[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 126 (Tuesday, October 1, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6839-H6848]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            LEACH-LaFALCE INTERNET GAMBLING ENFORCEMENT ACT

  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 556), to prevent the use of certain bank instruments for 
unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                                H.R. 556

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Leach-LaFalce Internet 
     Gambling Enforcement Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Internet gambling is primarily funded through personal 
     use of bank instruments, including credit cards and wire 
     transfers.
       (2) 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.
       (3) Internet gambling is a major cause of debt collection 
     problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer 
     credit industry.
       (4) Internet gambling conducted through offshore 
     jurisdictions has been identified by United States law 
     enforcement officials as a significant money laundering 
     vulnerability.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ACCEPTANCE OF ANY BANK INSTRUMENT FOR 
                   UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.

       (a) In General.--No person engaged in the business of 
     betting or wagering may knowingly accept, in connection with 
     the participation of another person in unlawful Internet 
     gambling--
       (1) credit, or the proceeds of credit, extended to or on 
     behalf of such other person (including credit extended 
     through the use of a credit card);
       (2) an electronic fund transfer or funds transmitted by or 
     through a money transmitting business, or the proceeds of an 
     electronic fund transfer or money transmitting service, from 
     or on behalf of the other person;
       (3) any check, draft, or similar instrument which is drawn 
     by or on behalf of the other person and is drawn on or 
     payable at or through any financial institution; or
       (4) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction 
     as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation which involves a 
     financial institution as a payor or financial intermediary on 
     behalf of or for the benefit of the other person.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this Act, the following 
     definitions shall apply:
       (1) Bets or wagers.--The term ``bets or wagers''--
       (A) means the staking or risking by any person of something 
     of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting 
     event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or 
     understanding that the person or another person will receive 
     something of greater value than the amount staked or risked 
     in the event of a certain outcome;
       (B) includes the purchase of a chance or opportunity to win 
     a lottery or other prize (which opportunity to win is 
     predominantly subject to chance);
       (C) includes any scheme of a type described in section 3702 
     of title 28, United States Code;
       (D) includes any instructions or information pertaining to 
     the establishment or movement of funds in an account by the 
     bettor or customer with the business of betting or wagering; 
     and
       (E) does not include--
       (i) any activity governed by the securities laws (as that 
     term is defined in section 3(a)(47) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934) for the purchase or sale of securities 
     (as that term is defined in section 3(a)(10) of such Act);
       (ii) any transaction conducted on or subject to the rules 
     of a registered entity or exempt board of trade pursuant to 
     the Commodity Exchange Act;
       (iii) any over-the-counter derivative instrument;
       (iv) any other transaction that--

       (I) is excluded or exempt from regulation under the 
     Commodity Exchange Act; or
       (II) is exempt from State gaming or bucket shop laws under 
     section 12(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act or section 28(a) 
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;

       (v) any contract of indemnity or guarantee;
       (vi) any contract for insurance;
       (vii) any deposit or other transaction with a depository 
     institution (as defined in section 3(c) of the Federal 
     Deposit Insurance Act);
       (viii) any participation in a simulation sports game or an 
     educational game or contest that--

       (I) is not dependent solely on the outcome of any single 
     sporting event or nonparticipant's singular individual 
     performance in any single sporting event;
       (II) has an outcome that reflects the relative knowledge 
     and skill of the participants with such outcome determined 
     predominantly by accumulated statistical results of sporting 
     events; and
       (III) offers a prize or award to a participant that is 
     established in advance of the game or contest and is not 
     determined by the number of participants or the amount of any 
     fees paid by those participants; and

       (ix) any lawful transaction with a business licensed or 
     authorized by a State.
       (2) Business of betting or wagering.--The term ``business 
     of betting or wagering'' does not include, other than for 
     purposes of subsection (e), any creditor, credit card issuer, 
     insured depository institution, financial institution, 
     operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer 
     may be initiated, money transmitting business, or 
     international, national, regional, or local network utilized 
     to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, 
     stored value product transaction, or money transmitting 
     service, or any participant in such network, or any 
     interactive computer service or telecommunications service.

[[Page H6840]]

       (3) Designated payment system defined.--The term 
     ``designated payment system'' means any system utilized by 
     any creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, 
     operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer 
     may be initiated, money transmitting business, or 
     international, national, regional, or local network utilized 
     to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, or 
     money transmitting service, or any participant in such 
     network, that the Secretary, in consultation with the Board 
     of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney 
     General, determines, by regulation or order, could be 
     utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any restricted 
     transaction.
       (4) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means the 
     international computer network of interoperable packet 
     switched data networks.
       (5) Interactive computer service.--The term ``interactive 
     computer service'' has the same meaning as in section 230(f) 
     of the Communications Act of 1934.
       (6) Restricted transaction.--The term ``restricted 
     transaction'' means any transaction or transmittal involving 
     any credit, funds, instrument, or proceeds described in any 
     paragraph of subsection (a) which the recipient is prohibited 
     from accepting under subsection (a).
       (7) Unlawful internet gambling.--The term ``unlawful 
     Internet gambling'' means to place, receive, or otherwise 
     transmit a bet or wager by any means which involves the use, 
     at least in part, of the Internet where such bet or wager is 
     unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the 
     State in which the bet or wager is initiated, received, or 
     otherwise made.
       (8) Other terms.--
       (A) Credit; creditor; and credit card.--The terms 
     ``credit'', ``creditor'', and ``credit card'' have the 
     meanings given such terms in section 103 of the Truth in 
     Lending Act.
       (B) Electronic fund transfer.--The term ``electronic fund 
     transfer''--
       (i) has the meaning given such term in section 903 of the 
     Electronic Fund Transfer Act; and
       (ii) includes any fund transfer covered by Article 4A of 
     the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.
       (C) Financial institution.--The term ``financial 
     institution'' has the meaning given such term in section 903 
     of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
       (D) Money transmitting business and money transmitting 
     service.--The terms ``money transmitting business'' and 
     ``money transmitting service'' have the meanings given such 
     terms in section 5330(d) of title 31, United States Code.
       (E) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Treasury.
       (c) Civil Remedies.--
       (1) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to prevent and 
     restrain violations of this section by issuing appropriate 
     orders in accordance with this section, regardless of whether 
     a prosecution has been initiated under this section.
       (2) Proceedings.--
       (A) Institution by federal government.--
       (i) In general.--The United States, acting through the 
     Attorney General, may institute proceedings under this 
     subsection to prevent or restrain a violation of this 
     section.
       (ii) Relief.--Upon application of the United States under 
     this subparagraph, the district court may enter a preliminary 
     injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or 
     restrain a violation of this section, in accordance with Rule 
     65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (B) Institution by state attorney general.--
       (i) In general.--The attorney general of a State (or other 
     appropriate State official) in which a violation of this 
     section allegedly has occurred or will occur may institute 
     proceedings under this subsection to prevent or restrain the 
     violation.
       (ii) Relief.--Upon application of the attorney general (or 
     other appropriate State official) of an affected State under 
     this subparagraph, the district court may enter a preliminary 
     injunction or an injunction against any person to prevent or 
     restrain a violation of this section, in accordance with Rule 
     65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (C) Indian lands.--
       (i) In general.--Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) and (B), 
     for a violation that is alleged to have occurred, or may 
     occur, on Indian lands (as that term is defined in section 4 
     of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act)--

       (I) the United States shall have the enforcement authority 
     provided under subparagraph (A); and
       (II) the enforcement authorities specified in an applicable 
     Tribal-State compact negotiated under section 11 of the 
     Indian Gaming Regulatory Act shall be carried out in 
     accordance with that compact.

