SO IT IS A GROWING NATIONAL CONCERN. AND THE REASON I COMMEND
           THIS LEGISLATION SO STRONGLY TO MY COLLEAGUES IS BECAUSE IT IS
           IN FACT BIPARTISAN, BECAUSE IT DOES ENJOY THE SUPPORT OF GUN
           CONTROL ADVOCATES AND ANTIGUN CONTROL DEFENDERS. AND WHAT THIS
           DOES IS, AS MY COLLEAGUE DESCRIBED, IS SIMPLY PUT IN PLACE A
           NEW SAFETY NET SO THAT IF A WUNG PERSON DOES BRING A GUN TO
           SCHOOL, THAT THEY WILL BE DETAINED NOT TO BE JUST RELEASED TO

           THEIR PARENTS' CUSTODY BUT ACTUALLY TO UNDERGO AN EVALUATION IN
           TERMS OF THEIR PSYCHOLOGICAL HEALTH AND THEIR SAFETY TO THE
           COMMUNITY AT LARGE. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THIS HAS TO OCCUR,
           BUT IT HAS TO OCCUR BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, NO OTHER
           COMMUNITIES SHOULD SUFFER THIS CONSEQUENCE AGAIN. AND, SO, I
           COMMEND MY COLLEAGUE FOR HIS LEADERSHIP. I ALSO WANT TO THANK
           SENATOR HATCH, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, AND

           SENATOR SESSIONS FOR THEIR INPUT ON THIS BILL THAT WAS
           CONSIDERABLE. WE WORKED IT OUT WITH THEM. AND I THINK WE HAVE
           IN THE END AN AMENDMENT THAT DOESN'T FIX THE SITUATION ENTIRELY
           BUT GOES A LONG WAYS TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING THAT VERY THING. SO,
           I THANK ALL MY COLLEAGUES FOR INDULGING US WITH THIS, ASK FOR

           THEIR SUPPORT. MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
           

           MR. GREGG: I'D ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THIS AMENDMENT BE
           AGREED TO.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED, THE AMENDMENT IS PASSED.
           

           MR. GREGG: I ASK FOR RECONSIDERATION.
           

           MR. HOLLINGS: I MOVE TO TABLE.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE MOTION TO TABLE
           IS AGREED TO.
           

           MR. GREGG: MR. PRESIDENT, WE'RE NOW IN ORDER TO GO TO SENATOR

           KYL. MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
           

           MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT I'D LIKE TO
           SEND TO THE DESK AND ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA, MR. KYL, FOR HIMSELF AND
           MR. BRYAN PROPOSES AN AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3266. AT THE
           APPROPRIATE PLACE INSERT THE FOLLOWING.
           

           MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
           AMENDMENT BE CONSIDERED AS READ.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. A SENATOR: MR.
           PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
           

           MR. BRYAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I SEND AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESK AND
           ASK FOR ITS IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA, MR. BRYAN, PROPOSES AN
           AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3267. TO AMENDMENT 3266. ON PAGE 3, STRIKE
           LINES 9-12 AND INNER SERT THE FOLLOWING.
           

           MR. BRYAN: MR. PRESIDENT, IDES ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT
           FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE AMENDMENT BE DISPENSED WITH.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION. THE SENATOR FROM
           ARIZONA.
           

           MR. KYL: MR. PRESIDENT, LET ME BRIEFLY DESCRIBE WHAT THIS
           AMENDMENT DOES AND INDICATE THE DEGREE OF SUPPORT THAT EXISTS
           FOR IT. BEFORE I DO THAT, LET ME SAY THAT THIS AMENDMENT PASSED
           OUT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH, I THINK, ONE DISSENTSING
           VOTE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. IT HAD BEEN OUR INTENTION TO BRING THE
           AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOR AS A SEPARATE, FREE-STANDING BILL. BUT
           BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT FLOOR TIME AVAILABLE TO DO THAT, WE HAVE
           HAD TO RESORT TO THE AMENDMENT PROCESS UNDER THIS BILL. AND, I
           REGRET THAT WE HAVE TO DO THAT BUT THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT WE
           WOULD GET THIS IMPORTANT PIECE OF LEGISLATION BEFORE THE FULL

