THE NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION ACT; Congressional Record Vol. 142, No. 105
(Senate - July 17, 1996)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages S7971-S7983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           THE NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION ACT

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now 
turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 449, S. 704, a bill to 
establish the Gambling Impact Study Commission.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 704) to establish the Gambling Impact Study 
     Commission.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate 
consideration of the bill?
  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill, 
which had been reported from the Committee on Governmental Affairs, 
with an amendment to strike all after the enacting clause and inserting 
in lieu thereof the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``National Gambling Impact 
     Study Commission Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the most recent Federal study of gambling in the United 
     States was completed in 1976;
       (2) legalization of gambling has increased substantially 
     over the past 20 years, and State, local, and Native American 
     tribal governments have established gambling as a source of 
     jobs and additional revenue;
       (3) the growth of various forms of gambling, including 
     electronic gambling and gambling over the Internet, could 
     affect interstate and international matters under the 
     jurisdiction of the Federal Government;
       (4) questions have been raised regarding the social and 
     economic impacts of gambling, and Federal, State, local, and 
     Native American tribal governments lack recent, comprehensive 
     information regarding those impacts; and
       (5) a Federal commission should be established to conduct a 
     comprehensive study of the social and economic impacts of 
     gambling in the United States.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL GAMBLING IMPACT STUDY COMMISSION.

       (a) Establishment of Commission.--There is established a 
     commission to be known as the National Gambling Impact Study 
     Commission (hereinafter referred to in this Act as ``the 
     Commission''). The Commission shall--
       (1) be composed of 9 members appointed in accordance with 
     subsection (b); and
       (2) conduct its business in accordance with the provisions 
     of this Act.
       (b) Membership.--
       (1) In general.--The Commissioners shall be appointed for 
     the life of the Commission as follows:
       (A) 3 shall be appointed by the President of the United 
     States.
       (B) 3 shall be appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives.
       (C) 3 shall be appointed by the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate.
       (2) Persons eligible.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be individuals who have knowledge or expertise, whether by 
     experience or training, in matters to be studied by the 
     Commission under section 4. The members may be from the 
     public or private sector, and may include Federal, State, 
     local, or Native American tribal officers or employees, 
     members of academia, non-profit organizations, or industry, 
     or other interested individuals.
       (3) Consultation required.--The President, the Speaker of 
     the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the 
     Senate shall consult among themselves prior to the 
     appointment of the members of the Commission in order to 
     achieve, to the maximum extent possible, fair and equitable 
     representation of various points of view with respect to the 
     matters to be studied by the Commission under section 4.
       (4) Completion of appointments; vacancies.--The President, 
     the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority 
     Leader of the Senate shall conduct the consultation required 
     under paragraph (3) and shall each make their respective 
     appointments not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. Any vacancy that occurs during the 
     life of the Commission shall not affect the powers of the 
     Commission, and shall be filled in the same manner as the 
     original appointment not later than 60 days after the vacancy 
     occurs.
       (5) Operation of the commission.--
       (A) Chairmanship.--The President, the Speaker of the House 
     of Representatives, and the Majority Leader of the Senate 
     shall jointly designate one member as the Chairman of the 
     Commission. In the event of a disagreement among the 
     appointing authorities, the Chairman shall be determined by a 
     majority vote of the appointing authorities. The 
     determination of which member shall be Chairman shall be made 
     not later than 15 days after the appointment of the last 
     member of the Commission, but in no case later than 75 days 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (B) Meetings.--The Commission shall meet at the call of the 
     Chairman. The initial meeting of the Commission shall be 
     conducted not later than 30 days after the appointment of the 
     last member of the Commission, or not later than 30 days 
     after the date on which appropriated funds are available for 
     the Commission, whichever is later.
       (C) Quorum; voting; rules.--A majority of the members of 
     the Commission shall constitute a quorum to conduct business, 
     but the Commission may establish a lesser quorum for 
     conducting hearings scheduled by the Commission. Each member 
     of the Commission shall have one vote, and the vote of each 
     member shall be accorded the same weight. The Commission may 
     establish by majority vote any other rules for the conduct of 
     the Commission's business, if such rules are not inconsistent 
     with this Act or other applicable law.

     SEC. 4. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Study.--
       (1) In general.--It shall be the duty of the Commission to 
     conduct a comprehensive legal and factual study of the social 
     and economic impacts of gambling in the United States on--
       (A) Federal, State, local, and Native American tribal 
     governments; and
       (B) communities and social institutions generally, 
     including individuals, families, and businesses within such 
     communities and institutions.
       (2) Matters to be studied.--The matters studied by the 
     Commission under paragraph (1) shall at a minimum include--
       (A) a review of existing Federal, State, local, and Native 
     American tribal government policies and practices with 
     respect to the legalization or prohibition of gambling, 
     including a review of the costs of such policies and 
     practices;
       (B) an assessment of the relationship between gambling and 
     levels of crime, and of existing enforcement and regulatory 
     practices that are intended to address any such relationship;
       (C) an assessment of pathological or problem gambling, 
     including its impact on individuals, families, businesses, 
     social institutions, and the economy;
       (D) an assessment of the impacts of gambling on 
     individuals, families, businesses, social institutions, and 
     the economy generally, including the role of advertising in 
     promoting gambling and the impact of gambling on depressed 
     economic areas;
       (E) an assessment of the extent to which gambling provides 
     revenues to State, local, and Native American tribal 
     governments, and the extent to which possible alternative 
     revenue sources may exist for such governments; and
       (F) an assessment of the interstate and international 
     effects of gambling by electronic means, including the use of 
     interactive technologies and the Internet.
       (b) Report.--No later than 2 years after the date on which 
     the Commission first meets, the Commission shall submit to 
     the President, the Congress, State Governors, and Native 
     American tribal governments a comprehensive report of the 
     Commission's findings and conclusions, together with any 
     recommendations of the Commission. Such report shall include 
     a summary of the reports submitted to the Commission by the 
     Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and 
     National Research Council under section 7, as well as a 
     summary of any other material relied on by the Commission in 
     the preparation of its report.

     SEC. 5. POWERS OF THE COMMISSION.

       (a) Hearings.--
       (1) In general.--The Commission may hold such hearings, sit 
     and act at such times and places, administer such oaths, take 
     such testimony, and receive such evidence as the Commission 
     considers advisable to carry out its duties under section 4.
       (2) Witness expenses.--Witnesses requested to appear before 
     the Commission shall be paid the same fees as are paid to 
     witnesses under section 1821 of title 28, United States Code. 
     The per diem and mileage allowances for witnesses shall be 
     paid from funds appropriated to the Commission.
       (b) Subpoenas.--
       (1) In general.--If a person fails to supply information 
     requested by the Commission, the Commission may by majority 
     vote require by subpoena the production of any written or 
     recorded information, document,

[[Page S7972]]

     report, answer, record, account, paper, computer file, or 
     other data or documentary evidence necessary to carry out its 
     duties under section 4. The Commission shall transmit to the 
     Attorney General a confidential, written notice at least 10 
     days in advance of the issuance of any such subpoena. A 
     subpoena under this paragraph may require the production of 
     materials from any place within the United States.
       (2) Interrogatories.--The Commission may, with respect only 
     to information necessary to understand any materials obtained 
     through a subpoena under paragraph (1), issue a subpoena 
     requiring the person producing such materials to answer, 
     either through a sworn deposition or through written answers 
     provided under oath (at the election of the person upon whom 
     the subpoena is served), to interrogatories from the 
     Commission regarding such information. A complete recording 
     or transcription shall be made of any deposition made under 
     this paragraph.
       (3) Certification.--Each person who submits materials or 
     information to the Commission pursuant to a subpoena issued 
     under paragraph (1) or (2) shall certify to the Commission 
     the authenticity and completeness of all materials or 
     information submitted. The provisions of section 1001 of 
     title 18, United States Code, shall apply to any false 
     statements made with respect to the certification required 
     under this paragraph.
       (4) Treatment of subpoenas.--Any subpoena issued by the 
     Commission under paragraph (1) or (2) shall comply with the 
     requirements for subpoenas issued by a United States district 
     court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (5) Failure to obey a subpoena.--If a person refuses to 
     obey a subpoena issued by the Commission under paragraph (1) 
     or (2), the Commission may apply to a United States district 
     court for an order requiring that person to comply with such 
     subpoena. The application may be made within the judicial 
     district in which that person is found, resides, or transacts 
     business. Any failure to obey the order of the court may be 
     punished by the court as civil contempt.
       (c) Information From Federal Agencies.--The Commission may 
     secure directly from any Federal department or agency such 
     information as the Commission considers necessary to carry 
     out its duties under section 4. Upon the request of the 
     Commission, the head of such department or agency may furnish 
     such information to the Commission.
       (d) Information To Be Kept Confidential.--The Commission 
     shall be considered an agency of the Federal Government for 
     purposes of section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and 
     any individual employed by an individual, entity, or 
     organization under contract to the Commission under section 7 
     shall be considered an employee of the Commission for the 
     purposes of section 1905 of title 18, United States Code. 
     Information obtained by the Commission, other than 
     information available to the public, as the result of a 
     subpoena issued under subsection (b)(1) or subsection (b)(2) 
     shall not be disclosed to any person in any manner, except--
       (1) to Commission employees or employees of any individual, 
     entity, or organization under contract to the Commission 
     under section 7 for the purpose of receiving, reviewing, or 
     processing such information;
       (2) upon court order; or
       (3) when publicly released by the Commission in an 
     aggregate or summary form that does not directly or 
     indirectly disclose--
       (A) the identity of any person or business entity; or
       (B) any information which could not be released under 
     section 1905 of title 18, United States Code.

     SEC. 6. COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.

