[Senate Report 106-278]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 527
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-278
_______________________________________________________________________
AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 2340
May 3, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010 WASHINGTON : 2000
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixth congress
second session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MAX CLELAND, Georgia
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
Calendar No. 527
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-278
======================================================================
AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT
_______
May 3, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 2340]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 2340) ``A Bill to direct the
National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish a
program to support research and training in methods of
detecting the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes,
and for other purposes'', having considered the same, reports
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill
(as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the bill is twofold: First, the legislation
would establish a grant program, administered by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, to support research and
training in methods of detecting the use of performance-
enhancing substances by athletes. The bill further provides
that such a program would include an education and intervention
component aimed at informing amateur athletes of the risks and
harm of using such substances.
Second, S. 2340 establishes a ban on gambling on Olympic,
college, and high school athletic events, or gambling on any
competition in which a college, or high school athlete is
competing. This ban is a response to the specific
recommendation of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission
(NGISC), and closes a loophole in the Professional and Amateur
Sports Act (PASPA).
Background and Needs
The role that Olympic and amateur sports play in America far
exceeds the obvious nature of competition. At the high school
and college level, organized sports, both male and female,
serve as laboratories where student athletes strive for
excellence by applying the highest ideals of the American
character: team work, self-sacrifice, perseverance individual
courage and excellence. The Olympic games are the transcendent
athletic competition. For a few weeks, every two years, the
world comes together to cheer for a competition that holds
forth, not who we are, but who we want to be. Tragically,
recent years have seen the Olympic and amateur athletic
movement threatened by the compounded scourge of an explosion
in gambling and the use of performance enhancing drugs. This
scourge threatens to undermine the fundamental integrity of
Olympic and amateur sports competition. The Amateur Sports
Integrity Act addresses critical elements necessary to preserve
the honesty and integrity of amateur sports competition, and to
preserve the virtue and health of its most precious commodity,
the young men and women who strive for excellence through
athletic competition.
The Amateur Sports Integrity Act holds forth two fundamental
tenets: The integrity of amateur athletic competition must not
be corrupted through the use of performance-enhancing drugs,
and that our young men and women participating in amateur
athletic competition should not be reduced to a point spread
and a spectacle for wagering, placing our student-athletes at
the mercy of bettors and bookies.
The NGISC was established in 1996 by Public Law 104-169. The
NGISC was charged with conducting a comprehensive legal and
factual study of the social and economic impacts of gambling on
(1) Federal, State, local, and native American tribal
governments and (2) communities and social institutions
including individuals, families, and businesses, which compose
them. The NGISC was a nonpartisan commission, with members
appointed by both the majority and minority in Congress, and by
the President.
In its final report, the NGISC cited the testimony of Nancy
Price to the Commission. ``State sanctioned sports betting
conveys the message that sports are more about money than
personal achievement and sportsmanship. In these days of
scandal and disillusionment, it is important that youngsters
receive this message . . . sports betting threatens the
integrity of and public confidence in professional and amateur
team sports, converting sports from wholesome athletic
entertainment into a vehicle for gambling . . . sports gambling
raises people's suspicions about point-shaving and game-fixing
. . . All of this puts undue pressure on players, coaches, and
officials.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Submitted testimony of Nancy Price to the NGISC in Las Vegas,
Nevada, November 10, 1998, National Gambling Impact Study Commission--
Final Report, pages 3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Wire Act of 1961 (18 U.S.C. 1084) gambling
businesses are prohibited from using wire communications to
transmit bets, wagers, or information that assists in the
placing of bets or wagers either through a means of interstate,
or foreign commerce. This statute makes specific reference to
the placing of bets or wagers on sporting events or contests.
Though the Wire Act prohibits interstate sports gambling, it
left unaddressed the question of state-sanctioned sports
gambling.
On October 28, 1992, President Bush signed into law PASPA.
PASPA prohibits the expansion of state-sanctioned, authorized,
or licensed gambling on sports. PASPA grandfathered sports
gambling in four states--Nevada, Oregon, Montana, and Delaware.