       (ii) Rule of construction.--No provision of this section 
     shall be construed as altering, superseding, or otherwise 
     affecting the application of the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
     Act.
       (3) Expedited proceedings.--In addition to any proceeding 
     under paragraph (2), a district court may, in exigent 
     circumstances, enter a temporary restraining order against a 
     person alleged to be in violation of this section upon 
     application of the United States under paragraph (2)(A), or 
     the attorney general (or other appropriate State official) of 
     an affected State under paragraph (2)(B), in accordance with 
     Rule 65(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
       (4) Limitation relating to interactive computer services.--
       (A) In general.--Relief granted under this subsection 
     against an interactive computer service shall--
       (i) be limited to the removal of, or disabling of access 
     to, an online site violating this section, or a hypertext 
     link to an online site violating this section, that resides 
     on a computer server that such service controls or operates; 
     except this limitation shall not apply if the service is 
     subject to liability under this section pursuant to 
     subsection (e);
       (ii) be available only after notice to the interactive 
     computer service and an opportunity for the service to appear 
     are provided;
       (iii) not impose any obligation on an interactive computer 
     service to monitor its service or to affirmatively seek facts 
     indicating activity violating this section;
       (iv) specify the interactive computer service to which it 
     applies; and
       (v) specifically identify the location of the online site 
     or hypertext link to be removed or access to which is to be 
     disabled.
       (B) Coordination with other law.--An interactive computer 
     service that does not violate this section shall not be 
     liable under section 1084 of title 18, except this limitation 
     shall not apply if an interactive computer service has actual 
     knowledge and control of bets and wagers and--
       (i) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet 
     website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, 
     received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or 
     wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; 
     or
       (ii) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any 
     person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an 
     Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be 
     placed, received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets 
     or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise 
     made.
       (5) Factors to be considered in certain cases.--In 
     considering granting relief under this subsection against any 
     payment system, or any participant in a payment system that 
     is a creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, 
     operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer 
     may be initiated, money transmitting business, or 
     international, national, regional, or local network utilized 
     to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, or 
     money transmitting service, or a participant in such network, 
     the court shall consider the following factors:
       (A) The extent to which such person is extending credit or 
     transmitting funds knowing the transaction is in connection 
     with unlawful Internet gambling.
       (B) The history of such person in extending credit or 
     transmitting funds knowing the transaction is in connection 
     with unlawful Internet gambling.
       (C) The extent to which such person has established and is 
     maintaining policies and procedures in compliance with 
     regulations prescribed under subsection (f).
       (D) The feasibility that any specific remedy prescribed in 
     the order issued under this subsection can be implemented by 
     such person without substantial deviation from normal 
     business practice.
       (E) The costs and burdens the specific remedy will have on 
     such person.
       (6) Notice to regulators and financial institutions.--
     Before initiating any proceeding under paragraph (2) with 
     respect to a violation or potential violation of this section 
     by any creditor, credit card issuer, financial institution, 
     operator of a terminal at which an electronic fund transfer 
     may be initiated, money transmitting business, or 
     international, national, regional, or local network utilized 
     to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund transfer, or 
     money transmitting service, or any participant in such 
     network, the Attorney General of the United States or an 
     attorney general of a State (or other appropriate State 
     official) shall--
       (A) notify such person, and the appropriate regulatory 
     agency (as determined in accordance with subsection (f)(5)) 
     for such person, of such violation or potential violation and 
     the remedy to be sought in such proceeding; and
       (B) allow such person 30 days to implement a reasonable 
     remedy for the violation or potential violation, consistent 
     with the factors described in paragraph (5) and in 
     conjunction with such action as the appropriate regulatory 
     agency may take.
       (d) Criminal Penalty.--
       (1) In general.--Whoever violates this section shall be 
     fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for 
     not more than 5 years, or both.
       (2) Permanent injunction.--Upon conviction of a person 
     under this subsection, the court may enter a permanent 
     injunction enjoining such person from placing, receiving, or 
     otherwise making illegal bets or wagers or sending, 
     receiving, or inviting information assisting in the placing 
     of bets or wagers.
       (e) Circumventions Prohibited.--Notwithstanding subsection 
     (b)(2), a creditor, credit card issuer, financial 
     institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic 
     fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, 
     or international, national, regional, or local network 
     utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund 
     transfer, or money transmitting service, or any participant 
     in such network, or any interactive computer service or 
     telecommunications service, may be liable under this section 
     if such creditor, issuer, institution, operator,

[[Page H6841]]

     business, network, or participant has actual knowledge and 
     control of bets and wagers and--
       (1) operates, manages, supervises, or directs an Internet 
     website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be placed, 
     received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets or 
     wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise made; 
     or
       (2) owns or controls, or is owned or controlled by, any 
     person who operates, manages, supervises, or directs an 
     Internet website at which unlawful bets or wagers may be 
     placed, received, or otherwise made or at which unlawful bets 
     or wagers are offered to be placed, received, or otherwise 
     made.
       (f) Policies and Procedures to Identify and Prevent 
     Restricted Transactions in Payment For Unlawful Internet 
     Gambling.--
       (1) Regulations.--Before the end of the 6-month period 
     beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
     Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Board of 
     Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Attorney 
     General, shall prescribe regulations requiring any designated 
     payment system to establish policies and procedures 
     reasonably designed to identify and prevent restricted 
     transactions in any of the following ways:
       (A) The establishment of policies and procedures that--
       (i) allow the payment system and any person involved in the 
     payment system to identify restricted transactions by means 
     of codes in authorization messages or by other means; and
       (ii) block restricted transactions identified as a result 
     of the policies and procedures developed pursuant to clause 
     (i).
       (B) The establishment of policies and procedures that 
     prevent the acceptance of the products or services of the 
     payment system in connection with a restricted transaction.
       (2) Requirements for policies and procedures.--In 
     prescribing regulations pursuant to paragraph (1), the 
     Secretary shall--
       (A) identify types of policies and procedures, including 
     nonexclusive examples, which would be deemed to be 
     ``reasonably designed to identify'' and ``reasonably designed 
     to block'' or to ``prevent the acceptance of the products or 
     services'' with respect to each type of transaction, such as, 
     should credit card transactions be so designated, identifying 
     transactions by a code or codes in the authorization message 
     and denying authorization of a credit card transaction in 
     response to an authorization message;
       (B) to the extent practical, permit any participant in a 
     payment system to choose among alternative means of 
     identifying and blocking, or otherwise preventing the 
     acceptance of the products or services of the payment system 
     or participant in connection with, restricted transactions; 
     and
       (C) consider exempting restricted transactions from any 
     requirement under paragraph (1) if the Secretary finds that 
     it is not reasonably practical to identify and block, or 
     otherwise prevent, such transactions.
       (3) Compliance with payment system policies and 
     procedures.--A creditor, credit card issuer, financial 
     institution, operator of a terminal at which an electronic 
     fund transfer may be initiated, money transmitting business, 
     or international, national, regional, or local network 
     utilized to effect a credit transaction, electronic fund 
     transfer, or money transmitting service, or a participant in 
     such network, meets the requirement of paragraph (1) if--
       (A) such person relies on and complies with the policies 
     and procedures of a designated payment system of which it is 
     a member or participant to--
       (i) identify and block restricted transactions; or
       (ii) otherwise prevent the acceptance of the products or 
     services of the payment system, member, or participant in 
     connection with restricted transactions; and
       (B) such policies and procedures of the designated payment 
     system comply with the requirements of regulations prescribed 
     under paragraph (1).
       (4) No liability for blocking or refusing to honor 
     restricted transactions.--A person that is subject to a 
     regulation prescribed or order issued under this subsection 
     and blocks, or otherwise refuses to honor, a restricted 
     transaction, or as a member of a designated payment system 
     relies on the policies and procedures of the payment system, 
     in an effort to comply with this section shall not be liable 
     to any party for such action.
       (5) Enforcement.--This subsection shall be enforced by the 
     Federal functional regulators and the Federal Trade 
     Commission under applicable law in the manner provided in 
     section 505(a) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

     SEC. 4. INTERNET GAMBLING IN OR THROUGH FOREIGN 
                   JURISDICTIONS.