       (a) Compensation of Members.--Each member of the Commission 
     who is not an officer or employee of the Federal Government, 
     or whose compensation is not precluded by a State, local, or 
     Native American tribal government position, shall be 
     compensated at a rate equal to the daily equivalent of the 
     annual rate of basic pay prescribed for Level IV of the 
     Executive Schedule under section 5315 of title 5, United 
     States Code, for each day (including travel time) during 
     which such member is engaged in the performance of the duties 
     of the Commission. All members of the Commission who are 
     officers or employees of the United States shall serve 
     without compensation in addition to that received for their 
     services as officers or employees of the United States.
       (b) Travel Expenses.--The members of the Commission shall 
     be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
     subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies 
     under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States 
     Code, while away from their homes or regular places of 
     business in the performance of service for the Commission.
       (c) Staff.--
       (1) In general.--The Chairman of the Commission may, 
     without regard to the civil service laws and regulations, 
     appoint and terminate an executive director and such other 
     additional personnel as may be necessary to enable the 
     Commission to perform its duties. The employment and 
     termination of an executive director shall be subject to 
     confirmation by a majority of the members of the Commission.
       (2) Compensation.--The executive director shall be 
     compensated at a rate not to exceed the rate payable for 
     level V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of title 
     5, United States Code. The Chairman may fix the compensation 
     of other personnel without regard to the provisions of 
     chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title 5, 
     United States Code, relating to classification of positions 
     and General Schedule pay rates, except that the rate of pay 
     for such personnel may not exceed the rate payable for level 
     V of the Executive Schedule under section 5316 of such title.
       (3) Detail of government employees.--Any Federal Government 
     employee, with the approval of the head of the appropriate 
     Federal agency, may be detailed to the Commission without 
     reimbursement, and such detail shall be without interruption 
     or loss of civil service status, benefits, or privilege.
       (d) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--
     The Chairman of the Commission may procure temporary and 
     intermittent services under section 3109(b) of title 5, 
     United States Code, at rates for individuals not to exceed 
     the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay 
     prescribed for Level V of the Executive Schedule under 
     section 5316 of such title.

     SEC. 7. CONTRACTS FOR RESEARCH.

       (a) Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out its duties under section 
     4, the Commission shall contract with the Advisory Commission 
     on Intergovernmental Relations for--
       (A) a thorough review and cataloging of all applicable 
     Federal, State, local, and Native American tribal laws, 
     regulations, and ordinances that pertain to gambling in the 
     United States; and
       (B) assistance in conducting the studies required by the 
     Commission under section 4(a), and in particular the review 
     and assessments required in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (E) 
     of paragraph (2) of such section.
       (2) Report required.--The contract entered into under 
     paragraph (1) shall require that the Advisory Commission on 
     Intergovernmental Relations submit a report to the Commission 
     detailing the results of its efforts under the contract no 
     later than 15 months after the date upon which the Commission 
     first meets.
       (b) National Research Council.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out its duties under section 
     4, the Commission shall contract with the National Research 
     Council of the National Academy of Sciences for assistance in 
     conducting the studies required by the Commission under 
     section 4(a), and in particular the assessment required under 
     subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) of such section.
       (2) Report required.--The contract entered into under 
     paragraph (1) shall require that the National Research 
     Council submit a report to the Commission detailing the 
     results of its efforts under the contract no later than 15 
     months after the date upon which the Commission first meets.
       (c) Other Organizations.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to limit the ability of the Commission to enter 
     into contracts with other entities or organizations for 
     research necessary to carry out the Commission's duties under 
     section 4.

     SEC. 8. DEFINITIONS.

       For the purposes of this Act:
       (1) Gambling.--The term ``gambling'' means any legalized 
     form of wagering or betting conducted in a casino, on a 
     riverboat, on an Indian reservation, or at any other location 
     under the jurisdiction of the United States. Such term 
     includes any casino game, parimutuel betting, sports-related 
     betting, lottery, pull-tab game, slot machine, any type of 
     video gaming, computerized wagering or betting activities 
     (including any such activity conducted over the Internet), 
     and philanthropic or charitable gaming activities.
       (2) Native american tribal government.--The term ``Native 
     American tribal government'' means an Indian tribe, as 
     defined under section 4(5) of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
     Act of 1988 (25 U.S.C. 2703(5)).
       (3) State.--The term ``State'' means each of the several 
     States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
     Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, 
     American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) In General.--There are authorized to be appropriated to 
     the Commission, the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental 
     Relations, and the National Academy of Sciences such sums as 
     may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act. Any 
     sums appropriated shall remain available, without fiscal year 
     limitation, until expended.
       (b) Limitation.--No payment may be made under section 6 or 
     7 of this Act except to the extent provided for in advance in 
     an appropriation Act.

     SEC. 10. TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION.

       The Commission shall terminate 60 days after the Commission 
     submits the report required under section 4(b).

  Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 704, 
the National Gambling Impact Study Commission Act, and I urge my 
colleagues to approve this important legislation.
  I want to express my appreciation to Chairman Stevens, Senator Glenn, 
and the Governmental Affairs Committee for their commitment and careful 
attention to this important issue. Senator Stevens and the committee 
have made significant improvements to the original bill, providing 
additional resources and appropriate authorities to

[[Page S7973]]

allow the Commission to conduct a meaningful study of gambling. I also 
want to thank the author of bill, Senator Simon, for his steadfast 
leadership and dedication to this effort.
  I want to share with my colleagues some of my thoughts about this 
important issue and about why I believe the Nation would be served by a 
national study of gambling.
  The rapid spread of legalized gambling in the United States in recent 
years has raised concerns in Congress and elsewhere about the social 
and economic impacts of gambling on our States and communities. 
Throughout our Nation's history, the popularity of gambling has come 
and gone, and returned again. Public outcry against casinos and State 
lotteries during the post Civil War period led to a ban on gambling 
throughout the United States by 1920. During the past 20 years, 
however, the gambling industry in the United States has experienced 
unparalleled growth and expansion. In 1978 only two States allowed 
casinos and a handful of others sponsored lotteries. But today some 
form of gambling is legal in 48 States.
  Gambling revenues grew more than twice the rate of our Nation's 
manufacturing industries in 1990. Americans wager almost a half a 
trillion dollars a year and industry profits are estimated to have 
reached $40 billion annually.
  A major reason for this astronomical growth of gambling is that State 
and local governments facing budget shortfalls are desperate for 
revenue. State and local government officials all too often accept 
gambling as the silver bullet solution to balancing their budgets 
without raising taxes. Even if a State or community is reluctant to 
host a gambling establishment, it can be drawn over the edge by the 
threat that gambling operations may locate in a nearby town or 
neighboring State. For many local officials, the legalization of 
gambling becomes an economic survival issue rather than a question of 
developing sound public policy.
  The actions of State and local governments that hope to use gambling 
as a solution to financing the needs of their cities and communities 
are understandable. Yet, the quick-fix, ready-cash approach can be a 
shaky foundation upon which to base an economic development strategy.
  As mayor of Indianapolis during a difficult period of economic 
uncertainty and social unrest in the late 1960's, I learned that a 
community must be built in living rooms, classrooms, and churches.
  To strengthen the city's economy, we launched a comprehensive 
reorganization of local government, consolidating our city and county. 
We cut property taxes 5 times in 8 years, attracted businesses, and 
made Indianapolis the amateur sports capital of the world. Indianapolis 
is a dynamic and successful city, and it has reduced poverty and crime 
that plagues many urban areas.
  Long-term growth and prosperity for our communities are most often 
earned the old-fashioned way--through hard work, dedication and 
commitment to common purpose.
  The folks facing the toughest decisions on whether to permit gambling 
are leaders at the local level. These officials are frequently 
overwhelmed by the size and complexity of proposals made for casinos 
and other establishments promising jobs and solutions to local 
financial dilemmas. They are often forced to make decisions about 
gambling in a vacuum of reliable, unbiased information--information 
desperately needed to make sound choices that will affect both the 
social and economic future of their communities. This is one area where 
the resources of the Federal Government can help communities by 
providing them objective, unbiased information they can use to make 
their own informed decisions about gambling.
  Mr. President, while history is replete with examples of communal 
difficulties associated with gambling, it is difficult to determine the 
costs--especially in certain human factors related to problem gambling 
that include alcoholism, divorce, suicide, family dysfunction, and 
criminal activity.
  A number of studies have attempted to address the social costs of 
gambling; however, they are often regional in focus, limited in scope 
or funded by subjective interests. A Federal study commission will 
provide a broad-based, authoritative report on this important aspect of 
the gambling issue that deserves closer examination.
  As a society we appear to have made a piecemeal decision to legalize 
a wide variety of gambling activities. But this does not obviate the 
need to be mindful of the underlying problems associated with gambling 
that lead most of the country to keep it illegal for decades.
  We know that the presence of legalized gambling can exacerbate 
numerous social problems, including crime, alcoholism, corruption, 
suicide, bankruptcy, family dysfunction, and compulsive or addictive 
behavior. These side effects can represent an enormous moral and 
financial cost to communities.
  The gambling industry does not choose to confront these moral 
questions. The gambling industry frequently asserts that what it is 
providing is an adult entertainment option. Undoubtedly, many adults 
can gamble responsibly, have a good time, and sustain the financial 
losses that they incur. But we should not deceive ourselves that 
gambling is no different than any other entertainment option. Gambling 
is a complex and problematic activity both in terms of its economic and 
social impact on communities and its economic and psychological impact 
on individuals and families.
  Gambling-related employment is not comparable to other forms of 
employment such as manufacturing. Gambling does not produce a value-
added product or reinvestment in the market economy. Although gambling 
operations can contribute lower-paying jobs to a local economy, other 
businesses in the region often lose as a consumer spending for goods 
and services shifts to a small number of casinos and casino-related 
activities.
  One does not have to be a gambling prohibitionist to conclude that 
our Nation needs to know more about where we are headed.
  Mr. President, this legislation creates a 2-year, 9-member commission 
appointed by Congress and the President to conduct a comprehensive 
legal and factual study of the social and economic impacts of gambling 
on States and communities. S. 704 does not propose to further tax, 
regulate or limit gambling activities.
  The Commission will be charged with compiling all Federal, State and 
local laws pertaining to gambling. The Commission also will assess the 
impact of gambling on local businesses; the relationship between 
gambling and levels of crime; and the impact of problem and 
pathological gambling on individuals, families, and the economy.

