Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
                                                       Calendar No. 527
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-278
_______________________________________________________________________


                      AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 OF THE

           COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                                   on

                                S. 2340




                  May  3, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-010                     WASHINGTON : 2000


       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                       one hundred sixth congress
                             second session

                     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska                  ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
CONRAD BURNS, Montana                DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
SLADE GORTON, Washington             JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West 
TRENT LOTT, Mississippi                  Virginia
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
OLYMPIA SNOWE, Maine                 JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri              RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada
BILL FRIST, Tennessee                BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan            RON WYDEN, Oregon
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas                MAX CLELAND, Georgia
                       Mark Buse, Staff Director
                  Martha P. Allbright, General Counsel
               Kevin D. Kayes, Democratic Staff Director
                  Moses Boyd, Democratic Chief Counsel
                Gregg Elias, Democratic General Counsel
                                                       Calendar No. 527
106th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 2d Session                                                     106-278

======================================================================



 
                      AMATEUR SPORTS INTEGRITY ACT

                                _______
                                

                  May 3, 2000.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

       Mr. McCain, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                Transportation, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 2340]

    The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
which was referred the bill (S. 2340) ``A Bill to direct the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish a 
program to support research and training in methods of 
detecting the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes, 
and for other purposes'', having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with amendments and recommends that the bill 
(as amended) do pass.

                          Purpose of the Bill

    The purpose of the bill is twofold: First, the legislation 
would establish a grant program, administered by the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology, to support research and 
training in methods of detecting the use of performance-
enhancing substances by athletes. The bill further provides 
that such a program would include an education and intervention 
component aimed at informing amateur athletes of the risks and 
harm of using such substances.
  Second, S. 2340 establishes a ban on gambling on Olympic, 
college, and high school athletic events, or gambling on any 
competition in which a college, or high school athlete is 
competing. This ban is a response to the specific 
recommendation of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission 
(NGISC), and closes a loophole in the Professional and Amateur 
Sports Act (PASPA).

