The following are the highlights from some of the debate which took place in reference to the proposed Internet Gambling Prohibition Act in the Senate. The bill was attached to the Appropriations bill for the DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE, AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999.
Here's the Congressional Record text of debate for an amendment to exempt Indian gaming from the act.
AMENDMENT NO. 3268
Mr. CRAIG (Idaho) - Mr. President, my amendment to the Kyl amendment attempts to clarify what I think is important that we do. The Indian Affairs Committee has the authority to hold hearings to move legislation, to bring it to the floor as it relates to Indian gaming. We created IGRA, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and the National Indian Gaming Commission for the purpose of regulating Indian gaming. Indian gaming is regulated.
But the Senator from Arizona, without hearings on this in the authorizing committee, steps in and makes significant changes in the Indian gaming law. Now, the Senator from Arizona and I agree that gaming ought to be regulated; it ought to be controlled, the access ought to be controlled. We want it limited. But in this case, it isn't a matter of limiting, it is a matter of outlawing, stopping something that is already out there, already working, already has stood the test of officialdom, and we believe it meets those standards, and that is the National Indian Lottery. So I hope that my colleagues will stand with me in saying we want regulation and control. We don't want this kind of stepping in and simply wiping out, with the appropriate committee not holding a hearing to understanding what is exactly going on. That is the intent of my amendment--to maintain the integrity of the National Indian Gaming Commission and the recognition of the relationships between the Indian Nations and the United States itself and the treaty relationship that is clear and has been well established.
I retain the remainder of my time.
Mr. ENZI. (Wyoming) - Mr. President, I oppose the Craig amendment, which will change gambling in the United States as we currently know it. It will give legal validity to the claims that the tribes have that they can provide gambling all over the United States. They cannot; it is illegal. This amendment would give them a monopoly on the Internet in every home in America, without any age discrimination. That is the reason we require it to be on premises, so we can check to see if kids are gambling . This will eliminate enforcement in States like mine where we have had a referendum on gambling . It was defeated 2-to-1 in every single county in our State. We do not want gambling in Wyoming. We defeated it soundly. This would allow gambling in Wyoming. This would give national legal validity. This will replace lotteries across the State, when they can finally advertise it to the extent that they really want to do it. This will provide for eventual, complete electronic gambling for every home in America, without any State being able to oppose it.
Mr. TORRICELLI (New Jersey) - Mr. President, I am in support of Senator Kyl, but I must state my objection to Senator Craig's amendment. In my career in the U.S. Congress, representing Atlantic City, I have never risen on the floor to oppose gaming. But this is too much. All of our communities have a right to decide when and where we want gaming. We restricted it to one city in New Jersey. Under Senator Craig's amendment, every living room, every child's bedroom in America will become a gaming parlor. The Internet will bring gaming to children, and it won't be restricted to problem gamers. There will not be any control. If we want to have Indian tribes having Indian gaming, let them do it on their reservation. That is their right, their sovereignty. But my State has sovereignty, too. We have decided not to allow gaming in every community. Some States, like Utah, and many of your States, have decided not to have it at all. Now it will be imposed upon you with a monopoly of gaming on the Internet , available to everyone. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Craig amendment.
Mr. INOUYE (Hawaii) - Mr. President, I rise to address some of the statements that were made in our debate last evening on Senator Craig's amendment on Senator Kyl's amendment on internet gaming.
First, Mr. President, I want to make clear that the amendment we propose absolutely would not exempt Indian tribal governments and Indian gaming from the purview of the Internet Gaming Prohibition Act.
Rather, the amendment allows only the conduct of those games with the application of technology--not internet technology--but the application of television and satellite-generated technology that we envisioned could be used for the conduct of bingo or games that are subject to a tribal-state compact under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.
The language on page eleven of Senator Kyl's amendment makes it abundantly clear that each person placing or receiving or otherwise making a bet or wager must be physically located on Indian land and that class III games must be conducted consistent with a tribal-state compact and only in the state to which the compact applies.
