[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 16]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 22725-22726]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, AND NCAA OPPOSE SPORTS BETTING

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. EDOLPHUS TOWNS

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, August 1, 2007

  Mr. TOWNS. Madam Speaker, I would like to call attention to a letter 
that I and my colleagues received this week from the professional and 
collegiate sports associations. It alerts us to the fact that, at this 
time when the reputation and integrity of American athletics are keenly 
threatened by gambling-related scandals, proposals to legalize and 
sanction sports gambling are being advanced here in the House of 
Representatives.
  I have long been concerned about protecting American athletics from 
the taint of gambling. I cosponsored the Professional and Amateur 
Sports Protection Act of 1992, when arrested the growth of state-
sponsored sports betting. As Congress said then, ``Sports gambling 
threatens to change the nature of sporting events from wholesome 
entertainment for all ages to devices for gambling. It undermines 
public confidence in the character of professional and amateur 
sports.''
  Now H.R. 2046 threatens to let offshore online gambling operators do 
through the backdoor what PASPA shut off to states through the front 
door. And the proponents of sports gambling are making the same 
arguments that they did in the early 1990s: legal sportsbooks have the 
technology and incentive to identify suspicious activity and prevent 
actual corruption of the game; people are going to gamble on sports 
anyway, so the government might as well capture tax revenue on the 
activity.
  Congress rejected those arguments then, and they should reject them 
now. The fundamental issue has never been whether the technology 
existed to prevent abusive sports gambling. The fundamental issue is 
this: regardless of what happens between friends or on the black 
market, Congress should not be in the business of encouraging people to 
gamble on sports. And sports gambling should be off limits from further 
exploitation as a ``revenue enhancer.''
  This is an essential principle, that gambling and sports do not mix. 
Even though H.R. 2046 says sports leagues can ``opt out'' of allowing 
gambling on their sport, Congress would still be sending the wrong 
message about sports gambling. Moreover, the sports associations have 
very serious concerns that the ``opt-outs'' could be struck down by 
U.S. courts or international tribunals, leaving their sports completely 
unprotected.
  As their letter says, ``the harms caused by government endorsement of 
sports betting far exceed the alleged benefits.'' Therefore, I will not 
support any movement on H.R. 2046 so long as it poses any threat to the 
integrity of American athletics.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place in the Record the 
letter signed by the General Counsels of the National Football League, 
Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Hockey 
League, and National Collegiate Athletic Association.

                                                    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 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 websites 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

[[Page 22726]]

     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 World 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 FootbaIl League.

                          ____________________