[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 26, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1986-E1987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           LEGALIZING INTERNET GAMBLING WOULD HARM U.S. TRADE

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 26, 2007

  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, as I stated here a couple of months ago, I 
believe very strongly that whatever our policy is on other types of 
gambling, we need to maintain a firm line against any form of sports 
gambling. Gambling on sports events undermines the integrity of 
American athletics. It can create corruption or the appearance of 
corruption, and it taints the image of sports as wholesome, family-
friendly entertainment.
  I also stated that I opposed legalization of online sports gambling 
in H.R. 2046. It is not enough to allow sports associations to say 
``not on my game'' if Congress is sending the message to the public 
that sports gambling is fine. If we are going to consider any loosening 
of laws against online gambling, we need to say ``not on sports, 
period.''
  But yesterday I received a letter from Stuart Eizenstat, a very well-
respected trade expert who was formerly U.S. Ambassador to the European 
Union and Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, writing 
on behalf of the National Football League. Ambassador Eizenstat's 
letter informs me that, under the present circumstances, even ``not on 
sports, period'' could leave the NFL and other great American athletic 
institutions vulnerable to assault by the offshore gambling interests 
who want to make money off the popularity of these games.
  According to Ambassador Eizenstat's letter, a law that legalizes most 
online gambling but includes limited exceptions, such as a sports 
gambling exception, will be vulnerable to attack in the World Trade 
Organization. If the WTO rules against the U.S. law, the U.S would have 
to choose between eliminating the exception--feeding our treasured 
sports to the gambling wolves--or paying billions in compensation to 
our trading partners. I, for one, think we should avoid having to 
decide which of these is the lesser of two evils if we can.

[[Page E1987]]

  It appears that the U.S. does have a way out, by withdrawing any 
commitments to free trade in gambling. The U.S. Trade Representative is 
currently in the middle of negotiating this withdrawal. But this 
requires compensation too, for taking away market access from our 
trading partners. How much compensation? Not much at all, given that 
almost all Internet gambling is illegal. But if we make it legal, even 
if sports gambling is excluded, then there is a big legal market for 
which we will owe compensation.
  As Ambassador Eizenstat says, ``withdrawal negotiations should be 
brought to a conclusion before Congress passes any new gambling 
legislation.'' In the interest of protecting American athletics, I plan 
to take this advice to heart.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter Ambassador 
Eizenstat's letter into the record.

                          ____________________