[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 24936-24948]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 24937]]

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 24938]]

  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. 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 shot 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.

[[Page 24939]]

       ``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 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 Downs 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

[[Page 24940]]

     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 
     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

[[Page 24941]]

     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)
       ``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

[[Page 24942]]

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 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

[[Page 24943]]

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. 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 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. 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

[[Page 24944]]

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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 24945]]

  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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 24946]]

  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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 24947]]

  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)

                               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

[[Page 24948]]


     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.

                          ____________________