{
  "id": "RL30954",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL30954",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 100384,
      "date": "2002-07-31",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:06:32.252941",
      "title": "Sports Gambling in School: A Legal Analysis of Proposals to Strengthen Federal Prohibitions",
      "summary": "Several proposals have been introduced in the 107th Congress to combat incidents of youthful\ngambling on sporting events.  S. 718  (McCain et al.) and  H.R. 1110 \n(Graham et al.) seek to accomplish this by implementing a National Gambling Impact Study\nCommission recommendation that gambling on college and high school sporting events be\ncompletely banned.\n  Existing Federal law outlaws gambling on all professional and amateur sporting events, but\nexempts sports gambling in those states where it had been legalized prior to the federal prohibition. \n S. 718  and  H.R. 1110  effectively repeal the exemption with respect to\namateur sports gambling. Nevada is now the only state where such gambling is lawful.\n  In addition to implementing the Commission's recommendation, proponents claim the bills\nprotect the integrity of amateur sports and help reduce gambling among the young, particularly on\ncollege campuses. Critics contend that it will needlessly impose an economic hardship on the State\nof Nevada and is incompatible with the principles of federalism.\n  \n   S. 338  (Ensign et al.)/  H.R. 641  (Gibbons et al)) takes a different tack. \n It seeks to reduce illegal sports gambling among the young through a series of research,\nprosecutorial and administrative initiatives to eliminate gambling on college campuses and reduce\nillegal sports gambling. It creates a sports gambling task force, increases the maximum federal\ncriminal penalties for sports gambling, calls for studies on sports gambling by juveniles and\nenforcement of existing gambling laws, and urges educational and governmental entities to develop\nand execute youth gambling education and prevention programs.\n  The principal criticism of this Ensign/Gibbons proposal to date is that while its components\nmight constitute a welcome supplement it is no substitute for the McCain-Graham proposal.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL30954",
          "sha1": "f95df9138b49f273e1415247f313ed63a268c296",
          "filename": "files/20020731_RL30954_f95df9138b49f273e1415247f313ed63a268c296.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20020731_RL30954_f95df9138b49f273e1415247f313ed63a268c296.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}