[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 136 (Thursday, October 26, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H11230-H11241]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4942,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 653 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 653
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider the conference report to accompany the
bill (H.R. 4942) making appropriations for the government of
the District of Columbia and other activities chargeable in
whole or in part against the revenues of said District for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, and for other
purposes. All points of order against the conference report
and against its consideration are waived. The conference
report shall be considered as read.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I might consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 653 is a typical rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 4942, the conference report for the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. The rule waives all
points of order against the conference report and its consideration,
and provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
The House rules provide 1 hour of general debate, divided equally
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, and one motion to recommit, with or without
instructions, as is the right of the minority members of the House.
I want to briefly discuss the conference report that this rule makes
in order. The conference report appropriates $445 million for the
District of Columbia, and it appropriates $37.5 billion for the
Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, the Federal Judiciary, and
18 related agencies.
{time} 1315
For the District of Columbia, the bill provides $17 million for the
college assistance, $5 million to help move children from foster care
to adoptive families, $1 million for pediatric health clinics, and
provides for the largest ever drug testing and treatment program. These
appropriations go directly to improving the lives of the District's
residents.
The bill provides a $384 million increase for the DEA, the FBI, and
the U.S. Attorneys to ensure that our Federal law enforcers have the
tools that they need in the 21st century. The bill provides an
additional $548 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service
to ensure the safety of our borders and the efficiency of our
immigration process.
For local and State law enforcement, the bill appropriates $4.7
billion, a total that includes dollars for law enforcement block grants
and funding for Violence Against Women Act programs.
Equally important for the safety of our people, the bill provides the
State Department with $6.9 billion. This total, more than the President
requested, will ensure worldwide security improvements at our embassies
to ensure the safety of U.S. personnel. The bill also provides full
funding for our current year United Nations assessments.
I might add, it is the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), chairman
for the subcommittee, whose own interest in worldwide safety of our
embassies has held sway in all of these debates and provided the
funding for these embassies.
Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that I have heard that the President
intends to veto this bill, he intends to stop this money for local law
enforcement, money for Federal law enforcement, money for the residents
of the District of Columbia, money for the safety of our embassies, and
money for the United Nations.
Mr. Speaker, do my colleagues know why he has threatened to veto this
bill? Because it does not contain language to provide mass amnesty for
those who have flouted U.S. law and come to this country illegally.
Such language was not included in the House-passed bill. Such language
was not included in any Senate version. Yet, the President today seems
to be insisting that it is his way or the highway.
He seems to be saying today that he wants to provide amnesty to law
breakers rather than provide funding to law enforcers. Rather than
provide the funding to those who protect our borders, he wants to
provide amnesty
[[Page H11231]]
to those who have illegally crossed them.
See, Mr. Speaker, the President is insisting on a rider on the
appropriations bill, precisely the same kind of legislative rider that
caused him to veto, 5 years ago, a continuing resolution and shut the
government down. But if it is his rider, it is a good rider. If it is
our rider, it is a bad rider.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that I have misunderstood the President's
intentions. For all we have heard from the White House about finishing
appropriations bills in a timely fashion, I simply cannot believe that
he would delay funding increases for the District of Columbia, the
Justice Department, the State Department, the Commerce Department and
more.
I oppose the amnesty that the President seeks. But even if I
supported it, I would know that it does not now nor has it ever
belonged in an appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, this rule was favorably reported by the Committee on
Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the
rule so that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration
of this important conference report.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that this resolution is being considered this
morning, or this afternoon now, is proof positive the Republican
majority has no plans to adjourn the 106th Congress any time this week,
this weekend, or perhaps even next week.
This rule provides for the consideration of an appropriations
conference report which has little chance of being signed by the
President of the United States and, if vetoed, most likely will not be
able to muster the votes to override that veto.
Mr. Speaker, it is a mystery to me why my Republican colleagues
persist in prolonging this session of Congress, but prolonging it they
are, and quite unnecessarily.
Mr. Speaker, the Commerce, Justice, State conference language has
been attached to the conference language on the District of Columbia.
It is bad enough the D.C. appropriations bill has been saddled with the
Commerce, Justice, State appropriations, but what is in the Commerce,
Justice, State conference language is especially egregious.
Mr. Speaker, the Republican majority had an opportunity to bring
fairness to immigrant families and individuals who have made the United
States their home but who have been living here in legal limbo for many
years. Earlier this morning, my Republican colleagues on the Committee
on Rules said this language makes significant progress in reforming
immigration law inequities; but, frankly Mr. Speaker, it is not fair,
and it does not go far enough.
Democrats in the House and the Senate, as well as the President,
handed our Republican counterparts a golden opportunity to fix a
problem affecting thousands of Latino families, but the Republicans
have fumbled the ball.
Mr. Speaker, the immigration language in this bill is a pieced
together proposal which sounds good, but will do little to help
families. It perpetuates the current patchwork of contradictory and
discriminatory immigration policies enacted by the Republican Congress
and leaves countless immigrants in legal limbo.
This conference report does nothing to resolve injustices that affect
the vast majority of Latino immigrants now in this country. Mr.
Speaker, this conference report ignores the need to stabilize the
immigrant status of people who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in
the United States for years. This proposal is inadequate and unjust and
needs to be sent back to conference rather than to the White House.
Mr. Speaker, the President has called for these injustices to be
rectified and Democrats in the House and the Senate have joined
together in support of the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act which
would truly help to reunite immigrants who are already guaranteed
permanent residency status with their families.
Democrats want to correct the inequity and legislation passed in 1997
which helped some Central American war refugees while excluding others
and which specifically excluded immigrants from Haiti. The Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act corrects a mean-spirited law passed by the
Republican Congress which vacated Federal lawsuits on behalf of those
immigrants who were wrongfully denied legalization in the 1980s.
Mr. Speaker, the Republicans had a chance to fix these injustices by
including the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act in the Commerce,
Justice, State appropriations bill, but they took a pass. The
Republican leadership has chosen to include an immigration proposal in
this conference report which, again, picks winners and losers among
immigrants.
I am particularly concerned that the so-called Hatch proposal does
not fix a specific problem in the 1996 immigration bill which has
affected a number of legal permanent residents who find themselves
subject to deportation because they pled guilty to offenses which are
not deportable offenses prior to the 1996 law.
Yet, in spite of the fact that they have paid their debt for these
infractions, they have become subject to deportation. The House passed
legislation correcting this problem by voice vote, yet this sensible
and significant reform of the 1996 law, which would keep many families
together, has not been included in this Republican bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a question of fairness and justice for Latino
and other immigrant families around the country. The Republican
majority has passed up an easy chance to right a wrong. The President
will be exactly right to veto this conference agreement. I can only
hope whenever we see the next version of this conference report, the
Republican majority will include the language of the Latino and
Immigrant Fairness Act which will keep families together and bring
about real reform of the misguided legislation passed by earlier
Republican Congresses.
Mr. Speaker, there are a number of other problems with this
conference, and I will not take a lot of time to go into them. But
there is another particularly troubling provision in the conference
agreement which relates to the expansion of cable and satellite
television service in rural areas.
It is my understanding that, as late as yesterday, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on
Commerce, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) have been negotiating an
agreement on the language to ensure that loan guarantees for rural
television were used to enhance new competition and services including
satellites, wireless, and cable in rural areas, and not just to
stabilize existing cable companies. Yet, when the Committee on Rules
met this morning, a completely different version of the rural cable
language was included in the bill.
The Democratic Members who have been working with their Republican
counterparts had thought they were negotiating on a proposal which
would bring competition to underserved areas around the country. What
is in the bill seems to be quite different from what they had been led
to believe would be included. I am sure they, along with other Members
from rural areas, might have legitimate concerns about this provision.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report also contains provisions in the
District of Columbia appropriations that, again, as a Republican
majority has done in the past 6 years, infringe on the rights of the
citizens who live here, to make decisions about how their own
government is run.
The provisions in the conference agreement are significant
improvements on the House-passed appropriation. It is my understanding
that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton)
supports this language. However, Mr. Speaker, the residents of the
District are, again, being held hostage by virtue of the fact that a
bill that is nothing more than veto bait has been attached to it.
It is high time the taxpayers and American citizens who live in this
city be treated with more respect by the Republican majority and that a
clean D.C. appropriations bill be sent to the President.
[[Page H11232]]
Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this conference report because the
Republican majority has, again, failed to address the real needs of
real people. It is well past time for this Congress to have finished
its business. I can only hope that the President will veto this
conference report quickly, that the Republican majority will substitute
real immigration reform for the meaningless provisions now in this
report, and that we can end this Congress knowing we have done
something fair and just.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the chairman of the Subcommittee on
Transportation.
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, there are two issues I would like to address.
One, this legislation has language in it which I commend the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and also Senator Judd Gregg dealing with conflict
diamonds which are resulting in men and women in Sierra Leone having
their arms cut off.
When one is out buying diamonds this Christmas, if one gets a good
price and one does not know where the diamonds are coming from, one is
probably buying diamonds from Sierra Leone and supporting people having
their arms and legs cut off.
