[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13847-13856]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4411, INTERNET GAMBLING PROHIBITION 
                          AND ENFORCEMENT ACT

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 907 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution as follows:

                              H. Res. 907

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4411) to prevent the 
     use of certain payment instruments, credit cards, and fund 
     transfers for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other 
     purposes. In lieu of the amendments recommended by the 
     Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now 
     printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute depicted in the Rules Committee Print dated July 
     5, 2006, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and 
     on any further amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on the 
     bill, as amended, equally divided among and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services and the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative 
     Berkley of Nevada or her designee, which shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order or demand for 
     division of the question, shall be considered as read, and 
     shall be separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only I yield 30 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending 
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration 
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this House resolution is a structured rule, House 
Resolution 907, and it provides 1 hour of debate in the House, equally 
divided among and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Financial Services and the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

                              {time}  1045

  This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of 
the bill.

[[Page 13848]]

It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the 
Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now printed in the 
bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute, depicted in the 
Rules Committee Print dated July 5, 2006, shall be considered as 
adopted. This resolution makes in order the amendment printed in the 
Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, if offered by 
Representative Berkley of Nevada or her designee, which shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
subject to a demand for division of the question. This resolution 
waives all points of order against the amendment printed in the Rules 
Committee report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 907 and the 
underlying bill, H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement 
Act.
  First, I want to recognize and thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and 
Chairman Oxley for shepherding this bill through their committees to 
the floor for consideration. And, additionally, I would like to also 
recognize Representatives Leach and Goodlatte, the coauthors of H.R. 
4411, for all of their hard work to ensure that laws are updated to the 
year 2006 and that we crack down on those who would circumvent existing 
law.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 would amend existing statutes to prohibit 
individuals and companies in the gambling industry from knowingly 
accepting credit card, check, electronic fund transfers, and other 
similar means or the proceeds of any other financial transaction in 
connection with unlawful Internet gambling. Further, this bill would 
direct the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the 
Federal Reserve System to develop and prescribe regulations which are 
necessary and proper to identify and prevent the previously mentioned 
types of transactions.
  Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this bill aims to modernize existing law as 
established by the Wire Act of 1961 to both address the changing 
technological landscape and clarify the currently vague statutory 
definition of ``bets and wagers.'' This clarification is needed in 
order to close the ``blackjack'' loophole that allows games like poker, 
blackjack, and roulette to slip through the cracks of existing law. 
Additionally, this bill would increase from 2 years to 5 years the 
penalty for violating the Wire Act as well as this underlying bill. 
This bill also reaffirms our commitment to federalism by protecting the 
rights of the States to regulate Internet gambling within their 
respective borders.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 is a good bill that makes sure the letter of 
the law catches up with the spirit of the law, given the emergence of 
new technologies and the proliferation of underground and overseas 
gambling organizations that attempt to skirt the rule of law and 
exploit individuals.
  So as we move forward with this debate, I want to encourage my 
colleagues to support the rule and support this underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something different today. I am going 
to commend the majority for this rule. Internet gambling is an issue 
that does not break along traditional partisan lines. There are 
Democrats and Republicans who support the underlying bill before us, 
and there are Democrats and Republicans who oppose it. This rule makes 
in order legislation that regulates Internet gambling, but it also 
makes in order an important amendment offered by Representatives 
Berkley, Wexler, and Conyers, Members who do not support the bill as it 
is currently written.
  This is a fair rule because it accommodates all the views expressed 
last night in the Rules Committee. This is how the legislative process 
should work, and I hope the Republican leadership will report more 
rules like this.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I do feel compelled to point out that 
the Republican leadership has scheduled the last vote today for some 
time around 2 or 3 o'clock. Tomorrow and Thursday are both expected to 
be short voting days, and we are not scheduled to be in session on 
Friday. There is plenty of time for the House to consider other 
important legislation, for example, an increase in the minimum wage 
that is long overdue and is supported by, I think, virtually all 
Democrats and even some Republicans. So, Mr. Speaker, where is the 
minimum wage?
  To my friends on the other side of the aisle, why won't you allow 
this House to vote to increase the minimum wage?
  Yesterday's Washington Post featured a front page article detailing 
the wage disparity in the metropolitan D.C. area. High-skilled workers 
are making increasingly higher salaries, but lower-skilled workers are 
being left behind. We know this is true for workers all across this 
country. The minimum wage is not keeping pace with the cost of living 
in America today. Housing costs are up, energy costs are through the 
roof, low-wage workers need help; and Congress cannot and should not 
continue to ignore the plight of low-income workers in America. 
Families are living paycheck to paycheck. They are struggling to make 
ends meet as the minimum wage is at its lowest level in 50 years, as I 
said, with rising health care costs, energy, and college costs that 
they have to deal with.
  Poverty is getting worse in our country today. That is a fact. And it 
is frustrating that the leadership on the other side of the aisle seems 
indifferent to that sad reality. They pass tax cut after tax cut after 
tax cut after tax cut for millionaires, and yet they cannot find the 
time for us to consider an increase in the minimum wage.
  This leadership has allowed for regular increases in congressional 
salary. Now, I know Members of Congress work hard. I am not saying that 
people here do not deserve a good salary. But surely my friends on the 
other side of the aisle must recognize that low-wage workers work hard 
too. They have families to support too. They have bills to pay too.
  Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity to change this. The Republican 
leadership certainly cannot claim that we do not have the time to 
consider an increase in the minimum wage. And I am willing to stay in 
session after 3 p.m. today to vote on this. I am willing to stay here 
on Friday. I am willing to give up the August recess until we vote to 
increase the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of timing. We know there is enough 
time to consider a minimum wage increase. It is a question of 
priorities. And the priorities of this Congress always seem to ignore 
those who are struggling most. Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve 
better than this.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may 
consume to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the 
gentleman from Virginia and coauthor of this bill, Mr. Goodlatte.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey) for his generously yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of this rule reported out of the Rules 
Committee and of the underlying legislation, which I have been pleased 
to introduce along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and more than 150 other Members 
of the House to address something that is long overdue, and that is 
modernization of our laws, our Federal laws, dealing with gambling, 
particularly what is referred to as Internet gambling.
  This is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems. 
Historically, gambling in the United States has been illegal unless 
regulated by the States. But Internet gambling ignores the laws of the 
50 States, which vary each one compared to the next. Some