       (a) In General.--In deliberations between the United States 
     Government and any other country on money laundering, 
     corruption, and crime issues, the United States Government 
     should--
       (1) encourage cooperation by foreign governments and 
     relevant international fora in identifying whether Internet 
     gambling operations are being used for money laundering, 
     corruption, or other crimes;
       (2) advance policies that promote the cooperation of 
     foreign governments, through information sharing or other 
     measures, in the enforcement of this Act; and
       (3) encourage the Financial Action Task Force on Money 
     Laundering, in its annual report on money laundering 
     typologies, to study the extent to which Internet gambling 
     operations are being used for money laundering.
       (b) Report Required.--The Secretary of the Treasury shall 
     submit an annual report to the Congress on the deliberations 
     between the United States and other countries on issues 
     relating to Internet gambling.

     SEC. 5. AMENDMENTS TO GAMBLING PROVISIONS.

       (a) Amendment to Definition.--Section 1081 of title 18, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (1) by designating the five undesignated paragraphs that 
     begin with ``The term'' as paragraphs (1) through (5), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in paragraph (5), as so designated--
       (A) by striking ``wire communication'' and inserting 
     ``communication'';
       (B) by inserting ``satellite, microwave,'' after 
     ``cable,''; and
       (C) by inserting ``(whether fixed or mobile)'' after 
     ``connection''.
       (b) Increase in Penalty For Unlawful Wire Transfers of 
     Wagering Information.--Section 1084(a) of title 18, United 
     States Code, is amended by striking ``two years'' and 
     inserting ``5 years''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).


                             General Leave

  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, let me express my gratitude to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. LaFalce), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), the gentleman 
from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), 
as well as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts) for their 
commitment and leadership on this subject.
  I would also like to express my appreciation to groups ranging from 
the Christian Coalition to the Family Research Council, from the NCAA 
to the NFL and Major League Baseball for their support of this 
legislation.
  The problem posed by Internet gambling is one we ignore at our peril. 
Gambling on the Internet is fast becoming one of the most critical 
issues confronting the American family. Casino gambling as it has been 
sanctioned in Western democracies is only allowed to exist with 
comprehensive regulation, to protect participants from fraud, and to 
prevent criminal manipulation of the industry. Generally, casinos also 
add entertainment and involve elements of socialization. Gambling 
alone, on the other hand, whether using a laptop at home or computer in 
the workplace, involves no entertainment or socialization element and 
lacks the fundamental protections of law and regulation.
  The very characteristics that make the Internet such a valuable 
resource are also the reasons why it has such huge potential to impinge 
on the stability of the American family, American financial 
institutions, and our national security. The easy access, anonymity, 
and speed of transactions which make such positive contributions to 
efficiency and cost for legitimate American enterprises also in the 
case of gambling make safeguards for society impractical. Internet 
gambling increases consumer debt, makes bankruptcy more likely, money 
laundering an easy endeavor, and identity theft a likely burden.
  The financial and economic implications of Internet gambling cannot 
be exaggerated. It is simply not good for the economy at large to have 
Americans send billions to overseas Internet casinos which often have 
shady or unknown owners. Nearly 80 percent of the money handed over to 
this industry is impossible to account for because these illegal 
gambling sites are located in the Caribbean or other jurisdictions with 
no effective regulation of gambling.

[[Page H6842]]

  By definition, activities of these gambling sites are illegal under 
U.S. law, which means that over 1 million Americans are giving their 
personal financial information to criminals on a daily basis. Because 
this industry cannot and is not regulated, there is no way to track how 
this personal financial information is being used or by whom.
  The FBI has testified that Internet gambling is a haven for money 
laundering and that Internet gambling remains a loophole in our fight 
against terrorist financing. Additionally, a recent GAO report 
highlights the ease at which criminal proceeds can be obscured through 
Internet gambling. Given the commitment of this Congress to quash the 
money-laundering efforts of terrorists and narco-traffickers, it would 
be irresponsible to leave such an enormous institutional loophole 
unplugged.
  It is a myth to think that gambling alone only affects gamblers. 
Gambling losses and the resulting debt spill over to the financial and 
social services system and to those who may never engage in gambling. 
Not only does Internet gambling put strains on financial standing but 
those who become addictive gamblers frequently find themselves 
contemplating divorce and in some cases suicide.
  This bill, which represents the group efforts of the Committee on 
Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary, gives law 
enforcement new tools to enforce existing laws in a three-pronged 
approach.
  First, it creates a new crime--accepting identifiable instruments 
such as credit cards or fund transfers for debts incurred in illegal 
Internet gambling. Secondly, because the perpetrators of this crime are 
often offshore and beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement, the 
bill enables State and Federal Attorneys General to request that 
injunctions be issued to any party such as a financial institution, 
credit card company, Internet service provider, computer software 
provider, to assist in the prevention and restraint of this crime. And, 
thirdly, the bill allows Federal bank regulators to create rules which 
will require financial institutions to use designated methods to filter 
illegal Internet gambling transactions.
  In conclusion, let me just stress that at a personal level I am a 
skeptic about all forms of gambling, but each of us is obligated to the 
maximum extent possible to be respectful of legitimate choices made by 
others. The problem is that Internet gambling serves no legitimate 
purpose in our society. It is a danger to the family. It is a danger to 
society at large. It should be ended.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. LaFALCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LaFALCE. Madam Speaker, 3 years have passed since the 
congressionally mandated National Gambling Impact Study Commission 
released its final report on gambling in the United States. While 
reaffirming the principle of State regulation of gambling, the 
commission did make an important exception for Internet gambling. The 
report called on Congress to enact legislation to restrict illegal 
Internet gambling, and specifically, legislation to prohibit wire 
transfers and other payments to known Internet gambling sites.
  The bill before us today implements this important recommendation of 
the national commission. Contrary to what some would have us believe, 
the bill does not purport to prohibit Internet gambling, nor interfere 
with any State and tribal rights to regulate gambling within their 
jurisdiction.
  Internet gambling is already illegal under a variety of Federal 
statutes. What the bill does is provide new enforcement tools for 
blocking credit card, wire transfer and other forms of payment to 
illegal Internet gambling sites identified by law enforcement. It 
simply blocks the payments that permit on-line betting and makes 
Internet gambling possible.
  Any American with a computer and a credit card can find numerous 
opportunities for high-stakes gambling on the Internet. The number of 
Internet gambling sites has grown geometrically in recent years. Where 
the National Commission identified approximately 90 online casinos in 
1998, a recent study by Bear Stearns & Company estimated that there are 
now more than 1,500 such sites. The typical Internet gambling operation 
is located in places such as Antigua or the Netherlands Antilles, which 
impose little regulatory scrutiny other than collecting licensing fees. 
This should make most of these sites highly suspect.
  There is no meaningful way to determine the legitimacy of the games 
or the gambling operators. There are little or no protections against 
security breaches, hacking, diversion of credit card payments or 
identity theft.
  More importantly, there is a high probability that many offshore 
gambling operations are being used as part of money laundering and 
other criminal operations, including terrorist financing. The FBI 
director recently testified before us and said offshore Internet 
gambling is a substantial problem as a loophole in our fight against 
terrorist financing.
  Despite these obvious problems, online gambling continues to attract 
gamblers and has become extremely lucrative for both the site operators 
and the host countries. Combined annual revenues received by Internet 
gambling sites nearly tripled between 1999 and 2001 from $1.3 billion 
to $3.1 billion, and this year revenues will easily exceed $4 billion.
  Over 80 percent of the bets received by Internet gambling sites come 
from the United States, and almost all of this is illegal under United 
States law. The very features that make the Internet so attractive, its 
accessibility, convenience and anonymity, combine to enable and 
encourage ordinary people to break the law. The Internet breaks down 
inhibitions to violate the law because the risks appear so much lower. 
As ``Business Week'' noted last week, people who would not even jaywalk 
find themselves bombarded with offers to place bets at offshore casinos 
that are hard to resist.
  The national commission emphasized that the social and economic 
problems associated with traditional gambling will increasingly be 
exacerbated by Internet gambling. The problems with compulsive 
gambling, which were largely confined to areas that legalized high-
stakes casino gambling, can now be found virtually anywhere where there 
is a personal computer. This poses significant risks for our Nation's 
youth.
  A number of factors converge to make today's youth particularly 
vulnerable to the lure of Internet gambling. They are more experienced 
and comfortable with computers than their parents and have grown up 
playing a wide variety of computer and video games, and most have broad 
access to the Internet, and large numbers of youth now have access to 
some form of credit, debit or stored-value cards to make online bets. 
Banks and credit card companies have aggressively marketed credit cards 
on college campuses for years and have recently initiated new programs 
to market stored-value cards to high school-aged youth.
  A young person sitting alone, whether at home or in a college 
dormitory with a laptop, can gain access to thousands of gambling sites 
across the world and can easily run up the credit line on their own 
credit cards or parents' credit cards on games that appear little 
different than the computer card games they have played since 
childhood. It seems an easy opportunity to win a big jackpot, could 
result in financial losses that could harm their families and destroy 
their future plans.
  Madam Speaker, this is a problem that must be dealt with. The bill 
does it in a surgical manner. It does it by blocking the source of 
credit, blocking the use of that credit card so that kids in their 
college dormitory rooms will not be able to gamble at thousands of 
casino online sites across the world.
  The issue that needs to be addressed is how we can protect our 
nation's youth from the growing availability and potential negative 
consequences of Internet gambling. To me, the answer is simple. We cut 
off Internet gambling at its soruce by prohibiting the primary payment 
vehicles that make illegal on-line betting possible. H.R. 556 would 
prohibit known Internet gambling sites from accepting any check, credit 
card, debit card or other form of electronic transfer as payment of any 
bet or wager over the Internet. The effect of this prohibition is to 
deny known Internet gambling

