[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.

                          ____________________