                          Background and Needs

  The role that Olympic and amateur sports play in America far 
exceeds the obvious nature of competition. At the high school 
and college level, organized sports, both male and female, 
serve as laboratories where student athletes strive for 
excellence by applying the highest ideals of the American 
character: team work, self-sacrifice, perseverance individual 
courage and excellence. The Olympic games are the transcendent 
athletic competition. For a few weeks, every two years, the 
world comes together to cheer for a competition that holds 
forth, not who we are, but who we want to be. Tragically, 
recent years have seen the Olympic and amateur athletic 
movement threatened by the compounded scourge of an explosion 
in gambling and the use of performance enhancing drugs. This 
scourge threatens to undermine the fundamental integrity of 
Olympic and amateur sports competition. The Amateur Sports 
Integrity Act addresses critical elements necessary to preserve 
the honesty and integrity of amateur sports competition, and to 
preserve the virtue and health of its most precious commodity, 
the young men and women who strive for excellence through 
athletic competition.
  The Amateur Sports Integrity Act holds forth two fundamental 
tenets: The integrity of amateur athletic competition must not 
be corrupted through the use of performance-enhancing drugs, 
and that our young men and women participating in amateur 
athletic competition should not be reduced to a point spread 
and a spectacle for wagering, placing our student-athletes at 
the mercy of bettors and bookies.
  The NGISC was established in 1996 by Public Law 104-169. The 
NGISC was charged with conducting a comprehensive legal and 
factual study of the social and economic impacts of gambling on 
(1) Federal, State, local, and native American tribal 
governments and (2) communities and social institutions 
including individuals, families, and businesses, which compose 
them. The NGISC was a nonpartisan commission, with members 
appointed by both the majority and minority in Congress, and by 
the President.
  In its final report, the NGISC cited the testimony of Nancy 
Price to the Commission. ``State sanctioned sports betting 
conveys the message that sports are more about money than 
personal achievement and sportsmanship. In these days of 
scandal and disillusionment, it is important that youngsters 
receive this message . . . sports betting threatens the 
integrity of and public confidence in professional and amateur 
team sports, converting sports from wholesome athletic 
entertainment into a vehicle for gambling . . . sports gambling 
raises people's suspicions about point-shaving and game-fixing 
. . . All of this puts undue pressure on players, coaches, and 
officials.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Submitted testimony of Nancy Price to the NGISC in Las Vegas, 
Nevada, November 10, 1998, National Gambling Impact Study Commission--
Final Report, pages 3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Under the Wire Act of 1961 (18 U.S.C. 1084) gambling 
businesses are prohibited from using wire communications to 
transmit bets, wagers, or information that assists in the 
placing of bets or wagers either through a means of interstate, 
or foreign commerce. This statute makes specific reference to 
the placing of bets or wagers on sporting events or contests. 
Though the Wire Act prohibits interstate sports gambling, it 
left unaddressed the question of state-sanctioned sports 
gambling.
  On October 28, 1992, President Bush signed into law PASPA. 
PASPA prohibits the expansion of state-sanctioned, authorized, 
or licensed gambling on sports. PASPA grandfathered sports 
gambling in four states--Nevada, Oregon, Montana, and Delaware.
  Under PASPA, each of these states may legalize gambling on 
college sports, although only Nevada has done so. Oregon runs a 
state lottery game based on games played in the National 
Football League. Delaware and Montana offer no form of 
legalized sports gambling. Currently 142 legal sports books 
operate in Nevada. ``Bettors wagered $2.3 billion in Nevada's 
licensed sports books in fiscal 1998, according to Russell 
Guindon, senior research analyst for the board.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ ``Ban on College Sports Betting Could Cost State Books 
Millions,'' Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 18, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Aside from the contradictory message that legalized gambling 
on college sports sends to our nation's youth, the Vegas 
college gambling operations fuel a much larger, and nationwide 
illegal betting business. The NGISC stated in its Final Report 
``[L]egal sports wagering, especially the publication in the 
media of Las Vegas and offshore-generated point spreads, fuels 
a much larger amount of illegal wagering.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Supra note 1, 3-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Though betting on college sports is illegal in all states but 
Nevada, and sports betting in general is illegal in 48 states, 
the Vegas sports line can be found in newspapers, on the radio, 
television, and the Internet nationwide. The point-spreads are 
generated for no other reason than to facilitate betting on 
college sports. The result is a substantial problem with 
illegal sports betting that places our nation's college 
athletes at the mercy of bookies and bettors.
  Betting on college campuses is widespread. According to 
Cedric Dempsey, Executive Director of the NCAA, ``[T]here is 
evidence more money is spent on gambling on campuses than on 
alcohol . . . Every campus has student bookies. We're also 
seeing an increase in the involvement of organized crime in 
sports wagering.'' \4\ Such illegal campus betting, fueled by 
the Vegas line, is not limited to dormitory gambling by 
students, but extends to student athletes as well. A University 
of Michigan study found that more than 45 percent of male 
collegiate football and basketball athletes admit to betting on 
sporting events. More than 5 percent of male student athletes 
provided inside information for gambling purposes, bet on a 
game in which they participated, or accepted money for 
performing poorly in a game. \5\ A just-released report 
entitled ``NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the 
Integrity of College Sports?'' documents that 40 percent of 
Division I sports officials bet on sports, and that fourteen of 
the respondents in the study indicated ``they were aware of 
other officials who did not call games fairly because of 
gambling reasons.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ ``NCAA Says Lady Vols Not Safe from Gamblers,'' Knoxville News-
Sentinel, August 6, 1998, C1.
    \5\ ``The Extent and Nature of Gambling Among College Student 
Athletes.'' Michael E. Cross and Ann G. Vollano, University of Michigan 
Athletic Department, 1999.
    \6\ ``NCAA Division I Officials: Gambling with the Integrity of 
Sports?'' Ann G. Vollano and Derrick L. Gragg, The University of 
Michigan Department of Athletics, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Vegas sports gambling industry asserts that their betting 
business, by virtue of being limited to Nevada and heavily 
regulated, poses no threat to college sports nationwide. In 
fact, the opposite is true. Anyone can be a bookie. The 
challenge is in promoting the idea of betting and in getting a 
reliable sports line out. The Nevada college betting industry 
does both for illegal betting operations nationwide.
  In addition, some of the most high profile point shaving 
scandals have been facilitated by the Vegas betting industry. 
Both the Arizona State and Northwestern University scandals 
involved heavy betting among participants in Nevada sports 
books. In the Northwestern case, the Nevada sports book 
activity went completely undetected.
  In a February 1, 2000 press conference, Kevin Pendergast, the 
young man who orchestrated the Northwestern University gambling 
scandal discussed the critical role of the Las Vegas sports 
books in his scheme ``My local bookie could not have covered a 
$20,000 bet on a game that was fixed, and conscience would not 
let me cheat someone I know.'' Steve DuCharme, of the Nevada 
State Gaming Control Board, estimates that millions of dollars 
of illegal money is laundered through Nevada sports books.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Sports Business Journal, February 1-7, 1999, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Vegas sports betting industry argues that it plays a 
vital role in exposing point-shaving schemes, and therefore 
prevents, rather than contributes to illegal gambling and 
point-shaving activities. First, this is a cart before the pony 
argument. The Vegas point-spread, in fact, facilitates illegal 
betting. It is a fact that illegal betting occurs. Point-
shaving schemes result from illegal betting. Although the 
Nevada betting industry has, on a few occasions and very much 
after the fact, exposed such point-shaving schemes, it ignores 
