[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4969-H4978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4411, INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION
AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 907 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution as follows:
H. Res. 907
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4411) to prevent the
use of certain payment instruments, credit cards, and fund
transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other
purposes. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the
Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now
printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a
substitute depicted in the Rules Committee Print dated July
5, 2006, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as
amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and
on any further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the
bill, as amended, equally divided among and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services and the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative
Berkley of Nevada or her designee, which shall be in order
without intervention of any point of order or demand for
division of the question, shall be considered as read, and
shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only I yield 30
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, this House resolution is a structured rule, House
Resolution 907, and it provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally
divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
{time} 1045
This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of
the bill. It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the
Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now printed in the
bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute, depicted in the
Rules Committee Print dated July 5, 2006, shall be considered as
adopted. This resolution makes in order the amendment printed in the
Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, if offered by
[[Page H4970]]
Representative Berkley of Nevada or her designee, which shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question. This resolution
waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the Rules
Committee report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 907 and the
underlying bill, H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement
Act.
First, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and
Chairman Oxley for shepherding this bill through their committees to
the floor for consideration. And, additionally, I would like to also
recognize Representatives Leach and Goodlatte, the coauthors of H.R.
4411, for all of their hard work to ensure that laws are updated to the
year 2006 and that we crack down on those who would circumvent existing
law.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 would amend existing statutes to prohibit
individuals and companies in the gambling industry from knowingly
accepting credit card, check, electronic fund transfers, and other
similar means or the proceeds of any other financial transaction in
connection with unlawful Internet gambling. Further, this bill would
direct the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System to develop and prescribe regulations which are
necessary and proper to identify and prevent the previously mentioned
types of transactions.
Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this bill aims to modernize existing law as
established by the Wire Act of 1961 to both address the changing
technological landscape and clarify the currently vague statutory
definition of ``bets and wagers.'' This clarification is needed in
order to close the ``blackjack'' loophole that allows games like poker,
blackjack, and roulette to slip through the cracks of existing law.
Additionally, this bill would increase from 2 years to 5 years the
penalty for violating the Wire Act as well as this underlying bill.
This bill also reaffirms our commitment to federalism by protecting the
rights of the States to regulate Internet gambling within their
respective borders.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 is a good bill that makes sure the letter of
the law catches up with the spirit of the law, given the emergence of
new technologies and the proliferation of underground and overseas
gambling organizations that attempt to skirt the rule of law and
exploit individuals.
So as we move forward with this debate, I want to encourage my
colleagues to support the rule and support this underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something different today. I am going
to commend the majority for this rule. Internet gambling is an issue
that does not break along traditional partisan lines. There are
Democrats and Republicans who support the underlying bill before us,
and there are Democrats and Republicans who oppose it. This rule makes
in order legislation that regulates Internet gambling, but it also
makes in order an important amendment offered by Representatives
Berkley, Wexler, and Conyers, Members who do not support the bill as it
is currently written.
This is a fair rule because it accommodates all the views expressed
last night in the Rules Committee. This is how the legislative process
should work, and I hope the Republican leadership will report more
rules like this.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do feel compelled to point out that
the Republican leadership has scheduled the last vote today for some
time around 2 or 3 o'clock. Tomorrow and Thursday are both expected to
be short voting days, and we are not scheduled to be in session on
Friday. There is plenty of time for the House to consider other
important legislation, for example, an increase in the minimum wage
that is long overdue and is supported by, I think, virtually all
Democrats and even some Republicans. So, Mr. Speaker, where is the
minimum wage?
To my friends on the other side of the aisle, why won't you allow
this House to vote to increase the minimum wage?
Yesterday's Washington Post featured a front page article detailing
the wage disparity in the metropolitan D.C. area. High-skilled workers
are making increasingly higher salaries, but lower-skilled workers are
being left behind. We know this is true for workers all across this
country. The minimum wage is not keeping pace with the cost of living
in America today. Housing costs are up, energy costs are through the
roof, low-wage workers need help; and Congress cannot and should not
continue to ignore the plight of low-income workers in America.
Families are living paycheck to paycheck. They are struggling to make
ends meet as the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, as I
said, with rising health care costs, energy, and college costs that
they have to deal with.
Poverty is getting worse in our country today. That is a fact. And it
is frustrating that the leadership on the other side of the aisle seems
indifferent to that sad reality. They pass tax cut after tax cut after
tax cut after tax cut for millionaires, and yet they cannot find the
time for us to consider an increase in the minimum wage.
This leadership has allowed for regular increases in congressional
salary. Now, I know Members of Congress work hard. I am not saying that
people here do not deserve a good salary. But surely my friends on the
other side of the aisle must recognize that low-wage workers work hard
too. They have families to support too. They have bills to pay too.
Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to change this. The Republican
leadership certainly cannot claim that we do not have the time to
consider an increase in the minimum wage. And I am willing to stay in
session after 3 p.m. today to vote on this. I am willing to stay here
on Friday. I am willing to give up the August recess until we vote to
increase the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of timing. We know there is enough
time to consider a minimum wage increase. It is a question of
priorities. And the priorities of this Congress always seem to ignore
those who are struggling most. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve
better than this.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may
consume to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the
gentleman from Virginia and coauthor of this bill, Mr. Goodlatte.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Gingrey) for his generously yielding me this time.
I rise in strong support of this rule reported out of the Rules
Committee and of the underlying legislation, which I have been pleased
to introduce along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and more than 150 other Members
of the House to address something that is long overdue, and that is
modernization of our laws, our Federal laws, dealing with gambling,
particularly what is referred to as Internet gambling.