           SENATE. FRANKLY, MR. PRESIDENT, IT'S BEEN GOOD BECAUSE DURING
           THE INTERIM WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH PARTIES WHO HAD
           CONCERNS ABOUT THE BILL. AND, I THINK FOR MOST PART WE HAVE
           WORKED THOSE CONCERNS OUT. I KNOW THAT THERE IS ONE MATTER
           REMAINING THAT WILL BE DEALT WITH LATER. EXCEPT FOR THAT, I
           THINK WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO IMPROVE ON THE BILL EVEN SINCE THE
           TIME THAT IT PASSED OUT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE. AS A RESULT
           OF THAT, I'D LIKE TO REPORT TO YOU, MR. PRESIDENT AND MY
           COLLEAGUES, SOME OF THE GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT SUPPORT
           THIS LEGISLATION, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE BREADTH OF

           SUPPORT THAT WE HAVE. IT CAME UP BECAUSE OF THE ATTORNEYS
           GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, ALL 50 OF THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL
           FROM OUR STATES, APPROVED THIS AND SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. IN
           FACT, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT ASKED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TO
           MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEGISLATION. SENATOR JIM DOYLE, DEMOCRAT
           ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM WISCONSIN, TESTIFIED TWO TIMES BEFORE OUR
           COMMITTEE STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION. ONE OF THE
           THINGS HE SAID, MR. PRESIDENT, WAS -- AND I'LL QUOTE IT -- HE
           SAID -- WELL, I'LL FIND THE QUOTE IN A MOMENT. IN EFFECT, WHAT
           HE SAID WAS ORNARILY AORNEYS GENERAL DON'T COME TO THE FEDERAL

           GOVERNMENT AND ASK FOR STATUTES TO BE FEDERALIZED. THEY LIKE
           THEIR OWN JURISDICTION. BUT IN THIS CASE, THEY HAD TO COME
           BEFORE THE CONGRESS BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEYS GENERAL
           SIMPLY CANNOT ENFORCE THEIR OWN STATE PROHIBITIONS. WHY IS THAT SO?
           BECAUSE, MR. PRESIDENT, IF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, FOR
           EXAMPLE, HAS MADE A PUBLIC DETERMINATION AS IT HAS DONE THAT
           THIS KIND OF GAMBLING IS ILLEGAL AND OUGHT TO BE ILLEGAL AND A
           STATE NEIGHBORING, LET'S SAY NORTH CAROLINA, SHOULD ALLOW

           PEOPLE TO BROADCAST TO SOUTH CAROLINA THESE VIRTUAL CASINO
           GAMES THAT PEOPLE CAN NOW FIND ON THE INTERNET. OR LET'S SAY
           THAT THAT COMES EVEN FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY, WHICH IS WHERE
           THESE ACTUALLY EMANATE FROM FROM THE MOST PART. THEN THE PEOPLE
           OF SOUTH CAROLINA CANNOT BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THEIR POLICY
           IS THAT THEIR PEOPLE NOT BE SUBJECTED TO THIS KIND OF GAMBLING.
           THAT'S WHY ALL 50 STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL GOT TOGETHER, CAME TO
           US AND SAID WOULD YOU PLEASE HELP US SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. WE
           HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A FEDERAL LAW THAT'S ENFORCEABLE
           THROUGH THE FEDERAL COURTS AS WELL AS THE STATE COURTS TO

           PROHIBIT THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY. AND THAT WAS WHY WE INTRODUCED
           THE LEGISLATION AND MOVED FORWARD WITH IT. BUT WHAT WE SOON
           FOUND, MR. PRESIDENT, WAS THAT THE SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION
           WAS MUCH BROADER THAN THAT. YOU MIGHT SPEFIKT R EXPECT LOUIS
           FREEH, DIRECTOR OF THE F.B.I., EXPRESSED STRONG SUPPORT FOR IT.
           WE HAVE HAD SUPPORT COMING FROM AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
           ORGANIZATIONS, AND UNDER UNDERSTAND WHY. BECAUSE THE INTEGRITY
           OF SPORTS FENDS UPON PEOPLE KNOWING THAT THE OUTCOME OF ANY