The other issue, Mr. Speaker, in addition, this conference report
contains a provision that deeply troubles me. I want Members of this
body to be aware that section 629 of the conference report would
legalize interstate pari-mutuel gambling over the Internet. Under the
current interpretation of the Interstate Horse Racing Act in 1978, this
type of gambling is illegal, although the Justice Department has not
taken steps to enforce it. This provision would codify legality of
placing wages over the telephone or other electronic media like the
Internet.
We have been trying, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and
others have been trying for months and months to pass two bipartisan
pieces of legislation on gambling, the Internet Gambling Prohibition
Act and the Student Athletic Protection Act which would close the Las
Vegas loophole on the current ban of gambling on college and high
school athletes.
Both had overwhelming support. Both had several hearings on them.
Both were the result of hard work. Yet, at the end of Congress, both
bills die, and we bring this up to expand, to expand gambling at a time
when men and women are becoming addicted to this process.
So, Mr. Speaker, as Members vote, they have to understand both of
these provisions are in this bill.
I compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and Senator Judd
Gregg.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following ``News Stories From Around the
Nation About the Negative Impact of Gambling'' for the Record, as
follows:
NEWS STORIES FROM AROUND THE NATION ABOUT THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF
GAMBLING
Examples of the Consequences of Gambling, the People It Affects, and
the Repercussions of Specific Types of Gambling
Gambling can lead to DEATH
``A gambler losing big dollars in the high-roller area of
the MotorCity Casino in Detroit pulled out a gun Wednesday,
shot himself in the head and died, police said. Terrified
gamblers fled from the blackjack table where off-duty Oak
Park Policy Sgt. Solomon Bell had been consistently losing
large bets, witnesses said. . . . Detroit police said Bell
had been gambling earlier in the day at MGM Grand Detroit
Casino and was hoping to make up for some losses there. They
said he lost between $15,000 and $20,000 in the two casinos
during the day.'' (Detroit Free Press, 1/27/00)
``A former employee at Trump Marina Hotel and Casino
[Atlantic City] leaped to his death from the gambling hall's
self-parking garage early Friday. . . . [Charles] LaVerde's
death marks the fifth suicide plunge from a casino facility
in less than a year.'' (Atlantic City Press, 5/27/00)
``A German tourist jumped to his death off a 10-story
casino-parking garage Wednesday in the third such suicide in
Atlantic City in eight days.'' On Aug. 17, a gambler who had
lost $87,000 jumped to his death off a Trump Plaza roof. On
Monday, a dealer at Caesar's Atlantic City Hotel Casino
committed suicide by leaping off the casino's parking garage.
``It wasn't clear if the most recent victim had been
gambling. He left no suicide note.'' (Associated Press, 8/25/
99)
A Hancock County (Miss.) woman says she killed her mother
and husband last year as part of a suicide pact made in
despair over large gambling debts the trio had run up at Gulf
Coast casinos. ``Julie Winborn pleaded guilty in the death of
her husband, Grady Winborn, 57, and her mother, Inez Bouis,
66. She was sentenced Thursday to two life sentences. She had
testified that the three lost $50,000 at casinos and decided
to end their lives because they could not repay bank and
credit union loans.'' (Associated Press, 9/10/00)
``A Florida man who lost $50,000 while gambling [in
Atlantic City] during the past two days died Tuesday after he
jumped seven floors from a Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino roof
onto Columbia Place, officials said.'' (Atlantic City Press,
8/18/99)
``[South Carolina 6th Circuit Solicitor John Justice said]
that a man in Columbia was convicted of murder [August 30].
The fast-food restaurant employee had killed his manager at
the end of the night shift. In the hours after the murder,
the man had visited three video poker machines. `When the
police retrieved the $5, $10 and $20 bills from the machine,
the young lady's blood was still on the money,' he said.''
(The Herald [Rock Hill, S.C.], 9/1/99)
[York County (S.C.) Sheriff Bruce Bryant] said many
[gamblers] ``have the same dream: finding the six magical
numbers that unlock the treasure known as the Texas Lottery.
. . . Billie Bob Harrell Jr. shared those common visions of
the salvation of sudden fortune. And in June 1997, he found
it. . . . He and wife Barbara Jean held the only winning
ticket to a Lotto Texas jackpot of $31 million. . . . And on
May 22, 1999, Harrell locked himself inside an upstairs
bedroom in his fashionable Kingwood home . . . investigators
say he stripped away his clothes, pressed a shotgun barrel
against his chest, and fired. . . . ``Shortly before his
death, Harrell confided to a financial advisor, `Winning the
lottery is the worst thing that ever happened to me.' ''
(Dallas Observer, 2/10/00) brought on by video poker are not
recorded in police reports. `Arguing over video poker is the
reason for many domestic abuse cases,' Bryant said. `We've
had murders in York County because of video poker.' '' (The
State [Columbia, S.C.], 7/23/99)
After a night of drinking at a Kenner (La.) casino Saturday
night, a Ponchatoula man apparently short himself to death in
his car outside the gambling boat, police said.'' ([New
Orleans] Times-Picayune, 11/8/99)
Gambling can lead to CRIME
``An insidious new kind of crime is taking hold, radiating
out across southern New England from the two Indian casinos
in eastern Connecticut. It is embezzlement committed by
desperate gamblers, usually compulsive gamblers, who work in
positions of trust. . . .
``A sampling of criminal cases over the past two years
shows that the amounts of money can be staggering and that an
increasing number of the gamblers are women. In all these
cases, the money was used to gamble at the Foxwoods Resort
Casino or the Mohegan Sun casino, authorities said.
``In May 1998, Edward Hutner of Rocky Hill was sentenced to
prison for embezzling $1 million from his employer, a CIGNA
subsidiary, by creating fictitious pension plan participants
and moving the money through brokerage firms. A few days
later, Norwalk investor adviser Richard Scarso was sent to
prison for stealing $1.4 million from 13 families.
``In the fall of the 1998, two Massachusetts men, Thomas
Aldred and Neal J. Colley, were sentenced to prison and home
confinement for the theft of nearly $2 million from the
company where Aldred worked by creating fictitious shipments
of supplies. Last year, April Corlies was accused of
embezzling more than $300,000 from the Cross Sound Ferry Co.
in New London by manipulating records of ticket sales. She is
awaiting trial.
``Early this year, Lynne M. Frank, who handled bar receipts
at The Bushnell, was charged with embezzling $91,000. A few
weeks ago, James Coughlin of Waterford avoided prison in his
home improvement scam by agreeing to partially repay victims,
who lost more than $200,000. . . .
``This week state police are working on an investigation
expected to lead to the arrest of Yvonne Bell, who was
Ledyard's tax collector until she resigned in June after
money was discovered missing. An audit completed recently put
the figure at more than $300,000. Two years ago former
Sprague Tax Collector Mary L. Thomas repaid $105,000 she had
stolen from her town and was sentenced to probation.''
(Hartford Courant, 8/23/00)
``Of all the heroes who emerged from the 1984 Los Angeles
Olympics, perhaps none was more inspirational then Henry
Tillman. A big, tough hometown kid, he had plunged into
serious trouble when he was rescued in a California Youth
Authority lockup by a boxing coach who saw a young man of
uncommon heart and untapped talent. In a little more than two
years, he would stand proudly atop the Olympic platform at
the Sports Arena, just blocks from his boyhood home, the gold
medal for heavyweight boxing dangling from his neck.
``But two years after his mediocre pro career ended, he was
back behind bars. And now he stands accused of murder in a
case that could put him away for life. . . .
``[G]ambling got Tillman into trouble. He was arrested in
January 1994 for passing a
[[Page H11233]]
bad credit card at the Normandie. He pleaded no contest and
got probation. In 1995, he pleaded guilty to using a fake
credit card in an attempt to get $800 at the Hollywood
Park Casino in Inglewood. . . .
`` `I have suffered from a long history of gambling
addiction, which I am very ashamed had taken over my life,'
Tillman wrote in a letter to the court,'' (Los Angeles Times,
1/26/00)
``A 56-year-old (Southern California) compulsive gambler
pleaded guilty Tuesday to several bank robberies and the
attempted murder of a police officer . . . (Terry Drake Ball
has been battling a severe gambling addiction since at least
1971, when he received the first of his four state and
federal robbery convictions, [his attorney] said. His
struggle was highlighted in the past year when he won
$250,000 from a casino bet on horse races . . . and lost the
entire amount within three weeks, [his attorney] said.'' (Los
Angeles Daily News, 10/27/99)
``A former casino consultant fought back tears as he told a
federal jury Thursday that he funneled hundreds of thousands
of dollars in payoffs to former [Louisiana] Gov. Edwin
Edwards and his son Stephen--before and after Edwards left
office in 1996. Ricky Shetler's testimony was backed by
Shetler's own ledgers and conversations secretly recorded by
the FBI. ``It was the most damaging to date in the six-week-
old trial, and, perhaps, in the 40-year public life of the
often scandal-plagued four-term governor who was acquitted of
federal racketeering charges in 1986. Federal prosecutors say
Edwin and Stephen Edwards and five other men took part in a
years-long series of schemes to manipulate the licensing of
riverboat casinos.'' (Associated Press, 2/24/00)
``The former president of the Decatur (Alabama) Board of
Education will serve at least three years in prison for
stealing more than $50,000 from the Austin High School Band
Boosters. William Randall Holmes, 42, was sentenced after a
hearing Thursday which included testimony that Holmes used a
band boosters credit card at casinos in Mississippi.''
