Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I believe that under the order 1 minute was reserved for anybody in opposition, is that correct?

Mr. KYL. I don't think the Senator from Michigan spoke in opposition to the amendment, as I understand it. Therefore, would it not be in order for someone in opposition to take a minute?

Mr. KYL. I will take 30 seconds.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues that, as Senator Levin just pointed out, this is a totally unnecessary amendment, because the administration has already expressed a view that it has not gone beyond the Concepts this Senate voted for 90 to 9 when the new states were added to NATO. Those are the Strategic Concepts. One might argue whether or not they are being applied correctly in the case of the war in Kosovo. That is another debate. But in terms of the Strategic Concepts themselves, this body voted on them, and I would hate for this body now to suggest to the other 18 countries in NATO that perhaps they should resubmit the Strategic Concepts to their legislative bodies as in the nature of a treaty so that the entire NATO agreement on Strategic Concepts would be subject to 19 separate votes of our parliamentary bodies. I don't think that would be a good idea given the fact that, as Senator Levin already noted, the President has already said the Strategic Concepts do not go beyond what the Senate voted for 90 to 9. This an unnecessary amendment. I suggest my colleagues vote no.

Mr. KYL. Might I inquire of the Senator from Delaware--I am prepared to speak for 30 seconds or a minute.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service is interested in exchanging or selling six unmanageable, undesirable and/or excess parcels of land in the Prescott, Tonto, Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. In addition, the Forest Service has agreed to sell land to the City of Sedona for use as an effluent disposal system. If the parcels are sold, the Forest Service wants to use the proceeds from five of these sales to either fund new construction or upgrade current administrative facilities at these national forests. Funds generated from the sale of the other parcels could be used to fund acquisition of sites, or construction of administrative facilities at any national forest in Arizona. Transfers of land completed under this bill will be done in accordance with all other applicable laws, including environmental laws. Mr. President, this bill will enhance customer and administrative services by allowing the Forest Service to consolidate and update facilities and/or relocate facilities to more convenient locations. It offers a simple and common-sense way to enhance services for national forest users in Arizona, and to facilitate the disposal of unmanageable, undesirable and/or excess parcels of national forest lands. This bill will also facilitate the construction of a much needed wastewater treatment plant for the City of Sedona. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the U.S. Forest Service is interested in exchanging or selling six unmanageable, undesirable and/or excess parcels of land in the Prescott, Tonto, Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. In addition, the Forest Service has agreed to sell land to the City of Sedona for use as an effluent disposal system. If the parcels are sold, the Forest Service wants to use the proceeds from five of these sales to either fund new construction or upgrade current administrative facilities at these national forests. Funds generated from the sale of the other parcels could be used to fund acquisition of sites, or construction of administrative facilities at any national forest in Arizona. Transfers of land completed under this bill will be done in accordance with all other applicable laws, including environmental laws. Mr. President, this bill will enhance customer and administrative services by allowing the Forest Service to consolidate and update facilities and/or relocate facilities to more convenient locations. It offers a simple and common-sense way to enhance services for national forest users in Arizona, and to facilitate the disposal of unmanageable, undesirable and/or excess parcels of national forest lands. This bill will also facilitate the construction of a much needed wastewater treatment plant for the City of Sedona. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl, regarding his Safe Handgun Storage and Child Handgun Safety Amendment (#352) to S. 254, the juvenile crime bill. The amendment makes it unlawful for any licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer to sell, deliver or transfer any handgun to any person (other than under certain exceptions) unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device. I am interested in clarifying the intent of the amendment with regard to gun safety devices. Senator Kohl, as you know, a company in my home state of Arizona has developed a handgun safety device called Saf-T-Hammer. It is a removable hammer which can be incorporated into new guns or retrofit most handguns now in circulation. When the top of the hammer is removed, the gun cannot be fired. Parents can take off the hammerhead and carry it with them when they leave home, secure in the knowledge that no unauthorized user--including children--will be able to fire the gun. Because Saf-T-Hammer is a removable safety device, is it your intent, Senator Kohl, that Saf-T-Hammer would still qualify as a gun safety device for purposes of your amendment?

Mr. KYL. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his time and clarification of the amendment regarding this important issue.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that H. Con. Res. 49 be discharged from the Rules Committee and, further, the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until 12 noon, on Monday, May 3. I further ask that on Monday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate begin a period of morning business equally divided between the two parties for 1 hour, with Senators allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes each. I further ask consent that Sunday not count against the provision of the War Powers Act.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will convene on Monday at 12 noon and be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. Following morning business, the Senate will immediately begin consideration of the McCain resolution, S.J. Res. 20, pursuant to the provisions of the War Powers Act. A rollcall vote on or in relation to S.J. Res. 20, concerning the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to the Kosovo region in Yugoslavia, is expected to take place at 5:30 on Monday. For the information of all Senators, consideration of the financial modernization bill is expected to begin on Tuesday and conclude on Thursday evening.

