To redesignate the Caribbean National Forest in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as the El Yunque National Forest.

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. Speaker, as I said before, we don't have any problem with the rule that is before us today. We have a problem with the priorities of the Republican leadership in this House.

As I look at the schedule today, as I said before, we are out at 2 o'clock today. We are dealing with the bill that we are talking about right now and then some suspensions that really aren't terribly significant. I am willing to stay till 5 or 6 if we could debate the minimum wage.

Let's give the American workers an increase in their salaries. The average CEO in the United States earns 821 times more than the minimum wage worker, earning more before lunchtime than a minimum wage worker earns all year.

I think it is wrong to have millions of Americans working full time and year round and still living in poverty. I would like to think if you work in this country you can get out of poverty. I think it is wrong to give Congress a raise when millions of workers have not had a penny raise in 9 years.

Over 9 years, this House has given themselves something like $35,000 in pay increases, and we have not even addressed the issue of the minimum wage, and millions of our fellow citizens are locked into this minimum wage. It is wrong to give tax cut after tax cut after tax cut after tax cut to millionaires and to special interests when you do nothing for minimum-wage workers.

Nearly 15 million Americans will benefit from a minimum wage increase to $7.25 an hour, 6.6 million directly and 8.3 million indirectly. Almost 60 percent of these workers are women. Forty percent are people of color. Raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour equals an additional $4,400 a year for a family of three. That is 15 months of groceries, over 2 years of health care, 2 years of college tuition at a public 2-year college. I could go on and on and on.

It is astounding to me that we find ourselves back after the July 4 recess and we are told we will get to these important issues like the minimum wage when we can get to them. We have nothing going on this week that will keep us here beyond Thursday or keep us here until 5 o'clock today or even tomorrow.

What we are asking for is the opportunity to be able to debate the issue of increasing the Federal minimum wage and letting people in this Chamber,

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

If I could inquire of my friend from Georgia how many more speakers he has.

I am the final speaker on our side, so I will proceed.

May I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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.

Mr. Speaker, my amendment provides that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will bring H.R. 2429 to the House floor for an up or down vote. This bill will gradually increase the minimum wage from the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 after about 2 years. The amendment also phases in coverage of the Federal minimum wage for the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas.

Mr. Speaker, how long are we going to wait before we start helping American workers and their families? Instead of passing significant legislation week after week, or, even worse, enacting bills to make the richest of this Nation even richer, when are we going to do something that is meaningful for the average American worker? It is simply disgraceful that less than 1 month ago we passed yet another massive tax break for our Nation's multi-millionaires, but failed to help those American families who earn the least. In fact, the leadership of this House actually blocked consideration of a bill that contained an increase in the minimum wage. The leadership of this House actually and affirmatively went out there and blocked a bill that contained an increase in the minimum wage.

It is getting harder and harder and harder every day for those making at or near minimum wage to make ends meet. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that paying $3 or more for a gallon of gas by itself can eat up a $5.15-an-hour paycheck. And we all know that, when gas prices increase, it has a ripple effect throughout the country, increasing costs for food and other necessities in life.

Mr. Speaker, just yesterday The Washington Post reported on a new study that shows that in the Washington, D.C. area, wages are rising more than twice as fast for highly paid employees as they are for workers. These people need our help, and they need it immediately. Let's not allow any more time to go by before we do the right thing and adopt an immediate increase in the minimum wage. Let's show the American people that we are looking out for their best interests. And we can do this today, Mr. Speaker, if we vote down the previous question and amend the rule.

I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can help the 7 million-plus American workers who will directly benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.

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

Mr. 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 thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for his generously yielding me this time.

I rise in strong support of this rule reported out of the Rules Committee and of the underlying legislation, which I have been pleased to introduce along with the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), and more than 150 other Members of the House to address something that is long overdue, and that is modernization of our laws, our Federal laws, dealing with gambling, particularly what is referred to as Internet gambling.

This is a scourge on our society. It causes innumerable problems. Historically, gambling in the United States has been illegal unless regulated by the States. But Internet gambling ignores the laws of the 50 States, which vary each one compared to the next. Some States, like Utah, ban all forms of gambling. Other States, like Nevada next door, legalize a great many forms of gambling. This legislation does not interfere with that, but it addresses the now hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of offshore sites that are sucking billions of dollars. The latest estimate is a $12 billion industry with more than half of that coming out of the United States illegally, unregulated, untaxed.

Many like me who are opposed to gambling are concerned about the family problems. I have one family in my district whose son committed suicide because of debts run up on the Internet

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.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, and I just want to join him in his remarks that this really is not about this rule, but this is the only place where we can protest the priorities of this Congress when there are millions of American workers who work at the minimum wage, who are unable to provide for their families the basic necessities of their families. And Congress fails to address that issue and fails to address it especially when it is so clear the voids in the congressional schedule, where there are these huge gaps of time where it would be available to debate the minimum wage, hold hearings on the minimum wage, and report out a bill for consideration by the Members of Congress. And yet that is not being done.

It is not being done basically because the Republican leadership has committed itself to its supporters and the business community that it will not allow a minimum wage vote to come before the House of Representatives, even though it is clear that there is probably enough support to pass this legislation to increase the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour over the next couple of years.