[[Page 13849]]

States, like Utah, ban all forms of gambling. Other States, like Nevada 
next door, legalize a great many forms of gambling. This legislation 
does not interfere with that, but it addresses the now hundreds and 
hundreds and hundreds of offshore sites that are sucking billions of 
dollars. The latest estimate is a $12 billion industry with more than 
half of that coming out of the United States illegally, unregulated, 
untaxed.
  Many like me who are opposed to gambling are concerned about the 
family problems. I have one family in my district whose son committed 
suicide because of debts run up on the Internet due to gambling. Many 
are aware recently of the student at Lehigh University who ran up 
significant gambling debts and then robbed a bank in order to try to 
pay those off.
  Those anecdotal evidences simply help to point out what is a 
magnifying problem of family problems, bankruptcy problems, problems 
with minors gambling, problems with addiction to gambling, problems 
with organized crime's being involved in gambling, all of which goes 
completely out of the purview of the States, which have jurisdiction 
over gambling in the United States.
  So as a result of that, 48 out of 50 of our State attorneys general 
and the U.S. Justice Department and many other organizations, all the 
major sports organizations of the United States, many family 
organizations, many religious organizations, have come to the Congress 
asking for this legislation, asking to modernize the Wire Act, asking 
to take steps, as Congressman Leach has ably done in his legislation 
coming out of the Financial Services Committee, to enable the Treasury 
Department, working with law enforcement, working with the financial 
industry in this country, to see that this flow of money going out to 
these sites is cut off.
  This legislation accomplishes those goals. It is supported by the 
National Collegiate Athletic Organization that is concerned about the 
proliferation of sports betting on the Internet and the effect that it 
is having on their ability to keep these games fair and honest. We have 
had scandals in the past with regard to betting on sports. And all of 
the major sports organizations in the country, the National Football 
League, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the National 
Basketball Association, have joined with the NCAA in supporting this 
legislation. But other groups, the Family Research Council, Focus on 
the Family, Advance USA, Eagle Forum, the United Methodists, Southern 
Baptists, and many, many other religious organizations and family 
organizations have joined in support of this effort to address this 
problem. And it is my hope that the House today will pass this 
legislation.
  In the process it is very, very important that the amendment that has 
been made in order under the rule be defeated because this is, most 
clearly, a poison pill amendment. This amendment is designed to take 
away the carefully crafted legislation, the careful negotiations with 
the States to make it clear that the Congress is not attempting to 
interfere with the activities of the States that take place completely 
confined within their borders. This addresses interstate gambling on 
the Internet, and it addresses offshore gambling on the Internet. And 
this amendment would take out of the legislation those carefully 
crafted provisions and would effectively gut the bill and defeat the 
cooperative effort that the Congress has been engaged in with the 
States, with the State attorneys general, with the Justice Department, 
and with others. So I would urge my colleagues to support the 
legislation and to defeat the amendment.
  The legislation clarifies the Wire Act, the 1961 statute that made it 
a Federal felony for gambling businesses to use wire communication 
facilities to transmit bets or wagers or related money in interstate or 
foreign commerce. The Wire Act did not contemplate the Internet or 
wireless communications devices and is ambiguous as to whether it 
applies to only sports-related gambling or all forms of gambling. The 
bill updates the Wire Act to clarify that it covers all types of 
gambling and all types of communication facilities.
  H.R. 4411 also increases the maximum penalty for violations of the 
Wire Act from 2 to 5 years in prison and explicitly preserves the right 
of the States to regulate gambling that occurs solely within State 
borders. And the bill cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling 
Web sites by regulating payment systems. The Department of the Treasury 
and the Federal Reserve will jointly develop policies and procedures 
for identifying and preventing financial transactions related to 
illegal Internet gambling.

                              {time}  1100

  Payment systems will be required to comply with these regulations. 
Even when criminal law cannot be enforced, the Federal Government's 
jurisdiction over financial systems can nevertheless cut off the money 
sources for these illegal businesses.
  The bill authorizes State and Federal law enforcement to seek 
injunctions against persons who facilitate illegal Internet gambling, 
even when the person is not criminally liable; and when deliberating 
with foreign governments, the U.S. Government is exhorted to advance 
international cooperation in law enforcement efforts against illegal 
gambling and related money laundering. The Secretary of the Treasury 
will report to Congress about these efforts.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this legislation that 
many people are very familiar with, and that is that 6 years ago the 
predecessor to this legislation was killed on the floor of this House, 
and subsequently in another Congress in the Judiciary Committee, based 
upon the misleading representations and the flow of enormous sums of 
money related to lobbying activities of one Jack Abramoff, who has been 
widely reported in coverage in the Washington Post and elsewhere 
regarding the activities that he and others carrying his water, his 
dirty laundry, engaged in to misrepresent the purposes of this 
legislation and to defeat it.
  Many in this House are very determined that they have the opportunity 
today to clear the record, to purge the smear on the Congress that was 
placed on it by these actions; and Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
take full advantage of that opportunity to do today what should have 
been done back then when this industry was much smaller. It has 
quadrupled in size since then, and we need to make sure that this 
legislation passes this House here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation, defeat 
the amendment and support the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we don't have any 
problem with the rule that is before us today. We have a problem with 
the priorities of the Republican leadership in this House.
  As I look at the schedule today, as I said before, we are out at 2 
o'clock today. We are dealing with the bill that we are talking about 
right now and then some suspensions that really aren't terribly 
significant. I am willing to stay till 5 or 6 if we could debate the 
minimum wage.
  Let's give the American workers an increase in their salaries. The 
average CEO in the United States earns 821 times more than the minimum 
wage worker, earning more before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker 
earns all year.
  I think it is wrong to have millions of Americans working full time 
and year round and still living in poverty. I would like to think if 
you work in this country you can get out of poverty. I think it is 
wrong to give Congress a raise when millions of workers have not had a 
penny raise in 9 years.
  Over 9 years, this House has given themselves something like $35,000 
in pay increases, and we have not even addressed the issue of the 
minimum wage, and millions of our fellow citizens are locked into this 
minimum wage. It is wrong to give tax cut after tax cut after tax cut 
after tax cut to millionaires and to special interests when you do 
nothing for minimum-wage workers.
  Nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from a minimum wage increase