So we are not proposing to exempt Indian gaming from the internet gaming prohibitions outlined in Senator Kyl's amendment. Secondly, I would want my colleague from Arizona to know that as we read it, there is an ambiguity in the amendment. States are authorized to enforce the provisions of this amendment, should it become law, for violations by a person. The term 'person' includes 'any government'--which must refer to tribal governments, because all other levels of government are specifically mentioned. Thus, while one section of the bill would restrict state authority to what is provided in tribal state compacts, another section of the bill gives states broad authority to enforce the act as it may relate to the conduct of tribal governments. Senator Craig's amendment would simply preserve the status quo and maintain the integrity of the pervasive federal regulatory scheme in which federal criminal laws are enforced by the United States on Indian lands--a framework, which as I said last evening, has been in place for over one hundred years. I thank my colleague from Idaho and I wish to assure my colleague from Arizona that I look forward to continuing to work with him as this bill proceeds to conference to address these two matters that I have outlined.
Mr. BRYAN (Nevada) - Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Craig amendment. Three million children in America today are on line on the Internet . By the year 2000, 15 million children will be on the Internet.
Senator Kyl and I have offered an amendment which takes a public policy which I think every parent in America will support; that is, to prohibit gambling on the Internet . There simply is no way to control access to the Internet and to the types of gambling that are offered. If the Craig amendment is adopted, that policy is effectively emasculated. I join with the junior Senator from Arizona in asking this body to defeat the amendment because every child and every home in America that is on the Internet will have access to gambling on the Internet.
My view is that there is no public policy that would support, in effect, a carve-out to say that we prohibit gambling on the Internet in America for everyone except Indian tribes. That makes no sense, may I respectfully submit to the Presiding Officer and to my colleagues. If you believe, as Senator Kyl and I do, that Internet gambling should be regulated and that we should not have access to Internet gambling by children, vote against the Craig amendment.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. KYL. - Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho wishes to close. Therefore, let me reiterate the key points that the Senator from New Jersey, and also the Senators from Wyoming and Nevada, have made; that is, that you cannot have any exceptions to a national prohibition on Internet gambling if you want the policy to work, because if anyone can do it, then the gambling can occur in the homes, in the privacy of the homes around this country by children, by problem gamblers, or by anyone else if there is any exception because the Internet reaches across interstate boundaries. It knows no boundaries. It reaches into any State. And no State can protect its citizens and protect its public policy of outlawing this activity. I want to make it very clear that this activity is not being conducted legally today. In a letter written by the State attorneys general, including the attorney general of Idaho on this precise point, the attorneys general said, If Internet gaming is allowed to facilitate the remote placing of bets on an Indian gaming activity, the ultimate absurdity would result. The logical consequence of such a position is that any off-reservation telephone, computer with a modem et cetera, would become a gambling device by which the consumer could communicate with the tribe for the purpose of gambling . And they specifically refer to the Coeur d'Alene Tribe in Idaho, which is the tribe that the Senator from Idaho wants to permit to gamble.
I urge a vote against the Craig amendment.
Mr. CRAIG. - Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona quotes a letter crafted in 1992. Since that time, the tribe in the State of Idaho has a compact that has been established. The attorney general of the State of Idaho believes this is significant. The topic of children is an interesting item. The Presiding Officer, I and everyone else is very concerned with children's access to the Internet . We recognize the need to provide legislation to block that, and we should.
What I am talking about is something that is already official, that is already underway, and we have not heard a great hue and cry about the damaging of or the destruction of children. There is something else that is interesting.
We heard from New Jersey and we heard from Nevada. They are protecting their big gaming interests. There are already exceptions in this bill. There are five exceptions in this bill to use the Internet system to traffic information about gaming. The Senator is not pure on this. Let's be real, and let's be honest about it. Let's use the committees we have. Let's use the law, the rules, and regulations to govern, control, and regulate Indian gaming structured in a certain way to protect it so that children don't have access to it; so that there is an official screening process; that it is effectively monitored and controlled.