[[Page H6843]]

sites from being approved for credit card, debit and other electronic 
transfer accounts. This is currently being done voluntarily by numerous 
credit card banks--including American Express, Bank of America, 
Providian, Citibank and Discover--and there is substantial 
justification for making this practice obligatory for all institutions 
and payment networks.
  The bill incorporates proposals suggested by Visa and MasterCard that 
would permit payment transfer networks to establish policies and 
procedures for identifying and blocking payments to known Internet 
gambling sites. Financial institutions who are members of these 
networks and follow these procedures would be considered in compliance 
under the bill. I believe this is a reasonable accomodation that will 
expand the means to block illegal gambling payments and also ease the 
compliance concerns and burdens of individual institutions.
  H.R. 556 is endorsed by many of the nation's largest credit card 
companies and by the largest online payment service, PayPal. It is 
supported by a growing number of Internet service providers and their 
trade groups, including NetCoalition.com and the United States Telecom 
Association. It is supported by law enforcement groups at all levels, 
including the FBI, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Associaiton and 
the Fraternal Order of Police. And it has the support of religious and 
family organizations across the nation.
  Madam Speaker, the time has come to protect our youth from the 
unnecessary and potentially disastrous consequences of Internet 
gambling. It is time to eliminate Internet gambling as a convenient 
financial tool for criminals and terrorists. And it is time to provide 
law enforcement with the tools its needs to address this growing 
illegal activity. H.R. 556 can achieve all of these important 
objectives and deserves our support.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial 
Services, who has led this effort with great distinction.
  (Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. OXLEY. Madam Speaker, this bill is the product of a lot of hard 
work on the part of many Members, and I want to pay special tribute to 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his dogged determination, as 
well as the hard work of the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) in 
maybe his last major effort on a piece of legislation. Well, we hope to 
get to terrorism insurance before we adjourn; but the gentleman's work 
has been extraordinary, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte) as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) for their 
efforts.
  This bill has been touted by a number of groups, Madam Speaker. It 
enjoys universal support from family and religious groups, antigambling 
groups, professional sports, college athletics, major players in the 
banking and credit card industries, and law enforcement and Internet 
service providers. The list goes on and on and is getting larger every 
day. This is why this bill needs to pass, because of its broad base of 
support.
  Five years ago, Internet gambling was almost nonexistent. The 
Internet was just coming into its own; but apparently this kind of 
activity abhors a vacuum, and we have seen a huge growth of this type 
of gambling taking place, preying on the most vulnerable in our 
society, including our college-aged students and people who can least 
afford it.
  We heard testimony in the committee from the Department of Justice 
and the FBI that Internet gambling serves as a haven for money 
launderers and that unregulated offshore gambling sites can be 
exploited by terrorists to launder money. That position was reiterated 
just recently by FBI Director Mueller when he cited Internet gambling 
as a substantial problem for law enforcement.
  We know of at least two open cases before the bureau involving 
Internet gambling as a conduit for money laundering by organized crime. 
The GAO, in an interim report to our committee, highlighted law 
enforcement's concerns with Internet gambling and its vulnerability to 
money laundering, ``including the volume, speed, and international 
reach of Internet transactions and the offshore locations of Internet 
gambling sites'' which ``can promote a high level of anonymity and give 
rise to difficult jurisdictional issues.''
  The Financial Action Task Force, an international body that seeks to 
combat money laundering, stated in a February 2001 report that some 
member countries had evidence that criminals were using Internet 
gambling to launder their illicit funds.
  For the record, let us make clear what the bill does and what it does 
not do. It does prohibit the acceptance of U.S. financial instruments, 
such as credit cards, for use in unlawful Internet gambling 
transactions. By so doing, it cuts off the financial lifeblood of the 
illegal Internet gambling industry. It does not expand gambling in any 
way, shape or form. Those who claim otherwise are not telling the 
truth, or they simply do not get it.
  The bill's provisions kick in only where a court or banking regulator 
determines that an illegal activity is taking place and relies on 
current Federal and State law to guide it in that determination.
  H.R. 556 protects the right of States to regulate gambling within 
their borders. It neither expands nor limits gambling beyond what is 
allowed under existing Federal, State, and tribal law.
  This bill represents legislation at its best. It is a direct approach 
to a serious problem. It will give law enforcement an important new 
tool to fight crime and will protect families throughout America. It 
deserves the support and vote of every Member of this House.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that had joint jurisdiction at one time. 
The Committee on Financial Services and the Committee on the Judiciary 
were working on it together. It is interesting that the Committee on 
the Judiciary came forward with a bill that affirmed that all Internet 
wagers were illegal. But what happened?
  On page 6 of the bill that is before us, we find that all Internet 
gambling transactions are illegal, except ``any transaction authorized 
under State law with a business licensed or authorized by a State.''
  Mr. Speaker, I refer Members to this crucial phrase, a legal phrase. 
Contrary to the Wire Act of 1949, which has already made any interstate 
gambling by wire illegal, we have created this wonderful little 
exception. I wonder what it means. And I wonder why the credit card 
companies are for this bill if they are prohibited from the bill.
  And would somebody in the course of this brief discourse before us on 
this suspension explain to me how the Christian Right, a great group of 
American patriots in this country, have been persuaded that this bill 
bans gambling on the Internet; but yet two other industries, the horse 
racing industry, is supporting this bill because they are persuaded it 
does not, and State lotteries are found to be supporting the bill 
because they feel that they will be exempted under this beautiful 
little provision, section (ix) on page 6, which says any lawful 
transaction with a business licensed or authorized by the State is 
exempt from this bill.
  We cannot have it both ways. So we are doing nothing here but making 
some wonderfully effective speeches about what we are stopping from 
happening on the Internet, but somebody besides the Committee on the 
Judiciary must be aware that this is not the case.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this bill is designed to overturn 
the Wire Act, Federal prohibitions on lotteries, or the Gambling Ship 
Act.
  Mr. CONYERS. Reclaiming my time, this bill exempts any lawful 
transaction with a business licensed or authorized by the State, 
including lotteries. The gentleman must know that is a State business.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, 
only for intra-, not inter-, state and only if authorized by the State 
law of the State.
  This bill is an enforcement mechanism that stops the ability of all 
interstate Internet gambling.