Under PASPA, each of these states may legalize gambling on
college sports, although only Nevada has done so. Oregon runs a
state lottery game based on games played in the National
Football League. Delaware and Montana offer no form of
legalized sports gambling. Currently 142 legal sports books
operate in Nevada. ``Bettors wagered $2.3 billion in Nevada's
licensed sports books in fiscal 1998, according to Russell
Guindon, senior research analyst for the board.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Ban on College Sports Betting Could Cost State Books
Millions,'' Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 18, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from the contradictory message that legalized gambling
on college sports sends to our nation's youth, the Vegas
college gambling operations fuel a much larger, and nationwide
illegal betting business. The NGISC stated in its Final Report
``[L]egal sports wagering, especially the publication in the
media of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads, fuels
a much larger amount of illegal wagering.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Supra note 1, 3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though betting on college sports is illegal in all states but
Nevada, and sports betting in general is illegal in 48 states,
the Vegas sports line can be found in newspapers, on the radio,
television, and the Internet nationwide. The point-spreads are
generated for no other reason than to facilitate betting on
college sports. The result is a substantial problem with
illegal sports betting that places our nation's college
athletes at the mercy of bookies and bettors.
Betting on college campuses is widespread. According to
Cedric Dempsey, Executive Director of the NCAA, ``[T]here is
evidence more money is spent on gambling on campuses than on
alcohol . . . Every campus has student bookies. We're also
seeing an increase in the involvement of organized crime in
sports wagering.'' \4\ Such illegal campus betting, fueled by
the Vegas line, is not limited to dormitory gambling by
students, but extends to student athletes as well. A University
of Michigan study found that more than 45 percent of male
collegiate football and basketball athletes admit to betting on
sporting events. More than 5 percent of male student athletes
provided inside information for gambling purposes, bet on a
game in which they participated, or accepted money for
performing poorly in a game. \5\ A just-released report
entitled ``NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the
Integrity of College Sports?'' documents that 40 percent of
Division I sports officials bet on sports, and that fourteen of
the respondents in the study indicated ``they were aware of
other officials who did not call games fairly because of
gambling reasons.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``NCAA Says Lady Vols Not Safe from Gamblers,'' Knoxville News-
Sentinel, August 6, 1998, C1.
\5\ ``The Extent and Nature of Gambling Among College Student
Athletes.'' Michael E. Cross and Ann G. Vollano, University of Michigan
Athletic Department, 1999.
\6\ ``NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the Integrity of
Sports?'' Ann G. Vollano and Derrick L. Gragg, The University of
Michigan Department of Athletics, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Vegas sports gambling industry asserts that their betting
business, by virtue of being limited to Nevada and heavily
regulated, poses no threat to college sports nationwide. In
fact, the opposite is true. Anyone can be a bookie. The
challenge is in promoting the idea of betting and in getting a
reliable sports line out. The Nevada college betting industry
does both for illegal betting operations nationwide.
In addition, some of the most high profile point shaving
scandals have been facilitated by the Vegas betting industry.
Both the Arizona State and Northwestern University scandals
involved heavy betting among participants in Nevada sports
books. In the Northwestern case, the Nevada sports book
activity went completely undetected.
In a February 1, 2000 press conference, Kevin Pendergast, the
young man who orchestrated the Northwestern University gambling
scandal discussed the critical role of the Las Vegas sports
books in his scheme ``My local bookie could not have covered a
$20,000 bet on a game that was fixed, and conscience would not
let me cheat someone I know.'' Steve DuCharme, of the Nevada
State Gaming Control Board, estimates that millions of dollars
of illegal money is laundered through Nevada sports books.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Sports Business Journal, February 1-7, 1999, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Vegas sports betting industry argues that it plays a
vital role in exposing point-shaving schemes, and therefore
prevents, rather than contributes to illegal gambling and
point-shaving activities. First, this is a cart before the pony
argument. The Vegas point-spread, in fact, facilitates illegal
betting. It is a fact that illegal betting occurs. Point-
shaving schemes result from illegal betting. Although the
Nevada betting industry has, on a few occasions and very much
after the fact, exposed such point-shaving schemes, it ignores
the practical reality of the role that legal sports betting in
Nevada plays as a catalyst in the entire illegal betting cycle.
As coach Jim Calhoun stated in testimony before the Committee
``[T]o me personally, and I know to many other coaches . . .
the publishing of point spreads and the legalized gambling on
college games in Nevada protects and legitimizes illegal
activity.''
