PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2001
National Collegiate and Amateur Athletic Protection Act of 2001 - Directs the Attorney General to establish a prosecutorial task force on illegal wagering on amateur and collegiate sporting events. Increases penalties for illegal sports gambling.Requires: (1) the Director of the National Institute of Justice to study the extent to which minors participate in illegal sports gambling activities; and (2) the Attorney General to establish a panel to a study illegal college sports gambling.Amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to: (1) require each institution of higher education to designate one or more full-time senior officers of the institution to coordinate the implementation of a comprehensive program to reduce illegal gambling and gambling control disorders by students and employees; (2) condition receipt of financial aid on compliance with this Act; (3) specify that a recipient of athletically related student aid shall cease to be eligible for such aid upon a determination by either the institution of higher education or the applicable amateur sports organization that the recipient has engaged in illegal gambling activity, including sports bribery, in violation of the policies or by-laws of the institution or organization; and (4) require an institution of higher education that provides athletically related student aid to report annually to the Attorney General and the Secretary of Education.Expresses the sense of Congress that illegal sports gambling poses a significant threat to youth.
People & committees
Rep. Gibbons, Jim [R-NV-2] · R–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.641 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.641 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.641 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.641 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.