[Senate Report 107-16]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 41
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-16
======================================================================
AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT
__________
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 718
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
May 14, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred seventh congress
first session
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas Virginia
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois RON WYDEN, Oregon
JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada MAX CLELAND, Georgia
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri
Mark Buse, Staff Director
Ann H. Choiniere, General Counsel
Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
Calendar No. 41
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-16
======================================================================
AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT
_______
May 14, 2001.--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. 718]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 718) ``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 separate amendments and recommends that
the bill (as amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of the legislation is to protect the integrity of
amateur athletics by addressing athletes' use of performance-
enhancing substances and by implementing the recommendation of
the National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC) that
``betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is
currently legal be banned all-together.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Final Report,'' National Gambling Impact Study Commission
(June 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Needs
Amateur and Olympic sports competitions engage the public
because they represent and reflect ideals of American
character: hard work, self-sacrifice, perseverance, teamwork,
and individual courage and excellence. These ideals, and the
perceived integrity of amateur sports, however, are challenged
by athletes' use of performance-enhancing substances, and by
gambling, both legal and illegal, on amateur athletes and
sports contests. Senate bill 718 is intended to ensure the
integrity of amateur sports by tackling these two scourges.
First, Title I of the Act establishes a grant program,
administered by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), to support research into athletes' use of
performance-enhancing substances and methods of detecting their
use. The grant program also includes an educational component
to inform amateur athletes of the risks associated with these
substances. Title I originated from hearings held by the
Commerce Committee during the 106th Congress. Second, Title II
of the Act amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act of 1978 to make it unlawful for a government entity to
authorize or operate, and for a person to operate pursuant to
such authorization, a wagering scheme based on amateur athletic
competition. Title II of S. 718 is proposed in response to the
specific recommendations of the NGISC.
The need for legislation to address performance-enhancing
substances became evident during hearings held by the Commerce
Committee during the 106th Congress. As one witness testified
on October 20, 1999, ``[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.''
The Committee heard testimony regarding the need for
independent testing agencies at both the International Olympic
Committee and United States Olympic Committee levels. Both
organizations have now established such agencies. The Committee
also heard testimony regarding the need for increased funding
of research designed to find new ways of detecting and
verifying the use of banned substances. Though recent years
have seen a dramatic increase in the variety and sophistication
of banned substances, little has been done to foster research
into their detection.
The Amateur Sports Integrity Act establishes a grant program,
administered by NIST, to support research and training in
methods of detecting athletes' use of performance-enhancing
substances. The bill also provides grants to educate amateur
athletes of the risks of using such substances. By targeting
resources at both research and development, and at education,
the Act begins the process of reversing the trend of drug use
in sports, and aims to restore the integrity of athletic
competition.
Title II of S. 718 also addresses the integrity of amateur
sports by implementing a recommendation of the NGISC, a non-
partisan commission Congress established by Public Law 104-169
and charged with conducting a comprehensive legal and factual
study of the social and economic impacts of gambling. After
hearing testimony from hundreds of witnesses and reviewing
extensive research on gambling, the Commission issued a final
report in June 1999.
In its final report, the NGISC reviewed Congress' motivation
for passing the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act
(PASPA) (Pub. L. 102-559) in 1992, which made it illegal in all
but a handful of states for a government entity to authorize or
operate, and for a person to operate pursuant to such
authorization, a wageringscheme based on athletic competition,
and quoted a statement by Senator Bill Bradley about gambling's harmful
effects on athletes and on sports:
Based on what I know about the dangers of sports
betting, I am not prepared to risk the values that
sports instill in youth just to add a few more dollars
to state coffers. * * * 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 our youngsters not receive this message * * *
sports betting threatens the integrity of and public
confidence in professional and amateur team sports,
converting sports from wholesome 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.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NGISC ``Final Report'', p. 3-9, statement of Senator Bill
Bradley submitted with the testimony of Nancy Price to the NGISC on
November 10, 1998.
In addition to addressing harm that gambling, both legal or
illegal, does to athletes and to the public's perception of the
integrity of amateur sports, the NGISC also observed a causal
relationship between legal and illegal gambling. Not only does
allowing gambling on amateur sports to continue in one state,
Nevada, send a confusing message to people who often do not
know that the majority of sports wagering in America is
illegal, the NGISC observed that ``[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.'' Although gambling on college sports is
illegal in 49 states, the Las Vegas college sports line is
published nationwide. In her written testimony for an April 26,
2001, hearing in the Commerce Committee, Tracy Dodds, an
associate sports editor for the Cleveland Plain Dealer,
confirmed the NGISC's assumptions. While only a few newspapers
currently refuse to publish college point spreads, she noted,
``[w]hat I have heard from other sports editors leads me to
believe that [if gambling on amateur sports was not legal in
Nevada] most newspapers would take the same position and stop
publishing college betting lines-which would take away the
legitimacy college gambling gets from being included in daily
newspapers.''
