AND THERE IS MUCH MORE RISK IN THIS INTERNET GAMBLING ACTIVITY
           THAN IN ANY OF THE OTHER KINDS OF LEGALIZED GAMING THAT IS
           AUTHORIZEED IN OUR COUNTRY TODAY. I WON'T GO INTO ALL THE
           DETAILS ABOUT BANKRUPTCIES AND SUICIDES AND THAT KIND OF OF
           THING EXCEPT TO CITE A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE THAT OUGHT TO
           CAUSE US PAUSE. WE KNOW THAT ABOUT 5% OF THE PEOPLE WHO GAMBLE
           WILL BECOME ADDICTED. IT IS AN ADDICTION. AND OF THOSE, ABOUT

           80% WILL CONTEMPLATE SUICIDE. AND ABOUT 17% OF THOSE WILL
           COMMIT SUICIDE. BANKRUPTCIES ARE HUGE AND GROWING. AS A MATTER
           OF FACT, TED KOPPEL NOTED THAT, IN THIS "NIGHTLINE" PROGRAM
           THAT LAST YEAR, 1,33,000 AMERICAN CONSUMERS FILED BY
           BANKRUPTCY, THEREBY ELIMINATED ABOUT $40 BILLION IN DEBT. AND
           HE TALKED ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE OF THAT WHICH IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO
           GAMBLING. HE WENT INTO SOME OF THE STATISTICS ABOUT HOW A LARGE

           PERCENTAGE OF THAT -- IN FACT, SOMETHING LIKE 60% OF PEOPLE
           WILL GET GAMBLING DEBTS THAT THEY CAN'T PAY. IN FACT, UP TO
           90OF PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS COMMIT CRIMES TO PAY OFF THEIR
           WAGERING DEBTS. THAT'S THE TESTIMONY BEFORE OUR COMMITTEE. SO
           SUICIDES, BANKRUPTCIES, CRIMES COMMITTED TO PAY OFF DEBTS AND
           THE EFFECTIVE COURSE ON THE -- AND THE EFFECT, OF COURSE, ON
           THE FAMILIES. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH OUR BILL?
           BECAUSE THIS IS THE KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT, BY DEFINITION, IS
           NOT REGULATED AND IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO ADDICTION BECAUSE THERE IS
           NO THERE, THERE'S NO INHIBITION IN YOUR OWN HOME. YOU JUST LOG

           ON AND YOU GO TO IT. AND, OF COURSE, THESE VIRTUAL IS A SEEN
           OHS ARE REALLY GOOD-LOOKING THINGS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEM --
           VIRTUAL CASINOS ARE REALLY GOOD-LOOKING THINGS WHEN YOU LOOK AT
           THEM ON THE SCREEN. AND YOU CAN PULL THEM UP TONIGHT, AS A
           MATTER OF FACT. SO WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS FOCUS IN THE JUDICIARY
           COMMITTEE ON THIS SPECIFIC KIND OF ACTIVITY AS, A, NEEDING TO
           BE UPDATED BECAUSE WIRE MAY NO LONGER BE THE METHOD OF
           TRANSMISSION OF DATA; AND, SECONDLY, BECAUSE OF THESE VIRTUAL
           CASINOS OFF-SHORE. NOW, LET ME DESCRIBE A COUPLE OF THE
           PROBLEMSHAT WE'VE DEALT WITH IN THE LEGISLATION. ONE OF THE

           CONCERNS WAS THAT THE SERVICE PROVIDERS WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY
           IN STOPPING THE ACTIVITY. AND, REMEMBER, WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE
           IS TO SAY THAT THIS ACTIVITY IS ILLEGAL, JUST LIKE THE WIRE ACT
           DOES -- I MEAN, THEORETICALLY YOU COULD EVEN PROSECUTE THE
           BETOR, ALTHOUGH THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE AND I DON'T ANTICIPATE
           IT BEING DONE. WHAT WE'RE AFTER HERE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO RUN
           THESE GAMBLING OPERATIONS. NOW, THE U.S. ATTORNEY IN NEW YORK
           HAS INDICTED SOME PEOPLE, SOME OF WHOM WERE IN THE UNITED
           STATES. SO THEY'VE ACTUALLY ACQUIRED PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER
           THESE POEM -- THOSE PEOPLE. THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROSECUTE

           THOSE PEOPLE, FIND THEM AND SEND THEM TO JAIL. BUT FOR THE MOST
           PART, THESE ACTIVITIES ARE GOING TO BE ABROAD BECAUSE THE
           ACTIVITY IS ILLEGAL IN ALL 50 STATES. AND AS A RESULT, YOU'RE
           NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE
           OFFENDER. HOW DO WE, THEREFORE, STOP THE ACTIVITY?
           THAT'S WHERE THE SERVICE PROVIDERS COME IN. AND AFTER, AS I
           SAY, AFINDING OF ILLEGALITY HAS OCCURRED, THEY WILL BE BROUGHT
           IN TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT AND BE ASKED TO PULL THE PLUG ON
           THE SERVICE THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING PROVIDING. OR THROUGH THEM
           IS BEING PROVIDED TO PEOPLE ON THE NET HERE IN THE UNITED
           STATES. AS I SAID, IN THE CASE OF A DIRECT PROVIDER, IT'S A

           LITTLE MORE TECHNICAL THAN THIS, BUT ALMOST AS EASY AS PULLING
           THE PLUG. BECAUSE EACH OF THESE SITES HAS AN IDENTIFIER, AN
           IDENTIFYING NUMBER FOR BILLING PURPOSES. AND, OF COURSE, YOU
           KNOW THAT AND YOU CAN SIMPLY CUT OFF THAT PARTICULAR SERVICE.
           IN OTHER CASES, IT WILL BE MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT. AND SO
           WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TO PROVIDE A COMPLEX SERIES OF PROTECTIONS
           FOR THE INTERNET PROVIDER TO ENSURE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IF THEY
           ARE ASKED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT -- IN THIS LAW ENFORCEMENT
           ACTIVITY, THAT, FIRST OF ALL, THERE WON'T BE ANY INJUNCTION

           ISSUED AGAINST THEM FITS NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE. AND,
           SECONDLY, IF THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE -- IF IT'S THE CASE -- IF
           IT'S NOT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FOR THEM, THEN THE INJUNCTION
           COULD NOT ISSUE. THIS IS A MATTER OF WHATHEY ARE PERMITTED TO
           ARGUE, MR. PRESIDENT. THESE ARE ACTUALLY CONDITIONS FOR THE --
           FOR THE IMPOSITION OF THE INJUNCTION. AND I WANT TO MAKE IT
           PERFECTLY CLEAR TO MY COLLEAGUES HERE. UP UNTIL A FEW DAYS AGO,
           YOU MAY HAVE BEEN CONTACTED BY VARIOUS INTERNET PROVIDERS,
           PEOPLE LIKE AMERICA ON-LINE, FOR EXAMPLE, OR U.S. WEST. AND
           THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, WHO ARE ALL OVER THIS TOWN, MAY HAVE

           TOLD YOU THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN PROBLEMS WITH THIS LANGUAGE.
           BUT THEY ARE AMONG THE ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAS BOUGHT OFF ON THE
           LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE PAINSTAKINGLY NEGOTIATED WITH THEM TO
           ENSURE THAT WHILE THEY ARE HELPING LAW ENFORCEMENT, WE'RE NOT
           IMPOSING AN IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN ON THEM. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO
           HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT TECHNICALLY FEASIBLE AND
           THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO FACE UNREASONABLE COSTS IN
           COMPLYING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. NOW, I KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE
           SAY, WELL, THEY'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY
           TRANSMITTING THIS ILLEGAL INFORMATION. BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, I

           DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO ASK THEM TO MONITOR THIS ACTIVITY OR
           TO STOP IT UNLESS LAW ENFORCEMENT DEEMS IT SUFFICIENTLY SERIOUS
           TO STOP. AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE ONLY PROVIDED FOR THEM TO BE
           INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS IN THAT EVENTUALITY. AND I THINK THAT
           THAT'S VERY, VERY FAIR. A SECOND GROUP THAT WE HAVE HAD
           DISCUSSIONS WITH ARE THE VIRTUAL CASINO NETWORKS AND OPERATORS.
           AND I KNOW THAT SENATOR BRYAN IS GOING TO TALK TO THAT BECAUSE
           THAT'S A PART OF HIS AMENDMENT. AND I MUST SAY THAT I TOTALLY
           SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT OF SENATOR BRYAN TO ADD THE PROTECTIONS