(Associated Press, 6/2/00)
``A Rhode Island woman known as the `church lady' is free
on bail after pleading innocent to stealing $3,000 from four
severely mentally retarded adults at a Mansfield (Mass.)
group home to play slot machines at Foxwoods Casino. . . . An
organist at St. Theresa's Church in Nasonville, R.I.,
[Denise] Manderville worked as a caretaker for the four
adults.'' (Boston Herald, 3/9/00)
``On Friday, the 24-year-old former bank manager [Lonnie
Lewis, Jackson, Tenn.] pleaded guilty to embezzling about $1
million from the bank where he worked, then using the money
to support a lavish lifestyle . . . Court records indicate
Lewis's wife, Rita, 41, also used some of the money to gamble
at casinos in Tunica. A federal lawsuit filed by the bank
last year said Rita Lewis was spending about $6,500 a month
at two Mississippi casinos.'' ([Memphis] Commercial Appeal,
2/26/00)
``Brian Dean Gray, a former Richmond (Va.) stockbroker,
pleaded guilty yesterday in U.S. District Court to all three
federal fraud charges against him for stealing more than
$850,000 from clients and gambling much of it away. . . . He
used more than $350,000 to gamble on horse racing, at New
Jersey casinos and in card games.'' (Richmond Times Dispatch,
6/3/00)
``Stevan Datz, co-owner of the former United Surgical
Center, in Warwick (R.I.), has been sentenced to five years'
home confinement and five years' probation for embezzling
money from his company. . . . ``He took a total of $149,859
from the company, said Jim Martin, spokesman for the attorney
general's office. . . . Special Assistant Atty. Gen. Danika
Iacoi, who prosecuted the case, said Datz spent the money at
Foxwoods casino, on travel and on other personal expenses.''
(Providence Journal-Bulletin, 10/29/99)
``Rodney Stout, 25, of Pine Bluff (Ark.) was sentenced
Friday to 30 years in prison for abducting Stacey Polston of
Jacksonville and her 18-month-old daughter at gunpoint and
stealing Polston's van. . . . Stout was under financial
pressure, he said. He had a `gambling problem' that came to a
head when he gambled away $5,000 he had set aside for moving
expenses.'' (Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 5/9/00)
``By the time former Placerville (Calif.) police officer
Jerry Olson was arrested for bank robbery last month, he had
hit `rock bottom,' his father said. Battling drug addiction
and crushed under gambling debt, the 39-year-old already had
lost his job. FBI agents say he may have robbed 10 banks in
Northern California and Nevada.'' (Associated Press, 3/8/00)
``A former Monrovia (Calif.) cop who stole $124,000 from
that city's police officers association was sentenced today
to 16 months in prison and ordered to repay the money, and to
pay state taxes of $11,300. . . . The former La Verne
resident embezzled the MPOA money from the association
between December 1994 and December 1998 to pay off gambling
debts.'' (City News Service, 6/23/00)
``Former University of Southern California baseball player
Shon Malani was sentenced Wednesday to two years in federal
prison for stealing nearly $500,000 from the federal credit
union where he worked. U.S. District Judge Helen Gillmor
rejected a request for leniency made by Malani's attorney,
who said he stole the money to pay off gambling debts
totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars.'' (Associated
Press, 3/1/00)
``A departing Florida A&M University journalism professor
and former Tallahassee Democrat columnist has been charged
with stealing nearly $8,000 in checks from the school's
student newspaper, where he was an adviser, police said. . .
. `` `I've had a problem with gambling, mainly playing the
lottery, and I'm seeking counseling for it,' [said Keith
Thomas].'' (Associated Press, 7/27/00)
``An arraignment date for William O'Hara a former
administrator of Bartron Clinic in Watertown (S.D.) charged
with embezzling $670,000 from his employer to cover funds for
a gambling addiction, is expected to be set this week.''
(Watertown [S.D.] Public Opinion, 6/13/00)
``A San Francisco financial planner pleaded guilty
yesterday to laundering more than $6 million of his clients'
money in a scheme to pay off gambling debts and other
personal expenses, according to the U.S. attorney's office.''
(San Francisco Chronicle, 6/29/00)
``A 19-year veteran of the (Massachusetts) state authority
that helps low- and middle-income families buy houses is
believed to have funneled as much $130,000 from one of the
agency's funds into his personal bank account to pay for
gambling debts, officials said yesterday.'' (Boston Herald,
10/28/99)
Gambling can lead to DEBT and BANKRUPTCY
``One third of 120 compulsive gamblers participating in a
pioneering treatment study have either filed for bankruptcy
or are in the process of filing, a University of
Connecticut researcher said Tuesday . . . . (Nancy) Petry
said she recently gave a talk to a group of bankruptcy
lawyers who estimated that as many as 20% of their clients
had mentioned gambling as a reason for their problems.''
(Hartford Courant, 6/14/00)
``The Secret Service in investigating whether a prominent
Louisville cancer doctor who went bankrupt after losing more
than $8 million gambling last year committed fraud when he
borrowed millions from local banks, the doctor's lawyer says.
. . .''(Stanley) Lowenbraun, an oncologist, is the former
president of the Kentucky Oncology Society. . . .[I]n 1998
alone he lost $8.2 million, bankruptcy records show. Most of
that was lost playing craps at casinos in Atlantic City and
Las Vegas, including $2 million at Ballly's casino, $2
million at Caesar's Atlantic city, $400,000 at the Hilton
International Hotel and Casino, $1.7 million at the Rio Hotel
$ Casino and $1.42 million at the Trump Taj Mahal Casino,
according to a list of debts Lowenbraun filed in bankruptcy
court. The remainder was lost betting on the horses at
Churchill Down and the Sports Spectrum.'' (Louisville
Courier-Journal, 11/8/99)
``Will Torres Jr. spends part of his day listening to sad
stories. As the director of the Terrebonne Parish (La.)
District Attorney's Office's Bad Check Enforcement Program,
Torres has heard some doozies. ``I've seen people lose their
homes, their retirements wiped out, their marriages. People
losing everything they have,'' Torres said. Gambling,
specifically video poker, is starting to catch up with drugs
and alcohol as a precursor to local crime. . . ``Torres and
the District Attorney's Office recently noticed an
interesting trend while profiling bad-check writers: a large
number of their suspects are video poker addicts. `We're not
talking about people who mistakenly write a check for
groceries at Winn-Dixie for $25.33,' Torres said. `We're
talking about people who are writing checks for $25 or $30
eight times a day at locations with video poker machines or
places in close proximity of video poker machines.' ``So far
this year, Torres' office has collected $320,000 for
Terrebonne Parish merchants who were given 3,600 worthless
checks. Torres said about 30% of those bad checks are
connected to gambling. `` `It's eating people up,' he said.
`It's real sad when people don't have a dollar. No money for
food because of gambling addictions. I've seen it up close,
and video poker plays a large role in the problem.' '' (The
Courier [Houma, La.], 8/28/99)
Gambling can lead to ADDICTION
``As many as 500,000 Michigan adults could be `lifetime
compulsive gamblers,' and the number could swell with two new
Detroit casinos in operation and a third to open soon, says a
new state report. The survey, released Wednesday, also found
that well over half of those with gambling problems began
young. `When we asked compulsive gamblers ``When did you
start having a problem?'' we were startled to learn that 77%
of them said they were already compulsive by the time they
were 18,' said Jim McBryde, special assistant for drug policy
in the Michigan Department of Community Health,'' (Detroit
News, 1/13/00
``At Detroit's Gamblers Anonymous, a spokesman says the
addition-counseling service has seen a 200% rise in demand in
this year's first three months over the same period in 1999.
The number of calls to the state's toll-free compulsive
gambling help line has risen almost monthly, from 1,817 last
October to 5,276 in May.'' (Associated Press, 7/26//00)
``At Detroit's Gamblers Anonymous, a spokesman says the
addiction-counseling service has seen a 200% rise in demand
in this year's first three months over the same period in
1999. The number of calls to the state's toll-free compulsive
gambling help line has risen almost monthly, from 1,817 last
October to 5,276 in May.'' (Associated Press, 7/26/00)
``With the proliferation of gambling in recent years,
social workers and other mental-health professionals have
seen a disturbing increase in compulsive gambling, said
[[Page H11234]]
Salvatore Marzilli, president of the Rhode Island Council on
Problem Gambling. . . .
``In 1990, Marzilli said, there was only one Gamblers
Anonymous group meeting in Rhode Island each week. Today
there are 10; each has at least 20 members.'' (Providence
Journal, 4/28/00)
Gambling can lean to PROSTITUTION
``Escort services (in Detroit) are flourishing. Agencies
with names such as Queen of Hearts and Casino Babes whisper
their $100-an-hour promotions from classified ad columns and
from home pages on the Internet. Two months before casinos
came to town, the Wayne County Sheriff's Department began
monitoring local exotic escort service Web sites; at the
time, there were seven. By the end of September, two months
after MGM's grand opening, that number had grown to 42.''
(Detroit News, 2/7/00)
``A growing federal probe accuses eight-year East Palo Alto
(Calif.) Councilman R.B. Jones of treating his elected office
like his personal cash cow. . . .
