[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 84 (Tuesday, June 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H5136-H5153]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING FUNDING PROHIBITION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 263 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 2143.
{time} 1625
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2143) to prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful
Internet gambling, and for other purposes, with Mr. Terry in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having
been read the first time.
Under the rule, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) and the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).
(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill today.
There are going to be several amendments offered. One amendment will be
offered as if it is an antigambling amendment. In essence, the
amendment will actually bring this bill down. Fifteen years ago, there
was gambling in two States, Nevada and New Jersey. Once we in this
country moved to what we call convenience gambling, we have seen an
increase in crime, corruption, domestic violence, physical abuse, and
many other bad things that we Republicans and Democrats do not want to
see. The ultimate in what is called ``convenience gambling,'' meaning
that you do not have to go very far to gamble, is Internet gambling
where you can sit in your own family room in your bathrobe on a rainy
weekend and literally go broke in about 24 hours.
There will be an amendment offered that will be sort of viewed as
maybe some of the pro-family groups are for it. Let me say I have a
letter to the gentleman from Alabama signed by the Christian Coalition,
Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, the General
Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and the
National Council of Churches, the National Council of Churches headed
by former Democratic Congressman Bob Edgar who served here for many
years.
I would ask you, do not support the amendments that will weaken this
bill. Internet gambling is beginning to be very corrosive in our
society. We have a chance to deal with Internet gambling in the Bachus
bill that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and other Members of the
House have put forth. I rise in strong support of the bill. I think
this is an opportunity to get control of Internet gambling and to do it
in a way that is constructive and positive.
I ask my colleagues, one, support the bill on final passage; but,
lastly, do not support any amendments that may appear on the surface to
be good but what will in essence bring down this bill and thereby mean
that Internet gambling will never be controlled. Five to 7 percent of
the young people in our country are addicted to gambling.
{time} 1630
As Internet gambling becomes easier and easier, that addiction rate
goes up.
So I hope Members will oppose the amendments that will really bring
the bill down, and on final passage do something to help this country,
to help the young people, to get control of it, to get control and
regulate Internet gambling.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet
Gambling Funding Prohibition Act, legislation needed to prevent the use
of credit cards, checks, or electronic funds transfers for unlawful
Internet gambling. It will be of vital assistance in curbing illegal
Internet gambling.
This legislation states in the findings section that: ``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.''
As the author of the legislation which established the commission, I
am pleased to see that one of its most important recommendations may
indeed become law. The spread of Internet gambling means that people
can now gamble at the workplace and their homes, around the clock. The
unchecked progress of Internet gambling must be curbed.
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission report went on to state
that gambling can breed bankruptcy, divorce, domestic violence, and
physical and emotional problems. Even suicide has been linked to
gambling. Often times, even school-aged children--who have never
gambled before--are lured into on-line gambling.
H.R. 2143 will establish an enforcement structure that will let
federal regulators set up regulations which will limit the acceptance
of bank instruments such as credit cards for use in illegal Internet
gambling, reducing the chance for gambling to gain a further foothold
in our society.
Before I close, let me share with you a story. Donna Kelly, a mother
of a 12-year-old daughter and a 7-year-old son developed a gambling
problem. At one time there were 13 warrants for her arrest for writing
bad checks. Gambling had so wrecked her life that she saw only one
option: suicide. Two days before Thanksgiving, she tried to kill
herself. She failed, and was placed in a mental hospital. Mrs. Kelly
spent Thanksgiving in a mental hospital because of her gambling
problem.
Her daughter asked her afterwards, ``Momma, why did you try to kill
yourself? Do you not love me anymore?'' This is the human dimension to
gambling. This story illustrates why it is so important to vote for
this bill. When you cast your vote today, remember the many lives
ruined by gambling, and remember the family members left devastated by
their loved ones gambling activities.
Internet gambling is a vast and growing enterprise which can serve as
an avenue for money launders and terrorist funding. Gambling also
involves great social costs. This bill will reduce access to the medium
of the Internet as another forum for inducing people to
[[Page H5137]]
gamble. I urge Members to vote for this legislation.
Hon. Spencer Bachus,
House of Representatives, Financial Services Committee
Member, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Bachus: As a diverse bipartisan
coalition of family and faith-based organizations, we are
very concerned with the effects of gambling on our society
and the well-being of young people and families. We write to
strongly support the passage of H.R. 2143, To Prevent the Use
of Certain Bank Instruments for Unlawful Internet Gambling,
and for Other Purposes. Internet Gambling is already against
the law in all 50 states, yet offshore gambling interests
continue to operate without any accountability and are
available in every state by utilizing the Internet. We urge
you to support H.R. 2143 and reject any amendment or proposal
which would weaken the bill or hinder its enforcement
according to current federal law.