By doing that, we dramatically change the lives of those individuals who today work at $5.15 an hour. We dramatically change the lives of the 1.6 million workers who are parents of children under the age of 18 who earn the minimum wage. All together those parents are working to raise more than 3 million children, and yet with the minimum wage stuck at $5.15 an hour, they are unable to provide the necessities for their family, for those children.

Mind you, these families are stuck at a wage of 1997. The Members of this House cannot think of anything else that is stuck at 1997. The price of bread is not struck in 1997 prices. The price of gasoline is not at 1997 prices. The price of health care is not at 1997 prices. But for these people who work every day and work at very difficult jobs, jobs most other people might not take, certainly will not take at this wage, they end up at the end of the year poor.

At the end of this congressional year, this Congress will not be able to find the time to address this urgent economic need.

We have supporters for increasing the minimum wage, a company I don't generally agree with, but Wal-Mart, who says essentially, even at their stores where they advertise everyday low prices, that the people who shop in the stores at minimum wage are not making enough money to buy the basic necessities that are offered. There is not enough money in the communities to provide for the success of those stores.

This is about whether or not we are going to create an underclass in America, an underclass probably we already have because these people are stuck in 1997 wages. But now that you know it, what is the morality of ignoring them? What is the morality of making a conscious decision that you are going to go out of session today at 2 o'clock as opposed to staying a couple of hours longer and dealing with the minimum wage? What is the morality that you are going to end this session of Congress where I think we have maybe 30 days left before adjournment without addressing the minimum wage?

What is it you are saying to these people about the worth that they are worth, about their lives, about their desire to take care of their children, to provide the necessities, to provide the wherewithal for the education and the health and the nutrition of their children?

Try doing it on $5.15 an hour. It won't buy you 2 gallons of gas today, so I hope you don't have to commute very far. It certainly won't help with health care payments because you have to pay the rent, and today we see rent is going up as housing markets go up.

So we leave these people stranded. And you want to talk about values, you want to talk about families, you want to talk about children, you want to talk about community, and you a creating an underclass that is so desperate, and yet these people make the decision to go to work every day. Explain the morality of that.

No, you are going to spend your morality on Internet gaming. We are going to say to people, if you bet on a horse, you are legal; if you bet on a dog, you are not. If you bet in one State, you are legal; not if in another. If you want to play Texas Hold `Em, you are legal in some States, but not in other States.

No, let's talk about the morality of a family that is struggling every day to hold itself together at a time of increasing utility costs, increasing food costs, increasing transportation costs, increasing energy costs; and this Congress, under Republican leadership, simply will not make time to discuss this issue, to vote on this issue. We are not finding the time under this leadership to vote on this issue.

That is why we are going to ask for a vote on the previous question to suggest to you that there is another way to run this Congress, to run it for the benefit of these desperate Americans who are working hard every day, but not getting compensated in today's pay.

Imagine. You didn't think it was sufficient that you all get compensated here at 1997 wages, so we have continued to provide a COLA. I think it is justified, but the fact of the matter is, for millions of Americans, you have made a conscious decision while we get a COLA, we are going to trap them in 1997 wages.

I thank the gentleman, I thank him for his leadership, for allowing his cooperation on allowing this opportunity to have this vote and again to try to express to this Congress, because now we are lobbying the Congress on behalf of the people that are not politically engaged, are not politically active. They are working too hard; they are working too hard at work, and they are working too hard the rest of the day trying to figure out how they hold their families together.

And what do they get from the Republican Congress? They get the back of their hand. They get the back of their hand. These people's workday does not end at 5 o'clock. They spend the rest of the time trying to figure out how they are going to juggle transportation costs, food costs, health care, education, how they are going to do that for those 3 million children. And we sit by and we end the workday at 2 o'clock? At 2 o'clock, they are just getting started. We end the work day at 5 o'clock; they are driving home and figuring out whether or not they can go by the supermarket. Or we are not going to work on Fridays. They go to work on Fridays. They go to work all day on Fridays. We are going to work at 6 o'clock on Monday night. They went to work at 6 o'clock Monday morning.

Do you start to get the sense of the inequities that are taking place here that are within your power to change?

Let me tell you, you say, oh, you are going to kill jobs. There is no evidence that that is the case. In fact, those States that have increased the minimum wage apparently are doing a little better economically and having more job creation than those States that did not. But let me tell you, if you have a business plan that is dependent upon paying people 1997 wages, there may be something wrong with your business plan.

I do not think we should become co-conspirators in creating this underclass, and we should not be able to look the other way as we live a life that is completely out of touch with the struggle of these people, with our neighbors, with people living in our community. They struggle on the job and off the job because it never ends for them trying to make ends meet. And we stroll in here on a Tuesday morning, we stroll out of here on a Thursday night. We stroll out of here for the month of August and we stroll out of here in November and we can't find time? We can't find time to address this issue?

We are not asking you to raise the wages from today. We are asking you to raise the wages from 1997.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 907 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that in lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on Financial Services and the Judiciary now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute, depicted in the Rules Committee Print dated July 5, 2006, shall be considered as adopted. This resolution makes in order the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution, if offered by

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. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia and coauthor of this bill, Mr. Goodlatte.

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

Mr. 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. 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. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the coauthor of this important piece of legislation, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

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?

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.

We currently have no more requests for speakers at this time, so I am reserving for the purpose of closing.

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.

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

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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the question, Does this not contain carve-outs for horse racing?

And lottery?

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.