  The Commission will examine electronic gambling involving use of the 
Internet. Internet gambling is a new and rapidly growing activity in 
the United States and elsewhere. It allows people using personal 
computers and credit card accounts to gamble across State lines and 
national borders. Internet gambling could have serious international 
policy implications for the United States. Very little is known about 
the risks associated with citizens who gamble in ``virtual'' casinos 
located outside U.S. jurisdiction. We need to learn more about the 
Internet.
  After 2 years, the Commission will submit a comprehensive report to 
the President, the Congress, Governors, and Native American Tribal 
governments on its findings. This report will provide objective, 
unbiased data and analysis that States and communities can use to make 
their own informed decisions about gambling.
  Providing the Commission with adequate resources and authority to 
perform its duties is essential to developing an authoritative report. 
Allowing the Commission to conduct hearings, provide recommendations 
and have a limited, but effective level of subpoena power are essential 
to achieving this goal. To reduce the cost of the Commission, S. 704 
uses existing Government entities--the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations and the National Research Council of the 
National Academy of Sciences--to assist in the Commission's efforts to 
compile existing laws and conduct research on problem and pathological 
gambling.
  Senator Stevens and the Governmental Affairs Committee have worked to 
establish a balanced and effective commission that will conduct a 
thorough review of the social and economic impacts of gambling. At the 
same time, the committee worked to ensure that information gathered by 
the Commission would not be misused nor exceed

[[Page S7974]]

the common sense bounds of our Federal system. The bill incorporates 
existing privacy laws under title 18 to ensure protection for 
individual privacy and for business trade secrets.
  The bill allows the Commission to subpoena certain documentation 
necessary to carry out its duties as outlined in the bill. The 
Commission is allowed subpoena authority to gather additional 
information to help the Commission understand documentation received 
under subpoena.
  I have worked with Senator Simon, Senator Stevens, the Governmental 
Affairs Committee and Representative Frank Wolf to gain approval of 
this legislation in the Congress because I believe the country would be 
served by a Federal study. The House of Representatives approved 
similar legislation this year, and the President has indicated his 
support for establishing a commission to study gambling. It is my hope 
the Senate will give swift approval to this important measure to 
examine this pressing national issue. I believe the Commission's work 
will be helpful to State and local leaders as they make their own 
informed decisions about whether or not to allow gambling in their 
communities.
  Information is the goal of this Commission. Information will 
strengthen the democratic decision-making process.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to support passage of S. 704.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I rise today to support S. 704 as amended 
by the Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill establishes a national 
commission to study the social and economic impact of legalized 
gambling in the United States.
  S. 704 was originally introduced on April 6, 1995, by Senator Paul 
Simon and Senator Richard Lugar. Currently, there are 25 Senate 
cosponsors of this legislation.
  On November 2, 1995, the Governmental Affairs Committee held a 
hearing on S. 704. At that time, concerns were raised about the 
adequacy of the funding levels and the scope of the original bill.
  On May 14, 1996, the Governmental Affairs Committee approved a 
substitute which was drafted in consultation with the sponsors of the 
Senate and House bills and the representatives of various groups.
  This bill, as reported by the committee, attempts to address a wide 
range of concerns, including balancing the needs of the commission to 
get access to information and protecting the rights of individuals to 
their personal privacy.
  S. 704 as amended creates a nine-member commission--three appointed 
by President, three by the Speaker of the House, and three by the 
Senate majority leader. The commission has 2 years to conduct the study 
and issue a report, which may include findings and recommendations, to 
the President, the Congress, the Governors, and native American tribal 
governments.
  Under this bill, the commission will utilize the expertise of the 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the National 
Research Council. This will avoid duplicating work already done by the 
Government, reduce the cost of the commission, and ensure that the 
States are not left out of the process.
  The bill specifies a number of topics that the commission will study, 
encompassing many aspects of gambling and its effects, including 
problem gambling and gambling on the Internet. It authorizes ``such 
sums as may be necessary''--the original bill introduced in the Senate 
only provided $250,000 for the commission. Funding for the commission 
would be subject to appropriations. The commission will terminate after 
completing its 2-year study.
  The most recent Federal study of the effects of gambling was 
published 20 years ago--the 1976 Commission on the Review of the 
National Policy Toward Gambling. At that time, that study cost $3 
million--which would be the equivalent of $8.1 million today.
  In 1976, only two States--Nevada and New Jersey--had legalized 
gambling. Currently, 48 States have some form of legalized gambling, 
and since 1988, 21 States have legalized casino gambling.
  There has been rapid growth recently in the gambling industry--it is 
now a $40 billion industry which includes casinos, riverboats, Indian 
reservations, State and interstate lotteries, and electronic gambling. 
Despite the growth in this industry, not much current objective data 
exists on the impact of legalized gambling in the United States.
  Other concerns that the committee addressed include: specifying the 
areas to be studied; problem gambling; electronic gambling--such as 
gambling on the Internet; requiring the report to be issued to 
Governors and native American tribes so that they could make use of the 
information; and providing a clear definition of gambling.

  The House version introduced by Representative Frank Wolf on January 
11, 1995, was passed by the House of Representatives on March 5, 1996, 
after some modifications by the House Judiciary Committee.
  Unlike the House bill, the original Senate bill did not include 
subpoena power. The House bill allowed the commission to subpoena both 
individuals and documents. The Congressional Research Service has 
indicated that based on a review of commissions created in recent 
years, it is unusual to grant broad subpoena power to this type of 
commission.
  However, recognizing the short period of time in which the commission 
has to complete its work and the need to be able to obtain relevant 
information, S. 704 as amended grants the commission the power to 
subpoena documents.
  In order to protect the privacy of individuals, however, information 
gathered by the commission must be kept confidential. The bill provides 
criminal penalties under section 1905 of title 18 of the United States 
Code for the unauthorized disclosure of any confidential personal or 
business information.
  Any information obtained by the commission--whether voluntarily 
provided or provided under subpoena--may not be disclosed to any person 
in any manner, except to authorized commission employees; upon court 
order, or when released by the commission in aggregate or summary form 
that does not directly or indirectly disclose the identity of any 
person or business.
  In addition, individuals falsifying information to the commission are 
subject to criminal penalties under section 1001 of title 18 of the 
United States Code.
  The commission may serve a subpoena throughout the United States, and 
may go to a U.S. district court to enforce it. All subpoenas must 
comply with the requirements for subpoenas under the Federal Rules of 
Civil Procedure. The commission is required to notify the U.S. Attorney 
General at least 10 days in advance of issuing a subpoena. This will 
allow the Attorney General time to raise objection if the subpoena is 
going to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation.
  The Congressional Budget Office projects S. 704 as amended will cost 
$5 million, roughly equal to their revised estimate for the House 
version, H.R. 497. CBO also projects that the costs to State, local, 
and tribal governments for complying with information-gathering 
requests will be minimal. Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous 
consent that the CBO's letter on this bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    U.S. Congress,


                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 704, the National 
     Gambling Impact Study Commission Act.
       Enactment of S. 704 would not affect direct spending or 
     receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply 
     to the bill.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                                  June E. O'Neill,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosure.


               congressional budget office cost estimate

       1. Bill number: S. 704.
       2. Bill title: National Gambling Impact Study Commission 
     Act.
       3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
     on Governmental Affairs on May 14, 1996.
       4. Bill purpose: This bill would establish a commission to 
     study the impact of gambling in the United States. The study 
     would cover many issues related to gambling, including the 
     relationship between gambling and crime and the extent to 
     which gambling provides revenues to state, local, and Native 
     American tribal governments. The commission, consisting of 
     nine members, would have two

[[Page S7975]]

     years after it first meets to conduct the study and to 
     present its findings to the Congress. In addition, the 
     chairman of the commission would have the authority to 
     appoint an executive director and other personnel to assist 
     the commission in performing its duties. The bill would 
     require that the commission contract with the Advisory 
     Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and the National 
     Academy of Sciences for assistance in conducting its study. 
     Finally, the bill would grant the commission the authority to 
     hold hearings and subpoena documents.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: As shown in 
     the following table, CBO estimates that enacting S. 704 would 
     increase discretionary spending by about $5 million over the 
     next two years, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
     funds.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS ACTION               
                                                                        
Estimated authorization level.      2      3  .....  .....  .....       
Estimated outlays.............      2      3  .....  .....  .....       
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       The costs of this bill fall within budget function 750.
       6. Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
     assumes that S. 704 will be enacted by the end of fiscal year 
     1996, and that the estimated amounts will be appropriated for 
     each of the next two years. We projected outlays based on the 
     historical rate of spending for similar commissions.
       To estimate the cost of S. 704, CBO assumed that the 
     commission would hire about 20 people to provide technical 
     and administrative support, and that the commission would 
     have other costs similar to those incurred by the first 
     commission established to study gambling in 1974--the 
     Commission on the Review of the National Policy Toward 
     Gambling. In total, CBO estimates that the proposed 
     commission would cost about $5 million over the next two 
     years. This cost would cover per diem and travel expenses of 
     the commission's members and witnesses, salaries of the 
     commission staff, contract expenses and other administrative 
     costs.
       7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
       8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal 
     governments: Public Law 104-4, the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
     Act of 1995, defines an intergovernmental mandate as an 
     enforceable duty imposed on state, local, or tribal 
     governments, except a condition of federal assistance or a 
     duty arising from participation in a voluntary federal 
     program. CBO has determined that providing documents and 
     information, and answering questions about such information 
     under threat of a subpoena, constitutes an enforceable duty 
     on these entities as defined by the law.
       Based on information provided to us by eight states with 
     significant gaming operations and from interest groups 
     representing state, local, and tribal governments, CBO 
     estimates that the cost to states, localities, and tribal 
     governments of providing documents and information to the 
     commission is unlikely to exceed, on average, $100,000 per 
     state. Total costs are thus unlikely to exceed $5 million. 
     They would be incurred over the two-year period during which 
     the commission is preparing its study.
       9. Estimated impact on the private sector: Public Law 104-
     4, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, defines a 
     private sector mandate as an enforceable duty imposed on the 
     private sector, except a condition of federal assistance or a 
     duty arising from participation in a voluntary federal 
     program. S. 704, the National Gambling Impact Study 
     Commission Act, contains provisions that require the gaming 
     industry and individuals to provide documents and 
     information, and to respond to questions about such 
     information under threat of a subpoena. Those provisions 
     constitute a private sector mandate. Although the demand for 
     information by the commission from individual operators could 
     impose substantial compliance costs in some cases, CBO 
     estimates that the aggregate annual impact on the private 
     sector would fall well below the $100 million threshold 
     specified in Public Law 104-4.
       10. Previous CBO estimate: On November 17, 1995, CBO 
     transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 497, the National 
     Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act, as ordered 
     reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary on November 
     8, 1995. The two estimates are similar; we now estimate 
     federal costs of $5 million over the 1997-1998 period, 
     whereas our previous estimate for H.R. 497 was $4 million 
     over the 1996-1998 period. The increase in estimated cost is 
     attributable primarily to S. 704's provision authorizing 
     reimbursement of expenses incurred by witnesses at commission 
     hearings.
       11. Impact: Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: 
     Susanne S. Mehlman. State and Local Government Impact: 
     Theresa Gullo, Private Sector Impact: Matthew Eyles.
       12. Estimate approved by: Robert R. Sunshine for Paul N. 
     Van de Water, Assistant Director, for Budget Analysis