This is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems.
Historically, gambling in the United States has been illegal unless
regulated by the States. But Internet gambling ignores the laws of the
50 States, which vary each one compared to the next. Some States, like
Utah, ban all forms of gambling. Other States, like Nevada next door,
legalize a great many forms of gambling. This legislation does not
interfere with that, but it addresses the now hundreds and hundreds and
hundreds of offshore sites that are sucking billions of dollars. The
latest estimate is a $12 billion industry with more than half of that
coming out of the United States illegally, unregulated, untaxed.
Many like me who are opposed to gambling are concerned about the
family problems. I have one family in my district whose son committed
suicide because of debts run up on the Internet
[[Page H4971]]
due to gambling. Many are aware recently of the student at Lehigh
University who ran up significant gambling debts and then robbed a bank
in order to try to pay those off.
Those anecdotal evidences simply help to point out what is a
magnifying problem of family problems, bankruptcy problems, problems
with minors gambling, problems with addiction to gambling, problems
with organized crime's being involved in gambling, all of which goes
completely out of the purview of the States, which have jurisdiction
over gambling in the United States.
So as a result of that, 48 out of 50 of our State attorneys general
and the U.S. Justice Department and many other organizations, all the
major sports organizations of the United States, many family
organizations, many religious organizations, have come to the Congress
asking for this legislation, asking to modernize the Wire Act, asking
to take steps, as Congressman Leach has ably done in his legislation
coming out of the Financial Services Committee, to enable the Treasury
Department, working with law enforcement, working with the financial
industry in this country, to see that this flow of money going out to
these sites is cut off.
This legislation accomplishes those goals. It is supported by the
National Collegiate Athletic Organization that is concerned about the
proliferation of sports betting on the Internet and the effect that it
is having on their ability to keep these games fair and honest. We have
had scandals in the past with regard to betting on sports. And all of
the major sports organizations in the country, the National Football
League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the National
Basketball Association, have joined with the NCAA in supporting this
legislation. But other groups, the Family Research Council, Focus on
the Family, Advance USA, Eagle Forum, the United Methodists, Southern
Baptists, and many, many other religious organizations and family
organizations have joined in support of this effort to address this
problem. And it is my hope that the House today will pass this
legislation.
In the process it is very, very important that the amendment that has
been made in order under the rule be defeated because this is, most
clearly, a poison pill amendment. This amendment is designed to take
away the carefully crafted legislation, the careful negotiations with
the States to make it clear that the Congress is not attempting to
interfere with the activities of the States that take place completely
confined within their borders. This addresses interstate gambling on
the Internet, and it addresses offshore gambling on the Internet. And
this amendment would take out of the legislation those carefully
crafted provisions and would effectively gut the bill and defeat the
cooperative effort that the Congress has been engaged in with the
States, with the State attorneys general, with the Justice Department,
and with others. So I would urge my colleagues to support the
legislation and to defeat the amendment.
The legislation clarifies the Wire Act, the 1961 statute that made it
a Federal felony for gambling businesses to use wire communication
facilities to transmit bets or wagers or related money in interstate or
foreign commerce. The Wire Act did not contemplate the Internet or
wireless communications devices and is ambiguous as to whether it
applies to only sports-related gambling or all forms of gambling. The
bill updates the Wire Act to clarify that it covers all types of
gambling and all types of communication facilities.
H.R. 4411 also increases the maximum penalty for violations of the
Wire Act from 2 to 5 years in prison and explicitly preserves the right
of the States to regulate gambling that occurs solely within State
borders. And the bill cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling
Web sites by regulating payment systems. The Department of the Treasury
and the Federal Reserve will jointly develop policies and procedures
for identifying and preventing financial transactions related to
illegal Internet gambling.
{time} 1100
Payment systems will be required to comply with these regulations.
Even when criminal law cannot be enforced, the Federal Government's
jurisdiction over financial systems can nevertheless cut off the money
sources for these illegal businesses.
The bill authorizes State and Federal law enforcement to seek
injunctions against persons who facilitate illegal Internet gambling,
even when the person is not criminally liable; and when deliberating
with foreign governments, the U.S. Government is exhorted to advance
international cooperation in law enforcement efforts against illegal
gambling and related money laundering. The Secretary of the Treasury
will report to Congress about these efforts.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this legislation that
many people are very familiar with, and that is that 6 years ago the
predecessor to this legislation was killed on the floor of this House,
and subsequently in another Congress in the Judiciary Committee, based
upon the misleading representations and the flow of enormous sums of
money related to lobbying activities of one Jack Abramoff, who has been
widely reported in coverage in the Washington Post and elsewhere
regarding the activities that he and others carrying his water, his
dirty laundry, engaged in to misrepresent the purposes of this
legislation and to defeat it.
Many in this House are very determined that they have the opportunity
today to clear the record, to purge the smear on the Congress that was
placed on it by these actions; and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to
take full advantage of that opportunity to do today what should have
been done back then when this industry was much smaller. It has
quadrupled in size since then, and we need to make sure that this
legislation passes this House here today.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, defeat
the amendment and support the rule.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we don't have any
problem with the rule that is before us today. We have a problem with
the priorities of the Republican leadership in this House.
As I look at the schedule today, as I said before, we are out at 2
o'clock today. We are dealing with the bill that we are talking about
right now and then some suspensions that really aren't terribly
significant. I am willing to stay till 5 or 6 if we could debate the
minimum wage.
