[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7520-S7521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        BETTING ON COLLEGE GAMES

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, my good friend from the State of Kansas, 
Senator Brownback, has come to the floor a number of times in recent 
weeks to talk about some legislation that he favors. He favors a ban on 
legal betting on college games in Nevada.
  This legislation has received the following comments from respected 
publications from around the country. George F. Will:

       Congress now is contemplating a measure that sets some sort 
     of indoor record for missing the point.

  Sports Illustrated columnist Rick Reilly:

       In fact, passing the bill would be like trying to stop a 
     statewide flood in Oklahoma by fixing a leaking faucet in 
     Enid. Nevada handles only 1 percent of the action on college 
     sports. Not that bookies and the mob wouldn't very much like 
     to get their hands on that 1 percent.

  A Chicago Sun Times editorial:

       A Nevada ban is more likely to push wagers underground or 
     on to the Internet. A ban would do little to stop betting on 
     college games.

  Sporting News, a columnist by the name of Mike DeCourcy:

       The NCAA has put no thought whatsoever into this push. This 
     is strictly a public relations move that offers no tangible 
     benefit.

  Business Week:

       Now the NCAA is looking to fix its image with a bill only a 
     bookie would love.

  USA Today, founder Al Neuharth:

       University and college presidents and coaches properly are 
     concerned about the integrity of campus sports, but 
     the solution to the problem is getting their own houses in 
     order.

  I understand the NCAA is based in Kansas City and they have some jobs 
there. I am sure this move ingratiates the NCAA to my friend from 
Kansas. The fact is, this issue does not come close to doing anything 
to solve the problem. No, Mr. President, I do not gamble. I live in the 
State of Nevada. I have been chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, 
the top regulator of gaming. I do not gamble. I do not gamble on games 
or anything else, but I know a little bit about gambling, having been 
the chief regulator in the State of Nevada for 4 years.
  While my friend says this legislation has widespread support, I have 
only read a few of the editorial comments. This legislation is held up 
to ridicule. Of course, we get college coaches coming in saying they do 
not want their kids playing and having people bet on them.
  The NCAA makes billions--I am not misspeaking--not millions but 
billions of dollars from NCAA football and basketball. If they are so 
sincere in stopping betting on these games, why don't they not allow 
these games to be telecast? Just do not have any college games on 
television--no football games, no NCAA Final Four, no Rose Bowl, just 
outlaw them.
  The NCAA is all powerful. They could do that, they think. They have 
been such a dismal, total failure regulating amateur athletics that 
they think now they have something they can finally win. What they are 
going to do is outlaw college betting in Nevada, the only place in the 
country where you can do it legally, and as has been said, less than 2 
percent of the betting on college games takes place in Nevada. Over 98 
percent of gambling on college games takes place in Washington, DC, in 
the State of Idaho--all over the country. It is done illegally. If the 
NCAA is so concerned about betting on college games, let's do something 
about the illegal betting that takes place; let's not go after the 
legal betting.
  Lindsey Graham, on Hardball, a few weeks ago said:

       You're not going to stop illegal betting by passing the 
     bill.

  Of course not. Originally, the NCAA, in all its wisdom, said if we 
take away the 1.5 percent of the legal betting and leave 98.5 percent 
and they do not allow the State of Nevada to post odds, it will stop 
all over the country. Everybody will stop running the lines on these 
games.
  Again, of course, the NCAA, for lack of a better description, simply 
does not know what they are talking about. John Sturm, the president of 
the Newspaper Association of America said:

       If Congress prohibits gambling on college sports, the 
     association believes newspapers will continue to have an 
     interest in publishing point spreads on college games, since 
     point spreads appear to be useful, if not valuable, to 
     newspaper readers who have no intention of betting on games.

  I already established I do not bet on games, but I love to know what 
the point spread is on a game. It makes it more interesting. If UV is 
going to play in the Final Four and play Michigan State, Duke, or a 
team such as that, I want to know the point spread to see who is 
favored. That does not mean I am going to run down to the corner bookie 
and bet on the game or, if I am in Las Vegas, I will not go to the 
Hilton race book, MGM, or one of those places.
  I would not know how to place a bet if you asked me to, but I do know 
the way they do it in Nevada is better than the way they do it in the 
service stations, bowling alleys, and bars because the illegal bookies 
base their game on credit, usually a week at a time. People place bets 
with their illegal bookie during the week. On Monday or Tuesday, they 
come around to collect that money. That is where the real trouble 
starts.