  Mr. STEVENS. The Clinton administration states that it supports 
legislation creating a commission to study the effects of gambling, but 
has stopped short of endorsing any specific bill. The Department of 
Justice has stated that the substitute addresses many of the agency's 
concerns, and have asked that their views be included in the Record. 
Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Justice 
Department letter outlining the administration views on the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                       U.S. Department of Justice,


                                Office of Legislative Affairs,

                                     Washington, DC, May 21, 1996.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in regard to S. 704, the 
     National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act, which the 
     Committee ordered reported last week. I especially want to 
     express my appreciation to you for your staff's cooperation 
     in resolving several concerns expressed by the Department.
       As President Clinton recently stated in letters to Senators 
     Simon and Lugar, the Administration supports the 
     establishment of this Commission. One of the duties of this 
     panel is to conduct a comprehensive study, which will include 
     an assessment of the relationship between gambling and levels 
     of crime.
       The Committee-approved version of S. 704 addresses a number 
     of issues of concern to the Department of Justice. For 
     example, section 5(b)(1) gives the Commission the power to 
     subpoena certain information, but also provides that the 
     ``Commission shall transmit to the Attorney General a 
     confidential, written notice at least ten days in advance of 
     the issuance of any such subpoena.'' This provision would 
     allow the Department to learn in advance who is being 
     subpoenaed and the subject matter of the subpoena. In 
     addition to keeping us abreast of what the Commission is 
     doing, this would permit the Department to object or make our 
     views known regarding such subpoena.
       However, we understand that this provision does not 
     constitute any kind of approval process. No inference should 
     be drawn if the Department is notified of the pending 
     issuance of a subpoena and does or does not object or 
     comment. For example, such silence should not be construed as 
     approval or endorsement of the subpoena or its subject 
     matter. Nor should the presence or absence of a comment be 
     construed to indicate the presence or absence of a criminal 
     investigation, on which the Department as a matter of policy 
     does not comment.
       We understand that Section 5(b) does not grant the 
     Commission authority to subpoena federal agencies. However, 
     section 5(c) of the bill gives the Commission the authority 
     to obtain information directly from federal agencies. This 
     provision says that ``[u]pon request of the Commission, the 
     head of such department or agency may furnish such 
     information to the Commission.'' This language is intended to 
     preserve the ability of a federal agency, including the 
     Department of Justice, to use its discretion and judgment in 
     withholding privileged and sensitive information.
       We would appreciate it if you would include this letter in 
     the record of consideration of this legislation. Again, we 
     thank you and your staff for your cooperation in resolving 
     these important issues.
       The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
     is no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to the presentation of this report.
       Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of 
     assistance on this or any other matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Andrew Fois,
                                       Assistant Attorney General.

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I rise in strong in support of the Stevens 
substitute to S. 704--legislation to set up a national commission to 
study the growth of legalized gambling in America and its relevant 
social, economic, and legal impacts.
  Gambling is an industry that is growing rapidly. In 1976--the last 
time we studied this issue on a national basis--legalized wagering in 
the United States totaled $22 billion, while legalized gaming 
approached $3 billion. In 1994, legal wagering exceeded $482 billion, 
while legal gaming reached $40 billion. We now have riverboat and land-
based casino gambling in a number of States, and most States operate 
their own lotteries. In addition, Indian tribes are increasingly 
turning to casino and other forms of gaming as a tool for economic 
development. Finally, the gambling industry is looking toward the 
Internet and other electronic media as the markets for the future.
  This kind of explosive growth in an industry that brings with it both 
serious economic and social costs along with benefits is at least a 
cause for further study. So I support the establishment of a national 
commission. This issue has not been examined on a national or Federal 
level for nearly 20 years and I believe that it is time we looked at 
gambling in America in greater depth.
  The 1976 commission concluded that the regulation of gambling should 
be a State responsibility. With the exception of gambling on Indian 
lands where

[[Page S7976]]

there is a shared Federal-State role, that is currently the case. But 
given the rapid growth of the industry in America in recent years, the 
proper role of the States and the Federal Government on this issue 
needs study and examination. There are important federalism and 
sovereignty questions that need to be answered. I don't have the 
answers--I'm not sure any of my colleagues do either. That's why 
establishing a commission to study gambling and to advise Federal, 
State, local, and tribal policymakers is both necessary and worthwhile. 
Some might argue that this commission represents an intrusion on states 
rights. I don't agree. This commission does not have the power to 
regulate, only to make recommendations. It is a study commission, not a 
regulatory body.
  This substitute represents a considerable improvement from the 
original S. 704. The commission's charter has been strengthened. It 
will assess: the impact of existing policies and practices concerning 
legalized gambling; the impact of pathological gambling on individuals 
and families; the relationship between gambling and levels of crime; 
the growth of electronic or Internet gambling; and the extent to which 
alternative sources of revenues could be developed for State, local, 
and tribal governments. Based on its examination of these issues, the 
commission will then make appropriate recommendations to policymakers 
at all levels of government.
  The substitute includes my proposal that the commission contract with 
the National Academy of Sciences [NAS] to assist in producing the 
study, with a particular emphasis on employing the NAS to study the 
problem of pathological gambling. This may be the most pernicious 
aspect of the growth of legalized gambling and we don't have much 
knowledge about it. We read the occasional story in the newspaper about 
some of the elderly cashing their social security checks to play the 
slot machines; teenagers gambling on the internet; the poor getting 
hooked on the lottery or keno; or others committing suicide under the 
weight of crushing casino debts. But we don't have much national or 
aggregate information on problem gambling and how it is being affected 
by the rapid growth of the industry. With its scientific expertise, the 
NAS is the ideal organization to gather and analyze this information.
  The commission is also directed to utilize the Advisory Commission on 
Intergovernmental Relations [ACIR] to review existing State and local 
laws and policies on gambling, including existing enforcement and 
regulatory practices that address crime and gambling. Earlier drafts of 
the substitute had ACIR carrying out all the responsibilities of the 
commission. I thought that was too much for ACIR to do, first, because 
some of the aspects of the study are outside the scope of ACIR's 
expertise and second, because some in Congress have unfortunately 
succeeded in nearly zeroing out ACIR's appropriation, thus making it 
difficult, if not impossible, for ACIR to carry out the commission's 
work. This version wisely focuses ACIR to look at the Federalism 
aspects of the gambling issue, where ACIR's expertise would be most 
helpful and where it will need less funding to do the work.
  The Stevens substitute does grant the commission limited subpoena 
authority. Some have argued that subpoena power gives the commission an 
open license to conduct a witchhunt in a legitimate industry. These 
arguments have been raised in discussing the House version, which 
grants the commission unlimited subpoena authority and charges it with 
such missions as investigating organized crime and political 
corruption. The Senate bill is different. We don't have the commission 
looking into organized crime or political corruption. Its mission is to 
focus on the broader socio-economic impact of gambling, with the only 
matter relating to crime that the commission is to look at is the 
correlation between gambling and crime rates. This would be valuable 
information for states or communities who are considering legalizing 
gambling in their jurisdictions.
  The Stevens substitute does grant the commission power to subpoena 
documentary information. I think such subpoena authority is needed to 
ensure that the commission has access to all the documents it needs to 
carry out its work in a thorough and independent manner.
  I would point out that the 1976 commission had subpoena authority. I 
would like to read an excerpt from a letter from Charles Morin, 
Chairman of the 1976 Commission, to Congressman Frank Wolf, sponsor of 
the House bill.
       The 1972-76 commission had subpoena power and, because of 
     that, we never had to use it--in other words, when you have 
     the power you will get cooperation. Obviously, the power need 
     not be unrestricted and Congress may see fit to provide 
     safeguards and, if the power were to be abused and there were 
     non-compliance, the commission would be forced into court to 
     compel compliance--something it would be most reluctant to 
     do. On the other hand, if it were used legitimately, it would 
     mean that information had been withheld for a reason--which 
     is why you must have the power! And in the normal instance, 
     as we found out from our years of experience, the knowledge 
     that we had the power and would not hesitate to use it 
     provided all the persuasion we needed.

  I think Mr. Morin sums up pretty well why subpoena power is needed. 
But he does note that Congress may wish to put some parameters and 
limits around the commission's subpoena power. We've done that. The 
commission may only subpoena documentary information, and that is only 
after those who possess the materials fail to supply them as requested 
by the commission. The commission cannot subpoena witnesses to compel 
public testimony. This should satisfy those who are concerned that the 
commission might misuse its subpoena authority to create some sort of 
public spectacle. The commission may also issue a subpoena in order to 
help it understand the materials already obtained pursuant to that 
authority, and the choice is given to the respondent to submit answers 
either through a sworn deposition or written interrogatories under 
oath. Finally, we require the commission to issue written notice to the 
Attorney General at least 10 days in advance of issuing any subpoena.
  Still, some remained concerned that the commission would misuse its 
subpoena authority to publicly disclose confidential business 
information, or violate the privacy of certain individuals who gamble. 
So we added an additional safeguard. We placed the commission under the 
Trade Secrets Act, Federal law which carries with it both civil and 
criminal penalties for the unauthorized disclosure of confidential 
business information by any Federal employee. Serious violations of the 
act can lead to a jail sentence of up to one year. The Trade Secrets 
Act applies to all Federal employees and officers of the Federal 
Government and we would extend its application to the members and 
employees of the commission.
  So we have put some limits on the commission and set up penalties if 
those limits are violated. Those who might argue that we have created 
some renegade commission are misguided. We have granted the commission 
the powers it needs to carry out its mission, but we've also ensured 
that penalties exist for those who abuse those powers.
  There are a couple of points I would like to clarify in the 
legislation since we did not file a report on it. First of all, we are 
making one change to the bill since the markup. We are correcting 
language in Section 5 to ensure that the Trade Secrets Act covers not 
only subpoenaed information, but information voluntarily supplied to 
the commission. Without this change, people would be discouraged from 
voluntarily supplying confidential business information to the 
commission as it would otherwise not be protected. Our change also 
includes a provision that ensures that the Trade Secrets Act applies 
only to confidential business information. Business or other 
information that is currently available to the public or already in the 
public domain, such as information in trade publications, journals, 
magazines, 10(k) filings, etc., would not be covered by the act. The 
commission should be able to publicly discuss and release information 
that is already in the public domain without fear of facing some 
frivolous lawsuit.