[[Page H6844]]

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CONYERS. Let me ask the gentleman, why are they supporting the 
bill?
  Mr. LEACH. It is in the national interest.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), who has led this fight so well.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I think my comments may shed some light on 
the last speaker and some of what he said.
  Imagine, if you will, if you heard news from home that they had built 
a casino next to your house, and, worse than that, they had invited 
your kids over to gamble in the casino which was built next door. You 
would say that was about as bad a news as you could receive. But it is 
actually worse than that. Sitting right on the computer desk in your 
home, or better still up in your child's bedroom, is a computer. On 
that computer today, there is a child-accessible casino, because we 
have got 1,500 offshore, and they are offshore, this may address the 
last speaker's concerns, because it is against the law in all 50 States 
to operate these Internet gambling sites. It is against the law in all 
the States, so they are all offshore. Your child could go in, he could 
turn on his computer, and he could gamble.
  Mr. Speaker, I have five children. I knew nothing about this. We 
ought to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). It is also, I think, fortuitous that the 
gentleman from Iowa sits on the Committee on Financial Services and the 
gentleman from Virginia sits on the Committee on the Judiciary, because 
I know that the gentleman from Virginia will continue to do what he can 
in the Committee on the Judiciary, and this bill which the gentleman 
from Iowa has offered is going to go a long way.
  What about the demographics? What did we hear? We heard that in the 
over-65 age group, only 1 in 10 senior citizens in that group uses a 
computer as a hobby or to pursue their interests in an active way. We 
heard that 7 out of 10 in the 18-to-24 group use a computer. American 
Demographics, a study 2 years old, 7 out of 10 18-to-24-year-olds are 
on the computer. A survey for Public Participation in the Arts did a 
study about 5 years ago, and they said that the average teenager or 
college student is spending 4 hours on the computer.
  What else do we know about college kids? Eighty percent of them have 
credit cards. What do they need to play on the Internet? All they need 
is the use of a computer, which they are on 4 hours a day, and a credit 
card. They have that.
  Are they doing it? You bet they are doing it. The NCAA came to us and 
told us testimony about students losing $10,000, $5,000. Gambling 
addiction by college students as a result partially of Internet 
gambling on these illegal sites is reaching epidemic proportions.
  I guess the most chilling testimony, and I will close with this, is 
what Dr. Howard Shaffer at Harvard University said. He said, I would 
compare what this illegal Internet gambling is doing to our youth in 
the gambling spectrum to what we saw with the introduction of crack 
cocaine, where it changed the drug experience and caused millions of 
people to become addicted within a year or two. He said the same thing 
is happening today with illegal Internet gambling.
  We have got to move against it. I commend the gentleman from 
Virginia. I commend the gentleman from Iowa. This bill shuts off the 
money. That is what these people are there for, the money. If we shut 
off the money, we shut off the sites.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. I thank the gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman 
from Iowa, the author of this bill.
  Certain State, tribal and private entities have raised concerns, and 
I would like to clarify the intention of the drafters of H.R. 556 on 
one point. Section 3, subsection (b)(1)(E)(ix) exempts from the bill's 
provisions lawful transactions carried out with a business licensed or 
authorized by a State. Some parties have raised concerns that this 
could be read broadly to allow the transmission of casino or lottery 
games in interstate commerce, for example, over the Internet, simply 
because one State authorizes its businesses to do so.
  I want to make clear that this exception will not expand the reach of 
gambling in any way. It is simply intended to recognize current law, 
which allows States jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, not 
interstate but intrastate activity, where bets or wagers, or 
information assisting bets or wagers, do not cross State lines or enter 
into interstate commerce. The exemption would leave intact the current 
interstate gambling prohibitions such as the Wire Act, Federal 
prohibitions on lotteries, and the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and 
lottery games could not be placed on the Internet.
  Put another way, this exemption does not allow for interstate 
wagering. For example, under this bill a resident of one State could 
not legally use the Internet to purchase a lottery ticket in another 
State. This exemption is simply intended to recognize current law, 
which allows States to regulate wholly intrastate gambling activity and 
would leave intact the current Wire Act, which prohibits interstate 
gambling. Is that correct?
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman's assessment is entirely 
accurate. I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying this point.
  Mrs. KELLY. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for that clarification. I strongly support this legislation and urge my 
colleagues to join us in standing against illegal Internet gambling and 
voting for this bill.
  In a few short years, the Internet gambling industry has exploded. 
According to an Internet gambling committee of the National Association 
of Attorneys General, there were less than 25 such sites on the Web in 
the mid-1990s. Bear Stearns, one of the nation's leading securities 
firms, estimates that there are between 1,200 and 1,400 e-gaming Web 
sites. Bear Stearns projects that as the industry continues to grow; 
such Internet sites could generate an estimated $5 billion in revenues 
by 2003. That figure approximates roughly half of last year's casino 
earnings in the State of Nevada.
  Internet gambling presents a complex set of legal, financial, 
technical, and social challenges. On the legal front, it is believed 
that most forms of interstate Internet gambling are prohibited by 
Federal law under the Interstate Wire Act in Section 1084 of Title 18 
of the U.S. Code. For years, authorities have used the Wire Act to 
combat illegal betting by phone or other wire communications. Now, with 
the advent of Internet technology, the Wire Act and other related 
provisions of Federal law also stand as a legal obstacle against the 
establishment of Internet casinos on U.S. soil.
  The most serious offenders in the Internet gambling arena are the 
virtual casinos operating offshore, beyond the research of U.S. law. 
One estimate puts the number of foreign jurisdictions authorizing or 
tolerating Internet gambling at fifty. This includes not just the well-
known bank secrecy jurisdiction of the Caribbean but other countries 
like Australia.
  The lure of lucrative licensing fees and the possibility of sharing 
in gambling receipts are proving to be powerful incentives to enter the 
Internet gambling business. Antigua and Barbuda have reportedly 
licensed more than 80 Internet gaming websites already, charging a 
$75,000-$85,000 licensing fee for a sports betting site and $100,000 
for a virtual casino. A report prepared for the South African 
government, as reported in the Bear Stearns study, revealed that 
Internet gaming revenues could yield up to $140 million in foreign 
exchange.
  While Internet gambling represents a jackpot for such foreign 
justifications, it is a wheel of misfortune for far too many Americans 
who struggle with gambling addictions and the loss of jobs, wrecked 
marriages, and destroyed finances that often follow. With a click of a 
computer mouse, any American armed with a credit card can have instant, 
anonymous access to round-the clock gambling from the privacy of their 
homes. All of the social hazards associated with problem gambling at 
brick-and-mortar sites are of equal, if not greater, concern when it 
comes to on-line gambling.
  Furthermore, Internet gambling poses a serious problem to our youth. 
In the areas in

[[Page H6845]]

