Source: Department of Planning and Development, South Jersey Transportation Authority. February, 1995. *The Total includes visitors traveling by Air and Rail in addition to Automobile and Charter Bus.

BRIEF RESUME of the AUTHOR

THOMAS PHILIP HAMER, Ph.D.

EDUCATION

Doctor of Philosophy in Economics, Claremont Graduate School,
Claremont, California, February, 1975.

Master of Business Economics, Claremont Graduate School,
February, 1969.

Bachelor of Arts, University of Arizona, Tucson, June, 1966.
Major in Economics.

EMPLOYMENT

Professor of Economics, Rowan College of New Jersey. Employed with the College since 1974.

Director, Center for Economic Data Analysis, Rowan College of New Jersey, since April 1984.

Economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia under the Externship Program of Rowan College, January-May 1988.

PUBLICATIONS

Economic Data for Southern New Jersey, published by the Management Institute at Rowan College of New Jersey, 1st edition in December 1983 through the 31st edition in September 1995.

"A New Regional Economic Indicator: The Mid-Atlantic Manufacturing Index." Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, January-February 1989.

"The Casino Industry in Atlantic City: What Has It Done For The Local Economy?" Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Business Review, January-February 1982.

"Regional Economic Impact of the Atlantic City Casino Industry," published in The Gambling Studies: Proceedings of the Sixth National Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, Vol. 2, Bureau of Business & Economic Research, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, 1985.

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

President, ECONOMISTS OF NEW JERSEY, April 1989 to April 1992 and member of the Executive Committee since 1985.

Member of the American Economic Association, the Eastern Economic Association, and the National Association of Business Economists including its Philadelphia Chapter.

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Reid.

TESTIMONY OF HON. HARRY REID, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

NEVADA

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, I do not know if you are aware, but we are going to have one of those in Las Vegas. We are having one of those poles in the ice this winter and will see how that works. [Laughter.]

Chairman STEVENS. We will send you a few blocks of ice and see how fast they melt, Harry. [Laughter.]

Senator REID. Mr. Chairman, Senator Glenn, other Members of the Committee, as we examine the need for still another Federal study-and I underline Federal study-I am reminded of the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who once said, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.”

Mr. Chairman, I am not referring to the sponsor of this legislation, for whom I have the greatest respect. I believe, as Senator Brown, that the three men that just appeared here are men of great integrity and I have great respect for each of them. Of course, I have worked very closely with the distinguished Senator from Illinois on a number of issues, and, of course, we all know him to be a man of integrity.

But there are those who are supporting this legislation that, though they may be well meaning, clearly lack an understanding of the larger ramifications and efforts. We have heard a great deal in this Congress about returning power to the States, and yet here we are, poised to remove from the States a matter of jurisdiction that has been theirs for decade after decade after decade.

And, Mr. Chairman, frankly, that is one reason there has been the proliferation of gaming, is that these are areas where the States have felt secure in the Federal Government leaving them alone, that they can make their own decisions regarding gaming within their own borders.

The supporters of this legislation ask a very appealing question. How can anyone oppose a simple study? We in Nevada can answer that very simply. We have nothing to fear from an objective examination of the gaming industry and its economic and social contributions. Nevada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the country. This economic engine is powered by the tourism and gaming industry. Our State's regulation of gaming is a model not just for the country but for the world.

So, as I said, we do not fear an objective, and I stress objective, analysis. The problem is that Federal studies more often than not are simply foils to justify Federal incursion. The conclusions of such studies are predetermined.

Mr. Chairman, you hit the nail on the head. How could you have a study for $250,000 that is going to last for 18 months? You cannot do it. It is foolish to even think about it.

The unsurprising findings clearly always call for greater Federal involvement to solve a concocted problem, or worse, more taxation. The study as outlined here simply would be somebody they hire for $75,000 going through the testimony that has already been of

fered, studies that have already been generated, and coming up with preconceived solutions and findings.

Purely and simply, that is Nevada's concern about this undertaking. The proponents of this legislation say they simply want to provide the States with information to make informed decisions about gaming, and yet we already have more than 200 studies conducted in the last few years on the effects of gaming that are easily accessible to this Congress, anyone that wants them. In fact, many of these studies were conducted by or on behalf of State and local gov

ernments.

With that said, I would urge this Committee to, at the least, be cognizant of what it is doing. If the Committee is intent on injecting the Federal Government into State matters, this State matter particularly, gaming, then at least there must be an effort to show that the intent is pure and objective.

