The gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Ensign.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. ENSIGN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I believe the State of Nevada's experience and record in the gaming industry speaks for itself, so my message today will be very simple and brief. The citizens of my State are proud and appreciative of the contributions that have been made by the casino industry to both the economic and social welfare of our communities. I come from a gaming family myself. Most Nevadans depend upon the gaming industry for their livelihoods, either directly or indirectly. My family is no exception. My dad is the perfect example of one who started out carrying change, making change for slot machines, and worked his way up to become the chairman of a gaming casino. He is like many other Americans who worked long and hard to raise himself up by his own bootstraps.

Contrary to much of the dialog that will undoubtedly take place and already has in these hearings, the Nevada gaming industry works hand in hand with local and State governments or authorities for the benefit of all citizens. The Nevada gaming business is regulated not simply by State government dictating terms under which an industry operates. Instead, there is a true partnership and spirit of cooperation between the industry and government.

Has it succeeded? Well, virtually every gaming jurisdiction in the United States and many abroad have patterned or are attempting to pattern themselves after the State of Nevada. The facts are simple, and the most important fact is that we have achieved our present position by limiting unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. It is a matter-simple matter of States' rights, coupled with responsible cooperation between government and business.

And let me further state that what Mr. Wolf said about the 10th amendment and regulating commerce or article I, section 8, that what we are talking here in the 10th amendment, remember, is we are talking about interstate commerce. The powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are reserved for the States and/ or the people.

There is nowhere in the Constitution that gives the right to the Federal Government to regulate gaming. It is a States' rights issue, clear and simple. Nevada gaming industry provides 43 percent of $1.2 billion annually going into the State's general fund. About $215 million of that from gaming revenue is dedicated to the State's university system. Some $396 million goes to kindergarten through grade 12 educational programs. Another $316 million is devoted to State-sponsored human service programs.

Nevada isn't the only State that has turned its gaming proceeds into success for the overall community. In Missouri, taxes paid by the six boats produce $56 million for State universities and $98 million to elementary and secondary schools.

There are many other statistics that time does not allow. The point is the casino industry can operate successfully and responsibly without another costly, time-consuming and politically expedient array of studies.

Let's consider one final misperception. Nevada is not riddled with crime. In fact, so-called organized crime in the gaming industry is virtually nonexistent. FBI and other local, State, and Federal statistics bear this out around the Nation.

In a statement from Ron Asher, director of the Division of Enforcement for the State of Nevada, Mr. Asher said within the licensed gaming industry there is no significant impact on organized crime. I doubt that the people of your communities would voluntarily come to a dangerous or undesirable environment.

The most important ingredient in the success of any business or industry is that they maintain integrity with their customers. The gaming industry in Nevada and elsewhere, in cooperation with State and local governments, has succeeded in maintaining integrity within the industry. No Federal study can safeguard against that. It simply isn't necessary. Responsible State authorities can and will continue to do a great job without the need of Federal involvement.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Ensign.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ensign follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. ENSIGN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, I believe the state of Nevada's experience and record in the gaming industry speaks for itself so my message today will be very simple and brief. The citizens of my state are proud and appreciative of the contributions that have been made by the casino industry to both the economic and social welfare of our communities.

I come from a gaming family myself. Most Nevadans depend upon the gaming industry for their livelihoods either directly or indirectly. My family is no exception. My dad is the perfect example of one who started as a change maker, and worked his way up to a CEO in the gaming casino. He is like many other Americans who worked long, and hard, and picked himself up by his own bootstraps.

Contrary to much of the dialog that will undoubtedly take place in these hearings, the Nevada gaming industry works hand-in-hand with local state authorities for the benefit of all citizens. The Nevada gaming business is regulated not simply by a state government dictating terms under which an industry operates. Instead, there is a true partnership and spirit of cooperation between industry and government. Has it succeeded? Well, virtually every gaming jurisdiction in the United Statesand many abroad- have patterned or are attempting to emulate the Nevada system. The facts are simple. And the most important fact is that we have achieved our present position by limiting unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation. It's a simple matter of states rights coupled with responsible cooperation between government and business. Allow me to share with you just a few results.

The Nevada gaming industry provides 43 percent of the $1.2 billion annually going into the state's general fund.

About $215 million from gaming revenue is dedicated to the state's university sys

tem.

Some $396 million goes to Kindergarten through Grade 12 education programs. And another $316 million is devoted to state-sponsored human services programs. Nevada isn't the only state that has turned its gaming proceeds into success for the over all community. In Missouri, taxes paid by the six boats produces $56 million for state universities and $98 million to elementary and secondary schools. There are many other statistics that time does not allow. But the point is, the casino industry can operate successfully and responsibly without another costly, time consuming, and politically expedient array of studies.

Let's consider one final misperception. Nevada is not riddled with crime. In fact so-called organized crime in the gaming industry is virtually non-existent. FBI and other local, state or federal statistics bear this out around the nation. In a statement from Ron Asher, Director of the Division of Enforcement for the state of Nevada, Mr. Asher said, "Within the licensed gaming industry, there is no significant int of organized crime".

I doubt that the people from your communities would voluntarily come to a dangerous or undesirable environment. The most important ingredient in the success of any business or industry is that they maintain integrity with their customers. The gaming industry in Nevada and elsewhere have done that and have succeeded. No federal study can safeguard against that. It simply isn't necessary. Responsible state authorities can, will, and are doing just that.