  The commission, under section 5(b)(2), is allowed to issue additional 
subpoenas to further its understanding about materials already produced 
by that means. The respondent, again, has the choice as to how to 
comply--either by a sworn deposition or through written interrogatories 
under oath. In my view, it is crucial to discuss what the

[[Page S7977]]

verb ``to understand'' means in this regard. Indeed, it is a relatively 
new term of art in defining subpoena authority. A very narrow reading 
would limit such a subpoena to helping the commission understand only 
what is written on a page. I do not subscribe to this very restrictive 
interpretation and certainly do not think it is our intent to do so. 
Questions about the facts and circumstances beyond the four corners of 
a document--how it was developed, who was responsible for writing and/
or approving it, and under what context--may be well necessary and 
crucial to augment the commission's understanding of the materials at 
hand and carry out its duties. I think the commission should have such 
authority and use it, if necessary, to clarify and supplement the 
information contained in the documents themselves. That's the only way 
the commission will be able to fully comprehend the meaning and context 
of any subpoenaed documents.
  This commission will be closely watched by many, including those with 
the power and resources to tie the commission up in costly litigation. 
It is subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act [FACA], a statute 
which requires compliance with open meetings and public access, but 
also a statute that allows litigation, something we've seen a 
significant amount of in the last several years with various executive 
branch commissions and taskforces. So I would urge the commission at 
its first meeting to read FACA and to closely adhere to its 
requirements.
  We've given the commission significant latitude in establishing its 
own rules and procedures of operation. I would urge that at its very 
first meeting that the commission establish those procedures, and not 
wait until later when some issue arises and the commission has not set 
appropriate rules to deal with it. In particular, the commission should 
establish its rules for the issuing of subpoenas in their first 
meeting, and not wait to establish those rules just before the 
commission is actually considering issuing a subpoena.
  In closing, I want to thank Senators Simon, Lugar, and Lieberman and 
their respective staffs for working with Senator Stevens and I to 
develop this legislation. It is a well thought out proposal that will 
ensure a thorough, balanced, and fair examination of gambling in 
America. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Stevens in 
a colloquy regarding the enforcement of a subpoena issued by the 
Gambling Impact Study Commission. The vast majority of Federal 
commissions created by Congress in recent years have not possessed 
subpoena power. Of the few commissions in the past that have been 
granted subpoena power, and in this case I support it, the authority to 
enforce a subpoena was typically placed with the U.S. Attorney General. 
For example, legislation which established the National Indian Gaming 
Commission, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Commission on 
Government Procurement, and the President's Commission on Organized 
Crime expressly specified the Attorney General's involvement in any 
action to enforce a subpoena.
  The language of S. 704, the Gambling Impact Study Commission Act, 
provides that ``* * * the Commission may apply to a U.S. district court 
for an order requiring that person to comply with such subpoena.'' It 
is my understanding that the Attorney General, which has expertise in 
this type of matter, could be asked by the commission to seek 
enforcement of a commission subpoena, and it is often the case that the 
Attorney General is asked to do so.
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct. We have been in contact with the 
Department of Justice [DOJ] and have been advised informally the DOJ 
would not object to enforcing a subpoena issued by the commission. In 
fact, they have been operating under the assumption that they would be 
called upon to enforce such a subpoena. There are many other Government 
bodies which use DOJ to enforce subpoenas and they are fully staffed to 
handle such requests.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, a matter that I would like to clarify with 
the bill's lead sponsor, Senator Simon, involves two interrelated 
issues regarding the Commission's study of the role of advertising in 
promoting gaming. First, unlike the Commission's other areas of study, 
advertising is a constitutionally protected right of communication 
between buyers and sellers of legal products. Second, the Federal 
Government, through the Federal Trade Commission, already exercises 
broad enforcement and regulatory authority over false and deceptive 
advertisements in general, including those for gaming.
  My question to my colleague is whether the Commission will be mindful 
of the unique first amendment liberties for advertising, and of the 
FTC's already existing regulatory authority over false and deceptive 
advertising when the Commission assesses and evaluates the impact of 
gaming advertisements.
  Mr. SIMON. My answer to my friend from Nevada, Senator Bryan, is an 
unequivocal yes on both counts. As my colleague points out, the first 
amendment freedom of commercial speech provides important liberties for 
advertising. It is my hope and intention that the Commission will grant 
special attention to the first amendment implications of its 
recommendations and avoid trespassing upon any constitutionally 
protected freedoms of commercial speech when it formulates its policy 
recommendations.
  Moreover, as my friend from Nevada points out, section 5 of the 
Federal Trade Commission Act empowers the FTC to prevent ``unfair or 
deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.'' It is my hope and 
intention that the Commission will take this fact into account and, to 
the extent practicable and appropriate, will incorporate the FTC's 
existing authority and expertise over false and deceptive advertising.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I would like to engage Senator Stevens in 
a colloquy regarding the privacy rights of individual citizens who 
engage in legal gambling activities.
  The Gambling Impact Study Commission Act (S. 704), which I 
cosponsored and support, is intended to conduct a thorough study of 
issues related to legalized gambling. Private citizens who engage in 
legal gambling activities, dine in a casino restaurant or stay in a 
casino hotel, should also have their right to privacy protected.
  The sponsors of this bill and other Members of the Senate have been 
careful to state that the intent of this bill is to conduct a thorough 
study of the gaming industry while protecting the privacy rights of 
individual gamblers. I understand that this legislation addresses the 
privacy issue by prohibiting the release of individual information 
unless it is in aggregate or summary form and that there are sufficient 
criminal and civil penalties to prevent public release of such 
information. In addition, this legislation is intended to be consistent 
with any other law which offers privacy protection to American 
citizens, including the Privacy Act of 1974.
  Would you agree that the intent of this legislation is to provide the 
Commission with the necessary tools to gather the information it needs 
while protecting the privacy rights of Americans? It is my 
understanding that it is estimated that between 4 and 6 percent of 
gamblers are compulsive gamblers. Is it correct to assume that, 
although the Commission can subpoena the information, it would not have 
a need for the personal records of private citizens, including the vast 
majority of individual gamblers who are not considered compulsive 
gamblers?
  Mr. STEVENS. The Senator is correct on all counts. This legislation 
fully protects the privacy rights of American citizens.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the record should reflect that had this 
matter been decided by a roll call vote, I would have voted in the 
negative.
  I believe this legislation to be unwarranted, invasive, and 
potentially capable of doing more harm than good. It is indeed ironic 
that this Congress, which professes to be a States rights Congress has 
chosen to take action on a bill that affects an inherently State 
matter.
  While this bill enjoys overwhelming support--even from some in the 
gaming industry--I believe it establishes a poor precedent. We should 
not be creating commissions to study lawful industries governed 
predominantly by State law. Nevada's regulation of gaming works well. 
As the former chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission, I know

[[Page S7978]]

first-hand the many benefits resulting from this successful 
relationship.
  Notwithstanding over 200 studies of gaming, the proponents of this 
legislation argue that yet another study is warranted. I believe the 
most recent impetus for greater examination is but the camel's nose 
under the tent. Opponents of legalized gaming seek to use this 
commission as a means to increase both Federal regulation and taxation 
of gaming. Ultimately, in my opinion, they will not be satiated until 
this law abiding industry is either outlawed or regulated to death. I 
wish to disabuse them of any notion that they will succeed in their 
endeavors without a fight.
  It is difficult to even grant this commission the benefit of the 
doubt. While I have some hope that the commission will appreciate 
Nevada's model of modern gaming operations I am concerned that it will 
focus on those stories where gaming has failed. The well organized 
special interests lined up against lawful gaming operations have 
consistently demonstrated their willingness to find only one side of 
the debate. It is imperative that those who are appointed to this 
commission include people of good will and impartiality who are capable 
of examining this industry from an unbiased perspective. It does not 
need headline seekers intent on magnifying a few unique negative 
stories and painting a broad-brush gloom and doom picture that would 
unfairly taint Nevada's No. 1 employer.
  Perhaps my greatest objection to this measure, however, is the 
unwarranted inclusion of subpoena power. In this Senator's view, we 
should not be empowering congressionally appointed commissions with 
such broad subpoena authority for a study of gaming. Permitting the 
exercise of such a coercive tool only invites mischief and abuse by 
those who are hostile to the gaming industry.
  I realize it is the prerogative of the majority to set this Congress' 
agenda and prioritize those issues that should be addressed. I do not 
believe the formation of this unwarranted commission is, or should be, 
a priority. Again, this is a matter of States rights.
  Today, by voting against this bill, I realize I represent but the 
smallest minority. However, I believe my concerns about the potential 
for abuse and officious intrusion are entirely warranted. There is not 
a doubt in my mind as to the ultimate agenda of the antigaming 
extremists. It is my sincere hope that my fears are proved wrong. I 
wish I could stand before this body and say I look forward to reading a 
responsible and insightful report on gaming. Unfortunately, while this 
commission may be created with the best of intentions, there is too 
much opportunity for it to do mischief and promote unwarranted 
proposals. That said, I will be steadfast in my own monitoring of its 
evolvement and agenda.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I would like to register my strong 
opposition to S. 704, the Gaming Impact Study Commission Act. While 
this bill is improved over the egregious version that passed the House, 
I still believe this is a waste of taxpayer's money and has the 
potential of becoming a witch-hunt instead of a legitimate study. If 
this turns into a witch-hunt, it could have a chilling effect on 
leglaized gaming nationwide and have a devasting effect on the economy 
of my State of Nevada.
  Advocates of legislation to create a Federal Gambling Study 
Commission have stated the purpose of the commission is to study the 
socioeconomic effects of all forms of gambling and to make 
recommendations to Congress. They consistently emphasize that no one, 
least of all the legal gaming industry, should fear just a study.
  While the gaming-entertainment industry has nothing to fear from a 
fair and unbiased study, anti-gaming groups have tried to skew this 
study into looking at only one side of the issue and to turn this into 
a crusade.
  The argument has been advanced that a Federal commission is needed to 
look at the impacts of the spread of gaming because State and local 
governments lack the ability to acquire and act on objective 
information in the face of well-financed attempts to put casinos or 
other gaming-entertainment operations in their area.
  The reason why this premise is false is that even without the 
assistance of a Federal commission, jurisdiction after jurisdiction has 
actually decided not to approve an expansion of gaming. No State has 
approved new casino gaming for several years. For example, 7 of 10 
gaming initiatives were defeated in 1994 and no new casino gaming or 
video poker was approved by a new jurisdiction in 1995.
  The proposed commission is a Federal solution in search of a 
nonexistent State problem: States are free to make their own decisions 
on whether to permit gaming, one way or another.
  Still others attack legalized gaming as some insidious form of 
entertainment that must be banned. The fact is today the legalized 
gaming industry is as legitimate a business as any of the Fortune 500. 
More than 50 publicly-traded companies, all regulated by the Securities 
and Exchange Commission, own gaming interests. The stocks of these 
companies are owned by millions of Americans around the country.
  The gaming-entertainment industry directly and indirectly employs 
over one million people throughout the United States, paying $6 billion 
in salaries in 1994 alone. The casino gaming-entertainment industry 
paid more than $1.4 billion in taxes to State and local governments in 
1994 with an estimated $6 to $7 billion more paid by other forms of 
gaming-entertainment, such as State lotteries, horse and dog racing.
  Nevada is proud to be the gaming-entertainment capital of the world. 
Nevada's gaming industry provides 43 percent of the $1.2 billion 
annually going into the State's general fund. About $215 million from 
gaming revenues is dedicated to the State's university system and 
another $400 million goes to kindergarten through grade 12 education 
programs.
  None of this is to suggest that the gaming-entertainment industry, 
like any other major business, particularly one which hosts millions of 
visitors each year, does not have its share of public issues and 
challenges to address. The industry, to its credit, is making a serious 
effort to address concerns about problem gaming. For example, the 
industry recently made a multi-million dollar commitment to a new 
national center for responsible gaming which last week chose the 
Harvard Medical School's division of addiction for a $140,000 grant to 
study problem gaming.
  This all leads me back to the question of why we need to spend 
taxpayers dollars to study gaming.
  Again, this bill is better than the House version which contains an 
openended, unrestricted authority for the commission to issue 
subpoenas. In the House version, there are almost no protections on 
what could be subpoenaed and what they could do with this information.
  I do not believe gaming is appropriate for all locations. Each 
community should weigh the merits and decide if they want gaming, and 
if they do, what types of gaming and under what conditions do they want 
it.
  I am concerned that in certain jurisdictions gaming is not being 
adequately regulated. Nevada's gaming industry is closely monitored 
with the State regulatory body employing 375 individuals. Unless the 
regulation is improved in certain jurisdictions, including Indian 
casinos, we may see problems down the line. We should make it a 
priority to improve this regulation.
  I regret some groups have seized this issue to make a full court 
press against all gaming. Gaming-entertainment is a legitimate, highly-
regulated industry that is being unfairly maligned. It has made 
significant contributions to the Nation's economy and I am proud of the 
benefits it has brought Nevada.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in recent months, the gaming industry 
has come under considerable attack here in Washington. And as a senator 
who represents thousands of ordinary people who are employed by the 
industry, I want to come to their defense.
  Mr. President, if you believed some of the rhetoric around here, you 
would think that gaming is the root of all evil. Yet millions of 
Americans gamble, whether in the form of State lotteries, office pools, 
race track betting, church bingo, or casino gaming. For these citizens, 
gaming is fun, it is exciting, and, if pursued in moderation, it need 
not do any harm.
  Gaming is also an important part of our economy, and provides jobs 
and opportunities for thousands of our citizens. Nationwide, casinos 
provide jobs