``Court documents hint that Jones' passion for gambling has
compounded his legal problems. In 1997, a self-described
former mistress gave sworn testimony that she moonlighted as
a prostitute at Navada brothels from 1983 through 1991 `when
Mr. Jones needed money for his gambling.' '' (San Francisco
Chronicle, 7/31/00)
Gambling affects CHILDREN
``A 4-year-old girl remained in protective custody (in Fort
Mill, S.C.) after her mother was charged with leaving her in
a locked car while she played video poker.'' Tuesday in
Ridgeland, a woman whose 10-day-old baby died in a sweltering
car while she played vedo poker was given a suspended
sentence and five years' probation.'' ``York County (S.C.)
Sheriff Bruce Bryant said such incidents reflect the
addictive nature of video poker. `You see the same thing with
people addicted to cocaine and heroin. They lose all rational
thought and will do anything to support her habit, sell the
furniture right out of their house, leave their babies in
locked cars during the middle of summer.' (The State
[Columbia, SC], 7/23/99)
``Children have been left unattended at Indiana's riverboat
casino more than three dozen times while their parents or
other guardians were gambling during the past 14 months. A
Courier-Journal review of Indiana Gaming Commission records
found 37 instances involving an estimated 72 abandoned
children since May 1999, when the state first began compiling
reports of such episodes.
``In one case, an infant had to be revived with oxygen.''
(Louisville Courier-Journal, 7/8/00)
``A woman was arrested [in Shreveport, La.] on two felony
counts of cruelty to a juvenile after she allegedly left two
children in a car with the windows rolled up while she played
video poker.. . . The girls in (Candice) Bradley's
custody--ages 5 and 2--were in the woman's car, which was
parked in the sun and its windows were shut, [a police
spokesman] said. The National Weather Service reported the
temperature at that time to be 89 degrees.'' (Associated
Press,
7/26/00)
``A Rhode Island woman was arrested Saturday after police
discovered that she left four children unattended for 14
hours at Foxwoods Resort & Casino.'' (The Day [New London,
Conn.], 7/16/00)
``A Westville (Indiana) woman arrested last year for
leaving her infant daughter in a car to gamble is being
prosecuted again, accused of leaving her children home alone
so she could play the odds. . . . [Friends] found the
children, aged 15 months and 4 weeks, alone inside the
residence.'' (South Bend [Ind.] Tribune, 7/21/00).
``A 31-year-old Virginia woman has been arrested on
neglect charges for leaving six young children unattended in
a sweltering vehicle while she and her mother played the slot
machines at the Caesars riverboat casino.'' (Louisville
Courier-Journal, 7/12/00).
Gambling affects FAMILIES
``There is an ugly undercurrent that's sweeping away
thousands of Missourians-people whose addiction to gambling
has led to debt, divorce and crime. This is a world of people
like Vicky, 36, a St. Charles woman who regularly left her
newborn son with baby sitters to go to the casinos and who
considered suicide after losing $100,000. ``And Kathy, a
homemaker and mother of two from Brentwood, who would drop
her kids at school and spend the entire day at a casino
playing blackjack. She used a secret credit card that her
husband didn't know about to rack up more than $30,000 in
debt. . . .'' (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 2/6/00)
``The battle against domestic violence is gaining ground,
and work by University of Nebraska Medical Center researcher
Dr. Robert Muelleman is helping. . . . Muelleman worked on a
. . . study at the UNMC hospital this summer. The study has
not been published yet, so the results are not entirely
concluded, he said, but some preliminary inferences can be
drawn. `It looks as if problem gambling in the partner is
going to be as much a risk factor as problem alcohol, and
that's really new information,' he said.'' (Daily Nebraskan,
1/13/00)
Gambling affects the UNDERAGE
A study released Tuesday suggests young people age 18 to
20 apparently have little problem playing video poker or
buying lottery tickets [in Louisiana]--even though they are
legally too young to do so. . . . The study is based on a
series of stings conducted by Louisiana State Police early
last year with the help of underage informants. . . Under the
direction of State Police, underage informants visited 501
lottery retailers in early 1999. They were successful buying
lottery tickets 64% of the time. The underage informants also
made 501 attempts to play video poker and were successful 59%
of the time.'' ([Baton Rouge, La.] Advocate, 5/10/00)
Gambling affects SENIORS
``[A survey] conducted by a [Las Vegas] problem gambling
center and UNLV professor Fred Preston, found that nearly 60%
of Clark County residents older than 55 gamble, while 30% do
so at least once a week. . . .
``Just under 3% of seniors had problems with gambling at
some point in their lives, while another 2.4% had signs of
pathological gambling in the past. . . . The UNLV researchers
also found that 20% of those seniors who gambled said they
knew at least one person with a gambling problem.'' (Las
Vegas Sun, 7/31/00)
Gambling affects COLLEGE STUDENTS
``As allies of the National Collegiate Athletic
Association push legislation that would ban wagering on
college sports, a new study found that one out of every four
male student-athletes may be engaging in illegal sports
betting--and that one in 20 places bets directly through
illegal bookies. And though prevalent among student-athletes,
the study found that sports wagering activity is higher among
ordinary students--39% among male nonstudent athletes. . . .
``The study surveyed 648 student-athletes and 1,035
students, both male and female, at three midwestern
universities. . . . The study also found that 12% of male
student-athletes--roughly the same portion as nonathletes--
showed signs of problem gambling. About 5% of the overall
athlete sample demonstrated signs of pathological gambling
disorders.'' (Las Vegas Sun, 7/6/00)
CASINOS
``Tethered to his post by a curly plastic cord that
stretched from his belt loop to a frequent-player card
inserted in a Black Widow slot machine, James Lint pondered.
What happens to the little guy when casinos come to town?
```I see a lot of people leave with tears in their eyes,'
said the Georgia businessman, taking a short break from the
machine in Biloxi's Beau Rivage casino. `They come here too
much, and they spend too much money.'
``Lint, who flies his private plane to Biloxi three times
a year to kick back at the casinos, doesn't count himself
among the ranks of those who gamble away what they cannot
afford. But some people do lose their grocery money to slot
machines, and no one--not casino operators, not gung-ho
promoters of the industry--denies it.
``It would be hard to: The Mississippi Coast has been at
the center of several high-profile compulsive gambling
incidents, including one involving two famous writers,
brothers who squandered an inheritance worth more than
$250,000 at blackjack and slots.
``It is a hard-edged reality that happens--at casinos, at
racetracks, at church bingos, at state lottery outlets. The
Mississippi Coast has seen a 26-fold increase in the number
of Gamblers Anonymous meeting--to 13 a week--since the first
casino opened in 1992.'' (Lexington [Ky.] Herald-Leader, 9/
12/99)
``Detroit's casinos, the city and state are raking in more
profits and tax money than even they expected, but legalized
gambling is not yet making a ripple in the lives of most
Metro Detroiters.
``How come all those promises and nothing has been
developed?' asked George Reo, who lives on Auburn on
Detroit's northwest side. `A lot of improvements were
supposed to happen and, in my mind, they should have happened
by now. I don't see any improvement in city services. Taxes
aren't lower.'
``As Detroit prepares to mark the first anniversary of
casino gambling on July 29, not all the hopes and
expectations that surrounded the heady, early days have come
true:
About 7,500 new jobs have been created. But the 10 million
people who'll gamble here this year aren't boosting most
others businesses.
``There's been little economic spin-off for stores, bars,
clubs, sports teams or cultural institutions.
The $50 million in casino taxes collected by the city in
the just-completed fiscal year disappeared into its general
fund. So far, that's not translated into additional police
officers, recreation centers, widespread neighborhood
improvements or lower taxes.'' (Detroit News, 7/23/00)
``Seven months before the (Illinois) General Assembly voted
last year to approve a new casino for Rosemont, a small group
of rich and influential figures in Illinois gambling met in a
Northern Michigan Avenue high-rise to plot to divvy up the
jackpot. Their agenda: appease a big potential opponent to
the plan, Arlington International Racecourse owner Dick
Duchossois.
``In the end, according to sworn testimony given by
Duchossois and aides in a federal lawsuit, the racetrack
owner and major political contributor was promised a 20%
stake in the new Rosemont boat if he used his considerable
influence in Springfield to help get it approved.
``Depositions in that lawsuit, obtained by the Tribune,
provide the first detailed glimpse into the intricate
plotting, horse-trading and double-dealing that went on
behind the scenes to win state approval for a new riverboat
sure to make it owners reap tens of millions of dollars a
year in profits.'' (Chicago Tribune, 4/2/00)
[[Page H11235]]
``Senate President John Hainkel, R-New Orleans, has accused
the riverboat casino industry of trying to use the Louisiana
Association of Retarded Citizens to pressure senators for a
limited gambling tax increase.'' ([New Orleans]) Times-
Picayune, 6/11/00)
``More than half the state's adult population has visited a
casino, either in Michigan or elsewhere, a statewide poll
shows . . . People at the top and bottom of the income scale
are the biggest spenders at the casinos. Those making less
than $15,000 a year spend $172 per visit, and those earning
more than $100,000 per year spend $161 per visit. People in
the $30,000-$45,000 income bracket spend the least, reporting
an average of $87.40 per visit. ``Pollster Ed Sarpolus noted
that the age groups most likely to visit casinos are between
18 and 24, and between 50 and 54.'' (Detroit Free Press, 11/
17/00)
``California Indian tribes that operate gambling casinos
have spent something in excess of $100 million, and perhaps
as much as $150 million, in the past decade on contributions
to politicians, video ad campaigns for two ballot measures,
lobbying fees and other forms of `political action.' And in
doing so, the tribes have arisen from virtual invisibility to
become the single most powerful political force in the
Capitol. . .The goal of that years-long political effort was
simple: A monopoly on full-scale casino gambling in
California. And by any measure, it's been a stunning success.
