THE CHAIR HAS SERVED AS AN ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM HIS STATE AND
           HAS HEADED THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL. AS
           THE DISTINGUISHED OCCUPANT OF THE CHAIR AND OTHERS KNOW, STATES
           ATTORNEYS GENERAL DO NOT FREQUENTLY COME TO THE CONGRESS OF THE
           UNITED STATES AND ASK FOR LEGISLATION UNLESS THEY ARE OF THE
           OPINION THAT STATE ACTION IS INSUFFICIENT AND INCAPABLE OF
           ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM. THAT IS THE VIEW OF THE NATIONAL

           ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL IN URGING SENATOR KYL AND ME
           AND OTHERS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEGISLATION THAT BEARS THE
           S. 474 DESIGNATION AND WHICH, IN ESSENCE, IS THE AMENDMENT THAT
           WE ARE DEBATING ON THE FLOOR THIS EVENING. THE ATTORNEYS
           GENERAL MAKE A VERY IMPORTANT POINT. THEY SAY, IN PART, IN A
           LETTER WHICH WAS SENT TO ME ON MARCH 20 OF THIS YEAR AND SIGNED
           BY A NUMBER OF STATES ATTORNEYS GENERAL THAT THE POTENTIAL
           PROBLEMS CAUSED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF GAMES WORLDWIDE THROUGH

           THE INTERNET ARE EXACERBATED BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT INABILITY
           OF INTERNET TECHNOLOGY TO ADDRESS MANY OF THE POLICY
           CONSIDERATIONS THAT HAVE CAUSED STATES TO CREATE SUCH WIDELY
           DISPARATE LEGAL AND REGULATORY SCHEMES. AND THEN THEY GO ON TO
           SAY IN
           
           THIS LETTER: "ADDITIONLY, THERE IS CURRENTLY NO EFFECTIVE
           EFFECTIVE" -- I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT -- "NO EFFECTIVE
           TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS TO VERIFY THE PHYSICAL LOCATION OF PLAYERS
           AND PROPRIETORS IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT PARTICIPANTS AND

           BUSINESSES ARE OPERATING UNDER THE LAWS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
           JURISDICTIONS WHERE THEY ARE PHYSICALLY LOCATED." THAT IS THE
           VIEW OF THE NATION'S ATTORNEYS GENERAL AS THEY HAVE COME TO THE
           CONGRESS AND ASKED US TO SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. MR.
           PRESIDENT, AGAIN, I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE LETTER
           SENT TO ME DATED MARCH 20, 1998, FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
           OF ATTORNEYS GENERAL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
           

           MR. BRYAN: MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK MY COLLEAGUE HAS DONE AN
           EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD JOB AND A VERY CLEAR EXPLANATION IN TERMS
           OF WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO ACCOMPLISH IN THIS AMENDMENT. THIS
           SIMPLY REPRESENTS AN UP UPDATE TO REFLECT THE CHANGE OF
           TECHNOLOGY. UNDER CURRENT LAW IT IS ILLEGAL TO WAGER OVER MAIL
           AND TELEPHONE COMMUNICATIONS, AND WE SIMPLY INTEND BY THIS
           AMENDMENT TO BRING CURRENT TECHNOLOGY SPEW COMPLIANCE -- INTO

           COMPLIANCE WITH THE TECHNOLOGY THAT WAS COVERED PREVIOUSLY BY
           THIS PROHIBITION. INTERNET GAMBLING IS SPREADING EXPONENTIALLY.
           IT APPROACHES NEARLY $1 BILLION IN ANNUAL REVENUE, $ $140 --
           140 WEB SITES CURRENTLY OPERATE ON THE INTERNET. AND IT WILL
           BE, AS MY COLLEAGUE FROM ARIZONA INDICATED IN HIS COMMENTS, A
           MULTIBILLION-DOLLAR INDUSTRY BY THE TURN OF THE CENTURY. NOW,

           WHY HAVE THE STATES ATTORNEYS GENERAL APPROACHED US AND ASKED
           US TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION?
           WHAT VICE EXISTS WITH RESPECT TO INTERNET GAMBLING THAT DOES
           NOT EXIST ARE IT -- WITH RESPECT TO REGULATED GAMING IN THE
           VARIOUS FORMS THAT THE STATES HAVE CHOSEN TO ADOPT IT?
           FIRST OF ALL IS ACCESS. WHETHER ONE FAVORS GAMING OR ONE HAS A
           STRONG RELIGIOUS OR MORAL VIEW OPPOSED TO GAMING, I BELIEVE
           THAT ALL WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT GAMING OUGHT TO BE AN ADULT

           RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY. UNDERSCORING THE WORD "ADULT." WHEN ONE
           ACCESSES THE INTERNET AND THE VARIOUS WEB SITES THAT ARE
           CURRENTLY ON THE INTERNET, THERE IS NO MEANS -- NO MEANS -- TO
           ENFORCE THE AGE OF THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ACCESSING THE
           INTERNET. WE ALL KNOW FROM OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN THAT
           TODAY'S YOUNGSTERS ENJOY A PROFICIENT SAY, A SOPHISTICATION, IF
           YOU WILL -- A PROFICIENCY, A SOPHISTICATION, IF YOU WILL, IN
           TERMS OF THEIR ABILITY TO SURF THE NET, TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLD

           OF COMPUTERS. IT IS VERY EASY -- VERY EASY -- FOR VERY YOUNG
           CHILDREN TO GAIN ACCESS ON THE INTERNET AND THEREBY TO
           PARTICIPATE IN INTERNET GAMBLING. I REPEAT, WHETHER ONE
           SUPPORTS THE OPEN CASINO-STYLE OF GAMING THAT NEVADA HAS
           LEGALIZED FOR MORE THAN SIX DECADES, OR TAKES THE MORE
           RESTRICTIVE VIEW THAT THE POLICY-MAKERS IN THE STATES OF HAWAII
           AND UTAH HAVE ADOPTED -- AND THAT IS TO PERMIT NONE -- NO ONE

           CAN JUSTIFY ACCESS TO A GAMING EXPERIENCE TO YOUNG CHILDREN WHO
           MAY BE 12, 13 OR 14 YEARS OF AGE. AND THERE IS NO WAY, MR.
           PRESIDENT, TO ENFORCE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET AND TO LIMIT IT TO
           ONLY THOSE WHO ARE ADULT. SECONDLY, LET ME MAKE THE POINT THAT
           IN THOSE STATES THAT HAVE CHOSEN TO ADOPT AND THOSE TRIBES THAT
           HAVE ADOPTED FORMS OF GAMING PURSUANT TO THE INDIAN GAMING
           REGULATORY ACT, THERE IS OR OUGHT TO BE MECHANISMS IN PLACE

           THAT MAKE SURE THAT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE LICENSED TO OPERATE
           THOSE GAMES HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY SCREENED IN TERMS OF BACKGROUND
           FOR BOTH INTEGRITY IN TERMS OF THEIR RECORDS AND SUITABILITY SO
           THAT NOBODY IS PERMITTED IN THE STATE OF NEVADA, FOR EXAMPLE,
           TO OPERATE A GAMING ACTIVITY UNLESS HE OR SHE OR ITS CORPORATE
           OFFICERS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY SCREENED BY THE STATE GAMING

           CONTROL BOARD AND ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE STATE GAMING
           COMMISSION. SO WHEN YOU PARTICIPATE IN A GAMING EXPERIENCE IN
           STATES THAT PERMIT SOME FORM OF GAMING GAMING, IT IS REGULATED.
           YOU KNOW THE INDIVIDUAL OPERATORS OF THE GAME. IN THE WORLD OF
           CYBERSPACE, YOU KNOW NOT WITH WHOM YOU ARE COMMUNICATING.
           NOBODY, MR. PRESIDENT -- AND I REPEAT, NOBODY -- HAS SCREENED
           THOSE INDIVIDUALS IN ITEMS OF BACKGROUND, WHO THEY ARE, IN

           TERMS OF THEIR TRACK RECO, THEIR INTEGRITY OR THEIR
           SUITABILITY. SO YOU ARE, IN EFFECT, PARTICIPATING IN A GAMING
           EXPERIENCE IN WHICH YOU DO NOT KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE THAT ARE
           RUNNING THAT PARTICULAR WEB SITE. NUMBER THREE, THE ACTUAL
           VIRTUAL GAMING EXPERIENCE ITSELF. EVERY GAMING DEVICE THAT IS
           MADE AVAILABLE IN MY OWN STATE FOR CUSTOMERS TO PARTICIPATE IN

           HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE NEVADA GAMING CONTROL BOARD AND THE
           GAMING COMMISSION. TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVICE PROVIDED A
           REASONABLE AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PLAYER TO WIN. SO THAT
           THE GAME IS NOT RIGGED RIGGED, SO THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES
           COULD THE PLAYER WIN. NOW, NONE OF US, MR. PRESIDENT, ARE NAIVE
           ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE ODDS CLEARLY FAVOR THE HOUSE. THAT
           IS NOT MY POINT. BUT THE GAME OF CHANCE IS AN HONEST ONE.