           IN THIS LEGISLATION TO THOSE WHO ARE PROVIDING THESE VIRTUAL
           CASINO -- EXCUSE ME, THE GAMES INVOLVING, FOR EXAMPLE,
           BASEBALL, WHERE YOU GET TOGETHER WITH OTHER PEOPLE AND YOU
           CREATE YOUR OWN BASEBALL TEAM. AND YOU THEN ARE JUDGED BY HOW
           WELL THOSE TEAMS AND PLAYERS DO IN THE FUTURE. SOMETIMES THERE
           ARE PRIZES AWARDED, AND SOMETIMES THERE ARE NOT. BUT IN ANY
           CASE, YOU USUALLY PAY A FEE TO DO THAT. AND IF YOU WIN, YOU CAN

           WIN THE PRIZE. NOW, THE PEOPLE WHO OPERATE THESE KIND OF
           ACTIVITIES ON THE INTERNET HAVE VARIOUSLY CLAIMED THAT IT IS
           NOT GAMBLING OR THAT NO PRIZES ARE AWARDED. AND IF THAT'S THE
           CASE, THEN THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY UNDER THIS LEGISLATION
           BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT TO BE CONSIDERED
           GAMBLING. BUT WE'VE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT IF THEY SIMPLY
           CHARGE AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE RATHER THAN COLLECTING MONEY TO
           ACTUALLY PAY OFF BETS, THEN THEY WOULD ALSO BE EXEMPT UNDER
           HERE. I INDICATED BEFORE THAT WE HAD SOLVED THE PROBLEMS OF THE
           HORSE RACING INDUSTRY. WE ESSENTIALLY SAID WITH RESPECT TO THAT

           INDUSTRY THAT THIS LEGISLATION DOES NOTHING TO TAKE AWAY FROM
           ANY OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT THEY CAN DO TODAY. AND, IN FACT,
           GIVEN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING COMPUTERS IN
           THEIR OPERATION AND ALSO IN THEIR ADVERTISING IN THEUTURE, WE
           MAKE SURE THAT THAT ACTIVITY IS NOT PROHIBITED. SO, AS I SAID,
           THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE LEGISLATION. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR
           TO ANYBODY THAT HAS HEARD FROM ANYBODY WITH RESPECT TO FIRST
           AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT FIRST AMENDMENT IS TOTALLY PROTECTED
           HERE. ALL ADVERTISING IS PERMITTED. ANY KIND OF ADVERTISING OF

           LEGAL ACTIVITY IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL AND WOULD NOT -- I MEAN, IT
           WOULDN'T BE EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL FOR US TO TRY TO PROHIBIT IT.
           WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT. AND THAT LEADS ME, MR. PRESIDENT, TO THE
           LAST POINT, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE TREATMENT OF THE NATIVE
           AMERICANS. NOW, UNDER THE IGRA, THE INDIAN GAMING REGULATORY
           ACT, NATIVE AMERICANS ARE PERMITTED TO ENTER INTO COMPACTS WITH
           STATES TO CONDUCT THE SAME KIND OF GAMBLING OR GAMING THAT IS
           LEGAL IN THOSE STATES. THEY CAN'T DO ANY MORE THAN WHAT'S LEGAL
           IN THOSE STATES BUT THEY CAN COACT TO DO THAT WHICH IS LEGAL.

           AND WE HAVE PROVIDED AN EXPLICIT RECOGNITION OF THE INDIAN
           TRIBES TO CONDUCT THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY ON THEIR RESERVATIONS
           IN THIS LEGISLATION. WE HAVE ALSO MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY CAN
           ENGAGE IN THE KIND OF POOLING ARRANGEMENTS THAT MANY OF THEM
           ENGAGE IN, AND THAT THAT WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. SO EVERYTHING
           THAT IS DONE BY EVERY TRIBE EXCEPT ONE, WHICH MAY BE VIOLATING
           THE LAW TODAY THAT YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT HERE, EVERYTHING
           THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING DONE AND THAT CAN BE DONE LEGALLY IS
           TREATED AS LEGAL IN THIS LEGISLATION AND WOULD BE PERMITTED TO

           CONTINUE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TRIBES WERE ALSO CONCERNED
           ABOUT ENFORCEMENT BY STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL, WE HAVE MADE IT
           CLEAR THAT THE STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL ARE NOT TO ENFORCE THIS
           LAW AGAINST INDIAN TRIBES, THAT THE ONLY TIME A STATE ATTORNEY
           GENERAL CAN BE INVOLVED IS IF THE TRIBE ITSELF COMPACTED FOR
           THAT THAT. SO THE TRIBE WOULD HAVE HAD TO AGREE TO IT IN THE
           FIRST INSTANCE. SO WE HAVE SATISFIED, I THINK, ALL OF THE
           CONCERNS OF THE TRIBES EXCEPT ONE, AND WHAT YOU'LL HEAR, MR.
           PRESIDENT, IS THAT THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING THAT IS
           SO-CALLED LEGAL OR LAWFUL UNDER IGRA. BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, THE

           PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THIS -- THIS LEGISLATION, JUST LIKE THE
           WIRE ACT THAT IS STILL THE LAW TODAY, MAKES IT ILLEGAL TO
           CONDUCT THESE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES. SO SINCE THE WIRE ACT
           EXISTS, A TRIBE COULD NOT CONDUCT THIS ACTIVITY CLAIMING ITO BE
           LEGAL DER IGRA. BECAUSE IGRA SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT IF YOU DON'T
           HAVE A COMPACT AND YOU CAN'T HAVE A COMPACT UNLESS IT'S LEGAL.
           SO BECAUSE THIS LEGISLATION AND BECAUSE THE TELEPHONE AND WIRE
           ACT BOTH MAKE IT ILLEGAL TO CONDUCT THIS KIND OF ACTIVITY, OR
           CONTINUE TO MAKE IT ILLEGAL, THEN, BY DEFINITION, IT WOULD NOT

           BE POSSIBLE FOR A TRIBE TO CONDUCT THIS ACTIVITY. WHAT I'M
           CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT TRYING TO ADD ANY OTHER LANGUAGE THAT
           SUGGESTS THAT, WELL, IF IT'S LAWFUL UNDER IGRA, IT WOULD STILL
           BE OKAY, WOULD VERY MUCH CONFUSE AND COMPLICATE THE ISSUE AND
           RAISE A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT THE BASIC INTENT OF THIS
           LEGISLATION IS. AND AT WORST, MR. PRESIDENT, IT WOULD ACTUALLY
           PERMIT THE NATIVE AMERICANS OR INDIAN TRIBEDS WHO WISH TO DO SO
           TO DO SOMETHING THAT NOBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD BE ABLE
           TO DO, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR EVERY OTHER AMERICAN. WHAT WE

           HAVE DONE IS TO TREAT THE NATIVE AMERICANS FAIRLY, TO TREAT
           THEM LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE -- NO BETTER, NO WORSE. AND IT WOULD
           BE I THINK A GRAVE MISJUSTICE TO EVERYONE ELSE TO ALLOW A
           SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE INDIANS THAT NOBODY ELSE IN THE
           COUNTRY WOULD HAVE. NOW, MR. PRESIDENT, I'LL HAVE SOME MORE TO
           SAY ABOUT A COUPLE OF THE DETAILS OF WHAT WE DO, ESPECIALLY IF
           THERE ARE QUESTIONS, AND ALSO TO FURTHER TALK ABOUT THE KIND OF
           TESTIMONY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN
           SUPPORT OF THIS LEGISLATION. AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, THERE WAS A
           WIDE VARIETY OF TESTIMONY PROVIDED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

           OFFICIALS, PEOPLE FAMILIAR WITH GAMING AND WITH ADDICTION,
           PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTOOD THE INTERNET AND WANTED TO ADVISE US
           ABOUT THAT. AND, FRANKLY, WE JUST HAD A LOT OF GREAT TESTIMONY
           THAT SUPPORTS THIS. I'LL JUST CLOSE WITH THIS ONE COMMENT THAT
           I THINK HELPS TO MAKE THE POINT. I MENTIONED THE ATTORNEY
           GENERAL FROM WISCONSIN. I WAS GOING TO QUOTE THIS BEFORE. JAMES
           DIFFICULT TO. HE'S THE HEAD OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALS
           ASSOCIATION. HE SAID, "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 CAUSES
           STATE AND NATIONAL BORDERS WITH LITTLE OR NO REGULATORY
           CONTROL. FEDERAL AUTHORITIES MUST TAKE THE LEAD IN THIS AREA."
           AND I BEGIN -- OR I CLOSE WHERE I BEGAN. FOR STATE ATTORNEYS
           GENERAL TO URGE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TAKE FEDERAL
           JURISDICTION OVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS -- IS ALMOST
           UNPRECEDENTED. THEY WOULDN'T DO IT IF THEY DIDN'T FEEL THAT THE
           PROBLEM SOCIETALLY JUSTIFIED IT AND FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT
           STANDPOINT THAT IT IS THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE THAT THIS ILLEGAL
           ACTIVITY COULD NOT BE CONTINUED. AND SO AS A RESULT OF THAT,

           WE'VE ADOPTED THIS LEGISLATION OUT OF THE COMMITTEE AND WE'VE
           BROUGHT IT TO THE FLOOR UNDER THIS MECHANISM, BECAUSE, AS I
           SAID, IT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY WE COULD BRING IT TO THE FLOOR.
           AND I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE LEGISLATION AND TO
           SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
           

           MR. REID: MR. PRESIDENT -- MR. BRYAN: MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA.
           

