Recognizing the sequencing of the human genome as one of the most significant scientific accomplishments of the past one hundred years and expressing support for the goals and ideals of Human Genome Month and DNA Day.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, today we consider the bipartisan FAA reauthorization bill. The gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) in the best tradition of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure worked long and hard to produce a sensible bipartisan bill, and they should be commended.

I also want to thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for including an important provision that will benefit smaller airports like the one I represent in Worcester, Massachusetts.

This provision will allow airports like Worcester, known as primary airports, to continue to receive Air Improvement Program Entitlement Funding, or AIP, for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 based on prior year emplanement levels. It specifically grants the Secretary of Transportation the authority to maintain current AIP funding levels for primary airports based on a discrete set of criteria related to the dramatic reduction in commercial air service since September 11.

AIP entitlement is a critical source and oftentimes the only source of funding for capital improvements at these airports. These airports rely on AIP funding to make a number of upgrades which now also include necessary, but costly, safety enhancements. In Worcester's case, this bill could mean the difference between receiving more than $1 million a year annually or $150,000.

This is an important provision, and I thank the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for its inclusion.

If only the Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could act in a bipartisan way, because although I support the FAA bill, for the life of me I cannot figure out why the Republicans will not let us consider the child tax credit.

For a second straight week, the leadership is playing a nasty game with millions of hardworking American families. Two weeks ago, the President, Vice President, and the Republican leaders deliberately left 12 million families, including hundreds of thousands of military families, out in the cold by deleting the child tax credit extension from the recently passed tax cut.

We just fought a war in Iraq; we still have soldiers fighting in Afghanistan. And instead of a warm thank you, the Republican leadership gives our troops the cold shoulder. The average base pay of a serviceman in Iraq is about $16,000; but according to the Republicans, that soldier's family does not need any tax relief because they are not subject to Federal income tax.

This is wrong. These families work hard and they pay taxes. They pay sales taxes and payroll taxes and State taxes and local taxes and property taxes, most of which are going up because of the policies of this administration; but according to the Republican leadership, giving them a small tax credit would be welfare. How insulting.

My colleagues want to talk about welfare, well, let us do that. Enron paid no income taxes at all in 4 of the past 5 years, despite $1.8 billion in profits. Enron's taxes over 5 years were a negative $381 million, and its corporate tax welfare totaled $1 billion.

WorldCom paid no taxes at all in 2 of the last 3 years, despite $15.2 billion in profits before going bankrupt. WorldCom's total tax rate over the 3 years was only 1.6 percent. Corporate tax welfare slashed WorldCom's tax bill by $5.3 billion over the past 5 years.

All the while these corporations are not paying taxes, other companies are relocating to the Caribbean to avoid paying them altogether.

These corporate robber barons have saved billions and billions of dollars through loopholes supported by the Republican majority, and yet those same Republicans say that providing a hardworking American family a few hundred extra dollars is bad policy.

The Republican policies are crystal clear, Mr. Speaker; and they are wrong.

Last week, in this Chamber, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished minority whip, challenged the Republicans to defend their actions. Their response? Dead silence. Yesterday, President Bush and his staff, at long last bowing to public demand, implored House Republicans to take up and pass the child tax credit passed by an overwhelming bipartisan vote in the other body. That bill is targeted, it is sensible, and very importantly, it is paid for by other offsets.

But the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader, still refuses to bring this bill to the floor. Last week, the majority leader said there are more important priorities than tax relief for low- and middle-income families, and yesterday he brushed aside the White House request.

Instead, they are playing a game, pushing a much larger tax cut that will cost over $80 billion. They are betting that the other body will engage in a long, protracted debate over the House proposal because they know that the other body will not pass an $80 billion tax cut that is not paid for, and they are hoping that the whole issue will just go away.

Mr. Speaker, it will not go away because, as we have said over and over, we will not let it go away up till the Republican leadership in this House does the right thing and fixes the mistake that they made when they removed the child tax credit for millions of low-income and middle-income families.

So I say to the Republican leadership, are you really that cynical, are you really so consumed by the thrill of your own power that you refuse to do the right thing? Why can you not simply admit that it was wrong to drop these hardworking, tax-paying families from the tax bill and fix your mistake?

The answer may lie in an article in today's Washington Post. According to the article, the administration had no intention ever of implementing the child tax credit as approved by the other body. Treasury officials assumed

in May, weeks before the House and Senate met to work out the differences in the two tax bills, that the child tax credit would not become law; and now the White House claims to support it.

