[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 19, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1269]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


               INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 17, 2000

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Internet Gambling 
Prohibition Act of 2000 for several reasons. The bill threatens 
Internet privacy, invites Federal Government regulation of the Internet 
and tramples States' rights.
  H.R. 3125 establishes a precedent for Federal content regulation of 
the Internet. By opening this Pandora's box, supporters of the bill 
ignore the unintended consequences. The principle will be clearly 
established that the Federal Government should intervene in Internet 
expression. This principle could be argued in favor of restrictions on 
freedom of expression and association. Disapprove of gambling? Let the 
government step in and ban it on the Internet! Minority rights are 
obviously threatened by majority whims.
  The bill calls for Federal law enforcement agencies, such as the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, to expand surveillance in order to 
enforce the proposed law. In order to enforce this bill (should it 
become law), law enforcement would have to obtain access to an 
individual's computer to know if one is gambling online. Perhaps 
Internet Service Providers can be enlisted as law enforcement agents in 
the same way that bank tellers are forced to spy on their customers 
under the Bank Secrecy Act? It was this sort of intrusion that caused 
such a popular backlash against the ``Know Your Customer'' proposal.
  Several States have already addressed the issue, and Congress should 
recognize States' rights. The definition of ``gambling'' in the bill 
appears narrow but could be ``reinterpreted'' to include online 
auctions or even day trading (a different sort of gambling). Those 
individuals who seek out such thrills will likely soon find a good 
substitute which will justify the next round of federal Internet 
regulation.

                          ____________________