[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 88 (Tuesday, June 28, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1374-E1376]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                GAMBLING

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. FRANK R. WOLF

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 28, 2005

  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, gambling is no longer just limited to the 
casinos in Las Vegas and Atlantic City. There are now more than 400 
tribal casinos in 30 States, online gambling is booming and ESPN and 
other cable

[[Page E1375]]

networks bring high-stakes poker tournaments into our living rooms on a 
regular basis.
  I am deeply concerned about the impact this is having on our society. 
Gambling destroys families and preys on the poor. More and more youth 
are also being seduced by gambling. According to a recent PBS NewsHour 
report, recent studies indicate that more than 70 percent of youth 
between the ages of 10 and 17 gambled in the past year, up from 45 
percent in 1988.
  The promotion of gambling is not a proper role of government. I share 
the concerns of National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, NCAGE, 
that as a school of government, Harvard ought to use more discretion in 
allowing of its credentials to support gambling, which corrupts and 
addicts government at all levels. As you may know, Harvard Medical 
School Division of Addictions, Institute for Research on Pathological 
Gambling and Related Disorders, sits on the board of the National 
Center for Responsible Gaming, part of the American Gaming Association. 
Mr. Speaker, I would like to share a recent letter from the NCAGE to 
the Harvard University leadership outlining the coalition's concerns 
about what many might regard as an inappropriate relationship between 
the university and the gambling industry.
                                            The National Coalition