I insert this article in the Record at this point.

[From the Washington Post, June 11, 2003]

House GOP Responds to Senate Child Credit Bill

$82 billion plan offers breaks for military families

(By Juliet Eiperin)

For the second time in two weeks, House leaders are pushing

a sizable tax cut bill, seizing the debate over expanded

credits for parents of minor children to propose several new,

unrelated tax cuts.

House Republicans yesterday unveiled their $82 billion

plan, which features tax breaks for military families (and

for the estates of astronauts who die on space shuttle

missions). The proposal sets up a likely fight with the

Senate, which approved a more modest tax cut package last

week.

For several days, Republicans have been trying to quell

protests over the fact that the tax cut enacted last month

excluded 6.5 million poor families from receiving a credit of

as much as $1,000 per child. The Senate reacted swiftly,

passing a $10 billion bill last week that would give the

expanded child credit (now $600) to families making from

$10,500 to $26,625 a year.

House Republicans rejected that approach yesterday, saying

they wanted a broader bill that would extend the child credit

and other tax breaks through 2010.

``We've not in the business of politics, but rather in

policy,'' said Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas (R-

Calif.), noting that the expanded child tax credit phases out

in 2005 under the existing law. ``If these people need help

between now and the election [of 2004], they need it for the

rest of the decade.''

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) told reporters

yesterday that passing a bill dealing only with the child

credit ``ain't going to happen,'' because GOP leaders prefer

a broader package that ``provides tax relief, creates jobs

and [helps] the economy grow.''

The House proposal would provide a $1,000 per-child credit

for families from Jan. 1, 2003, through 2010. The credit now

begins to phase out when married couples make $110,000 or

more. House GOP leaders would raise start of the phaseout to

$150,000.

Their plan also would help military families, giving them a

tax break on home sales, death benefits and dependent-care

assistance. It would suspend the tax-exempt status of

designated terrorist organizations and provide income and

estate tax relief for astronauts who die on space shuttle

missions, including those in the Columbia disaster.

The House is poised to pass the plan Thursday. Its

prospects in a conference with the Senate are unclear. The

Senate bill's costs are offset by higher Customs Service

fees, adding nothing to the deficit. The House plan includes

no such offsets, which could cause problems with Senate

Democrats and some moderate Republicans.

``I philosophically support the House Ways and Means

Committee proposal, ``Senate Finance Committee Chairman

Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said yesterday, but ``I don't

know if there are enough Senate votes to pass it.''

Treasury officials informed Senate aides yesterday that the

government will not be able to mail child credit checks to

low-income families for 8 to 10 weeks. Administration

officials assumed in May that the Senate child credit

proposals would not become law, according to a Senate

Democratic aide who met with Treasury officials.

The American people are smart. They can see through all the politics. They want Congress to fix the child tax credit, and they deserve action.

Mr. Speaker, the other body has already acted. We can solve this problem by taking up the bill right now. With quick action, we can send this bill to the President; and he can keep his word and sign it by the end of this week.

That is why, at the end of this debate on the rule, I will ask my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and should the previous question be defeated, I will bring up the Senate-passed child tax credit so we can send it to the President immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight the difference in philosophies here, and I think that my colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, in Congress Daily said it best. Speaking for the Republicans, she said: ``We have a philosophical difference. I look at it and other Republican Study Committee members feel if we give people a tax break that don't pay taxes, it's welfare.''

I profoundly disagree with her characterization of these hardworking citizens who do pay taxes, they do pay payroll taxes and sales taxes and other taxes, as somehow not contributing to our tax base. As a prominent member of my party in the other body said, and let me quote her, We are talking about 200,000 military families, hundreds of firefighters and teachers and other hardworking Americans. I don't think of them or view them as welfare recipients. I don't think that they think of themselves that way. These are taxpayers. These are essential people in our communities, those who are protecting us from fire and from criminal activity, those who are teaching our children, those who are stationed abroad and protecting our very freedoms. They are hardworking families who pay sales tax, both State and local. They have payroll taxes that come out of their checks.

