``(E) Contents of order.--An order issued under this
paragraph shall--
``(i) identify the material or activity that allegedly
violates this section;
``(ii) provide information reasonably sufficient to permit
the provider to locate (and, as appropriate, in an order
issued under subparagraph (D)(i) to block access to) the
material or activity;
``(iii) be 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; and
``(iv) provide information that is reasonably sufficient to
permit the provider to contact the law enforcement agency
that obtained the order, 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).
``(F) Postorder hearing.--An alleged violator that has not
contested an order under subparagraph (C) may, not later than
60 days after the order takes effect, apply to have the order
rescinded. A United States magistrate judge shall hear and
determine that application. At that hearing the law
enforcement agency that sought the order shall have the
burden to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the
site was being used by that alleged violator to violate this
section.
``(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 an
order 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, 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;
``(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) Advertising or promotion of non-internet gambling.--
``(A) Definitions.--In this paragraph:
``(i) Conducted.--With respect to a gambling activity, that
activity is `conducted' in a State if the State is the State
in which the gambling establishment (as defined in section
1081) that offers the gambling activity being advertised or
promoted is physically located.
``(ii) Non-internet gambling activity.--The term `non-
Internet gambling activity' means--
``(I) a gambling activity in which the placing of the bet
or wager is not conducted by the Internet; or
``(II) a gambling activity to which the prohibitions of
this section do not apply.
``(B) Immunity from liability for use by another.--
``(i) In general.--An interactive computer service provider
described in clause (ii) 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, for--
[[Page H6060]]
``(I) content, provided by another person, that advertises
or promotes non-Internet gambling activity that violates such
law (unless the provider is engaged in the business of such
gambling), arising out of any of the activities described in
paragraph (1)(A) (i) or (ii); or
``(II) content, provided by another person, that advertises
or promotes non-Internet gambling activity that is lawful
under Federal law and the law of the State in which such
gambling activity is conducted.
``(ii) Eligibility.--An interactive computer service is
described in this clause 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 maintains a
website on a computer server controlled or operated by the
provider for the purpose of engaging in advertising or
promotion of non-Internet gambling activity prohibited by a
Federal law or a law of the State in which such activity is
conducted;
``(II) with respect to the particular material or activity
at issue, has not knowingly permitted its computer server to
be used to engage in the advertising or promotion of non-
Internet gambling activity that the provider knows is
prohibited by a Federal law or a law of the State in which
the activity is conducted, with the specific intent that such
server be used for such purpose; and
``(III) at reasonable cost, offers residential customers of
the provider's Internet access service, if the provider
provides Internet access service to such customers, computer
software, or another filtering or blocking system that
includes the capability of filtering or blocking access by
minors to online Internet gambling sites that violate this
section.
``(C) Notice to interactive computer service providers.--
``(i) Notice from federal law enforcement agency.--If an
interactive computer service provider receives from a Federal
law enforcement agency, acting within its authority and
jurisdiction, a written or electronic notice described in
paragraph (2)(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 advertise or
promote non-Internet gambling activity that violates a
Federal law prohibiting or regulating gambling or gambling-
related activities, the provider shall expeditiously take the
actions described in paragraph (2)(A) (i) or (ii) with
respect to the advertising or promotion identified in the
notice.
``(ii) Notice from state law enforcement agency.--If an
interactive computer service provider receives from a State
law enforcement agency, acting within its authority and
jurisdiction, a written or electronic notice described in
paragraph (2)(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 advertise or
promote non-Internet gambling activity that is conducted in
that State and that violates a law of that State prohibiting
or regulating gambling or gambling-related activities, the
provider shall expeditiously take the actions described in
paragraph (2)(A) (i) or (ii) with respect to the advertising
or promotion identified in the notice.
``(D) Injunctive relief.--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 to advertise or promote non-Internet gambling
activity that violates a Federal law, or a law of the State
in which such activity is conducted that prohibits or
regulates gambling or gambling-related activities, as
applicable. The procedures described in paragraph (3)(D)
shall apply to actions brought under this subparagraph, and
the relief in such actions shall be limited to--
``(i) an order requiring the provider to remove or disable
access to the advertising or promotion of non-Internet
gambling activity that violates Federal law, or the law of
the State in which such activity is conducted, as applicable,
at a particular online site residing on a computer server
controlled or operated by the provider;
``(ii) an order restraining the provider from providing
access to an identified subscriber of the system or network
of the provider, if the court determines that such subscriber
maintains a website on a computer server controlled or
operated by the provider that the subscriber is knowingly
using or knowingly permitting to be used to advertise or
promote non-Internet gambling activity that violates Federal
law or the law of the State in which such activity is
conducted; and
``(iii) an order restraining the provider of the content of
the advertising or promotion of such illegal gambling
activity from disseminating such advertising or promotion on
the computer server controlled or operated by the provider of
such interactive computer service.
``(E) Applicability.--The provisions of subparagraphs (C)
and (D) do not apply to the content described in subparagraph
(B)(i)(II).
``(5) 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 paragraphs (2)(A), (4)(B)(ii)(I), or (4)(C) to
comply with a notice described in paragraph (2)(B), or
complying with any court order issued under paragraph (3) or
(4)(D).
``(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 and
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 or a closed-loop
subscriber based service regulated and operated by the State
lottery or its expressly designated agent for such activity;
``(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 State-regulated parimutuel
wagering activities on live horse or dog racing, or live jai
alai, conducted on a closed-loop subscriber-based system,
provided that the type of wagering activity has been
authorized by the State.
``(C) any otherwise lawful bet or wager (other than a bet
or wager described in subparagraph (A)) that is placed,
received, or otherwise made wholly intrastate, 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 initiated and
received, under applicable Federal and such State's laws; and
``(ii) placed on a closed-loop subscriber based service; or
``(D) any otherwise lawful bet or wager (other than a bet
or wager in any class III game conducted by a tribe that is
not explicitly authorized by an applicable tribal-State
compact between that tribe and the State where the tribe is
located) that is--
``(i) placed on a closed-loop subscriber based service or a
private network; and
``(ii) is lawfully received by a federally recognized
Indian tribe, or the sending, receiving, or inviting of
information assisting in the placing of any such bet or
wager, if the game is permitted under and conducted in
accordance with the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, so long as
each person placing, receiving, or otherwise making such a
bet or wager, or transmitting such information, is physically
located on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4
of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act) when such person places,
receives, or otherwise makes the bet or wager.
``(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,
promotion, or other communication by, or authorized by,
anyone licensed to operate a gambling business in a State.
``(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,
[[Page H6061]]
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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is designed to
respond to a major scourge on the Internet. There are now, more than
700 unregulated out-of-control Internet casino-style gambling sites on
the Internet. Sports betting may be even larger than the casino
gambling. The proposals now, not by any of the States, but by some who
would ask that the States begin to provide the sale of lottery tickets
online in people's homes, something that a great many people are very
concerned about.
