Ken Lucas

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). It is indeed a pleasure for me to welcome my colleague Ben Chandler here this evening.

Ben, it has been kind of lonely up here from Kentucky for us Democrats, and now we have doubled the amount of Democrats from Kentucky, and that is really great.

In Kentucky we are known for thoroughbred racing, and of course Ben comes from the heart of the thoroughbred country. And the success of thoroughbreds are based on bloodlines. If one has great bloodlines, they are successful in racing. And Ben comes here with great bloodlines.

And I am sure you are really going to be successful, and I am happy to share this moment with you and all your friends and your family, Jennifer and your three kids. It is great for you to be here, Ben. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, as the cochair of the Congressional Horse Caucus and a Member from Kentucky, I agree with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). Kentucky is where more thoroughbreds are born each year than in any other State. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment, an amendment that seeks to change the very intent of the bill before us. Horse racing is one of the most highly regulated industries, and we do not want to do harm to an industry that employs well over half a million people nationwide.

The title of the bill, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, says it all. The intent is to address the problem of unlawful, unregulated gambling over the Internet. H.R. 2143 does this while respecting existing Federal and State gambling laws.

We have heard supporters of this amendment argue that it is needed because it will keep the bill from expanding Internet gambling. This is just not true. In fact, the bill itself without this amendment deals only with the use of credit cards and other bank instruments in connection with unlawful Internet wagering. The bill does not change any Federal or State gambling provision. It does not make any unlawful gambling lawful. It does not make any lawful gambling unlawful. And it does not override any State prohibitions or requirements.

The National Governors Association is opposed to this amendment because they understand and support this distinction in the bill and its purpose. Governors in States like Kentucky that allow lawful, state-sanctioned and regulated gaming activities such as pari-mutuel horse racing know the importance of the economic impact of gaming in the form of jobs and tax revenue generated to the State. State governments across the country are grappling with shortfalls.

Regardless of what you hear, that is what passage of this amendment will do. We need to oppose this amendment and support H.R. 2143.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to comment on the Federal Communications Commissions recent ruling regarding unbundled network elements. It seems the FCC just can't learn from past mistakes since their network unbundling rules have twice been found by the courts to be contrary to Congressional intent under the 96 Telecommunications Act. Now, these rules have led to massive job cuts among carriers and their suppliers, discouraged investments in new plant and equipment, and slowed the introduction of new, innovative services to consumers.

I call on the FCC to implement strong, regulatory reform that will fix its unbundling rules, to help restore this vital sector of the economy. Among the needed reforms is the removal of switching as an unbundled element. Switching is competitive and widely available. FCC policies should promote real facilities based competition not false, parasitical, government regulated competition. Real competition stimulates investment and benefits consumers and should be encouraged.

It is important that any reform the FCC undertakes should undermine its earlier decisions on special access services, particularly on safe harbors that have been approved by the courts.

When addressing wireline DSL, or broadband, the FCC must arrive at new rules that reflect the state of intermodal competition from cable providers, who have the dominant share of today's broadband marketplace. Competition is needed in broadband and I hope the FCC rules will stimulate that.

Not updating the regulations further discourages investment and undermines a national broadband policy that would benefit rural areas like those in my district. Congress gave the FCC the responsibility to address these issues and it is time the FCC moves forward.