[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 11]
[Senate]
[Pages 15981-15984]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                   ILLEGAL WAGERING ON COLLEGE SPORTS

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, earlier today, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. 
Brownback, took to the floor and argued on behalf of a piece of 
legislation that would affect only my State and affect it in a very 
profound and negative way. The ostensible purpose of the legislation I 
think all of us can agree upon. I wish to put the discussion in context 
as I see it. We are talking about the illegal wagering on college 
sports, particularly wagering by underage college students, including 
student athletes. I think there is no disagreement that there is a 
serious problem and one that we recognize ought to be addressed in a 
very serious way.
  The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) testified before 
the Commerce Committee, as they did before the National Gambling Impact 
Study Commission (NGISC), that there are illegal student bookies on 
virtually every college campus in the country, including some 
individuals with links to organized crime. I do not disagree with that 
assessment. The matter is so serious that some students have actually 
been threatened with bodily harm to collect gambling debts owed to 
illegal student bookies. I do not disagree with that assessment.
  The NCAA has known at least since the three-part investigative series 
published by Sports Illustrated in 1995 that the illegal gambling 
problem on America's college campuses was widespread and growing. A 
recent University of Michigan survey found that nearly half of all male 
student-athletes nationwide--45 percent--gambled illegally on college 
and professional sports. A nationwide survey of NCAA Division I male 
basketball and football student-athletes conducted for the NCAA by a 
University of Cincinnati research team found that over one-fourth 
gambled in college sports. Sadly, a small number in each survey gambled 
on games in which they played. They were wrong.
  Beyond the broader issue of the extent to which student-athletes, and 
students generally, gamble on sports illegally, there are the troubling 
cases of improper influence being exerted on student-athletes by those 
who seek financial gain from placing sports wagers on ``fixed'' games. 
This reprehensible conduct has reared its ugly head on occasion since 
at least the 1940s, particularly in the context of college basketball.
  While the NCAA's recent rhetoric leaves the impression that such 
``point-shaving'' or ``fixing'' of games is rampant, we can be thankful 
that the record belies the rhetoric. The two recent scandals of this 
type (those at Northwestern University and Arizona State University) 
took place over five years ago in the mid-1990s. The integrity of 
virtually all those who compete in college athletics is verified by the 
fact that there were a handful of such scandals in the 1990s out of the 
thousands of games played. While not a single sports bribery scandal 
should be tolerated, we need to know why they occur and by what means. 
The record is clear for those student-athletes who have violated the 
trust of their teammates and school by engaging in illegal sports 
wagering. As a result of their illegal wagering, they put themselves in 
debt to the point where they committed heinous acts of betrayal to pay 
off those debts to illegal bookies.
  If merely passing laws prohibiting unregulated sports gambling were 
enough to stop it, the practice would not be so widespread today. 
Sports gambling has been illegal for decades in almost every state, and 
Congress acted in 1992 to prevent states from adding sports-based games 
to their state lotteries. The same statute, the Professional and 
Amateur Sports Protection Act, also prohibits persons from engaging in 
sports-based wagering schemes, contests, and sweepstakes.
  Similarly, wagering on sports of any kind, college or professional, 
is already a violation of NCAA bylaw 10.3. A review of the NCAA's 
publicly available computer database of rules infractions cases 
indicates that, as of 1998 (the last year for which cases are posted), 
enforcement of bylaw 10.3 is infrequent and spotty at best.
  The database reveals that the NCAA brought only 23 enforcement 
actions

[[Page 15982]]