The nexus between legal and illegal gambling is evident not
only in the publication nationwide of Las Vegas-generated point
spreads, but in the involvement of Nevada sports books in
recent point shaving scandals and prohibited sports gambling in
the United States. Point shaving schemes at Northwestern
University and at Arizona State University involved heavy
betting by participants in Nevada sports books. At 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 and stated, ``without Nevada, the Northwestern
basketball point-sharing scandal wouldn't have occurred.'' \3\
College athletes, of course, are not the only people who place
wagers obtained in illegal gambling operations on Nevada sports
books. Steve DuCharme, former chairman of the Nevada State
Gaming Control Board said in a 1999 interview, ``A lot of money
made through illegal gambling is laid off in Las Vegas. If a
bookie has a lot of money on one side of a bet, they bet the
other one in Las Vegas to try to even the bet.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Fredreka Schouten, Gambling Ban Aims to End College Amateur
Sports Gambling, The Tennessean, Feb. 2, 2000.
\4\ Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, Time, September 25,
2000, p. 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to expressing concerns about the impact legal
gambling has on student athletes and how it might fuel illegal
gambling, the NGISC also noted the extent of sports wagering
among America's youth. ``While studies of college gambling are
sparse, Lesieur has found in a survey of six colleges in five
states that 23 percent of students gambled at least once a
week. The same study found that between 6 and 8 percent of
college students are ``probable problem gamblers. * * *'' \5\
As for gambling among college athletes, a University of
Michigan Athletic Department study found that more than 45
percent of male college athletes admitted to betting on
sporting events, and 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.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Henry Lesieur, et al., Gambling and Pathological Gambling Among
University Students, Addictive Behavior (1991) at 517-527.
\6\ ``The Extent and Nature of Gambling Among College Student
Athletes.'' Michael E. Cross and Ann G. Vollano, University of Michigan
Athletic Department, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its final report, the NGISC was unequivocal about what
should be done to address concerns with gambling on amateur
sports. Noting that sports wagering does not provide many of
the positive impacts of other forms of gambling, but does have
negative social impacts, the NGISC recommended that ``betting
on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is currently
legal be banned altogether.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ NGISC, ``Final Report,'' p. 3-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the NGISC believed Congress has the authority and
the responsibility to ban gambling on amateur sports throughout
the country, concerns were raised during the Commerce
Committee's consideration of S. 718 about regulating amateur
sports gambling at the federal level.
A number of federal laws prohibit the use of the channels of
interstate commerce to facilitate gambling activities. The
``Wire Act,'' 18 U.S.C. 1804, for example, prohibits gambling
businesses from using wire communications facilities for the
transmission in interstate or foreign commerce of bets or
wagers, or information that assists in the placing of bets or
wagers. Although this statute makes specific reference to the
placing of bets or wagers on ``sporting events or contests,''
the Wire Act does not address the regulation of state-
sanctioned sports gambling within a state. This issue, however,
was addressed directly by Congress almost a decade ago.
While Congress has recognized the principal of federalism
with respect to regulating gambling, the compelling federal
interest in ensuring the integrity of America's sporting
competitions led to the enactment in 1992 of the Professional
and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). PASPA effectively
outlawed gambling on amateur sports in all but a handful of
states. In its report on PASPA, the Senate Judiciary Committee
explained that ``sports are nationalinstitutions and Congress
has recognized a distinct federal interest in protecting sports from
corruption.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Report 102-248 to accompany S. 474, Senate Judiciary Committee,
102d Congress, 1st Session.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, Nevada is the only state in the country that permits
gambling on amateur sports. Senate bill 718 would close this
loophole left open by PASPA. The Amateur Sports Integrity Act
is supported by a broad array of athletic organizations, pro-
family groups, consumer groups, and universities.
Opponents of S. 718 have argued that the measure will not
prevent illegal gambling. On this point, supporters and
opponents agree. It is not suggested that this bill will end
gambling on college sports. It will, however, send a consistent
message that betting on college sports is wrong, and is illegal
throughout the country. The NGISC believed that this
legislation would also help reduce illegal gambling in part by
reducing the publication of point spreads on college games.
Most importantly, however, a ban on college sports gambling
will help to end a practice that turns college athletes into
objects to openly be bet on. In written testimony submitted for
the record in support of S. 718, the Reverend Edward Malloy,
President of the University of Notre Dame explained, ``I, and
all of us who support this legislation, know that its passage
isn't the end of our battle with gambling. Far from it. But it
is a crucial step because it enshrines in federal law the
principle that the athletic victories and defeats of amateur
athletes--student athletes--often, teenage athletes--should not
be a legal source of revenue for the professional gambling
industry.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Testimony of Rev. Edward A. Malloy, submitted for the Commerce
Committee hearing on April 26, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legislative History
The Commerce Committee held a hearing on the Amateur Sports
Integrity Act on April 26, 2001, during which 22 witnesses,
including members of Congress, testified in favor of or against
the measure.