[[Page S7979]]

for over 365,000 Americans. In Atlantic County, NJ, casinos directly 
supply one out of three jobs. Last year, 33 million people visited 
Atlantic City, more than any other city in America.
  Mr. President, in 1976, the voters of New Jersey decided that they 
wanted Atlantic City to have casinos. That was a democratic decision 
that reflected the views of our electorate. Nobody forced New Jerseyans 
to vote that way. They evaluated the benefits of gaming, and they made 
their choice.
  As a result of that decision, revenues generated by the gaming 
industry in New Jersey have provided literally hundreds of millions of 
dollars for various projects throughout the State. They have financed 
the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans Memorial. They have built hundreds of 
homes. They have renovated day care centers, a bus terminal, and a 
trauma center.
  They also have helped improve the lives of countless numbers of 
people living in the area. In Atlantic City, the number of families on 
Aid to Families with Dependent Children has dropped by about 30 percent 
since the first casino opened.
  The more than $1 billion from casino property taxes paid since 1978 
have lowered the burden on other property owners and supported schools 
in Atlantic County. Taxes on casino revenues have supported 
pharmaceutical assistance to the elderly, nursing and boarding home 
care and assistance with utility bills for senior citizens and the 
disabled.
  Mr. President, in the past, some casinos have been tied to organized 
crime and other problems. But it is unfair to assume, as some do, that 
these problems are inevitable. Atlantic City's casinos are the most 
regulated in the country, perhaps the world. And the history of the 
last two decades is that, by and large, this regulation works.
  Mr. President, I met recently with the heads of the New Jersey 
casinos. And I can tell you that the industry is not concerned about a 
study, if it is conducted in a fair and impartial manner.
  But, Mr. President, I have real concerns about the likelihood that 
the commission to be established by this legislation will not be 
impartial. The whole impetus for this legislation seems to be coming 
from the Christian Coalition and others who are on a moral crusade 
against the industry. Maybe some of my colleagues believe that Ralph 
Reed and others only want an objective evaluation of this industry. But 
I doubt it. Instead, Mr. President, this study seems designed to lay 
the groundwork for a massive attack on the gaming industry. An attack 
that serves the political goals of a radical fringe.
  I want to acknowledge that, as with many other products and services, 
some people who gamble do so to excess. And that can be a very serious 
problem. Compulsive gamblers can destroy themselves and their families 
with just a few rolls of the dice, and they need help. We should not 
ignore their plight. In the case of other addictions, we've encouraged 
public education efforts which have proven to be the most effective 
deterrent to excesses. I would encourage States and localities to 
consider such efforts, if appropriate. However, for the overwhelming 
majority of people, gaming is a complement to a vacation or the 
equivalent of going to a movie on Saturday night. It is recreation. 
And, in the case of Atlantic City, the tourism industry is making great 
efforts to diversify and provide attractive convention facilities and 
opportunities for family vacations. I would hate to see these efforts, 
and the contribution they make to our State's economy and communities, 
hurt by a political witch hunt.
  So, Mr. President, I hope that the commission's study will prove to 
be objective, balanced, and fair. And I hope its conclusions are 
reasonable and rational. However, if this study simply leads to 
punitive legislation, which will hurt the hundreds of thousands of men 
and women who work in our casinos and related jobs, I will fight it 
every step of the way.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of S. 704, 
legislation to establish a national gambling impact study commission.
  In the past few years, we have witnessed the rapid proliferation of 
the gaming industry across the Nation--initially under Indian tribal 
ownership and more recently by State governments. In my home State of 
Kansas, the casino and slot machine issue has been hotly debated. Race 
tracks and river boat gambling have been established in the Kansas City 
area, and both the Kickapoo and Potawatomie Nations have plans to 
expand certain gaming facilities on tribal lands.
  I realize that gaming can provide tremendous revenues for State and 
local economies, particularly for Indian tribes wishing to improve 
reservation conditions and provide employment opportunities. In this 
regard, gaming has produced positive results. However, growing evidence 
indicates gambling has some harmful side effects. A particular concern 
focuses on reports that gaming causes the breakup of families, 
suicides, increased teenage gambling, corruption, and the closing of 
main street stores.
  Mr. President, I think an impact study would help Americans better 
understand the unintended social and economic effects the gaming 
industry is having on our families and communities. I also believe we 
have a responsibility to bring together all the relevant data so that 
Governors, State legislators, and citizens can make more informed 
decisions about gambling in their home States.
  Concerns have been raised in the Senate regarding the commission's 
original subpoena authority. As my colleagues have already stated, 
however, those concerns were addressed by the Senate Committee on 
Government Affairs when it adopted the Stevens substitute amendment on 
May 14. In my view, the final measure represents a balanced approach--
one that addresses individual privacy rights and business trade 
concerns but also provides the commission the authority and resources 
necessary to thoroughly examine this issue.
  This legislation has drawn broad, bipartisan support in Congress. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S. 704.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, there is a shadow creeping across the 
American landscape. It thrives in some of the poorest of our urban and 
rural communities. It threatens our towns and cities with economic 
cannibalism. It undermines our political process with a flood of cash 
into the campaign coffers of our politicians. It preys upon the 
weakness of the poor, the elderly, and the young with the promise of 
easy money. It undermines the family with pathological addition and 
spousal and child abuse, and neglect.
  Mr. President, what is this menace? We know it all too well. It is 
gambling. An industry that, just a few years ago, was frequently 
pursued by law enforcement agencies from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation down to rural county sheriffs is today touted as the 
economic savior of communities across America. And it is increasingly 
embraced and promoted by State and local government across the country 
as the answer to chronic government funding problems.
  Mr. President, the gambling industry is booming. In 1988, only two 
States--Nevada and New Jersey--permitted casino gambling. By 1994, 23 
States had legalized gambling. During this time, casino gambling 
revenue nearly doubled. In 1993, $400 billion was spent on all forms of 
legal gambling in American. Between 1992 and 1994, the gambling 
industry enjoyed an incredible 15 percent annual growth in revenues.
  Many of my colleagues would look at this performance and say ``good 
for them.'' Many would cite the gambling industry as an American 
success story. I am not so enthusiastic. There are many unanswered 
questions regarding the hidden costs of rolling out the welcome mat for 
the gambling industry. Many of the promises made by the gambling 
industry--of jobs, economic growth and increased tax revenues--are 
dubious at best. The statistics on the devastating impact on our 
families are beginning to roll in. Concern about teenage gambling 
addition is growing as more and more teens are lured by the promise of 
easy money. Crime and suicide numbers are sky-rocking in communities 
where gambling has taken root.
  Mr. President, it is time to take a good, hard, objective look at the 
gambling industry and the gambling commission proposed in this bill is 
an important step toward getting the facts.
  Critics of a gambling study commission claim that this is purely a 
State

[[Page S7980]]

issue, that there is no Federal role. This claim will not bear 
scrutiny. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly provides 
Congress authority over issues of interstate commerce. Mr. President, 
surely a one half trillion dollar-a-year industry, in which parent 
corporations own and operate facilities in multiple States, can be 
considered interstate commerce. Further, gambling interests are 
involved in political campaigns in virtually every State, and crime 
associated with gambling does often cross State lines. Finally, given 
the potentially devastating impact of pathological gambling on the 
American family, it is critical that this Federal commission be 
established to gather the facts on the explosion of legalized gambling.
  Opponents of this commission have raised many charges against it. 
They have claimed that the commission is a tool of the religious right. 
they have claimed that the commission will become a witch hunt against 
the gambling industry.
  Mr. President, these claims are unfounded. The appointment of 
commissioners will be equally divided between the executive branch and 
the two Houses of Congress, ensuring that no faction may dominate the 
work of the commission. Further, Mr. President, the scope of the 
commission is clearly established within this legislation, which will 
prevent commission members from embarking on unrestricted 
investigations of the industry. Finally, this legislation enjoys broad 
bipartisan support, across both ideological and political lines, in 
both the House and Senate. President Clinton has indicated his support 
for this commission. The national media and newspapers across the 
country have been unanimous in advocating this gambling study 
commission.
  Mr. President, in recent years the gambling industry has preyed 
increasingly on struggling rural communities. These communities have 
been targeted with millions of dollars in promotional money and 
lobbying. They are lured by the promise of booming economic 
development, new jobs and expanded tax revenues.
  There can be little doubt that this promise has held true in the 
short-run for some communities. What many communities are beginning to 
discover, however, is that in the medium and long term, gambling takes 
a lot more from our communities than it gives. These costs are measured 
in broken families and broken lives.