Let's give the American workers an increase in their salaries. The
average CEO in the United States earns 821 times more than the minimum
wage worker, earning more before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker
earns all year.
I think it is wrong to have millions of Americans working full time
and year round and still living in poverty. I would like to think if
you work in this country you can get out of poverty. I think it is
wrong to give Congress a raise when millions of workers have not had a
penny raise in 9 years.
Over 9 years, this House has given themselves something like $35,000
in pay increases, and we have not even addressed the issue of the
minimum wage, and millions of our fellow citizens are locked into this
minimum wage. It is wrong to give tax cut after tax cut after tax cut
after tax cut to millionaires and to special interests when you do
nothing for minimum-wage workers.
Nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from a minimum wage increase
to $7.25 an hour, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million indirectly.
Almost 60 percent of these workers are women. Forty percent are people
of color. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour equals an
additional $4,400 a year for a family of three. That is 15 months of
groceries, over 2 years of health care, 2 years of college tuition at a
public 2-year college. I could go on and on and on.
It is astounding to me that we find ourselves back after the July 4
recess and we are told we will get to these important issues like the
minimum wage when we can get to them. We have nothing going on this
week that will keep us here beyond Thursday or keep us here until 5
o'clock today or even tomorrow.
What we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to debate the
issue of increasing the Federal minimum wage and letting people in this
Chamber,
[[Page H4972]]
both Republicans and Democrats, have an opportunity to vote up or down.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
George Miller), a champion on this issue.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
from Massachusetts, and I just want to join him in his remarks that
this really is not about this rule, but this is the only place where we
can protest the priorities of this Congress when there are millions of
American workers who work at the minimum wage, who are unable to
provide for their families the basic necessities of their families. And
Congress fails to address that issue and fails to address it especially
when it is so clear the voids in the congressional schedule, where
there are these huge gaps of time where it would be available to debate
the minimum wage, hold hearings on the minimum wage, and report out a
bill for consideration by the Members of Congress. And yet that is not
being done.
It is not being done basically because the Republican leadership has
committed itself to its supporters and the business community that it
will not allow a minimum wage vote to come before the House of
Representatives, even though it is clear that there is probably enough
support to pass this legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25
an hour over the next couple of years.
By doing that, we dramatically change the lives of those individuals
who today work at $5.15 an hour. We dramatically change the lives of
the 1.6 million workers who are parents of children under the age of 18
who earn the minimum wage. All together those parents are working to
raise more than 3 million children, and yet with the minimum wage stuck
at $5.15 an hour, they are unable to provide the necessities for their
family, for those children.
Mind you, these families are stuck at a wage of 1997. The Members of
this House cannot think of anything else that is stuck at 1997. The
price of bread is not struck in 1997 prices. The price of gasoline is
not at 1997 prices. The price of health care is not at 1997 prices. But
for these people who work every day and work at very difficult jobs,
jobs most other people might not take, certainly will not take at this
wage, they end up at the end of the year poor.
At the end of this congressional year, this Congress will not be able
to find the time to address this urgent economic need.
We have supporters for increasing the minimum wage, a company I don't
generally agree with, but Wal-Mart, who says essentially, even at their
stores where they advertise everyday low prices, that the people who
shop in the stores at minimum wage are not making enough money to buy
the basic necessities that are offered. There is not enough money in
the communities to provide for the success of those stores.
This is about whether or not we are going to create an underclass in
America, an underclass probably we already have because these people
are stuck in 1997 wages. But now that you know it, what is the morality
of ignoring them? What is the morality of making a conscious decision
that you are going to go out of session today at 2 o'clock as opposed
to staying a couple of hours longer and dealing with the minimum wage?
What is the morality that you are going to end this session of Congress
where I think we have maybe 30 days left before adjournment without
addressing the minimum wage?
What is it you are saying to these people about the worth that they
are worth, about their lives, about their desire to take care of their
children, to provide the necessities, to provide the wherewithal for
the education and the health and the nutrition of their children?
Try doing it on $5.15 an hour. It won't buy you 2 gallons of gas
today, so I hope you don't have to commute very far. It certainly won't
help with health care payments because you have to pay the rent, and
today we see rent is going up as housing markets go up.
So we leave these people stranded. And you want to talk about values,
you want to talk about families, you want to talk about children, you
want to talk about community, and you a creating an underclass that is
so desperate, and yet these people make the decision to go to work
every day. Explain the morality of that.
No, you are going to spend your morality on Internet gaming. We are
going to say to people, if you bet on a horse, you are legal; if you
bet on a dog, you are not. If you bet in one State, you are legal; not
if in another. If you want to play Texas Hold `Em, you are legal in
some States, but not in other States.
No, let's talk about the morality of a family that is struggling
every day to hold itself together at a time of increasing utility
costs, increasing food costs, increasing transportation costs,
increasing energy costs; and this Congress, under Republican
leadership, simply will not make time to discuss this issue, to vote on
this issue. We are not finding the time under this leadership to vote
on this issue.
That is why we are going to ask for a vote on the previous question
to suggest to you that there is another way to run this Congress, to
run it for the benefit of these desperate Americans who are working
hard every day, but not getting compensated in today's pay.
Imagine. You didn't think it was sufficient that you all get
compensated here at 1997 wages, so we have continued to provide a COLA.
I think it is justified, but the fact of the matter is, for millions of
Americans, you have made a conscious decision while we get a COLA, we
are going to trap them in 1997 wages.