On May 3, 2001, the Committee met in open executive session
to consider the Act. By voice vote, the Committee rejected
amendments offered by Senators Boxer and Breaux. The amendment
offered by Senator Boxer would have raised the minimum age for
legal gambling to 21. The amendment proposed by Senator Breaux
would have required colleges and universities to provide
procedural protections, including retention of independent
legal counsel, for student athletes accused of violating
amateur sports rules.
Also by voice vote, the Committee adopted amendments offered
by Senators Breaux, Inouye, and Ensign, amendments which were
reported separately from the bill. One such amendment offered
by Senator Breaux requires colleges to report annually on the
occurrence of illegal gambling, including Internet gambling,
and to submit annually a statement of policy regarding underage
and other illegal gambling activity. A second amendment offered
by Senator Breaux was intended to clarify that the Act does not
prohibit purely social betting through office pools in which
all of the money paid into the pool in entry fees is paid out
to winning participants. The third amendment offered by Senator
Breaux and also adopted separately from the bill by the
Committee prohibits financial institutions from accepting
certain credit or proceeds of credit in connection with
unlawful Internet gambling. The Committee also accepted by
voice vote a second degree amendment offered by Senator Inouye
addressing the impact of Senator Breaux's Internet gambling
amendment on Indian tribes.
One of the amendments offered by Senator Ensign and adopted
separately from the bill by voice vote modifies the Child
Online Protection Act (47 U.S.C. 231 nt) to require
institutions of higher learning to monitor the use of wire
communication facilities to detect violations of 18 U.S.C.
1084. A second amendment offered by Senator Ensign and adopted
separately from the bill provides for an expedited judicial
review of the constitutionality of the provision regarding
amateur sports gambling, and stays the enforcement of this
provision until the Supreme Court has finally disposed of the
case on its merits.
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 9, 2001.
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. 718, the Amateur
Sports Integrity Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contracts are Ken
Johnson and Mark Hadley (for federal costs), Shelley Finalyson
(for impacts on state and local governments), and Paige Piper/
Bach (for private-sector impacts).
Sincerely,
Barry B. Anderson
(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
Enclosure.
S. 718--Amateur Sports Integrity Act
Summary: S. 718 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
fund prevention and intervention programs related to the use of
such substances by high school or college athletes. In
addition, S. 718 would prohibit gambling businesses from
accepting credit cards and other bank instruments from gamblers
who illegally get over the Internet. The bill also would
authorize the agencies that regulate insured depository
institutions to issue cease-and-desist orders against
institutions that knowingly facilitate Internet gambling.
Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing S. 718 would cost about $25 million
over the 2002-2006 period. Because S. 718 would impose costs on
federal banking regulators, we also estimate that the bill
would have a negligible impact on both direct spending and
revenues. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
S. 718 contains intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
The bill would prohibit any governmental or private-sector
entity 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 the act
($56 million for intergovernmental mandates and $113 million
for private-sector mandates in 2001, adjusted annually for
inflation). S. 718 also would require public and private
institutions of higher education, effectively as a condition of
receiving federal education funding for the following year, to
monitor their wire communications facilities for use in illegal
gambling. Finally, the bill would establish research grant
programs that could benefit public and private educational
institutions.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 718 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--
--------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level................................................ 7 7 7 7 7
Estimated Outlays.................................................. 1 4 6 7 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The bill would also result in an increase in direct spending and a loss of revenues, but the amounts
involved would be less than $500.00 a year.
Basis of estimate: Assuming appropriation of the authorized
amounts, CBO estimates that enactment of S. 718 would result in
a $25 million increase in discretionary spending over the 2002-
2006 period and would have a negligible impact on direct
spending and revenues. For this estimate, CBO assumes that the
bill will be enacted late in fiscal year 2001.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
S. 718 would authorize the appropriation of $7 million a
year over the 2002-2006 period for NIST to make grants for
research on the use of performance-enhancing drugs and for
program to prevent the use of such drugs by amateur athletes.
For this estimate, CBO assumes that outlays will follow the
spending patterns of other NIST grant programs.
Because S. 718 would establish a new federal crime relating
to Internet gambling, the federal government would be able to
pursue cases that it otherwise would not be able to prosecute.
CBO expects, however, that most cases would be pursued under
state law. Therefore, we estimate that any increase in federal
costs for law enforcement, court proceedings, or prison
operations would not be significant. Any such additional costs
would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Direct Spending and Revenues
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the Office of Thrift
Supervision (OTS), and the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA) would enforce the provisions of S. 718 as they apply to
financial institutions. The NCUA, the OTS, and the OCC charge
fees to the institutions they regulate to cover all of their
administrative costs; therefore, any additional spending by
these agencies to implement the bill would have no net
budgetary effect. That is not the case with the FDIC, however,
which uses insurance premiums paid by all banks to cover the
expenses it incurs to supervise state-chartered banks. The
bill's requirement that the FDIC prevent financial institutions
from knowingly facilitating Internet gambling would cause a
small increase in FDIC spending, but would not affect its
premium income. In total, CBO estimates that S. 718 would
increase net direct spending of the NCUA, OTS, OCC, and FDIC by
less than $500,000 a year over the 2002-2006 period.