against student-athletes from 1996 to 1998, even though the University 
of Michigan and University of Cincinnati studies indicate that 
thousands of violations occurred. In some of the 23 cases, the 
violations centered on such routine practices as students wagering team 
jerseys with each other. In the face of organized student bookmaking 
operations with links to organized crime handling large sums of cash 
wagers, such an enforcement ``strategy'' is at best misplaced.
  Against this backdrop of a serious national problem with illegal 
sports gambling, the legislation to which I referred, S. 2340, takes 
the very peculiar approach of targeting the only place in America where 
sports wagering is legal, regulated, policed, taxed, and confined to 
adults over age 21--the State of Nevada. Furthermore, the facts are 
that legal wagering in Nevada amounts to only about one percent of all 
sports gambling nationwide, 99 percent of which is already illegal. The 
NGISC estimated that illegal sports wagering in the United States 
ranged from $80 billion to $380 billion annually. In contrast, legal 
sports wagering in the State of Nevada last year totaled approximately 
$2.5 billion, with roughly a third of that amount bet on college 
sporting events.
  The central question then, which supporters of the legislation fail 
to answer adequately, is how does preventing adult tourists and 
conventioneers from placing sports wagers in Nevada affect what happens 
on and off college campuses in the other 49 states. Each of the 
attempted answers to this central question is completely unpersuasive.
  First, the central premise underlying this legislation is that 
eliminating the small amount of legal sports wagering in Nevada will 
cause newspapers across the country not to publish betting lines or 
point spreads, thereby curbing illegal gambling activity. This notion 
is further evidenced by the committee report accompanying S. 2340, the 
Amateur Sports Integrity Act, which states that ``. . . point spreads 
are generated for no other reason than to facilitate betting on college 
sports.'' It is important to note that neither the Commerce Committee 
nor the NGISC took testimony from newspapers to determine if in fact 
they would cease publishing betting lines if sports gambling were made 
illegal in Nevada. Similarly, no testimony was taken to determine 
whether illegal sports wagering would be reduced even if newspapers 
ceased publishing this information. I made the point at the time of the 
hearing on S. 2340 that it's not too much to ask that such due 
diligence be conducted before a legal industry and its employees are 
legislated out of existence
  Just recently the Newspaper Association of America broke their 
silence and shared their thoughts on this legislative proposal, and, 
not surprisingly, they completely refuted the primary argument put 
forth by the sponsors of this amendment. I'd like to share with my 
colleagues the content of their letter to the House Judiciary 
Committee.
  This is a letter, dated June 7 of this year, addressed to the 
chairman and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee. Let me 
read the operative provisions:
  If Congress prohibits gambling on college sports, NAS 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.
  That is a pretty clear statement that this association, representing 
America's newspapers, believes, notwithstanding any legislative 
prohibition, that newspapers in America will continue to publish these 
point spreads on games.
  The letter goes on to point out:
  According to a national Harris Poll survey of 1,024 respondents 
conducted during April 7-12, 70 percent of respondents who read or look 
at point spreads on college sports do so to obtain information about a 
favorite college team and to increase their knowledge about an upcoming 
sporting event. Only 11 percent of the respondents said that they read 
or look at point spreads on college sports to place a bet with a 
bookmaker. NAA believes that publication of point spreads provides 
useful information to millions of newspaper readers, of whom 96 percent 
are 21 and over (MRI Spring 2000 Study).
  Second, pointing the spotlight on published point spreads in 
newspapers fails to acknowledge that an individual can obtain point 
spreads on college games through many different sources. These sources 
include sports talk shows on radio and television, magazines, toll-free 
telephone services and the Internet. Illegal bookies on college 
campuses and in the general population will continue to set the betting 
lines independent of any published point spread. Anyone who is intent 
on placing bets on games can and will obtain point spreads, even if 
they are not published in the newspaper.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this letter be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                             Newspaper Association of America,

                                         Vienna, VA, June 7, 2000.
     Hon. Henry Hyde,
     Chairman,
     Hon. John Conyers,
     Ranking Member,
     Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Hyde and Congressman Conyers: The purpose of 
     this letter is to respond to your request for comment on H.R. 
     3575, the Student Athlete Protection Act, which prohibits 
     high school and college sports gambling in all States, 
     including Nevada, where gambling on college sports is 
     currently legal.
       The Newspaper Association of America (NAA) is a nonprofit 
     organization representing more than 2,000 newspapers in the 
     U.S. and Canada. Most NAA members are daily newspapers, 
     accounting for 87 percent of the U.S. daily circulation.
       NAA understands the concern Congress has with respect to 
     illegal sports gambling on college campuses, including the 
     existence of illegal bookmaking operations that involve 
     student-athletes as well as members of the general student 
     population. Our comments on the proposed legislation are 
     limited to an issue that has been raised concerning 
     publication of point spreads on college sporting events, and 
     whether a prohibition on gambling on college games will 
     persuade newspapers not to publish point spreads on these 
     games.
       First, like all editorial decisions, the decision on 
     whether to publish point spreads for college sporting events 
     is made by each newspaper and the decision to publish or not 
     publish will vary from newspaper to newspaper. If Congress 
     prohibits gambling on college sports, NAA believes newspapers 
     will continue to have an interest in publishing point spreads 
     on college games, since point spreads appear to be useful, it 
     not valuable, to newspaper readers who have no intention of 
     betting on games.
       According to a national Harris Poll survey of 1,024 
     respondents conducted during April 7-12, 70 percent of 
     respondents who read or look at point spreads on college 
     sports do so to obtain information about a favorite college 
     team and to increase their knowledge about an upcoming 
     sporting event. Only 11 percent of the respondents said that 
     they read or look at point spreads on college sports to place 
     a bet with a bookmaker. NAA believes that publication of 
     point spreads provides useful information to millions of 
     newspaper readers, of whom 96 percent are 21 and over (MRI 
     Spring 2000 Study).
       Second, pointing the spotlight on published point spreads 
     in newspapers fails to acknowledge that an individual can 
     obtain point spreads on college games through many different 
     sources. These sources include sports talk shows on radio and 
     television, magazines, toll-free telephone services and the 
     Internet. Illegal bookies on college campuses and in the 
     general population will continue to set the betting lines 
     independent of any published point spread. Anyone who is 
     intent on placing bets on games can and will obtain point 
     spreads, even if they are not published in the newspaper.
       Finally, NAA applauds the sponsors of the legislation for 
     resisting the temptation to impinge upon constitutionally 
     protected freedoms of speech by proposing a prohibition on 
     the publication or dissemination of point spreads on college 
     games. Over the years, the Supreme Court consistently has 
     recognized that a consumer's interest in the free flow of 
     information ``may be as keen, if not keener by far, than his 
     interest in the day's most urgent political debate.'' 
     Virginia State Bd Of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer 
     Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 763 (1976). We commend you and your 
     colleagues for being particularly sensitive to maintaining 
     the free flow of information, which citizens of this country 
     have come to expect and enjoy.