the practical reality of the role that legal sports betting in 
Nevada plays as a catalyst in the entire illegal betting cycle. 
As coach Jim Calhoun stated in testimony before the Committee 
``[T]o me personally, and I know to many other coaches . . . 
the publishing of point spreads and the legalized gambling on 
college games in Nevada protects and legitimizes illegal 
activity.''
  Ironically, the most powerful argument for banning gambling 
on college sports comes from Nevada itself. Though one can go 
to a Nevada sports book and place a bet on a college team from 
California to Maine, one cannot place a bet on a Nevada college 
team, or on a competition involving a Nevada college team. Due 
to concern about the potential for corruption, placing a wager 
on Nevada teams is illegal in Vegas. The rational for such a 
contradictory policy is rooted in the argument that geographic 
proximity makes these games vulnerable to corruption, a team 
playing outside Nevada is less vulnerable to the machinations 
of bookies and bettors than one playing inside the state. This 
argument fails to reflect the practical reality of today's 
society.
  Finally, the American Gaming Association, and others who 
support continuing the practice of betting on Olympic, college, 
and high school athletes argue that the NGISC set forth that 
gambling activities should be regulated by the states. They 
point to seemingly contradictory statements contained in the 
recommendations section of the Commission's Final Report. 
Recommendation 3-1 states ``[T]he Commission recommends to 
state governments and the federal government that states are 
best equipped to regulate gambling within their own borders.'' 
Recommendation 3-7 states ``[T]he Commission recommends that 
betting on collegiate and amateur athletic events that is 
currently legal be banned altogether.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ National Gambling Impact Study Commission, Final Report--Report 
Recommendations, June 18, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Opponents of S. 2340 have misconstrued these statements so as 
to conclude that the Commission recommended vesting authority 
with the states to ban betting on college and high school 
children. The more reasoned interpretation of the Commission's 
final report is quite the opposite. While the Commission has 
recognized traditional authority of the states, the Federal 
government, through PASPA, maintains jurisdiction over sports 
wagering. ``Throughout the Report, the Commission did not 
attempt to dispute or change any of the existing jurisdictional 
arrangements between the Federal, State and tribal governments. 
The intent of the Commission's recommendation was to close the 
loophole in the 1992 Act, a recommendation requiring Federal 
action.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Kay James, Chairman--National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 
March 29, 2000 letter to Chairman McCain responding to request for 
clarification of NGISC recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Amateur Sports Integrity Act is supported by a broad 
array of athletic organizations, pro-family groups, consumer 
groups, and universities. While this bill may not end all 
gambling on college sports, it will send the message that 
betting on college sports by college students is illegal and 
has significant social costs. A ban will help reduce or 
eliminate published point spreads on college games in 
newspapers, which feed illegal betting activity. Most 
important, by a ban on college sports gambling will end a 
practice that has cost college athletes as items to be bet 
upon, exposing them to unwarranted pressure, bribery, and 
corruption.
  Collegiate athletic competition is supposed to represent the 
principles of pure competition and excellence. Collegiate 
competition serves as a laboratory classroom where young 
student athletes struggle to apply the highest ideals of the 
American character: courage in the face of adversity, 
discipline, teamwork, and self-sacrifice. These ideals and 
lessons are of particular importance in today's society. These 
ideals should not be reduced to a spectacle for wagering.
  The use of performance enhancing drugs likewise threatens the 
fundamental integrity of athletic competition. Recent years 
have seen an escalation, both in the use and the sophistication 
of techniques for the use of such substances. On October 20, 
1999, the Commerce Committee held a Full Committee hearing on 
the topic of performance enhancing drug use in athletic 
competition. The use of banned substances poses both a threat 
to the integrity of competition, and a very real public health 
concern. Dr. Jerry Wadler testified that ``[D]oping is a matter 
of ethics, which affects not only Olympic athletes but also 
youth, high school, college and professional athletes. The fact 
is, doping threatens to undermine the ethical and physical well 
being of children.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Testimony of Dr. Jerry Wadler, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of 
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic 
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Committee heard testimony regarding the need for 
independent testing agencies at both the IOC and USOC levels. 
Both organizations have now established testing agencies. 
Further, the Committee heard testimony regarding the need for 
increased funding for research designed to foster new 
strategies and technologies to detect and verify the use of 
banned substances. General McCaffrey stated that ``[R]ight now, 
research is inadequate to identify EPO, hGH, the whole range of 
artificial testosterone and other drugs that are coming on-
line.'' \11\ Though recent years have seen a dramatic 
escalation in the variety and difficulty of detection of banned 
substances, little has been done to foster research into their 
detection. Dr. Wadler stated that ``[N]ew drugs create new 
demands. For example, the use of endogenous substances'' that 
is, substances that occur naturally in our bodies, such as 
testosterone, human growth hormone (hGH) and erythropoietin 
(EPO) ``creates the need for a higher ground of independent, 
peer-reviewed science coupled with credible year round out-of-
competition, random and unannounced testing.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Testimony of General Barry McCaffrey, Director--White House 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of 
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic 
Competition.
    \12\ Testimony of Dr. Jerry Wadler, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of 
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic 
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Committee is particularly disturbed by the growth in the 
use of performance enhancing drugs by adolescents, and the ease 
of access to such drugs through the Internet. As General Barry 
McCaffrey stated during testimony before the Committee ``[W]e 
have widespread use of doping agents throughout the United 
States among young adolescents. We are talking 550,000[sic] 
kids used steroids in 1995, and the number is undoubtedly 
greater now. We are talking about a situation where you can get 
on the Internet, order these drugs with the participation, 
perhaps, of your team doctor or team coach. They can come to 
your home through international mail, and you can be involved 
in destructive chemical engineering of your own body.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Testimony of General Barry McCaffrey, Director--White House 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of 
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic 
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  The Amateur Sports Protection Act establishes a grant 
program, administered by the National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, to support research and training in methods of 
detecting the use of performance-enhancing substances by 
athletes. S. 2340 further provides that such a program would 
include an educational component aimed at informing amateur 
athletes of the risks and harm of using such substances. By 
targeting resources at both research and development and 
education, the Act begins the process of reversing the trend of 
drug use in sports, and aims to restore the integrity of 
athletic competition. In the words of Nancy Hogshead, U.S. 
Olympic medalist in swimming ``[D]oping is a scourge that 
afflicts all athletes, those who are clean and those who are 
not, those who are on the podium and those who dream of 
greatness on the fields and arenas around the world. It ruins 
the lives, reputations and health of thousands of athletes 
world wide, and it erodes the public trust in the Olympic 
movement.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Testimony of Nancy Hogshead, 10/20/99 Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on the Effect of 
Performance Enhancing Drugs on the Health of Athletes and Athletic 
Competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Legislative History