[[Page 13850]]

to $7.25 an hour, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million indirectly. 
Almost 60 percent of these workers are women. Forty percent are people 
of color. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour equals an 
additional $4,400 a year for a family of three. That is 15 months of 
groceries, over 2 years of health care, 2 years of college tuition at a 
public 2-year college. I could go on and on and on.
  It is astounding to me that we find ourselves back after the July 4 
recess and we are told we will get to these important issues like the 
minimum wage when we can get to them. We have nothing going on this 
week that will keep us here beyond Thursday or keep us here until 5 
o'clock today or even tomorrow.
  What we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to debate the 
issue of increasing the Federal minimum wage and letting people in this 
Chamber, both Republicans and Democrats, have an opportunity to vote up 
or down.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller), a champion on this issue.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
from Massachusetts, and I just want to join him in his remarks that 
this really is not about this rule, but this is the only place where we 
can protest the priorities of this Congress when there are millions of 
American workers who work at the minimum wage, who are unable to 
provide for their families the basic necessities of their families. And 
Congress fails to address that issue and fails to address it especially 
when it is so clear the voids in the congressional schedule, where 
there are these huge gaps of time where it would be available to debate 
the minimum wage, hold hearings on the minimum wage, and report out a 
bill for consideration by the Members of Congress. And yet that is not 
being done.
  It is not being done basically because the Republican leadership has 
committed itself to its supporters and the business community that it 
will not allow a minimum wage vote to come before the House of 
Representatives, even though it is clear that there is probably enough 
support to pass this legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 
an hour over the next couple of years.
  By doing that, we dramatically change the lives of those individuals 
who today work at $5.15 an hour. We dramatically change the lives of 
the 1.6 million workers who are parents of children under the age of 18 
who earn the minimum wage. All together those parents are working to 
raise more than 3 million children, and yet with the minimum wage stuck 
at $5.15 an hour, they are unable to provide the necessities for their 
family, for those children.
  Mind you, these families are stuck at a wage of 1997. The Members of 
this House cannot think of anything else that is stuck at 1997. The 
price of bread is not struck in 1997 prices. The price of gasoline is 
not at 1997 prices. The price of health care is not at 1997 prices. But 
for these people who work every day and work at very difficult jobs, 
jobs most other people might not take, certainly will not take at this 
wage, they end up at the end of the year poor.
  At the end of this congressional year, this Congress will not be able 
to find the time to address this urgent economic need.
  We have supporters for increasing the minimum wage, a company I don't 
generally agree with, but Wal-Mart, who says essentially, even at their 
stores where they advertise everyday low prices, that the people who 
shop in the stores at minimum wage are not making enough money to buy 
the basic necessities that are offered. There is not enough money in 
the communities to provide for the success of those stores.
  This is about whether or not we are going to create an underclass in 
America, an underclass probably we already have because these people 
are stuck in 1997 wages. But now that you know it, what is the morality 
of ignoring them? What is the morality of making a conscious decision 
that you are going to go out of session today at 2 o'clock as opposed 
to staying a couple of hours longer and dealing with the minimum wage? 
What is the morality that you are going to end this session of Congress 
where I think we have maybe 30 days left before adjournment without 
addressing the minimum wage?
  What is it you are saying to these people about the worth that they 
are worth, about their lives, about their desire to take care of their 
children, to provide the necessities, to provide the wherewithal for 
the education and the health and the nutrition of their children?
  Try doing it on $5.15 an hour. It won't buy you 2 gallons of gas 
today, so I hope you don't have to commute very far. It certainly won't 
help with health care payments because you have to pay the rent, and 
today we see rent is going up as housing markets go up.
  So we leave these people stranded. And you want to talk about values, 
you want to talk about families, you want to talk about children, you 
want to talk about community, and you a creating an underclass that is 
so desperate, and yet these people make the decision to go to work 
every day. Explain the morality of that.
  No, you are going to spend your morality on Internet gaming. We are 
going to say to people, if you bet on a horse, you are legal; if you 
bet on a dog, you are not. If you bet in one State, you are legal; not 
if in another. If you want to play Texas Hold `Em, you are legal in 
some States, but not in other States.
  No, let's talk about the morality of a family that is struggling 
every day to hold itself together at a time of increasing utility 
costs, increasing food costs, increasing transportation costs, 
increasing energy costs; and this Congress, under Republican 
leadership, simply will not make time to discuss this issue, to vote on 
this issue. We are not finding the time under this leadership to vote 
on this issue.
  That is why we are going to ask for a vote on the previous question 
to suggest to you that there is another way to run this Congress, to 
run it for the benefit of these desperate Americans who are working 
hard every day, but not getting compensated in today's pay.
  Imagine. You didn't think it was sufficient that you all get 
compensated here at 1997 wages, so we have continued to provide a COLA. 
I think it is justified, but the fact of the matter is, for millions of 
Americans, you have made a conscious decision while we get a COLA, we 
are going to trap them in 1997 wages.
  I thank the gentleman, I thank him for his leadership, for allowing 
his cooperation on allowing this opportunity to have this vote and 
again to try to express to this Congress, because now we are lobbying 
the Congress on behalf of the people that are not politically engaged, 
are not politically active. They are working too hard; they are working 
too hard at work, and they are working too hard the rest of the day 
trying to figure out how they hold their families together.
  And what do they get from the Republican Congress? They get the back 
of their hand. They get the back of their hand. These people's workday 
does not end at 5 o'clock. They spend the rest of the time trying to 
figure out how they are going to juggle transportation costs, food 
costs, health care, education, how they are going to do that for those 
3 million children. And we sit by and we end the workday at 2 o'clock? 
At 2 o'clock, they are just getting started. We end the work day at 5 
o'clock; they are driving home and figuring out whether or not they can 
go by the supermarket. Or we are not going to work on Fridays. They go 
to work on Fridays. They go to work all day on Fridays. We are going to 
work at 6 o'clock on Monday night. They went to work at 6 o'clock 
Monday morning.
  Do you start to get the sense of the inequities that are taking place 
here that are within your power to change?
  Let me tell you, you say, oh, you are going to kill jobs. There is no 
evidence that that is the case. In fact, those States that have 
increased the minimum wage apparently are doing a little better 
economically and having more job creation than those States that did 
not. But let me tell you, if you have a business plan that is dependent