[[Page 15983]]

       NAA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this 
     legislation before your committee.
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                    John F. Stern,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, the NCAA has threatened for years to deny 
NCAA-sponsored tournament press credentials to newspapers that publish 
lines, but they have never done so. These hollow threats are further 
evidence of the futility of this exercise.
  Secondly, we have been told that this legislation, while admittedly 
no panacea, will ``send a message'' to students and others that sports 
gambling is illegal. Again, there is a complete absence of any 
empirical evidence or fact-based testimony that America's college 
students, or adults for that matter, will heed such a so-called 
``message.'' By this logic, we should reinstate Prohibition on serving 
alcohol to adults over the age of 21 to ``send a message'' to minors 
about drinking and to reduce binge drinking by underage students on 
college campuses. The absurdity of such an approach is self-evident, 
and it applies with equal force to this legislation.
  The real message that this legislation will send is that shirking 
responsibility and pointing fingers at others is the appropriate manner 
in which to handle a serious national problem. Everyone should agree 
that a problem so pervasive on college campuses should be addressed 
comprehensively and with a serious commitment from the NCAA and its 
member institutions, including federal requirements enshrined in 
appropriate legislation.
  While we heard considerable rhetoric at our Commerce Committee 
hearing concerning what the NCAA intends to do about illegal gambling 
on college campuses, there was very little testimony concerning what 
concrete steps at NCAA has taken to date. For example, the chairman of 
the NCAA's executive committee testified that during the ten years he 
has served as president of his university, he could not recall a single 
case of a student being expelled or otherwise disciplined for illegal 
gambling, even though he acknowledged there are illegal student bookies 
on his campus.
  We are repeatedly told by the sponsors of this legislation that the 
NCAA has plans to set up its anti-gambling initiatives. The facts belie 
the accuracy of those assurances. For example, the NCAA's total 
operating revenue for 1998-99 was $283 million. Within the overall 
budget, there was a line item for ``sports agents and gambling'' that 
equaled $64,000. Similarly, the line item for 1999-2000 is $139,000 out 
of revenue of $303 million. Only three of nearly 300 NCAA employees are 
assigned to gambling issues, and those persons have other 
responsibilities in addition to illegal sports gambling.
  The NCAA's own presentations to the NGISC and in other venues 
indicate that there are many other important steps that should be 
taken, beyond what this legislation would do, to address the problem of 
illegal gambling on college campuses. The NCAA and its members have 
failed to follow through on the very steps they recommended to the 
commission just one year ago. For example, much was made at our hearing 
about the NCAA's use of a new public service announcement during the 
telecast of the men's basketball tournament. There was little evidence 
that this PSA was shown either frequently or during times of maximum 
audience exposure. Furthermore, there is no indication that the NCAA 
followed the recommendation of the NGISC and specifics PSA commitments 
be written into the NCAA's television contracts. A $6 billion, 11-year 
deal for the television rights to the men's ``March Madness'' 
basketball tournament was signed by the NCAA with CBS Sports after the 
NGISC made this recommendation in its Final Report.
  There is a serious need for a combination of enforcement, education, 
and counseling initiatives to address illegal gambling by high school 
and college students. Unfortunately, the Commerce Committee took no 
testimony from those individuals on campus, in our states, and at the 
Federal level who are charged with enforcing the laws that already make 
this activity illegal. Similarly, we heard very little from 
professionals whose job it is to educate students about the dangers of 
gambling abuse and to counsel those who suffer from such problems.
  Finally, while this bill directly impacts Nevada, let me suggest to 
my colleagues we should be alarmed by the precedent that would be 
established if this bill becomes law. For over 200 years the Federal 
Government has deferred to the State to determine the scope and type of 
gaming that should be permitted within their borders. The Professional 