           PARTICIPANTS, PLAYERS, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO WIN. AND, INDEED,
           MANY OF THEM DO. IN THE WORLD OF CYBERSPACE, NO ONE, BUT NO
           ONE, HAS REGULATED THAT PARTICULAR DEVICE THAT IS BEING
           OFFERED. SO THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE PLAYER TO KNOW WHETHER THAT
           VIRTUAL GAME IS RIDDING IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE --
           IS RIGGED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM OR HER TO
           WIN UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. AND, FINALLY, ASSUMING FOR THE

           SAKE OF ARGUMENT THAT ONE DOES PARTICIPATE AND DOES WIN, HOW DO
           YOU KNOW WHETHER ANYBODY IS GOING TO BE AROUND WHEN YOU COME TO COLLECT THE MONEY?
           MR. PRESIDENT, THE INTERNET AND THE E-MAIL SYSTEM IS FILLED
           WITH DOZENS AND DOZENS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD EXPERIENCES THAT
           HIGHLIGHT THE POINT THAT I AM SEEKING TO MAKE THIS EVENING. I
           WILL NOT IMPOSE UPON THE PATIENCE OF THIS CHAMBER TO CITE ALL

           OF THEM BUT A COUPLE OF THEM I THINK ARE ILLUSTRATIVE AND MAKE
           THE POINT. THIS IS IN A COMMUNICATION DATED APRIL 1 OF THIS
           YEAR BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD PARTICIPATED IN INTERNET
           GAMBLING. AND I QUOTE FROM HIS LETTER -- "I'VE TRIED BOTH OF
           THE ABOVE ON-LINE CASINOS, AND I'M BEGINNING TO NOTICE A
           STRANGE TREND. WHEN I PLAYED THE GAMES OFF-LINE -- JUST FOR

           PRACTICE -- THE ODDS SEEMED TO CONFORM. BUT WHEN I PLAYED
           ON-LINE FOR REAL MONEY, THE WIN-LOSS RATIO SEEMED VERY
           DISPROPORTIONATE COMPARED TO WHAT THEY WERE WHEN I WAS PLAYING
           OFF-LINE. OF COURSE, I MAY HAVE BEEN JUST VERY UNLUCKY PLAYING
           ON-LINE, BUT I'M STRONGLY SUSPICIOUS. I SUSPECT THAT THE ODDS
           FOR REAL PLAY AND THE PRACTICE ARE QUITE DIFFERENT. I THINK
           THESE GUYS CHEAT SOMEHOW, AND I'VE GIVEN UP ON THEM AND ON-LINE

           GAMBLING ALTOGETHER. OF COURSE, I CAN'T PROVE THAT THEY CHEAT.
           WHO CAN?" MR. PRESIDENT, THE POINT BEING THERE IS NO REGULATOR
           WHO, FIRST OF ALL, MAKES A DETERMINATION AS TO WHO OUGHT TO
           HAVE A WEB SITE FOR GAMING ACTIVITY, NO WEB SITE -- OR NO
           REGULATOR TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE GAME OF CHANCE ITSELF
           IS A FAIR AND HONEST ONE ONE, AND NO REGULATOR TO MAKE SURE
           THAT, INDEED, IF THE PLAYER PREVAILS, THAT HE OR SHE IS ABLE TO
           COLLECT. LET ME JUST CITE ONE OTHER WHICH I THINK IS

           ILLUSTRATIVE, AND THIS IS A LETTER DATED APRIL 30 OF THIS YEAR.
           AND THE WRITER GOES ON TO OBSERVE, "THIS IS WHAT YOU FIND AT
           THE BOTTOM OF 9 BARREL BARREL" -- REFERRING TO THE INDIVIDUAL
           LETTER WRITER'S EXPERIENCE ON THE INTERNET WITH HIS OR HER
           GAMBLING EXPERIENCE. "PRESUMABLY FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE HAMPSHIRE,
           THESE GUYS SET I WANT AN ON-LINE BINGO SITE THAT WENT BELLY UP
           IN A HURRY. THE MOST POPULAR THEORY IS THAT THEY HAD FEWER
           PLAYERS THAN ANTICIPATED AND COULDN'T AFFORD TO PAY OFF THE

           WINNERS. SO THEY PULLED OFF A DISAPPEARING ACT THAT WOULD TURN
           DAVID COPPERFIELD GREEN WITH ENVY." THAT'S THE POINT THAT I'M
           SEEKING TO MAKE. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I THINK THE POINT NEEDS TO
           BE MADE THAT INTERNET GAMBLING IS A BAD BET BET. IT IS AN
           UNREGULATED ACTIVITY IN WHICH CHILDREN HAVE ACCESS TO THE
           GAMING EXPERIENCE, AND IT IS NOT AN ENTERPRISE THAT IS SUBJECT
           TO REGULATION. AND THAT IS WHY THE STATES ATTORNEYS GENERAL