I thank the gentleman, I thank him for his leadership, for allowing
his cooperation on allowing this opportunity to have this vote and
again to try to express to this Congress, because now we are lobbying
the Congress on behalf of the people that are not politically engaged,
are not politically active. They are working too hard; they are working
too hard at work, and they are working too hard the rest of the day
trying to figure out how they hold their families together.
And what do they get from the Republican Congress? They get the back
of their hand. They get the back of their hand. These people's workday
does not end at 5 o'clock. They spend the rest of the time trying to
figure out how they are going to juggle transportation costs, food
costs, health care, education, how they are going to do that for those
3 million children. And we sit by and we end the workday at 2 o'clock?
At 2 o'clock, they are just getting started. We end the work day at 5
o'clock; they are driving home and figuring out whether or not they can
go by the supermarket. Or we are not going to work on Fridays. They go
to work on Fridays. They go to work all day on Fridays. We are going to
work at 6 o'clock on Monday night. They went to work at 6 o'clock
Monday morning.
Do you start to get the sense of the inequities that are taking place
here that are within your power to change?
Let me tell you, you say, oh, you are going to kill jobs. There is no
evidence that that is the case. In fact, those States that have
increased the minimum wage apparently are doing a little better
economically and having more job creation than those States that did
not. But let me tell you, if you have a business plan that is dependent
upon paying people 1997 wages, there may be something wrong with your
business plan.
I do not think we should become co-conspirators in creating this
underclass, and we should not be able to look the other way as we live
a life that is completely out of touch with the struggle of these
people, with our neighbors, with people living in our community. They
struggle on the job and off the job because it never ends for them
trying to make ends meet. And we stroll in here on a Tuesday morning,
we stroll out of here on a Thursday night. We stroll out of here for
the month of August and we stroll out of here in November and we can't
find time? We can't find time to address this issue?
We are not asking you to raise the wages from today. We are asking
you to raise the wages from 1997.
I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
It is interesting to hear from the other side the complaint about
ending our workday at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the
afternoon, whatever the case may be, and yet we hear from them
repeatedly of the accusation that
[[Page H4973]]
the Republicans are passing bills in the dark of the night. So no
matter how we do it, they are going to criticize us.
I think the schedule that we keep is the one that gets things done
and gets it done in an effective way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
giving me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte) and the rule which brings this bill to the floor. I am
pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which by the way, in
case there is any confusion, has nothing whatsoever to do with the
minimum wage.
We just heard a few minutes ago a very detailed explanation of this
legislation by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the
primary sponsors to deal with this, what he described as a $12 billion
industry growing very rapidly, this problem of Internet gambling. This
bill, this legislation, is a very reasonable and rational response to
what is a very fast-growing national problem.
For the past 40 years or so, governments at all levels have been
shrinking the tax base by taking more and more property off the tax
rolls. At the same time, demands for more and more funding from all
government agencies has been growing. Governments at all levels have
turned to gambling in a desperate attempt to raise more revenue. Many
States now promote lotteries or even allow casinos or other forms of
gambling.
This sounds great, of course, for a politician to create a park, but
we have now taken so much land off the tax rolls that we continuously
hear about shortfalls in funding for every government activity. Half
the land is now in some type of public or quasi-public ownership.
But gambling should not be the answer, Mr. Speaker. Several million
people already are addicted to one form of gambling or another. This
problem is going to grow, and many families will suffer if government
keeps promoting gambling, and especially if it can be done by pushing a
few buttons in the privacy and comfort of a home.
The Internet is addictive for many people, anyway, and online
gambling can be doubly addictive. We need to put modest and reasonable
limitations in place on Internet gambling, and this bill does that.
I urge its support.
{time} 1115
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today supposedly is part of the
Republican Family Values Agenda. But going back to what my colleague
from California (Mr. Miller) asked, shouldn't any family value agenda
include guaranteeing working families a livable, decent wage?
The fact of the matter is, if the minimum wage had increased at the
same rate as the salary increase CEOs had received, it would now be
$23.03 an hour. Members of Congress, as I have reminded my colleagues,
have awarded themselves eight pay raises since they last raised the
minimum wage. Thirty-five percent of workers who received a minimum
wage are their family's sole earners. Sixty-one percent are women. And
almost one-third of these women are raising children.
Oftentimes we hear the other side say that this will somehow hurt
small business. Well, the fact of the matter is, small businesses
perform better in States with higher minimum wages. Between 1998 and
2004, the job growth for small businesses in States with a minimum wage
higher than the Federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent
growth in States where the Federal level prevailed.
The bottom line is, those of us on this side believe that increasing
the minimum wage for working families in this country needs to be a
priority, and we would prefer to have this discussion during a debate
on the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the leadership on the other side
continues to deny us that opportunity. So again I would urge my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who agree with us to press
your leadership to allow us to have a vote on the minimum wage. We
could do it today.
Again, I would remind my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) that
according to the schedule that we are out by 2 today. We have plenty of
time to do it today. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it Friday. We
have the whole day on Friday we could do it. So again I would urge my
colleagues to support any effort to increase the Federal minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and I trust that he will be speaking about H.R.
4411 and this rule concerning the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Enforcement Act of 2006.
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Gingrey for
yielding me time. I also thank Chairman Oxley and Representative
Goodlatte for their work on this bill, and Representative Leach and
many others.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this is a tremendously
important piece of legislation. This is not a filler. This is not
something we are just going through the motions on. The reason I say
this is that gambling causes poverty. It causes poverty, in many cases,
as much as the wage actually paid an individual. It causes family
dysfunction. It causes crime, embezzlement, theft.