and Amateur Sports Protection Act preempted that authority as it 
relates to sports wagering, but only prospectively. If Congress sees 
fit to overturn Nevada's sports wagering statutes that have been on the 
books for many decades, it sets a dangerous precedent that should be 
cause for concern for the other 47 States with some form of legal 
gaming operations.
  We all agree as to the serious nature of the problem. Unfortunately, 
the legislative proposal will do nothing to address that issue.
  As I have said during my testimony before the Commerce Committee, 
this legislation is an illegal bookie's dream.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, before my friend from Nevada leaves the 
floor, I intend to make a couple of comments on his statement. One of 
the most valued members of the committee is Senator Bryan from Nevada.
  Senator Reid and I came to the House of Representatives together many 
years ago. I consider us to have a very warm and excellent relationship 
over many years.
  I will miss Senator Bryan very much as he leaves--not only the Senate 
but as a much valued member of our committee. Coincidentally, on the 
issue of sports, Senator Bryan and I were able to work together on a 
couple of boxing issues that a lot of our Members did not care much 
about. But hopefully we were able to assist some people who come from 
the lowest economic rung of our society and prevent, at least to some 
degree, the exploitation to which many of them are subjected.
  I preface my comments with a brief response to both Senators from 
Nevada. Again, I say that with respect and affection.
  I did not invent this legislation, nor did it come from any Member of 
this body. It came as a result of the National Gaming Impact Study 
Commission, a commission that met for a long time and came up with this 
strong recommendation. Then the issue was picked up by the NCAA 
coaches. Some of the most respected men and women in America, 
obviously, are our college coaches, people of the level of Dean Smith, 
Joe Paterno, Jim Calhoun, and so many others who have made this a high 
visibility and important issue, at least to them, including the 
presidents of the colleges and universities across the country.
  I will not rebut their comments or try to respond to all the comments 
made by Senator Bryan, except to say I respect his view. But I do 
believe there is a compelling case that has been made, not by this 
Member but by the college coaches and the university presidents who say 
this is placing these young--as Coach Calhoun called them--kids in the 
path of temptation that is something that could be very unhealthy for 
them.
  So I respect the views of my friends from Nevada. I hope we will have 
a vigorous debate on this issue, and hopefully we will be able to 
address it one way or another. But I do believe it is an issue of some 
importance, at least if you believe those who are closest to these 
young men and women, our college athletes.
  Mr. BRYAN. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. BRYAN. I will just acknowledge his very generous comments. I 
appreciate that.
  Let me respond in turn. I have been privileged and honored to serve 
in that committee with him as chairman. We have worked on many, many 
issues, not only the athletic issues which we have addressed, but both 
of our respective jurisdictions are going to enjoy expanded air service 
as a result of his leadership, providing nonstop service

[[Page 15984]]

to the Nation's Capital from our respective States. So I assure him my 
comments are in no way intended to be personal to him. It is a 
difference of opinion. The Senator from Arizona, who is a tenacious 
advocate and fearless defender of his own State, can understand the 
Senator from Nevada obviously has serious concerns. They are honest 
differences of opinion with the Senator from Arizona. I wanted to state 
that for the Record.
  Again, I thank him for his very generous comments.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank Senator Bryan. I will come to the floor sometime 
in September to chronicle his many accomplishments and the admiration 
and heartfelt affection I have for Senator Bryan. But at the moment I 
say we will respectfully disagree. I think we will have both an 
interesting and, I hope, illuminating discussion of what has become, in 
the eyes of many, an important issue. I thank Senator Bryan for his 
kind remarks. I will miss him, although I want to make it clear that he 
is not departing this Earth. In fact, he may be going to a much more 
rewarding and comfortable lifestyle.

                          ____________________