[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 126 (Thursday, August 2, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10778-S10779]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           INTERNET GAMBLING

  Mrs. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to share a letter received by 
our colleagues in the House of Representatives on the issue of Internet 
gambling from the National Football League, Major League Baseball, 
National Basketball Association, National Hockey League, and National 
Collegiate Athletic Association. I would like to include this letter in 
the Record, which alerts us to the serious threat that H.R. 2046 poses 
to the integrity of American athletics, as well as our national 
sovereignty over gambling regulation.
  Many of us on this side of the Capitol may not be aware that there 
are efforts afoot in the House of Representatives to legalize Internet 
gambling, less than a year after we enacted the Unlawful Internet 
Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. I strongly supported UIGEA, and 
supported its inclusion in the SAFE Ports Act, so that after more than 
10 years of overwhelming bipartisan support for doing something to stop 
illegal Internet gambling in this country, we finally have an 
enforcement law with teeth.
  But now, before the regulations for UIGEA have even been written, 
international gambling interests are telling our colleagues in the 
House that Internet gambling can never be stopped, so we might as well 
legalize, regulate, and tax it. We might as well decide that everyone 
speeds on the George Washington Parkway, so we should just eliminate 
the speed limits and make it a toll road. Internet gambling is just as 
dangerous--its 24/7 accessibility from any location, speed, and 
anonymity make it the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling, leading to 
addiction, young people wrecking their financial futures, family 
breakdown, and even crime and suicide. The answer is stepping up 
enforcement efforts, not abandoning the law and government feeding off 
the trough of personal tragedy.
  H.R. 2046 would license Internet gambling companies to do business 
with U.S. customers and override every other Federal or State law that 
would interfere with this business. The proponents of this legalization 
scheme will argue that the bill allows States and sports leagues to 
``opt out'' of legalization, but don't be fooled. The ``opt-outs'' are 
vulnerable to legal challenge, both in U.S. courts and in the World 
Trade Organization. And if the opt-outs fall, H.R. 2046 would result in 
the greatest expansion of gambling ever enacted in the history of the 
United States.
  The sports organizations are very concerned because H.R. 2046 would 
reverse decades of Federal policy by endorsing sports gambling. We have 
all seen in the past couple of weeks how damaging gambling can be to 
the integrity and image of professional sports. When a player or a 
referee taints the game for gambling profits, all of the participants 
and all of the fans are betrayed. And even when there is no fraud, 
pervasive gambling on a sport robs its character as family 
entertainment celebrating the pursuit of athletic achievement, turning 
it into a seedy vehicle for making money at the expense of others. 
Congress must not in any way endorse this degradation of our national 
pastimes.
  I hope that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me on the 
lookout for Internet gambling legalization efforts and will firmly 
reject and rebuff any such proposals.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the letter prepared by the professional and collegiate sports 
associations.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    July 30, 2007.
       Dear Member of Congress: Sports betting is incompatible 
     with preserving the integrity of American athletics. For many 
     decades, we have actively enforced strong policies against 
     sports betting. And the law on this point is consistent. 
     Federal statutes bar sports betting, especially the 1961 Wire 
     Act and the 1992 Professional and Amateur Sports Protection 
     Act. Enforcement of these laws against sports betting was 
     also a significant motive for enacting the Unlawful Internet 
     Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA).
       Accordingly, we urge you to reject current proposals to 
     legalize Internet gambling, such as H.R. 2046 sponsored by 
     Rep. Barney Frank. This legislation reverses federal policy 
     on sports betting and would for the first time

[[Page S10779]]