I would hope that the Committee would thoroughly weigh the makeup of such a study commission. Will it be composed of representatives whose agenda is to make conclusions based on their own sense of morality, or will it be to include experts who have a knowledge of gaming and its impact on communities? I would hope that law enforcement agents, attorneys general, and regulators with proven experience be at the top list of potential candidates for this commission.

In the final analysis, however, I believe in the direction the States themselves have chosen to take. They know what is best for their people and the Federal Government should not preempt their decision making.

Mr. Chairman, I have served with you now for a decade. You get right to the heart of the issue. That is one thing I have found about you. We never have to guess where you stand on an issue. I would say that you hit the nail on the head earlier today. Why do we need a study? All a study is going to do is refer things back to this Congress, this House and this Senate. The Judiciary Committees are going to have to act on whatever the recommendations are.

If there is a problem with habitual gaming, let the Judiciary Committee take a look at it. They have the power to do that right now. If there is some problem with corruption in gaming, let the Judiciary Committee hold hearings on corruption in gaming, and on and on with the list of subjects that this study will come up with.

Why do we need the study? We have had over 200 of them. If there is work to be done, and I would be the last to say there should not be some work done on it, why do we not have the Judiciary Committee, the Committee that is going to have ultimate jurisdiction anyway, do it? I have far more confidence in the Judiciary Committee led by Senator Hatch, who comes from a State where they do not allow gaming, the State of Utah. But I would far rather have him conduct hearings on any aspect of gaming than to have this free-wheeling commission that is only going to spend taxpayers' money unnecessarily and come up with findings that are preconceived.

I respectfully submit to this Committee that if there is work to be done, and I repeat, there is work certainly that should be reviewed, let the Congress, the Committees of jurisdiction, do it and

not have this study, which I would have no confidence in, go forward.

[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR HARRY REID

Chairman Stevens, Senator Glenn, Members of the Committee, as we examine the need for still another Federal study, I am reminded of the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis who once said that, "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding.” I am not referring to the sponsors of this legislation for whom I have great respect. I have worked closely with the distinguished senator from Illinois on a number of issues and I know him to be a man of integrity. But there are those who are supporting this legislation that-though they may be well-meaning-clearly lack an understanding of the larger ramifications of their efforts.

We have heard a great deal in this Congress about returning power to the States. And yet here we are, poised to remove from the States a matter of jurisdiction that has been theirs for decades-that of making their own decisions regarding gaming within their own borders.

The supporters of this legislation ask a very appealing question: "How can anyone oppose a simple study?” We in Nevada can answer that simply. We have nothing to fear from an objective examination of the gaming industry and its economic and social contributions. Nevada's economy is one of the fastest growing in the country. This economic engine is powered by the tourism and gaming industry. Our State's regulation of gaming is a model not just for the country, but for the world. And so, as I said, we do not fear an objective—and I stress objective-analysis.

The problem is that Federal studies more often than not are simply foils to justify Federal incursion. The conclusions of such studies are pre-determined. The unsurprising findings nearly always call for greater Federal involvement to solve a concocted problem, or worse, more taxation.

Purely and simply, that is Nevada's concern about this undertaking. The proponents of this legislation say they simply want to provide the States with information to make informed decisions about gaming. And yet, we already have more than 200 studies conducted in the past several years on the effects of gaming that are easily accessible to the States. In fact, many of these studies were conducted by or in behalf of State and local governments.

With that said, I would urge this committee to, at the least, be cognizant of what it is doing. If the Committee is intent on injecting the Federal Government into a State matter, then at the least, there must be an effort to show that the intent is a pure and objective effort. I would hope that the Committee would thoroughly weigh the make-up of such a study commission. Will it be composed of representatives whose agenda is to make conclusions based on their own sense of morality, or will it include experts who have a knowledge of gaming and its impact on communities? I would hope that law enforcement agents, attorneys general and regulators with proven experience be at the top of the list of potential candidates.

In the final analysis, however, I believe in the direction the States themselves have chosen to take. They know what is best for their people, and the Federal Government should not pre-empt their decision making.

I thank the Chair.

Chairman STEVENS. Senator Bryan.

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD H. BRYAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

Senator BRYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me preface my comments by complimenting you personally and the Members of the Committee for providing an objective forum for the discussion of this issue. As you may know, our experience before the House Judiciary Committee was quite a different experience. While I realize the Committee is obligated to hear from those who have different views from myself and others, I do not think that it benefits either the Committee or the legislative process to turn a hearing into a media side show, as happened in the