The bill allows the use of the Internet by the States for the sale of
lottery tickets in public places where children can be screened out.
But there are those who stand to make tens of millions of dollars
selling lottery services to the States to sell those tickets online. No
State does that today. This bill prevents that from occurring.
The bill is supported by a wide array of organizations, including the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League,
the National Basketball Association, Major League Baseball, the
National Hockey League, all concerned about sports betting online,
particularly by children.
The bill is supported by a wide array of religious organizations, the
National Council of Churches, the Presbyterian Church of the United
States, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Christian
Coalition, Jerry Falwell Ministries, the American Family Association,
the United Methodist Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Home
School Legal Defense Association.
But the bill's original purpose is served by the request of the
National Association of Attorneys General, NAAG, who came to Senator
Kyl in the Senate and to myself in the House and said that the 1961
Wire Act prohibiting gambling interstate on electronic means of
communications is out of date and needs to be updated. That is what
this bill responds to. They strongly support the legislation, as does
the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion.
I would like to thank a number of Members for their help with this
legislation: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf); the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection from the Committee on
Commerce, which helped to work out additional language to make it
absolutely clear that this legislation does not expand gambling in any
way, shape, or form; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) who
helped to work out new language in the legislation related to due
process rights for those who may have their sites taken down or
blocked.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) for their leadership on this
issue as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) who has been
very supportive.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
majority leader, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman
of the Committee on the Judiciary, for their support of this
legislation, which I believe will pass with overwhelmingly strong
bipartisan support.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Mr. Speaker, let me say from the outset that I believe that it is
highly inappropriate to consider a controversial deeply flawed bill on
the Suspension Calendar. This is the wrong process because I and other
Members have amendments we want to offer that we are foreclosed from
offering in this process.
So on that basis alone, I believe this suspension ought to be
rejected. The most controversial aspect of it are the carve-outs for
the powerful special interests.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan
just pointed out that there are carve-outs for horse racing and Jai-
Alai and dog racing. How are we going to have a realistic bill if Jai-
Alai and dog racing and all these others have exemptions carved out?
The real rub in this bill is that, while those have exceptions, State
lotteries do not. I think we would also agree that our State lotteries
are perhaps the best form of gaming we have out there and that they are
giving legitimate dollars to our States, for the education of our kids,
for education, for housing.
Now, no one disputes that we ought to regulate these offshore
gambling casino interests in the Antilles and Antigua. No one disputes
that we ought to have that on the books.
Let me say at the beginning that I applaud the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and applaud the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) for their efforts to put those provisions in this bill.
But do my colleagues know what? In creating those provisions, they
have created numerous other problems by carving out all these
exemptions for these special interests gaming operations. Really, this
language has come from the Christian Coalition. I thought that the
Congress ought to be the one that writes legislation, not the Christian
Coalition. It is ironic that the Christian coalition wants to have an
exception for dog racing. The Christian Coalition does not seem to have
a problem with that, but they have a problem with State lotteries
providing necessary educational funds for their kids in the different
States.
In addition to that, this legislation also does not do enough to
protect the important sovereignty that exists between Native American
tribes and our Federal Government, something that the majority
continues to trample on at every single turn.
As vice chair of the Native American Caucus, I just am so upset that
this bill would ignore the important sovereignty provisions that the
States have worked out with these tribes, the Federal tribe
relationship. It is a sovereign relationship.
Finally, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) understands that
these Internet service providers, the very people that are charged with
policing this bill, are unequipped to deal with this. The fact is that
we have an Internet that is in its infancy. We all know the Internet is
in its infancy. My colleagues are going to put the regulatory burden,
the enforcement burden for these regulations on these Internet service
providers, many of whom are woefully inadequate to do so. So it is
going to create a real hell of a time for these Internet service
providers.
So let me just say that, while my colleagues have the Attorneys
General on their side, we have the governors. Every governor, the
Governors' Association, has written strongly opposing this legislation
because it would absolutely gut the funding for the necessary programs
that many of these governors rely on in order to provide our very
constituencies with the educational funding that we need.
Finally, let me just say we need more money in education. The thought
that my colleagues are going to take money away from education in our
States at a time when we need more of it is just absolutely incredible
to me. The fact that they carve out exceptions for these other gambling
operations, while not carving out an exemption, for example, for State
lotteries, to me, it
[[Page H6062]]
just does not make any sense. State lotteries ought to be the ones that
we at least carve out an exemption for, not these others.
So I just cannot say that this is a good bill. I agree with the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), we ought to consider this bill
on regular calendar and regular order so that we can have a deeper
dialog and discussion about the very controversial nature of this
legislation.
{time} 1415
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to say to the
gentleman that not every governor agrees. In fact, we have a real
problem here with forged letters from governors, as indicated on the
front page of Roll Call and in The New York Times, with a letter being
circulated by opponents of this legislation claiming that Governor Jeb
Bush of Florida wrote a letter in opposition to the bill when in point
of fact no such thing occurred. The Florida Department of Law
Enforcement is now investigating the matter.
I would also say to the gentleman that there are no exemptions in
this legislation for horse racing. That is why all of these groups are
supporting this legislation. And who would know better than the
reporters for the racing industry. Here is the headline in the Daily
Racing Form: ``Internet bill said to lose exemption for racing.'' Blood
Horse Magazine: ``Racing to lose Internet bill exemptions.''
The fact of the matter is this bill has been carefully crafted with
the assistance of the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to make it
absolutely clear that while parimutuel betting is treated fairly, they
are not in any way exempt or carved out under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3125.
I strongly support this bill for three primary reasons: first, it
gives law enforcement the ability to block offshore casino Web sites;
second, the bill protects children from gambling; and, third, it
protects the rights of States to continue governing a legal, regulated,
taxpaying industry, the parimutuel industry.
Parimutuel gaming is and always has been a State issue. States
control parimutuel gaming, and they control it effectively. It is an
industry that is highly regulated, pays taxes and has a respectable
place in the States many of us represent. States do not, however,
control casinos on Indian reservations. They certainly do not control
offshore casino Web sites, of which there are at least 700, many of
them in the Caribbean, which are not regulated and not taxed.
I have heard concerns about cheating on the Internet. Parimutuel
bets, however, are safe bets, equally safe made in person or at a
simulcast.
Finally, we do not have to worry about children logging on to the
parimutuels and placing bets. Individuals would have to participate in
a closed-loop subscriber-based service to wager on horses, greyhounds,
or Jai-Alai. It does not get brought into the home unless a person
wants it.
The bill strikes a perfect balance for what is needed, a prohibition
on Internet casino gambling and a preservation of the rights of States
to regulate the parimutuel industry.
References were made by my respected colleague and friend with
respect to the effect of education dollars of this bill. Speaking as a
representative of the State of Florida, let there be no mistake, the
State lottery of Florida has not added, relatively, a single penny to
the schools and to the education coffers of the State of Florida. Just
the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
It may be that my friend from Virginia is not aware of the latest
version of his bill that eliminates the requirements that wagers on
horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai be initiated from a State in
which such betting or wagering is lawful and received in a State in
which such betting is lawful.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I hope people approaching
the Capitol will be careful because they might stumble on the
increasingly growing pile of discarded Republican ideas.