Budgetary effects on the Federal Reserve are recorded as
changes in revenues (governmental receipts). Based on
information from the Federal Reserve, CBO estimates that
enacting S. 718 would reduce such revenues by less than
$500,000 a year over the 2002-2006 period.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under the bill could
be subject to criminal fines, the federal government might
collect additional fines if the bill is enacted. Collections of
such fines are recorded in the budget as governmental receipts
(i.e., revenues), which are deposited in the Crime Victims Fund
and spent in subsequent years. Any additional collections under
S. 718 are likely to be negligible because of the small number
of cases involved. Because any increase in direct spending
would equal the amount of fines collected (with a lag of one
year or more), the additional direct spending also would be
negligible.
Pay-as-you-go consideration: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. Enacting
S. 718 could affect both direct spending and receipts, but CBO
estimates that any such effects would be negligible.
Intergovernmental and Private Sector Impact
Mandates
S. 718 contains intergovernmental and private-sector
mandates as defined by UMRA, but CBO estimates that complying
with those mandates would not exceed the thresholds established
in the act ($56 million for intergovernmental mandates and $113
million for private-sector mandates in 2001, adjusted annually
for inflation). CBO estimates that the prohibition on wagering
on amateur sports would reduce tax revenues collected by the
state of Nevada by approximately $3 million per year. Based on
information from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, CBO estimates
that because of this prohibition the private sector would lose
about $45 million annually in net income (measured as the
amount wagered less the amount paid out). 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 it is expected to be small because
the colleges are already required to compile similar
information on crime and policies on substance use.
Other Impacts
S. 718 would require public and private institutions of
higher education, effectively as a condition of receiving
federal education funding for the following year, to monitor
their wire communications facilities for the purpose of
detecting their use in illegal gambling. CBO cannot estimate
the total costs associated with this condition because it is
unclear what activities would be necessary to comply with the
bill's requirement to ``monitor'' wire communications
facilities.
S. 718 would also benefit any public and private
educational institutions that qualify for the grant programs
that would be established by the bill. The bill would authorize
$4 million annually for fiscal years 2002 through 2006 for drug
research and detection grants and $3 million annually for
fiscal years 2002 through 2006 for intervention and prevention
grants.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Ken Johnson and Mark
Hadley. Revenues: Carolyn Lynch and Erin Whitaker. Impact on
State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Shelley Finlayson. Impact
on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine, 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:
number of persons covered
economic impact
Currently, wagering on college sports is legal only in the
State of Nevada. According to the Nevada Gaming Control Board,
$2.324 billion was wagered on legal sports books in Nevada in
2000, and casinos retained $123.8 million of this amount.
College sports betting is believed to account for between 30
and 35 percent of these sports wagers.
privacy
Senate bill 718 modifies the Child Online Protection Act (47
U.S.C. 231 nt) to require institutions of higher learning to
monitor the use of wire communication facilities to detect
violations of the ``Wire Act'' (18 U.S.C. 1084).
paperwork
Senate bill 718 requires colleges and universities to report
annually on the occurrence of illegal gambling, including
Internet gambling, and to submit annually a statement of policy
regarding underage and other illegal gambling activity. This
section of the bill will result in increased paperwork for
affected colleges and universities.
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.''
Section 102. Research and detection program established
Subsection (a) requires the Director of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to establish a
program to support research into the use of athletic
performance-enhancing drugs and methods of detecting their use.
Subsection (b) describes the type of research to be funded by
the grant. The subsection requires the Director to consider
research proposals involving athletic performance-enhancing
substances banned by the International Olympic Committee, the
United States Olympic Committee, the National Collegiate
Athletic 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, marijuana, morphine/codeine, and barbiturates.
Subsection (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. This subsection requires a minimum grant award of not
less than 500 thousand dollars per fiscal year. 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.
Subsection (d) authorizes 4 million dollars per year for
fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 to carry out the
purposes of this section.
Section 103. Prevention and intervention programs
Subsection (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. This subsection also requires the Director to
establish minimum criteria for grant applicants.
Subsection (b) requires a minimum individual grant award of
not less than $300,000 per fiscal year.
Subsection (c) authorizes 3 million dollars per year for
fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 to carry out the
purposes of this section.
Title II--Gambling
Section 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
(chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code), creating a new
subchapter III containing section 220541.
Subsection (a) of the new section 220541 establishes a
prohibition on any governmental entity, or person, from
sponsoring, operating, advertising, promoting, licensing, or
authorizing by law or compact a lottery, sweepstake, or other
betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or
indirectly, on a competitive game or performance described in
subsection (b).
Subsection (b) describes the covered competitive game or
performance as:
One or more competitive games at the Summer
or Winter Olympics.
One or more competitive games in which high
school or college athletes participate.
One or more performances of high school or
college athletes in a competitive game.
