F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen). (Mrs. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, for all of these reasons, I urge the membership to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit was dropped on us just a few minutes ago, and we have had a very hasty analysis. And it really is the Trojan horse. If this Trojan horse is allowed to come into the bill by amendment, there are going to be three things that will happen. First of all, it would require the States, every State that has gambling in any form, to go to the Federal Attorney General to regulate gambling within the State's own borders. And this really is a poison bill, because it would mean that the States' support of this bill would disappear. Forty-nine out of the 50 State attorneys general support this bill, and they are gone if this motion to recommit is passed. The gentleman from Michigan says that we ought to protect kids. We do protect kids in this bill. And the language that is contained in his motion to recommit is unnecessary because section 1084(c) of the bill does provide age and location requirements. That is ample protection, and it is enforceable protection. Finally, the motion to recommit is confusing because it requires residency requirements. Now, the bill has location requirements on where the Internet site is. It does not get to the residency requirements of the people who are using the Internet. So there is an entirely different definition, an entirely different thing that will be almost impossible to verify. I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, let's forget about who is on which side of this legislation and this amendment here in the House of Representatives, and let's look at the fact that 49 out of the 50 State attorneys general support this legislation. They are not in the back pocket of any industry. They are all elected, or most of them are elected by the people, and they are the chief law enforcement officers of their respective States. They say we need this legislation and they support this legislation and oppose the amendment. The only State attorney general that doesn't is the State attorney general of Nevada. Now, which State has got the most gambling to export across State lines into other States? I would submit it is Nevada. Which State doesn't have horse racing and doesn't have a State lottery to export? It is Nevada, among others. So I give the gentlewoman from Nevada a lot of credit for representing her State and her constituents. I don't think that is the priority of the other 49 States. It certainly is not the priority of their State attorneys general, and we ought to vote down this amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate that all of the opposition to the amendment doesn't come from this side of the aisle, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a very loyal Democrat. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the father of half this bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, it puzzles me greatly to hear my distinguished friend from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) call this bill Abramoff's revenge. There are no two Members of this body that fought Mr. Abramoff more strongly on this issue than the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). And what side are they on? They are the sponsors of this bill, because they realize that we have to do something to curtail Internet gambling. Now, this bill started out before I became the chairman of the Judiciary Committee. It is still around, and Internet gambling is growing by leaps and bounds. Now, I think that they have struck a good compromise, they have struck a good balance, and they have come up with legislation that is practical not only in attempting to deal with the methods of payment for debts accrued through Internet gambling, but also through an amendment of the Wire Act to deal with this issue, since most transmissions over the Internet no longer even touch the public wire telephone and telecommunications system. I think that they have done a good job in coming up with something that can be passed by both Houses and signed into law; and the executive office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget issued a statement of administration policy saying that the administration supports passage of this bill. How come everybody who has been fighting for this issue, or almost everybody who has been fighting for this issue, wants to have the bill passed, and we see some folks from Nevada and elsewhere that don't? Vote ``aye'' on the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time. Amendment Offered by Ms. Berkley

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4411, the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act. The version we consider today merges H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act, offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and H.R. 4411, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 introduced by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). I am pleased to have worked closely with Mr. Goodlatte, Mr. Leach and members of the Committee on Financial Services to draft a compromise on this important legislation which has allowed it to come to the floor today. In recent years, illegal online gambling activities and their adverse social consequences have risen dramatically. Americans will send $6 billion to unregulated, offshore, online casinos this year, 50 percent of the $12 billion wagered on Internet gambling worldwide. The Department of Justice has warned that Internet gambling sites are often fronts for money laundering, drug trafficking and even terrorist financing. Furthermore, these sites evade vigorous U.S.-based gambling regulations that restrict gambling by minors, protect chronic gamblers and ensure the integrity of the games. The characteristics of Internet gambling are unique: online players can gamble 24 hours a day from home; children may play without sufficient age verification; and betting with a credit card can undercut a player's perception of the value of cash, leading to addiction, bankruptcy and crime. Young people and compulsive gamblers are particularly vulnerable. The legislation we consider today clarifies the application of the Wire Act to the Internet, and prohibits not only sports betting, but traditional gambling such as online poker, blackjack and roulette. It further provides Federal, State and tribal law enforcement with the tools to combat Internet gambling and cuts off revenue to those who profit from this destructive and illegal activity. The bill accomplishes this by prohibiting the use of financial instruments such as credit cards, electronic fund transfers, checks and drafts to pay for online gambling bets. It also increases the criminal penalties for violation of the Wire Act from a maximum of 2 years to a maximum of 5 years. Legislation to address illegal online gambling is strongly supported by a broad and diverse coalition representing religious organizations, professional sports leagues, entertainment companies, the financial services industry, and State lottery commissions. Moreover, the unique national and global character of the Internet requires a clear and decisive congressional response to illegal activities that occur online. The time to pass strong prohibitions against Internet gambling is now. I urge my colleagues to pass this vital legislation. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC, July 10, 2006. Hon. Joe Barton, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: Thank you for your recent letter concerning the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interest in H.R. 4411, the ``Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, as amended.'' I acknowledge the Committee on Energy and Commerce's jurisdictional interest in the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4411 and appreciate your willingness to waive further consideration of the legislation in order to expedite its consideration on the House floor. I agree that by foregoing consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 4411, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive jurisdiction over subject matter contained in this or similar legislation. In addition, I agree to support representation from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for provisions of H.R. 4411 determined to be within its jurisdiction in the event of a House-Senate conference on the legislation. Finally, as requested, I will include a copy of your letter and this response in the Congressional Record during floor consideration of this legislation. Sincerely, F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. This amendment impairs States' rights to regulate gambling within their borders and eliminates the protection in this legislation that prevents gambling from crossing State lines. Now, what State has got the most gambling to export? I believe it is the State of the author of this amendment, the gentlewoman from Nevada. Congress has consistently found that States have the primary responsibility for determining what forms of gambling may legally take place within their borders, and this amendment infringes on that right and subverts this principle. Forty-nine of the 50 State attorneys general support a ban on Internet gambling. Guess which attorney general doesn't. It is the attorney general from Nevada, the same State as the sponsor of this amendment, my distinguished colleague the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley). And, unlike previous versions of the Internet gambling bills, H.R. 4411 is neutral as it relates to the Interstate Horse Racing Act. The relevant provision in the legislation simply states that, if an activity is permitted under the Interstate Horse Racing Act, it would not be prohibited by this legislation. If someone wants to amend the Interstate Horse Racing Act, let them introduce a bill to do so and it will be considered by the Congress. It has been the Justice Department's position that the existing Wire Act covers gambling on interstate horse racing. So what is the beef? If the Wire Act already covers it, then this bill does not touch what the Wire Act covers. The amendment is nothing less than a poison pill to this crucial legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to Mr. Goodlatte from Virginia.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5228) to require representatives of governments designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism to disclose to the Attorney General lobbying contacts with legislative branch officials, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5228, legislation to enhance lobbying disclosure requirements for lobbyists who represent foreign nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism. Lobbyists who represent foreign governments must register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which also requires that they file a semiannual report with the Attorney General detailing lobbying contacts. H.R. 5228 would require additional disclosure of the lobbying activities of foreign agents who lobby on behalf of countries that the Secretary of State has designated as state sponsors of terrorism, namely Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria. In addition to the semiannual statements, this legislation would require that agents who represent governments deemed state sponsors of terrorism also file a detailed statement with the Attorney General of every lobbying contact with a covered legislative branch official within 45 days of the contact. The Attorney General in turn must make that disclosure available to the public in an electronic format within 90 days. If an agent of a state sponsor of terrorism failed to make these disclosures, they would be subject to the penalties of FARA, including fines of up to $10,000 and imprisonment of up to 5 years. In addition, the legislation provides that diplomatic and consular officers of a state sponsor of terrorism, who are not otherwise required to report their activities under FARA, cannot be recognized by the Secretary of State as accredited unless the diplomatic or consular officer agrees to provide the Attorney General with a detailed statement of every lobbying contact they have had with a covered legislative branch official within 45 days of the contact. Mr. Speaker, at a time when American forces are engaged in the global war on terror, it is both right and necessary that agents of state sponsors of terrorism be required to more fully disclose their lobbying contacts with U.S. Government officials. I commend the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) for introducing this bill and urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting this measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4356) to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency funds.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1285) to amend the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 to remove the limitation for nonimmigrant classification for nurses in health professional shortage areas, as amended.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 1285 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1285, to extend for 3 years the Nursing Relief For Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 which provides nonimmigrant visas for nurses in health professionals shortage areas. A number of hospitals are experiencing great difficulty in attracting American nurses, particularly hospitals serving mostly poor patients in inner-city neighborhoods and those serving rural areas. For example, St. Bernard Hospital in Chicago is the only remaining hospital in an area of over 100,000 people and has a patient base composed entirely of individuals in poverty. St. Bernard almost closed its doors in 1992, primarily because of its inability to attract registered nurses. In 1999, Congress passed the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act to help precisely these kinds of hospitals. This legislation created a new H-1C temporary registered nurse visa program with 500 visas available a year. To be eligible to petition for an alien nurse, the employer must, one, be located in a health professional shortage area as designated by the Department of Health and Human Services; two, have at least 190 acute care beds; three, have a certain percentage of Medicare patients; and, four, have a certain percentage of Medicaid patients. The H-1C program adopted protections for American nurses contained in the expired H-1A nursing visa program. For instance, for a hospital to be eligible for H-1C nurses, it has to agree to take timely and significant steps to recruit American nurses, then H-1C nurses have to be paid the prevailing wage. The program also contained new protections such as the requirement that H-1C nurses cannot comprise more than 33 percent of the hospital's workforce of registered nurses, and that a hospital cannot contract out H-1C nurses to work at other facilities. This bill would reauthorize the H-1C program for an additional 3 years. Our goal in creating the H-1C program was set out in the Immigration Nursing Relief Advisory Committee which recognized the necessity to ``balance both the continuing need for foreign nurses in certain specialties and localities for which there are not adequate domestic registered nurses, and then the need to continue to lessen employers dependence on foreign registered nurses and protect the wages and working condition of U.S. registered nurses.'' The H-1C program reflects this balance. I urge my colleagues to support this reauthorizing legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.