which gambling is legal, strict laws have been enacted to ensure our 
children are prohibited from participating. In many homes the children 
are far more computer literate than the parents. What possibly would 
stop a child from placing a bet with their parent's credit card? Since 
our society has made a conscious decision to keep children from this 
activity we must take steps to ensure that online casinos do not 
victimize our children. The issue of what can we do to protect children 
from these sites will be one of my first questions for our panelists 
today.
  In addition to the social problems associated with Internet gambling, 
U.S. authorities warn that Internet gaming offers a powerful vehicle 
for laundering funds from illicit sources as well as to evade taxes. A 
2001-2002 Financial Action Task Force (FATF) report on money laundering 
typologies indicates that there is evidence in some FATF jurisdictions 
that criminals are using the Internet gambling industry to commit crime 
and to launder the proceeds thereof. The use of credit cards and the 
placement of sites offshore make locating the relevant parties, 
gathering the necessary evidence, and prosecuting those parties 
difficult if not impossible.
  Despite the many problems associated with Internet gambling, there is 
clearly money to be made in this business, and U.S. firms are 
increasingly eager to claim their share. U.S., software firms, public 
relations and advertising companies, and other U.S.-based enterprises 
are already knee-deep in the Internet gambling business. Within the 
last year, two U.S. companies--MGM Mirage and Harrah's--have announced 
new on-line play-for-free or play-for-prizes operations that are but a 
short step away from actual Internet gambling. Nevertheless, it is 
clear that absent strong Congressional action, the United States may be 
poised itself to head down the slippery slope of Internet gambling.
  In 1999, the Congressionally-mandated National Gambling Impact Study 
Commission unanimously recommended a Federal ban on Internet gambling. 
Testifying at a hearing before the Banking Committee last Congress, 
Commission Member Richard Leone explained that unlike the regulatory 
regimes that have accompanied the expansion of other forms of gambling 
in the United States, the emergence of Internet gambling has occurred 
with no regulatory structure. As a result, the current framework of 
Federal and State laws governing gambling can be easily circumvented. 
The Commission noted that the problems associated with Internet 
gambling include: (1) the potential for abuse by gambling operators who 
can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within minutes; (2) the 
ability of gambling operators or computer hackers to tamper with 
gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit; and (3) the 
provision of additional means for individuals to launder money derived 
from criminal activities.
  The Commission concluded that because Internet gambling crossed state 
lines, it would be difficult for States to effectively control it and 
that Federal legislation was the only recourse. The Commission further 
rejected the argument that Internet gambling could be effectively 
regulated. and recommended, instead, a ban on any Internet gambling not 
already authorized by law, and without new or expanded exemptions. 
Although the States do not normally welcome Federal legislation on such 
matters, the National Association of Attorneys General, speaking on 
behalf of State Attorneys General, has indicated strong support for 
Federal action.
  In response to the Commission's recommendations and testimony from 
other interested parties, the House Financial Services Committee 
approved this legislation now before us, H.R. 556, the Unlawful 
Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. This bill tackles the 
problem of Internet gambling by prohibiting gambling operations from 
accepting credit cards, checks, or other bank instruments in connection 
with illegal Internet gambling. The justification for this bill is 
simple: if we cut off the internet gambling industry's access to money 
it will die.
  If we fail to act and pass this legislation I fear that our actions 
will be misinterpreted as a green light to those in U.S. industry who 
are interested in launching on-line gambling operations of one type or 
another. This issue can no longer simply be left to random events and 
foreign jurisdictions. It is time for Congress to address these issues 
and identify an appropriate public policy response. It is time for 
Congress to pass the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition 
Act. I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in 
support of this important legislation.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me point out a little bit of history. In 1994, as chairman of the 
Committee on Small Business, I conducted some hearings into the 
problems of the proliferation of gambling across the United States of 
America. At that time I introduced a bill to create a national 
commission to study the impact of gambling. In the November elections 
we lost, and the chief cosponsor of my bill was the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
  In the next Congress the gentleman from Virginia became the chief 
sponsor of the bill, and I became the chief cosponsor. With his great 
leadership and the assistance of a good many groups, and most 
especially the Christian Coalition, we were able to get the commission 
enacted into law. It had a difficult time getting started, having 
members appointed who would give us the type of objective analysis we 
wanted, but finally it did render a report, and there was one specific 
provision that, as I recall, they were unanimous on, and that was the 
issue of Internet gambling.
  It has taken us a long time. As soon as they came out with that 
recommendation, I introduced a bill in the House that proceeded through 
the payment mechanism. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) introduced a 
bill, too, that took slightly different approaches, although we were 
both going in exactly the same direction. The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Goodlatte) has been magnificent over the years in pursuing it, 
especially in the Committee on the Judiciary and working with the 
religious organizations.
  Can we nitpick a bill? Sure we can. But as far as I am concerned, if 
this bill is not perfect, it is 99 percent close to perfect. It is 
pretty good. It is certainly as good as we are going to be able to 
pass, and it does block off Internet gambling at its source by going to 
the credit card, the debit card, any electronic funds transfer. This is 
a growing, growing problem.
  I hope, also, there are countless other problems in the United States 
of America associated with gambling, that we will have the courage to 
deal with those problems, because right now we have legalized gambling 
within about a half an hour drive of virtually any spot in the United 
States of America. So it is no longer an economic development tour. Now 
it is just a way of snaring people's discretionary money, and usually 
in preying upon people. It needs far more effective regulation than it 
is receiving from either the Federal or the State governments.
  We do not deal with all those problems here. We deal with one very, 
very narrow but large problem, and that is the problem of Internet 
gambling, not just because of the way it is preying on our youth, but 
because of the way it is being used for money laundering, the way it is 
being used for terrorist activity, et cetera, et cetera. This bill 
should be passed unanimously.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Wolf), one of the Congress' profoundest voices on moral 
issues, a great friend and a man I admire greatly.
  (Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, I want to personally thank the gentleman from 
Iowa for staying with this and having the courage, and, as people back 
in Iowa ought to know, that because of him this thing is up.
  I also thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), who 
unfortunately is going to be leaving us, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Oxley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). Because of them 
this bill is here.
  To vote against this bill would be unbelievable. If anyone votes 
against this bill, I will not understand it. I just appreciate the 
gentleman from New York's comments on the critical nature with regard 
to the terrorism. The FBI has testified there is a huge potential for 
offshore gambling sites being used for money laundering, for terrorist 
and criminal activities. We have said it. Terrorist and criminal 
activities.
  Again, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) should be thanked by 
everyone in the country. The gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce) 
should be thanked by everyone in the country, as should the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte). 
They have made a difference and will save a lot of lives and will 
really put a stake in the heart with regard to terrorism.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 556 and want to commend 
my colleagues Jim

[[Page H6846]]

Leach, John LaFalce, and Mike Oxley and Virginia colleague Bob 
Goodlatte for their partnership, their hard work and persistence to get 
this bill to the floor today.
  The legislation before us has at its heart the kind of consensus 
building and compromise that I believe can attract the level of support 
needed to pass this important measure to give law enforcement agencies 
the tools they need to stop the criminal activity associated with 
unlawful Internet gambling.
  In 1999, The National Gambling Impact Study Commission issued a 
report urging Congress to pass legislation ``prohibiting wire transfers 
to known Internet gambling sites, or to the banks that represent 
them.'' As the author of the legislation that established the 
Commission, I have maintained a keen interest in following through on 
its recommendations which included addressing the explosive growth in 
Internet gambling.
  According to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, gambling 
on the Internet is especially enticing to youth, pathological gamblers, 
and criminals. There are currently no mechanisms in place to prevent 
youth--who make up the largest percentage of Internet users from using 
their parents' credit card numbers to register and set up accounts for 
use at Internet gambling sites.
  In addition, pathological gamblers may become easily addicted to 
online gambling because of the Internet's easy access, anonymity and 
instant results. Dr. Howard J. Shaffer, director of addiction studies 
at Harvard University, likens the Internet to new delivery forms of 
addictive drugs: ``As smoking crack cocaine changed the cocaine 
experience, I think electronics is going to change the way gambling is 
experienced.''
  Finally, Internet gambling can provide a nearly undetectable harbor 
for criminal enterprises. The anonymity associated with the Internet 
makes online gambling more susceptible to crime.
  In 2001, Chairman Leach and Chairman Goodlatte listened to the 
Commission's request and introduced two separate bills to fight illegal 
Internet gambling. Over the August recess, provisions from the two 
measures were combined into an amended version of H.R. 556, the Leach-
LaFalce Internet Gambling Enforcement Act, which is before us today.
  This balanced compromise worked out between the Financial Services 
and Judiciary committees makes it a crime to accept payment for illegal 
Internet gambling transactions by credit card, check, or electronic 
funds transfer. Under the bill, banks and credit card companies would 
be required to block payments to Internet casinos and other illegal 
Internet gambling operations. As a testament to the fairness of this 
bill, it has attracted the support of the major issuers of credit cards 
including Bank of America, MBNA America, American Express, Citigroup, 
and Discover Financial Services, among others.
  The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to 
the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and 
mortar casino were built right next door. Internet gambling is 
affiliated with a host of social ills, including gambling addiction, 
bankruptcy, divorce, and even suicide and just as with traditional 
forms of gambling, the costs must ultimately be borne by society.
  As the gambling commission noted, one of the most troubling aspects 
of Internet gambling is that many of those enticed into addictive 
online gambling behavior are school-aged children with no previous 
exposure to gambling. Internet gambling also has been linked to 
specific cases of corruption in professional and amateur sports.
  As a result, H.R. 556 has been endorsed by a host of anti-gambling 
organizations, including the American Family Association, Christian 
Coalition of America, Concerned Women for America, Focus on the Family, 
Family Research Council, the Traditional Values Coalition, the National 
Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Football League and Major 
League Baseball, among others.
  There is one final and perhaps most critical issue that unlawful 
Internet gambling raises--Internet gambling has been linked by the FBI 
to organized crime and international money laundering.
  The FBI has testified that there is a huge potential for offshore 
gambling sites to be used for money laundering for terrorist and 
criminal activity. The FBI and law enforcement organizations including 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and the Fraternal 
Order of Police agree about the necessity for this legislation to 
thwart Internet gambling operators attempts to launder money and engage 
in terrorist and other illegal activities.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for this Congress to address the growing 
problems associated with illegal Internet gambling. I urge a unanimous 
vote for H.R. 556, and again want to express my deep gratitude to Mr. 
Leach, Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Oxley and Mr. Goodlatte for their commitment 
and their work to pass this legislation.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want to 
point out that one of the individuals who was arrested and living in 
Lackawanna a few weeks or so ago was found to have expended $89,000 at 
Casino Niagara in Niagara Falls, Canada. The Governor of the State of 
New York now has an application pending with the Department of the 
Interior to establish Indian gambling in Niagara Falls, New York. So 
these individuals would not have had to go to Canada if we are able to 
establish Indian gambling in Niagara Falls. They would be able to go to 
Niagara Falls, New York, to do whatever they want with their money.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who has worked harder on this issue and is 
more thoughtful on this subject than anyone in the history of the 
Congress.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking the 
gentleman from Iowa for yielding me this time and for his perseverance. 
I know that his work on this dates back a long time, including to when 
he was chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.
  Likewise, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce). He and I 
have had many conversations and have worked on this for a long time. I 
know his dedication to dealing with this problem.
  Likewise, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), 
and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) of the Committee on the 
Judiciary, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) of the Committee on Financial Services for 
their hard work on this as well.
  Mr. Speaker, just over 40 years ago, Attorney General Robert Kennedy 
in the midst of a fight in the war against organized crime sent 
legislation to Congress targeted at organized crime to crack down on 
gambling over telephone wires. That legislation was passed by the 
Congress, signed into law and has become commonly known as the Wire 
Act. However, because the Internet does not always travel over 
telephone wires, this law, which was written before the invention of 
the World Wide Web, has become outdated. Therefore, it is fitting that 
40 years after enactment of the Wire Act and in the midst of a new war 
on terrorism, we are considering legislation to update the Wire Act to 
clarify the state of the law by bringing the current prohibition 
against wireline interstate gambling up to speed with the development 
of new technology.