                                   Against Gambling Expansion,

                                    Washington, DC, June 23, 2005.
     President Lawrence H. Summers,
     Harvard University,
     Cambridge, MA.
     Harvard Alumni Association,
      University Place,
     Cambridge, MA.
     Harvard Medical School, Division on Addictions,
     The Landmark Center,
     Boston, MA.
       Dear Sirs and Madams: It is with considerable 
     disappointment that, after much study and thought, we come to 
     the point where we must challenge the integrity of your work 
     and the great name of Harvard.
       We have listened and tried hard over the last few years to 
     understand the logic and scientific protocols cited in the 
     protestations of your scholars as they defend their 
     ``neutrality'' on the subject of gambling. Frankly, we have 
     never believed that Harvard should be ``neutral'' on issues 
     that threaten public health. More importantly, we have come 
     to the earnestly considered opinion that even this professed 
     ``neutrality'' has been widely breached and replaced by 
     academic activism for and in behalf of gambling interests.
       In support of our charge, we cite the attitudes and 
     activities of the Business School, Addictions Department and 
     School of Government.
       The Harvard Business Review lauds and publishes the success 
     of business school faculty expatriate Gary Loveman who has 
     guided Harrah's to its position as the Nation's largest 
     casino business--by utilizing loyalty-marketing techniques to 
     promote an addictive substance. It is as if the philosophy 
     and ethics departments have been buried at the far end of the 
     campus from the School of Business. Is there no duty to 
     customers ever mentioned in the MBA programs of this 
     generation at Harvard? Are our future CEOs being taught that 
     the highest ``loyalty'' to the market is to sacrifice 
     humanity on the altar of corporate expansion?
       If not, then why does Harvard continue to celebrate such 
     behavior?
       If the business classes have no feeling for humanity, one 
     would think a division of the medical school might. Not so. 
     The head of the Harvard Medical School Division of 
     Addictions, Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling 
     and Related Disorders, now sits on the Board of Directors of 
     the American Gaming Association's ``responsible gaming'' 
     team. This AGA front organization, titled the National Center 
     for Responsible Gaming, has been so pleased with Harvard's 
     industry apologetics that it now exclusively funds 
     ``research'' through the Harvard facility. The AGA repeatedly 
     proffers the assumption that only ``peer reviewed'' materials 
     filtered through this new association can be considered 
     ``valid.'' The veracity of that notion is irrelevant. The 
     relevance is that the AGA is counting on Harvard to deliver 
     its good name.
       Their reliance is sadly valid.
       We see the Harvard journal espousing its own self-
     aggrandized superiority as it smugly chides other scholars, 
     pontificating, ``The Wild West had its snake oil salesmen and 
     the field of gambling studies is no different. . . 
     Unfortunately, some contemporary authorities fail to 
     adequately understand the principles of scientific inquiry 
     and sustain conventional myths and unfounded casual 
     relationships. . . Unpublished evidence that has not been 
     subject to peer review has been presented as definitive. 
     Preliminary evidence has been summarized in public testimony 
     or press releases without necessary documentation, including 
     methodological details that must be available for scrutiny. 
     In each instance, this public behavior violates professional 
     standards of conduct and tarnished the work of legitimate 
     scientists.
       The assumed antidote, of course, is to publish only through 
     Harvard's brand of ``peer review.'' The AGA uses that 
     language to bolster its own propaganda. ``Over the last five 
     years, a small group of anti-gaming university professors 
     have created, out of whole cloth, a series of economic models 
     which purport to show that any economic benefits from gaming 
     will be exceeded by the social costs caused by the industry. 
     These professors, whose theories cannot stand the test of 
     academic peer review, have created a circle of disinformation 
     wherein they continually cite each other as sources to 
     validate their erroneous theories. Three of the professors 
     are from the University of Illinois and have testified before 
     the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) in 
     Chicago. They are: Earl Grinols, Richard Gaze (now with the 
     Federal Reserve Bank but formerly was Grinols' assistant) and 
     John Kindt.
       Curiously, it is Harvard's scholars who have been 
     promulgating the self-citing circle of obfuscation. Despite 
     editorial insistence on notational integrity and peer review, 
     Shaffer and Korn, writing for Shaffer and Korn and repeatedly 
     citing Shaffer, Korn and others in the Harvard sanctum, come 
     to completely undocumented hypothesis that ``Until Korn and 
     Shaffer formally introduced the idea of healthy gambling, 
     health care, addictions and public health officials 
     professionals had not considered the possibility of positive 
     health benefits.''
       Their paper, ``Gambling and Public Health,'' draws lines 
     between dissociated dots arriving at the hypothesis that 
     gambling is healthy for individuals and communities.
       ``Like going to a movie, sitting in a pub, or participating 
     in physical activity, going to a casino or horse race may 
     provide a healthy change and respite from everyday demands or 
     social isolation. This may be particularly important for 
     older adults . . . (not annotated--but then where would one 
     find a footnote to show feeding a slot machine is equal to 
     physical activity).
       ``Gambling is a form of adult play. While importance of 
     play has been recognized for the healthy development of 
     children (annotated), play also is important for adults 
     (annotated). For example, whereas children play card, board 
     and video games, adults play blackjack, bingo and video slot 
     machines. In addition to providing fun and excitement, some 
     forms of gambling can enhance coping strategies by building 
     skills and competencies such as memory enhancement, problem 
     solving through game tactics, mathematical proficiency, 
     concentration and hand-to-eye physical coordination. (Note 
     how annotated concepts of play being good for children and 
     adults proceed to the unannotated suggestion that gambling 
     must be good as well. Good for adults, good for children? 
     (Shaffer, et al, eschew logic in favor of empiricism as a 
     basis for scientific inquiry. Given their command of logic, 
     this is self-explanatory. (Play is good. Gambling can be 
     called play. Gambling is good.--Communists wear red. Santa 
     wears red. Santa is a Communist)).
       This tome further suggests, ``Health benefits can accrue to 
     communities through gambling-related economic development . . 
     .'' and suggests without annotation that gambling created 
     jobs and economic development accrue to the benefit of 
     collective mental health.) (Jobs and money make people happy, 
     so gambling makes people happy. Sadly, no footnotes elucidate 
     the chasms between these dots either.)
       Since co-morbidity is a generally accepted feature of 
     addiction, this paper even suggests gambling addiction may 
     ``catch'' people from progressing to a more serious 
     addiction, like heroin. (Gambling addiction may preclude a 
     worse addiction and is therefore a ``benefit.''
       Within a handful of lines, this same paper sneers, ``. . . 
     An unsupported but commonly cited estimate for the annual 
     cost to society of each pathological gambler is $13,200.'' 
     Like numbers have been meticulously recalculated and 
     duplicated, but because they weren't published in the proper 
     Harvard-edited journal, apparently they are ``unsupported.'' 
     Because they did not emanate through halls funded by the 
     American Gaming Association, they have not been appropriately 
     ``peer reviewed.''
       In this context, ``Peer reviewed'' has come to mean 
     ``gambling lackeys vouching for gambling apologists.''
       If the addictions group's advocacy of, or at least affinity 
     for, the gambling industry is transparent, then the gambling 
     industry association with Harvard's Kennedy School of 
     Government is vivid.
       Our attached comments speak plainly to deliberate and 
     blatant examples of that school's use of Harvard credentials 
     to support gambling, specifically through Indian tribes. It 
     is shameful for an institution upholding itself a ``school of 
     government'' to endorse a phenomenon which corrupts and 
     addicts government at all levels. To my knowledge, no heroic 
     figure or revered writer on the subject of American democracy 
     has ever suggested that the promulgation of gambling is a 
     proper role of government.
       We believe the good name of ``Harvard'' has been co-opted 
     by the gambling industry. It is apparent to any serious 
     observer that ``Harvard'' is the brand of choice for those 
     seeking to buy credibility for a product that ruins lives.
       If this was a car, or a drug that damaged, ruined or ended 
     the lives of one of each 100 Americans, we suggest you would 
     not be ``neutral,'' and certainly you would not be advocates.
       Because your performance is tainted and your reputation 
     threatened, we respectfully ask your institution to stand 
     down from this debate, and let it be carried forward by 
     unsullied hands.
       We ask for your support for a regeneration of the 
     activities of the National Gambling