Mr. Speaker, this is what this debate is about, whether or not these people deserve to benefit from this tax cut that was passed only a few weeks ago in this House or whether or not they should be excluded. Those on our side of the aisle and a lot of moderate Republicans in the other body believe that these people should not have been deleted from the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, just to make clear the point that this is not a partisan issue throughout the country. Unfortunately it has become a partisan issue here in the House of Representatives, but I want to refer to two quotes from some distinguished Members of the other body. One, a senior Republican from the other body representing the State of Iowa, when asked about this subject said, What's going to make them, meaning the House Republicans, accept it is whether or not they want this group of people, particularly people in the military who are sacrificing their freedom for our freedom, to get the same benefit everybody else is going to get who has children in their family.

What is really unfortunate is that by the inaction of the leadership in this House, it appears that the Republicans in the House do not want to help these military families and their children.

Another prominent Republican in the other body from the State of Maine said the base pay of a first year soldier is $16,000. Paramedics make an average of $22,000, and home health aides make an average of $18,500 per year. These people are a critical part of our infrastructure, and they deserve tax relief too.

I could not agree more. People on this side of the aisle could not agree more. We have been fighting during these last several weeks to try to put back in the bill what the Republican leadership in the House removed from the bill in the dead of night, specifically this child tax credit for low-income workers, precisely because we understand the plight of these workers, and when we go back to our districts we hear from them when they say, you know, if you are going to give tax relief to people, we need it more than Donald Trump does, so why are you not helping us?

Again, there are prominent Members of the other body representing the Republican Party who get it, who are fighting to try to fix this problem right now; and yet here in this Chamber, in this House of Representatives, the leadership continues to try to find ways to deny these hard-working, taxpaying individuals, these families the benefit that they rightly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman that the underlying bill that we are considering here today is important. Aviation and the safety of our skies and the strength of our airports, all that is very, very important.

We are also trying to do here, so if anybody is listening they will understand, we are also trying to be able to, in addition to helping the aviation industry and helping our airports and helping protect our airports, we are also trying to help protect a lot of American families, 12 million families, to be exact, some of them military families where servicemen and servicewomen are serving our country in Iraq. We want to make sure that they can benefit from the child tax credit.

We cannot seem to get the leadership of this House to allow us to be able to vote on this issue, up or down. We are trying to advocate for millions of families in this country who not only need help, who deserve help.

So part of what we are doing on this bill and what we have been doing on previous bills is to try to highlight this issue, helping to persuade, and, if not persuade, maybe shame you into doing the right thing.

I guess I will ask the question that the distinguished minority whip asked last week during this debate. Why is it that we cannot get a vote up or down to reinsert the child tax credit that your leadership removed in the middle of the night?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close for our side.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask for a vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule. My amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate- passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill. This way we can send that bill immediately to the President's desk for his signature and start helping America's low- and modest-income families right away, right this second.

The President's press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said this week that ``the President thinks at its core what the Senate has done is the right thing to do, a good thing to do, and he wants to sign it.'' I think we should give the President an opportunity to do just that.

H.R. 1308, as amended by the Senate, will provide immediate tax relief to America's hard-working families, in contrast to the Republican/Bush tax bill. That bill does next to nothing to help those low- and moderate-income Americans who need relief the most. In fact, in a late night negotiating session behind closed doors, the Republican leadership deleted the one provision that would have helped these Americans, the refundable child tax credit. When it came to a choice of helping their rich contributors or Americans struggling to make a living, they chose the rich. They stripped out this tax break that would have helped the families of 8 million children whose parents serve in the military or are veterans.

H.R. 1308, the bill amended and passed last week in the other body and sent back here, will give immediate help to working families by providing the child tax credit to 6.5 million low-income working families and nearly 12 million additional children. These families would receive an average annual increase of $150 per child.

It will also help families of soldiers in combat in Iraq by extending the child tax credit to many of them. It was suggested by some on the other side of the aisle that this break for our brave men and women in the military was nothing more than welfare. Well, I strongly disagree.

I ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I include the following for the Record.

Previous Question for H. Res. 265--Rules on H.R. 2115 Flight 100--

Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act

At the end of the resolution add the following:

``Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the

House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's

table the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code

of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax

relief and simplification, and for other purposes, with

Senate amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House

concur in each of the Senate amendments shall be considered

as pending without intervention of any point of order. The

Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read.

The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall

be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question.''

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I understand he has an inquiry about this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is intended to apply to gambling, which is primarily determined by chance, rather than the skill of one of the players over the other.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, so long as it is legal within that State, that is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I both commend and yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee, who has been instrumental in bringing this legislation to the floor.