Ironically, the most powerful argument for banning gambling
on college sports comes from Nevada itself. Though one can go
to a Nevada sports book and place a bet on a college team from
California to Maine, one cannot place a bet on a Nevada college
team, or on a competition involving a Nevada college team. Due
to concern about the potential for corruption, placing a wager
on Nevada teams is illegal in Vegas. The rational for such a
contradictory policy is rooted in the argument that geographic
proximity makes these games vulnerable to corruption, a team
playing outside Nevada is less vulnerable to the machinations
of bookies and bettors than one playing inside the state. This
argument fails to reflect the practical reality of today's
society.
Finally, the American Gaming Association, and others who
support continuing the practice of betting on Olympic, college,
and high school athletes argue that the NGISC set forth that
gambling activities should be regulated by the states. They
point to seemingly contradictory statements contained in the
recommendations section of the Commission's Final Report.
Recommendation 3-1 states ``[T]he Commission recommends to
state governments and the federal government that states are
best equipped to regulate gambling within their own borders.''
Recommendation 3-7 states ``[T]he Commission recommends that
betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is
currently legal be banned altogether.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Final Report--Report
Recommendations, June 18, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of S. 2340 have misconstrued these statements so as
to conclude that the Commission recommended vesting authority
with the states to ban betting on college and high school
children. The more reasoned interpretation of the Commission's
final report is quite the opposite. While the Commission has
recognized traditional authority of the states, the Federal
government, through PASPA, maintains jurisdiction over sports
wagering. ``Throughout the Report, the Commission did not
attempt to dispute or change any of the existing jurisdictional
arrangements between the Federal, State and tribal governments.
The intent of the Commission's recommendation was to close the
loophole in the 1992 Act, a recommendation requiring Federal
action.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Kay James, Chairman--National Gambling Impact Study Commission,
March 29, 2000 letter to Chairman McCain responding to request for
clarification of NGISC recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amateur Sports Integrity Act is supported by a broad
array of athletic organizations, pro-family groups, consumer
groups, and universities. While this bill may not end all
gambling on college sports, it will send the message that
betting on college sports by college students is illegal and
has significant social costs. A ban will help reduce or
eliminate published point spreads on college games in
newspapers, which feed illegal betting activity. Most
important, by a ban on college sports gambling will end a
practice that has cost college athletes as items to be bet
upon, exposing them to unwarranted pressure, bribery, and
corruption.
Collegiate athletic competition is supposed to represent the
principles of pure competition and excellence. Collegiate
competition serves as a laboratory classroom where young
student athletes struggle to apply the highest ideals of the
American character: courage in the face of adversity,
discipline, teamwork, and self-sacrifice. These ideals and
lessons are of particular importance in today's society. These
ideals should not be reduced to a spectacle for wagering.
The use of performance enhancing drugs likewise threatens the
fundamental integrity of athletic competition. Recent years
have seen an escalation, both in the use and the sophistication
of techniques for the use of such substances. On October 20,
1999, the Commerce Committee held a Full Committee hearing on
the topic of performance enhancing drug use in athletic
competition. The use of banned substances poses both a threat
to the integrity of competition, and a very real public health
concern. Dr. Jerry Wadler testified that ``[D]oping is a matter
of ethics, which affects not only Olympic athletes but also
youth, high school, college and professional athletes. The fact
is, doping threatens to undermine the ethical and physical well
being of children.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Testimony of Dr. Jerry Wadler, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee heard testimony regarding the need for
independent testing agencies at both the IOC and USOC levels.
Both organizations have now established testing agencies.
Further, the Committee heard testimony regarding the need for
increased funding for research designed to foster new
strategies and technologies to detect and verify the use of
banned substances. General McCaffrey stated that ``[R]ight now,
research is inadequate to identify EPO, hGH, the whole range of
artificial testosterone and other drugs that are coming on-
line.'' \11\ Though recent years have seen a dramatic
escalation in the variety and difficulty of detection of banned
substances, little has been done to foster research into their
detection. Dr. Wadler stated that ``[N]ew drugs create new
demands. For example, the use of endogenous substances'' that
is, substances that occur naturally in our bodies, such as
testosterone, human growth hormone (hGH) and erythropoietin
(EPO) ``creates the need for a higher ground of independent,
peer-reviewed science coupled with credible year round out-of-
competition, random and unannounced testing.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Testimony of General Barry McCaffrey, Director--White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic
Competition.