  On April 13, 2000, the Committee met in open executive 
session to consider S. 2340. By voice vote, the Committee 
adopted technical amendments offered by Senator McCain and 
considered amendments offered by Senator Stevens, Breaux, and 
Bryan.

                            Estimated Costs

  In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the 
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                       Washington, DC, May 1, 2000.
Hon. John McCain,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2340, the Amateur 
Sports Integrity Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Hadley.
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

               CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

S. 2340--Amateur Sports Integrity Act

    Summary: S. 2340 would authorize the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology (NIST) to make grants for research on 
performance-enhancing substances and methods for detecting 
their use by athletes. The bill also would authorize NIST to 
make grants to fund prevention and intervention programs 
related to the use of performance-enhancing substances by high 
school or college athletes. S. 2340 would prohibit government 
entities from sponsoring or authorizing gambling schemes based 
on amateur games or performances by high school, college, or 
Olympic athletes. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney 
General and the Secretary of Education to review the policies, 
procedures, and practices of colleges concerning illegal 
gambling and athletic contests.
    Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing S. 2340 would cost $25 million over 
the 2001-2005 period: The bill would not affect direct spending 
or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not 
apply.
    S. 2340 contains intergovernmental and private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 
The bill would prohibit any governmental entity or the private-
sector from operating or authorizing any wagering on amateur 
sports and also would require colleges to compile and report 
gambling information and policies in a specified manner. CBO 
estimates that the costs associated with complying with the 
mandates would not exceed the thresholds established by UMRA 
($55 million for intergovernmental mandates and $109 million 
for private-sector mandates in 2000, adjusted annually for 
inflation). The bill also would establish grant programs that 
could benefit public and private educational institutions.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 2340 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 370 
(commerce and housing credit).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                                                                       2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Authorization Level................................................        7        7        7        7        7
Estimated Outlays..................................................        1        4        6        7        7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Basis of estimate: S. 2340 would authorize $7 million a 
year over the 2001-2005 period for NIST to make grants to 
research the use of performance enhancing drugs, and to 
discourage drug abuse. For the purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that all authorized amounts will be appropriated near 
the beginning of each fiscal year and that outlays will follow 
the historical spending patterns of other NIST's grant 
programs.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal governments 
and the private sector: S. 2340 contains intergovernmental and 
private-sector mandates as defined by UMRA. CBO estimates that 
complying with these mandates would not exceed the threshold 
established in UMRA ($55 million for intergovernmental mandates 
and $109 million for private-sector mandates in 2000, adjusted 
annually for inflation). CBO estimates that the prohibition on 
wagering on amateur sports would reduce revenues in the state 
of Nevada by approximately $2 million a year. Based on 
information from the Nevada Gaming Control Board, CBO estimates 
that the private sector would lose about $40 million annually 
because of this prohibition. In addition, CBO estimates that 
the requirement that colleges report certain gambling 
information and policies would increase costs to public and 
private colleges and universities. The amount of any increase 
is uncertain, but expected to be small because the colleges are 
already required to compile similar information on crime and 
policies on substance use.
    S. 2340 could also benefit public and private educational 
institutions to the extent that they qualify for grants that 
would be established by the bill. The bill would authorize $4 
million annually for fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for drug 
research and detection grants and $3 million annually for 
fiscal years 2001 through 2005 for intervention and prevention 
grants.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Mark Hadley. Impact on 
State, local, and tribal governments: Shelly Finlayson. Impact 
on the private sector: Jean Wooster.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the 
legislation, as reported:
    Because S. 2340 does not create any new programs, the 
legislation will have no additional regulatory impact, and will 
result in no additional reporting requirements. The legislation 
will have no further effect on the number of types of 
individuals and businesses regulated, the economic impact of 
such regulation, the personal privacy of affected individuals, 
or the paperwork required from such individuals and businesses.

             NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED AND ECONOMIC IMPACT

    Currently, wagering on college sports is legal in only the 
State of Nevada. Sports gambling in Nevada generated 
approximately $2.3 billion in 1999 for legal sports books, and 
college sports betting comprised 33% of this total. Casinos 
retained $99 million. Though this number seems high, betting on 
college sports represents a relatively small segment of the 
$10.1 billion in total casino revenues for the same year. (The 
amount bet on college sports is only three-tenths of 1 percent 
of the overall casino take.)

                         PRIVACY AND PAPERWORK

    This legislation will not have any adverse impact on the 
personal privacy of individuals and will not require additional 
paperwork.

                      Section-by-Section Analysis


                  TITLE I--PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS

Section 101. Short title

  This section provides that this title may be cited as the 
``Athletic Performance-Enhancing Drugs Research and Detection 
Act.''

