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 gaming to our state. But I think two of the most recent studies I've seen say a lot for how we are doing in Nevada. Recently Reno was named by Entrepreneur magazine as the best small city in the country for small business. This seems to run counter to the claims that gaming wipes out all other economic activity. This past summer both Your Money Magazine and The Consumers Digest named Las Vegas as the top retirement spot in the Nation. That certainly doesn't square with the portrayal of cities with legalized gambling as crime ridden. Could it be that the sponsors have chosen to ignore any positive information? Could it be that their commission would suffer from the same point of view? Could it be that this is really just a very expensive method for them to document their case against legalized gambling under the ruse of an unbiased study? I believe it is and believe this committee should put a stop to this effort right here before we waste anymore of our money or time. 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 only need to listen to their speeches and read their letters asking for support of the commission to see this. The convenient excuse for this commission is a supposed lack of information. The lack of information has not prevented them from making some pretty outrageous accusations about the impacts gaming has made. It is hard to square the rhetoric with reality. How can they claim that there is a lack of information on the impact on gaming yet site in the Congressional Record no less than 28 studies and sets of statistics that reinforce their point about gaming being bad. The authors of this bill believe that by spending several million dollars of taxpayers money we will come to some truth about the nature of gambling which will guide the Congress. I don't think so, and at a time when we are looking for ways to cut spending, it would be indefensible to spend tax dollars on this ill-conceived commission. This brings me to my second point of disagreement with Mr. Wolf and Senator Simon. This legislation runs counter to everything we have been doing in this Congress since January. It is government paternalism at its worst. The sponsors of this legislation believe the States do not have the ability to make their own decisions, and that the decisions they have made are foolish. The House just repealed the speed limit and the helmet law. We voted to give welfare, food stamps, and soon Medicaid back to the states, but the authors of this bill think we ought to tell states whether they should have bingo or not. This bill is a throw back to the 1970's attitude of regulating everything that moves. Not only is it taking a paternalistic approach, but it creates a new bureaucracy in the process. The nine commissioners will draw salaries of $115,700 per year and the staff will each be paid up to $108,200 per year. No limit is given on the number of staff or the total budget for salaries, but there is an ominous reference to the issuing of subpoenas, which suggests to me a need for many attorneys. And as this committee knows, attorneys are not cheap. The bill also refers to the use of government personnel from other agencies and of course provides for travel. I guess studies don't come cheap either. 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 decision making 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. Mr. HYDE. Well, I thank the gentlelady. I am somewhat dismayed by the tone of her remarks. She has validated the old axiom that there are no permanent friends, only permanent interests. I would suggest that she stay and listen to the next witness and see if his testimony isn't relevant and instructive. I would like to remind my friend, the gentlelady, that he came to us. We didn't seek him out, and he came to us at great risk to himself and to his life. And I would be accused of covering up and turning away somebody who has been in the gambling business up to his ears for many years and having Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, illegal gambling. Mr. HYDE. Pardon? Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Illegal gambling. Mr. HYDE. Yes, illegal gambling. That is right. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. That is different from legal gambling. Mr. HYDE. Sure, it is different. It goes on. It is different from the bingo game at your church and my church, vastly different, but is it part of the generic problem? I say we have a duty to hear him— to hear him. And it isn't rigged, and I didn't rig it or stack it. I have no disposition to be unfair to anybody. I have no concern other than to get the story out. The man came to us, and he came to us at risk to his life. And, having heard his story, I think it is relevant. You may disagree, but don't attribute malevolent motives to me because I certainly have no interest in Mr. Wolf prevailing or you prevailing. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. I understand that, Mr. Chairman. I just think that when you have illegal gambling making testimony when we are talking a study of legalized gambling is my understanding Mr. HYDE. The question is, is there a connection between legal and illegal gambling? That is the question. If there is, it is relevant; and that is what we expect to hear. Mrs. VUCANOVICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LoBiondo, the gentleman from New Jersey. STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK A. LoBIONDO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY Mr. LOBIONDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to address an important topic today-legalized gaming. In recent weeks, some Members of Congress have spoken out about the morality of gambling. The legislation you have before you today is the product of those Members who oppose legalized gaming and want to impose that opposition on the 48 States that now have some form of legalized gaming. While I respect my colleagues as thoughtful people, I fear that they are motivated by stereotypes and misinformation of the gaming industry. This bill, I believe, is the first attempt to establish a Federal policy commission that would eventually lead to the Federal Government making decisions for individual States. Let's be direct. The sponsors of this bill want to outlaw gaming, and this is their first step. My colleague from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, has continuously singled out Atlantic City with wrong, misleading, or erroneous information to press his personal cause to outlaw legalized gaming; and I and, more importantly, my constituents are offended by this and these tactics. I asked to come before you today in order to tell the other side of the story in the hopes that, regardless of your personal feelings toward gaming, you will recognize that this issue belongs to the individual States and not the Federal Government. I represent a district that includes Atlantic City, NJ. It was the collective decision of the people of the entire State of New Jersey to require a heavily regulated, strictly controlled casino industry to operate in one city of the State in return for making a financial commitment to the people of the entire State. Atlantic City is a perfect example of how a State, with the approval of its citizens, is the best entity to determine what, if any, type of gaming should be permitted and what conditions should be applied to that permission. First, the law approving casinos in Atlantic City was approved by a statewide binding referendum. Second, the law established two State government oversight agencies, the Division of Gaming Enforcement and the Casino Control Commission. Between these two agencies virtually every aspect of casino operations is very closely scrutinized, from background checks of casino employees to the types of games casinos offer. Third, Atlantic City casinos must contribute to the betterment of the entire State. In an age when cities and States provide tax breaks to attract new industries, Atlantic City casinos are not only subject to all State and local taxes but must pay substantial additional taxes and fees. Among other things, an 8-percent tax on revenues dedicated to the casino revenue fund paid $262 million in 1 year alone to an account for low-income senior citizens. This fund pays the bulk of qualified seniors' prescription drugs. And casinos pay additional taxes toward the Casino Reinvestment and Development Fund that pays for economic development projects throughout the State. Finally, New Jersey casinos directly generate 45,000 jobs. In fact, Atlantic City casinos provide roughly one-third of all the jobs in Atlantic County. And when related jobs are taken into account, another 35,000 New Jersey residents owed their employment to the gaming industry. Gaming's opponents will tell you that Atlantic City casinos have increased the crime rate. This is simply untrue. The visitor adjusted crime rate, according to the WEFA group, a private consulting firm in Pennsylvania, are comparable to, and in some cases lower than, cities such as Atlanta, Nashville, and Orlando. I believe that our crime rate nationally is far, far too high, but there is no indication that Atlantic City casinos have contributed to that crime rate. Gaming's opponents will also tell you that Atlantic City casinos have led to the economic decline in other parts of the city. The fact is that Atlantic City's economy was on the decline long before the first casino opened in 1978; and, if anything, Atlantic City casinos have brought about a welcome economic stability and, in fact, a resurgence to that city. The point to all of this is that for Atlantic City and for the State of New Jersey casino gaming was the right answer to some serious |