Mr KYL

Mr KYL. I ask unanimous consent the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 39, S. 609.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to introduce the Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Act of 1999. In 1996, the Congress passed unanimously, and the President signed, my amendment to the Immigration Reform Act requiring that 1,000 Border Patrol agents be hired each year between the years 1997 and 20001. Last year, Congress provided the Immigration and Naturalization Service with $93 million to hire, train, and deploy 1,000 agents during 1999. We have now learned that the INS will not come close to hiring the required 1,000 agents during this year; and, in fact, may only hire 200 to 400. As a result, states that need the increased personnel the most will not receive them. Arizona, which itself was slated to receive 400 new agents, will now receive only 100 to 150 new agents. That's not nearly enough. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector apprehended 60,537 illegal immigrants last month and seized over 28,000 pounds of marijuana, an all-time record in both areas. Project that annually and then factor in the estimate that 3 times as many illegal aliens successfully cross the border than are apprehended. The situation is so out of control in Arizona that recently, 600 people attempted to cross the border en masse in broad daylight. Some Arizonans are growing so anxious about the upsurge of illegal activity in their community that they have attempted to take matters into their own hands. Unless Arizona is given more federal personnel and resources to get things under control, many are worried about how this situation will develop. What the INS says is that it is having recruitment and retention problems, and so it cannot take on the added personnel at this time. Couldn't the INS foresee some of these recruitment issues more than two months before now? And couldn't INS do something to correct the problem of recruitment? We concluded Congress would have to initiate some solutions. Therefore, Senator Hutchison and I introduce this bill today to try to begin to address some of the Border Patrol's recruitment and retention problems. It is not a panacea, and we need to continue to explore additional ways of improving recruitment and retention; but it will open the debate and will provide for a much-needed increase in salary levels for the Border Patrol. Currently Border Patrol agents are, for the most part, capped at a GS-9 level (currently, only about 20 percent of agents, namely those who perform special duties, are raised to the GS-11 level). The Border Patrol Retention and Recruitment Enhancement Act would allow all agents with a successful year's experience at a GS-9 level to move up to a GS- 11 level. This would enable agents to move from an approximate $34,000 annually salary to an approximate $41,000 annually salary. And that's fair. These agents have a tough time in their assignments. They must speak two languages. They deserve a raise. The bill would also establish the Office of Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention, which would allow the Border Patrol to be more involved in recruiting and hiring and will direct the Border Patrol to make policy suggestions about ways to improve recruitment and retention. Currently, the INS and the Office of Personnel Management are responsible for all such activity. We have heard testimony from Border Patrol chiefs who say that the Border Patrol has unique and specific knowledge about how to enhance these efforts. Mr. President, this bill will not solve all of the Border Patrol's recruiting and retention problems, but it will be a responsible start toward increasing the numbers of agents who will so honorably protect our nation's borders. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison to introduce the Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention Act of 1999. In 1996, the Congress passed unanimously, and the President signed, my amendment to the Immigration Reform Act requiring that 1,000 Border Patrol agents be hired each year between the years 1997 and 20001. Last year, Congress provided the Immigration and Naturalization Service with $93 million to hire, train, and deploy 1,000 agents during 1999. We have now learned that the INS will not come close to hiring the required 1,000 agents during this year; and, in fact, may only hire 200 to 400. As a result, states that need the increased personnel the most will not receive them. Arizona, which itself was slated to receive 400 new agents, will now receive only 100 to 150 new agents. That's not nearly enough. Border Patrol agents in the Tucson sector apprehended 60,537 illegal immigrants last month and seized over 28,000 pounds of marijuana, an all-time record in both areas. Project that annually and then factor in the estimate that 3 times as many illegal aliens successfully cross the border than are apprehended. The situation is so out of control in Arizona that recently, 600 people attempted to cross the border en masse in broad daylight. Some Arizonans are growing so anxious about the upsurge of illegal activity in their community that they have attempted to take matters into their own hands. Unless Arizona is given more federal personnel and resources to get things under control, many are worried about how this situation will develop. What the INS says is that it is having recruitment and retention problems, and so it cannot take on the added personnel at this time. Couldn't the INS foresee some of these recruitment issues more than two months before now? And couldn't INS do something to correct the problem of recruitment? We concluded Congress would have to initiate some solutions. Therefore, Senator Hutchison and I introduce this bill today to try to begin to address some of the Border Patrol's recruitment and retention problems. It is not a panacea, and we need to continue to explore additional ways of improving recruitment and retention; but it will open the debate and will provide for a much-needed increase in salary levels for the Border Patrol. Currently Border Patrol agents are, for the most part, capped at a GS-9 level (currently, only about 20 percent of agents, namely those who perform special duties, are raised to the GS-11 level). The Border Patrol Retention and Recruitment Enhancement Act would allow all agents with a successful year's experience at a GS-9 level to move up to a GS- 11 level. This would enable agents to move from an approximate $34,000 annually salary to an approximate $41,000 annually salary. And that's fair. These agents have a tough time in their assignments. They must speak two languages. They deserve a raise. The bill would also establish the Office of Border Patrol Recruitment and Retention, which would allow the Border Patrol to be more involved in recruiting and hiring and will direct the Border Patrol to make policy suggestions about ways to improve recruitment and retention. Currently, the INS and the Office of Personnel Management are responsible for all such activity. We have heard testimony from Border Patrol chiefs who say that the Border Patrol has unique and specific knowledge about how to enhance these efforts. Mr. President, this bill will not solve all of the Border Patrol's recruiting and retention problems, but it will be a responsible start toward increasing the numbers of agents who will so honorably protect our nation's borders. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, it is an honor for me this morning to have in the Senate Chamber both of my ministers--of course, the Chaplain of the Senate, Lloyd Ogilvie, and the individual who gave our prayer this morning, who is Thomas Erickson, minister of the Valley Presbyterian Church in Scottsdale, AZ. This is the church in which I am a member in my home State of Arizona. His wife Carol joins him today in the Nation's Capital, and as I said, it is my honor to be with them today and certainly an honor for my church to have its minister deliver the opening of the Senate. Valley Presbyterian Church is a dynamic congregation of some 2,400 members and growing. Reverend Erickson has been with the church now for almost 13 years. Mr. President, you perhaps noticed that as he was delivering the morning prayer, if you closed your eyes just a little bit, it almost sounded like our Chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie. I frequently do that when I am in church here or I am in the Senate Chamber. I close my eyes and I can almost hear the other speaking, because they have the same resonant voice, especially when delivering a prayer. So I am honored, as I said, to be able to present Dr. Erickson to my fellow Senators this morning and all of those who observed the morning prayer on television. I thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, today, the Senate begins consideration of a budget for the fiscal year that begins on October 1. When it passes, it will be only the second budget in the last 30 years that will be balanced. That will be a tremendous achievement considering that it was as recently as 1995 that President Clinton sent Congress a budget that would have produced annual deficits in the range of $200 billion for the foreseeable future. The budget recommended to us by the Budget Committee will effectively balance the budget, and it will do so even without relying on the surplus from the Social Security trust fund. The small deficit that is projected now is likely to be eliminated once the Congressional Budget Office updates its revenue estimates this summer. Mr. President, the budget we have before us will ensure that the Social Security surplus is set aside so that it cannot be spent on other government programs--$1.8 trillion over the next 10 years. Many of us may have heard President Clinton promise to do the same, but when he sent his budget to Capitol Hill we found that he is actually proposing to raid the Social Security trust fund for $158 billion over the next five years alone. Moreover, we found that the President's plan to deposit 62 percent of the unified budget surplus into the trust fund was nothing more than an accounting gimmick. According to the Comptroller General, David Walker, ``the changes to the Social Security program [recommended by the President] will thus be more perceived than real: although the Trust Funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the proposal, in reality nothing about the program has changed.'' In other words, the Clinton plan fails to delay the cash- flow problem expected in the year 2013 by a single year. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan also voiced opposition to the President's risky plan to invest a portion of the Social Security Trust Funds in the stock market, noting that ``even with Herculean efforts,'' he doubted that investment decisions could be insulated from political pressures. The Clinton plan would allow federal bureaucrats to play politics with people's retirement savings. That is wrong. By contrast, our budget will not put Social Security at risk. It will protect the Social Security surpluses so that they cannot be raided for the President's other spending initiatives. Our budget will help preserve Medicare, as well. It will increase spending on the nation's health care program for seniors by an average of $20 billion a year for the next 10 years. That is in lieu of the $9 billion reduction in Medicare spending that the President's budget recommends. Mr. President, we will cut the public debt in half over the next decade by abiding by the spending limits Congress and the President agreed to two years ago. The Clinton budget, by contrast, would bust the spending limits by more than $20 billion this year alone and result in only half as much debt reduction over the next decade. Most importantly, the Senate budget proposes to return the rest of the emerging surpluses to taxpayers. Congress would still have to pass a separate bill later in the year that sets out precisely what form the tax relief would take, but there are many ideas. They range from a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in income-tax rates to more targeted relief, like repeal of the marriage penalty, elimination of death taxes, and reductions in capital-gains taxes. There are other ideas, too. Any of them is preferable to President Clinton's plan to raise $100 billion in new taxes and fees even though budget surpluses are mounting. Although we have succeeded in balancing the unified budget, we still have two very different visions of where we should be headed. The President has proposed myriad new spending programs--77 new programs in his State of the Union address--paid for out of the Social Security surplus, Medicare, and new taxes and fees. The Senate budget protects Social Security and Medicare, and abiding by the spending limits approved just two years ago, we begin to pay down the debt and provide long overdue tax relief to the American people. I believe the Senate's approach is a better one. I hope my colleagues will join me in voting aye. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Federal Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act, which would require federal prisoners to pay a nominal fee when they initiate certain visits for medical attention. Fees collected from prisoners subject to an order of restitution shall be paid to victims in accordance with the order. Seventy-five percent of all other fees would be deposited in the Federal Crime Victims' Fund and the remainder would go to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the U.S. Marshals Service for administrative expenses incurred in carrying out this Act. Each time a prisoner pays to heal himself, he will be paying to heal a victim. Most working, law-abiding Americans are required to pay a copayment fee when they seek medical attention. It is time to impose this requirement on federal prisoners. The Department of Justice supports the Federal inmate user fee concept, and worked with us on crafting the language contained in this Act. To date, well over half of the states--including our home states of Arizona and South Dakota--have implemented state-wide prisoner health care copayment programs. Additionally, the following states have enacted this reform: Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Additional states are considering implementing copayment programs. Copayment programs have an outstanding record of success on the state level. Tennessee, which began requiring $3 copayments in January 1996, reported in late 1997 that the number of infirmary visits per inmate had been cut almost in half. In August 1998, prison officials in Ohio evaluated the nascent state copayment law, finding that the number of prisoners seeing a doctor has dropped 55 percent and that between March and August the copayment fee generated $89,500. In Arizona, there has been a reduction of about 30 percent in the number of requests for health care services. Copayment programs reduce the overutilization of health care services without denying necessary care to the indigent. By discouraging the overuse of health care, the Prisoner Health Care Copayment Act should (1) help prisoners in true need of attention to receive better care, (2) benefit taxpayers through a reduction in the expense of operating a prison health care system, and (3) reduce the burden on corrections officers to escort prisoners feigning illness to health care facilities is reduced. The Act prohibits the refusal of treatment for financial reasons or for appropriate preventive care. Congress should follow the lead of the states and provide the federal Bureau of Prisons with the authority to charge federal inmates a nominal fee for elective health care visits. The federal system is particularly ripe for reform. According to the 1996 Corrections Yearbook, the system spends more per inmate on health care than virtually every state. Federal inmate health care totaled $354 million in fiscal year 1998, up from $138 million in fiscal year 1990. Average cost per inmate has increased over 36 percent during this period, from $2,483 to $3,363. Before I conclude, I would like to thank my colleague Senator Johnson for his support and assistance with this legislation. Additionally, I appreciate the assistance of the Arizona Department of Corrections, and the office staff of Sheriff Buchanan in helping me draft this reform. I look forward to continuing to work with the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons, and colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to implement a fee-for-medical-service-program--a sensible and overdue reform--for federal prisoners.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. From the beginning of time, societies have sought to prohibit most forms of gambling. There are reasons for this--and they are especially applicable to gambling on the Internet today. Consider the following. Youth. A recent New York Times article warned that ``Internet sports betting entices youthful gamblers into potentially costly losses.'' In the same article, Kevin O'Neill, deputy director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, said that ``Internet sports gambling appeals to college-age people who don't have immediate access to a neighborhood bookie. . . . It's on the Net and kids think it's credible, which is scary.'' Listen to the testimony of Jeff Pash, the Executive Vice President of the National Football League, before the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Studies . . . indicate that sports betting is a growing problem for high school and college students. . . . As the Internet reaches more and more school children, Internet gambling is certain to promote even more gambling among young people.'' Families. Gambling often has terrible consequences for families and communities. According to the Council on Compulsive Gambling, five percent of all gamblers become addicted. Many of those turn to crime and commit suicide. We all pay for those tragedies. Harm to Businesses and the Economy. Internet gambling is likely to have a deleterious effect on businesses and the economy. As Ted Koppel noted in a ``Nightline'' feature on Internet gambling, ``[l]ast year, 1,333,000 American consumers filed for bankruptcy, thereby eliminating about $40 billion in personal debt. That's of some relevance to all of us because the $40 billion debt doesn't just disappear. It's redistributed among the rest of us in the form of increased prices on consumer goods. . . .'' He continued: ``If anything promises to increase the level of personal debt in this country, expanding access to gambling should do it.'' Professor John Kindt testified before the House Small Business Committee that a business with 1,000 workers can anticipate increased personnel costs of $500,000 a year due to job absenteeism and declining productivity simply by having various forms of legalized gambling accessible. Addiction. Internet gambling enhances the addictive nature of gambling because it is so easy to do: you don't have to travel; you can just log on to your computer. Professor Kindt has described electronic gambling, like the type being offered in the ``virtual casinos'' on the Internet, as the ``hard-core cocaine of gambling.'' As Bernie Horn, the Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gaming, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime: ``The Internet not only makes highly addictive forms of gambling easily accessible to everyone, it magnifies the potential destructiveness of the addiction. Because of the privacy of an individual and his/her computer terminal, addicts can destroy themselves without anyone ever having the chance to stop them. Unfair payouts. As Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``[b]ecause [Internet gambling] is unregulated, consumers don't know who is on the other end of the connection. The odds can be easily manipulated and there is no guarantee that fair payouts will occur.'' ``Anyone who gambles over the Internet is making a sucker bet,'' says William A. Bible, the chair of an Internet gambling subcommittee on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Crime. Further, gambling on the Internet is apt to lead to criminal behavior. Indeed, ``Up to 90 percent of pathological gamblers commit crimes to pay off their wagering debts.'' A University of Illinois study found that for every dollar that states gain from gambling, they pay out three dollars in social and criminal costs. Cost. According to an article in the March 1999 ABA Journal, ``Online wagering is generating a $600-million-a-year kitty that some analysts say could reach as high as $100 billion a year by 2006.'' I want to repeat that: ``$100 BILLION a year.'' The article continues: ``The number of Web sites offering Internet gambling is growing at a similar rate. In just one year, that number more than quadrupled, going from about 60 in late 1997 to now more than 260 according to some estimates.'' And a recent HBO in-depth report by Jim Lampley noted that virtual sports books will collect more money from the Super Bowl than all the sports books in Las Vegas combined. This affects all of us. Not every problem that is national is also necessarily federal. Internet gambling is a national problem AND a federal problem. The Internet is, of course, interstate in nature. States cannot protect their citizens from Internet gambling if anyone can transmit it into their states. That is why the State Attorneys General asked for federal legislation to prohibit Internet gambling. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee members, the Chairs of the Association's Internet Working Group stressed the need for federal involvement: ``[M]ore than any other area of the law, gambling has traditionally been regulated on a state-by-state basis, with little uniformity and minimal federal oversight. The availability of gambling on the Internet, however, threatens to disrupt each state's careful balancing of its own public welfare and fiscal concerns, by making gambling available across state and national boundaries, with little or no regulatory control.'' Further, in reaffirming his support for the bill, the former President of NAAG, Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, wrote: ``Internet gambling poses a major challenge for state and local law enforcement officials. I strongly support Senator Kyl's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Prohibiting this form of unregulated gambling will protect consumers from fraud and preserve state policies on gambling that have been established by our citizens and our legislators.'' In 1961, Congress passed the Wire Act to prohibit using telephone facilities to receive bets or send gambling information. [18 U.S.C. Sec. 1084.] In addition to penalties imposed upon gambling businesses that violate the law, the Wire Act gives local and state law enforcement authorities the power to direct telecommunication providers to discontinue service to proprietors of gambling services who use the wires to conduct illegal gambling activity. But, as pointed out in the March 1999 ABA Journal, ``The problem with current federal law is that the communications technology it specifies is dated and limited.'' The advent of the Internet, a communications medium not envisioned by the Wire Act, requires enactment of a new law to address activities in cyberspace not contemplated by the drafters of the older law. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act ensures that the law keeps pace with technology. The bill bans gambling on the Internet, just as the Wire Act prohibited gambling over the wires. And it does not limit the subject of gambling to sports. The bill is similar to the one that the Senate, by an overwhelming 90-10 vote, attached to the Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations bill last year. Let me take a moment to explain the bill. The bill covers sports gambling and casino games. Businesses that offer gambling over the Internet can be fined in an amount equal to the amount that the business received in bets via the Internet or $20,000, whichever is greater, and/or imprisoned for not more than four years. To address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, the bill (like the Wire Act) does not contain penalties for individual bettors. Such betting will, of course, still be the subject of state law. The bill contains a strong enforcement mechanism. At the request of the United States or a State, a district court may enter a temporary restraining order or an injunction against any person to prevent a violation of the bill, following due notice and based on a finding of substantial probability that there has been a violation of the law. In effect, the illegal website will have its service cut off. I have worked with the Internet service providers to address concerns they raised about how they would cut off service, and, as a result, the provisions dealing with the civil remedies have been revised along the lines of the WIPO legislation. In sum, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings federal law up to date. With the advent of new, sophisticated technology, the Wire Act is becoming outdated. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act corrects that problem. I would like to take a moment to review the consideration of the bill during the last Congress. In July 1997, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology held a hearing on S. 474. A wide variety of people testified in support of the legislation: Senator Richard Bryan; Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, the then-President of the National Association of Attorneys General; Jeff Pash, Counsel to the National Football League; Ann Geer, Chair of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion; and Anthony Cabot, professor at the International Gaming Institute. Ann Geer stated that ``Internet gambling would multiply addiction exponentially, increasing access and magnifying the potential destructiveness of the addiction. Addicts would literally click their mouse and bet the house.'' As I noted earlier, Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle testified that ``gambling on the Internet is a very dumb bet. Because it is unregulated . . . odds can be easily manipulated and there is no guarantee that fair payouts will occur. . . . Internet gambling threatens to disrupt the system. It crosses state and national borders with little or no regulatory control. Federal authorities must take the lead in this area.'' Additionally, in June, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on FBI oversight at which I said to FBI Director Louis Freeh: ``the testimony from other Department of Justice and FBI witnesses has supported our legislation to conform the crime of gambling on the Internet to existing law. And I would just like a reconfirmation of the FBI's support for that legislation.'' Director Freeh replied ``yes, I think it's a very effective change. We certainly support it.'' The Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology passed S. 474 by a unanimous poll and sent the bill to the full Committee for consideration. The Judiciary Committee passed S. 474 by voice vote. In July 1998, by a 90 to 10 vote, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act was attached to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. In the House, the bill passed Representative McCollum's Crime Subcommittee unanimously, but due to the lateness of the session, the bill failed to move farther in the House and was not included in the final CJS bill. The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the strong support of law enforcement. As I just mentioned, FBI Director Freeh has testified that the bill makes a ``very effective change'' to the law and the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter supporting S. 474 to all Senators. Further, the President of NAAG, Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, wrote a letter expressing his support of the bill: ``Internet gambling poses a major challenge for state and local law enforcement officials. I strongly support Senator Kyl's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Prohibiting this form of unregulated gambling will protect consumers from fraud and preserve state policies on gambling that have been established by our citizens and our legislators.'' Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth also wrote a letter stressing the support of the states for this bill: ``The adoption of a resolution on this issue by NAAG represents overwhelming support from the states for a bill which, in essence, increases the federal presence in an area of primary state concern. However, it is clear that the federal government has an important role in this issue which crosses state as well as international boundaries.'' In the 105th Congress, S. 474 was strongly supported by professional and amateur sports. The National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Soccer, and Major League Baseball sent a joint letter of support to all Senators. I would like to read a passage from this letter: Despite exiting federal and state laws prohibiting gambling on professional and college sports, sports gambling over the Internet has become a serious--and growing--national problem. Many Internet gambling operations originate from offshore locations outside the U.S. The number of offshore Internet gambling websites has grown from two in 1996 to over 70 today. It is estimated that Inernet sites will book over $600 million in sports bets in 1998, up from $60 million just two years ago. These websites not only permit offshore gambling operations to solicit and take bets from the United States in defiance of federal and state law but also enable gamblers and would-be gamblers in the U.S. to place illegal sports wagers over the Internet from the privacy of their own home or office. The letter concludes: ``We strongly urge you to vote in favor of S. 474 when it is considered on the Senate floor.'' On behalf of the NCAA, Bill Saum testified in February before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission on the dangers of Internet gambling: Internet gambling provides college students with the opportunity to place wagers on professional and college sporting events from the privacy of his or her campus residence. Internet gambling offers the student virtual anonymity. With nothing more than a credit card, the possibility exists for any student-athlete to place a wager via the Intenet and then attempt to influence the outcome of the contest while participating on the court or the playing field. There is no question the advent of Internet sports gambling poses a direct threat to all sports organizations that, first and foremost, must ensure the integrity of each contest played. Today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, I chaired a hearing on Internet gambling. The testimony in today's hearing confirmed that Internet gambling is addictive, accessible to minors, subject to fraud and other criminal use, and evasive of state gambling laws. State Attorneys General from Wisconsin and Ohio asked for federal legislation to address the mushrooming problem of online gambling, and representatives of the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association expressed their concerns over the effect of Internet gambling on athletes, fans, and the integrity of sporting contests. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Bryan for his hard work on this bill. His support and assistance have been invaluable. I would also like to extend a special thanks to the NFL, NCAA, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The Internet offers fantastic opportunities. Unfortunately, some would exploit those opportunities to commit crimes and take advantage of others. Indeed, as Professor Kindt stated on ``Nightline,'' ``Once you go to Internet gambling, you've maximized the speed you've maximized the acceptability and the accessibility. It's going to be in- your-face gambling, which is going to have severe detrimental effects to society. . . . it's the crack cocaine of creating new pathological gamblers.'' Internet gambling is a serious problem. Society has always prohibited most forms of gambling because it can have a devastating effect on people and families, and it often leads to crime and other corruption. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act will curb the spread of online gambling.

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. From the beginning of time, societies have sought to prohibit most forms of gambling. There are reasons for this--and they are especially applicable to gambling on the Internet today. Consider the following. Youth. A recent New York Times article warned that ``Internet sports betting entices youthful gamblers into potentially costly losses.'' In the same article, Kevin O'Neill, deputy director of the Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey, said that ``Internet sports gambling appeals to college-age people who don't have immediate access to a neighborhood bookie. . . . It's on the Net and kids think it's credible, which is scary.'' Listen to the testimony of Jeff Pash, the Executive Vice President of the National Football League, before the Senate Judiciary Committee: ``Studies . . . indicate that sports betting is a growing problem for high school and college students. . . . As the Internet reaches more and more school children, Internet gambling is certain to promote even more gambling among young people.'' Families. Gambling often has terrible consequences for families and communities. According to the Council on Compulsive Gambling, five percent of all gamblers become addicted. Many of those turn to crime and commit suicide. We all pay for those tragedies. Harm to Businesses and the Economy. Internet gambling is likely to have a deleterious effect on businesses and the economy. As Ted Koppel noted in a ``Nightline'' feature on Internet gambling, ``[l]ast year, 1,333,000 American consumers filed for bankruptcy, thereby eliminating about $40 billion in personal debt. That's of some relevance to all of us because the $40 billion debt doesn't just disappear. It's redistributed among the rest of us in the form of increased prices on consumer goods. . . .'' He continued: ``If anything promises to increase the level of personal debt in this country, expanding access to gambling should do it.'' Professor John