Debate regarding ACCOUNT AND INTERACTIVE WAGERING
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, I would like to discuss the impact of S. 474 on account wagering. It is presently legal, and operating to varying degrees, in eight states. Other states are presently considering this form of wagering on racing. The horse racing industry wants to be able to continue account wagering and other similar activities that utilize emerging technologies. A variety of federal and state statutes and regulations now govern this activity and together, they form a capable regulatory system for parimutuel wagering. Again, any restriction on the current regulatory structure might unduly hamper one of racing's most promising areas for growth.
Mr. KYL. - Senator McConnell, what I stated earlier with respect to simulcasting and commingling of parimutuel pools applies equally to account wagering. This bill is not intended to hamper the future growth of horse racing.
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, again, I appreciate your willingness to consider the parimutuel industry. Now, if I may clarify a few more points.
Section 3 of the bill broadly prohibits both individuals and persons engaged in a gambling business from placing, receiving, or otherwise making a bet or wager through the Internet or any other interactive computer service. Then, subsection (e) of that section grants two exceptions related to racing: one is an exception for wagers placed by persons physically present at a racetrack or parimutuel facility; a second exception is provided for persons placing, making, or receiving a parimutuel wager on a 'closed-loop subscriber-based service that is wholly intrastate.'
My first question is this. Am I correct in my analysis that S.474 does not prohibit or restrict account wagering by telephone?
Mr. KYL. - Yes, the bill does not address telephone account wagering.
Mr. McCONNELL. - Am I correct that an interactive account wagering system that uses a variety of communications media and computer technology to present audio and/or video information about the races to the home and to communicate wagers from the home to a racetrack or parimutuel facility constitutes an 'interactive computer service.'
Mr. KYL. - Yes.
Mr. McCONNELL. - Will such an interactive account wagering system that accepts wagers only from account holders physically located within the same state as the facility where the account wagering system originates pass muster under section 3 of S.474?
Mr. KYL. - Yes, assuming the interactive account wagering system meets the requirements for a 'closed loop subscriber-based service' as defined in section 3 of the bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, does a person have to be physically present at a facility that is open to the public to make a lawful interactive account wager?
Mr. KYL. - Again, so long as the person placing the wager is doing so using a 'closed-loop subscriber-based service' the person is not required to be physically present at a facility that is open to the public to make a lawful wager.
Mr. McCONNELL. - What if the facts are the same as my first interactive account wagering question (i.e., both customer and facility are physically present in the same state) but the race on which the account holder is wagering is being contested in another state or foreign country and the facility where the account wagering system originates is commingling its pools, including its account wagering pools, into the pools of the out-of-state host track where the race is being run. Will this fit within the exceptions found in Section 3 of S.474?
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, just a few more questions and we will be finished.
In section 3, Section 1085(e)(2) of the bill, you prohibit the use of an agent or proxy to place wagers unless the agent or proxy is acting on behalf of a licensed parimutuel facility 'in the operation of the account wagering system owned or operated by the parimutuel facility.' What if a facility licensed to operate an account wagering system engages a separate company to provide the technical expertise necessary to implement an interactive account wagering system on its behalf. Would such an agency fall within the scope of the permitted agency provisions of the bill referenced above?
Mr. KYL. - Yes, such a system is an allowed agent, assuming, of course, the interactive account wagering system meets the requirements for a 'closed-loop subscriber-based service that is wholly intrastate.'
Mr. McCONNELL. - thinking back to our earlier discussion of a 'support service,' what if the facility where the interactive account wagering system originates chooses to utilize support services such as a totalizator system or an interactive computer system located in a second state or even a foreign country to service the account holders.
Mr. KYL. - Yes, assuming the interactive account wagering system meets the requirements for a 'closed loop subscriber-based service' as defined in section 3 of the bill.
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, does a person have to be physically present at a facility that is open to the public to make a lawful interactive account wager?
Mr. KYL. - Again, so long as the person placing the wager is doing so using a 'closed-loop subscriber-based service' the person is not required to be physically present at a facility that is open to the public to make a lawful wager.
Mr. McCONNELL. - What if the facts are the same as my first interactive account wagering question (i.e., both customer and facility are physically present in the same state) but the race on which the account holder is wagering is being contested in another state or foreign country and the facility where the account wagering system originates is commingling its pools, including its account wagering pools, into the pools of the out-of-state host track where the race is being run. Will this fit within the exceptions found in Section 3 of S.474?
