[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 29, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4716-S4717]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
INTERNET GAMBLING
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, in 2011, the Department of Justice's
Office of Legal Counsel, OLC, issued a legal opinion reversing 50 years
of interpretation of the Wire Act. Lawyers there concluded the act does
not ban gambling over the Internet, as long as the betting is not on
the outcome of a sporting event.
In effect, this opinion means the Justice Department has stopped
enforcing a law it had consistently enforced for five decades. Left on
its own, the DOJ opinion could usher in the most fundamental change in
gambling in our lifetimes by turning every smartphone, tablet, and
personal computer in our country into casinos available 24/7.
The FBI has warned online casinos are susceptible to use for money
laundering and other criminal activity, and online casinos are bound to
prey on children and society's most vulnerable.
It took Congress a decade to develop the Wire Act. It took Congress 7
additional years to enact the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act, the 2006 law giving law enforcement new tools to shut down online
casinos. DOJ's opinion gutted both laws.
Despite the wide-ranging implications of this opinion, there was no
solicitation of public comment, nor any input sought from State and
local officials. There is also no indication the Department considered
the very significant law enforcement, social, and economic issues
raised by Internet gambling.
We note that a number of States have authorized Internet gambling,
despite the fact the DOJ opinion does not carry the force of law, a
fact confirmed by our Attorney General, who, in response to questions
posed during her confirmation proceedings, wrote, ``I am not aware of
any statute or regulation
[[Page S4717]]
that gives OLC opinions the force of law.''
The Attorney General is absolutely correct. Only Congress can change
the Wire Act, and only the courts can interpret the act's reach.
To make clear that the Wire Act still bans all Internet gambling, the
committee report accompanying the CJS appropriations bill includes the
following statement:
Internet Gambling.--Since 1961, the Wire Act has prohibited
nearly all forms of gambling over interstate wires, including
the Internet. However, beginning in 2011, certain States
began to permit Internet gambling. The Committee notes that
the Wire Act did not change in 2011. The Committee also notes
that the Supreme Court of the United States has stated that
``criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to
construe.'' Abramski v. U.S., 134 S.Ct. 2259, 2274, 2014,
internal citation omitted.
I was pleased to join with my colleague from California, Mrs.
Feinstein, in offering this language. I appreciate the chairman and the
ranking member having agreed to have it included with this legislation.
Any jurisdiction considering authorizing Internet gambling--and any
entity seeking to participate in offering online casinos in this
country--is well advised to consider that the Justice Department
decision of 2011 did not change the Wire Act.
The question of whether there should be online casinos in this Nation
has been polled widely over the past few years. It seems that no matter
where one goes, Internet gambling is opposed by the public by wide
margins, even in States where there is significant support for land-
based casinos.
The public recognizes that there is something fundamentally different
between having to go to a destination to place a bet and having a
casino come to you, in your own home or office on an electronic device.
Regardless of how Senators may feel about this issue, I hope we can
all agree that whether Internet gambling should be permitted in this
country is a question for Congress to determine, not unelected Federal
bureaucrats.
____________________