                              {time}  1630

  I have long been a champion of the Internet and an advocate of 
limited government regulation of this new medium. However, that does 
not mean that the Internet should be a regulatory free zone or that our 
existing laws should not apply to the Internet. I think we can all 
agree that it would be very bad public policy to allow offline activity 
deemed criminal by States to be freely committed online and to go 
unpunished simply because we are reluctant to apply our laws to the 
Internet.
  Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business. 
Numerous studies have charted the explosive growth of this industry, 
both by the increases in gambling Web sites available and via industry 
revenues.
  Almost all of the more than 1,400 Internet gambling sites are 
offshore. Why? Because they seek to evade the laws of this country. 
This bill is directly targeted at those scofflaws sucking billions of 
dollars out of this country who are unaccountable to the people who go 
online and place bets, not knowing whether they are going to get fair 
odds, not knowing whether they are even going to get paid. This indeed 
will be very effective, so I commend the gentlemen from Iowa and New 
York.
  Mr. Speaker, it adds three provisions from the Committee on the 
Judiciary bill, which was a tough bill and which I would love to see 
passed. But we have spent a long time juggling the interests of all of 
the various legal gambling organizations, and this approach is the 
right approach at this time, just targeting the offshore folks.

[[Page H6847]]

  I want to explain to everybody these three provisions. They are very 
important and valuable additions to the Committee on Financial Services 
bill. First, there is a provision that will allow law enforcement to 
obtain the cooperation of Internet service providers to not only deal 
with the credit cards and other financial transactions, but to require 
the taking down of those prolific ads on the Internet where you can 
click here and be at some offshore site. Those ads, if they are 
involving an entity that is engaged in illegal activity, will be 
subject to being taken down with a court order by the Internet service 
providers.
  Secondly, it increases the penalties for violating the Wire Act from 
2 years to 5 years. Finally, it makes it clear, and this is vitally 
important, it makes it clear that despite the changes in technologies, 
these new technologies being deployed today do not bypass the Wire Act. 
It makes it clear that the Wire Act applies regardless of the 
technology.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this fine legislation.
  A study by the research group Christiansen/Cumming Associates 
estimated that between 1997 and 1998, Internet gambling more than 
doubled, from 6.9 million to 14.5 million gamblers, with revenues 
doubling from $300 million to $651 million. More recently, Bear, 
Stearns & Co. Inc. reported that there were at that time as many as 
1,400 gambling sites, up from 700 just a year earlier. Other estimates 
indicate that Internet gambling could soon easily become a $10 billion 
a year industry.
  Almost all virtual betting parlors accepting bets from individuals in 
the United States have attempted to avoid the application of United 
States law by locating themselves offshore and out of our 
jurisdictional reach. These offshore, fly-by-night Internet gambling 
operators are unlicensed, untaxed and unregulated and are sucking 
billions of dollars out of the United States.
  The FBI and the Department of Justice have testified that Internet 
gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering activities and can be 
exploited by terrorists to launder money.
  The negative consequences of online gambling can be as detrimental to 
the families and communities of addictive gamblers as if a bricks and 
mortar casino was built right next door. Online gambling can result in 
addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime, and moral decline just as with 
traditional forms of gambling, the costs of which must ultimately be 
borne by society.
  Internet gambling is especially enticing to youth, pathological 
gamblers, and criminals. There are currently no mechanisms in place to 
prevent youth--who make up the largest percentage of Internet users--
from using their parents' credit card numbers to register and set up 
accounts for use at Internet gambling sites. In addition, pathological 
gamblers may become easily addicted to online gambling because of the 
Internet's easy access, anonymity and instant results. Dr. Howard J. 
Shaffer, director of addiction studies at Harvard, likens the Internet 
to new delivery forms of addictive drugs: ``As smoking crack cocaine 
changed the cocaine experience, I think electronics is going to change 
the way gambling is experienced.'' Finally, Internet gambling can 
provide a nearly undetectable harbor for criminal enterprises. The 
anonymity associated with the Internet makes online gambling more 
susceptible to crime.
  Gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless regulated 
by the States. As such, every state has gambling statutes to determine 
the type and amount of legal gambling permitted. With the development 
of the Internet, however, prohibitions and regulations governing 
gambling have been turned on their head. Since 1868, the federal 
government has enacted federal gambling statutes when a particular type 
of gambling activity has escaped the ability of states to regulate it. 
For over one hundred years, Congress has acted to assist states in 
enforcing their respective policies on gambling when developments in 
technology of an interstate nature, such as the Internet, have 
compromised the effectiveness of state gambling laws.
  The more than 1,400 gambling websites from the Caribbean and 
elsewhere are unlicensed, untaxed, and unregulated by any state, and 
thus violate all 50 state laws in which they are available. That is why 
state attorneys general, pro-family/anti-gambling groups, professional 
and amateur sports leagues, and the Department of Justice all agree 
that federal legislation is needed to clarify federal law that offshore 
Internet gambling businesses are illegal.
  The National Gambling Impact Study Commission recommended to Congress 
that federal legislation is needed to halt the expansion of Internet 
gambling and to prohibit wire transfers to known Internet gambling 
sites, or the banks who represent them.
  Under current federal law, it is unclear that using the Internet to 
operate a gambling business is illegal. The closest useful statute is 
the Wire Act which prohibits gambling over telephone wires. However, 
because the Internet does not always travel over telephone wires, the 
Wire Act, which was written well before the invention of the World Wide 
Web, has become outdated--it is not clear that it applies to the 
Internet at all.
  H.R. 556, as amended by provisions in Internet gambling legislation I 
introduced, clarifies the state of the law by amending the Wire Act to 
bring the current promotion against wireline interstate gambling up to 
speed with the development of new technology. This provision settles 
the uncertainty about whether the Wire Act applies to the Internet and 
at the request of the Justice Department, makes the Wire Act technology 
neutral so that the law applies to both the telephone and the Internet.
  Language has also been included in H.R. 556 from my bill that 
provides for further cooperation between law enforcement and 
Interactive Computer Service Providers to combat illegal Internet 
gambling. This provision provides for ISPs to respond to injunctions to 
take down illegal gambling websites or websites containing hypertext 
links hosted by the ISP. The bill makes clear that such injunctions 
would issue only after the opportunity for a hearing, would specify the 
service to which the order applies, and provide enough information so 
that the interactive computer service could locate the site or 
hypertext link. As a result of striking this balance between the 
responsibilities of Internet companies and the needs of law 
enforcement, the bill has the support of the ISP community.
  As the National Gambling Impact Study Commission has documented, and 
Senate and House hearings have confirmed, Internet gambling is growing 
at an explosive rate. It evades existing anti-gambling laws, endangers 
children in the home, promotes compulsive gambling among adults, preys 
on the poor, and facilitates fraud. H.R. 556 will put a stop to this 
harmful activity before it spread further.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, if I could first inquire of my good friend, 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce), we have two speakers and 
only 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Leach).
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
LaFalce) for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Pitts), and I note that the gentleman has worked on this very 
assiduously and is a man of great dignity and respect.
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank and commend the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce), and the other sponsors for developing and moving 
this important legislation.
  In the last couple of decades, gambling has exploded across this 
country, both legal and illegal forms of gambling. While many of us are 
concerned about legal gambling and its impact on society, this bill is 
about illegal gambling.
  The Internet has made it possible to gamble away your money to 
offshore criminals right from your bedroom. Millions of Americans send 
these crooks their money; and up until now, the States have been 
powerless to do anything about it. With this bill, we solve the 
problem. It may be impossible to keep illegal gambling sites off the 
World Wide Web, but it is entirely possible to prevent American credit 
cards companies from completing these transactions that these crooks 
need to make their money, and that is what this bill does. It does 
nothing to roll back legal gambling in this country. This is entirely 
about activities that are already against the law and need to be 
stopped. Some Americans do not seem to have discretion not to do this; 
this will help keep the money out of the hands of illegal people 
running these gambling sites, and I urge my colleagues to support the 
bill.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), one of Congress's most unique and distinguished 
Members.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 556. Like others, 
I would like to thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for his work; 
the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. LaFalce); the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte); and others for their 
leadership.