In Sunday's Washington Post, there was an excellent article by
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute documenting the extent to which the
Republican Party in the House has abandoned its notion of controlling
spending. I recommend people read Mr. Moore's article. He used to be a
consultant to the Republicans on the Committee on the Budget. He said
the Republicans have given up really on controlling spending. They
spend it wrong, in some ways; but they spend a lot of it.
In this morning's Washington Post, we have another Republican idea of
yore biting the dust: term limits. Some people with very long memories,
inconvenient ones, will remember term limits. It used to be part of the
Contract With America. Some people do not remember the Contract With
America, or the contract of Mr. Gingrich; but term limits has also been
discarded. It cited cases of the Republican leadership urging Members
to break their pledge with regard to term limits.
Well, today two more old Republican principles bite the dust. One was
not that old, because the Internet is not that old. But we used to hear
about freedom of the Internet. We used to hear how important it was
that people be allowed to do what they want on the Internet. Now we
understand the true principle. It is important that people be able to
do what the Republican Party wants them to do on the Internet. If the
Republican Party has no objection, then they can do it. But if the
Republican Party thinks there are pictures they should not look at, or
perhaps booze they should not buy, or bets they should not make, then
freedom for the Internet goes away.
This is a very intrusive regulation of the Internet. This notion that
citizens ought to be able to make their own decisions about what to do
over the Web now stands revealed as a very insufficient idea. In fact,
we were told we must protect children against this because children
live in houses with parents with computers, and we must not allow the
parents to be the ones who decide what their children do. We, the
Federal Government, will step in and we will protect children from that
Internet, which will reach out and grab them when their parents are not
looking.
Another principle that appears to be on its last legs that the
Republican Party sometimes professes support for is that of States'
rights. I understand the governor of Florida has said that was not an
accurate letter from him. I also understand that we would need subpoena
power to get the governor of Florida to tell us what he really thinks
about this. And since I, at least, do not have that vote, I cannot
tell. The governor of Florida has said he will not tell us his
position, but most of the governors are against it.
And I was particularly struck when my friend from Florida said, well,
parimutuel betting should be an exemption, although it is an exemption
that the author of the bill says does not exist. But the gentleman from
Florida, defending that nonexistent exemption, says, well, parimutuel
betting is controlled by the States and Jai-Alai is controlled by the
States. Well, are lotteries run by the States not controlled by the
States? This bill makes it illegal for States to decide that they wish
to use the Internet for their lotteries.
Now, remember, the State would have a decision to stay off the
Internet if it want wanted to. So here we have a bill that says to the
States that we will tell them, the States, that they may not use the
Internet for their lottery distribution. What a two-fer: two great
principles with one stone. First of all, freedom of the Internet;
secondly, States' rights. Bang, they both go with this bill.
Here we say to the States we will let parimutuel gambling go on,
because that is a closed loop, and that is okay because States have
regulated that. And my friend from Florida said the State lottery in
Florida has not given Florida enough money for education, has not given
them any money for education. I am sorry about that, but I will tell my
colleague that in the State of Massachusetts the lottery has, I think,
been very helpful for education.
[[Page H6063]]
I do not understand why this Congress ought to interfere with the
decision by the people of Massachusetts and the governor and the
legislature of Massachusetts to use the Internet.
Now, understand what we have been told. If the States want to act to
make sure that retailers in a downtown are not disadvantaged in the
collection of sales taxes, we will get in their way. But if the States
want to put their lottery on the Internet, we, the Federal Government,
will interfere, if this bill passes; and we will tell them to forget
all that stuff they read about Internet freedom because if the Federal
Government does not like what the States are doing on the Internet, to
use a technical parliamentary term ``freedom schmeedom.'' We will
interpose our superior morality and tell the States that gambling is
not right; and, therefore, while the State may choose to have a
lottery, and individuals may choose to use the Internet for that
lottery, we, the Federal Government, know better than the States and we
know better than the individuals.
I do not think that I have seen in one piece of legislation a more
stunning repudiation of principles.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in strong support of the Internet Gambling Prohibition
Act. As an original cosponsor, I urge all my colleagues to support this
very important bill.
After listening to my colleague from Massachusetts, I hope we can all
come back to reality for just a minute. Everyone, including Republicans
and Democrats, would agree the Internet is a great educational tool and
a valuable source of information and communication. However, American
families must be protected from the dangers associated with
unrestricted and unregulated gaming.
In States like Nevada, the gaming industry is well regulated and its
activities are tightly monitored. However, allowing gambling to be
conducted on the Internet would open the floodgates for corruption,
abuse, and fraud. Not only could unscrupulous operators bilk millions
of unsuspecting customers, but our children could easily obtain their
parents' credit cards, turn their bedrooms into casinos, and with these
sites unknowingly squander their families' hard-earned money.
The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act provides the necessary tools
for law enforcement officials to crack down on these fly-by-night
Internet gambling sites. I urge my colleagues to support this
bipartisan bill which will protect our children, our homes, and our
technology from fraudulent, unscrupulous, and unregulated Internet
gaming and gambling site operators.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member of the subcommittee.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I rise in opposition to the bill.
Unfortunately, H.R. 3125 will actually do nothing to stem the tide of
Internet gambling. In fact, the bill constitutes a significant step
backwards for several reasons.
First, it provides for extended Internet gambling in the areas of
horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai. And there seems to be some
question about that, so I will just read from the bill, starting on
page 34: ``The prohibition in this section does not apply to,'' and
when we turn to page 35 it says, ``any otherwise lawful State regulated
parimutuel waging activities on live horse or dog racing or live Jai-
Alai conducted on a closed-loop subscriber-based system.'' That closed-
loop subscriber-based system is about as hard to get on as opening up
an Internet brokerage account to trade stocks. About anybody can do it.
As a result of these exemptions, the bill will proliferate rather than
prohibit gambling over the Internet, and that is because people would
rather gamble at home rather than having to go all the way to the
track.
In addition, the bill will not effectively prohibit those gambling
interests it actually seeks to stop because offshore the Federal
Government has no authority to close those particular Web sites. We can
tell AOL or another company to shut down a domestic site, but we have
no authority to shut down something offshore in a rogue nation for
which we have no diplomatic relations. That will give them essentially
a complete exclusive franchise to run these operations.
Lastly, the bill is not effective because it provides no individual
liability. While it makes activities by certain gambling entities
running the operation illegal, it does not make it illegal for the
individual to gamble.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, the title of the bill, the Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act, is one that I am sure a lot of Americans will
support. But this bill will actually expand gambling for horse racing,
dog racing, and Jai-Alai. It will be ineffective in stopping casino
gambling and sports betting run by offshore businesses and, as a
result, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act is more sound bite than
reality; and, therefore, I must oppose the legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Hastings).