. . .
``Tribal casino operators already have announced plans for
lavish new facilities throughout the state, some costing more
than $100 million to construct. Nevada gambling corporations,
which originally fought the Indians, are now joining them by
forging management contracts with the tribes. . . . Bill
Eadington, a University of Nevada, Reno, specialist in
gambling economics, has concluded that by the end of the
decade Indian casinos will be pulling in $5.1 billion to
$10.3 billion a year in gambling revenues.'' (Sacramento Bee,
7/2/00)
STATE LOTTERIES
State officials are admitting a small core of heavy
gamblers, many of them poor, are the mainstay of the
California Lottery. The voter-approved lottery that benefits
public education has maintained for 15 years that lottery
players simply reflect the population of California. After an
ANG Newspapers report in December and subsequent grilling by
legislators, the Lottery began compiling figures that show a
fifth of its players account for 90% of the multibillion-
dollar sales. . . .``Of the 2 million heavy gamblers, more
than half are from households earning less than $35,000 a
year. People from households earning less than $25,000
annually make up 41% of the lottery's heavy gamblers while
they are less than a third of California's adult population.
The heavy, poor gamblers spend an average of more than $830 a
year on the games.'' (Las Vegas Sun, 2/24/00)
``State lotteries hurt the poor and have lousier payouts
than other types of legal wagering, the former head of a
federal panel on gambling said Tuesday. Calling lotteries `a
regressive tax' on the poor with particular impact on
minorities, Kay James said states don't regulate their
gambling as well as government regulates gambling by
business...She spoke Tuesday at a Minneapolis program
sponsored by the Center of the American Experiment which
wants Minnesota to ban most lottery ads, raise the age for
buying tickets from 18 to 21 and prohibit new gambling.''
([Minneapolis] Star Tribune, 10/27/00)
``Hoping to boost sagging sales, the Ohio Lottery has
doubled the daily drawings of games played most heavily in
black neighborhoods, some of them the poorest in Cleveland. .
. .In areas of Cuyahoga County where more than half of the
residents are black, sales per capita--$234--are three times
higher than in areas where a majority of residents are white.
Sales are heavier in lower-income neighborhoods of Cuyahoga
County. Where the household income is below the county median
of $35,381, per-capita betting is twice as high as areas
above the medium.'' (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 10/10/00)
``A three-month investigation by the Pittsburgh Tribune-
Review found Pennsylvania Lottery sales come
disproportionately from the poor and working class. In
Allegheny County, the most recent lottery records available
show stores in neighborhoods with per captia incomes lower
than $20,000 sold more than twice as many tickets per
resident as those in neighborhoods where the average incomes
exceeded $30,000. . . .``The lottery's 1997 study found 39
percent of `heavy' players--those who bet at least once a
week--report household incomes below $25,000 a year.''
(Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 8/22/00)
``The state [of Florida] is preying on poor people by
selling Lottery tickets at check-cashing stores that offer
short-term, high-interest loans against a future paycheck.
According to sales from the 1988-99 budget year, Florida
Lottery tickets are sold by 161 check-cashing stores, payday
loan stores and pawnshops, many located in low-income
neighborhoods.'' (Miami Herald, 11/25/00)
INTERNET GAMBLING
``More than 850 Internet gambling sites worldwide had
revenues in 1999 of $1.67 billion, up more than 80% from
1998, according to Christiansen Capital Advisors, who track
the industry. Revenues are expected to top $3 billion by
2002.'' (Reuters, 5/31/00)
LOBBYING for Gambling
``Lobbyists [in West Virginia] have spent more than $1
million in the past five years to get the attention of state
officials, and gambling interests are the biggest spenders. .
. . Lobbyists for gambling interests have spent more than
$220,000 since 1996, compared to about $3,333 spent by
gambling opponents.'' (Las Vegas Sun, 6/5/00)
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Frost) for yielding me the time.
I want to also stand up, like the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
has just done, my friend, and talk about conflict diamonds. There is a
section in the bill that deals with the issue, section 406. It is an
amendment that is supposed to eliminate the problem. I do not think
that it will, although I support it. I regret that an alternative that
I negotiated and all sides agreed would be preferable, but it was not
included in the conference report.
Conflict diamonds or blood diamonds are diamonds that are sold in the
United States. They are sold in great numbers. The problem with it is
that these conflict diamonds come from countries like Sierra Leone, the
Congo, Burkina Faso, Liberia, and Angola.
What they do is they arm the rebels. They make the civil war go. What
has happened over the years is that they have killed people. They have
maimed all kinds of children. We have actually had hearings here in the
Congress. They go to disrupt society. Sierra Leone is still disrupted
as a result of these conflict diamonds.
Today the industry is trying to play catchup, and they are acting
like they are trying to play catchup. They have come up with a solution
to this problem. For years, it has ignored the rebels' role in
overthrowing the democratic government; but over the same period, the
diamond industry has raked in phenomenal profits. Last year alone, the
industry leader posted an 89 percent increase in profits.
Until now, Congress has demonstrated little leadership on this issue;
and we really failed on this particular issue. There have been some
shining exceptions: the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the
gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Ms. McKinney), people that supported the CARAT Act, Holly Burkhalter,
who is a human rights advocate with Physicians for Human Rights, and
Amnesty International. They have been tremendous on this issue.
I want to thank Senator Gregg in the Senate. He has been great on
this. He stood alone on this. However, his amendment, the reports are
that the administration is saying it will not enforce this provision.
That is deeply troubling to me because of the industry's attempt to
renege on its compromise with the coalition because of assurances it
has received from U.S. officials that they have no intention of
enforcing Senator Gregg's amendment.
{time} 1330
And so if this is the case, we are back to square one.
The problem with it is that I think probably we need to take the
gloves off. We need to go to the American consumers and tell them that
they are contributing to killing; that they are contributing to the
fact that people are being raped, children are having their arms cut
off, and the reason why that is happening is because they are buying
the diamonds. We need to inform the consumers in America that when they
go into a store that they should ask the question, where do these
diamonds come from; what is the history of these diamonds. And if that
question cannot be answered, they should not buy the diamonds.
Americans buy 65 percent of all the diamonds in the world. We can
make a difference in Africa; we can take the profit out of war. It is
time we take the gloves off. We have the chance to really do something.
Oftentimes, as we look at Africa, we do not have leverage. We can do
something because we buy the diamonds in the world. We can stop these
blood diamonds. We can make a difference.
The industry has had a chance. They have let the clock run out. The
administration has had their chance; they have let the clock run out.
The majority party had their chance, and they have let the clock run
out. This is what
[[Page H11236]]
makes us look bad, when we can do something that makes a difference for
people and stop the killing.
Hopefully, we are not finished here. If this bill is vetoed, we might
have a chance for another shot at doing something right.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. The
American people need to pay close attention, however, to the
maneuverings that are going on in these last closing days of Congress.
During this time, Members of Congress are, of course, anxious to go
home and campaign, so the American people should pay close attention to
what the Clinton-Gore administration is threatening those of us in
Congress to do unless we do what they want.
In fact, there is a veto threat to this Congress over the D.C.,
Commerce-Justice-State conference report. And what is that veto threat
that the Clinton-Gore administration is making to Congress? Unless we
include a general amnesty for all illegal aliens, a general amnesty
meaning millions of illegal aliens to be permitted to stay in this
country, the President is threatening, the Clinton-Gore administration
is threatening to veto this bill and keep Congress in session.
Millions.
It has been described as family reunification. No, the Republicans
are suggesting a compromise. Let us put people together who fell
through the cracks 10 years ago and have some family reunification.
What Clinton-Gore is demanding is a mass, a mass, amnesty for millions
of illegal aliens, bypassing all of the legal restrictions making sure
that all those people all over the world who are waiting in line to
come here legally will be made fools of; making sure that millions of
illegal aliens, people who are now illegally in this country and have
violated our laws are eligible for education and health benefits
because they are now legally in our country.
Is this what we want to do with our surplus? Is this what Clinton-
Gore wants to do with the surplus? We cannot give it back in some sort
of modest tax relief; but we can, instead, grant millions of people who
have come here illegally the right to consume benefits and cost the
government billions of dollars.
The last time we granted such an amnesty was in the mid-1980s. I come
from California. I saw what that did to our country. We are talking
about a huge increase in illegal immigration right after that amnesty.
Because every time we give an amnesty to illegal immigration, it is
like putting out a welcome mat: come on in from all over the world.
Because if they can get here they know they will eventually be able to
outwait these people and they will be able to get government benefits
just like everybody else.
I know how painful this is for some people on the other side, Mr.