There is nothing that we can do right now at this particular time
that I think is more germane to the welfare of families and people in
the United States than this legislation. The proliferation of Internet
gambling is fueling the growth of illegal sports gambling on college
campuses across the country. That is why this legislation is endorsed
by the NCAA, the NFL and Major League Baseball. The reason I am coming
at it from this perspective is, as a coach for 36 years, I was always
very concerned about the impact of gambling on athletics.
A 2003 study by the NCAA showed that almost 35 percent of male
student athletes engaged in some type of sports wagering behavior in
the previous year, and roughly 10 percent of female student athletes
did as well. For instance, one athlete reported a $10,000 Internet
gambling debt.
Now, when you have that type of debt, and you are a student, there is
almost no way you can pay it off except you can possibly say, well, you
know, if I cooperate with the gamblers, and if I miss a free throw or
fumble the football or fix a game, then I can be made whole.
And so the integrity of athletics is pretty much at jeopardy in this
regard, and particularly because Internet gambling can be done in such
an inconspicuous way. Almost every college student has access to a
computer, and 70 percent of them have credit cards. Therefore, this is
a huge problem on the college campus.
College students are more likely to fall victim to serious gambling
problems. According to a 1997 study by Harvard University, college
students show the highest percentage of pathological and problem
gambling of any subgroup in the country.
So because of the pervasive, legal, economic and social challenges
posed by the rapid growth of Internet gambling, the National Gambling
Impact Study Commission unanimously recommended, in its 1999 final
report, that the Federal Government prohibit all Internet gambling not
authorized and legalized by law.
H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, provides
new law enforcement mechanisms to stop offshore casinos that are
violating existing State and Federal laws against Internet gambling.
The ease of Internet gambling poses a very serious threat to our
families and our society.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I
urge support by my colleagues. Support the rule and underlying
legislation to crack down on illegal Internet gambling.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, H.R. 4111 can also be considered
Abramoff's revenge. Because as the Cato Institute itself, not the most
liberal think tank around, has suggested, we are doing exactly what he
wanted us to do.
[[Page H4974]]
What he wanted us to do is to push this bill as the anti-Abramoff
bill, which is quite disingenuous. The Abramoff stuff is just latching
on to the backlash to try to push it through.
And so for all of you who thought that we were doing something that
he might not approve of, I just want you to know that this measure
offers the gambling bill as something that he would now support in its
present form. It is a very critical point to consider. It is a bill
that he would have supported in 2000. And though the bill is being
rationalized as a way to exorcise the demons of 2000, the reality is
the bill serves the client, his clients or ex-clients' interests
indeed.
I am hopeful that the Members, particularly my friend from Iowa, will
recognize that what they are trying to do and that we know about his
past involvement in the killing of the 2000 bill is now just the
reverse.
July 11, 2006.
Dear Colleague: ``Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his team were
beginning to panic.
``An anti-gambling bill had cleared the Senate and appeared
on its way to passage by an overwhelming margin in the House
of Representatives. If that happened, Abramoff's client, a
company that wanted to sell state lottery tickets online,
would be out of business.'' (``How a Lobbyist Stacked the
Deck: Abramoff Used DeLay Aide, Attacks On Allies to Defeat
Anti-Gambling Bill,'' Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi,
Washington Post, October 16, 2005)
If he were still lobbying and not on his way to jail,
Abramoff and his former client would have no reason to panic
about H.R. 4411, the revised Internet gambling bill scheduled
for a vote on Wednesday. That's because H.R. 4411 contains
precisely the loophole for state lotteries that Abramoff was
hired to secure in 2000.
The bill's supporters often invokes the defeat of his bill
in 2000 and lobbyist Jack Abramoff's role in that defeat as a
reason to enact this year's bill. However, supporters
conspicuously fails to note that Abramoff's goal was to
preserve the ability of his then-client, ELottery.com, to
bring state lotteries onto the Internet. He only worked to
defeat the Goodlatte bill when it was clear that state
lotteries would not be exempt from the ban.
He would be able to rest easy today. That's because H.R.
4411 contains an amendment to the Federal Wire Act that would
allow states (and companies working with those states) to
sell lottery tickets online so Iong as certain minimal
conditions are met, e.g. the State must specifically
authorize online lottery ticket sales. Given that some states
already are looking to sell tickets online in order to boost
revenues, the new version of the bill will give those states
a green light.
H.R. 4411 is Abramoff's revenge. It is a bill that he could
have supported in 2000. And though passage of this bill is
rationalized as a way to exorcise the demons of 2000, the
reality is this bill serves his client's interests..
Sincerely,
John Conyers, Jr.,
Ranking Member.
____
GOP Offers Gambling Bill as Abramoff Elixir
(By Kathryn A. Wolfe)
Some Republicans are touting Internet gambling legislation
the House likely will pass Tuesday as evidence that disgraced
lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence is gone--even though the
measure would protect many of the gambling interests he once
represented.
Abramoff's lobbying activities, including actions he took
on behalf of the Connecticut-based gambling company eLottery,
are under Justice Department investigation. He separately
pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to conspiracy and fraud charges
stemming from the 2000 purchase of a gambling boat fleet and
was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison.
eLottery, which helps state and international governments
and Indian tribes market lottery tickets online, hired
Abramoff to lobby against a 2000 bill that sought to
establish criminal penalties for Web sites offering Internet
gambling, including those selling tickets for state lotteries
online. He sought to kill the bill entirely, or alternatively
to carve exceptions for certain powerful gambling industries.