Sec. 102. Research and detention program established

  (a) Requires the Director of NIST to establish a program to 
support research into the use of performance-enhancing drugs 
and methods of detecting their use.
  (b) Describes the type of research to be funded by the grant. 
The subsection requires the Director to consider funding 
research into substances banned by the International Olympic 
Committee, the United States Olympic Committee, the National 
Collegiate Association, the National Football League, the 
National Basketball Association, and Major League Baseball. 
Specific substances to be studied should include naturally-
occurring steroids, testosterone, human growth hormone and 
erythropoietin. The grants should also fund research on 
different population groups to ensure the tests are applicable 
to men, women, and differing ethnic groups. The subsection also 
prohibits use of the grants for research into drugs of abuse, 
such as cocaine or marijuana.
  (c) Establishes procedures for the award of grants. The 
subsection requires the Director to establish appropriate 
scientific peer review procedures for evaluating grant 
applications and results of research funded. The Director is 
also required to establish minimum criteria for the award of 
grants. Applicants must demonstrate a record of publication and 
research in the area of athletic drug testing; provide a plan 
detailing the direct transfer of the research to lab 
applications; and certify that it is a not for profit research 
program.
  (d) Authorizes $4 million per year for fiscal years 2001, 
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 to carry out the purposes of this 
section.

Sec. 103. Prevention and intervention programs

  (a) Requires the Director of NIST to establish a grant 
program to fund educational substance abuse prevention and 
intervention programs related to the use of performance 
enhancing drugs. The subsection also requires the Director to 
establish minimum criteria for grant applicants.
  (b) Requires a minimum grant award of no less than $300 
thousand dollars per recipient.
  (c) Authorizes $3 million per year for fiscal years 2001, 
2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005 to carry out the purposes of this 
section.

                           TITLE II--GAMBLING

Sec. 201. Prohibition on gambling on competitive games involving high 
        school and college athletes and the olympics

  Amends the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act to 
create a new subchapter III, section 220541 of title 36, United 
States Code.
  The new section does the following:
          (1) It makes it unlawful for any governmental entity 
        to sponsor, operate, advertise, promote, license, or 
        authorize, or any person, including an amateur sports 
        organization or a corporate sponsor of an organization 
        to sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote a lottery, 
        contest, sweepstake, or other betting, gambling, or 
        wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on a 
        competitive game or performance described under the 
        Act, including a sweepstakes or contest that includes 
        prizes related directly or indirectly to such a covered 
        game or performance.
          (2) It defines covered games and performances as any 
        Summer or Winter Olympic competition, any high school 
        or college athletic competition, or any athletic 
        competition where one or more high school or college 
        athletes compete.
          (3) It makes clear that the prohibition established 
        under this Act applies notwithstanding any other 
        provision of law.
          (4) It provides for civil action to enjoin activities 
        prohibited under the Act. The civil action may be 
        brought in the appropriate federal district court by 
        the United States Attorney General, a local education 
        agency, college, or sports organization whose 
        competitive game is alleged to be the basis of the 
        violation.
          (5) It defines the following terms used in the 
        section:
                   ``High school'' as having the same 
                meaning as ``secondary school'' in section 
                14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
                Act of 1965 (U.S.C. 8801) or (ESEA).
                   ``College'' as having the same 
                meaning as institution of higher education in 
                the ESEA.
                   ``Local education agency'' as having 
                the same meaning as that term in the ESEA.
          (6) It requires colleges and universities to include 
        as part of the reporting requirements under section 
        1092(f) of title 20, United States Code, information on 
        illegal gambling activity, including gambling over the 
        Internet, a statement of the college or university's 
        policy regarding under-age and other illegal gambling 
        activity in the form and manner required for statements 
        of policy on alcoholic beverages and illegal drugs 
        required under the same section of title 20. This 
        policy statement should include a description of any 
        gambling abuse education programs available to students 
        and employees of the institution. Further, the Act 
        provides that the Attorney General of the United 
        States, in consultation with the Secretary of 
        Education, shall periodically review the policies, 
        procedures, and practices of colleges and universities 
        concerning campus crimes and security related directly 
        or indirectly to illegal gambling, and the integrity of 
        athletic contests in which students of that college 
        participate.

                      Rollcall Votes in Committee

  In accordance with paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the 
following description of the record votes during its 
consideration of S. 2340:
  Senator Bryan offered an amendment to preserve the 
grandfather provision for college sports wagering in the 
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. By rollcall 
vote of 2 yeas and 16 nays as follows, the amendment was 
defeated:
        YEAS--2                       NAYS--16
Mr. Breaux                          Mr. Stevens
Mr. Bryan                           Mr. Burns
                                    Mr. Gorton
                                    Mr. Lott \1\
                                    Mrs. Hutchison
                                    Mr. Ashcroft \1\
                                    Mr. Frist
                                    Mr. Brownback
                                    Mr. Hollings
                                    Mr. Inouye
                                    Mr. Rockefeller
                                    Mr. Kerry
                                    Mr. Dorgan
                                    Mr. Wyden
                                    Mr. Cleland
                                    Mr. McCain

    \1\ By proxy.