[[Page H6848]]

  The main reason I am here today is that I am really interested in 
young people, and I am interested in sports gambling; and of course, 
Internet gambling has really lead to an explosion of gambling of 
intercollegiate athletics, and that is one reason why the NCAA, the 
NFL, and Major League Baseball all support this legislation.
  College students often run up huge credit card debts on these sites, 
and this is involved with sports betting. According to the Federal 
Trade Commission, Internet gambling sites are advertising on Web pages 
normally visited by children. A child cannot gamble in a casino or race 
track or any other establishment because of age limits, but some young 
people are using parents or their own credit cards on these sites. One 
really alarming statistic I want to mention: it is estimated that 1.1 
million adolescents between the ages of 12 and 18 are pathological 
gamblers. This is a higher percentage than adults by age group. Young 
people become addicted to alcohol, drugs, and gambling more quickly 
than adults because of psychological and physiological immaturity. So I 
believe this is especially pernicious and particularly dangerous; and I 
urge support of this important legislation.
  Mr. LaFALCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think this is an extremely important bill. I think it is an 
extremely important bill for all Americans, but most especially for our 
youth who use computers every single day, hours and hours every day, 
and have countless, in the course of a week, dozens or hundreds of 
opportunities flashed in their face to engage in Internet gambling. 
They are flooded with credit cards that if they use them will extend 
their credit far beyond their capacity to pay, perhaps for the next 40, 
50 years or so.
  There has been a growing tendency too of obtaining student loans to 
pay off credit card debt, credit card debt that has often been incurred 
during the course of Internet gambling. There is a difficulty. Student 
loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. So the lives of these 
students are at stake, and we can do something about it. We can follow 
the recommendation of the national commission. We can follow the 
recommendations of the various religious organizations across America, 
the various athletic associations across America. We can follow the 
recommendations of the police organizations across America. We can 
follow the recommendations and vote ``yes,'' or we could ignore them 
and flaunt them and vote ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just conclude by thanking, if I can, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. LaFalce) and all of the others who have led this charge. I 
will just conclude with one observation. Gambling alone leads too 
easily to addiction. It leads to a situation where fathers lose their 
homes, mothers their families, students access to college and, in far 
too many instances, violence to the person and to their friends. This 
is a family issue. It is a national issue. We must act. I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I oppose H.R. 556, the Unlawful Internet 
Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. Although this bill is entitled a 
``prohibition'' act, it is really an authorization act. Section 3 of 
the bill provides a carve-out for transactions with businesses licensed 
or authorized by States. It provides exemptions that, in essence, would 
allow States to license new Internet gaming operations for lotteries, 
horse tracks, and corporate gambling operations. The House Judiciary 
Committee rejected a similar provision in July when it adopted an 
amendment to delete all authorizations for interstate Internet gaming.
  Although the bill grants States these exemptions, it does not provide 
Tribal governments with the same exemptions. I would not be standing 
here today, in opposition to this bill, if there were a flat 
prohibition on internet gaming. But that is not what this bill does.
  The bill gives an advantage to private gaming enterprises. It does 
not treat tribal governments as equals. Just when we think that the 
centuries of mistreatment and discrimination are ending, something 
comes up to show us that they haven't. We are learning that the more 
things change, the more they stay the same.
  Once again, Congress is trying put tribal governments at a 
disadvantage. And once against, I will stand up and defend the 
sovereignty of tribal governments! I will stand up and make sure that 
our government lives up to its trust responsibility!
  Gaming provides the financial resources that tribes need to survive 
and to bring economic development to their people. It provides the 
resources that tribal governments need to provide health, education and 
hope to their people. It is the lifeblood of our Native American 
brothers and sisters! I will not stand by and watch as Congress puts 
tribes behind the eight-ball.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 556.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 limits the ability of individual 
citizens to use bank instruments, including credit cards or checks, to 
finance Internet gambling. This legislation should be rejected by 
Congress since the federal government has no constitutional authority 
to ban or even discourage any form of gambling.
  In addition to being unconstitutional, H.R. 556 is likely to prove 
ineffective at ending Internet gambling. Instead, this bill will ensure 
that gambling is controlled by organized crime. History, from the 
failed experiment of prohibition to today's futile ``war on drugs,'' 
shows that the government cannot eliminate demand for something like 
Internet gambling simply by passing a law. Instead, H.R. 556 will force 
those who wish to gamble over the Internet to patronize suppliers 
willing to flaunt the ban. In many cases, providers of services banned 
by the government will be members of criminal organizations. Even if 
organized crime does not operate Internet gambling enterprises their 
competitors are likely to be controlled by organized crime. After all, 
since the owners and patrons of Internet gambling cannot rely on the 
police and courts to enforce contracts and resolve other disputes, they 
will be forced to rely on members of organized crime to perform those 
functions. Thus, the profits of Internet gambling will flow into 
organized crime. Furthermore, outlawing an activity will raise the 
price vendors are able to charge consumers, thus increasing the profits 
flowing to organized crime from Internet gambling. It is bitterly 
ironic that a bill masquerading as an attack on crime will actually 
increase organized crime's ability to control and profit from Internet 
gambling.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 556 violates the constitutional 
limits on federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 556 are 
ineffective in eliminating the demand for vices such as Internet 
gambling; instead, they ensure that these enterprises will be 
controlled by organized crime. Therefore I urge my colleagues to reject 
H.R. 556, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gilchrest). The question is on the 
motion offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 556, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________