           SPORTING EVENT IS NOT DETERMINED BY SOMEONE GAMING THE SYSTEM.
           UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE SEEN THESE KINDS OF STORIES ABOUT POINT
           SHAVING AND THE LIKE, WHERE -- I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. IN MY
           OWN STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHERE A STUDENT GOT DEEPLY INTO DEBT.
           HE PLAYED BASKETBALL AND ENDED UP PLEADING GUILTY TO SHAVING
           POINTS AND TRYING TO THROW GAMES IN ORDER TO PAY UP HIS
           GAMBLING DEBT. NEITHER THE BASKETBALL NOR THE GAMBLING

           ASSOCIATION CAN WITHSTAND THAT INTEGRITY. THEY CAME TO US. WE
           HAVE STRONG SUPPORT FROM THE ATHLETIC AMATEUR ASSOCIATION, THE
           NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, THE NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE, THE
           NATIONAL BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, MAJOR LEAGUE BAUSHALF; A LOT
           OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS WHO UNDERSTAND HOW PROIF I HAD YUS
           GAMBLING CAN BE WHEN CONDUCTED IN A MEDIUM SUCH AS THE
           INTERNET. WE'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY UNTIL HE MOVED ON THAT THIS
           LEGISLATION IS SUPPORTED ALL THE WAY FROM RALPH REID TO RALPH

           NADER. RALPH READ HAS MOVED ON BUT THE CHRISTIAN COALITION
           STILL SUPPORTS THIS LEGISLATION. THE NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST
           GAMBLING EXPANSION, THE NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST LEGALIZED
           GAMBLING, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL, AND
           MANY OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, MR. PRESIDENT. THE REASON I WANTED TO
           MENTION THIS AT THE VERY OUTSET IS SIMPLY TO ILLUSTRATE THE
           FACT THAT THIS LEGISLATION HAS BROAD, WIDEPRED SUPPORT FROM A
           VARIETY OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INTERESTS AROUND THE COUNTRY. AND
           IN THE MEANTIME, FROM THE TIME THAT IT PASSED OUT OF THE
           JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH THE

           SO-CALLED HORSE INDUSTRY AND THE PARAMUTUAL BETTING TO ASSUAGE
           CONCERNS THEY HAD ORIGINALLY ADDRESSED. WE ALSO WORKED WITH THE
           INTERNET PROVIDERS WHO WILL BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE
           ENFORCEMENT OF THIS LEGISLATION. AND WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE
           MAIN INTERNET PROIRGS INDICATING THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO
           THIS -- INTERNET PROVIDERS INDICATING THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION TO
           THIS LEGISLATION PASSING IN THE FORM THAT IT HAS PASSED. MR.
           PRESIDENT, I'VE KIND OF GIVEN YOU AN IDEA OF THE KIND OF
           SUPPORT WE HAVE FOR IT. IT'S OPPOSED BY TWO GROUPS. ONE YOU'LL
           HEAR FROM -- AT LEAST ONE INDIAN TRIBE AND PERHAPS SOME OTHER

           INDIANS WOULD LIKE TO BE EXCEPTED FROM THIS. SECONDLY,
           NATURALLY, THE GAMBLING INTERESTS OFFSHORE WHO STAND TO MAKE
           BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THIS ILLEGAL ACTIVITY NATURALLY DON'T
           LIKE IT. THAT'S WHO'S AGAINST IT. MR. PRESIDENT, I SAID THIS
           ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, AND I DID THAT WITH A REASON. THE ACTIVITY
           THAT WE ARE LARGELY PROHIBITING TONIGHT IS ALREY ILLEGAL. THE
           WIRE ACT, THE SO-CALLED TELEPHONE AND WIRE AFFECT OF 19 1961
           MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO CONDUCTS SPORTS GAMBLING OVER THE TELEPHONE