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report
presents a disturbing and devastating picture of the effect
of gambling on families. Some critical points to consider in
the report as it relates to Internet gambling are:
Gambling costs society $5 billion a year in societal costs
including job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits,
poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological
gambling treatment, bankruptcy, arrests, imprisonment, legal
fees for divorce, and so forth.
Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger
exists that access to Internet gambling will be abused by
underage gamblers, our children and youth.
The high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and
the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem
and pathological gambling.
Lack of accountability also raises the potential for
criminal activities, which can occur in several ways. First,
there is the possibility of abuse by gambling operators. Most
Internet service providers hosting Internet gambling
operations are physically located offshore; as a result,
operators can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within
minutes. Furthermore, gambling on the Internet provides an
easy means for money laundering. Internet gambling provides
anonymity, remote access, and encrypted data. To launder
money, a person need only deposit money into an offshore
account, use those funds to gamble, lose a small percent of
the original funds, then cash out the remaining funds.
Through the dual protection of encryption and anonymity, much
of this activity can take place undetected.
Computer hackers or gambling operators may tamper with
gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit.
Unlike the physical world of highly regulated resort-
destination casinos, assessing the integrity of Internet
operators is quite difficult.
Please support H.R. 2143 and reject the spread of a
predatory industry, which is contrary to the well-being of
individuals and all of society.
Sincerely,
Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for
America, Family Research Council, General Board of
Church and Society of the United Methodist Church,
National Council of Christians.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2143, the unlawful Internet
Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. I thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Bachus) for all of the hard work he has done on this particular
piece of legislation, for working with me and the rest of the
subcommittee.
This bill is really about enforcing what is already illegal activity.
I have had several people come up to me and say, well, what does this
bill really do? What this bill really does, it takes what is already
illegal, it makes nothing more illegal or nothing less illegal, it
takes what is already illegal and tries to enforce that law.
Furthermore, I would like to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Frank), the ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services,
for the opportunity to manage the debate for the Democratic Caucus. He
and I do not see eye to eye on this legislation, but I appreciate and
respect the fact that we agreed to disagree, and I welcome healthy
debate on the topic of illegal Internet gambling.
I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 2143, which was reported favorably
by the Committee on Financial Services in March. Actions taken recently
by the Committee on the Judiciary served to weaken this bill in such a
way as to throw into question whether the bill would still adequately
preserve the Federal law and protect States rights when it comes to
regulating Internet gambling. Today's legislation will reduce that
uncertainty by moving forward with the financial services-related
provisions of H.R. 2143, which would serve as a core purpose of the
bill to shut off that financial spigot to the illegal offshore casino
sites.
Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a minute about what that financial
spigot looks like. It is currently around $6 billion a year. None of
that contributes to the United States economy. There are between 1,500
and 2,000 offshore Internet gambling sites. Unlawful Internet gambling
is a scourge of our society. It not only leads to crime, but in many
cases it is run by criminal enterprises. By shutting off the funding
flow, we will go a long ways toward shutting down these elicit
enterprises.
The Committee on Financial Services and all of the members, the
ranking member and the chair, have worked diligently over the last few
years with industry groups and civic organizations to strengthen the
measure and to build support for its enactment. We consulted with
financial services companies to improve the bill, recognizing current
industry practices and protecting firms from liability for refusing to
honor restricted transactions.
The policy rationale for this legislation is very simple: Offshore
Internet gambling is already deemed illegal. By continuing to allow the
financing of illegal Internet gambling, we are stating that we are not
serious about enforcing the law. Worse, the FBI, the Department of
Justice, and the Department of State have all stated that Internet
gambling can be exploited to launder money for such groups as drug
dealers, organized crime and terrorist organizations.
Now is the time to close the loophole that allows illegal Internet
gambling to still exist in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I understand he has an inquiry about
this legislation.
Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, first I would like to engage the chairman in a brief
colloquy and say that I commend him for his very important work on this
legislation, which I strongly support.
As the chairman is aware, there are legitimate businesses Ohio and
elsewhere that provide legal, skill-based Internet games, such as
Monopoly and Boggle. Is it the gentleman's understanding that H.R. 2143
is not intended to apply to these games of skill that are played,
created, or distributed over the Internet and which do not involve the
risk of something of value?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PORTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is intended to apply to
gambling, which is primarily determined by chance, rather than the
skill of one of the players over the other.