Subsection (c) provides that the prohibition of subsection
(a) applies to activity described in that subsection without
regard to whether the activity would be permitted under the
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. This subsection
also creates an exception to the prohibited activity if all
monies paid by the participants as entry fees are paid out to
winning participants.
Subsection (d) provides that a civil action to enjoin a
violation under the Act may be commenced in an appropriate
district court of the United States by the Attorney General of
the United States, local education agency, college, or sports
organization, including an amateur sports organization or the
corporation whose competitive game is alleged to be the basis
of a violation under the Act.
Subsection (e) requires colleges that submit an annual report
on information on criminal offenses under the Higher Education
Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)) to include statistics and
information on the occurrence of illegal gambling, including
Internet gambling, at such college. This subsection also
requires colleges that submit annual policy statements on
alcoholic beverages and underage drinking under the Higher
Education Act of 1965, to include in their reports, statements
of policy regarding underage and other illegal gambling
activity at such colleges or universities, which includes any
gambling abuse education programs that the colleges make
available to students and employees. This subsection requires
the United States Attorney General, in consultation with the
Secretary of Education, periodically to review the policies,
procedures, and practices of colleges with respect to campus
crime and security related to illegal gambling.
Subsection (f) defines the following terms used in the new
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.
Section 202. Judicial review
Subsection (a) provides that any persons adversely affected
by section 220541 of the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports
Act may bring an action in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia for declaratory judgment and
injunctive relief on the ground that this new subchapter
violates the Constitution.
Subsection (b) provides a direct appeal to the Supreme Court
of the United States for the review of any judicial order
granting or denying an injunction regarding, or finally
disposing of, an action brought under subsection (a). A notice
of appeal is to be filed within 10 calendar days after the
order is entered, and the jurisdictional statement is to be
filed within 30 calendar days after the order is entered.
Subsection (c) provides that the District Court for the
District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States
should expedite to the greatest possible extent, the
disposition of any matter brought under subsection (a).
Subsection (d) stays the enforcement of any provision of
section 220541 of title 36 for the period beginning on the date
of filing of an action described under subsection (a), and
ending on final disposition of the action on the merits by the
Supreme Court of the United States.
Subsection (e) provides that this section applies to actions
filed under subsection (a) not later than 30 days after the
effective date of the Act.
Title III--Internet Gambling
Section 301. Short title
This section provides that this title may be cited as the
``Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act''.
Section 302. Findings
This section provides that Congress makes the following
findings: Internet gambling is primarily funded through bank
instruments; the NGISC recommended legislation prohibiting wire
transfers to Internet gambling sites or banks that represent
them; Internet gambling causes debt collection problems for
insured depository institutions and the consumer credit
industry; and offshore Internet gambling has been identified by
United States law enforcement as a significant money laundering
vulnerability.
Section 303. Prohibition on acceptance of any bank instrument for
lawful Internet gambling
Subsection (a) prohibits financial institutions from
knowingly accepting, in connection with the participation of
another person in unlawful Internet gambling--credit, or the
proceeds of credit, extended to such other person, or the
proceeds of any other form of financial transaction as the
Secretary may prescribe by regulation, which involves a
financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on
behalf of or for the benefit of the other person.
Subsection (b) defines the following terms used in this
section:
``Bets or wagers'' means the staking or
risking by any person of something of value upon the
outcome of a contest of others,a sporting event, or a
game predominantly subject to chance, upon an agreement or
understanding that the person or another person will receive something
of greater value than the amount staked or risked in the event of a
certain outcome.
``Internet'' means the international
computer network of interoperable packet switched data
networks.
``Unlawful Internet gambling'' means
placing, receiving, or otherwise making a bet or wager
by any means which involves the use, at least in part,
of the Internet where such bet or wager is unlawful
under any applicable Federal or State law in the State
in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or
otherwise made. Notwithstanding the definition of
``unlawful Internet gambling,'' an Indian tribe may
conduct Class III Internet gambling under a tribal-
State compact.
``Credit,'' ``creditor,'' and ``credit
card'' as having the same meanings given in section 103
of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 1602).
``Electronic fund transfer'' as having the
meaning given such term in section 903 of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693a), and
includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4 of the
Uniform Commercial Code as in effect in any State.
``Financial institution'' as having the same
meaning given in section 903 of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. 1693a).
``Money transmitting business'' and ``money
transmitting service'' as having the same meanings
given in section 5330(d) of title 31, United States
Code.
``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the
Treasury.
Subsection (c) provides original and exclusive jurisdiction
to the district courts of the United States to prevent and
restrain violations of this section by issuing appropriate
orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether a
prosecution has been initiated under this section. The United
States Attorney General may institute proceedings under this
section. In accordance with Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the district court may enter a preliminary
injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or
restrain a violation of this section. The attorney general of a
State may also institute proceedings under this section. The
district court may provide the same relief as with proceedings
initiated by the United States Attorney General.