[[Page 13851]]

upon paying people 1997 wages, there may be something wrong with your 
business plan.
  I do not think we should become co-conspirators in creating this 
underclass, and we should not be able to look the other way as we live 
a life that is completely out of touch with the struggle of these 
people, with our neighbors, with people living in our community. They 
struggle on the job and off the job because it never ends for them 
trying to make ends meet. And we stroll in here on a Tuesday morning, 
we stroll out of here on a Thursday night. We stroll out of here for 
the month of August and we stroll out of here in November and we can't 
find time? We can't find time to address this issue?
  We are not asking you to raise the wages from today. We are asking 
you to raise the wages from 1997.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  It is interesting to hear from the other side the complaint about 
ending our workday at 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the 
afternoon, whatever the case may be, and yet we hear from them 
repeatedly of the accusation that the Republicans are passing bills in 
the dark of the night. So no matter how we do it, they are going to 
criticize us.
  I think the schedule that we keep is the one that gets things done 
and gets it done in an effective way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
giving me this time, and I rise in strong support of this bill by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) and the rule which brings this bill to the floor. I am 
pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation, which by the way, in 
case there is any confusion, has nothing whatsoever to do with the 
minimum wage.
  We just heard a few minutes ago a very detailed explanation of this 
legislation by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), one of the 
primary sponsors to deal with this, what he described as a $12 billion 
industry growing very rapidly, this problem of Internet gambling. This 
bill, this legislation, is a very reasonable and rational response to 
what is a very fast-growing national problem.
  For the past 40 years or so, governments at all levels have been 
shrinking the tax base by taking more and more property off the tax 
rolls. At the same time, demands for more and more funding from all 
government agencies has been growing. Governments at all levels have 
turned to gambling in a desperate attempt to raise more revenue. Many 
States now promote lotteries or even allow casinos or other forms of 
gambling.
  This sounds great, of course, for a politician to create a park, but 
we have now taken so much land off the tax rolls that we continuously 
hear about shortfalls in funding for every government activity. Half 
the land is now in some type of public or quasi-public ownership.
  But gambling should not be the answer, Mr. Speaker. Several million 
people already are addicted to one form of gambling or another. This 
problem is going to grow, and many families will suffer if government 
keeps promoting gambling, and especially if it can be done by pushing a 
few buttons in the privacy and comfort of a home.
  The Internet is addictive for many people, anyway, and online 
gambling can be doubly addictive. We need to put modest and reasonable 
limitations in place on Internet gambling, and this bill does that.
  I urge its support.

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill before us today supposedly is part of the 
Republican Family Values Agenda. But going back to what my colleague 
from California (Mr. Miller) asked, shouldn't any family value agenda 
include guaranteeing working families a livable, decent wage?
  The fact of the matter is, if the minimum wage had increased at the 
same rate as the salary increase CEOs had received, it would now be 
$23.03 an hour. Members of Congress, as I have reminded my colleagues, 
have awarded themselves eight pay raises since they last raised the 
minimum wage. Thirty-five percent of workers who received a minimum 
wage are their family's sole earners. Sixty-one percent are women. And 
almost one-third of these women are raising children.
  Oftentimes we hear the other side say that this will somehow hurt 
small business. Well, the fact of the matter is, small businesses 
perform better in States with higher minimum wages. Between 1998 and 
2004, the job growth for small businesses in States with a minimum wage 
higher than the Federal level was 6.2 percent compared to a 4.1 percent 
growth in States where the Federal level prevailed.
  The bottom line is, those of us on this side believe that increasing 
the minimum wage for working families in this country needs to be a 
priority, and we would prefer to have this discussion during a debate 
on the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the leadership on the other side 
continues to deny us that opportunity. So again I would urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle who agree with us to press 
your leadership to allow us to have a vote on the minimum wage. We 
could do it today.
  Again, I would remind my friend from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) that 
according to the schedule that we are out by 2 today. We have plenty of 
time to do it today. We could do it tomorrow. We could do it Friday. We 
have the whole day on Friday we could do it. So again I would urge my 
colleagues to support any effort to increase the Federal minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), and I trust that he will be speaking about H.R. 
4411 and this rule concerning the Unlawful Internet Gambling 
Enforcement Act of 2006.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Mr. Gingrey for 
yielding me time. I also thank Chairman Oxley and Representative 
Goodlatte for their work on this bill, and Representative Leach and 
many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that this is a tremendously 
important piece of legislation. This is not a filler. This is not 
something we are just going through the motions on. The reason I say 
this is that gambling causes poverty. It causes poverty, in many cases, 
as much as the wage actually paid an individual. It causes family 
dysfunction. It causes crime, embezzlement, theft.
  There is nothing that we can do right now at this particular time 
that I think is more germane to the welfare of families and people in 
the United States than this legislation. The proliferation of Internet 
gambling is fueling the growth of illegal sports gambling on college 
campuses across the country. That is why this legislation is endorsed 
by the NCAA, the NFL and Major League Baseball. The reason I am coming 
at it from this perspective is, as a coach for 36 years, I was always 
very concerned about the impact of gambling on athletics.
  A 2003 study by the NCAA showed that almost 35 percent of male 
student athletes engaged in some type of sports wagering behavior in 
the previous year, and roughly 10 percent of female student athletes 
did as well. For instance, one athlete reported a $10,000 Internet 
gambling debt.
  Now, when you have that type of debt, and you are a student, there is 
almost no way you can pay it off except you can possibly say, well, you 
know, if I cooperate with the gamblers, and if I miss a free throw or 
fumble the football or fix a game, then I can be made whole.
  And so the integrity of athletics is pretty much at jeopardy in this 
regard, and particularly because Internet gambling can be done in such 
an inconspicuous way. Almost every college student has access to a 
computer, and 70 percent of them have credit cards. Therefore, this is 
a huge problem on the college campus.