  Senator Bryan offered an amendment to establish a national 
minimum gambling age. By rollcall vote of 5 yeas and 13 nays as 
follows, the amendment was defeated:
        YEAS--5                       NAYS--13
Mr. Brownback                       Mr. Stevens
Mr. Inouye                          Mr. Burns
Mr. Rockefeller                     Mr. Gorton
Mr. Breaux                          Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Bryan                           Mr. Lott
                                    Ms. Snowe
                                    Mr. Frist
                                    Mr. Hollings
                                    Mr. Kerry
                                    Mr. Dorgan
                                    Mr. Wyden
                                    Mr. Cleland \1\
                                    Mr. McCain

    \1\ By proxy.

  Senator Bryan offered 2 amendments, en bloc, to require 
amateur sports organizations to establish a dedicated funding 
source for gambling abuse programs and to require colleges to 
implement programs to reduce illegal gambling by students and 
employees. By rollcall vote of 5 yeas and 14 nays as follows, 
the amendments were defeated:
        YEAS--5                       NAYS--14
Mr. Lott                            Mr. Stevens \1\
Mr. Inouye                          Mr. Burns
Mr. Rockefeller                     Mr. Gorton
Mr. Kerry                           Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Bryan                           Ms. Snowe
                                    Mr. Ashcroft \1\
                                    Mr. Frist
                                    Mr. Brownback
                                    Mr. Hollings
                                    Mr. Breaux
                                    Mr. Dorgan
                                    Mr. Wyden \1\
                                    Mr. Cleland \1\
                                    Mr. McCain

    \1\ By proxy.

  Senator Bryan offered an amendment to require colleges to 
report information and develop enforcement policies on illegal 
gambling. By rollcall vote of 16 yeas and 3 nays as follows, 
the amendment was adopted:
        YEAS--17                      NAYS--2
Mr. Stevens \1\                     Mr. Hollings
Mr. Burns                           Mr. Wyden \1\
Mr. Gorton
Mr. Lott
Mrs. Hutchison
Ms. Snowe
Mr. Ashcroft \1\
Mr. Frist
Mr. Brownback
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Rockefeller
Mr. Kerry
Mr. Breaux
Mr. Bryan
Mr. Dorgan
Mr. Cleland \1\
Mr. McCain

    \1\ By proxy.

  Senator Bryan offered an amendment to require colleges to 
establish zero tolerance policies for illegal gambling by 
student athletes. By rollcall vote of 3 yeas and 15 nays as 
follows, the amendment was defeated:
        YEAS--3                       NAYS--15
Mr. Rockefeller                     Mr. Stevens \1\
Mr. Bryan                           Mr. Burns
Mr. Dorgan                          Mr. Gorton
                                    Mr. Lott
                                    Mrs. Hutchison
                                    Mr. Ashcroft \1\
                                    Mr. Frist
                                    Mr. Brownback
                                    Mr. Hollings
                                    Mr. Inouye
                                    Mr. Kerry
                                    Mr. Breaux
                                    Mr. Wyden \1\
                                    Mr. Cleland \1\
                                    Mr. McCain

    \1\ By proxy.

  Senator Bryan offered an amendment to require colleges to 
condition the receipt of Federal funds on the requirement than 
colleges spend advertising revenues related to the sale of 
alcoholic beverages on gambling, drug, and alcohol abuse 
prevention. By rollcall vote of 2 yeas and 17 nays as follows, 
the amendment was defeated:
        YEAS--2                       NAYS--17
Mr. Rockefeller                     Mr. Stevens \1\
Mr. Bryan                           Mr. Burns
                                    Mr. Gorton
                                    Mr. Lott
                                    Mrs. Hutchison
                                    Ms. Snowe
                                    Mr. Ashcroft \1\
                                    Mr. Frist
                                    Mr. Brownback
                                    Mr. Hollings
                                    Mr. Inouye
                                    Mr. Kerry
                                    Mr. Breaux
                                    Mr. Dorgan
                                    Mr. Wyden
                                    Mr. Cleland \1\
                                    Mr. McCain
    \1\ By proxy.