Notwithstanding the jurisdiction provided under this
subsection, for alleged violations on Indian lands, the United
States is provided the same enforcement authority as previously
provided in this subsection, and the enforcement authorities
specified in an applicable Tribal-State compact under section
11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall be carried out in
accordance with that compact. In addition to any proceedings
provided under this subsection, the district court may, in
exigent circumstances, enter a temporary restraining order
against a person alleged to be in violation of this section
upon application of the United States or the attorney general
of an affected State, in accordance with Rule 65(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subsection (d) establishes criminal penalties for a violation
of this section of a fine under title 18, United States Code or
imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both. Upon conviction
of a person under this subsection, the court may enter a
permanent injunction enjoining such person from placing,
receiving, or otherwise making bets or wagers or sending,
receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing of
bets or wagers.
Subsection (e) provides a safe harbor for financial
intermediaries. This subsection provides that no creditor,
credit card issuer, financial institution, operator of a
terminal at which an electronic fund transfer may be initiated,
money transmitting business, or national, regional or local
network used to affect a credit transaction, electronic fund
transfer, or money transmitting service shall be liable under
this section for the involvement of such person, or the use of
the facilities of such person--in any credit transaction,
electronic fund transfer, or money transmitting service
described in subsection (a); or in drawing, paying,
transferring, or collecting any check, draft, or other
instrument described in subsection (a) or in any regulation
prescribed under such subsection. The safe harbor does not
apply to any person that is a gambling business or that
knowingly participates in certain activities as an agent or
representative of a gambling business.
Section 304. Enforcement actions
Amends section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12
U.S.C. 1818) by adding a subsection (x) that provides that
notwithstanding section 303(e) of the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act, if any appropriate Federal financial
agency determines that any insured depository institution is
engaged in certain activities with actual knowledge that any
person is violating section 303(a) of the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act, the agency may issue an order
prohibiting the institution from continuing to engage in the
activity.
Section 305. Monitoring by institutions of higher education of
transmissions of wagering information through the Internet
Subsection (a) amends the Child Online Protection Act to
require each institution of higher education to monitor the use
of its wire communications facilities for purposes of detecting
the use of those facilities for transmissions described in the
Wire Act, 18 U.S.C. 1084(a). Any such institution that fails to
so monitor is ineligible for Federal education funding in the
following academic year.
Subsection (b) provides an effective date of one year after
the date of enactment.
Section 306. Savings clause
Provides that nothing in this Act shall be construed to
alter, affect, or waive any existing rights of Indian tribes
pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
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. 718:
Although the Committee considered a number of amendments by
voice vote, it conducted only one roll call vote on an
amendment offered by Senator Ensign to preserve the grandfather
for college sports wagering in the Professional and Amateur
Sports ProtectionAct. By a rollcall vote of 10 yeas and 10 nays
as follows, the amendment was defeated:
YEAS--10 NAYS--10
Mr. Burns Mr. McCain
Mr. Lott Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Smith Ms. Snowe
Mr. Ensign Mr. Brownback
Mr. Allen Mr. Fitzgerald
Mr. Rockefeller Mr. Hollings
Mr. Breaux Mr. Inouye
Mr. Wyden Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Cleland Mr. Edwards
Ms. Boxer Ms. Carnahan
MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR ENSIGN, SENATOR BREAUX, AND SENATOR BOXER
We agree with the majority of the members of the Commerce
Committee that illegal sports gambling is a serious and
pervasive problem on our college campuses and in society at
large. Having heard the testimony of the foremost expert on
addictive behavior, we are particularly concerned that underage
college students and other young people are twice as likely to
suffer from problem and pathological gambling as the adult
population. Further, several witnesses testifying before the
Committee acknowledged that the illegal gambling trade and
illegal college bookies is a problem of epic proportions.
Nonetheless, as overwhelming evidence and witness testimony
demonstrate, it is illegal sports gambling on college campuses,
and illegal sports gambling over the Internet--not lawful and
highly regulated sports gambling in states such as Nevada--that
create the pathology facing youth addicted to gambling. Simply
put, S. 718 does nothing to resolve the problem caused by
illegal gambling. S. 718 does nothing to police the activities
of illegal bookies on college campuses. S. 718 does not
strengthen the penalties for such criminal behavior. S. 718 is
a solution in search of a problem.
Unlawful gambling on sports represents the vast majority of
illegal wagers conducted annually within U.S. borders, and it
is a widespread problem among college students. According to
the congressionally mandated National Gambling Impact Study
Commission (NGISC), between 80 and 380 billion dollars is
wagered illegally on sporting events every year. During the
hearing on S. 718, witnesses cited two academic studies--a
University of Michigan survey and a University of Cincinnati
study--that found illegal gambling on college campuses to be of
epidemic proportion. The University of Michigan survey found
that nearly half (45 percent) of all male student-athletes
nationwide gambled illegally on college and professional
sports. The University of Cincinnati study conducted on behalf
of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) found
that a quarter of the NCAA Division I male basketball and
football student-athletes gambled on games in which they
played. Students are placing bets with illegal college bookies
across our nation and over the Internet. By and large, they are
not placing bets in Nevada--where you have to be 21 years of
age and physically present within the state's borders.