\12\ Testimony of Dr. Jerry Wadler, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is particularly disturbed by the growth in the
use of performance enhancing drugs by adolescents, and the ease
of access to such drugs through the Internet. As General Barry
McCaffrey stated during testimony before the Committee ``[W]e
have widespread use of doping agents throughout the United
States among young adolescents. We are talking 550,000[sic]
kids used steroids in 1995, and the number is undoubtedly
greater now. We are talking about a situation where you can get
on the Internet, order these drugs with the participation,
perhaps, of your team doctor or team coach. They can come to
your home through international mail, and you can be involved
in destructive chemical engineering of your own body.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Testimony of General Barry McCaffrey, Director--White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amateur Sports Protection Act establishes a grant
program, administered by the National Institute of Standards
and Technology, to support research and training in methods of
detecting the use of performance-enhancing substances by
athletes. S. 2340 further provides that such a program would
include an educational component aimed at informing amateur
athletes of the risks and harm of using such substances. By
targeting resources at both research and development and
education, the Act begins the process of reversing the trend of
drug use in sports, and aims to restore the integrity of
athletic competition. In the words of Nancy Hogshead, U.S.
Olympic medalist in swimming ``[D]oping is a scourge that
afflicts all athletes, those who are clean and those who are
not, those who are on the podium and those who dream of
greatness on the fields and arenas around the world. It ruins
the lives, reputations and health of thousands of athletes
world wide, and it erodes the public trust in the Olympic
movement.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Testimony of Nancy Hogshead, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative History
On April 13, 2000, the Committee met in open executive
session to consider S. 2340. By voice vote, the Committee
adopted technical amendments offered by Senator McCain and
considered amendments offered by Senator Stevens, Breaux, and
Bryan.
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2000.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2340, the Amateur
Sports Integrity Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
S. 2340--Amateur Sports Integrity Act
Summary: S. 2340 would authorize the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) to make grants for research on
performance-enhancing substances and methods for detecting
their use by athletes. The bill also would authorize NIST to
make grants to fund prevention and intervention programs
related to the use of performance-enhancing substances by high
school or college athletes. S. 2340 would prohibit government
entities from sponsoring or authorizing gambling schemes based
on amateur games or performances by high school, college, or
Olympic athletes. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney
General and the Secretary of Education to review the policies,
procedures, and practices of colleges concerning illegal
gambling and athletic contests.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 2340 would cost $25 million over
the 2001-2005 period: The bill would not affect direct spending
or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not
apply.
S. 2340 contains intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The bill would prohibit any governmental entity or the private-
sector from operating or authorizing any wagering on amateur
sports and also would require colleges to compile and report
gambling information and policies in a specified manner. CBO
estimates that the costs associated with complying with the
mandates would not exceed the thresholds established by UMRA
($55 million for intergovernmental mandates and $109 million
for private-sector mandates in 2000, adjusted annually for
inflation). The bill also would establish grant programs that
could benefit public and private educational institutions.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 2340 is shown in the following table.
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370
(commerce and housing credit).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
--------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level................................................ 7 7 7 7 7
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 1 4 6 7 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basis of estimate: S. 2340 would authorize $7 million a
year over the 2001-2005 period for NIST to make grants to
research the use of performance enhancing drugs, and to
discourage drug abuse. For the purposes of this estimate, CBO
assumes that all authorized amounts will be appropriated near
the beginning of each fiscal year and that outlays will follow
the historical spending patterns of other NIST's grant
programs.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector: S. 2340 contains intergovernmental and
private-sector mandates as defined by UMRA. CBO estimates that
complying with these mandates would not exceed the threshold
established in UMRA ($55 million for intergovernmental mandates
and $109 million for private-sector mandates in 2000, adjusted
annually for inflation). CBO estimates that the prohibition on
wagering on amateur sports would reduce revenues in the state
of Nevada by approximately $2 million a year. Based on
information from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, CBO estimates
that the private sector would lose about $40 million annually
because of this prohibition. In addition, CBO estimates that
the requirement that colleges report certain gambling
information and policies would increase costs to public and
private colleges and universities. The amount of any increase
is uncertain, but expected to be small because the colleges are
already required to compile similar information on crime and
policies on substance use.