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would say to the gentleman that this bill is not about opposing legal gambling. This bill is about opposing mob activity, criminal activity. The FBI says that organized crime is behind these Internet sites. This is about the unsupervised, illegal, untaxed Internet gambling. Illegal, offshore.

We talk about adults. These sites specifically target preteenaged children; and as the University of Connecticut has shown us, it is becoming a problem for many of our teenagers. They are becoming addicted to it, and they then turn to crime. This is about protecting Americans from crime that arises from these sites, specifically from these sites.

In the gentleman's own State, Dr. Schaffer, Harvard Medical School, likened illegal Internet gambling to crack cocaine, and he said, ``It is changing the gambling scene as crack cocaine changed the drug scene.'' We have all seen the scourge of crack cocaine. We have seen how it has ruined our country, ruined our youth. We have seen Adrian McPherson, a young man with a lot of promise, a star quarterback, a Mr. Basketball in the State of Florida, Mr. Football, we have seen him on trial, accused of Internet gambling.

Mr. Chairman, this is simply about enforcing the laws of this country and protecting our youth. We take the animals of the field, the one thing they do is they protect their youth. If dogs, cats, rabbits, any animal, if they protect their youth, at least we can rise to that level and above that level and protect the youth of our country.

Finally, as the NCAA said when they urged us to adopt this legislation for 5 straight years, ``Illegal Internet gambling is destroying the integrity of college sports and we have scandals in the making.'' Let us put an end to it; let us put an end to it now. Let us vote for this bill. Let us vote for the Kelly amendment. Let us vote against the Cannon amendment, which is a poison pill, as we all recognize, any of us who have studied the issue at all.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has conducted extensive hearings on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman's assessment of the intent is accurate. I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying that point.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, major league baseball, the National Football League, and the NCAA all endorse this legislation. We could have no better representative than the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who many of us still think of as Coach Osborne of the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) have been fighting this issue and offering legislation for some time. This legislation actually appropriately would bear their names. I commend the gentleman from Virginia. I think no one has done more than he and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). Many fine things have been said about the gentleman, that he and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) have been fighting this issue, this problem, and have really brought it to our attention, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I commend him.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, we have 2 more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I do intend to close.

Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers, but I do wish to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this Congress has tried mightily, Members of this Congress, to pass legislation to protect our children from this organized criminal activity. And it is a criminal activity. To equate this with the lawful supervised gambling in Las Vegas is simply to miss the point.

The fact is the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) said, We do nothing in this bill to make unlawful what is lawful or make lawful what is unlawful.

What we do say is that where there is this criminal activity which is causing such heartbreak and such sorrow and such destruction and really a crime wave in this country, that it is time to put an end to it.

Now, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has for years strived to bring the conscience of this Congress to this issue. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for years has brought this issue to our attention. They want stronger measures. I would like stronger measures, I will admit that, but we have to be practical.

We have to get what we can get. And what was the Cannon amendment killed this legislation in the past, and it will be brought up and they will attempt to kill this legislation. I hope that is not the case. I hope that we do not vote for the Cannon, now Sensenbrenner amendment, and again postpone facing this issue.

When it gets to the point that MasterCard, American Express, Visa, and Discover are all urging this Congress to take action to stop the illegal use of their networks, and they have written letters endorsing this legislation that every Member of this Congress has gotten, and they have said it will be an effective tool to stop the use of our credit cards to this illegal activity, when Citibank, when Morgan Stanley, when the largest banks in this country say give us the regulations, give us the framework to stop this, it is about time that we move.

We have talked about major league baseball, the NFL, and I think that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), more skilled than any of us in college sports, he is the longtime football coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, when he says this is undermining the integrity of the sport, it is time for us to take action.

It is time for us to quit this turf fighting where someone tries to expand gambling and someone else tries to limit gambling, and to come forward with a bill to address this, what the FBI calls ``mob-drive, crime-controlled activity.''

When we started this debate, some 4 or 5 years ago, we had less than a half a dozen sites, less than $300,000 being used. Today, the number of addicted gamblers in this country has grown by 5 million, a great number of them starting in their preteen or early teenage years.