  Our communities are being sold on the vision of becoming another Las 
Vegas. They are being promised tourist dollars and booming economic 
growth. The reality is different. The preponderant majority of gamblers 
on riverboats and in this new breed of casino are from the local 
community. Essentially, the gambling industry is cannibalizing the 
local economy.
  A 1994 study of riverboat gambling in Joliet, IL found that 74 
percent of all players came from within 50 miles of Joliet. A similar 
study of gambling in Aurora found that 70 percent of all players came 
from the immediate Aurora area, with only 3 percent coming from outside 
the state of Illinois. Henry Gluck, the CEO of Caesar's World casino 
firm told a 1994 New York State Senate hearing on gambling that the 
potential for casinos to attract outside dollars, and I quote, ``truly 
applies to a few major cities in the United States.'' I doubt that this 
is the message that the people of Harrison County, IN are getting from 
the gambling industry.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that these casinos provide little 
additional value to local economies and tend to shift money out of 
local businesses. Casinos are one-stop entertainment. They provide 
meals, drinks and everything else. Players simply take entertainment 
dollars that would normally be spent at local restaurants, bowling 
alleys, baseball parks, and movie theaters and spend them at the 
casinos. This is not economic growth. It is economic churning.
  Crime is another critical issue that this Commission will examine. 
Traditionally, organized crime has been synonymous with the gambling 
industry. There is every indication that its influence is still 
present. However, just as important are the more local concerns of 
dramatic increases in theft and violence that has followed the growth 
of gambling in America. A study conducted by ``U.S. News and World 
Report'' found that crime rates in communities with gambling are nearly 
double that of the national average. Examining assault, burglary, and 
larceny, the report found 1,092 incidents per 10,000 population in 1994 
in communities where gambling is present. The national average for 
these crimes is of 593 per 10,000 people. U.S. News concluded that ``* 
* * towns with casinos have experienced an upsurge of crime at the same 
time it was dropping for the Nation as a whole. They recorded a 5.8 
percent jump in crime rates in 1994, while crime around the country 
fell 2 percent.'' This same study found that in 31 locations that got 
new casinos crime surged 7.7 percent in the first year following the 
introduction of the casino.
  Deadwood, SD legalized casino gambling in 1989. Five years later 
serious crimes had increased by 93 percent, forcing the community to 
double the size of its police force. In Central City, CO assaults and 
thefts increased by 400 percent in the first 2 years after gambling's 
introduction.
  Mr. President, our Nation is all too aware of the toll that crime 
takes on our cities and towns. It is critical that we come to 
understand how gambling acts as a catalyst for criminal activities and 
provide these facts to communities that face decisions about inviting 
this industry into their local economies.
  Another area of concern is that of pathological gambling. For decades 
now our Nation has struggled with the demon of addiction. In the past, 
this problem has taken the form of drugs and alcohol. However, the 
rapid expansion of gambling injected a new narcotic into the Nation's 
bloodstream. Problem and pathological gambling is on the rise. The 
National Council on Problem Gambling places the number of Americans 
with serious gambling problems at around 5 percent. Most studies 
confirm this estimate. However, as gambling becomes more pervasive, 
this number is increasing. What does this mean?

  As with other addictive behaviors, gambling impacts the individual, 
their families, their job, virtually every aspect of their lives. 
Marital problems--separation and divorce, spousal and child abuse and 
neglect, substance abuse, and suicide are all side-effects of problem 
gambling. Durand Jacobs, an individual who has done outstanding 
research on the impact of gambling, conducted a study of 850 Southern 
California high school students. He discovered that ``children with 
gambler parents experienced almost twice the incidence of broken homes 
caused by separation, divorce, or death of a parent by the time they 
were 15 years old.'' Another study, published in the Journal of 
Community Psychology, found that about 10 percent of the children of 
compulsive gamblers had been the victim of physical abuse of the 
gambler parent. Fully one-quarter of the children in the study suffered 
``significant behavorial or adjustment problems.''
  Ronald Reno, in his study on the ``Dangerous Repercussions of 
America's Gambling Addiction,'' cites a gamblers anonymous study that 
found that 78 percent of spouses of gamblers threatened separation or 
divorce with nearly half carrying through on their threat.
  Harrison County, MS, an area of intense gambling activity, 
experienced a 149-percent increase in the divorce rate the year 
following the introduction of riverboat gambling. A study in Deadwood, 
SD, found that reports of domestic abuse have risen more than 50 
percent since the advent of legalized gambling. Central City, CO, 
experienced a six-fold rise in child protection cases in the first year 
following casino gambling's introduction.
  Mr. President, perhaps the most disturbing fact about the spread of 
gambling is the danger it poses to children. As with other addictive 
behaviors, our children are most vulnerable to gambling addiction.
  The March 1996 edition of ``Policy Review'' tells the story of Joe 
Kosloski. Joe, then 16, won a little money at a bowling tournament. 
Taking the money, he and some friends headed for the Atlantic City 
casinos. Despite being only 16 at the time, these kids got in. Joe got 
on a roll, and parlayed his winnings into a couple of thousand dollars. 
Like most gamblers though, Joe's luck did not last. His fever for 
gambling, unfortunately, did.

[[Page S7981]]

  Once the cash ran out, Joe opened credit accounts in the names of 
family members and used cash advances and credit cards to gamble. When 
Joe's scam finally came crashing down on him, he had amassed a $20,000 
debt. At 20 years of age, with no previous criminal record, he is in 
Pennsylvania Federal Prison for credit card fraud.
  Mr. President, it had been my intention to offer an amendment to S. 
704. As currently written, the bill would provide the Commission the 
power to subpoena documents only. In my view, this substantially limits 
the Commission's ability to do its work. The gambling industry is a 
one-half trillion dollar a-year cash business. Many of the insidious 
tactics used by the gambling industry to bilk people out of their money 
must be considered by the commission in order to understand fully the 
modern business of gambling. These techniques range from themeing--the 
development of themes within the casino to attract and hold people 
there for longer periods of time--to various techniques to entice 
people to place more frequent or higher wagers. Here I quote from a 
``U.S. News and World Report'' article of March, 1994:

       A decade ago, most casinos bothered to gather data only on 
     high rollers. Now they use slot-club cards to snare the meat-
     and potatoes guy, too. After filling out a survey and 
     receiving an ATM-like card, slot junkies insert them into a 
     ``reader'' built into almost all slot machines. In a distant 
     computer room, casinos track the action 24 hours a day, down 
     to the last quarter.
       Players who use the cards the longest get the most comps, 
     somewhat like a frequent-flier giveback. At the Trump Castle 
     in Atlantic City, an internal document shows that 64 percent 
     of all slot players now use the Castle card. The cardholders 
     lost $109 million to the slots last fiscal year, or about 
     $101 per player per trip. Slot players who never bothered 
     with the card, by contrast, lost $31 per trip on average.

  Mr. President, it is my strong belief that this Commission should 
have full subpoena power to encourage the cooperation of gambling 
industry figures to appear before the Commission. In order to ensure 
that this bill was brought to the floor and passed, in order to ensure 
that there is no delay in getting to the facts, I agreed not to offer 
this amendment. However, I am here to serve notice that, at the first 
indication that the gambling industry is dodging the Commission, I will 
be back here to offer legislation to broaden the Commission subpoena 
power.
  Finally, Mr. President, I would like to talk briefly about State 
sponsored gambling. In most States this takes the form of lotteries. 
However, in many States, including Indiana, the lottery has opened the 
door to scratch tickets, horse racing, casinos, the works. At last 
count, 48 States have become involved in some form of gambling. Mr. 
President, given the concerns I have laid out, there is something very 
disturbing about States promoting gambling as a solution to economic 
development and shrinking tax bases. To quote the late Dr. Richard C. 
Halverson, our former chaplain, this State sponsored gambling is 
nothing short of a tax on the character of our people. It is 
dereliction of our public duty to use gambling to solve Government 
revenue problems.
  Annual lottery sales now approach $32 billion. Yet the virtue of 
gambling as a revenue source is dubious at best. Money Magazine 
estimates that States keep only about one-third of total revenues 
generated from lotteries. Further, many States rely on lottery revenue 
to fill revenue gaps rather than lower taxes. Many States claim to use 
the lottery to fund education. However, the proportion of State 
spending on education has remained relatively unchanged.
  Perhaps most disturbing, Mr. President, is that as States are being 
flooded with gambling cash, the tide of political scandal is rising. 
Across the country, State legislators are grappling with how to stem 
the tide of gambling interest dollars and the corruption that follows 
it. And Congress is no exception. Gambling dollars are also finding 
their way into our campaigns. Mr. President, I feel strongly that the 
Commission should examine this problem in detail.
  In closing, Mr. President, I congratulate Senators Lugar and Simon 
for getting this bill passed. It was no easy task. In addition, I 
reiterate my concern and my warning regarding the subpoena issue. If 
the gambling industry throws its lawyers at the Commission the way they 
have thrown their lobbyist at Congress, I have little doubt that we 
will revisit this issue.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a managers' 
amendment at the desk be deemed considered and agreed to, the bill be 
deemed read the third time, the Senate proceed to the House companion 
measure, Calendar No. 344, H.R. 497, and all after the enacting clause 
be stricken and the text of S. 704 be inserted in lieu thereof, the 
bill be deemed read the third time, and passed, the motion to 
reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements or colloquies 
relating to the measure appear at this point in the Record. Finally, I 
ask that S. 704 be returned to the calendar.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want the 
Record to reflect when the voice vote is done, or whatever the 
procedure is to get this matter passed, that I be recorded as voting 
``no'' and that I be allowed to insert in the Record a statement 
regarding this legislation dealing with the unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I would like that to be a part of the 
request.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I make the same request.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I add that to the unanimous-consent request. 
I ask to include the statement and position of both of the Senators 
from Nevada. Mr. President, without their cooperation, this would not 
be possible. Like them, I have some reservations, but they have helped 
work out the problems, and I think they should get the opportunity to 
be recorded against this Commission, even though they have agreed to 
let it go on a voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 497), as amended, was deemed read the third time, and 
passed.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to recognize the diligent efforts of 
the Senators who have been working on this Commission. Senator Lugar, 
from Indiana, has been very helpful. He is one of the two original 
sponsors. He has been ably assisted in our effort to clear out problems 
by Senator Coats from Indiana. Several Senators had some amendments 
they were interested in on both sides of the aisle, and they have 
agreed to withhold those. There was also, of course, the very fine work 
of Senator Simon to help work through problems on the Democratic side 
of the aisle. Without their cooperation, efforts, and commitment to 
this, it would not have happened. In fact, I would not have been 
pushing for it personally.
  So I commend them. I would be glad at this point to yield the floor 
so they can make statements.
  One final person, if I might, Mr. President. I would like to also 
commend the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee who had this 
hot potato in his lap and managed to work it out in a way so that we 
can get it approved by unanimous consent. I thank him for that work.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina has been 
very patient with us this afternoon. He repeatedly sought the floor. We 
have urged him to delay. I now ask that, in morning business, he be 
recognized so that he may make his statement for 12 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I shall 
not--I would like to speak for 2 minutes on the bill.
  Mr. STEVENS. Let me ask this. I ask unanimous consent that Senator 
Faircloth be recognized for 12 minutes, Senator Simon for 2 minutes, 
and Senator Kennedy for 3 minutes as though in morning business so that 
we can get that out of the way. Then we will go back to the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be 
recognized as if in morning business for 12 minutes.
  Mr. SIMON. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: I reserved the right 
to