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this
particular measure.
Mr. Speaker, today I have come to the floor to speak on behalf of
H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. As my colleagues may
know, unregulated Internet gambling through virtual casino games has
become a very lucrative business.
{time} 1430
These Web sites are not regulated, taxed or licensed by the States
and are available to the public, including those who are underage and
would not be allowed in an actual gambling facility, on the open
Internet.
New sites offering games such as blackjack and roulette crop up each
day, and the industry has plans for major expansion next year if the
issue is not addressed legislatively by Congress in this session.
H.R. 3125 effectively addresses the problems created by these sites,
clarifies Federal law, and gives the authorities the tools necessary to
regulate Internet gambling activities. At the same time, the bill
establishes a regulatory framework for Internet gaming activities that
recognizes the leadership role that should be played by the individual
States in regulating legal gaming activities they have already
authorized.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate companion bill passed the Senate late last
year by unanimous consent and we are ripe to enact legislation
clarifying the complex issue of Internet gambling. If H.R. 3125 is not
passed this year, it will likely be too late to stop the problems
caused by these unregulated gambling businesses. H.R. 3125 is a good
bill that works, as is evidenced by the broad level of support that it
has garnered from various groups and on both sides of the aisle.
I would like to urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this
practical and necessary legislation and working to enact the Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act into law.
I also would like to clarify the fact that lotteries are not
affected. Lotteries are regressive. And we all know that.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) a real champion in the fight
against gambling.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this will not expand gambling. I rise in
strong support. I can stand here all day to categorize the number of
hurt and pain and suffering and agony and even death of many young
people who get involved in gambling. Gambling hits the poor, the
elderly and, sadly, the young.
I want to share that every Member of this body who was here when the
National Gambling Commission was established, voted for the National
Gambling Commission, which issued a report, and it said as follows:
Simply put, ``Adolescent gamblers are more likely to become problem or
pathological gamblers. Several studies have shown the link between
youth gambling and its association with alcohol and drug use, truancy,
low grades, illegal activities to finance gambling.''
[[Page H6064]]
The Commission goes on to strongly support the bill of the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). The Commission reported in 28 percent of
the cases where children carried a gun to school, gambling was a
factor.
This legislation would address an industry that has grown overnight
on the Web virtually without anyone focusing on it until the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) did.
As the gambling commission noted, youth gambling like youth smoking
is often an issue of accessibility and marketing. Nothing is more
accessible to young people that we now have than the Internet.
I urge my colleagues, if we miss this opportunity, more children will
be hurt and go through pain and suffering and agony and even death.
This is an opportunity to do what the National Commission says we
should do. This is an opportunity to do what most people know is
absolutely right.
I urge my Members, particularly those who say they are for strong
family values and they care about the future of young people and they
care about all these issues, to come to the House tonight when we vote
and vote aye on the Goodlatte bill.
I would like to also put a list of the stories we have taken off the
wire service in the last few months of the hurt and the pain and the
suffering and the agony of the people who have gotten involved in
gambling.
Sample News Clips on Gambling
``As many as 500,000 Michigan adults could be `lifetime
compulsive gamblers,' and the number could swell with two new
Detroit casinos in operation and a third to open soon, says a
new state report. The survey, released Wednesday, also found
that well over half of those with gambling problems began
young. `When we asked compulsive gamblers ``When did you
start having a problem?'' we were startled to learn that 77%
of them said they were already compulsive by the time they
were 18,' said Jim McBryde, special assistant for drug policy
in the Michigan Department of Community Health.'' (Detroit
News, 1/13/00)
``As allies of the National Collegiate Athletic Association
push legislation that would ban wagering on college sports, a
new study found that one out of every four male student-
athletes may be engaging in illegal sports betting--and that
one in 20 places bets directly through illegal bookies. And
though prevalent among student-athletes, the study found that
sports wagering activity is higher among ordinary students--
39% among male nonstudent athletes.
``The study surveyed 648 student-athletes and 1,035
students, both male and female, at three midwestern
universities. The study also found that 12% of male student-
athletes--roughly the same portion as nonathletes--showed
signs of problem gambling. About 5% of the overall athlete
sample demonstrated signs of pathological gambling
disorders.'' (Las Vegas Sun, 7/6/00).
``More than 850 Internet gambling sites worldwide had
revenues in 1999 of $1.67 billion, up more than 80% from
1998, according to Christiansen Capital Advisors, who track
the industry. Revenues are expected to top $3 billion by
2002.'' (Reuters, 5/31/00).
``Will Torres Jr. spends part of his day listening to sad
stories. As the director of the Terrebonne Parish (La.)
District Attorney's Office's Bad Check Enforcement Program,
Torres has heard some doozies. ``I've seen people lose their
homes, their retirements wiped out, their marriage. People
losing everything they have,' Torres said. Gambling,
specifically video poker, is starting to catch up with drugs
and alcohol as a precursor to local crime . . . ``Torres
and the District Attorney's Office recently noticed an
interesting trend while profiling bad-check writers: a large
number of their suspects are video poker addicts. `We're not
talking about people who mistakenly write a check for
groceries at Winn-Dixie for $25.33,' Torres said. `We're
talking about people who are writing checks for $25 or $30
eight times a day at locations with video machines or places
in close proximity of video poker machines.' ``So far this
year, Torres' office has collected $320,000 for Terrebonne
Parish merchants who were given 3,600 worthless checks.
Torres said about 30% of those bad checks are connected to
gambling. `` `It's eating people up,' he said. `It's real sad
when people don't have a dollar. No money for food because of
gambling addictions. I've seen it up close, and video poker
plays a large role in the problem.' '' (The Courier [Houma,
La.], 8/28/99)
``Rodney Stout, 25, of Pine Bluff (Ark.) was sentenced
Friday to 30 years in prison for abducting Stacey Polston of
Jacksonville and her 18-month-old daughter at gunpoint and
stealing Polston's van. . . . Stout was under financial
pressure, he said. He had a `gambling problem' that came to a
head when he gambled away $5,000 he had set aside for moving
expenses.'' (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/9/00).
``Former University of Southern California baseball player
Shon Malani was sentenced Wednesday to two years in federal
prison for stealing nearly $500,000 from the federal credit
union where he worked. U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor
rejected a request for leniency made by Malani's attorney,
who said he stole the money to pay off gambling debts
totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.'' (Associated
Press, 3/1/00).
``One third of 120 compulsive gamblers participating in a
pioneering treatment study have either filed for bankruptcy
or are in the process of filing, a University of Connecticut
researcher said Tuesday. . . . . (Nancy) Petry said she
recently gave a talk to a group of bankruptcy lawyers who
estimated that as many as 20% of their clients had mentioned
gambling as a reason for their problems.'' (Hartford Courant,
6/14/00).