Speaker, who just tried to describe this as family reunification. That
is not the demand of the Clinton-Gore administration. Again, it is a
betrayal of the American people, the people who are here legally, who
have come here as immigrants legally through the process. Those people,
they love this country enough to obey our laws. Should we then reward
people who have just thumbed their nose at the legal system and come
here illegally and put them on an equal par to those legal immigrants,
those people who make our country and have such a beneficial effect on
our country?
There is a lot of politics being played in this country right next to
this election. There are some people who are calculating that Americans
of Hispanic descent, especially Americans of Mexican descent, in some
way like illegal immigration. That is an insult to those American
citizens. This bill is an insult to them; and it is an insult, as I
say, to the legal immigrants who have gone through the system and done
what they were supposed to do and are making fine U.S. citizens.
But, no, what we have now is a threat from this administration, and I
believe it is for political reasons, to make sure that millions of
people who have come to this country are made legal in an amnesty
program, and a general amnesty. Again, let me say that those of us on
the Republican side are willing to compromise. We think it is a fine
compromise to bring family reunification, and a much lower level of
people would be involved in this, and it is a humane thing to do. But a
general amnesty is a betrayal of our country and our people.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, if Members want to know why they ought to vote
against this bill they have more choices than a New York delicatessen.
I do not understand what is happening here, because up until 2 days
ago we were proceeding on a bipartisan track, and we were going to pass
this bill by a good margin. Now that has fallen apart.
There are a number of problems with this proposition. First of all,
the problem is the lack of fairness in terms of the way it deals with
immigration issues. I will not get into that now, but later in the
debate there will be people on this floor who will bring this issue to
my colleagues in human terms so that they can understand the unfairness
and the human pain that is being brought to individual human beings by
what this Congress is trying to do.
Second, we have the problem of the threat to privacy of every
American posed by abuse of the Internet; the ability, for instance, to
use Social Security numbers to unlock all of the secrets of the lives
of individual Americans.
There is a provision included in this bill which will make matters
worse than they are today. It is called the Amy Boyer law. She is a
young woman who was tracked down by a stalker and murdered, because he
was able to get her Social Security number and then find out her place
of work, and wound up being killed because of it. This provision in
this bill is named for her, but her father is so outraged by the way
this has been handled that he is asking that her name not be associated
with it in any way.
Third, this bill appropriates enormous amounts of money for coastal
areas to protect fragile environments. The money in this bill for that
provision is 50 percent higher than the compromise amount agreed to in
the interior appropriation bill just a month ago. But much of that
money will not be used for protection of our coastal areas. It will,
instead, be used for the degradation of those coastal areas.
After weeks of negotiations, the Senate flatly rejected a request on
our part to add one sentence to this bill, which simply said that any
funds used for construction in coastal areas be used for
environmentally-sound projects. That was rejected. As a result, the
prevailing position in this bill is that the majority of money will be
used for environmentally-unsound projects. That alone is reason enough
to veto this bill.
There was also an earlier effort to reach an agreement to provide
about $40 million for the most serious remaining water pollution
problem we have, nonpoint source pollution. Instead, this bill cuts
that $40 million to $10 million and uses every dollar of that $30
million for pork projects in coastal States. I did not know that
Kentucky was a coastal State, but it is going to get some money.
There are other problems associated with this bill. No money for
tobacco litigation. That is going to cost the Treasury millions of
dollars. There are five reasons why this bill ought to be rejected, and
we will hear more as the debate progresses.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
(Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, I regret that some would use fear, would
use the darkest shadows that might exist within our society, would use
false statements to try to describe something that is basic justice. I
guess Governor Bush's compassion does not extend to his party here in
the majority in Congress.
What we seek in this legislation, that is not here, is three simple
common sense justifiable public policy immigration issues. They are:
one, during the 1980s, the INS wrongfully denied, under U.S. law,
thousands of persons who could have legalized their status to do so.
And that is universally recognized. That injustice of the government
should not be on the backs of those families but should be on the back
of a
[[Page H11237]]
government that unjustifiably, illegally denied them their opportunity
to adjust their status. So we look to right that wrong.
We hear a lot about family values. Well, that is what 245(i), which
was the law of the land, stripped away by the Republicans in their last
immigration bill, seeks to accomplish. We simply seek to restore that
which was the law of the land and say that U.S. citizens and permanent
residents who have family members here in the United States and who,
under existing immigration law, have the right to adjust their status,
should not be ripped apart and sent back while they are waiting to
legalize a status that they have every right to accomplish. We should
preserve families, and that is a family value.
And lastly, during the Reagan-Bush era, we conducted wars in Central
America in promotion of democracy. And we told those people that they
would have a place here while those wars raged. Now we seek to turn our
backs on them instead of giving them the same right that this Congress
gave to Nicaraguans and Cubans. They deserve the same rights.
This is not about a blanket amnesty. This is about fairness and
justice in helping taxpaying law-abiding individuals who have made
their families here in the United States. And the Latino community is
watching as to what this Congress does on these votes.
{time} 1345
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, when we talk about real Latino and
immigrant fairness, whom are we talking about? We are talking about
legislation crucial to immigrants from all backgrounds, from all
countries, to every American who understands that our country was built
by people from around the world, that it once offered sanctuary to
those fleeing the dangers around the world.
I am gratified that many of my colleagues have joined me in
cosponsoring legislation to rectify this crisis, to protect people who
have fled political violence in Central America and the Caribbean, to
provide relief to immigrants who have resided in the U.S. since 1986
and some decades before, including many of those who were wrongly
turned away admittedly by the INS and Immigration officials when they
sought their permanent adjustment, and to reinstate a family-based visa
program 245(i) program.
Instead, we are left with so-called ``LIFE'' bill, a bill that was
hatched by Republicans in the last 24 hours. Let me tell my colleagues,
this LIFE bill is rife with errors, most notably, the error of
omission.
An immigration bill that does not address the issue of parity for all
Central Americans is not worth the paper it is printed on. It is
unworthy of serious discussion other than sharp criticism. It is a
relic of Cold War politics.
Because immigrants and Latinos, among them millions of voters, will
not be deceived by this ploy, will not be dissuaded from our goal nor
divided from each other.
This current proposal is the legislative equivalent of offering a
single cup of water to an entire band of people who have been exiled,
left to wander for years through the desert; and then its sponsors have
the audacity to expect those tired and thirsty people to be grateful
for a few elusive drops of water of relief.
Mr. Speaker, do not send Members home until we allow immigrants to
continue to call America their home. Do not allow this Congress to end
until we have brought an end to the injustice and insecurity that has
plagued the immigrant community.
I urge Members on both sides of the aisle, remember the principles at
stake. Forget about politics. Forget about partisanship. Instead, focus
on the principles of fairness, freedom, and families.
Ronald Reagan signed the amnesty bill of 1986. Let all those be in
America that Ronald Reagan signed a bill for.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Southern California (Mr. Bilbray).
(Mr. BILBRAY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I was in the House and listened to the
discussion, and I guess the discussion of talking about a drop of water
is maybe very appropriate.
Some Members here may not know this, but I am probably the only
Member of Congress that has rescued illegal immigrants as they were
drowning. I am probably also the only Member of Congress that, sadly,
has had to recover their bodies when they were not rescued.
Now, I would just ask, as we talk about this in political terms, that
we remember there is a human factor here. And the human factor is not
just in the neighborhoods way up north. The human factor is also in our
neighborhoods along the frontier.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that over 260
people die every year trying to come into this country illegally and
that is more or equal to those who were killed in the Oklahoma
explosion.
I wish this institution would be as outraged at the carnage along our
frontiers as they are with the terrorism within our borders. But they
admit it is not the fault of the Immigration Service that we have these
problems. It is the fault of those fuzzy thinking people around this
country who think that breaking the law and rewarding people for
breaking the law somehow will come out to be a good thing.
The concept of breaking the basic tenants that, playing by the rules,
people should be rewarded, breaking the law and breaking the rules,
they should not be, that is a basic concept we try to especially teach
our children.
But will this institution learn that?
I am just asking my colleagues to consider that every one of us that
offers a job or offers a benefit or offers amnesty to somebody who is
illegally in this country is doing the bait-and-switch on those people
that are out of the country right now watching, that they are going to
say, let us come to America illegally because the Congress of America
will reward us for doing that; and then when they are drowning, when
they are dying in the desert, when they are dropping off the cliffs in
the Southwest, we will be responsible for it.
I am asking us to get back to common sense and fairness, playing by
the rules here in Congress and in our immigration policy.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Mrs. Clayton).
Mrs. CLAYTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against this rule and against the
conference report because of what it does not contain as well as what
it does contain.
The conference agreement does not contain language that would embody
the Latino and Immigrant Fairness Act. I heard the last gentleman that
spoke just say they are breaking the law. There is a time for fairness,
which indeed is above the law.
This bill does not contain language that would allow those persons
who have lived in the United States since 1986 to have access, simply
to have access, to legalize their status while they are indeed making a
contribution to the society and paying taxes.
Most of these immigrants are doing essential work in our communities
that no one else will do. We take advantage of them but give them no
benefits. We indeed should be ashamed of ourselves. It may be they are
breaking the law, but it is immoral what we are doing to them.
The bill does not contain language that will allow persons who wish
to remain in America to pay a fee so they can stay here with their
families. We say we are about family values, but we are breaking
families up.