Yet, proponents of S. 718 want to combat illegal gambling by
eliminating legal sports wagering in Nevada. Unfortunately,
this misguided legislation will actually increase the
likelihood of future point shaving/game fixing scandals by
removing the only oversight currently in place to ensure the
games' integrity--the Nevada sports books. 640 million dollars
is wagered annually on college games, and lawful gambling in
Nevada is highly regulated by the Nevada Gaming Commission and
State Gaming Control Board. The prohibition of legal gambling
S. 718 forces on the State of Nevada--in contravention to the
will and wisdom of her people--will drive gambling underground
and prevent the legitimate regulation of gambling.
Nevada's sports books electronically monitor all games, and
any unusual wagering activity is easily detected. Furthermore,
it is in the financial best interest of the sports books to
maintain the games' integrity--any impropriety (point shaving/
game fixing) can result in significant financial losses for all
parties involved. Thus, the Nevada sports books were the first
to inform the Federal Bureauof Investigation (FBI) of the
Arizona State scandal in 1994 according to a December 2000 interview
with FBI Special Agent Tom Noble. Without the cooperation of the Nevada
sports books, the Arizona State scandal would have gone undetected and
those responsible would have gone free. If intercollegiate athletic
events are removed from the Nevada sports books, expert witnesses
before the Committee predict a subsequent rash of attempts to tamper
with the outcome of games, most of them undetected. More specifically,
Danny Sheridan, a leading sports analyst and odds-maker for USA Today,
testified before the Committee stating that ``between 30 and 40 games
will be fixed within 90 days'' of enactment of S. 718.
It is noteworthy that to date not one witness from law
enforcement--federal, state or local--has testified before
Congress on the practical effects of S. 718. The only law
enforcement witness, however, to comment on illegal gambling
and banning legal amateur sports wagering appeared before the
NGISC in 1998. Detective Edward Galanek--an undercover officer
and expert on organized crime and gambling cases--testified
that he had ``firsthand knowledge of how important illegal
gambling operations were to the daily business of organized
crime'' and that ``legalized sports betting is clearly an
answer to the illegal problem.'' Unfortunately, the Committee's
request to have Detective Galanek testify during deliberations
on S. 718 was denied. However, his 1998 testimony further
proves the indelible link between organized crime and illegal
gambling, as well as emphasizing that our law enforcement
efforts should be directed at combating the illegal gambling
trade.
Despite evidence to the contrary, proponents of S. 718 argue
that prohibiting amateur sports betting in Nevada will
eliminate the publishing of betting lines on college athletic
events. However, newspapers are neither the primary nor the
exclusive source of betting lines. The lines will continue to
be available via offshore Internet websites and in newspapers,
as the data is generated by independent analysts for purposes
other than sports wagering. Expert analyst and odds-maker Danny
Sheridan stated, ``70-75% of newspaper readers aren't reading
the lines to place bets.'' Moreover, in an April 25, 2001
letter from the Newspaper Agency Association (NAA), the NAA
indicated that the betting lines would continue to be published
by newspapers. The letter stated:
Like all editorial decisions, the decision on whether
to publish point spreads for college sporting events is
made by each newspaper and is likely to vary from
newspaper to newspaper. If Congress prohibits gambling
on college sports, the NAA believes newspapers will
continue to have an interest in publishing point
spreads on college games, since point spreads appear to
be useful to newspaper readers who have no intention of
betting on games.
We also disagree to the specious contention that Nevada's
exemption in the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act
(PASPA) (28 U.S.C. 3701 et sec) is a ``loophole,'' a
``loophole'' that S. 718 would repeal. Previous congressional
action and court decisions are clear on this issue. The record
clearly reflects that Nevada was expressly included in PASPA
out of respect for the Constitution and the States that had
authorized sports wagering prior to enactment of the 1992
federal ban. Congress was careful when passing PASPA to guard
against Fifth and Tenth Amendment issues by exempting Nevada,
Oregon, Montana and New Jersey from the prohibition on sports
wagering activity. S. 718, however, would contravene Congress'
intent under PASPA, and would, thus, raise serious Fifth and
Tenth Amendment issues.
The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause prohibits the government
from taking ``private property for the public use without just
compensation.'' The U.S. Supreme Court in Ruckelshaus v.
Monsanto Co. 467 U.S. 986, 103 (1984) held that the Takings
Clause protects both tangible and intangible property rights,
such as gambling infrastructure and gambling licenses,
respectively. Indeed, Congress has previously recognized that
federal gambling legislation can have the effect of injuring
private property interests (Senate Report 102-248, 1991). S.
718's prohibition on state regulated college sports wagering
without compensation violates the Takings Clause.
Moreover, the courts have recognized the federalism interests
in leaving gambling enforcement to the states. In the case of
United States v. King, 834 F .2d 109, 111 (6th Cir. 1987) the
Sixth Circuit court held that as with other state police
powers, gambling regulation has been historically left to the
states. In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), Supreme
Court Justices Kennedy and O'Connor recognized the importance
of maintaining separation of powers between state and federal
government by stating, ``Were the Federal Government to take
over the regulation of entire areas of traditional state
concern * * * the boundaries between the spheres of federal and
state authority would blur and political responsibility would
become illusory.'' 514 U.S. at 577.