[[Page E1376]]

     Impact Study Commission to assess the costs and benefits of 
     legalized gambling in America from a less biased platform.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Dr. Guy C. Clark,
                                                         Chairman.
       Attached: Our bulletin article.

                ``Harvard''--The Best Name Money Can Buy

       Harvard, the venerable institution founded in 1636, is 
     among America's most recognizable academic ``Brands''. Its 
     public reputation is among the highest of America's 
     institutions.
       Through association, the phrase ``Harvard says,'' becomes 
     powerful validation, even when followed by statements Harvard 
     didn't really make, or, perhaps, was paid to say. Thus it 
     follows that when one of America's least reputable 
     institutions--gambling--went shopping for a spokesman, they 
     determined ``Harvard'' was the best name money could buy.
       The American Gaming Association (AGA) opened shop in 
     Washington, D.C. in 1995 to promote, in their own words, 
     ``better understanding of the gaming entertainment industry 
     by bringing facts about the industry to the general public, 
     elected officials, other decision makers and the media 
     through education and advocacy.''
       The AGA became the propaganda machine for the commercial 
     casino companies that funded it. The casinos faced tough 
     questions from politicians and anti-gambling groups as 
     gambling proliferated across the nation in the early 1990s.
       Those questions intensified in 1996, when Congress funded 
     the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC). 
     Despite gambling's expensive attempts to stack the commission 
     and its success in stripping it of subpoena power, the 
     commission's final report in 1999 posted strong warnings 
     about gambling expansion. It called for a ``pause'' in the 
     expansion of gambling until more information on addiction, 
     bankruptcy, crime, job cannibalization and other topics could 
     be studied.
       But gambling proponents were already staging their 
     response. The same year the NGISC started its research, 
     casinos founded their own ``gambling research'' organization, 
     the National Center for Responsible Gambling (NCRG). Boyd 
     Gaming Corporation provided the start-up funds for the NCRG 
     and made a 10-year pledge of $875,000. Other leading gaming 
     companies, including Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., 
     International Game Technology, Mandalay Resort Group, MGM 
     Mirage and Park Place Entertainment Corporation were ``early 
     and generous supporters,'' according to NCRG's own web site.
       The site notes, ``Today, with the contributions of the 
     casino gaming industry, equipment manufacturers, vendors, 
     related organizations and individuals, more than $13 million 
     has been committed to the NCRG, an unprecedented level of 
     funding for gambling research. This financial support has 
     enabled the NCRG to attract the best minds from the most 
     prestigious institutions to conduct research in this 
     uncharted field,'' (Emphasis added.)
       They boast the group is run by scholars and health care 
     professionals, but it is chaired by professional lobbyist and 
     former Congressman Dennis E. Eckart, with William Boyd, 
     chairman of Boyd Gaming, serving as president, and the AGA's 
     senior vice president and executive director, Judy Patterson 
     as secretary-treasurer. Only five of the 21 remaining 
     directors represent health care or academic organizations. 
     The rest are all gambling executives or lobbyists.
       Among the five is Howard J. Shaffer, Ph.D. Director, 
     Division on Addictions, Harvard Medical School, which is 
     funded by the gambling industry through NCRG.
       Gambling interests funded the NCRG with, according to their 
     own accounts, $13 million. Of that they have contributed $6 
     million to ``research,'' with that funding now going 
     exclusively to the Harvard Project.
       Harvard insists the NCRG board exercises no control over 
     its research, but at least two noted treatment experts left 
     the NCRG board because of their concerns about just such 
     problems. Both indicated the NCRG would not likely allow 
     researchers to tackle the big issues of proximity, high-speed 
     addiction of machines and other factors that could be 
     damaging to the industry.
       Clinical psychiatrist Dr. Henry Lesieur from the Rhode 
     Island Hospital's gambling treatment program and UCLA's Dr. 
     Richard Rosenthal resigned from the NCRG board three years 
     ago after concluding that the gambling industry wielded too 
     much influence over the research.
       Still, Harvard's addiction department continues to disburse 
     grants to other research applications. With Shaffer as editor 
     and other Harvard staff on the editorial board, The Journal 
     of Gambling Studies, served as a prestigious gathering point 
     and filter for research. Harvard editors in turn spent 
     considerable ink ``debunking'' other contributed research. As 