           HAVE ASKED US TO IMPOSE THIS. NOW, LET ME SIMPLY SAY THAT I
           BELIEVE THAT THE PROHIBITION NEEDS TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD. MY
           AMENDMENT MAKES ONE EXCEPTION AND THAT IS FOR THOSE -- AND
           PERHAPS SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE PARTICIPATED -- AND THAT IS
           IN THE SO-CALLED FANTASY SPORTS LEAGUES OR EDUCATIONAL GAMES
           THAT OPERATE OVER THE INTERNET. SOME HAVE ESTIMATED THAT NEARLY
           ONE MILLION AMERICANS PARTICIPATE IN FANTASY OR ROTISSERIE

           SPORTS TEAMS ON THE INTERNET RANGING FROM BASEBALL TO GOLF TO
           AUTO RACING. THE SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT WHICH I HAVE OFFERED
           TO THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA'S FIRST-DEGREE AMENDMENT WOULD
           SIMPLY INDICATE THAT THAT KIND OF ACTIVITY WHICH EXISTS WOULD
           NOT BE PROHIBITED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LEGISLATION.
           AND, FINALLY, LET ME JUST SAY THAT INTERNET GATT BLING
           CURRENTLY IS IN -- GAMBLING CURRENTLY IS IN VIOLATION OF THE
           LAW. THE STATES' ATTORNEYS GENERAL AND U.S. ATTORNEYS ARE

           TRYING TO COMBAT IT. BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, THEY NEED OUR HELP.
           AND THE ENFORCEMENT TOOL OR MECHANISM THAT THEY NEED IS IN THE
           LEGISLATION OFFERED BY THE JUNIOR SENATOR FROM ARIZONA AND THE
           SENATOR FROM NEVADA. AND I HOPE THAT ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES WILL
           SUPPORT THIS IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL VIEWS TOWARDS
           GAMING ITSELF. I THANK THE CHAIR AND YIELD THE FLOOR.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE.
           

           MR. GREGG: I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE SECOND-DEGREE
           AMENDMENT OFFERED BY THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA BE ACCEPTED.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: IS THERE OBJECTION?
           WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED. THE SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT IS

           ACCEPTED. MR. CRAIG: MR. PRESIDENT?
           MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
           

           MR. CRAIG: I SEND A SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT TO THE DESK.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE CLERK WILL REPORT.
           

           MR. CRAIG: I ASK FOR ITS CONSIDERATION.
           

           THE CLERK: THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO, MR. CRAIG, PROPOSES AN
           AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3268 TO AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3266. ON PAGE 3
           OF THE AMENDMENT, STRIKE --
           

           MR. CRAIG: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT THAT THE
           AMENDMENT BE READ.
           

           MR. FORD: RESERVING THE RIGHT TO OBJECT. I WANT TO SEE WHAT'S
           IN THIS AMENDMENT. DO YOU MIND?
           
           

           MR. CRAIG: NOT AT ALL.
           

           MR. CRAIG: I'M ABOUT READY TO EXPLAIN IT. BUT YOU CAN HAVE IT
           READ IF YOU WISH.
           

           MR. FORD: NO, I WON'T OBJECT BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE.
           

           MR. CRAIG: SURE.
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE READING IS
           DISPENSED WITH. THE SENATOR FROM IDAHO.
           

           MR. CRAIG: MR. PRESIDENT, I STAND ON THE FLOOR THIS EVENING IN
           SUPPORT OF THE CONCEPT OF THE KYL BILL AND I SUPPORT THE
           SECOND-DEGREE AMENDMENT THAT THE SENATOR FROM NEVADA HAS JUST
           SUCCESSFULLY PLACED ON IT. I BELIEVE THAT UNREGULATED INTERNET
           GAMING IS AND CAN BE DANGEROUS. IT MUST BE MONITORED CLOSELY
           AND RESTRICTED TO ADULTS. TO DATE, THE ONLY FORM OF GAMING
           REGULATED AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL IS INDIAN GAMING GAMING. I'M NOT

           A BIG FAN OF MOST INDIAN GAMING. WE HAVE STRUGGLED WITH IT IN
           MY STATE FOR SOME TIME. HOWEVER, THROUGH THE INDIAN GAMING
           REGULATORY ACT KNOWN AS
{END: 1998/07/22 TIME: 21-00 , Wed.  105TH SENATE, SECOND SESSION}