It is time this Congress acted. It is time this Congress rejected the Sensenbrenner amendment in a few minutes and voted for this legislation. If it does not, we are going to be dealing with a $20 billion industry or $30 billion industry, and it is bad enough today when we do not know who these people are. They are unregulated. We do not even know where the money that is earned, how much of that money is finding its way back to Washington; but it is a pretty strong indication when we have one so-called faith group that battled for this legislation until a few weeks ago and suddenly turned around 180 degrees and suddenly opposed this legislation; and we find from a California paper that a few years ago they, in fact, took gambling money to fight on behalf of the gambling industry.

The National Council of Churches has written us today, the National Governors Association. The Fraternal Order of Police has urged us to take action to accept no amendments other than the Kelly amendment. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has written us. They have urged us to take action.

Mr. Chairman, the house is on fire and it is time for this body to wake up and to take action and to protect the youth of this country and the compulsive gamblers.

I close with one fact, and that is from the University of Connecticut Health Center, an extensive survey that said 74 percent of those who have used the Internet to gamble have serious problems with addiction, and many of those have resorted to criminal activities to pay for the habit. On the other hand, those that engage in legal gambling, they find only a third as many have become permanently addicted.

We have a wave in this country which Dr. Schaffer at Harvard Medical School compares to a cocaine epidemic in gambling, a crack cocaine epidemic; and in a few minutes, each one of us will decide to end this addiction and this heartbreak and this threat to not only our sports programs in this country but to our fabric as a Nation, or we will decide to vote for the Cannon amendment and, again, kill this legislation and put it off.

I urge all the Members to take a strong stand against the killer amendments that will be offered, a strong stand for this legislation. Join with the credit card companies, the financial institutions, the many church groups in this country, law enforcement officers, National Governors Association, Attorneys General Association. If there is ever a clear vote in this House, this should be the vote. If there was ever a unanimous vote in this House, this should be the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and I introduced this legislation, and I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) probably said it best when he described the Jackson-Lee amendment as gutting the bill by removing from it the major source of financing for illegal Internet gambling, and that is credit cards.

What this entire legislation is about is about cutting off the money, because these illegal Internet gamblers are not

offering a public service, they are making money. They are, in fact, making a killing. It is all about money, and the way we address it is by cutting off the money. Removing credit cards from the financial instrument covered under the bill is tantamount to saying we are only going to pretend to address the problem of illegal Internet gambling.

No one should seriously contend that children are not now gambling over the Internet using credit cards in too many instances. How difficult is it to borrow, with or without permission, mom or dad's credit card and gamble over the Internet. College kids are doing it every day; teenagers are doing it every day. How difficult is it for a thief to obtain someone else's credit card number to gamble over the Internet? They steal blank checks, they cash worthless checks, and they steal credit cards, all to feed their addiction. A slew of identity theft cases have hit this country in recent months. Many of those may, in fact, have been driven by this very addiction.

This is a damaging amendment designed to turn a very strong enforcement bill into a weak shadow of itself. I strongly urge a no vote on it. I would like to close by reading a letter from MasterCard because we are told they already have everything they need to do in doing it, and this is a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

``I am now writing to communicate MasterCard's strong support for appropriate measures to combat illegal Internet gambling. In particular, we commend the efforts of you and your colleagues on H.R. 2143. This legislation will build on the rules developed by MasterCard and enable MasterCard to block branded payment card transactions in connection with Internet gambling. These rules have been extremely effective in impeding the use of U.S.-issued MasterCard branded payment cards for Internet gambling transactions. MasterCard believes that H.R. 2143, introduced by Congressman Spencer Bachus, would establish a workable framework for combating illegal Internet gambling. We are committed to working with you and your colleagues to further refine and pass this legislation as Congress seeks to provide a legislative solution to this important problem.''

MasterCard, Discover, American Express, Visa, the Nation's largest banks, Household Finance, Morgan Stanley, I could go on and on, have all endorsed this legislation because it will work. It will not cut off everything, but the bill as presently constituted covers money orders, it covers e-cash, it covers wire transfers, but it also covers credit cards and it must cover credit cards to be a comprehensive approach.

As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) said and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has said, there are more effective things we could do, and hopefully we will to them, but both of them have strongly endorsed this legislation as a first step.

I urge this body to defeat this amendment, defeat the poison pill that will be offered next and vote on final passage of this bill without these killer amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time left on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), who rises in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in opposition to the Cannon-Sensenbrenner amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, and four other faith-based organizations and a letter from the National Governors Association in opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment.