[[Page 13852]]

  College students are more likely to fall victim to serious gambling 
problems. According to a 1997 study by Harvard University, college 
students show the highest percentage of pathological and problem 
gambling of any subgroup in the country.
  So because of the pervasive, legal, economic and social challenges 
posed by the rapid growth of Internet gambling, the National Gambling 
Impact Study Commission unanimously recommended, in its 1999 final 
report, that the Federal Government prohibit all Internet gambling not 
authorized and legalized by law.
  H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, provides 
new law enforcement mechanisms to stop offshore casinos that are 
violating existing State and Federal laws against Internet gambling. 
The ease of Internet gambling poses a very serious threat to our 
families and our society.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation. I 
urge support by my colleagues. Support the rule and underlying 
legislation to crack down on illegal Internet gambling.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Ladies and gentlemen of the House, H.R. 4111 can also be considered 
Abramoff's revenge. Because as the Cato Institute itself, not the most 
liberal think tank around, has suggested, we are doing exactly what he 
wanted us to do.
  What he wanted us to do is to push this bill as the anti-Abramoff 
bill, which is quite disingenuous. The Abramoff stuff is just latching 
on to the backlash to try to push it through.
  And so for all of you who thought that we were doing something that 
he might not approve of, I just want you to know that this measure 
offers the gambling bill as something that he would now support in its 
present form. It is a very critical point to consider. It is a bill 
that he would have supported in 2000. And though the bill is being 
rationalized as a way to exorcise the demons of 2000, the reality is 
the bill serves the client, his clients or ex-clients' interests 
indeed.
  I am hopeful that the Members, particularly my friend from Iowa, will 
recognize that what they are trying to do and that we know about his 
past involvement in the killing of the 2000 bill is now just the 
reverse.
                                                    July 11, 2006.
       Dear Colleague: ``Lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his team were 
     beginning to panic.
       ``An anti-gambling bill had cleared the Senate and appeared 
     on its way to passage by an overwhelming margin in the House 
     of Representatives. If that happened, Abramoff's client, a 
     company that wanted to sell state lottery tickets online, 
     would be out of business.'' (``How a Lobbyist Stacked the 
     Deck: Abramoff Used DeLay Aide, Attacks On Allies to Defeat 
     Anti-Gambling Bill,'' Susan Schmidt and James V. Grimaldi, 
     Washington Post, October 16, 2005)
       If he were still lobbying and not on his way to jail, 
     Abramoff and his former client would have no reason to panic 
     about H.R. 4411, the revised Internet gambling bill scheduled 
     for a vote on Wednesday. That's because H.R. 4411 contains 
     precisely the loophole for state lotteries that Abramoff was 
     hired to secure in 2000.
       The bill's supporters often invokes the defeat of his bill 
     in 2000 and lobbyist Jack Abramoff's role in that defeat as a 
     reason to enact this year's bill. However, supporters 
     conspicuously fails to note that Abramoff's goal was to 
     preserve the ability of his then-client, ELottery.com, to 
     bring state lotteries onto the Internet. He only worked to 
     defeat the Goodlatte bill when it was clear that state 
     lotteries would not be exempt from the ban.
       He would be able to rest easy today. That's because H.R. 
     4411 contains an amendment to the Federal Wire Act that would 
     allow states (and companies working with those states) to 
     sell lottery tickets online so Iong as certain minimal 
     conditions are met, e.g. the State must specifically 
     authorize online lottery ticket sales. Given that some states 
     already are looking to sell tickets online in order to boost 
     revenues, the new version of the bill will give those states 
     a green light.
       H.R. 4411 is Abramoff's revenge. It is a bill that he could 
     have supported in 2000. And though passage of this bill is 
     rationalized as a way to exorcise the demons of 2000, the 
     reality is this bill serves his client's interests..
       Sincerely,
                                                John Conyers, Jr.,
     Ranking Member.
                                  ____


              GOP Offers Gambling Bill as Abramoff Elixir

                         (By Kathryn A. Wolfe)