  In Nevada, you could be Kirk Kirkorian, one of the richest men in the 
world--he owns the MGM and a number of other things around the world. 
As rich as he is, if he walked into his own race book, the rules are 
that he can get no credit. It has to be all cash. If he wants to bet on 
a ball game, he has to put up cash. There is no credit.
  It goes without saying which is the better system. The better system 
is, in Nevada you can only bet what money you have in your pocket. No 
credit is allowed. For the illegal bookies around the country, credit 
is the name of the game. They do not break as many knuckles as they 
used to, but they sure put their loans out to people who ask to borrow 
the money. They pay exorbitant interest rates, and that is when people 
lose their homes, cars, and property.
  When this bill comes up--and it will come up--this is not going to be 
a laydown. The merits are on the side of what is going on legally in 
the State of Nevada.
  This issue is a sham, it is a farce, it is a diversion designed to 
deflect attention from an organization that while swimming in money 
itself, earned from the sweat of the college kids, is incapable, it 
seems, of doing anything positive.
  My favorite--and it happened recently--is St. John's University. 
Their coach, who was almost hired by the local professional basketball 
team, is Mike Jarvis. He has a kid who had a used car. The kid trades 
in the used car for another used car. They suspended him from playing 
for three games.
  That really helps the game a lot. A kid has a used car and trades it 
in on another used car, and they suspend him from playing. What the 
NCAA does is harass and intimidate people. We have an example in the 
State of Nevada, Jerry Tarkanian, one of the most successful coaches in 
the history of America. They eventually ran him out in the State of 
Nevada. He is now coaching at Fresno State. They harassed, did 
everything they could to embarrass him. He sued them. It took 8 or 9 
years, but he won the lawsuit. They had to pay him money for what they 
did to him. By then he had already been run out of the State.
  The NCAA recently signed a multibillion dollar broadcasting contract. 
That is not a bad deal for a nonprofit organization. Players, coaches, 
athletes recognize the unaccountable and often unquestionable power of 
this organization. They have been sued lately.

[[Page S7521]]

They had to pay out millions of dollars to assistant coaches who they 
would only allow to receive--I forget what the ridiculous sum was--
$12,000 a year, $8,000 a year. The coaches sued them and, of course, 
the NCAA lost. They had to pay that judgment. They lose all the time in 
court.
  To avoid scrutiny on them, this is an effort to throw out a red 
herring, something maybe people will take after, rather than who they 
should take after, and that is them.
  This legislation, supported by my friend from Kansas who comes here 
all the time and talks about it--I know Senator John McCain, the senior 
Senator from Arizona, also favors this legislation--does nothing to 
address the problem of illegal gambling on college sports. No one 
supports illegal gambling on college sports except illegal bookies. 
They will be the primary beneficiaries of the legislation. That is not 
me speaking. I read to the Senate a few excerpts from editorials around 
the country.
  A friend of mine called me. I care a great deal about her. She has 
recently suffered the loss of her husband. She has some money as a 
result of that--not a lot but a little bit. Someone called her and 
said--I won't mention a name--if this legislation passes, talking about 
the Brownback legislation, if it passes, you give me $20,000. At the 
end of 1 year I will give you $200,000 because that is how much money I 
can make by taking illegal bets. I can't do it now because people who 
want to bet come from all over the country to bet legally in the State 
of Nevada.
  Illegal bookies love this legislation. One who I heard from in the 
heartland of America told me--not in Kansas but very close to Kansas--
this will be the best thing that Congress could ever do for his 
business.
  I have spoken to law enforcement authorities. There is no question 
that one of the scandals--referring to Arizona State, where there was 
some illegal betting taking place on Arizona State--was discovered 
because Nevada reported it. They could tell something was wrong because 
of heavy betting on Arizona State. You can bet a little on Arizona 
State football, but their basketball team has never been much to bet 
on. They could tell because of the betting that took place at Arizona 
State that something was wrong. They notified authorities, and that is 
where the arrest took place. That is where they were able to make a 
case against the illegal betting taking place at Arizona State.
  What we should do is look at a way to stop illegal betting on college 
campuses. College presidents are concerned about it, as well they 
should be. Remember, what is going on in Nevada is legal and involves 
less than 2 percent of gambling in our country. Eliminating gambling 
legally in the State of Nevada on college games will do nothing but 
help illegal gambling on college campuses. We don't need new laws. We 
need better enforcement.