``Of all the heroes who emerged from the 1984 Los Angeles
Olympics, perhaps none was more inspirational than Henry
Tillman. A big, tough hometown kid, he had plunged into
serious trouble when he was rescued in a California Youth
Authority lockup by a boxing coach who saw a young man of
uncommon heart and untapped talent. In a little more than two
years, he would stand proudly atop the Olympic platform at
the Sports Arena, just blocks from his boyhood home, the gold
medal for heavyweight boxing dangling from his neck.
``But two years after his mediocre pro career ended, he was
back behind bars. And now he stands accused of murder in a
case that could put him away for life.
``[G]ambling got Tillman into trouble. He was arrested in
January 1994 for passing a bad credit card at the Normandie.
He pleaded no contest and got probation. In 1995, he pleaded
guilty to using a fake credit card in an attempt to get $800
at the Hollywood Park Casino in Inglewood.
``I have suffered from a long history of gambling
addiction, which I am very ashamed had taken over my life,'
Tillman wrote in a letter to the court.'' (Los Angeles
Time, 1/26/00)
``More than half the state's adult population has visited a
casino, either in Michigan or elsewhere, a statewide poll
shows. . . . People at the top and bottom of the income scale
are the biggest spenders at the casinos Those making less
than $15,000 a year spend $172 per visit, and those earning
more than $100,000 per year spend $161 per visit. People in
the $30,000-$45,000 income bracket spend the least, reporting
an average of $87.40 per visit. ``Pollster Ed Sarpolus noted
that the age groups most likely to visit casinos are between
18 and 24, and between 50 and 54.'' (Detroit Free Press, 11/
17/99)
``Tethered to his post by a curly plastic cord that
stretched from his belt loop to a frequent-player card
inserted in a Black, Widow slot machine, James Lint pondered.
What happens to the little guy when casinos come to town?
```I see a lot of people leave with tears in their eyes,'
said the Georgia businessman, taking a short break from the
machine in Biloxi's Beau Rivage casino. `They come here too
much, and they spend too much money.'
``Lint, who flies his private plan to Biloxi three times a
year to kick back at the casinos, doesn't count himself among
the ranks of those who gamble away what they cannot afford.
But some people do lose their grocery money to slot machines,
and no one--not casino operators, not gung-ho promoters of
the industry--denies it.
``It would be hard to: The Mississippi Coast has been at
the center of several high-profile compulsive gambling
incidents, including one involving two famous writers,
brothers who squandered an inheritance worth more than
$250,000 at blackjack and slots.
``It is a hard-edged reality that happens--at casinos, at
racetracks, at church bingos, at state lottery outlets. The
Mississippi Coast has seen a 26-fold increase in the number
of Gamblers Anonymous meeting--to 13 a week--since the first
casino opened in 1992.'' (Lexington [Ky.] Herald-Leader, 9/
12/99)
``There is an ugly undercurrent that's sweeping away
thousands of Missourians-people whose addiction to gambling
has led to debt, divorce and crime. This is a world of people
like Vicky, 36, a St. Charles woman who regularly left her
newborn son with baby sitters to go to the casinos and who
considered suicide, after losing $100,000. ``And Kathy, a
homemaker and mother of two from Brentwood, who would drop
her kids at school and spend the entire day at a casino
playing blackjack. She used a secret credit card that her
husband didn't know about to rack up more than $30,000 in
debt. . . .
``In a three-month look at compulsive gambling, the Post-
Dispatch found that . . . Fast-cash machines on casino floors
can hasten a problem gambler's descent into debt, prompting
the nation's largest machine supplier last month to let
people deactivate their cards in casinos. Hard Numbers on
gambling-related crimes are elusive, but fraud detectives in
St. Louis say they're seeing an increase in workers with
access to money taking it to support gambling habits.'' (St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/6/99)
``The battle against domestic violence is gaining ground,
and work by University of Nebraska Medical Center researcher
Dr. Robert Muelleman is helping. . . . Muelleman worked on a
. . . study at the UNMC hospital this summer. The study has
not been published yet, so the results are not entirely
concluded, he said, but some preliminary inferences can be
drawn. `It looks as if problem gambling in the partner is
going to be as much a risk factor as problem alcohol and
that's really new information.' he said.'' (Daily Nebraskan,
1/13/00)
``A Charlotte, N.C., postal worker is suing First Citizens
Bank and Visa for his Internet gambling debts--because he
says it's illegal
[[Page H6065]]
for the bank and Visa to let their credit cards be used for
gambling online. . . . Lawers for (Mark) Eisele filed the
suit, which seeks class action status, in the U.S. District
Court in San Francisco, where Visa International is based. .
. . The suit claims Visa and First Citizens, which issued
Eisele's credit card, violated the federal Wire Act, which
prohibits use of wire communications services for some
gambling.'' (Las Vegas Review-Journal, 8/18/99)
``A California bank robber returned to his old habits after
being released from a New Jersey prison to travel to a
halfway house in his home state, according to bank robbery
charges in at least two states. . . .
``[Noel] Miller, who had been staying at a New Orleans
motel, told investigators he was robbing banks to finance his
gambling habit and to support himself.'' (Associated Press,
6/1/00)
``A casino executive who fudged his tax returns should have
his license renewed anyway, New Jersey's top casino regulator
said Monday. James Hurley, chairman of the state Casino
Control Commission, said Mirage Resorts Inc.-Atlantic City
president Mark Juliano demonstrated `extremely poor judgment
and an acute lack of sensitivity regarding his financial
reporting responsibilities.' But Hurley said it wasn't
serious enough to deny Juliano a license to work in New
Jersey casinos. Juliano, 44, of Haddonfield, a former
president of Caesars Atlantic City Hotel Casino, wrote off
$8,965 for a `phantom' personal computer, reported
gambling losses as a business expense and told the IRS he
drove 180,000 miles on a car found to have traveled only
69,000 total miles, according to an investigation by the
state Division of Gaming Enforcement.'' (Associated Press,
6/19/00)
``Brian Dean Gray, a former Richmond (Va.) stockbroker,
pleaded guilty yesterday in U.S. District Court to all three
federal fraud charges against him for stealing more than
$850,000 from clients and gambling much of it away. . . . He
used more than $350,000 to gamble on horse racing, at New
Jersey casinos and in card games.'' (Richmond Times-Dispatch,
6/3/00)
``Before casino gambling, (Atlantic City) was home to
numerous thriving churches of various denominations. But in
recent years, churches and synagogues have begun to close. .
. . The Rev. Patrick J. Hunt, pastor at (the Church of the
Ascension), said the casino industry is helping society
gradually erode. `We want anybody to come to church,' Hunt
said. `But gambling is a vice and the casinos do their
darndest to make sure we don't exist and that every other
church doesn't exist.' '' (Atlantic City Press, 10/11/99)
``A Florida man who lost about $50,000 while gambling [in
Atlantic City] during the past two days died Tuesday after he
jumped seven floors from a Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino roof
onto Columbia Place, officials said.'' (Atlantic City Press,
8/18/99)
``A German tourist jumped to his death off a 10-story
casino parking garage Wednesday in the third such suicide in
Atlantic City in eight days.'' On Aug. 17, a gambler who had
lost $87,000 jumped to his death off a Trump Plaza roof. On
Monday, a dealer at Caesar's Atlantic City Hotel Casino
committed suicide by leaping off the casino's parking garage.