This bill does not contain language that would give equal treatment
to all Central American immigrants, including Haitians, to live and to
work here and to participate in the citizenry. And while the bill does
not include language that would treat these immigrants fairly, guess
what it does do? This bill does include language that will allow the
Federal Government to invade the privacy of citizens and obtain
information from census data that every citizen believes they gave in
confidence to their Government. In fact, we said to them that no one
would indeed know about that information.
[[Page H11238]]
The census, Mr. Speaker, is very important. But our word is even more
important. We should indeed be ashamed of what is not in this bill as
well as what is in this bill.
I urge defeat of both the rule and this bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me
the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying
bill because of an important omission in the bill, Section 245(i) of
the Immigration law. It sounds like a technicality, but it is not.
I would like to tell my colleagues about Vicky Lynn Gonzalez of
Beaverton, Oregon. She married a man named Luis Gonzalez. Together they
have a son, Alex, who is now 2 years old.
Vicky Lynn goes to college at night, works full time. But because
section 245(i) was removed and is not in this bill, Luis is waiting in
Mexico and Alex is growing up alone.
This is unfair. This is unjust. This is not friendly to families. I
know because I had to grow up without my father because that was a
sacrifice that we had to make to get to this country.
I do not want any other American child to have to grow up without
their parent because of some omission that we can fix in this bill
today.
I ask for a no vote from all Members who care about families, who
care about children, who care about children growing up with care from
both parents. Vote no on this bill.
Remember Vicky. Remember Luis. And remember Alex. I ask for a no vote
on the rule and on the bill.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the gentleman who just
spoke that that is not an omission. This is not a technical omission.
That provision that he desires to be in the bill was not in the House
bill and was not in any Senate version and has not had a hearing. It is
the desire of this President and the rest of them to add a rider to an
appropriations bill that would satisfy them. But it is not an omission.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. The underlying bill
has some good news in it, and that is there are more programs and more
money for coastal impacted areas, for oceans and Great Lakes and
wildlife. But that is only on the surface. The bad news is that those
monies are sucked away for pork for earmarks, for projects that have
fingerprints all over them for special interests in particular
districts in this country.
So they are taking generic money that is supposed to be used for non-
point-source pollution, which should affect every one of the 50 States,
and putting more money into it and then sucking it away, so that there
is only $10 million left for the entire country. And where does that
money go? It goes to specific projects in specific States that are
partisan and very biased.
Most of it, I have to say, is not from this House. It is from the
other body. The other side is grabbing money that we in the House of
Representatives ought to be applying to all the people of the United
States so that they can have some special interests. That is wrong, and
it is so wrong that people should vote no on this rule.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder) about omissions, about some things that are not in
the House or not in the Senate bills.
I would say to my friend, there are commissions and omissions, and we
believe there is an omission. There is an opportunity to do the right
thing. There is an opportunity to right a wrong. There is an
opportunity to correct a mistake made by the Congress of the United
States. To not do so when one has the opportunity to do it is, I
suggest to my friend from Georgia, an omission and, in addition to
that, a grievous omission.
This provision has been talked about for months now. It is called
Latino fairness. But as the gentleman from Oregon so correctly
observed, it is for fairness for everybody.
I want to tell my colleagues why I rise on this floor and feel so
strongly about this provision. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf)
is on the floor. I am glad he is on the floor. He and I, during the
1980's, were members of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in
Europe, the Helsinki Commission. And we are still members of that. And
one of the things that we fought shoulder to shoulder to do in the
1980's was to ensure that families would be together, that families
would be unified.
The issue there was whether or not the Soviet Union was going to
allow individuals out of the Soviet Union to unite with their families.
The issue here is whether the United States is going to force people
out of the United States to become disunited from their families and
whether or not we will provide for greater unification of families from
throughout Central and South America in a fair way.
{time} 1400
There ought to be a resounding ``yes'' to that question. There ought
to be a resounding ``no'' as the gentleman from Oregon says to this
rule so that we cannot commit the omission which has been so grievously
perpetrated in this bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt).
(Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the attempt to gut
privacy provisions in the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill.
Earlier this year, the House passed strong privacy legislation that
would protect against misuse of Social Security numbers. Now we are
being asked to weaken a good piece of legislation.
Amy Boyer was the first known victim of an Internet stalker. Her
killer purchased information, including her Social Security number,
from an on-line information broker for $50. He then used her Social
Security number to track down Ms. Boyer.
Ms. Boyer's family has said that they do not want this language
included in this bill and have gone so far as to say that they want
their daughter's name removed from the bill because it does not stop
people from obtaining private information from information brokers.
Yesterday, the Washington Post called this language a Trojan horse.
Mr. Speaker, this will not stop future stalkers from obtaining Social
Security numbers. This language would roll back the progress made by
this body. We must not ignore the privacy rights of the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, if you take a look at the back of your
Social Security card, you will see the statement: improper use of this
card and/or number by the numberholder or by any other person is
punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Now, the premise of the Amy Boyer bill was supposed to be that we
would ensure that we protected against a felon purchasing any one of
our family's Social Security numbers and then using it in a way, as did
the stalker of Amy Boyer, to kill her, or to do anything even less
severe than that that just interfered with the privacy of the families
of our country.
What has happened, however, is that the bill has now been amended by
the Senate and sent back to us, although we never agreed with this, and
here is what the back of the card is going to say from now on: improper
use of this card and/or number by the numberholder or by any other
person is not punishable by fine, by punishment, by imprisonment, or by
anything. You can do whatever you want with America's Social Security
numbers.
[[Page H11239]]
So something that was originally intended to protect people like Amy
Boyer, a 21-year-old young woman, and everyone else in our country like
her has now been transmogrified by the direct mail industry, by every
other institution in America that wants to turn each one of our family
members into a product marketed as though we have no privacy rights, no
ability to protect our own information, and use the Social Security
number, the government-provided Social Security number, as the clue to
every single person's privacy in our country.
We should reject this Senate provision. On the House side, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw), the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Markey), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kleczka), the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton), we all agree on what should be the protection.
There really is not a debate on the House side. But just because it is
the last minute of the session, we should not accept something that
turns privacy in our country on its head.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 1\1/2\ minutes.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give my
appreciation to those who brought this bill to the floor of the House.
But clearly this is a true example of compassionate conservatism, when
so many of us are left out of the circle of inclusion in this
legislation.
First, let me say what a poor example of procedural prowess to attach
to the District of Columbia bill disparate legislation that has nothing
to do with the fine people of Washington, D.C., attaching this bill
dealing with Commerce and State and Justice. Then might I say that
after all the begging, as the ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Immigration and Claims, working with so many of the leaders of this
Democratic Caucus, of the Hispanic Caucus, of Senator Reid, and not
having the Latino Fairness Act that deals with restoring the rights to
those who deserve to be counted in this country, taxpayers, families to
be reunited, individuals who are strong and who demand and should
receive the right to access legalization, our friends and our
neighbors.
And then this country, under this Republican leadership, refused to
stand up and acknowledge that most Americans support hate crimes
legislation. It is not divisive; it is inclusive. It is to say that all
of us are under the same umbrella and that in fact we are against the
attack on the Jewish day care center in California or the citizens
going to church in Illinois who were shot by a hateful person who
believed that we should divide and not overcome division.
I would ask that we send this bill back and do the right thing for
our good friends of this Nation and restore their rights as immigrants
to make them citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed in what the Republican leadership
brought to floor in the form and guise of the Commerce, Justice, State
Appropriations. As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration
and Claims, I am mostly concerned about the Latino Immigration Fairness
Act. (LIFA) The phrase ``compassionate conservatism'', has very hollow
meaning, if you just talk the talk and not walk the walk. This LIFA
proposal is the modern day civil rights issue of our time, and just 12
days to election day, the Republicans are thumbing their noses at
immigrants who have contributed to our society and are trying to play
by the rules. I say no deal to this proposal, and I urged a ``no''
vote.
This involves amnesty for immigrants who have paid their dues and
have been in this country since 1986, parity for Liberians,
Guatemalans, Haitians, and Hondurans, and restoring Section 245(i),
which allows immigrants to adjust their illegal status, pay a fee, and
remain in this country with their spouses and children. These are
reasonable proposals, and the Republican leadership has a blind eye for
fairness--for justice--and for equity.
The Republican proposal to provide relief to only 400,000 immigrants
who were unable to take advantage of the 1986 law for those entering
the country before 1982 is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because it
leaves and locks to many people out. This is a proposal that is thinly
veiled as an open door, but it really is a feeble attempt to play up to
the Hispanic vote during the political season.
The Republican legislation is a piecemeal correction of the flawed
implementation of the 1986 legalization program. Basically, those
individuals who sought the counsel of a specific lawyer and filed suit
with him are protected, while countless others are left out. Of those
people who are covered in the flawed proposal, less than 40 percent are
expected to prevail. If the GOP acknowledges that the 1986 law was not
implemented correctly, they should try to right the wrong entirely, not
pick some winners and losers based on what law firm they signed up to
represent them.
Also, it is important to understand that this ``amnesty program'' in
fact is just a long overdue update in the registry provision of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. The registry provision gives
immigrants who have been here without proper documents an opportunity
to adjust to permanent status if they have been here for a long enough
time and have nothing in their background that would disqualify them
from immigrant status. The legislation would just update the cutoff
date for registry which is now set at 1972.