[[Page S7982]]

object subject to my being acknowledged for 2 minutes to speak on this 
bill. I do not think that the request was granted.
  Mr. STEVENS. The request was granted, Mr. President. We had committed 
to Senator Faircloth first, if the Senator does not mind.
  Mr. SIMON. I would like to speak for 2 minutes on the bill which was 
just passed, if I may. I think my colleague from North Carolina would 
yield to me.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I yield to the Senator from Illinois for the 2 
minutes, if I may then go.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank him.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator kindly yield to me 1 
minute following the Senator from Illinois? I am on the same bill.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. I also yield to the Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, respectively we have already yielded to 
the Senator from Massachusetts following the Senator from North 
Carolina. If our request is going to be honored, I hope we will adjust 
this accordingly.
  Does the Senator from Virginia seek to speak on the same bill as the 
Senator from Illinois?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, that is correct; the same bill on which I 
am a cosponsor.
  Mr. STEVENS. May I suggest that the Senator from Illinois be 
recognized for 2 minutes, the Senator from Virginia for 1 minute, the 
Senator from Massachusetts 3 minutes, and the Senator from North 
Carolina will have his 12 minutes.
  I rephrase my unanimous-consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I thank a number of my colleagues for their 
help on creating the commission that has just passed, assuming the 
House acts favorably.

  Particularly, I would like to thank my colleague from Indiana, 
Senator Lugar. Senator Warner from Virginia has been very helpful. 
Senator John Glenn was helpful. Senator Stevens was helpful. And a 
number of others that I should acknowledge, as well as Michael 
Stevenson of my staff. What we have just done is to say, let us look at 
this problem. I think we owe that to the Nation, and I appreciate our 
colleagues doing that.
  The fastest growing industry in our Nation today is legalized 
gambling. Is this good for the Nation? Is it not? Should it be slowed 
somewhat? No one suggests that we are going to close down Las Vegas or 
Atlantic City. But I think we ought to look at this problem and see 
what the dimensions of that problem are and what we ought to do. That 
is what the commission bill does.
  I thank my colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to join in thanking the principal 
sponsors of the bill--the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from 
Illinois and the Senator from Alaska and also my distinguished 
colleague in the House of Representatives, Representative Frank Wolf. I 
have been working as a team with Frank Wolf. It is essential for 
America simply to listen and learn about the growth of gambling. Then 
we can decide for ourselves. States and individuals can decide for 
themselves. But this bill will start a vital educational process.
  I am privileged to have been a part of the effort which has succeeded 
today. We did not get everything we wanted. But we have certainly made 
a start, and, if necessary, there may be a sequel to this piece of 
legislation in the future.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I applaud passage of the Gambling Impact 
Study Commission Act. It has been apparent for some time that a 
reasonable consensus had been reached on providing the Commission with 
reasonable powers and duties, and I congratulate the leadership for 
bringing this important bill to the floor.
  I also congratulate Senator Stevens for maneuvering this legislation 
through a tricky legislative process. Senators Lugar and Simon have 
done a remarkable job of keeping public attention on this issue. And 
Representative Wolf from my home State of Virginia has certainly been a 
leader in steering this legislation through the House of 
Representatives. I have enjoyed working with all of them to make sure 
that the facts about gambling are laid before the people so that they 
and their representatives can make fully-informed decisions about 
gambling in their States and communities.
  Mr. President, we all know that the benefits of gambling are often 
easy to see--tax revenues for the States, jobs created in casinos, 
attention paid to cities or States with exciting games and lotteries. 
These benefits are very evident in a number of our communities around 
our country.
  The problem is that the downsides of gambling are harder to see. If a 
teenager gets addicted to gambling, or a father loses his family 
savings, the effects on their families, their employers, and their 
friends, are difficult to quantify. And just as there is no doubt that 
the benefits of gambling are real, these hidden costs are very real 
indeed.
  This Commission will be an unbiased factfinding body to analyze the 
effects of gambling. The Commission will have a number of important 
topics to consider, including: gambling addictions, reliance by States 
on gambling revenues, advertising, the effect of increased gambling 
operations on Native American communities and reservations, 
relationships between gambling and crime and alcoholism, and effects of 
gambling on other types of businesses and entertainment. The Commission 
will have a full plate of issues to consider and I am confident this 
bill will provide it the resources and time for thorough investigations 
and recommendations.
  The gambling industry has spoken out against the investigatory tools 
this bill gives the Commission and I can understand their concern that 
the Commission be even-handed. I believe the compromise reached 
concerning the scope of the Commission's use of subpoenas and hearings 
responds to those concerns. For the Commission's conclusions to be 
reliable, it must have good information from the industry--without this 
cooperation, the Commission would be no more useful than the incomplete 
and biased studies States and localities have had to rely upon in the 
past.
  The Commonwealth of Virginia has considered a number of types of 
gambling over the past several years. It has adopted some, such as a 
State lottery, while rejecting others like riverboat casinos. The new 
Commission will be able to provide the Virginia legislature, executive 
branch, and citizens with more accurate facts as they continue to 
debate the future of gambling in the Commonwealth.
  I do not favor federalizing regulation of the gambling industry--this 
bill does not require or foresee any Federal response to the findings 
made by the Commission. It is a fact-finding act. Seeing the growing 
importance of gambling in our society, however, I have concluded that 
discovery of these facts for consideration by the States may be more 
important than any new Federal legislation.
  Again, I congratulate the leadership and sponsors, and I hope that 
this legislation can be enacted in the very near future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
according to the agreement.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I thank Senator 
Faircloth.
  Mr. President, speaking today at a private high school in 
Minneapolis, candidate Bob Dole--formerly Senator Bob Dole, who should 
know better--offered the American people what he called an ``Education 
Consumer's Warranty.'' But candidate Dole was not being candid about 
the facts.
  He did not hesitate to bash teachers and students. But many of his 
criticisms were based on blatant misinformation, and he offered no 
solutions to the problems he mis-identified.
  Candidate Dole said that test scores and literacy are dropping. In 
reality, math and science scores on the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress are up since 1982--for 9- 13- and 17-year olds. In 
addition, American students finished second among 31 nations in a 1992 
study of reading skills.
  Candidate Dole said that students are taking fewer courses in basic 
subjects. The opposite is true. In the early 1980s, only 13 percent of 
high school graduates had 4 years of English and at

[[Page S7983]]

least 3 years of math, science, and social studies. By 1990, according 
to the National Center for Education Statistics, 40 percent of high 
school graduates had taken at least those basic courses.
  Candidate Dole said that SAT scores are dropping. He was right 10 
years ago, but he is very wrong now. In 1983, SAT scores had been 
dropping for a decade. In the 1990s, they are rising. The national 
average score for the class of 1995 was 910, the highest since 1974.
  Candidate Dole also said that dropout rates are rising. In fact, more 
students are finishing high school and going on to college than ever 
before. The high school dropout rate has been cut by a third--from 17 
percent in 1967 to 11 percent in 1993. Almost 90 percent of students 
are graduating from high school. Between 1980 and 1993, the proportion 
of high school graduates going to college increased--from 49 percent to 
62 percent.
  Despite these improvements, much more needs to be done, and I commend 
candidate Dole's new-found support for education. As Senate majority 
leader, he helped lead the Republican attempt to slash funds for 
education. He even wanted to slash support for safe and drug free 
schools by more than half. But now he agrees that every student has the 
right to be safe in school.
  Candidate Dole voted to cut support for reading and math by $1 
billion last year. Now he rightly agrees that all students need a solid 
grounding in basic subjects.
  Candidate Dole voted against the Improving America's Schools Act in 
1994, which encourages greater parent involvement in the full range of 
educational decisions for their children. Now he rightly says parental 
participation is a key component of successful education.
  Obviously, when it comes to education, candidate Dole has a difficult 
time escaping his anti-education record.
  By contrast, President Clinton is the ``Education President.'' He has 
worked tirelessly and effectively to improve education since he was 
elected in 1992. He led the opposition to the Republicans' attack on 
education last year, and he has proposed a budget that invests 
significantly more in education in the years ahead, and while still 
achieving a balanced budget in the year 2002.
  If Americans want an Education President, they already have one. Any 
``Education Consumer'' would be well-advised to go with the proven 
product, not a candidate who is suddenly discovering the error of his 
past ways.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  (The remarks of Mr. FAIRCLOTH pertaining to the introduction of S. 
1968 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

                          ____________________