``It wasn't clear if the most recent victim had been
gambling. He left no suicide note.'' (Associated Press, 8/25/
99)
``A Kanawha County (W.V.) woman admitted she skimmed
$40,000 from her group's bingo and raffle games Thursday,
unveiling an ongoing state and federal investigation of
groups that operate such games. Donna J. Hopkins, 50, was
secretary of the Marmet Soccer Association when she embezzled
the money.'' ([Charleston, W.V.] Gazette, 3/3/00)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, mainly to remind
my friend from Virginia that the gambling commission advocated a ban on
Internet gambling without exception. And that is not this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr.
Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I agree
with the comments of my friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
Gambling is a pernicious vice.
H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000, is well-
intentioned but I do not think it succeeds in what it is attempting to
do. Instead, this legislation creates legislation that is unenforceable
and places great regulatory burdens on Internet service providers and
represents the first full-blown regulation of the Internet passed by
this body.
This bill will expand gambling online and undermine the State's
authority to regulate gambling. The carve out for parimutuel betting
will allow for parimutuel betting nationwide even in those States where
gambling is currently illegal.
A business licensed and regulated in one State will be allowed to
take bets from someone located in other States regardless of whether
the State where the bettor is located has authorized such activity. All
the bettor would need to do is dial into the licensed business taking
the bets. This would constitute a closed loop. Anyone who so desires
would be able to load the software to be able to perform this function
on his computer and the States would not be able to enforce their laws.
Internet service providers are burdened by being required by the
Government to act as enforcers of this law. By passing this bill, we
will be deputizing ISPs with the task of denying their customers access
to any site that allows wagering. The courts will need to issue a court
order to each and every ISP in the country telling them to shut off
access to any offending site, and the ISP will be required to put in
place filters to ensure that none of their subscribers can gain access.
What is the cost? Let me assure my colleagues that it is not just
monetary. ISPs, in order to be in full compliance with this law, will
need to monitor what sites its customers are visiting. Keeping up with
the sites that allow gaming will be impossible for most ISPs. AOL may
have the resources to monitor the activity on every site accessed by
its servers, but Rocky Mount Internet based in Utah does not.
ISPs now have or will soon have the technology to shield the identity
of its customers. People will be able to access gambling sites
anonymously, rendering it impossible for this law to be enforced. With
this technology, both the gambling site as well as the subscriber will
be able to mask the address from Federal agents. Any filters required
by the law will, therefore, be rendered useless.
This legislation is harmful and ultimately unenforceable. We should
reject this legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that the National Gambling Impact
Study Commission said the Federal Government shall prohibit without new
or expanded exemptions Internet gambling not already authorized.
This legislation, thanks to the good work of the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), makes it perfectly clear that there are no
exemptions for anyone under this legislation.
I would say to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) that we have
worked very closely with Internet service providers and we will
continue to do that to make sure that the burdens are manageable, and
they have seen and worked with us on the language contained in this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Stearns).
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, let me say in the beginning, let us not let
the perfect become the enemy of the good here.
I commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) for his bill
and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for crafting a compromise
that we can support. So I hope all the folks will come on board here.
We can mend this bill later on if they are not happy with it.
Opponents of this legislation cry out there is special legislation
here creating carve-outs for specific industries. And I say, Mr.
Speaker, the carve-outs that they cite are not carve-outs. Rather, they
allow for activity that is already lawful under existing law to
continue.
This legislation permits parimutuel wagering to operate as it has for
many, many years under Federal and State laws. This legislation is
mindful of States' rights and sovereignty and allows States their
rights to regulate activity within their border, and that is currently
legal. So there are no carve-outs here.
As such, the bill does not expand or promote gambling on the
Internet. Instead it allows for those activities as currently permitted
by States to exist. This legislation has the support of a lot of
groups. I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, let me start off by stating let's not let the perfect
become the enemy of the good. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
before us today is not a perfect bill. But it is a step in the right
direction and I commend my friend from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and my
good friend from Louisiana, Mr. Tauzin, for crafting a compromise we
can support.
Some of the opponents of this legislation will say that this bill
promotes or expands gambling on the Internet. Nothing can be further
from the truth. The legislation before us
[[Page H6066]]
today in no way expands gambling on the Interent. First and foremost,
the legislation offered by my friend from Virginia prohibits gambling
businesses from using the Internet to place, receive, or otherwise make
a bet or wager. It does not create new government laws, or additional
regulations on the Internet, it merely brings the interstate gambling
ban up to date. H.R. 3125 in no way expands gambling on the Interent
and permits only activities that are otherwise lawful and regulated by
the states.
Opponents of this legislation cry that H.R. 3125 is special favor
legislation creating carve outs for specific industries. Mr. Speaker,
the carve outs they cite are not carve outs, rather, it allows for
activity that is already lawful under existing law to continue. This
legislation permits parimutuel wagering to operate as it has for many
years under federal and state laws. This legislation is mindful of
states' rights and sovereignty, and allows states their right to
regulate activity within their borders that is currently legal. As
such, the bill does not expand or promote gambling on the Internet,
instead, it allows for those activities as currently permitted by
states.
This legislation has the support of the National Football League,
Major League Baseball, National Association of Attorneys General, the
Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council, as well as numerous
other organizations.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation. Though not perfect, ti certainly is a step in the right
direction, and it is the first step in battling the proliferation of
illegal gambling on the Internet--with future Congresses free to
revisit this matter and amend this legislation as necessary.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this vote would turn only on the
question of whether or not there are exemptions created in the bill.
This is the administration's beginning statement. ``The
administration strongly opposes H.R. 3125, which appears to be designed
to protect certain forms of Internet gambling that are currently
illegal while potentially opening the floodgates for other forms of
illegal gambling. The administration is especially troubled by the
exemptions included in the bill for parimutuel wagering on activities
such as horse races, dog races and Jai-Alai. These exemptions could
have the effect of allowing individuals to bet on dog and horse racing
from their homes, giving children and other vulnerable populations
unsupervised, unlimited access to such gambling activities.''
That is an exemption. There is no policy justification for such
exemptions.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the best response to the comments of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) would come from the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) who has played a critical role in making it
absolutely clear that the language in this bill does not provide any
exemptions.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, a subcommittee of
the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act. It is a good bill. I urge my colleagues to vote for it
this afternoon.
Back in June the subcommittee I am honored to chair, the Subcommittee
on Telecommunications, Trade and Consumer Protection, was afforded the
opportunity to hold a hearing on this bill. At the hearing, we learned
many things regarding current State and Federal law as it applied to
both interstate and intrastate gambling activities.