Thank you. I'd now be happy to entertain your questions.

Mr. HYDE. The gentlelady from Reno and elsewhere, Barbara Vucanovich.

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

You know, I was under the impression that I was invited by the chairman to testify in opposition to H.R. 497, and I now see that isn't the case. I am very disappointed at how this hearing has been engineered. Rigged might be a more accurate term. This hearing has grown from a minor hearing of questionable need into a media circus of even less value to the legislative process.

This committee was allegedly to look into the need for a study of the national impact of legalized gambling. We now have a threering circus with the main attraction being a mob bookmaker whose only insight into this issue is that legal gambling represents unfair competition to illegal gambling. I know you are the one who is supposed to be asking the questions, Mr. Chairman, but, tell me, what does this have to do with legalized gambling and what does this have to do with an unbiased study of the impact of legalized gambling?

The most disappointing thing to me is not just the fact that we were denied all information about who would be appearing today but, after being asked to testify, we were informed through a report in the New York Times that we would be a sideshow to Mr. Jahoda.

I have to tell you, frankly, this is an embarrassment for the Members of Congress who have chosen to come here today to speak against the bill, to be portrayed as defending the likes of Mr. Jahoda and his associates. I can't help but feel the committee is questioning my morals and my ethics by conducting the hearing in this manner. And I do apologize for any disrespect to the chairman or this committee, but I must say I feel you owe me and my constituents an explanation and an apology.

I would like to point out up front my two primary objections to this bill and say they are only two of many reasons I believe it is a bad idea. The first reason, is that this bill is a waste of taxpayers' money; and the second is that this bill repudiates the efforts being made by this Congress to remove the Federal Government from those areas where the local and State governments should have authority.

I find myself in the peculiar position of opposing a study which purports to be nothing but a harmless look at the gaming industry's national impact. Who, you ask, could be against a study? After all, that is the allure of this proposal. It is so harmless. It is only a study.

The authors of this legislation go to great lengths to point out they want only to have a study to provide States with a muchneeded, unbiased source of information before the voters or the legislature make the decision to legalize some form of gambling. What strikes me as odd, however, is the inflammatory statements which accompany this plea for an unbiased review.

In letters sent by the sponsors of this bill, there is no end of negative statistics and reports that are brought out as reasons to have a study. I wonder why the States who have legalized gambling are not referring to these same reports.

I also wonder why the proponents of this study mention none of the benefits that communities have enjoyed as a result of legalized gambling. Never once have they mentioned the fact that Nevada has operated a prosperous and nearly scandal-free gaming industry for well over 50 years.

I could go on for some time about the benefits of legalized gambling to our States. Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, the real agenda of this effort is a complete Federal prohibition of gambling.

No amount of study is going to change minds on the propriety of gambling. Mr. Wolf opposes gambling and will continue to oppose gambling regardless of the findings of this Commission. The proponents of this study are not looking for facts, they are looking for vindication. You need only to listen to their speeches and read their letters asking for the support of the Commission to see this. The convenient excuse for this Commission is the supposed lack of information. The lack of information has not prevented them from making some pretty outrageous accusations about the impact gaming has made.

Quickly, this brings me to my second point of disagreement with Mr. Wolf. This legislation runs counter to everything we have been doing in Congress since January. It is Government paternalism at its worst. The sponsors of this legislation believe the States don't have the ability to make their own decisions and that the decisions they have made are foolish.

Forgive me if I sound a bit cynical, but it is very hard for me to take seriously a proposal so poorly thought out and so inconsistent with the goals of this Congress. When we have been told by our constituents to cut Government waste, reduce spending, and return decisionmaking to the local level, this bill makes absolutely no sense. Let's save the taxpayers a lot of money and grief and put a stake in the heart of this Commission before it haunts us for years to come.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Vucanovich follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA F. VUCANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify today in opposition to H.R. 497, the "National Gambling Impact and Policy Commission Act."

I would like to point out up front my two primary objections to this bill and say that they are only two of many reasons I believe this is a bad idea. The first reason is that this bill is a waste of taxpayers money, and the second is that this bill repudiates the efforts being made by this Congress to remove the Federal Government from those areas where the local and state governments should have authority.

I come before you today not only as a colleague but as a witness with real life knowledge of the gaming industry and its impact on local communities. I've lived and worked in a community with legalized gambling for 47 years and now have the honor of representing this same community here in Congress.

I find myself in the peculiar position of opposing a study which purports to be nothing but a harmless look at the gaming industry's national impact. Who, you ask, could be against a study? After all that's the allure of this proposal, it's so harmless. It's only a study.

According to the bill this study is to find out what impact legal gaming has on the economy, crime, addictive gambling, prisons, law enforcement, indian gaming and whatever else the commission decides it might want to study. Interestingly the bill does not call for any investigation into illegal gambling, apparently the authors don't consider it nearly as serious

a problem.

The authors of this legislation go to great lengths to point out how they only want to have a study to provide states with a much needed "unbiased source" of information before the voters or the legislature make the decision to legalize some form of gambling. What strikes me as odd, however, is the inflammatory statements which accompany this plea for an unbiased review. In letters sent by the sponsors of this bill there is no end of negative statistics and reports that are brought out as reasons to have a study. I wonder why the