If S. 718 is enacted into law, we expect constitutional
challenges to follow. For that reason, during consideration of
S. 718, the Committee unanimously adopted an amendment that
would provide adversely affected parties with expedited
judicial review before the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia and the United States Supreme Court. We
believe that the courts should closely examine the Fifth and
Tenth Amendment issues raised by this legislation with the
utmost speed and that the state of Nevada and other aggrieved
parties should have their day in court. Congress established
such a precedent for expedited judicial review during Senate
consideration of Campaign Finance Reform and the enactment of
appropriations bills governing the use of funds to conduct the
2000 Census.
Although those in the majority claim S. 718 is a ``first
step'' to bolster the integrity of intercollegiate athletics, a
nationally recognized sports analyst testified that organized
crime will derive a financial windfall from the bill's
enactment and that, having removed regulated and policed sports
wagering in Nevada, those who would corrupt student athletes
will attempt do so with impunity.
Accordingly, and in conclusion, we recommend another
approach, one that recognizes that illegal sports' gambling is
at the root of addictive gambling among the young. Illegal
campus bookies and those who seek the anonymity and protection
of offshore facilities to accept illegal Internet sports wagers
are responsible for thisgrowing problem among today's student
population. Witnesses testified that illegal bookies are ubiquitous on
our college campuses. Therefore, we propose a solution to the real
issue--illegal gambling. We need stricter enforcement of existing laws
coupled with a dedicated Department of Justice task force on illegal
gambling, as well as increased criminal penalties for those who engage
in this activity. We should not eliminate a system perfected in Nevada,
and protected as a matter of Constitutional principle, in our efforts
to extricate illegal gambling on college campuses and among students
and student-athletes. Rather, we should subject illegal gambling to the
scrutiny of law enforcement and focus our efforts to reduce it.
John Ensign.
John B. Breaux.
Barbara Boxer.
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.--
(1) In general.--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.
(2) Exception.--The prohibition in subsection (a)
shall not apply to activity otherwise described in that
subsection if all of the monies paid by the
participants, as an entry fee or otherwise, are paid
out to winning participants.
(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) Gambling Enforcement Information and Policies.--
(1) Gambling information.--Each college submitting an
annual report on information on criminal offenses under
paragraph (1)(F) of section 485(f) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1092(f)) shall include
in each such report statistics and other information on
the occurrence of illegal gambling, including gambling
over the Internet, at such college.
(2) Policy on gambling activity.--Each college
submitting an annual statement of policy on alcoholic
beverages and underage drinking under paragraph (1)(H)
of section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
shall include in each such report a statement of policy
regarding underage and other illegal gambling activity
at such college, including a description of any
gambling abuse education programs available to students
and employees of such college.
(3) Periodic review.--Notwithstanding paragraph (2)
of section 485(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965,
the Attorney General shall, in consultation with the
Secretary of Education, periodically review the
policies, procedures, and practices of colleges with
respect to campus crimes and security related directly
or indirectly to illegal gambling, including with
respect to the integrity of the athletics contests in
which students of colleges participate.
(f) 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).
Federal Deposit Insurance Act
[12 U.S.C. 1818]
SEC. 8. TERMINATION OF STATUS AS INSURED DEPOSITORY INSTITUTION
* * * * * * *
(x) Depository Institution Involvement in Internet
Gambling.--Notwithstanding section 303(e) of the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, if any appropriate
Federal banking agency determines that any insured depository
institution is engaged in any of the following activities, the
agency may issue an order to such institution prohibiting such
institution from continuing to engage in any of the following
activities:
(1) Extending credit, or facilitating an extension of
credit, electronic fund transfer, or money transmitting
service with the actual knowledge that any person is
violating section 303(a) of the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Funding Prohibition Act in connection with
such extension of credit, electronic fund transfer, or
money transmitting service.
(2) Paying, transferring, or collecting on any check,
draft, or other instrument drawn on any depository
institution with the actual knowledge that any person
is violating section 303(a) of the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Funding Prohibition Act in connection with
such check, draft, or other instrument.
Child Online Protection Act
[47 U.S.C. 231 nt]
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE B--MONITORING OF USE OF INTERNET FACILITIES
SEC. 1411. HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS TO MONITOR INTERNET USE.
Each institution of higher education (as defined in section
101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001) shall
monitor the use of the wire communications facilities of that
institution for purposes of detecting the use of those
facilities for transmissions described in section 1084(a) of
title 18, United States Code.
SEC. 1412. ENFORCEMENT.
Any institution of higher education that fails to monitor the
use of its wire communications facilities as required by
section 1411 during any academic year is, notwithstanding any
provision of law to the contrary, ineligible for Federal
education funding for the succeeding academic year.