The measure was defeated on the House floor July 17, 2000.
This year, lawmakers, eager to turn the Abramoff scandal
into something positive, have begun a new push to enact
slightly different legislation intended to curb Internet
gambling. Much of the rhetoric swirling around the bills
portrays them as the mop with which lawmakers will cleanse
the Capitol of Abramoff's influence.
During a House Financial Services Committee markup on March
14, Jim Leach, R-Iowa, a sponsor of one measure to curb
Internet gambling (H.R. 4411), hinted at Abramoff's past
involvement in killing the 2000 bill, suggesting the affair
is a stain on Congress.
``Congress is in certain disrepute,'' Leach said. ``[The
bill] is part and parcel of what I consider to be necessary
to clean up the Congress.''
Leach's bill would prohibit banks and credit card companies
from processing payments for online gambling bets.
Republican leaders decided to fold another Internet
gambling bill (H.R. 4777) by Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., into
Leach's bill for floor action Tuesday.
Good1atte's bill--approved 25-11 by the Judiciary Committee
on May 25--would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting
credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. It
also would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify
that its prohibitions apply to Internet gambling, not just
sports bets placed over telephone wires.
It appears likely the gambling legislation will win sizable
Democratic support on the floor. Goodlatte's bill was
supported by four Democrats on the Judiciary panel. The
Financial Services Committee approved Leach's bill by voice
vote.
However, some congressional aides and policy analysts who
have followed the legislation say little has changed since
Abramoff succumbed to scandal.
``If they pass this bill, it will be clear that Abramoff
has won and everything he fought for is still protected--all
the industries, carve-outs and exceptions,'' said a
Democratic aide familiar with the bills.
Indeed, neither Goodlatte's nor Leach's bill would apply
its prohibitions to interstate online wagering on horse
races. And Goodlatte's bill contains an exemption for online
state lotteries.
Both measures also contain exemptions for fantasy sports
leagues that offer cash prizes at the behest of Major League
Baseball and grass-roots fan organizations such as the
Fantasy Sports Association.
Goodlatte's bill expressly states that it would not
prohibit activities allowed under the Interstate Horseracing
Act (PL 95-515), the 1978 law that allows off-track betting
facilities to accept interstate horse bets. The horse
wagering industry and the Justice Department are locked in a
battle over whether that law allows online interstate horse
betting.
GOP leaders decided to allow one floor amendment to be
offered to the bill, which would eliminate all waivers or
exceptions for certain types of Internet gambling.
Goodlatte bristles at suggestions that his bill contains
``carve-outs'' for the horse-racing industry, arguing that it
does not get involved in the issue. ``I have very carefully
stayed away from that debate,'' Goodlatte said. ``This
legislation is not the place to get into this issue.''
But Radley Balko, a policy analyst for the Cato Institute,
a libertarian think tank, says that by remaining silent on
the debate, the measures in effect contain an exemption.
Balko said the horse-racing industry will likely attempt to
use the bills to bolster its case in its spat with the
Justice Department by arguing that lawmakers' silence on the
issue is tacit approval from Congress.
``This is exactly the bill Jack Abramoff would've wanted,''
Balko said. ``So to push it as the anti-Abramoff bill is
disingenuous. The Abramoff stuff is just latching on . . . to
the backlash to try to push this through.''
Goodlatte has been particularly vocal about the online
wagering issue's connection with Abramoff. During a February
appearance on CNBC, Goodlatte noted that he introduced his
bill with 116 cosponsors, saying many who voted against the
2000 bill ``were misled by Mr. Abramoff and others about the
function of the legislation [and] are now saying `We want on
board.' ''
Those who voted against the 2000 measure who this year are
cosponsoring Goodlatte's bill include House Majority Whip Roy
Blunt, R-Mo.; Dave Camp, R-Mich.; Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; Gene
Green, D-Texas; Bill Jenkins, R-Tenn.; Thomas M. Davis III,
R-Va.; Jack Kingston, R-Ga.; and Fred Upton, R-Mich. Tom
DeLay, R-Texas, also signed on as a cosponsor, although he
has since resigned from Congress.
The lawmakers who answered requests for comment on the
matter--Blunt, Camp and Green--brushed aside suggestions they
were influenced on the 2000 bill by Abramoffs efforts, saying
this year's bills simply take a better approach. The rest did
not return calls seeking comment.
``Congressman Blunt had concerns regarding potential
loopholes in the bill when the House last voted,'' said
spokeswoman Jessica Boulanger. ``His major concerns have been
addressed and it is clear that the benefits of getting this
bill done expeditiously outweigh any other concerns.''
Supporters of cracking down on Internet gambling, including
the conservative Christian group the Traditional Values
Coalition, view online gambling as a conduit for money
laundering and a breeding ground for a host of social ills.
Opponents of the bills include professional and
recreational gamblers, the online gambling industry,
libertarian groups and some financial institutions,
especially small banks, which fear it will be impossible to
comply with the bills' directives.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of
this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
Leach).
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak during the rule. I
[[Page H4975]]
would comment to begin with on Mr. McGovern's point. I think he has a
really quite excellent one on the minimum wage. But I must frankly
differ quite profoundly with the comments of my good friend, the
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee from Michigan.
The public record is very clear, John, and there is no equivocation,
no conceivable other interpretation. A bill was brought to the floor in
the year 2000, which was brought by Bob Goodlatte, and a great deal of
lobbying went into it to defeat it by Mr. Abramoff. It did not get the
requisite two-thirds vote.