           MR. BRYAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I'D LIKE TO PREFACE MY COMMENTS
           BEFORE GETTING INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE LEGISLATION, OF
           COMMENDING THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM ARIZONA FOR HIS UNTIRING AND
           UNFLAGGING EFFORTS IN TRYING TO PERFECT AN AMENDMENT WHICH I AM
           PLEASED TO COSPONSOR. THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM ARIZONA HAS SPENT
           THE BETTER PART OF THIS PAST YEAR WORKING WITH VARIOUS GROUPS,
           SPECIFICALLY THE STATES ATTORNEYS GENERAL, WHO ARE THE PRIME
           MOVERS IN THIS AMENDMENT. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE AMENDMENT
           WHICH HE HAS OFFERED AND THE UNDERLYING AMENDMENT WHICH I HAVE
           OFFERED AS A SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT ACCOMPLISHES THE PURPOSES

           THAT WE INTEND. THIS AMENDMENT IS SUPPORTED BY A WIDE SPECTRUM
           OF INTEREST. I AM AWARE OF THE FACT THAT WITHIN THIS CHAMBER,
           THERE IS A BROAD DIVERSITY OF PROSPECTIVES AND VIEWPOINTS ON
           GAMING. SOME STATES, SUCH AS MY OWN, HAVE ADOPTED FOR DECADES
           OPEN AND REGULATED CASINO GAMING. OTHER STATES, SUCH AS THE
           STATES OF UTAH AND HAWAII, BY THEIR PUBLIC POLICY
           PRONOUNCEMENTS, THROUGH THEIR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS PERMIT NO
           GAMING AT ALL. BUT I THINK IT'S INDICATIVE OF THE BROAD

           SPECTRUM OF SUPPORT THAT THIS INTERNET GAMING PROHIBITION
           AMENDMENT ENJOYS THAT FROM RALPH REID TO RALPH NADER AND ALL OF
           THE GROUPS THAT MAY REPRESENT THE SPECTRUM IN BETWEEN HAVE
           JOINED WITH SENATOR KYL AND ME IN SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT.
           THE CHRISTIAN COALITION, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS
           GENERAL, FROM PUBLIC CITIZEN TO THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE

           AND OTHER GROUPS AS WELL. NOW, LET ME CITE, IF I MAY, A COUPLE
           OF REASONS FOR THAT. THE NATIONAL GLEEJ AT ATHLETIC
           ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, THE NATIONAL HOCKEY
           LEAGUE, BASEBALL OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL
           BASKETBALL ASSOCIATION, MAJOR LEAGUE SOCCER ARE IN STRONG
           SUPPORT OF THE INTERNET GAMING PROHIBITION AMENDMENT THAT WE
           ARE DEBATING THIS EVENING. AND IN A LETTER RECEIVED BY MY
           OFFICE ON MARCH 25 -- AND I QUOTE -- "WE ARE WRITING TO URGE
           YOU TO SUPPORT THE PASSAGE OF S. 474." THAT IS, IN EFFECT, THE

           AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US -- "THE INTERNET GAMING
           PROHIBITION ACT OF 1998. AS AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL SPORTS
           ORGANIZATIONS, WE BELIEVE THAT S. 474 WOULD STRENGTHEN EXISTING
           ENFORCEMENT TOOLS TO COMBAT A
           
           GROWING NATIONAL PROBLEM: ILLEGAL -- ILLEGAL, MR. PRESIDENT --
           SPORTS GAMBLING CONDUCTED OVER THE INTERNET." I WOULD ASK
           UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE LETTER THAT I HAVE IDENTIFIED BE
           MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. BRYAN: I THANK THE CHAIR. MR. PRESIDENT, AS I INDICATED,
           THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL HAVE BEEN
{END: 1998/07/22 TIME: 20-45 , Wed.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}