     give such gambling Congressional consent. The bill sends 
     exactly the wrong message to the public about sports gambling 
     and threatens to undermine the integrity of American sports.
       On a related point, we believe the Congress should not 
     consider any liberalization of Internet gambling until the 
     U.S. Trade Representative successfully resolves our trade 
     disputes in this area. A rush to judgment on this subject 
     could result in irreversible damage to U.S. sovereignty in 
     the area of gambling regulation, including the capacity to 
     prohibit sports bets.
       Though Internet gambling on sports has never been legal, 
     easy access to offshore Internet gambling web sites has 
     created the opposite impression among the general public, 
     particularly before Congress enacted UIGEA last fall. UIGEA 
     emerged from more than a decade of Congressional 
     consideration, in which stand-alone legislation aimed at 
     restricting Internet gambling passed either the Senate or the 
     House in each of five successive Congresses, each time by 
     overwhelming bi-partisan votes. UIGEA also enjoyed a broad 
     array of supporters, including 49 state Attorneys General and 
     other law enforcement associations, several major financial 
     institutions and technology companies, dozens of religious 
     and family organizations, and of course our sports 
     organizations.
       Enactment of UIGEA was grounded on concerns about 
     addictive, compulsive, and underage Internet gambling, 
     unlawful sports betting, potential criminal activity, and the 
     wholesale evasion of federal and state laws. When it passed 
     the House a year ago, the vote was 317-93, including 
     majorities of both caucuses and with the affirmative votes of 
     both party leaders.
       The final product was a law that did not change the 
     legality of any gambling activity--it simply gave law 
     enforcement new, effective tools for enforcing existing state 
     and federal gambling laws. UIGEA and its predecessor bills 
     could attract such consensus because they adhered to this 
     principle: whether you think gambling liberalization is a bad 
     idea or a good one, the policy judgments of State 
     legislatures and Congress must be respected, not de facto 
     repealed by deliberate evasion of the law by offshore 
     entities via the Internet.
       By contrast, H.R. 2046 would put the Treasury Department in 
     charge of issuing licenses to Internet gambling operators, 
     who would then be immunized from prosecution or liability 
     under any Federal or State law that prohibits what the Frank 
     bill permits. The bill would tear apart the fabric of 
     American gambling regulation. By overriding in one stroke 
     dozens of Federal and State gambling laws, this would amount 
     to the greatest expansion of legalized gambling ever enacted.
       This legislation contains an ``opt-out'' that appears to 
     permit individual leagues to prohibit gambling on their 
     sports. But regardless of the ``opt-out,'' the bill breaks 
     terrible new ground, because Congress would for the first 
     time sanction sports betting. That is reason enough to oppose 
     it. In addition, the bill's safeguard opt-out for sports 
     leagues as well as the one for states may well prove illusory 
     and ineffectual. They will be subject to legal challenge 
     before U.S. courts and the WorId Trade Organization.
       In addition, this legislation would dramatically complicate 
     current trade negotiations concerning gambling. In 1994, the 
     United States signed the General Agreement on Trade in 
     Services, which included a commitment to free trade in 
     ``other recreational services.'' In subsequent WTO 
     proceedings, the United States has claimed this commitment 
     never included gambling services. The United States has noted 
     that any such ``commitment'' would contradict a host of 
     federal and state laws that regulate and restrict gambling. 
     The WTO has not accepted this argument.
       Accordingly, the U.S. Trade Representative has initiated 
     negotiations to withdraw gambling from U.S. GATS commitments. 
     Before withdrawal can be finalized, agreement must be reached 
     on trade concessions with interested trading partners. Few 
     concessions should be required because there was never a 
     legal market in Internet gambling in the U.S. If Congress 
     creates a legal market before withdrawal is complete, the 
     withdrawal will become much more complicated and costly. 
     Therefore, we oppose any legislation that would imperil the 
     withdrawal process.
       Finally, we have heard the argument that Internet gambling 
     can actually protect the integrity of sports because of the 
     alleged capacity to monitor gambling patterns more closely in 
     a legalized environment. This argument is generally asserted 
     by those who would profit from legalized gambling and the 
     same point was raised in 1992 when PASPA was enacted. 
     Congress dismissed it then and should dismiss it now. The 
     harms caused by government endorsement of sports betting far 
     exceed the alleged benefits.
       H.R. 2046 sets aside decades of federal precedent to 
     legalize sports betting and exposes American gambling laws to 
     continuing jeopardy in the WTO. We strongly urge that you 
     oppose it. Thank you for considering our views on this 
     matter.
           Sincerely,
     Rick Buchanan,
       Executive VP and General Counsel, National Basketball 
     Association.
     Elsa Kircher Cole,
       General Counsel, National Collegiate Athletic Association.
     William Daly,
       Deputy Commissioner National Hockey League.
     Tom Ostertag,
       Senior VP and General Counsel, Major League Baseball.
     Jeffrey Pash,
       Executive VP and General Counsel, National Football League.

                          ____________________