Then there is Juan Gonzalez who has been working for a construction
company in Houston, Texas for more than 13 years. Recently he lost his
job because he was not able to present his employer a renewed
Employment Authorization. Since then his family is living a nightmare.
Juan and his wife Luisa are having problems and close to a divorce.
They lost their home and rented a 2-bedroom apartment. Unfortunately,
their children are paying the consequences.
We also need to remain every vigilant on NACARA parity. This would
address an injustice in the provisions of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and
Central American Relief Act of 1997 (``NACARA''). NACARA currently
provides qualified Cubans and Nicaraguans an opportunity to become
lawful permanent residents of the United States. The proposed
legislation would extend the same benefits to eligible nationals of
Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti. The Bill that the
Republicans have brought to the floor has completely left NACARA parity
out. I say no deal, and a ``no'' vote.
Like Nicaraguans and Cubans, many Salvadorans, Guatemalans,
Hondurans, and Haitians fled human rights abuses or unstable political
and economic conditions in the 1980s and 1990s. The United States has a
strong foreign policy interest in providing the same treatment to these
similarly situated people. In addition, returning migrants to these
countries would place significant demands on their fragile economic and
political systems.
Like Senator Jack Reed, I have worked very hard to ensure that the
10,000 Liberian nationals who have been living in the United States
since the mid-1980's and have significantly contributed to the American
economy are not deported. This legislation should also include these
Liberian nationals.
If the Latino Immigrant Fairness Act is not enacted, hundreds of
thousands of people will be forced to abandon their homes, will have to
separate from their families, move out of their communities, be removed
from their jobs, and return to countries where they no longer have
ties.
The inclusion of the Latino Immigrant Fairness provisions would
evidence our commitment to fair and even-handed treatment of nationals
from these countries and to the strengthening of democracy and economic
stability among important neighbors.
The Republican proposal creates a ``V'' visa for people waiting in
the family backlogs, but not all, including U.S. citizens. This
counterproposal treats the family members of some legal permanent
residents better than U.S. citizens. The GOP proposal leaves out U.S.
citizens applying for their children over the age of 21. Ironically,
the GOP fails to help even United States citizens seeking to reunite
with their spouses and children if the spouse or the child fell out of
status for six months or more. In contrast, the Latino Immigrant
Fairness Act 245(i) proposal would cover all people in the pipeline to
becoming legal equally. I say no deal and a ``no'' vote.
The Republicans are failing to correct their flawed legislation of
1997 and 1998. It was the Republicans who passed piecemeal programs in
1997 and 1998 for some refugees. These flaws failed to correct years of
uneven treatment to legitimate refugees from Central America, Haiti,
and does nothing for Liberian nationals. It is baffling why today the
Republicans are now turning their backs on the LIFA proposal for long
time refugees, that have been in the United States for years, worked
hard and paid their taxes when a few short years ago they advanced
these same proposals.
There is no compassion here, Mr. Speaker. Congress should stop trying
to trade some deserving immigrant groups for others, and move to help
all deserving immigrants willing to play by the rules, pay taxes, and
work hard in the United States.
[[Page H11240]]
Mr. Speaker, I am also outraged that this House has brought forth the
important Commerce-Justice-State Conference Report to be voted on; yet
the Republican leadership has not felt the need or importance to
include language to address the dreadful acts of hate crimes.
This move by the Republican leadership is a slap in the face to the
many people here in the United States who have historically been
subjected to hateful acts resulting in death, bodily harm, as well as
mental and physical anguish, only due to a person's race, ethnicity,
gender, age or sexual orientation.
How can we as elected representatives for the American people ignore
our duty to ensure that all people are treated equally? How can we
ignore our moral oath to protect people from hateful acts that arise
because of a person's race, ethnicity, gender, age or sexual
orientation? How can we allow hateful skeleton's of this country's past
to be revived and allowed to infect our society today. Mr. Speaker,
this chamber's silence on the need for hate crimes legislation would do
just that, and the absence of hate crimes language in the CJS
Conference Report sends the message that this country's stance on
crimes of hate is not a top priority.
This issue is very dear to me and I am ashamed that after two years
from the date of James Byrd Junior's vicious murder on a paved road in
my home state of Texas, that a Bipartisan Hate Crimes Prevention Act
has not become law.
Time and time again, I have come to the floor and asked the
Republican leadership to support meaningful hate crimes legislation. I
have introduced my own hate crimes legislation and have supported
legislation and resolutions introduced by my colleagues in both the
House and the Senate. Yet, I find myself coming before the American
people once again to compel the Republican leadership to include hate
crimes language in the CJS Conference Report in order to increase
penalties on perpetrators of hate crimes before the 106th Congress
comes to a close.
Mr. Speaker, the same tactics that have been used in the Texas State
Legislature to run out the time in the legislative session to defeat
the passage of hate crimes legislation have been used here in the
United States Congress as well. When the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Act was introduced in my home state of Texas in January of 1999, it was
hastily defeated in the state Senate. And when state Democrats
attempted to negotiate with Republicans in the state Senate and the
Governor's administration to get a bipartisan hate crimes bill passed,
political games were played to extend the process until the end of the
state legislative session.
As I have stated, this political ploy was not only used in my home
state of Texas, but it has been used here in both chambers of the
United States Congress as well. We have attempted to negotiate with
members of the Republican party to get hate crimes legislation passed
within the 106th Congress, however, political games and wizardry have
been used to delay the process until the congressional session comes to
an end.
I therefore, call on the Republican leadership, with the American
People as my witnesses, to once again ask for the passage of hate
crimes legislation to address senseless killings and crimes of hate and
to make a statement that the United States will no longer tolerate
these Acts.
Since James Byrd Junior's death our nation has experienced an
alarming increase in hate violence directed at men, women, and even
children of all races, creeds and colors.
Ronald Taylor traveled to the eastside of Pittsburgh, in what has
been characterized, as an act of hate violence to kill three and wound
two in a fast food restaurant. Eight weeks later, in Pittsburgh Richard
Baumhammers, armed with a .357-caliber pistol, traveled 20 miles across
the West Side of Pittsburgh where he killed five people. His shooting
victims included a Jewish woman, an Indian, ``Vietnamese,'' Chinese and
several black men.
The decade of the 1990's saw an unprecedented rise in the number of
hate groups preaching violence and intolerance, with more than 50,000
hate crimes reported during the years 1991 through 1997. The summer of
1999 was dubbed ``the summer of hate'' as each month brought forth
another appalling incident, commencing with a three-day shooting spree
aimed at minorities in the Midwest and culminating with an attack on
mere children in California. From 1995 through 1999, there has been 206
different arson or bomb attacks on churches and synagogues throughout
the United States--an average of one house of worship attacked every
week.
Like the rest of the nation, some in Congress have been tempted to
dismiss these atrocities as the anomalous acts of lunatics, but news
accounts of this homicidal fringe are merely the tip of the iceberg.
The beliefs they act on are held by a far larger, though less visible,
segment of our society. These atrocities illustrate the need for
continued vigilance and the passage of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
It is long past the time for Congress to pass a comprehensive law
banning such atrocities. It is a federal crime to hijack an automobile
or to possess cocaine, and it ought to be a federal crime to drag a man
to death because of his race or to hang a person because of his or her
sexual orientation. These are crimes that shock and shame our national
conscience and they should be subject to federal law enforcement
assistance and prosecution.
Therefore, I would urge my fellow members of the United States House,
Congress and the American people to be counted among those who will
stand for justice in this country for all Americans and nothing else.
We must address the problem of hate crimes before the 106th Congress
convenes its legislation. I say no deal and no vote to this Conference
Report until these issues are addressed.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge my colleagues to support the previous question and the rule
and let us get on with the debate on these important bills. It is
getting late in the year. The appropriators have worked long and hard
into the evening. We have an opportunity to close up one more of them
this afternoon, and I urge us to do so.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic vote on the question of agreeing to the
resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 194, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 557]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
[[Page H11241]]
NAYS--194
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E.B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--24
Blagojevich
Brady (PA)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Crowley
Danner
Franks (NJ)
Jones (OH)
Klink
Lazio
McCollum
McIntosh
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Owens
Packard
Pallone
Peterson (PA)
Spratt
Stabenow
Stupak
Thompson (MS)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1426
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 192, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 558]
AYES--212
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Canady
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Coburn
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cox
Crane
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ewing
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kasich
Kelly
King (NY)
Kingston
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuykendall
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Ose
Oxley
Paul
Pease
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Reynolds
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Toomey
Traficant
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--192
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Blumenauer
Bonior
Boswell
Boyd
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hastings (FL)
Hill (IN)
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pickett
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Stabenow
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Weiner
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--28
Bishop
Blagojevich
Borski
Brady (PA)
Campbell
Chenoweth-Hage
Cooksey
Crowley
Danner
Evans
Franks (NJ)
Horn
Klink
Larson
Lazio
Leach
McCollum
McIntosh
Meek (FL)
Metcalf
Owens
Packard
Peterson (PA)
Spratt
Stupak
Thompson (MS)
Waxman
Weldon (PA)
{time} 1434
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________