           OR WIRE. MUCH OF WHAT IS BEING PROHIBITED IN THIS LEGISLATION
           IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO SAY WE'D LIKE TO BE
           ABLE TO CONDUCT THIS ACTIVITY. THEIR BILL IS NOT -- THEIR BEEF
           IS NOT WITH OUR BILL. THEIR BEEF IS WITH EXISTING LAW. ONE OF
           THESE DAYS WIRES ARE NOT GOING TO BE THE MEANS OF ELECTRONIC
           TRANSITIONING. IT'S GOING TO BE FIBER OPTIC CABLE. AND WE'RE
           NOT AT ALL SURE THAT WHEN THAT HAPPENS THAT THE TELEPHONE AND
           WIRE ACT WILL BE ABLE TO BE USED BY PROSECUTORS IN THEIR

           PROSECUTIONS. JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO THE SCRTICTL ATTORNEY
           FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW YORK INDICTED 14 PEOPLE FOR CONDUCTING
           THIS KIND OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY UNDER THE TELEPHONE AND WIRE ACT.
           BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT MIGHT NOT BE POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE.
           AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO UPDATE THE TELEPHONE AND WIRE ACT. IN
           ADDITION TO THAT, THE SECOND THING THAT THIS BILL DOES IS TO
           ENSURE THAT WHETHER IT'S SPORTS BETTING OR NOT, THE ACTIVITY IS
           ILLEGAL ON THE INTERNET BECAUSE WHAT'S CROPPED UP IN RECENT

           MONTHS IS SOMETHING CALLED THE VIRTUAL CASINO. AND IT LOOKS A
           LOT LIKE A COULD SEE KNOW THAT YOU WOULD GO TO THAT'S PERFECTLY
           LEGITIMATE IF YOU GO TO IT IN NEVADA OR ATLANTIC CITY, LET'S
           SAY. BUT IT'S ON THE INTERNET AND IT COMES FROM OUTSIDE THE
           COUNTRY BECAUSE, OF COURSE, IT'S NOT ILLEGAL OUTSIDE THE UNITED
           STATES. AT LEAST IN SOME COUNTRIES. THAT'S BEING SENT TO
           AMERICAN CITIZENS IN OUR COUNTRY. AND THE ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF
           FLORIDA, SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE OTHER STATES HAVE NO WAY TO
           STOP IT UNDER EXISTING LAW. SO WHAT OUR BILL DOES CENSURE THAT

           THAT KIND OF VIRTUAL CASINO OVER THE INTERNET IS ILLEGAL AND
           THAT IT IS ENFORCED THROUGH NOT ONLY THE USUAL MEANS OF
           ENFORCEMENT BUT ALSO WITH THE ABILITY OF THE PROSECUTORS TO GO
           TO THE COURT AND AFTER A FINDING THAT THIS ACTIVITY SK
           CONDUCTED OVER THE INTERNET, TO ENJOIN ITS FURTHER CONDUCT BY
           BRINGING IN THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER IN MOST CASES AND
           ASKING THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER TO CUT OFF THE SERVICE, TO
           PULL THE PLUG ON THE SERVICE FROM THAT PARTICULAR WEB SITE. IN
           SOME CASES IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO DO. IN OTHER CASES IT'S MORE
           COMPLICATED. WE'VE PROVIDED FOR THAT IN THE LEGISLATION. AS I

           SAID, THE INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS, AT LEAST SOME OF THE
           LARGEST GROUPS -- AND I CAN PROVIDE THE NAMES IF ANYONE IS
           INTERESTED HERE -- ARE SATISFIED THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE
           WORKED OUT IN THIS BILL FOR THIS PURPOSE IS AT LEAST NOT
           OBJECTIONABLE TO THEM. NOW, LET ME INDICATE THAT THIS IS A
           RELATIVELY NEW PHENOMENON, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE NEED
           TO STOP IT NOW BECAUSE IT IS QUICKLY BECOMING -- OR WILL BECOME
           A MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR ACTIVITY. A RECENT "NIGHTLINE" PIECE