June 3, 2003.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: As a diverse bipartisan coalition of

family and faith-based organizations, we are very concerned

with the effects of gambling on our society and the well-

being of young people and families. We write to strongly

support the passage of H.R. 2143. To Prevent the Use of

Certain Bank Instruments for Unlawful Internet Gambling, and

for Other Purposes. Internet Gambling is already against the

law in all 50 states, yet offshore gambling interests

continue to operate without any accountability and are

available in every state by utilizing the Internet. We urge

you to support H.R. 2143 and reject any amendment or proposal

which would weaken the bill or hinder its enforcement

according to current federal law.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report

presents a disturbing and devastating picture of the effect

of gambling on families. Some crucial points to consider in

this report as it relates to Internet gambling are:

Gambling costs society $5 billion a year in societal costs

including, job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits,

poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological

gambling treatment, bankruptcy,

arrests, imprisonment, legal fees for divorce, and so forth.

Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger

exists that access to Internet gambling will be abused by

underage gamblers, our children and youth.

The high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and

the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem

and pathological gambling.

Lack of accountability also raises the potential for

criminal activities, which can occur in several ways. First,

there is the possibility of abuse by gambling operators. Most

Internet service providers hosting Internet gambling

operations are physically located offshore; as a result,

operators can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within

minutes. Furthermore, gambling on the Internet provides an

easy means for money laundering. Internet gambling provides

anonymity, remote access, and encrypted data. To launder

money, a person need only deposit money into an offshore

account, use those funds to gamble, lose a small percent of

the original funds, then cash out the remaining funds.

Through the dual protection of encryption and anonymity, much

of this activity can take place undetected.

Computer hackers or gambling operators may tamper with

gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit.

Unlike the physical world of highly regulated resort-

destination casinos, assessing the integrity of Internet

operators is quite difficult.

Please support H.R. 2143 and reject the spread of a

predatory industry, which is contrary to the well-being of

individuals and all of society.

Sincerely,

Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for

America, Family Research Council, General Board of

Church and Society of the United Methodist Church,

National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion (NCAGE),

National Council of Churches.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who, second to none, has led the fight against this illegal Internet gambling.

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill today. There are going to be several amendments offered. One amendment will be offered as if it is an antigambling amendment. In essence, the amendment will actually bring this bill down. Fifteen years ago, there was gambling in two States, Nevada and New Jersey. Once we in this country moved to what we call convenience gambling, we have seen an increase in crime, corruption, domestic violence, physical abuse, and many other bad things that we Republicans and Democrats do not want to see. The ultimate in what is called ``convenience gambling,'' meaning that you do not have to go very far to gamble, is Internet gambling where you can sit in your own family room in your bathrobe on a rainy weekend and literally go broke in about 24 hours.

There will be an amendment offered that will be sort of viewed as maybe some of the pro-family groups are for it. Let me say I have a letter to the gentleman from Alabama signed by the Christian Coalition, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and the National Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches headed by former Democratic Congressman Bob Edgar who served here for many years.

I would ask you, do not support the amendments that will weaken this bill. Internet gambling is beginning to be very corrosive in our society. We have a chance to deal with Internet gambling in the Bachus bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and other Members of the House have put forth. I rise in strong support of the bill. I think this is an opportunity to get control of Internet gambling and to do it in a way that is constructive and positive.

I ask my colleagues, one, support the bill on final passage; but, lastly, do not support any amendments that may appear on the surface to be good but what will in essence bring down this bill and thereby mean that Internet gambling will never be controlled. Five to 7 percent of the young people in our country are addicted to gambling.

As Internet gambling becomes easier and easier, that addiction rate goes up.

So I hope Members will oppose the amendments that will really bring the bill down, and on final passage do something to help this country, to help the young people, to get control of it, to get control and regulate Internet gambling.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, legislation needed to prevent the use of credit cards, checks, or electronic funds transfers for unlawful Internet gambling. It will be of vital assistance in curbing illegal Internet gambling.

This legislation states in the findings section that: ``the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which represent them.''

As the author of the legislation which established the commission, I am pleased to see that one of its most important recommendations may indeed become law. The spread of Internet gambling means that people can now gamble at the workplace and their homes, around the clock. The unchecked progress of Internet gambling must be curbed.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission report went on to state that gambling can breed bankruptcy, divorce, domestic violence, and physical and emotional problems. Even suicide has been linked to gambling. Often times, even school-aged children--who have never gambled before--are lured into on-line gambling.