While the existing framework governing such activity is not always a
model of clarity, our hearing revealed that this bill as it came to us
to the committee explicitly legalized certain interstate parimutuel
gaming activities that the Justice Department believes are prima facie
illegal under current Federal law, namely the Wire Act.
As a result, the administration did, in fact, oppose H.R. 3125 when
we held our hearings and they opposed it on the grounds that first it
did then expand gambling beyond and above what is allowed by existing
law according to Justice's interpretation of the Wire Act and,
secondly, that it was not technologically neutral and that it made
legal on the Internet activities that might be illegal when conducted
on phone wire.
In response to these criticisms, my good friend the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and I, along with the gentleman from Virginia
(Chairman Bliley), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) and their staffs, recrafted the
parimutuel gaming provisions of the bill as we see them today.
Working with the sports leagues, many religious interests and the
parimutuel gaming interests themselves, we are happy to report that we
were successful in coming up with the compromise language that makes it
clear that the bill no longer draws any legal distinction between the
Internet and wire line gaming activities and, as a result, in no way
expands gambling beyond the present limits whatever those limits are
according to the Justice Department or the courts of the land.
This language now added to H.R. 3125 in the form of a managers
amendment clarifies the bill prohibits all online gambling and only
permits otherwise lawful, State regulated, live parimutuel wagering
activities that are conducted on a closed subscriber-based loop.
By the way, I should also point out it does allow the Internet
intrastate for the use of the lottery activities provided that they are
conducted in a public place. With this language, H.R. 3125 now
addresses the administration's concerns and places an appropriate ban
on gambling activities that is badly needed for the country and needs
to be adopted.
In the past couple years, online gambling has flourished into a $1
billion industry with more than 700 sites in existence. The sports-
related casino style gambling taking place over the Internet today has,
as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) pointed out, ruined the lives
of many Americans young and old.
If we fail to present the President with this legislation this year,
the proliferation will be enormous. Make no mistake. This bill needs to
be passed. It is neutral. It does not expand gambling. It needs to be
addressed.
{time} 1445
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds, merely to advise
my friend from Louisiana as well as the gentleman from Virginia that
the changes that they made made the expansion of gambling worse. That
came from the Department of Justice, whom you thought you were trying
to satisfy. The Department has received a copy of the language, they
say, which we believe constitutes the amendment intended to resolve
concerns over the exemption of horse racing, dog racing, and Jai-Alai.
It is our position that this amendment may be even more problematic
than the current version of the bill.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman and say that the Justice Department says that the Wire
Act covers these situations but does not prosecute anyone. Under this
legislation, they would have new tools requested by the National
Association of Attorneys General to combat this very serious problem on
the Internet, and that is exactly what we intend to give them with this
legislation. There are no exemptions. We certainly do not expand
gambling. We attack the multi-billion dollar industry that is growing
on the Internet, the 700 cybercasinos, the sports betting, the threat
of sales of lottery tickets in people's homes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).
Mr. COX. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for
yielding me this time, and I thank my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle for trying to do the right thing here today, because I share the
concerns of my colleagues about the spread of illegal Internet
gambling. But I rise in reluctant opposition to this legislation
because while it is well intentioned, it is bad telecommunications
policy.
This legislation would create enormous, if unintentional, regulatory
problems. First, it proposes to treat online and offline gambling under
different rules. That is a violation of the
[[Page H6067]]
fundamental tenet of the Internet Nondiscrimination Act that this House
passed very recently by the overwhelming vote of 352-75. Regulating
commerce on the Internet under different rules from commerce in the
offline world is a dangerous precedent that invites significant new
regulation of the Internet such as we have not yet seen.
Second, the bill expands gambling opportunities to make legal certain
types of bets over the Internet that would be illegal if they were made
over the telephone. Third, the bill would unfairly make Internet
service providers and search engines and other interactive service
providers, ISPs, who have nothing to do with gambling, people who have
nothing to do with gambling, it would make them responsible for
policing the behavior of their subscribers. This is the principle that
we rejected when then Representative Wyden and I brought the Internet
Freedom and Family Empowerment Act to the floor so that we could stop
the approach that the Senate had adopted with the Communications
Decency Act, later rejected by the Supreme Court.
In this bill in order to avoid criminal prosecution, ISPs and other
interactive services would have to make sure that they are not hosting
or linking to Web sites containing gambling advertising or information.
To avoid criminal prosecution, they would have to block users from
accessing foreign Web sites over which they have no control, an
especially dangerous precedent while the United States at this very
moment is seeking to oppose efforts by foreign governments to do that
to our Web sites.
Fourth, this bill would have the Federal Government dictate, indeed
amend, the terms and conditions on which ISPs today offer service. It
would require that every ISP terminate the account of any subscriber
who is suspected of using the service to gamble. Fifth, the bill
contains price controls. It requires every ISP to offer gambling
filtering software at, quote, ``reasonable cost,'' putting the Federal
Government in an unspecified way in charge of determining what is a
reasonable price for filtering software.
For the mom-and-pop Internet service providers who constitute the
vast majority of America's thousands of ISPs, the legal and regulatory
costs of complying with this new Federal regulatory scheme are
significant. That is why this imperfect bill remains opposed by so many
groups, the Computer and Communications Industry Association, AT&T, the
Center for Democracy and Technology, the Electronic Privacy Information
Center, the Traditional Values Coalition, the Free Congress Foundation,
the Seniors Coalition, and Americans for Tax Reform.
Oppose this legislation.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
First, let me respond to the gentleman from California for whom I
have great respect but with whom I must disagree on every single point
raised. This legislation does not treat online gambling unfairly
compared to offline gambling. In fact, the activities complained of
have been going on on the telephone lines for decades and this
legislation is simply designed to bring the Wire Act, written in 1961
when the Wire Act was a good description of telecommunications in this
country, into the modern age when telecommunications takes on a whole
host of different ramifications, including the Internet. It does not in
any way expand gambling on the Internet. We have made that perfectly
clear time and time again. Why else would the National Coalition
Against Gambling Expansion support this legislation?
The bill retrenches gambling on the Internet by fighting 700 online
cybercasinos, by giving law enforcement new tools to deal with sports
betting online, by stopping the efforts of some who stand to make tens
of millions of dollars selling services to State lotteries to sell
tickets online in people's homes.
I want to make the point perfectly clear that we do not tell the
States that they cannot use the Internet. We simply say that when they
use the Internet, they have to use it in public places, like
convenience stores or other places where children can be screened out
and they cannot buy tickets online as they could at home. That is why
the Home School Legal Defense Association supports the legislation, the
Southern Baptist Convention supports it, and many, many other religious
and family organizations.
Furthermore, we do not require Internet service providers to police
the Internet. We simply require them to cooperate with law enforcement.
And we do not require them to shut down suspected sites, because the
bill provides due process requirements of notice and hearing before a
judge, and a judge finding that an action should be taken before an
Internet service provider can be required to take down or block a site.