Mr. KYL. - Yes, assuming of course that the wagering pools are being commingled in accordance with section 2 of the bill and further assuming the account wagering system meets the requirements for a 'closed loop subscriber-based service.'
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, just a few more questions and we will be finished.
In section 3, Section 1085(e)(2) of the bill, you prohibit the use of an agent or proxy to place wagers unless the agent or proxy is acting on behalf of a licensed parimutuel facility 'in the operation of the account wagering system owned or operated by the parimutuel facility.' What if a facility licensed to operate an account wagering system engages a separate company to provide the technical expertise necessary to implement an interactive account wagering system on its behalf. Would such an agency fall within the scope of the permitted agency provisions of the bill referenced above?
Mr. KYL. - Yes, such a system is an allowed agent, assuming, of course, the interactive account wagering system meets the requirements for a 'closed-loop subscriber-based service that is wholly intrastate.'
Mr. McCONNELL. - thinking back to our earlier discussion of a 'support service,' what if the facility where the interactive account wagering system originates chooses to utilize support services such as a totalizator system or an interactive computer system located in a second state or even a foreign country to service the account holders.
Mr. KYL. - The use of such support services does not change the result assuming the account wagering system meets the requirements for a 'closed loop subscriber-based service that is wholly intrastate.' As stated previously, the location of the totalizator, path of the phone lines, or the site of other similar support systems is irrelevant.
Discussion on ENFORCEMENT
Mr. McCONNELL. - Finally, Senator Kyl, section 4 of the bill spells out in great detail the civil remedies available to U.S. Attorneys and State Attorneys General to enforce the provisions of S. 474. Section 5 likewise calls for the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General of the United States and the Secretary of Commerce, to commence negotiations with foreign countries in order to conclude international agreements that would enable the United States to enforce the bill.
Nonetheless, many are concerned that this legislation will be difficult to enforce. If the only entities that obey it are the legitimate, state-licensed parimutuel operators, which they will, while others outside the jurisdictions of the federal and state authorities do not, then you still have the potential for consumer fraud while not producing any revenues for the federal government, state governments or the racing industry itself.
Mr. KYL. - Senator McConnell, I am confident that the Justice Department and the National Association of Attorneys General will vigorously enforce this legislation.
Mr. McCONNELL. - Senator Kyl, once again I thank you and your staff for your hard work and tenacity in bringing this issue before the Senate. I also thank you for your patience in working through these very complicated issues.
Mr. KYL. - Senator McConnell, you are welcome. I am very pleased that we have been able to work together to protect legitimate, law abiding interests who make significant contributions to the nation's economy.
Mr. LEAHY (Vermont) - Mr. President, I have long been an advocate for legislation that ensures that existing laws keep pace with developing technology. It is for this reason that I have sponsored and supported over the past few years a host of bills to bring us into the 21st Century. These bills have included the National Information Infrastructure (NII) Protection Act of 1995; the Criminal Copyright Improvement Act of 1997; the WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaty Implementation Act of 1997; the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; and legislation that passed the Senate on June 26, 1998, to authorize the comprehensive independent study of the effects on trademark and intellectual property rights holders of adding new generic top-level domains and related dispute resolution procedures.
This same impetus underlies my support of legislation to ensure our nation's gambling laws keep pace with developing technology, particularly the Internet . The Department of Justice has noted that 'the Internet may have diminished the effectiveness of current gambling statutes, in part because existing laws may relate only to sports betting and not the type of interactive gambling (e.g., poker) that the Internet makes possible.' Vermonters have spoken very clearly that they do not want certain types of gambling permitted in the state, and they do not want current laws to be rendered obsolete by the Internet . I believe, therefore, that there is considerable value in updating our Federal gambling statutes, and I have been pleased to work with Senator Kyl on his legislation intended to accomplish that goal, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1998.
The legislation has been improved since it has reported out of committee.
