[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 20]
[House]
[Page 27589]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        INTERNET GAMBLING REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2007

  (Mr. SARBANES asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to enter a letter cowritten 
by my Maryland Attorney General which raises concerns about the impact 
that the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007 would 
have on the power of the States to make and enforce their own gambling 
laws. In my view, the letter raises questions that merit the 
consideration of my colleagues.

                                               September 28, 2007.
       Dear Chairman Frank and Ranking Member Bachus: We, the 
     Attorneys General of our respective States, have grave 
     concerns about H.R. 2046, the ``Internet Gambling Regulation 
     and Enforcement Act of 2007.'' We believe that the bill would 
     undermine States' traditional powers to make and enforce 
     their own gambling laws.
       On March 21, 2006, 49 NAAG members wrote to the leadership 
     of Congress:
       ``We encourage the United States Congress to help combat 
     the skirting of state gambling regulations by enacting 
     legislation which would address Internet gambling, while at 
     the same time ensuring that the authority to set overall 
     gambling regulations and policy remains where it has 
     traditionally been most effective: at the state level.''
       Congress responded by enacting the Unlawful Internet 
     Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), which has 
     effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the 
     American marketplace.
       But now, less than a year later, H.R. 2046 proposes to do 
     the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal 
     licensing program that would permit Internet gambling 
     companies to do business with U.S. customers. The Department 
     of the Treasury would alone decide who would receive federal 
     licenses and whether the licensees were complying with their 
     terms. This would represent the first time in history that 
     the federal government would be responsible for issuing 
     gambling licenses.
       A federal license would supersede any state enforcement 
     action, because Sec. 5387 in H.R. 2046 would grant an 
     affirmative defense against and prosecution or enforcement 
     action under and Federal or State law to any person who 
     possesses a valid license and complies with the requirements 
     of H.R. 2046. This divestment of state gambling enforcement 
     power is sweeping and unprecedented.
       The bill would legalize Internet gambling in each State, 
     unless the Governor clearly specifies existing state 
     restrictions barring Internet gambling in whole or in part. 
     On that basis, a State may ``opt out'' of legalization for 
     all Internet gambling or certain types of gambling. However, 
     the opt-out for types of gambling does not clearly preserve 
     the right of States to place conditions on legal types of 
     gambling. Thus, for example, if the State permits poker in 
     licensed card rooms, but only between 10 a.m. and midnight, 
     and the amount wagered cannot exceed $100 per day and the 
     participants must be 21 or older, the federal law might 
     nevertheless allow 18-year-olds in that State to wager much 
     larger amounts on poker around the clock.
       Furthermore, the opt-outs may prove illusory. They will 
     likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization. The 
     World Trade Organization has already shown itself to be 
     hostile to U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. If it 
     strikes down state opt-outs as unduly restrictive of trade, 
     the way will be open to the greatest expansion of legalized 
     gambling in American history and near total preemption of 
     State laws restricting Internet gambling.
       H.R. 2046 effectively nationalizes America's gambling laws 
     on the Internet, ``harmonizing'' the law for the benefit of 
     foreign gambling operations that were defying our laws for 
     years, at least until UIGEA was enacted. We therefore oppose 
     this proposal, and any other proposal that hinders the right 
     of States to prohibit or regulate gambling by their 
     residents.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Douglas Gansler,
                                     Attorney General of Maryland.
                                                    Bill McCollum,
     Attorney General of Florida.

                          ____________________