H.R. 2143 will establish an enforcement structure that will let federal regulators set up regulations which will limit the acceptance of bank instruments such as credit cards for use in illegal Internet gambling, reducing the chance for gambling to gain a further foothold in our society.

Before I close, let me share with you a story. Donna Kelly, a mother of a 12-year-old daughter and a 7-year-old son developed a gambling problem. At one time there were 13 warrants for her arrest for writing bad checks. Gambling had so wrecked her life that she saw only one option: suicide. Two days before Thanksgiving, she tried to kill herself. She failed, and was placed in a mental hospital. Mrs. Kelly spent Thanksgiving in a mental hospital because of her gambling problem.

Her daughter asked her afterwards, ``Momma, why did you try to kill yourself? Do you not love me anymore?'' This is the human dimension to gambling. This story illustrates why it is so important to vote for this bill. When you cast your vote today, remember the many lives ruined by gambling, and remember the family members left devastated by their loved ones gambling activities.

Internet gambling is a vast and growing enterprise which can serve as an avenue for money launders and terrorist funding. Gambling also involves great social costs. This bill will reduce access to the medium of the Internet as another forum for inducing people to

gamble. I urge Members to vote for this legislation.

Hon. Spencer Bachus,

House of Representatives, Financial Services Committee

Member, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Bachus: As a diverse bipartisan

coalition of family and faith-based organizations, we are

very concerned with the effects of gambling on our society

and the well-being of young people and families. We write to

strongly support the passage of H.R. 2143, To Prevent the Use

of Certain Bank Instruments for Unlawful Internet Gambling,

and for Other Purposes. Internet Gambling is already against

the law in all 50 states, yet offshore gambling interests

continue to operate without any accountability and are

available in every state by utilizing the Internet. We urge

you to support H.R. 2143 and reject any amendment or proposal

which would weaken the bill or hinder its enforcement

according to current federal law.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report

presents a disturbing and devastating picture of the effect

of gambling on families. Some critical points to consider in

the report as it relates to Internet gambling are:

Gambling costs society $5 billion a year in societal costs

including job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits,

poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological

gambling treatment, bankruptcy, arrests, imprisonment, legal

fees for divorce, and so forth.

Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger

exists that access to Internet gambling will be abused by

underage gamblers, our children and youth.

The high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and

the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem

and pathological gambling.

Lack of accountability also raises the potential for

criminal activities, which can occur in several ways. First,

there is the possibility of abuse by gambling operators. Most

Internet service providers hosting Internet gambling

operations are physically located offshore; as a result,

operators can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within

minutes. Furthermore, gambling on the Internet provides an

easy means for money laundering. Internet gambling provides

anonymity, remote access, and encrypted data. To launder

money, a person need only deposit money into an offshore

account, use those funds to gamble, lose a small percent of

the original funds, then cash out the remaining funds.

Through the dual protection of encryption and anonymity, much

of this activity can take place undetected.

Computer hackers or gambling operators may tamper with

gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit.

Unlike the physical world of highly regulated resort-

destination casinos, assessing the integrity of Internet

operators is quite difficult.

Please support H.R. 2143 and reject the spread of a

predatory industry, which is contrary to the well-being of

individuals and all of society.

Sincerely,

Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for

America, Family Research Council, General Board of

Church and Society of the United Methodist Church,

National Council of Christians.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment. There has been a lot of talk on the floor and sometimes what appears to be is not to be. It is very, very confusing to somebody who is watching it. Simply, it is a poison pill. The Sensenbrenner amendment is a poison pill. If you want to kill the bill, vote for Sensenbrenner. It looks good. It looks good, but it will hurt the effort. Many people, particularly young people, will be hurt by the failure of this bill to pass.

If you want this bill to pass, if you are opposed to Internet gambling, if you care about the future of these young people, I ask you to vote against the Sensenbrenner amendment and vote in support of the base bill.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 265 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 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. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 265 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of 2115, the Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides ample opportunity to discuss this important reauthorization before us today.

H.R. 2115 is a bipartisan bill introduced by the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio). This reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration, appropriately titled for the 100th anniversary of powered flight, continues a tradition of funding the promotion of safety in our skies.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some of the important provisions in the underlying legislation.