The Senate Judiciary Committee reported out the bill on October 23, 1997. Although I voted in favor of the legislation at that time, I noted that I had several concerns about the bill and that I wished to work with Senator Kyl and others to address these concerns.
The bill as originally drafted might have inadvertently outlawed the tri-state lottery that is run by the states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. Although Vermonters have clearly indicated that they do not want many other forms of gambling , they do want to maintain this tri-state lottery, which has been in operation since 1985.
The legislation now under consideration states that the prohibitions against Internet gambling in the bill shall not apply to any otherwise lawful bet or wager that is placed, received, or otherwise made for a multi-state lottery operated jointly between two or more States in conjunction with State lotteries, if the lottery or activity is expressly authorized and licensed or regulated under Federal or applicable State law.
I would like to thank the office of Vermont's Attorney General for working with Senator Kyl and me to craft this language to ensure that Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine's tri-state lottery remains a permissible activity under this bill.
As originally introduced, the bill contained Sense of the Senate language that the Federal Government should have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the transmission to or receipt from the United States of bets or wagers, information assisting in the placing of bets or wagers, and any communication that entitles the transmitter or recipient to the opportunity to receive money or credit as a result of bets or wagers.
That provision was changed, and when the bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, the Sense of the Senate provision was replaced with a requirement that not later than six months after the date of enactment, certain Administration officials would be required to commence negotiations with foreign countries in order to conclude international agreements that would enable the United States to enforce the bill.
I was concerned about the constitutionality of this new requirement mandating that the Executive Branch undertake international negotiations, particularly in light of the decision of the 1993 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Earth Island Institute versus Christopher. The court in this case held unconstitutional a portion of a statute which directed the Secretary of State to initiate international negotiations regarding the protection and conservation of a certain species of sea turtles.
If we request that foreign countries investigate, on our behalf, conduct that is legal in the foreign state, we must be prepared to receive and act upon foreign requests for assistance when the conduct complained of is legal, or even constitutionally protected, in the United States.
For example, if we ask a foreign country to investigate an activity (e.g., gambling ) that is legal in the foreign state, that country may, for example, ask us to investigate constitutionally protected speech originating on computers based in the United States (e.g., that arguably violates that nation's 'hate speech' laws). Considering all of the challenges facing law enforcement in the information age, we believe that current efforts should focus on conduct which either is, or should be, universally condemned.
Senator Kyl agreed to my request that this section of the bill be deleted, and I believe that the legislation is considerably improved for that reason.
Another constitutional concern was raised by earlier versions of the bill that stated that 'information assisting in the placing of a bet or wager'--'(A) means information that is intended by the sender or recipient to be used by a person engaged in the business of betting or wagering to accept or place a bet or wager; (B) includes any information that invites the information described in subparagraph (A) to be transmitted;' and then included some exceptions.
I was concerned, as was the Department of Justice, that this language was vague and might raise constitutional concerns as it might be construed to apply to persons who do not have the intent to participate in or assist illegal gambling transactions. Similarly, these earlier versions of the legislation could have been interpreted to prohibit Internet advertising of activities that are entirely legal. This appeared to be an unintentional result of the earlier versions, but one that raised serious constitutional issues.
The Department of Justice suggested deleting subsection (B) altogether, and inserting the phrase 'in violation of state or Federal law' at the end of subsection (A). The addition of this latter phrase would ensure that transmission of information assisting in the placing of legal bets or wagers would not be criminalized by this legislation. Senator Kyl agreed to delete subsection (B), but he did not add the phrase 'in violation of state or Federal law' at the end of subsection (A). I hope this later suggestion by the Department of Justice is accepted as the legislation moves through the legislative process.
In the bill as originally introduced, an individual bettor who was found guilty of Internet gambling would have been subject to a penalty of $5,000, one year of prison or both. I thought that penalty was extreme. If someone places a $1 bingo bet over the Internet , that might not be activity we want to encourage, but I also do not think we need to lock that individual up in prison and charge him or her 5,000 times that amount in penalties. I expressed my view to Senator Kyl, and as a result he softened the penalty for individual bettors.