                    MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR BRYAN

    There is universal agreement that illegal wagering on 
college sports, particularly such wagering by underage college 
students, including student-athletes, is a serious national 
problem. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) 
testified before this Committee, as they did before the 
National Gambling Impact Study Commission (NGISC), that there 
are illegal student bookies on virtually every college campus 
in the country, including some individuals with links to 
organized crime. The matter is so serious that some students 
have actually been threatened with bodily harm to collect 
gambling debts owed to illegal student bookies.
  The NCAA has known at least since the three-part 
investigative series published by Sports Illustrated in 1995 
that the illegal gambling problem on America's college campuses 
was widespread and growing. A recent University of Michigan 
survey found that nearly half of all male student-athletes 
nationwide (45 percent) gambled illegally on college and 
professional sports. A nationwide survey of NCAA Division I 
male basketball and football student-athletes conducted for the 
NCAA by a University of Cincinnati research team found that 
over one-fourth gambled on college sports. Sadly, a small 
number in each survey gambled on games in which they played.
  Beyond the broader issue of the extent to which student-
athletes, and students generally, gamble on sports illegally, 
there are the troubling cases of improper influence being 
exerted on student-athletes by those who seek financial gain 
from placing sports wagers on ``fixed'' games. This 
reprehensible conduct has reared its ugly head on occasion 
since at least the 1940s, particularly in the context of 
college basketball.
  While the NCAA's recent rhetoric leaves the impression that 
such ``point-shaving'' or ``fixing'' of games is rampant, we 
can be thankful that the record belies the rhetoric. The two 
recent scandals of this type (those at Northwestern University 
and Arizona State University) took place over five years ago in 
the mid-1990s. The integrity of virtually all those who compete 
in college athletics is verified by the fact that there were a 
handful of such scandals in the 1990s out of the thousands of 
games played. While not a single sports bribery scandal should 
be tolerated, we need to know why they occur and by what means. 
The record is clear for those student-athletes who have 
violated the trust of their teammates and schools by engaging 
in illegal sports wagering. As a result of their illegal 
wagering, they put themselves in debt to the point where they 
committed heinous acts of betrayal to pay off those debts to 
illegal bookies.
  If merely passing laws prohibiting unregulated sports 
gambling were enough to stop it, the practice would not be so 
widespread today. Sports gambling has been illegal for decades 
in almost every state, and Congress acted in 1992 to prevent 
states from adding sports-based games to their state lotteries. 
The same statute, the Professional and Amateur Sports 
Protection Act, also prohibits persons from engaging in sports-
based wagering schemes, contests, and sweepstakes.
  Similarly, wagering on sports of any kind, college or 
professional, is already a violation of NCAA bylaw 10.3. A 
review of the NCAA's publicly available computer database of 
rules infractions cases indicates that, as of 1998 (the last 
year for which cases are posted), enforcement of bylaw 10.3 is 
infrequent and spotty at best. The database reveals that the 
NCAA brought only 23 enforcement actions against student-
athletes from 1996 to 1998, even though the University of 
Michigan and University of Cincinnati studies indicate that 
thousands of violations occurred. In some of the 23 cases, the 
violations centered on such routine practices as students 
wagering jerseys with each other. In the face of organized 
student bookmaking operations with links to organized crime 
handling large sums of cash wagers, such an enforcement 
``strategy'' is at best misplaced.
  Against this backdrop of a serious national problem with 
illegal sports gambling, this legislation takes the very 
peculiar approach of targeting the only place in America where 
sports wagering is legal, regulated, policed, taxed, and 
confined to adults over age 21- the State of Nevada. 
Furthermore, the facts are that legal wagering in Nevada 
amounts to only about one percent of all sports gambling 
nationwide, 99 percent of which is already illegal.The central 
question then, which supporters of the bill fail to answer 
adequately, is how does preventing adult tourists and 
conventioneers from placing sports wagers in Nevada affect what 
happens on and off college campuses in the other 49 states. 
Each of the attempted answers to this central question is 
completely unconvincing.
  First, we were told that eliminating the small amount of 
legal sports wagering in Nevada will cause newspapers not to 
publish betting lines or point spreads. The NCAA has threatened 
for years to deny NCAA-sponsored tournament press credentials 
to newspapers that publish betting lines, but they have never 
done so. These hollow threats are further evidence of the 
futility of this exercise. Furthermore, neither this Committee 
nor the NGISC took testimony from newspapers to determine if in 
fact they would cease publishing betting lines if sports 
gambling were made illegal in Nevada. Similarly, no testimony 
was taken to determine whether illegal sports wagering would be 
reduced even if newspapers ceased publishing this information. 
It is not too much to ask that such due diligence be conducted 
before a legal industry and its employees are legislated out of 
existence.
  Secondly, we have been told that this legislation, while 
admittedly no panacea, will ``send a message'' to students and 
others that sports gambling is illegal. Again, there is a 
complete absence of any empirical evidence or fact-based 
testimony that America's college students, or adults for that 
matter, will heed such a so-called ``message.'' By this logic, 
we should reinstate Prohibition on serving alcohol to adults 
over the age of 21 to ``send a message'' to minors about 
drinking and to reduce binge drinking by underage students on 
college campuses. The absurdity of such an approach is self-
evident, and it applies with equal force to this legislation.
  The real message that this legislation will send is that 
shirking responsibility and pointing fingers at others is the 
appropriate manner in which to handle a serious national 
problem. Everyone should agree that a problem so pervasive on 
college campuses should be addressed comprehensively and with a 
serious commitment from the NCAA and its member institutions, 
including federal requirements enshrined in appropriate 
legislation. While we heard considerable rhetoric at our 
hearing concerning what the NCAA intends to do about illegal 
gambling on college campuses, there was very little testimony 
concerning what concrete steps the NCAA has taken to date. For 
example, the chairman of the NCAA's executive committee 
testified that during the ten years he has served as president 
of his university, he could not recall a single case of a 
student being expelled or otherwise disciplined for illegal 
gambling, even though he acknowledged there are illegal student 
bookies on his campus.
  The Committee was repeatedly told by the sponsors of this 
legislation that the NCAA has plans to step up its anti-
gambling initiatives. The facts belie the accuracy of those 
assurances. For example, the NCAA's total operating revenue for 
1998-99 was $283 million. Within the overall budget, there was 
a line item for ``sports agents and gambling'' that equaled 
$64,000. Similarly, the line item for 1999-2000 is $139,000 out 
of revenue of $303 million. Only three of nearly 300 NCAA 
employees are assigned to gambling issues, and those persons 
have other responsibilities in addition to illegal sports 
gambling. ``The NCAA's own presentations to the NGISC and in 
other venues indicate that there are many other important steps 
that should be taken, beyond what this legislation would do, to 
address the problem of illegal gambling on college campuses. 
The NCAA and its members have failed to follow through on the 
very steps they recommended to the commission just one year 
ago. For example, much was made at our hearing about the NCAA's 
use of a new public service announcement (PSA) during the 
telecast of the men's basketball tournament. There was little 
evidence that this PSA was shown either frequently or during 
times of maximum audience exposure. Furthermore, there is no 
indication that the NCAA followed the recommendation of the 
NGISC that specific PSA commitments be written into the NCAA's 
television contracts. A $6 billion, 11-year deal for the 
television rights to the men's ``March Madness'' basketball 
tournament was signed by the NCAA with CBS Sports after the 
NGISC made this recommendation in its Final Report.
  There is a serious need for a combination of enforcement, 
education, and counseling initiatives to address illegal 
gambling by high school and college students. Unfortunately, 
the Committee took no testimony from those individuals on 
campus, in our states, and at the federal level who are charged 
with enforcing the laws that already make this activity 
illegal. Similarly, we heard very little from professionals 
whose job it is to educate students about the dangers of 
gambling abuse and to counsel those who suffer from such 
problems.
  Finally, while this bill directly impacts Nevada, we should 
be alarmed by the precedent that would be established if this 
bill becomes law. For over two hundred years the federal 
government has deferred to the States to determine the scope 
and type of gaming that should be permitted within their 
borders. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act 
preempted that authority as it relates to sports wagering, but 
only prospectively. If Congress sees fit to overturn Nevada's 
sports wagering statutes that have been on the books for 
decades, it sets a dangerous precedent that should be cause for 
concern for the other 47 states with some form of legal gaming 
operations.
                                                  Richard H. Bryan.