       Some Republicans are touting Internet gambling legislation 
     the House likely will pass Tuesday as evidence that disgraced 
     lobbyist Jack Abramoff's influence is gone--even though the 
     measure would protect many of the gambling interests he once 
     represented.
       Abramoff's lobbying activities, including actions he took 
     on behalf of the Connecticut-based gambling company eLottery, 
     are under Justice Department investigation. He separately 
     pleaded guilty Jan. 4 to conspiracy and fraud charges 
     stemming from the 2000 purchase of a gambling boat fleet and 
     was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison.
       eLottery, which helps state and international governments 
     and Indian tribes market lottery tickets online, hired 
     Abramoff to lobby against a 2000 bill that sought to 
     establish criminal penalties for Web sites offering Internet 
     gambling, including those selling tickets for state lotteries 
     online. He sought to kill the bill entirely, or alternatively 
     to carve exceptions for certain powerful gambling industries. 
     The measure was defeated on the House floor July 17, 2000.
       This year, lawmakers, eager to turn the Abramoff scandal 
     into something positive, have begun a new push to enact 
     slightly different legislation intended to curb Internet 
     gambling. Much of the rhetoric swirling around the bills 
     portrays them as the mop with which lawmakers will cleanse 
     the Capitol of Abramoff's influence.
       During a House Financial Services Committee markup on March 
     14, Jim Leach, R-Iowa, a sponsor of one measure to curb 
     Internet gambling (H.R. 4411), hinted at Abramoff's past 
     involvement in killing the 2000 bill, suggesting the affair 
     is a stain on Congress.
       ``Congress is in certain disrepute,'' Leach said. ``[The 
     bill] is part and parcel of what I consider to be necessary 
     to clean up the Congress.''
       Leach's bill would prohibit banks and credit card companies 
     from processing payments for online gambling bets.
       Republican leaders decided to fold another Internet 
     gambling bill (H.R. 4777) by Robert W. Goodlatte, R-Va., into 
     Leach's bill for floor action Tuesday.
       Good1atte's bill--approved 25-11 by the Judiciary Committee 
     on May 25--would prohibit gambling businesses from accepting 
     credit cards and electronic transfers for online betting. It 
     also would modify the 1961 Wire Act (PL 87-216) to clarify 
     that its prohibitions apply to Internet gambling, not just 
     sports bets placed over telephone wires.
       It appears likely the gambling legislation will win sizable 
     Democratic support on the floor. Goodlatte's bill was 
     supported by four Democrats on the Judiciary panel. The 
     Financial Services Committee approved Leach's bill by voice 
     vote.
       However, some congressional aides and policy analysts who 
     have followed the legislation say little has changed since 
     Abramoff succumbed to scandal.
       ``If they pass this bill, it will be clear that Abramoff 
     has won and everything he fought for is still protected--all 
     the industries, carve-outs and exceptions,'' said a 
     Democratic aide familiar with the bills.
       Indeed, neither Goodlatte's nor Leach's bill would apply 
     its prohibitions to interstate online wagering on horse 
     races. And Goodlatte's bill contains an exemption for online 
     state lotteries.
       Both measures also contain exemptions for fantasy sports 
     leagues that offer cash prizes at the behest of Major League 
     Baseball and grass-roots fan organizations such as the 
     Fantasy Sports Association.
       Goodlatte's bill expressly states that it would not 
     prohibit activities allowed under the Interstate Horseracing 
     Act (PL 95-515), the 1978 law that allows off-track betting 
     facilities to accept interstate horse bets. The horse 
     wagering industry and the Justice Department are locked in a 
     battle over whether that law allows online interstate horse 
     betting.
       GOP leaders decided to allow one floor amendment to be 
     offered to the bill, which would eliminate all waivers or 
     exceptions for certain types of Internet gambling.
       Goodlatte bristles at suggestions that his bill contains 
     ``carve-outs'' for the horse-racing industry, arguing that it 
     does not get involved in the issue. ``I have very carefully 
     stayed away from that debate,'' Goodlatte said. ``This 
     legislation is not the place to get into this issue.''
       But Radley Balko, a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, 
     a libertarian think tank, says that by remaining silent on 
     the debate, the measures in effect contain an exemption.
       Balko said the horse-racing industry will likely attempt to 
     use the bills to bolster its case in its spat with the 
     Justice Department by arguing that lawmakers' silence on the 
     issue is tacit approval from Congress.
       ``This is exactly the bill Jack Abramoff would've wanted,'' 
     Balko said. ``So to push it as the anti-Abramoff bill is 
     disingenuous. The Abramoff stuff is just latching on . . . to 
     the backlash to try to push this through.''
       Goodlatte has been particularly vocal about the online 
     wagering issue's connection

[[Page 13853]]