First, this legislation reauthorizes the FAA at $3.4 billion next year raising $200 million in the year after that. The FAA, nearly 45 years after it was created, takes an ever-present role as we take important steps to ensure America's security. The FAA is primarily responsible for the safety of our Nation's skies through activities ranging from the continued monitoring by air traffic controllers to the development of new air space technologies.

Within my district is Miami International Airport, which I have the privilege to represent, and is consistently one of the Nation's busiest for

both international and domestic travel. I am impressed by the level of public-private cooperation between organizations such as the FAA and Miami International Airport.

Mr. Speaker, following the tragedy of September 11, 2001, our Nation's airports and airlines were forced to deal with the ever- growing and obvious problem of security. I believe that this bill contributes to this endeavor while ensuring that those affected by these horrible acts are helped.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2115 provides for an extension of war risk insurance for both international and domestic flights while ensuring that this important insurance is extended to manufacturers and airline vendors through the Department of Transportation.

This Congress was quick to assist airlines following September 11, and rightfully so. The economic benefits from the movements of people and goods that airlines provide, I think, demanded our attention. I think we also have to consider that smaller aircraft that were restricted for months following September 11 would also need attention of the Congress. Congress, I think, should act, and I think it will through this underlying legislation to help general aviation return to some stability by providing compensation for the hardships on their businesses. The bill authorizes $100 million for these general aviators that were also greatly affected by increased security requirements.

H.R. 2115 is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. It is important to the continued needs of the FAA, obviously, and to the flying public. The underlying legislation was reported favorably out of the committee by voice vote.

I take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman, for his great leadership on this issue, as well as the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the distinguished ranking member.

Due to the importance of the FAA's role in the security of the United States, as well as in the economic well-being of the United States, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. I think it is important that we move forward and reauthorize the FAA, and we are doing that today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in case some colleagues are perhaps listening to the debate on television in their offices, we have brought forth the rule to consider the aviation reauthorization bill, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Federal Aviation Administration is of extreme importance to the safety of not only the flying public in the United States, but really to the economy of the United States. One of the pillars of the economy of the United States is precisely the superb system of aviation that we have.

But that does not happen by chance. We have an obligation to fund and reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and this legislation that we are attempting to get to today with this rule not only does that, but deals with a number of very important collateral issues in the area of aviation.

So, again, to be clear with regard to what we are attempting to do today, what the Committee on Rules has done, we have passed a rule to bring to the floor legislation to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration in the context of very important legislation entitled Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. That is what we are discussing today.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, in case somebody would like to determine what we have brought to the floor today, because obviously any students of political science who may have been watching this debate will have confirmed today that there is certainly no rule requiring germaneness in debate in the House of Representatives, the issue that we have brought to the floor today, that the Committee on Rules passed a rule in order to be able to do so, we did so yesterday, is the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

In order to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, the relevant committees worked long and hard on a very important piece of aviation legislation which we bring to the floor today. It is H.R. 2115, the Flight 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act. So that is what we are doing.

Now, since there is obviously no germaneness requirement with regard to debate, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have talked about other issues, and they are certainly welcome to do so. The semantic of the day had to do with the word ``tax.''

We are very proud of our record since we were honored by the American people with the majority in this Chamber with regard to the issue of taxes. I remember in my first term here, Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member, we were still in the minority and our friends on the other side of the aisle controlled the agenda, they were the majority, being faced with one of the largest tax increases in the history of this country. We on this side of the aisle opposed that tax increase, and our friends on the other side of the aisle pushed very hard, and at that time they had a Member of their party in the White House, to impose that record tax increase on the American people.

Every time we have been able to since we were given the majority by the American people, we have tried to do the opposite. We have tried to lessen the tax burden on the American people, and we are very proud of that.

So with regard to when it is germane to the debate on taxes, we are extremely proud of our record. That debate will continue, and I think it is a fundamental difference between the parties. We believe in and have every time we have been able to reduce the tax burden on the American people.

But today the debate that we bring forward, the legislation that we bring forward, is the important reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that because of the importance of the Federal Aviation Administration, not only to the flying public and to the aviation industry in this country, but to the economy of the United States, as well as to our national security, that we should move forward and reauthorize that very important Federal agency, as well as effectuate the other important programs and initiatives that are included in this very significant piece of legislation.

With that in mind, I remind our colleagues what we are doing, the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and I move the previous question on the resolution.