                        Changes in Existing Law

  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, 
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed 
in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown 
in roman):

               TED STEVENS OLYMPIC AND AMATEUR SPORTS ACT

                 [36 united states code 220501 et seq.]

                     SUBCHAPTER III--MISCELLANEOUS

Sec. 220541. Unlawful sports gambling: Olympics; high school and 
                    college athletes

  (a) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful for--
          (1) a governmental entity to sponsor, operate, 
        advertise, promote, license, or authorize by law or 
        compact, or
          (2) a person, including an amateur sports 
        organization (as defined in section 3701 of title 28), 
        or a corporate sponsor of such an organization, to 
        sponsor, operate, advertise, or promote,
a lottery, contest, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or 
wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly, on a competitive 
game or performance described in subsection (b), including a 
sweepstakes or contest that includes prizes related directly or 
indirectly to such a covered game or performance.
  (b) Covered Games and Performances.--A competitive game or 
performance described in this subsection is the following:
          (1) One or more competitive games at the Summer or 
        Winter Olympics.
          (2) One or more competitive games in which high 
        school or college athletes participate.
          (3) One or more performances of high school or 
        college athletes in a competitive game.
  (c) Applicability.--The prohibition in subsection (a) applies 
to activity described in that subsection without regard to 
whether the activity would otherwise be permitted under 
subsection (a) or (b) of 3704 of title 28. The prohibition in 
subsection (a) does not apply to an activity otherwise 
described in that subsection if all of the amounts paid by the 
participants, as an entry fee or otherwise are--
          (1) paid out to winning participants; or
          (2) contributed to a charitable organization.
  (d) Injunctions.--A civil action to enjoin a violation of 
subsection (a) may be commenced in an appropriate district 
court of the United States by the Attorney General of the 
United States, a local educational agency, college, or sports 
organization, including an amateur sports organization or the 
corporation, whose competitive game is alleged to be the basis 
of such violation.
  (e) Definitions.--In this section:
          (1) High school.--The term ``high school'' has the 
        meaning given the term `secondary school' in section 
        14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
        1965 (U.S.C. 8801).
          (2) College.--The term ``college'' has the meaning 
        given the term ``institution of higher education'' in 
        section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 
        U.S.C. 8801).
          (3) Local educational agency.--The term ``local 
        educational agency'' has the meaning given that term in 
        section 14101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801).
  (f) Gambling Enforcement Information and Policies.--
          (1) Reporting required.--Each college shall include 
        statistics and other information on illegal gambling, 
        including gambling over the Internet, in addition to 
        the other criminal offenses on which the college is 
        required to report under section 1092(f) of title 20, 
        in the form and manner prescribed by that section.
          (2) Statement of policy.--Each college shall include 
        a statement of policy regarding under-age and other 
        illegal gambling activity in the form and manner 
        required for statements of policy on alcoholic 
        beverages and illegal drugs under section 1092(f) of 
        title 20, including a description of any gambling abuse 
        education programs available to students and employees 
        of that college.
          (3) Attorney general review required.--
        Notwithstanding paragraph (2) of section 1092(f) of 
        title 20, the Attorney General shall, in consultation 
        with the Secretary of Education, periodically review 
        the policies, procedures, and practices of colleges 
        concerning campus crimes and security related, directly 
        or indirectly, to--
                  (A) illegal gambling; and
                  (B) the integrity of athletic contests in 
                which students of that college participate.