           REPORTED THERE ARE NOW ESTIMATED 140 GAMBLING SITES ON LINE.
           TWO YEARS AGO INTERNET GAMBLING WAS A $60 MILLION BUSINESS.
           LAST YEAR IT GREW TO $700 MILLION. SOME BELIEVE BY THE YEAR
           2000, THE FIGURE WILL BE $108 BILLION. MR. PRESIDENT, IF WE
           DON'T STOP THIS ACTIVITY NOW, THE MONEY THAT'S GENERATED BY
           THIS KIND OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY IS GOING TO, I'M AFRAID, BECOME
           SO INFLUENTIAL IN OUR POLITICAL PROCESS THAT WE'LL NEVER GET IT
           STOPPED. THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT TO ACT THIS YEAR. AND I MIGHT

           ADD, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I AM SO DELIGHTED TO HAVE THE EXPERTISE
           AND THE SUPPORT OF THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA, SENATOR BRYAN, THIS
           IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE LEGITIMATE GAMING ORGANIZATIONS
           AND ACTIVITIES IN OUR COUNTRY ARE ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS
           LEGISLATION. BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND -- THEY DON'T WANT
           GAMBLING TO GET A BAD NAME. A LOT OF MONEY IS MADE AND A LOT OF
           PEOPLE ARE EMPLOYED IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY IN THESE STATES.
           THEY ARE HIGHLY REGULATED. SO WHEN YOU GO TO A GAMING ACTIVITY
           IN LAS VEGAS, YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE SGG TO BE TREATED FAIRLY.

           IF YOU WIN, ULE GET THE MONEY. YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE ODDS
           ARE. THERE'S A REGULATORY COMMISSION THAT ENSURES THAT THE
           RULES ARE ABIDED BY. BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE ON THE INTERNET.
           HERE'S THE PROBLEM. A YOUNG CHILD -- AND KIDS ARE GETTING
           REALLY GOOD AT LOGGING ON THE INTERNET -- CAN LOG ON IN THE
           MORNING. YOU HAVE TO PUT DOWN A DEPOSIT OF $100 OR $500,
           WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE. DO YOU THAT WITH A CREDIT CARD
           FREQUENTLY. AND THIS CHILD IN THE PRIFE IS IS I OF THE HOME,

           WITHOUT ANY SUPERVISION, CAN SIMPLY GAMBLE AWAY WHATEVER
           FORTUNE THE FAMILY HAD TIED UP IN THAT PARTICULAR CREDIT CARD,
           WITH NO SUPERVISION. THE KINDS OF GAMING THAT WE HAVE LEGALIZED
           IN THIS COUNTRY IS THE KIND OF THING WHERE YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO
           THAT SITE, YOU'VE GOT TO ENGAGE IN THE ACTIVITY THERE AND IT'S
           HIGHLY REGULATED. ONE OF THE REASONS THIS ACTIVITY IS SO
           DANGEROUS IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOBODY TO CHECK THE ACTIVITY. IT
           OCCURS UNTIL THE PRIVACY OF YOUR OWN HOME WITH NOBODY THERE TO
           SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, HAVEN'T YOU DONE THIS LONG ENOUGH?
           HAVEN'T YOU LOST ENOUGH MONEY?

           DR. HOWARD SCHAFFER OF THE HARVARD CENTER FOR ADDICTIVE STUDIES
           PREDICTS THAT WITHIN TEN YEARS YOUTH GAMBLING WILL BE MORE OF A
           PROBLEM TO SOCIETY THAN DRUG USE. AND THE YOUTH OF OUR SOCIETY
           ARE THE MOST AT RISK FOR CONDUCTING INTERNET GAMBLING. FIRST OF
           ALL, THEY ARE THE MOST ADEPT AT USING THE INTERNET. SECONDLY,
           THEY ARE IN COLLEGE AND SCHOOL, AND THIS IS WHERE A LOT OF THE
           COMPUTERS ARE THAT OUR KIDS START ON TODAY. AND ON EVERY MAJOR
           CAMPUS TODAY THERE IS ORGANIZED GAMBLING ACTIVITY, KORGTS LAW
           ENFORCEMENTS OFFICIALS. SPORTS IS THE PREFERRED SUBJECT OF THE

           GAMBLING. SO IT DOESN'T TAKE ANY IMAGINATION TO APPRECIATE THAT
           OUR NATION'S CHILDREN ARE AT
{END: 1998/07/22 TIME: 20-30 , Wed.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}