     an adjunct to its publishing efforts, Harvard distributed the 
     WAGER, an online review of current topics between 2004 and 
     2005. The typical WAGER review comprised an outline of a 
     study's premise, followed by the study's findings. Typically 
     the last WAGER paragraphs were dedicated to a repetitive 
     disclaimer that results were not conclusive because of sample 
     size or some other weakness.
       A classic example was the August, 2002 examination of 
     suicides and their relationship to gambling. ``Do Casinos 
     have Casualties? Mixed Evidence for a Gambling-Suicide 
     Link.'' Why Harvard would choose to review this study, which 
     it concluded was inconclusive and flawed in many regards, is 
     unclear. The Harvard editor dismissed the study's results for 
     a number of reasons, including, ``relationships between 
     gambling settings and suicide rates could potentially be due 
     to common features that influence suicide other than casino 
     presence. For example, Nevada is home to a great number of 
     retirees, a population which has demonstrated higher suicide 
     rates.''
       That would be interesting if it were true. Nevada ranks 
     44th in the nation for population over 65, Nevada has ranked 
     first in the nation in suicide rates for 10 of the last 14 
     years, never coming in lower than fourth. In suicides per 
     capita it was surpassed recently by Montana, which has more 
     video lottery terminals and Gamblers Anonymous chapters per 
     capita than any other state in the nation.
       Still, AGA spokesman Frank Fahrenkopf traverses the country 
     announcing that ``peer reviewed'' studies have ``failed to 
     prove'' a relationship between gambling and suicide. In AGA 
     logic, having ``failed to prove'' an assertion is equal to a 
     ``proof' of its antithesis.''
       Fahrenkopf and his peers have deceived numerous legislators 
     with illusions of ``peer reviewed'' studies that ``prove'' 
     there is no correlation between gambling and crime, no 
     correlation between casino proximity and addiction, and that 
     gambling takes money away from other businesses.
       Harvard's addiction department is not the only tool of the 
     gambling industry. The university's renowned Kennedy School 
     of Government is deeply connected to Native American 
     organizations dedicated to the economic and political 
     development of Indian reservations. Unfortunately, those 
     organizations have adopted the NIGA mantra of gambling as the 
     ``New Buffalo'' which will elevate the reservations to the 
     status of economically and politically independent nations.
       Again, the ``Harvard'' brand is a deliberate purchase of 
     the gambling tribes. In 2003, just after Time Magazine 
     published a blistering expose on the status of Indian casino 
     development, NIGA commissioned Harvard to produce a study 
     deliberately designed to show the benefits of Indian 
     gambling.
       News reports at the time quoted Deron Marquez, chairman of 
     the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians saying, ``NIGA's 
     fellow trade organization, the AGA, constantly produces 
     numbers to help its cause. The data bolsters policy decisions 
     and helps make problems go away. Our study would allow the 
     same to take place.''
       The study was to be headed by Katherine Spilde, a former 
     Director of Research for the NIGA, and an ardent proponent of 
     gambling expansion. Spilde told reporters the study would 
     help reverse ``a bona fide public relations crisis,'' for 
     Indian gambling.
       NIGA's Marguez said the study would be ``the centerpiece of 
     a public relations campaign'' to promote Indian gambling. 
     ``The PR and the research go hand in hand. The study will 
     provide the necessary data, and the campaign the necessary 
     visibility.''
       The study was funded to support an intended finding, with 
     an advertising campaign as the intended result.
       Spilde also played the ``peer reviewed'' card, noting the 
     study would be ``validated'' by other academics. ``A peer-
     reviewed report will have the highest integrity possible and 
     insulate us from critics who may try to imply that funding 
     from Indian Country has influenced the results,'' she said.
       ``Gambling industry lackies vouching for gambling industry 
     apologists,'' fumes NCALG/NCAGE chairman Dr. Guy C. Clark. A 
     dentist by trade, Clark said, ``It reminds me of a mouthwash 
     introduced some years ago with a claim that its in-house 
     studies showed the product was highly effective at removing 
     plaque. Later independent studies showed the product was 
     'slightly less effective than water.'
       ``Harvard's motives look about as transparent as water too, 
     no matter what they claim for intentions. I would think they 
     would want to be more protective of the school's heritage,'' 
     Clark concluded. ``These so-called studies are no more than 
     gambling industry in-house advocacy dressed up as 
     academics.''

                          ____________________