S. 2340 could also benefit public and private educational
institutions to the extent that they qualify for grants that
would be established by the bill. The bill would authorize $4
million annually for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for drug
research and detection grants and $3 million annually for
fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for intervention and prevention
grants.
Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Hadley. Impact on
State, local, and tribal governments: Shelly Finlayson. Impact
on the private sector: Jean Wooster.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
Because S. 2340 does not create any new programs, the
legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, and will
result in no additional reporting requirements. The legislation
will have no further effect on the number of types of
individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals,
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses.
NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED AND ECONOMIC IMPACT
Currently, wagering on college sports is legal in only the
State of Nevada. Sports gambling in Nevada generated
approximately $2.3 billion in 1999 for legal sports books, and
college sports betting comprised 33% of this total. Casinos
retained $99 million. Though this number seems high, betting on
college sports represents a relatively small segment of the
$10.1 billion in total casino revenues for the same year. (The
amount bet on college sports is only three-tenths of 1 percent
of the overall casino take.)
PRIVACY AND PAPERWORK
This legislation will not have any adverse impact on the
personal privacy of individuals and will not require additional
paperwork.
Section-by-Section Analysis
TITLE I--PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS
Section 101. Short title
This section provides that this title may be cited as the
``Athletic Performance-Enhancing Drugs Research and Detection
Act.''
Sec. 102. Research and detention program established
(a) Requires the Director of NIST to establish a program to
support research into the use of performance-enhancing drugs
and methods of detecting their use.
(b) Describes the type of research to be funded by the grant.
The subsection requires the Director to consider funding
research into substances banned by the International Olympic
Committee, the United States Olympic Committee, the National
Collegiate Association, the National Football League, the
National Basketball Association, and Major League Baseball.
Specific substances to be studied should include naturally-
occurring steroids, testosterone, human growth hormone and
erythropoietin. The grants should also fund research on
different population groups to ensure the tests are applicable
to men, women, and differing ethnic groups. The subsection also
prohibits use of the grants for research into drugs of abuse,
such as cocaine or marijuana.
(c) Establishes procedures for the award of grants. The
subsection requires the Director to establish appropriate
scientific peer review procedures for evaluating grant
applications and results of research funded. The Director is
also required to establish minimum criteria for the award of
grants. Applicants must demonstrate a record of publication and
research in the area of athletic drug testing; provide a plan
detailing the direct transfer of the research to lab
applications; and certify that it is a not for profit research
program.
(d) Authorizes $4 million per year for fiscal years 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 to carry out the purposes of this
section.
Sec. 103. Prevention and intervention programs
(a) Requires the Director of NIST to establish a grant
program to fund educational substance abuse prevention and
intervention programs related to the use of performance
enhancing drugs. The subsection also requires the Director to
establish minimum criteria for grant applicants.
(b) Requires a minimum grant award of no less than $300
thousand dollars per recipient.
(c) Authorizes $3 million per year for fiscal years 2001,
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 to carry out the purposes of this
section.
TITLE II--GAMBLING
Sec. 201. Prohibition on gambling on competitive games involving high
school and college athletes and the olympics
Amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to
create a new subchapter III, section 220541 of title 36, United
States Code.
The new section does the following:
(1) It makes it unlawful for any governmental entity
to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or
authorize, or any person, including an amateur sports
organization or a corporate sponsor of an organization
to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote a lottery,
contest, sweepstake, or other betting, gambling, or
wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on a
competitive game or performance described under the
Act, including a sweepstakes or contest that includes
prizes related directly or indirectly to such a covered
game or performance.
(2) It defines covered games and performances as any
Summer or Winter Olympic competition, any high school
or college athletic competition, or any athletic
competition where one or more high school or college
athletes compete.
(3) It makes clear that the prohibition established
under this Act applies notwithstanding any other
provision of law.
(4) It provides for civil action to enjoin activities
prohibited under the Act. The civil action may be
brought in the appropriate federal district court by
the United States Attorney General, a local education
agency, college, or sports organization whose
competitive game is alleged to be the basis of the
violation.
(5) It defines the following terms used in the
section:
``High school'' as having the same
meaning as ``secondary school'' in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (U.S.C. 8801) or (ESEA).
``College'' as having the same
meaning as institution of higher education in
the ESEA.