As the bill currently reads, the individual bettor would be subject to (A) fines not more than the greater of (i) three times the greater of the total amount that the individual is found to have wagered or received or (ii) $500; (B) 3 months prison; or (C) both. I hope that prosecutors and judges will use proper discretion when determining, even under this more reasonable regime, whether to expend federal resources prosecuting and imprisoning individuals who place de minimis bets.
The bill as introduced criminalized the activities of those persons engaged in the 'business of betting or wagering,' but the bill did not define what constituted a 'business of betting or wagering.' I believe that it is important that if Congress is going to make certain activities illegal, and subject the executor of that activity to hefty monetary fines and imprisonment, we need to be very clear about what activity, exactly, we are making illegal.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I want to note that an interactive computer service whose facilities or service are used by another person as a means of communication to engage in an activity prohibited by section 1085, and where the interactive computer service does not have the intent that such facilities or service be used for such illegal activity, shall not be considered to violate subsection (b)(1)(B).
Concerns about the Internet
Mr. KERRY (Nebraska). - Mr. President, I would like to direct a few comments to Senator Kyl's amendment adding the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act to S. 2260, the Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations bill. I join with my colleague in opposing unrestricted gambling on the Internet , and I support the adoption of his amendment. However, there are often a variety of reasonable approaches to a problem, and we should be careful not to over-legislate. This is true especially with respect to a vital new medium like the Internet which promises to be an engine of growth for our economy and a source of unprecedented benefits to our citizens for years to come. We need to think carefully before government commandeers the electronic network, through online service providers, in the pursuit of conduct we don't like. While I do not object to asking service providers to cooperate in ways that do not involve significant expense or retard the growth and flow of Internet traffic, I am not convinced that the provisions of the current proposal strike the proper balance. In addition, there is a high risk that we may inadvertently sap the vitality of the Internet if we start to require service providers to serve as an arm of our law enforcement agencies. It is my hope that we can address these concerns as we go to conference with the House.
Mr. JOHNSON. - Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the amendment offered by Senators Kyl and Bryan with respect to gambling on the Internet . I am an original cosponsor of S. 474, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 1997, as introduced in March of last year. I also sponsored the House version of this legislation in the 104th Congress because I am committed to preventing children's access to gambling on the Internet and the harm to the American public in general that is sure to follow unregulated gaming.
Gambling in this country has always been a very regulated activity no matter where it takes place. Unfortunately, we are now faced with a potential explosion of unregulated gambling --gambling on the Internet . States have become so concerned about this problem that state attorney's general nationwide have filed suits against gambling operators on the Internet . The Kyl-Bryan amendment clearly defines objectionable internet activity and establishes guidelines for law enforcement to crack down on those who solicit wagering on-line. The bill applies existing laws against telephone betting or wagering to all electronic communications. This Internet gambling ban will be applied to those who accept bets and those who do the betting.
While the Internet provides our children with many educational opportunities, we must closely scrutinize the industry to ensure that children are not let into the world of unregulated gambling . Preventing children or addicted gamblers from being able to gamble in an unregulated fashion on their home computer must be one of our highest priorities as we venture into the new and dynamic area of regulating electronic commerce.
However, as important as the Internet gambling ban legislation is to protecting this nation's children, I feel compelled to state my concerns about the impact of several provisions included in the pending version of the Internet gambling ban legislation as they may impact Indian tribes. I want to take this opportunity to express my strong support for Senator Craig's second degree amendment aimed at addressing several of these provisions. Under the Kyl amendment, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) would be amended without any involvement or input by the committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, or any tribal consultation.
Mr. BIDEN. - Mr. President, let's get it straight what this does. All of you came to me and said, 'I can't vote for the Craig amendment because it expands gambling on the Internet .' What the Kyl amendment does is expands gambling.
Right now it is illegal to use the wire to place a bet. U.S. Code 18, section 1084, Transmission of Wagering Information Penalties. Read it. I don't have a minute. It is illegal now.
What the Kyl amendment does is make what is now illegal legal for certain carved-out exceptions which benefit--and there is nothing wrong with this, depending on your interests--which benefit certain segments of the gambling industry. That is what this does.