Kindt testified before the House Small Business Committee that a business with 1,000 workers can anticipate increased personnel costs of $500,000 a year due to job absenteeism and declining productivity simply by having various forms of legalized gambling accessible. Addiction. Internet gambling enhances the addictive nature of gambling because it is so easy to do: you don't have to travel; you can just log on to your computer. Professor Kindt has described electronic gambling, like the type being offered in the ``virtual casinos'' on the Internet, as the ``hard-core cocaine of gambling.'' As Bernie Horn, the Executive Director of the National Coalition Against Legalized Gaming, testified before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime: ``The Internet not only makes highly addictive forms of gambling easily accessible to everyone, it magnifies the potential destructiveness of the addiction. Because of the privacy of an individual and his/her computer terminal, addicts can destroy themselves without anyone ever having the chance to stop them. Unfair payouts. As Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ``[b]ecause [Internet gambling] is unregulated, consumers don't know who is on the other end of the connection. The odds can be easily manipulated and there is no guarantee that fair payouts will occur.'' ``Anyone who gambles over the Internet is making a sucker bet,'' says William A. Bible, the chair of an Internet gambling subcommittee on the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Crime. Further, gambling on the Internet is apt to lead to criminal behavior. Indeed, ``Up to 90 percent of pathological gamblers commit crimes to pay off their wagering debts.'' A University of Illinois study found that for every dollar that states gain from gambling, they pay out three dollars in social and criminal costs. Cost. According to an article in the March 1999 ABA Journal, ``Online wagering is generating a $600-million-a-year kitty that some analysts say could reach as high as $100 billion a year by 2006.'' I want to repeat that: ``$100 BILLION a year.'' The article continues: ``The number of Web sites offering Internet gambling is growing at a similar rate. In just one year, that number more than quadrupled, going from about 60 in late 1997 to now more than 260 according to some estimates.'' And a recent HBO in-depth report by Jim Lampley noted that virtual sports books will collect more money from the Super Bowl than all the sports books in Las Vegas combined. This affects all of us. Not every problem that is national is also necessarily federal. Internet gambling is a national problem AND a federal problem. The Internet is, of course, interstate in nature. States cannot protect their citizens from Internet gambling if anyone can transmit it into their states. That is why the State Attorneys General asked for federal legislation to prohibit Internet gambling. In a letter to the Judiciary Committee members, the Chairs of the Association's Internet Working Group stressed the need for federal involvement: ``[M]ore than any other area of the law, gambling has traditionally been regulated on a state-by-state basis, with little uniformity and minimal federal oversight. The availability of gambling on the Internet, however, threatens to disrupt each state's careful balancing of its own public welfare and fiscal concerns, by making gambling available across state and national boundaries, with little or no regulatory control.'' Further, in reaffirming his support for the bill, the former President of NAAG, Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, wrote: ``Internet gambling poses a major challenge for state and local law enforcement officials. I strongly support Senator Kyl's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Prohibiting this form of unregulated gambling will protect consumers from fraud and preserve state policies on gambling that have been established by our citizens and our legislators.'' In 1961, Congress passed the Wire Act to prohibit using telephone facilities to receive bets or send gambling information. [18 U.S.C. Sec. 1084.] In addition to penalties imposed upon gambling businesses that violate the law, the Wire Act gives local and state law enforcement authorities the power to direct telecommunication providers to discontinue service to proprietors of gambling services who use the wires to conduct illegal gambling activity. But, as pointed out in the March 1999 ABA Journal, ``The problem with current federal law is that the communications technology it specifies is dated and limited.'' The advent of the Internet, a communications medium not envisioned by the Wire Act, requires enactment of a new law to address activities in cyberspace not contemplated by the drafters of the older law. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act ensures that the law keeps pace with technology. The bill bans gambling on the Internet, just as the Wire Act prohibited gambling over the wires. And it does not limit the subject of gambling to sports. The bill is similar to the one that the Senate, by an overwhelming 90-10 vote, attached to the Commerce- Justice-State Appropriations bill last year. Let me take a moment to explain the bill. The bill covers sports gambling and casino games. Businesses that offer gambling over the Internet can be fined in an amount equal to the amount that the business received in bets via the Internet or $20,000, whichever is greater, and/or imprisoned for not more than four years. To address concerns raised by the Department of Justice, the bill (like the Wire Act) does not contain penalties for individual bettors. Such betting will, of course, still be the subject of state law. The bill contains a strong enforcement mechanism. At the request of the United States or a State, a district court may enter a temporary restraining order or an injunction against any person to prevent a violation of the bill, following due notice and based on a finding of substantial probability that there has been a violation of the law. In effect, the illegal website will have its service cut off. I have worked with the Internet service providers to address concerns they raised about how they would cut off service, and, as a result, the provisions dealing with the civil remedies have been revised along the lines of the WIPO legislation. In sum, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act brings federal law up to date. With the advent of new, sophisticated technology, the Wire Act is becoming outdated. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act corrects that problem. I would like to take a moment to review the consideration of the bill during the last Congress. In July 1997, the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology held a hearing on S. 474. A wide variety of people testified in support of the legislation: Senator Richard Bryan; Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, the then-President of the National Association of Attorneys General; Jeff Pash, Counsel to the National Football League; Ann Geer, Chair of the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion; and Anthony Cabot, professor at the International Gaming Institute. Ann Geer stated that ``Internet gambling would multiply addiction exponentially, increasing access and magnifying the potential destructiveness of the addiction. Addicts would literally click their mouse and bet the house.'' As I noted earlier, Wisconsin Attorney General James Doyle testified that ``gambling on the Internet is a very dumb bet. Because it is unregulated . . . odds can be easily manipulated and there is no guarantee that fair payouts will occur. . . . Internet gambling threatens to disrupt the system. It crosses state and national borders with little or no regulatory control. Federal authorities must take the lead in this area.'' Additionally, in June, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on FBI oversight at which I said to FBI Director Louis Freeh: ``the testimony from other Department of Justice and FBI witnesses has supported our legislation to conform the crime of gambling on the Internet to existing law. And I would just like a reconfirmation of the FBI's support for that legislation.'' Director Freeh replied ``yes, I think it's a very effective change. We certainly support it.'' The Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology passed S. 474 by a unanimous poll and sent the bill to the full Committee for consideration. The Judiciary Committee passed S. 474 by voice vote. In July 1998, by a 90 to 10 vote, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act was attached to the Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations bill. In the House, the bill passed Representative McCollum's Crime Subcommittee unanimously, but due to the lateness of the session, the bill failed to move farther in the House and was not included in the final CJS bill. The bill has broad bipartisan support in Congress and the strong support of law enforcement. As I just mentioned, FBI Director Freeh has testified that the bill makes a ``very effective change'' to the law and the National Association of Attorneys General sent a letter supporting S. 474 to all Senators. Further, the President of NAAG, Wisconsin Attorney General Jim Doyle, wrote a letter expressing his support of the bill: ``Internet gambling poses a major challenge for state and local law enforcement officials. I strongly support Senator Kyl's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Prohibiting this form of unregulated gambling will protect consumers from fraud and preserve state policies on gambling that have been established by our citizens and our legislators.'' Florida Attorney General Bob Butterworth also wrote a letter stressing the support of the states for this bill: ``The adoption of a resolution on this issue by NAAG represents overwhelming support from the states for a bill which, in essence, increases the federal presence in an area of primary state concern. However, it is clear that the federal government has an important role in this issue which crosses state as well as international boundaries.'' In the 105th Congress, S. 474 was strongly supported by professional and amateur sports. The National Football League, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Major League Soccer, and Major League Baseball sent a joint letter of support to all Senators. I would like to read a passage from this letter: Despite exiting federal and state laws prohibiting gambling on professional and college sports, sports gambling over the Internet has become a serious--and growing--national problem. Many Internet gambling operations originate from offshore locations outside the U.S. The number of offshore Internet gambling websites has grown from two in 1996 to over 70 today. It is estimated that Inernet sites will book over $600 million in sports bets in 1998, up from $60 million just two years ago. These websites not only permit offshore gambling operations to solicit and take bets from the United States in defiance of federal and state law but also enable gamblers and would-be gamblers in the U.S. to place illegal sports wagers over the Internet from the privacy of their own home or office. The letter concludes: ``We strongly urge you to vote in favor of S. 474 when it is considered on the Senate floor.'' On behalf of the NCAA, Bill Saum testified in February before the National Gambling Impact Study Commission on the dangers of Internet gambling: Internet gambling provides college students with the opportunity to place wagers on professional and college sporting events from the privacy of his or her campus residence. Internet gambling offers the student virtual anonymity. With nothing more than a credit card, the possibility exists for any student-athlete to place a wager via the Intenet and then attempt to influence the outcome of the contest while participating on the court or the playing field. There is no question the advent of Internet sports gambling poses a direct threat to all sports organizations that, first and foremost, must ensure the integrity of each contest played. Today, in the Judiciary Subcommittee on Technology, I chaired a hearing on Internet gambling. The testimony in today's hearing confirmed that Internet gambling is addictive, accessible to minors, subject to fraud and other criminal use, and evasive of state gambling laws. State Attorneys General from Wisconsin and Ohio asked for federal legislation to address the mushrooming problem of online gambling, and representatives of the National Football League and the National Collegiate Athletic Association expressed their concerns over the effect of Internet gambling on athletes, fans, and the integrity of sporting contests. Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Bryan for his hard work on this bill. His support and assistance have been invaluable. I would also like to extend a special thanks to the NFL, NCAA, and the National Association of Attorneys General. The Internet offers fantastic opportunities. Unfortunately, some would exploit those opportunities to commit crimes and take advantage of others. Indeed, as Professor Kindt stated on ``Nightline,'' ``Once you go to Internet gambling, you've maximized the speed you've maximized the acceptability and the accessibility. It's going to be in- your-face gambling, which is going to have severe detrimental effects to society. . . . it's the crack cocaine of creating new pathological gamblers.'' Internet gambling is a serious problem. Society has always prohibited most forms of gambling because it can have a devastating effect on people and families, and it often leads to crime and other corruption. The Internet Gambling Prohibition Act will curb the spread of online gambling.