``Local education agency'' as having
the same meaning as that term in the ESEA.
(6) It requires colleges and universities to include
as part of the reporting requirements under section
1092(f) of title 20, United States Code, information on
illegal gambling activity, including gambling over the
Internet, a statement of the college or university's
policy regarding under-age and other illegal gambling
activity in the form and manner required for statements
of policy on alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs
required under the same section of title 20. This
policy statement should include a description of any
gambling abuse education programs available to students
and employees of the institution. Further, the Act
provides that the Attorney General of the United
States, in consultation with the Secretary of
Education, shall periodically review the policies,
procedures, and practices of colleges and universities
concerning campus crimes and security related directly
or indirectly to illegal gambling, and the integrity of
athletic contests in which students of that college
participate.
Rollcall Votes in Committee
In accordance with paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following description of the record votes during its
consideration of S. 2340:
Senator Bryan offered an amendment to preserve the
grandfather provision for college sports wagering in the
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. By rollcall
vote of 2 yeas and 16 nays as follows, the amendment was
defeated:
YEAS--2 NAYS--16
Mr. Breaux Mr. Stevens
Mr. Bryan Mr. Burns
Mr. Gorton
Mr. Lott \1\
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Ashcroft \1\
Mr. Frist
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Wyden
Mr. Cleland
Mr. McCain
\1\ By proxy.
Senator Bryan offered an amendment to establish a national
minimum gambling age. By rollcall vote of 5 yeas and 13 nays as
follows, the amendment was defeated:
YEAS--5 NAYS--13
Mr. Brownback Mr. Stevens
Mr. Inouye Mr. Burns
Mr. Rockefeller Mr. Gorton
Mr. Breaux Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Bryan Mr. Lott
Ms. Snowe
Mr. Frist
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Wyden
Mr. Cleland \1\
Mr. McCain
\1\ By proxy.
Senator Bryan offered 2 amendments, en bloc, to require
amateur sports organizations to establish a dedicated funding
source for gambling abuse programs and to require colleges to
implement programs to reduce illegal gambling by students and
employees. By rollcall vote of 5 yeas and 14 nays as follows,
the amendments were defeated:
YEAS--5 NAYS--14
Mr. Lott Mr. Stevens \1\
Mr. Inouye Mr. Burns
Mr. Rockefeller Mr. Gorton
Mr. Kerry Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Bryan Ms. Snowe
Mr. Ashcroft \1\
Mr. Frist
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Wyden \1\
Mr. Cleland \1\
Mr. McCain
\1\ By proxy.
Senator Bryan offered an amendment to require colleges to
report information and develop enforcement policies on illegal
gambling. By rollcall vote of 16 yeas and 3 nays as follows,
the amendment was adopted:
YEAS--17 NAYS--2
Mr. Stevens \1\ Mr. Hollings
Mr. Burns Mr. Wyden \1\
Mr. Gorton
Mr. Lott
Mrs. Hutchison
Ms. Snowe
Mr. Ashcroft \1\
Mr. Frist
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Bryan
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Cleland \1\
Mr. McCain
\1\ By proxy.
Senator Bryan offered an amendment to require colleges to
establish zero tolerance policies for illegal gambling by
student athletes. By rollcall vote of 3 yeas and 15 nays as
follows, the amendment was defeated:
YEAS--3 NAYS--15
Mr. Rockefeller Mr. Stevens \1\
Mr. Bryan Mr. Burns
Mr. Dorgan Mr. Gorton
Mr. Lott
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Ashcroft \1\
Mr. Frist
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Wyden \1\
Mr. Cleland \1\
Mr. McCain
\1\ By proxy.
Senator Bryan offered an amendment to require colleges to
condition the receipt of Federal funds on the requirement than
colleges spend advertising revenues related to the sale of
alcoholic beverages on gambling, drug, and alcohol abuse
prevention. By rollcall vote of 2 yeas and 17 nays as follows,
the amendment was defeated:
YEAS--2 NAYS--17
Mr. Rockefeller Mr. Stevens \1\
Mr. Bryan Mr. Burns
Mr. Gorton
Mr. Lott
Mrs. Hutchison
Ms. Snowe
Mr. Ashcroft \1\
Mr. Frist
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Wyden
Mr. Cleland \1\
Mr. McCain
\1\ By proxy.