Subsequently, in addition, the record is quite clear, on three
separate occasions, the House banking committee brought a bill out that
was not allowed to come to the floor. And there is every indication
that it was a group led by Mr. Abramoff and others that blocked the
leadership from allowing the bill to come to the floor.
And so I do not want anyone to think and be sidetracked into any
other interpretation. This is an interpretation, by the way, fully
shared by all of the outside groups looking at the issue. I know of no
group that has a different interpretation than this.
Now, I recognize the gentleman has a long-held view about the
appropriateness, and it is a credible approach of legalizing gambling.
It is not an approach that I share, but it is credible. And this bill
goes in the other direction.
As we go down this path, it is important that we all reflect the
issues that we believe in from one perspective or another, but I don't
think we should misinterpret history. And I know Mr. Goodlatte from
your committee has personal scars on what happened from influence
peddlers from the outside world that have come and blocked approaches
that he has advocated for long periods of time, and I have advocated
also for a fair length of time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question, Does this not
contain carve-outs for horse racing?
Mr. LEACH. Actually, let me respond to that.
Mr. CONYERS. And lottery?
Mr. LEACH. Let me respond directly to that. The horse racing
provisions in this bill reflect the Interstate Horse Racing Act. To the
degree that there is any change, it is a slight upgrading restriction
in horse racing, because the new definitional structures put in this
bill apply to the Wire Act. This bill does not touch the dispute
between the Justice Department and the horse racing community. But it
increases the strength of the Justice Department's position in the
sense that these new definitional structures that will apply to the
Wire Act will also apply to horse racing itself.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman for
yielding. I want to be very, very clear about this. This legislation is
very, very similar to the legislation that Jack Abramoff helped to
defeat. He in no way supports it, number one. Number two, there is no
carve-out in this legislation for horse racing or for lotteries.
That has been misrepresented time and time again. That is exactly the
device, that is exactly the argument that Jack Abramoff used to defeat
this legislation twice before. So to make the argument again I think is
entirely wrong; it is entirely misleading. The fact of the matter is
that the horse racing industry has a separate statute, the Interstate
Horse Racing Act, and this legislation does nothing to enhance that
legislation nor to repeal it.
The Justice Department negotiated very carefully the language that
preserves their right to proceed against the horse racing industry if
they choose to do so, because they maintain that separate statute, the
Interstate Horse Racing Act, does not allow them to do what they are
doing.
But this legislation does nothing to enable that in any way, shape or
form; nor does it do anything to enable State lotteries to engage in
Internet gambling operations.
The legislation makes it very clear that for any type of operation to
take place, it must be confined within the borders of the State which
cannot be done on the Internet.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply impressed by the passion that
my comments have raised. But remember that the old bill that he killed
did not contain a lottery exemption that Abramoff wanted, and this one
does. CQ may have gotten it wrong, ladies and gentlemen, I doubt it.
Republicans are touting Internet gambling legislation the House will
likely pass as evidence that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's
influence is gone, even though the measure would protect many of the
gambling interests he once represented.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is certainly rampant here in the House today.
Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, apparently wants it both
ways. He wants to tell us that the Department of Justice is opposed to
horse race gambling, but on the other hand the horse race industry is
happy as a clam.
Let me quote for you what they have said in their March 15, 2006,
press release. It said they had secured language in the Leach bill to
protect Internet and account wagering on horse racing. Also, NTRA
worked with Congressman Goodlatte to ensure that H.R. 4411 also
contained language that protects online and account pari-mutuel
wagering.
{time} 1130
Obviously, nobody has told the horse racing industry that they are
not exempt from this legislation.
After the Judiciary Committee approved the Goodlatte bill in May, the
Thoroughbred Times printed an article titled ``Gambling Bill Passes
Committee With Racing Exemption Intact,'' which includes the sentence,
``The bill includes an exemption that would allow the United States
horse racing industry to continue to conduct interstate account and
Internet wagering.''
Now, I was raised in Las Vegas, Mr. Speaker, where gambling is legal.
My children were born in Las Vegas; my parents live in Las Vegas. We
are now three generations there. I take great exception to those
colleagues of mine that malign the gaming industry and, thereby, the
State of Nevada.
Now, I know firsthand, coming from a family whose father was a
waiter, and on a waiter's salary in Las Vegas because of a strong
gaming economy made enough money to put food on the table, clothes on
our back, a roof over our head, and two daughters through college and
law school. That is not so bad on a waiter's salary, and it doesn't
happen too many other places but the State of Nevada because of our
strong gaming economy. I can assure you that neither my sister nor I
nor any of our friends nor any of our children have had any bad
consequences because of the gaming industry.
So when I hear the gentleman from Virginia speak of a carefully
crafted compromise, which this bill supposedly is, I think what he
means is that he made a deal with the horse racing lobby to exempt them
from this bill. And why is that? Because he knew they would fight it
tooth and nail unless he gave them an exemption. And his comments to
the contrary doesn't make it so.
And when the gentleman from Nebraska stands up and speaks about
protecting college students, I have been down this road with him
before. When it comes to gambling online, there is nothing, nothing,
let me repeat that as loudly as possible for everyone to hear, there is
nothing in this legislation that is going to protect college kids on
campus from gambling online. We are talking about off-shore gambling
sites, Internet sites that are outside of the reach of our judicial
system and our regulators.
