Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, personal business required me to return to the district this evening before the House considered votes on legislative business for which the ``yeas and neas'' were ordered. Had I been present, I would have cast my votes as follows: Rollcall No. 24 (H.R. 346), The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act, ``yea''; rollcall No. 25 (H. Res. 62), A resolution recognizing Vietnam prisoners of war, ``yea''; and on rollcall No. 26, H.R. 395, The Do-Not-Call Implementation Act, ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, small, disadvantaged businesses have been denied access to prominent contracting and subcontracting opportunities across the spectrum of industry. Many entrepreneurs and small businesses have either been hurt or put out of business by the gross disparity between procurement opportunities they receive and those received by large, majority owned businesses. In response to this inequity, former President Clinton enacted an executive order in October 2000 to improve the situation and rectify the inequity. The executive order's sole focus was to increase opportunities and access for disadvantaged businesses in relation to Federal procurement opportunities.

According to the executive order, each department and agency with procurement authority was to aggressively seek to ensure that small disadvantaged businesses, minority business enterprises and other types of small businesses were intimately involved in prime contracting opportunities. The underlying premise of the order was to contribute to a reduction of inequality within the realm of Federal procurement opportunities.

I want to codify former President Clinton's executive order specifically as it relates to Federal advertising contracts. My goal is to ensure that minority business concerns engaged in the advertising industry have ample Federal advertisement procurement opportunities. In addition, the legislation pinpoints minority business concerns owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as businesses in drastic need of increased participation in Federal advertising procurement opportunities.

The advertising industry is an ever-expanding industry that exposes many products and services to a growing and diverse nation. There are more than 21,000 advertising agencies engaged in the business and thousands more that want to become engaged in the advertising industry. However, for various reasons, many smaller and disadvantaged businesses have found it difficult to obtain advertising contracts, particularly large Federal government contracts. This bill will eradicate the inequity by facilitating the following:

1. Aggressively seeking to ensure that minority business concerns are aware of the Federal advertising procurement opportunities by using the most effective forms of communication, including the Internet, specialty press and trade press;

2. Ensuring that procurement authorities will work with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to make sure that eligible small business concerns receive information regarding the contracts;

3. Ensuring that the price evaluation preference programs authorized by Section 7102 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 are used to the maximum extent when granting Federal advertising contracts to minority business concerns;

4. Requiring that contractors meet the commitments required by this legislation and other related laws (i.e., Small Business Act); and

5. Ensuring that contracts involving commitments with minority business concerns include clauses that address the assessment of liquidated damages when commitments are not met.

I sincerely hope that Congress will consider the positive effect of this bill not only for minority business concerns, but also for the betterment of the advertising industry in general. This bill can cure an ill that has plagued the advertising industry for a long time. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this issue with my many colleagues in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the gaming industry has broadened its exposure over on-line and wireless communications networks. People do not have to go to casinos in Las Vegas, Reno, Detroit, Atlantic City or other gaming sites to gamble. They can play games of chance over the Internet from the privacy of their own homes.

According to one financial analysis, Internet gambling is a $1 billion industry and is forecasted to grow to $5 billion by 2005. There are nearly 1 million paying users of the largest network games and free sweepstakes sites which are among the most popular Internet destinations.

Many of the network gaming sites originate from offshore websites, and are beyond the reach of States and local authorities, even those authorities that prohibit Internet gaming in their jurisdictions. Local and state governments devote few resources to regulate or enforce laws against network gaming. No protections exist to ensure the integrity of the game, protection from minors seeking to patronize games, or protection from excessive financial loss. Therefore, network gaming continues with very little regulation and with very few guarantees that the games of chance or sweepstakes one finds on internet sites are above board.

The Consumer Protection for On-line Games Act, which I am introducing today, will allow U.S. consumers to know if the games they are playing are fraudulent. The bill will permit U.S. consumers to participate in online games with the security of knowing they are playing from a straight deck of cards. Specifically, the bill proposes the following:

1. Establishes the Federal Trade Commission as the agency responsible for monitoring games of chance offered on the Internet or wireless network.

2. Prohibits network game operators subject to U.S. law from making false or misleading claims regarding the fairness of such games.

3. Requires self-regulatory organizations to comply with specific minimum requirements.

4. Specifies that States must notify the FTC when it brings action against a network game provider and allows the FTC to intervene in any action brought on by the state and file petitions for appeal.

I know feelings run strong on both sides of the gaming question. It is a policy area with which I have some issues. The fact exists, however, that gaming websites are available for everyone's entertainment. It is my hope that this legislation will prevent present and future abuses and reduce the incidence of fraud. America has a chance to become a leader in this emerging global industry, but we presently lag behind other countries which are dealing honestly and openly with the issue of on-line gaming.

I hope that Congress will seriously study this proposal and raise the level of debate on this issue. I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve this measure as it travels through the legislative process.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, personal business requires my presence in the district. Had I been present for today's legislative business I would have cast my votes as follows: ``nay'' on rollcall No. 5, on ordering the previous question during consideration of H. Res. 14; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 6, on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott); ``aye'' on rollcall No. 7, S. 23, the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Extension Act; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 8, on ordering the previous question during consideration of H. Res. 15; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 9, the motion to adjourn; ``nay'' on rollcall No. 10 on the motion tabling the appeal of the ruling of the chair; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 11 on the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Obey; and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 12 on passage of H. Res. 10, a resolution congratulating the Ohio State University Buckeyes football team.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that Congress did not pass an extension of unemployment benefits last year. Last November, the other body passed a bill that cost $5 billion and would have provided 13 weeks of additional UI benefits to jobless Americans. The House passed a paltry bill that cost $900 million that would have extended benefits only through the end of January.

I'm delighted that this bill is closer to the one that was proposed by the Democrats in the other body last year. The bill we are considering today costs $7.6 billion and it extends unemployment benefits through the end of May. It gives an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits to jobless Americans who have exhausted their 26 weeks of unemployment benefits. I am pleased that the bill is retroactive to December 28, so that those who had their benefits cut off on this date would receive the remainder of the 13 weeks owed to them.

Even though the bill is an improvement over last year's attempt, it is not enough. The bill excludes from coverage one million Americans who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and who have not found a job. These people will not be eligible for the extended benefits proposed under this bill, and they need our help. But this bill slams the door shut on their need for extended benefits.

This action should come as no surprise. The majority has consistently voted to exclude segments of the unemployed from receiving jobless benefits. Although the majority has changed the scope of coverage of the bill, it has not had a change of heart. At a time when we need national unity, the majority party continues to pit Americans against their fellow Americans. The economic policies of this Administration and the majority party of this chamber pits the well-off against the not-so-well off, working Americans against the jobless, and the jobless with benefits against those without.

While I support the passage of S. 23, I encourage my colleagues to support the motion to instruct offered by the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McDermott. We can do more to assist those 1 million unemployed Americans who need our help, and we should take this opportunity to do so.