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR BRYAN
There is universal agreement that illegal wagering on
college sports, particularly such wagering by underage college
students, including student-athletes, is a serious national
problem. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)
testified before this 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. The matter is so serious that some students
have actually been threatened with bodily harm to collect
gambling debts owed to illegal student bookies.
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 on college sports. Sadly, a small
number in each survey gambled on games in which they played.
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 schools 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 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 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, this legislation 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 central
question then, which supporters of the bill 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 unconvincing.
First, we were told that eliminating the small amount of
legal sports wagering in Nevada will cause newspapers not to
publish betting lines or point spreads. The NCAA has threatened
for years to deny NCAA-sponsored tournament press credentials
to newspapers that publish betting lines, but they have never
done so. These hollow threats are further evidence of the
futility of this exercise. Furthermore, neither this 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.
It is not too much to ask that such due diligence be conducted
before a legal industry and its employees are legislated out of
existence.
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
hearing concerning what the NCAA intends to do about illegal
gambling on college campuses, there was very little testimony
concerning what concrete steps the 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.
The Committee was repeatedly told by the sponsors of this
legislation that the NCAA has plans to step 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 (PSA) 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 that specific 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 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, we should
be alarmed by the precedent that would be established if this
bill becomes law. For over two hundred years the federal
government has deferred to the States 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
decades, it sets a dangerous precedent that should be cause for
concern for the other 47 states with some form of legal gaming
operations.
Richard H. Bryan.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown
in roman):
TED STEVENS OLYMPIC AND AMATEUR SPORTS ACT
[36 united states code 220501 et seq.]
SUBCHAPTER III--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 220541. Unlawful sports gambling: Olympics; high school and
college athletes
(a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
(1) a governmental entity to sponsor, operate,
advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or
compact, or
(2) a person, including an amateur sports
organization (as defined in section 3701 of title 28),
or a corporate sponsor of such an organization, to
sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote,
a lottery, contest, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or
wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on a competitive
game or performance described in subsection (b), including a
sweepstakes or contest that includes prizes related directly or
indirectly to such a covered game or performance.
(b) Covered Games and Performances.--A competitive game or
performance described in this subsection is the following:
(1) One or more competitive games at the Summer or
Winter Olympics.
(2) One or more competitive games in which high
school or college athletes participate.
(3) One or more performances of high school or
college athletes in a competitive game.
(c) Applicability.--The prohibition in subsection (a) applies
to activity described in that subsection without regard to
whether the activity would otherwise be permitted under
subsection (a) or (b) of 3704 of title 28. The prohibition in
subsection (a) does not apply to an activity otherwise
described in that subsection if all of the amounts paid by the
participants, as an entry fee or otherwise are--
(1) paid out to winning participants; or
(2) contributed to a charitable organization.
(d) Injunctions.--A civil action to enjoin a violation of
subsection (a) may be commenced in an appropriate district
court of the United States by the Attorney General of the
United States, a local educational agency, college, or sports
organization, including an amateur sports organization or the
corporation, whose competitive game is alleged to be the basis
of such violation.
(e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) High school.--The term ``high school'' has the
meaning given the term `secondary school' in section
14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
1965 (U.S.C. 8801).
(2) College.--The term ``college'' has the meaning
given the term ``institution of higher education'' in
section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20
U.S.C. 8801).
(3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local
educational agency'' has the meaning given that term in
section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
(f) Gambling Enforcement Information and Policies.--
(1) Reporting required.--Each college shall include
statistics and other information on illegal gambling,
including gambling over the Internet, in addition to
the other criminal offenses on which the college is
required to report under section 1092(f) of title 20,
in the form and manner prescribed by that section.
(2) Statement of policy.--Each college shall include
a statement of policy regarding under-age and other
illegal gambling activity in the form and manner
required for statements of policy on alcoholic
beverages and illegal drugs under section 1092(f) of
title 20, including a description of any gambling abuse
education programs available to students and employees
of that college.
(3) Attorney general review required.--
Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of section 1092(f) of
title 20, the Attorney General shall, in consultation
with the Secretary of Education, periodically review
the policies, procedures, and practices of colleges
concerning campus crimes and security related, directly
or indirectly, to--
(A) illegal gambling; and
(B) the integrity of athletic contests in
which students of that college participate.