  John Sturm, whom I quoted earlier, President of the Newspapers 
Association of America, in a letter to the House Judiciary Committee, 
made clear, basically, if Congress prohibits gambling in Nevada on 
college sports, it is not going to stop anything that goes on in the 
rest of the country. Certainly it is not going to stop newspapers from 
publishing these lines.
  President Sturm also dispels another myth perpetrated by the National 
Collegiate Athletic Association that people use the spreads to place 
illegal bets. In fact, a recent Harris poll found that 70 percent of 
those who look at point spreads do so only to obtain information, such 
as me, about a favorite college team, about information on upcoming 
college games.
  Another myth paraded around by the proponents of banning legal 
wagering on college games is that this is done because of a unanimous 
vote by the members of the National Commission to Study Gambling. Wrong 
again. That vote was very close. One of the members of the committee 
was from Nevada. He abstained. He said if he had been called upon to 
vote, it would have been a 5-4 vote. That is far from unanimous. The 
reality is, this proposal was given little consideration by the 
commission. They had many other things to talk about. The proponents of 
the ban have the right to their opinion, but they are absolutely wrong. 
Their opinion in this case lacks substance.
  We need to step back and take a look at this. We need to understand 
the legal business of America is not going to lay down and say, OK, run 
over us. There has been some criticism about not letting this bill go 
forward, not having a time agreement on it.
  This is something we need to talk about. This involves not illegal 
gambling on college games--if they want to enforce the law that now 
prohibits illegal gambling or if they want to pass a new restriction on 
illegal gambling, I will stand beside them and do that--we are talking 
about less than 2 percent of the gambling that takes place on college 
games and it is done legally.
  Danny Sheridan, one of the top oddsmakers in America, USA Today, sets 
the line. He came to Washington. He has talked to a number of Members 
of Congress. He said: I will talk to whomever you want to talk to. He 
said: I don't gamble but I set the line. I will continue to do it no 
matter what they do in Nevada.
  We have had people parading on the floor--I shouldn't say 
``parading.'' We have had a couple people talk on several occasions 
about how bad what goes on in Nevada is. We are not going to go without 
offering a response to that. The time has come to offer that response.
  The other thing that flabbergasts me about this is, we have people 
who have come to Congress who say their No. 1 issue is to make sure 
they protect States rights. States should be able to do what they want 
to be able to do. Well, we find a real problem with that sometimes. 
Take, for example, products liability legislation. I practice law. The 
State of Nevada had a different set of standards than did Utah, 
Arizona, California, other States in the country. They are not all the 
same. But we developed those standards over the years in the State of 
Nevada. It is not right that Congress comes in and says: We are going 
to change them. We are going to have one standard system for everybody.
  Well, that is what States rights is all about. It is not what States 
rights is all about in this instance. The State of Nevada made a 
decision in 1932 that they were going to allow legal gambling. People 
should leave the State of Nevada alone. There are no scandals involved 
in college betting in Nevada. We do our best to protect the integrity 
of what goes on there with strict requirements. Obtaining a gambling 
license in the State of Nevada is not a right; it is a privilege. They 
are very hard to get. Very strict scrutiny goes to anybody who can run 
one of these sports books. I must say there is not much scrutiny given 
to the illegal bookings and charging of exorbitant fees, making all 
this money, and having all this underreported income. It seems that 
people should be happy with what Nevada has done on its own. It is a 
matter of States rights. Why don't they leave us alone?
  NCAA President Cedric Dempsey was quoted last year as estimating that 
illegal wagers would be closer to $4 billion a year. In Nevada, they 
wager about $60 million a year. That is a small part of $4 billion. So 
I hope people of goodwill--Democrats and Republicans--will look at this 
legislation and try to understand how unfair it is and how it is going 
to only exacerbate a problem we have with people betting on college 
games illegally. It won't make it better; it will make it worse.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________