Parliamentary Inquiries
Mr. GINGREY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
[[Page H4976]]
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for a Member to
characterize the motivation of another Member, which I think the
gentlewoman from Nevada, whether intentionally or unintentionally, just
did? In addition to that, of course, reference the member as a
hypocrite. And I just would like to know from the Parliamentarian, is
this appropriate for a Member to characterize the motivation of another
Member as Ms. Berkley just did regarding the distinguished author of
this bill, Mr. Goodlatte?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to refrain
from personalities regarding other Members' motives.
Ms. BERKLEY. May I make an inquiry?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
Ms. BERKLEY. What would you call it when you are attempting to outlaw
Internet gaming but create an exemption for horse race gambling online?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is not stating a
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the
discussion so far is we keep talking about prohibiting Internet
gambling. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits Internet
gambling. The prohibition is against running a gambling operation on
the Internet in the United States. If you are running one offshore,
there is no prohibition. So what we are doing is setting up a monopoly
for offshore operations beyond the reach.
We are also setting up a credit card situation which cannot be
enforced. How is a credit card company going to deny a bill coming in
when they don't know what it is for? The credit card company has got to
know it is illegal, they have got to know it was for illegal gambling
rather than for something else. A lot of companies that have a lot of
different entities, they may be charging for a hotel room, not for
Internet gambling. And it cannot possibly be enforced. So you have a
regulatory scheme that can't work and no prohibition against gambling.
If we wanted to get serious about Internet gambling, you should have
put in there it is illegal to gamble. That is not in the bill. This
bill is a message bill. It is unenforceable; you can't regulate it. It
would make more sense since the cat is out of the bag, many countries
are running Internet gambling operations already. If we are going to do
anything, we ought to regulate the operations, supervise it, and tax
it.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from
Virginia, it would be nice if we could in the United States Congress
with our laws regulate what folks can do in Aruba or Bimini or Paradise
Island. Unfortunately, we can't do that. But this bill does prohibit
the use of financial instruments to pay for that gambling activity that
is run offshore.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. If I could inquire of my friend from Georgia how many
more speakers he has.
Mr. GINGREY. We currently have no more requests for speakers at this
time, so I am reserving for the purpose of closing.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on our side, so I will proceed.
May I inquire how much time I have remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will urge all Members of this House to
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and
allow the House to vote on H.R. 2429, the Miller-Owens bill to increase
the Federal minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade. We have
the time. According to the schedule, we are out at 2 o'clock today. The
American workers deserve a pay increase.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately
after the House adopts this rule it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House
floor for an up or down vote. This bill will gradually increase the
minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 after
about 2 years. The amendment also phases in coverage of the Federal
minimum wage for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
Mr. Speaker, how long are we going to wait before we start helping
American workers and their families? Instead of passing significant
legislation week after week, or, even worse, enacting bills to make the
richest of this Nation even richer, when are we going to do something
that is meaningful for the average American worker? It is simply
disgraceful that less than 1 month ago we passed yet another massive
tax break for our Nation's multi-millionaires, but failed to help those
American families who earn the least. In fact, the leadership of this
House actually blocked consideration of a bill that contained an
increase in the minimum wage. The leadership of this House actually and
affirmatively went out there and blocked a bill that contained an
increase in the minimum wage.
It is getting harder and harder and harder every day for those making
at or near minimum wage to make ends meet. It doesn't take a genius to
figure out that paying $3 or more for a gallon of gas by itself can eat
up a $5.15-an-hour paycheck. And we all know that, when gas prices
increase, it has a ripple effect throughout the country, increasing
costs for food and other necessities in life.
Mr. Speaker, just yesterday The Washington Post reported on a new
study that shows that in the Washington, D.C. area, wages are rising
more than twice as fast for highly paid employees as they are for
workers. These people need our help, and they need it immediately.
Let's not allow any more time to go by before we do the right thing and
adopt an immediate increase in the minimum wage. Let's show the
American people that we are looking out for their best interests. And
we can do this today, Mr. Speaker, if we vote down the previous
question and amend the rule.
I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so we can help the 7 million-plus American workers who will
directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in
recognition of the importance of this underlying bill. I want to again
commend Chairman Oxley and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their stewardship
of the bill, as well as Representatives Leach and Goodlatte, the
sponsors of the bill.
H.R. 4411 goes a long way to modernize and clarify existing law, to
turn back the tide of offshore Internet gambling sites that penetrate
our borders and computers across this country with virtually no legal
oversight. These organizations have the ability to prey on children as
well as those citizens who suffer from a gambling addiction, and they
must be stopped.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 does a very good job of getting at the root of
the problem and targeting those organizations that enable this illicit
activity by tightening legal definitions and toughening the penalties
for violations. This bill achieves these ends while also preserving the
rights of our States and their regulatory powers. So for the sake of
minors who might be lured into gambling, and, in truth, citizens of all
ages, I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and
the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
Previous Question on H. Res. 907, Rule for H.R. 4411 Unlawful Internet
Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006
At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution
it shall be in order without intervention of any point of
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an
increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be
considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the
[[Page H4977]]
bill to final passage without intervening motion except: (1)
60 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.''
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican
Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United
States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135).
Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question
vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not
possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is the one of the
only available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. GINGREY. 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. McGOVERN. 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 voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214,
nays 189, not voting 29, as follows:
[Roll No. 360]
YEAS--214
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--189
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--29
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Dicks
Doyle
Evans
Forbes
Goode
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hyde
Istook
Jenkins
Jones (OH)
Kelly
McNulty
Miller (NC)
Nussle
Owens
Radanovich
Rangel
Sessions
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Strickland
Sullivan
Tiahrt
Wexler
{time} 1210
Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
[[Page H4978]]
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________