The legislation has been carefully crafted to be sensitive to the
Internet industry, which I am very supportive of. After all, I am the
chairman of the Congressional Internet Caucus and have worked on many
issues with the gentleman and others to promote the Internet. But one
way to promote the Internet is to make sure that the seamy side of life
is dealt with on the Internet. Just like child pornography has to be
dealt with on the Internet, so does unregulated, out-of-control,
illegal gambling. That is why the National Collegiate Athletic
Association, the National Football League, Major League Baseball, the
National Hockey League, and the National Basketball Association support
this legislation because of the renewed threat to amateur and
professional sports in America brought on by an incredible explosion in
gambling and sports betting because of the Internet. These new tools
are needed by law enforcement. That is why the National Association of
Attorneys General have asked us for this legislation. That is why I ask
my colleagues to support it.
It is also important to note that this legislation treats Indian
gaming fairly. Every word in this legislation has been signed off on by
the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on
Resources.
I urge my colleagues to support this effective legislation to fight
gambling on the Internet.
Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3125, the
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000. This legislation is
necessary to stem the rising tide of Internet gambling, which is
largely unregulated and unreachable by American authorities.
Mr. Speaker, Internet gambling has the potential to make thousands of
Americans who enjoy video games into gambling addicts. All that an
Internet gambler needs to play casino-style games on the Internet is a
computer, a modem, and a credit card--and therein lies the dangerous
allure of this type of wagering. Unlike a glitzy casino where playing
games of chance is a social experience, Internet gambling is usually
done alone, with the only limit being the limit on one's credit card. I
believe that gambling over the Internet has the potential to turn a
generation of children who are addicted to video games into a
generation of adults addicted to playing casino-style games over the
Internet.
Furthermore, most of the cyber-casinos are located in the Caribbean,
so that the few gamblers who do win have no recourse if there is a
dispute. Mr. Speaker, banning Internet gambling now will prevent much
more serious social problems later. For that reason, I urge all of my
colleagues to vote for passage of H.R. 3125.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3125, The
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, a bill that threatens the continued
growth of e-commerce as well as the privacy rights of individuals.
The Department of Justice, high-tech companies and socially
conservative organizations agree--H.R. 3125 is fatally flawed. By
prohibiting some types of gambling and expanding others, H.R. 3125 puts
an inappropriate burden on high tech companies and interferes with the
civil liberties of Americans.
The legislation is rife with loopholes. Betting on horses and dogs is
allowed; sports and casino-style games are not. Jai-alai is in, while
state lotteries are out. This arbitrary patchwork of exemptions and
prohibitions seems to be rooted in the degree of power of a particular
interest group rather than sound public policy.
H.R. 3125 imposes new and unprecedented regulatory burdens on the
Internet that are shortsighted and threaten our civil liberties. The
notice and take-down provisions are overbroad, too burdensome for ISPs,
and give the government too much power.
Finally, the blocking provisions in H.R. 3125 threaten to intrude on
individual privacy. This Congress is still in the process of drafting
legislation aimed at assuring the privacy of individuals using the
Internet. H.R. 3125 would leap over that thoughtful process and attempt
to regulate what many Members have vowed to allow--freedom on the
Internet. H.R. 3125
[[Page H6068]]
puts artificial boundaries on the Internet when the Internet is
designed specifically to transcend boundaries.
I share my colleagues's desire to protect society from the dangers of
abusive gambling which can be a corrosive agent, both culturally and
personally. However, H.R. 3125 does not do what it purports to do. If
Congress wants to ban gambling on the Internet then it should ban all
gambling on the Internet. The piecemeal approach embodied in H.R. 3125
is an exercise in hypocrisy. I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R.
3125.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3125,
the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. During Judiciary Committee mark-
up, I brought up my concerns relating to the tribal gaming exemption. I
am pleased that the Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, and the
Gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young, were willing to work with me to
include language which addresses my concerns about what I believe was
an ambiguous section of the bill.
I would like to take a moment to explain my concerns and how, through
the manager's amendment, these concerns were addressed. The provision
exempting gambling on a closed loop system requires both the sender and
the receiver to be on Indian lands. This is not limited to the Indian
lands on which the game is conducted, therefore, it would allow linking
of all Indian lands nationwide. My concern with this language was how
multi-Tribal linking could impact individual Tribal/State gaming
Compacts.
Let me provide an example: If State A's Compact allows for slots, and
State B's Compact allows for blackjack and slots, absent clarification,
the tribe in State A could argue it can now participate in blackjack.
Included in the manager's amendment is additional language on this
section to ensure that no Class III gaming activity can occur without
the explicit authorization of a Tribal/State Compact. This language
does not require Tribes to re-negotiate their Compacts with states;
rather it reinforces the Tribal/State Compact.
In conclusion, the Indian gaming language has been clarified so that
the carefully negotiated Tribal/State compacts are not at risk. I urge
my colleagues to support the bill.
Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 3125, the Internet Gambling
Prohibition Act.
I am concerned that the bill creates unfair carve outs. In-home
gambling on horse and dog races is allowed, but tribal Internet gaming
is prohibited. I fail to see how dog races are acceptable but tribal
gaming is not. This bill does not deserve our support.
The bill is so riddled with exemptions it is opposed by the
Traditional Values Coalition, which says that the bill does little to
address the problems it purports to solve.
Tribal gaming has been essential in furthering economic development
on our reservations. It has allowed for medical clinics and upgrading
of substandard housing. It has lifted Native Americans from poverty. It
has given them self-determination over their destiny. It has furthered
Native American sovereignty.
It is important we recognize all Native Americans have given to this
country. For that reason, earlier in the year I introduced H. Res. 487
to honor Native Americans.
Native Americans have shown their willingness to fight and die for
this nation in foreign lands. They honor the American flag at every
powwow.
Native Americans should be treated fairly. We should not burden them
with restrictions we are unwilling to place on others.
The bill is opposed by the Department of Justice, AT&T, the San
Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Computer and Communications Industry
Association, Covad Communications, Center for Democracy and Technology,
National Congress of American Indians, Electronic Privacy Information
Center, ACLU, Traditional Values Coalition, Seniors Coalition, Free
Congress Foundation, Americans for Tax Reform, CATO Institute, American
Association of Concerned Tax Payers, and Coalition for Constitutional
Liberties.
For all of the above reasons, I am opposing H.R. 3125.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to
H.R. 3125, which could more appropriately be re-titled the Internet
Gambling Proliferation Act.
What this proposed legislation does is impose a new set of laws that
selectively privilege some forms of gambling by exempting them from
these laws. At the same time, other forms of gambling are condemned.
What Congress should do is work with the states to enact legislation,
which deals rationally with prohibiting or regulating Internet
gambling.
Furthermore, in my home State of New Mexico--as in many other
states--this legislation would unnecessarily complicate the ability of
states and tribal governments to work out a rational regulatory scheme.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Miller of Florida). The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3125, as amended.
The question was taken.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8, rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________