     with Abramoff. During a February appearance on CNBC, 
     Goodlatte noted that he introduced his bill with 116 
     cosponsors, saying many who voted against the 2000 bill 
     ``were misled by Mr. Abramoff and others about the function 
     of the legislation [and] are now saying `We want on board.'''
       Those who voted against the 2000 measure who this year are 
     cosponsoring Goodlatte's bill include House Majority Whip Roy 
     Blunt, R-Mo.; Dave Camp, R-Mich.; Steve Chabot, R-Ohio; Gene 
     Green, D-Texas; Bill Jenkins, R-Tenn.; Thomas M. Davis III, 
     R-Va.; Jack Kingston, R-Ga.; and Fred Upton, R-Mich. Tom 
     DeLay, R-Texas, also signed on as a cosponsor, although he 
     has since resigned from Congress.
       The lawmakers who answered requests for comment on the 
     matter--Blunt, Camp and Green--brushed aside suggestions they 
     were influenced on the 2000 bill by Abramoffs efforts, saying 
     this year's bills simply take a better approach. The rest did 
     not return calls seeking comment.
       ``Congressman Blunt had concerns regarding potential 
     loopholes in the bill when the House last voted,'' said 
     spokeswoman Jessica Boulanger. ``His major concerns have been 
     addressed and it is clear that the benefits of getting this 
     bill done expeditiously outweigh any other concerns.''
       Supporters of cracking down on Internet gambling, including 
     the conservative Christian group the Traditional Values 
     Coalition, view online gambling as a conduit for money 
     laundering and a breeding ground for a host of social ills.
       Opponents of the bills include professional and 
     recreational gamblers, the online gambling industry, 
     libertarian groups and some financial institutions, 
     especially small banks, which fear it will be impossible to 
     comply with the bills' directives.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of 
this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. 
Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I hadn't intended to speak during the rule. I 
would comment to begin with on Mr. McGovern's point. I think he has a 
really quite excellent one on the minimum wage. But I must frankly 
differ quite profoundly with the comments of my good friend, the 
distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee from Michigan.
  The public record is very clear, John, and there is no equivocation, 
no conceivable other interpretation. A bill was brought to the floor in 
the year 2000, which was brought by Bob Goodlatte, and a great deal of 
lobbying went into it to defeat it by Mr. Abramoff. It did not get the 
requisite two-thirds vote.
  Subsequently, in addition, the record is quite clear, on three 
separate occasions, the House banking committee brought a bill out that 
was not allowed to come to the floor. And there is every indication 
that it was a group led by Mr. Abramoff and others that blocked the 
leadership from allowing the bill to come to the floor.
  And so I do not want anyone to think and be sidetracked into any 
other interpretation. This is an interpretation, by the way, fully 
shared by all of the outside groups looking at the issue. I know of no 
group that has a different interpretation than this.
  Now, I recognize the gentleman has a long-held view about the 
appropriateness, and it is a credible approach of legalizing gambling. 
It is not an approach that I share, but it is credible. And this bill 
goes in the other direction.
  As we go down this path, it is important that we all reflect the 
issues that we believe in from one perspective or another, but I don't 
think we should misinterpret history. And I know Mr. Goodlatte from 
your committee has personal scars on what happened from influence 
peddlers from the outside world that have come and blocked approaches 
that he has advocated for long periods of time, and I have advocated 
also for a fair length of time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question, Does this not 
contain carve-outs for horse racing?
  Mr. LEACH. Actually, let me respond to that.
  Mr. CONYERS. And lottery?
  Mr. LEACH. Let me respond directly to that. The horse racing 
provisions in this bill reflect the Interstate Horse Racing Act. To the 
degree that there is any change, it is a slight upgrading restriction 
in horse racing, because the new definitional structures put in this 
bill apply to the Wire Act. This bill does not touch the dispute 
between the Justice Department and the horse racing community. But it 
increases the strength of the Justice Department's position in the 
sense that these new definitional structures that will apply to the 
Wire Act will also apply to horse racing itself.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LEACH. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the gentleman for 
yielding. I want to be very, very clear about this. This legislation is 
very, very similar to the legislation that Jack Abramoff helped to 
defeat. He in no way supports it, number one. Number two, there is no 
carve-out in this legislation for horse racing or for lotteries.
  That has been misrepresented time and time again. That is exactly the 
device, that is exactly the argument that Jack Abramoff used to defeat 
this legislation twice before. So to make the argument again I think is 
entirely wrong; it is entirely misleading. The fact of the matter is 
that the horse racing industry has a separate statute, the Interstate 
Horse Racing Act, and this legislation does nothing to enhance that 
legislation nor to repeal it.
  The Justice Department negotiated very carefully the language that 
preserves their right to proceed against the horse racing industry if 
they choose to do so, because they maintain that separate statute, the 
Interstate Horse Racing Act, does not allow them to do what they are 
doing.
  But this legislation does nothing to enable that in any way, shape or 
form; nor does it do anything to enable State lotteries to engage in 
Internet gambling operations.
  The legislation makes it very clear that for any type of operation to 
take place, it must be confined within the borders of the State which 
cannot be done on the Internet.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply impressed by the passion that 
my comments have raised. But remember that the old bill that he killed 
did not contain a lottery exemption that Abramoff wanted, and this one 
does. CQ may have gotten it wrong, ladies and gentlemen, I doubt it. 
Republicans are touting Internet gambling legislation the House will 
likely pass as evidence that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff's 
influence is gone, even though the measure would protect many of the 
gambling interests he once represented.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, hypocrisy is certainly rampant here in the House today. 
Mr. Goodlatte, the gentleman from Virginia, apparently wants it both 
ways. He wants to tell us that the Department of Justice is opposed to 
horse race gambling, but on the other hand the horse race industry is 
happy as a clam.
  Let me quote for you what they have said in their March 15, 2006, 
press release. It said they had secured language in the Leach bill to 
protect Internet and account wagering on horse racing. Also, NTRA 
worked with Congressman Goodlatte to ensure that H.R. 4411 also 
contained language that protects online and account pari-mutuel 
wagering.

                              {time}  1130

  Obviously, nobody has told the horse racing industry that they are 
not exempt from this legislation.
  After the Judiciary Committee approved the Goodlatte bill in May, the 
Thoroughbred Times printed an article titled ``Gambling Bill Passes 
Committee With Racing Exemption Intact,'' which includes the sentence, 
``The bill includes an exemption that would allow the United States 
horse racing industry to continue to conduct interstate account and 
Internet wagering.''
  Now, I was raised in Las Vegas, Mr. Speaker, where gambling is legal. 
My

[[Page 13854]]