If I had more than a minute, I would explain in more detail. This expands gambling . It does not cut back on gambling . It expands it. What is now illegal in certain areas becomes legal.
Mr. BRYAN. - Mr. President, let me say in response to my good friend, the able Senator from Delaware, every States attorneys general in America supports this amendment. Mr. Freeh, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, supports this amendment.
Under the current law, Internet gambling is spreading all over. There are 140 web sites, $1 billion. We seek to close that door. The Kyl-Bryan amendment seeks to prohibit Internet gambling for everyone--for everyone--so it is not an expansion of gaming.
We want to take gambling off the Internet so kids, libraries, and everybody else who can dial up on the Internet these days will not have access to an Internet gambling site. There are currently 140. That is twice as many as the year before. A year from now, there will be 500 if we don't close this hole. The Christian Coalition, everyone from major league sports teams to the attorneys general to the consumer groups all support this amendment.
Mr. BIDEN. - Mr. President, that is the first part. Read the second part. It says, a little phrase says exceptions:
Exceptions--Otherwise lawful bets or wagers that are placed, received or otherwise made wholly interstate for State lotteries, racing or parimutuel activity.
Exceptions.
Let me point out one other thing. Under current Federal law, it is illegal to take a bet using a telephone wire, which means that under current law, basically all Internet gambling is illegal because you use a wire.
Under the Kyl amendment, it would become legal to take a bet on the Internet if the States where the bettor placed and received authorized the bet and the bettor is a subscriber of a gambling company's network. This is an expansion. Expansion.
If you want to do something about the Internet , strike exceptions, and I promise you, the sponsors will vote against this. Strike exceptions. If you don't want any betting using the wire, strike 'exceptions.'
Exceptions--Otherwise lawful bets or wagers that are placed, received or otherwise made wholly interstate for State lotteries, racing or parimutuel activity.
Exceptions.
Let me point out one other thing. Under current Federal law, it is illegal to take a bet using a telephone wire, which means that under current law, basically all Internet gambling is illegal because you use a wire.
Under the Kyl amendment, it would become legal to take a bet on the Internet if the States where the bettor placed and received authorized the bet and the bettor is a subscriber of a gambling company's network. This is an expansion. Expansion.
If you want to do something about the Internet , strike exceptions, and I promise you, the sponsors will vote against this. Strike exceptions. If you don't want any betting using the wire, strike 'exceptions.'
The result was announced--yeas 90, nays 10, as follows:
Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.
[Rollcall Vote No. 229 Leg.]
YEAS--90
- Abraham
- Akaka
- Allard
- Ashcroft
- Baucus
- Bennett
- Bingaman
- Bond
- Boxer
- Breaux
- Brownback
- Bryan
- Bumpers
- Burns
- Byrd
- Campbell
- Chafee
- Cleland
- Coats
- Cochran
- Collins
- Conrad
- Coverdell
- D'Amato
- DeWine
- Dodd
- Dorgan
- Durbin
- Enzi
- Faircloth
- Feinstein
- Ford
- Frist
- Glenn
- Gorton
- Graham
- Gramm
- Grams
- Grassley
- Gregg
- Hagel
- Hatch
- Helms
- Hollings
- Hutchinson
- Hutchison
- Inhofe
- Jeffords
- Johnson
- Kempthorne
- Kennedy
- Kerrey
- Kerry
- Kohl
- Kyl
- Landrieu
- Lautenberg
- Leahy
- Levin
- Lieberman
- Lott
- Lugar
- Mack
- McCain
- McConnell
- Mikulski
- Moseley-Braun
- Murkowski
- Murray
- Nickles
- Reed
- Reid
- Robb
- Roberts
- Rockefeller
- Roth
- Santorum
- Sarbanes
- Sessions
- Shelby
- Smith (NH)
- Smith (OR)
- Snowe
- Specter
- Thomas
- Thompson
- Thurmond
- Torricelli
- Warner
- Wyden
NAYS-10
- Biden
- Craig
- Daschle
- Domenici
- Feingold
- Harkin
- Inouye
- Moynihan
- Stevens
- Wellstone