children were born in Las Vegas; my parents live in Las Vegas. We are 
now three generations there. I take great exception to those colleagues 
of mine that malign the gaming industry and, thereby, the State of 
Nevada.
  Now, I know firsthand, coming from a family whose father was a 
waiter, and on a waiter's salary in Las Vegas because of a strong 
gaming economy made enough money to put food on the table, clothes on 
our back, a roof over our head, and two daughters through college and 
law school. That is not so bad on a waiter's salary, and it doesn't 
happen too many other places but the State of Nevada because of our 
strong gaming economy. I can assure you that neither my sister nor I 
nor any of our friends nor any of our children have had any bad 
consequences because of the gaming industry.
  So when I hear the gentleman from Virginia speak of a carefully 
crafted compromise, which this bill supposedly is, I think what he 
means is that he made a deal with the horse racing lobby to exempt them 
from this bill. And why is that? Because he knew they would fight it 
tooth and nail unless he gave them an exemption. And his comments to 
the contrary doesn't make it so.
  And when the gentleman from Nebraska stands up and speaks about 
protecting college students, I have been down this road with him 
before. When it comes to gambling online, there is nothing, nothing, 
let me repeat that as loudly as possible for everyone to hear, there is 
nothing in this legislation that is going to protect college kids on 
campus from gambling online. We are talking about off-shore gambling 
sites, Internet sites that are outside of the reach of our judicial 
system and our regulators.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. GINGREY. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Murphy). The gentleman will state his 
inquiry.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, is it appropriate for a Member to 
characterize the motivation of another Member, which I think the 
gentlewoman from Nevada, whether intentionally or unintentionally, just 
did? In addition to that, of course, reference the member as a 
hypocrite. And I just would like to know from the Parliamentarian, is 
this appropriate for a Member to characterize the motivation of another 
Member as Ms. Berkley just did regarding the distinguished author of 
this bill, Mr. Goodlatte?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair reminds all Members to refrain 
from personalities regarding other Members' motives.
  Ms. BERKLEY. May I make an inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will state her inquiry.
  Ms. BERKLEY. What would you call it when you are attempting to outlaw 
Internet gaming but create an exemption for horse race gambling online?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is not stating a 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the 
discussion so far is we keep talking about prohibiting Internet 
gambling. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits Internet 
gambling. The prohibition is against running a gambling operation on 
the Internet in the United States. If you are running one offshore, 
there is no prohibition. So what we are doing is setting up a monopoly 
for offshore operations beyond the reach.
  We are also setting up a credit card situation which cannot be 
enforced. How is a credit card company going to deny a bill coming in 
when they don't know what it is for? The credit card company has got to 
know it is illegal, they have got to know it was for illegal gambling 
rather than for something else. A lot of companies that have a lot of 
different entities, they may be charging for a hotel room, not for 
Internet gambling. And it cannot possibly be enforced. So you have a 
regulatory scheme that can't work and no prohibition against gambling.
  If we wanted to get serious about Internet gambling, you should have 
put in there it is illegal to gamble. That is not in the bill. This 
bill is a message bill. It is unenforceable; you can't regulate it. It 
would make more sense since the cat is out of the bag, many countries 
are running Internet gambling operations already. If we are going to do 
anything, we ought to regulate the operations, supervise it, and tax 
it.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman from 
Virginia, it would be nice if we could in the United States Congress 
with our laws regulate what folks can do in Aruba or Bimini or Paradise 
Island. Unfortunately, we can't do that. But this bill does prohibit 
the use of financial instruments to pay for that gambling activity that 
is run offshore.
  Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. If I could inquire of my friend from Georgia how many 
more speakers he has.
  Mr. GINGREY. We currently have no more requests for speakers at this 
time, so I am reserving for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am the final speaker on our side, so I will proceed.
  May I inquire how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 7 minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will urge all Members of this House to 
vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can amend the rule and 
allow the House to vote on H.R. 2429, the Miller-Owens bill to increase 
the Federal minimum wage for the first time in nearly a decade. We have 
the time. According to the schedule, we are out at 2 o'clock today. The 
American workers deserve a pay increase.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately 
after the House adopts this rule it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House 
floor for an up or down vote. This bill will gradually increase the 
minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 after 
about 2 years. The amendment also phases in coverage of the Federal 
minimum wage for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.
  Mr. Speaker, how long are we going to wait before we start helping 
American workers and their families? Instead of passing significant 
legislation week after week, or, even worse, enacting bills to make the 
richest of this Nation even richer, when are we going to do something 
that is meaningful for the average American worker? It is simply 
disgraceful that less than 1 month ago we passed yet another massive 
tax break for our Nation's multi-millionaires, but failed to help those 
American families who earn the least. In fact, the leadership of this 
House actually blocked consideration of a bill that contained an 
increase in the minimum wage. The leadership of this House actually and 
affirmatively went out there and blocked a bill that contained an 
increase in the minimum wage.
  It is getting harder and harder and harder every day for those making 
at or near minimum wage to make ends meet. It doesn't take a genius to 
figure out that paying $3 or more for a gallon of gas by itself can eat 
up a $5.15-an-hour paycheck. And we all know that, when gas prices 
increase, it has a ripple effect throughout the country, increasing 
costs for food and other necessities in life.
  Mr. Speaker, just yesterday The Washington Post reported on a new 
study that shows that in the Washington, D.C. area, wages are rising 
more than twice as fast for highly paid employees as they are for 
workers. These people need our help, and they need it immediately. 
Let's not allow any more time to go by before we do the right thing and 
adopt an immediate increase in the minimum wage.

[[Page 13855]]

Let's show the American people that we are looking out for their best 
interests. And we can do this today, Mr. Speaker, if we vote down the 
previous question and amend the rule.
  I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can help the 7 million-plus American workers who will 
directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in 
recognition of the importance of this underlying bill. I want to again 
commend Chairman Oxley and Chairman Sensenbrenner for their stewardship 
of the bill, as well as Representatives Leach and Goodlatte, the 
sponsors of the bill.
  H.R. 4411 goes a long way to modernize and clarify existing law, to 
turn back the tide of offshore Internet gambling sites that penetrate 
our borders and computers across this country with virtually no legal 
oversight. These organizations have the ability to prey on children as 
well as those citizens who suffer from a gambling addiction, and they 
must be stopped.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4411 does a very good job of getting at the root of 
the problem and targeting those organizations that enable this illicit 
activity by tightening legal definitions and toughening the penalties 
for violations. This bill achieves these ends while also preserving the 
rights of our States and their regulatory powers. So for the sake of 
minors who might be lured into gambling, and, in truth, citizens of all 
ages, I want to encourage my colleagues to support both this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

Previous Question on H. Res. 907, Rule for H.R. 4411 Unlawful Internet 
                    Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006

       At the end of the resolution add the following new section:
       ``Sec. 2. Immediately upon the adoption of this resolution 
     it shall be in order without intervention of any point of 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2429) to amend 
     the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an 
     increase in the Federal minimum wage. The bill shall be 
     considered as read for amendment. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) 60 minutes of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.''
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution * * * [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives, (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule * * * When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is the one of the 
     only available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 189, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 360]

                               YEAS--214

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

[[Page 13856]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--189

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Dicks
     Doyle
     Evans
     Forbes
     Goode
     Green (WI)
     Gutierrez
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jones (OH)
     Kelly
     McNulty
     Miller (NC)
     Nussle
     Owens
     Radanovich
     Rangel
     Sessions
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Strickland
     Sullivan
     Tiahrt
     Wexler

                              {time}  1210

  Mr. PALLONE changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rehberg). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________