Mr. PORTMAN. I thank the Chair. As we know, several States and the
District of Columbia have State lotteries that fund education and other
State needs. In these States, the lotteries operate under a strict set
of State rules.
Is it the gentleman's understanding, again, that H.R. 2143 is not
intended to prohibit the use of electronic fund transfers, ACH
transactions, checks or other bank instruments to pay for lottery play
within the boundaries of a State within which the lot is located?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, so
long as it is legal within that State, that is correct.
Mr. PORTMAN. Again, I commend the chairman for his good work on this
legislation. I hope he can beat back the amendments.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I both commend and yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee,
who has been instrumental in bringing this legislation to the floor.
(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, the bill we are considering today, H.R.
2143, the Unlawful Internet Funding Prohibition Act, represents the
culmination of many hours of deliberation and hard work on the part of
members and staff of the Committee on Financial Services.
The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the former chairman of the
[[Page H5138]]
Committee on Banking and Financial Services, has led a determined
battle to cut off the financial lifeblood of the unlawful Internet
gambling industry, and the battle has been joined with vigor by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), the chairman of the Subcommittee
on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit, and the gentlewoman from
Oregon (Ms. Hooley), who has been a staunch advocate in the committee's
efforts to stop this illegal activity. I want to commend both of them
for their strong leadership.
Support for our committee's efforts to stop the money flow to illegal
gambling sites has been nearly universal, from family and religious
groups, to anti-gambling groups, from professional sports to college
athletics, from major players in the banking and credit card
industries, to law enforcement and Internet service providers.
Mr. Chairman, it would be far easier and far quicker just to list who
does not support such efforts. That would, of course, be the illegal
Internet gambling industry itself and the ``wannabes'' waiting in the
wing for some sign that the Federal Government will roll over and
sanction Internet gambling. They have launched an all-out effort at
obfuscation and mischaracterization in hopes of defeating this bill and
perpetuating their obnoxious activities.
Six years ago Internet gambling was nearly nonexistent. Indeed, the
Internet itself was just coming into its own. Sadly, just as nature
abhors a vacuum, so do criminals, and it was just a matter of time
before gambling sites began cropping up offshore, beyond the reach of
U.S. regulators and law enforcement.
Seeing their opportunity, they multiplied unchecked, gobbling up
victims in the United States who represented the most vulnerable in our
society: children, college students, and problem gamblers. Enticed by
pop-up ads that promised untold riches, these victims yielded up their
credit card numbers and other valuable personal financial information
to an unregulated criminal element that could use that information as
it chose.
All of the privacy hawks in this Chamber need to listen to this plea.
The Committee on Financial Services has heard testimony from the U.S.
Department of Justice and the FBI that Internet gambling serves as a
haven for money launderers, and unregulated offshore gambling sites can
be exploited by terrorists to launder money. FBI Director Mueller, in
testimony before our committee, cited Internet gambling as a
substantial problem for law enforcement. That view has been reinforced
by the Financial Action Task Force, an international body that seeks to
combat money laundering, which stated in a 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 require the Federal functional regulators to establish
regulations to limit 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, and I point out, it does not expand gambling in any way,
shape, or form. Why would we want to do that? Those who claim otherwise
are either not telling the truth, or they simply do not get it.
The bill's provisions kick in only, and only, where a regulator
determines that an illegal activity has taken place and relies on
Federal and State law current at that time to guide in that
determination.
Let me be crystal clear: H.R. 2143 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.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 represents legislation at its best. It is a
directed approach to a serious problem. It will give regulators an
important new tool to fight unlawful Internet gambling, and will
protect families throughout America. It deserves the support and vote
of every Member of this House.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I want to point out that this legislation
is intended to address funding of illegal Internet gambling, not to
regulate general purpose communications networks that may be used in
isolated instances to transmit funds. The terms ``networks'' and
``participants in networks'', used in section 3(c) and in the
definition of a ``Designated Payment System'' in section (4)(3), are
intended to refer to payment networks, such as funds transfer networks,
not to general purpose telecommunications or Internet networks. Thus,
this bill would not regulate the provision of Internet connectivity or
frame relay service to an electronic funds transfer network, but would
regulate the operation of the funds transfer network itself.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good
friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the
committee.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, let me first of all compliment my
good friend, the gentleman from the other half of Birmingham, Alabama
(Mr. Bachus), for his leadership on this issue.
I take up where the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) left off. This is
a very well-conceived piece of legislation. I speak from the
perspective of someone who spent 5 years as a Federal prosecutor.
When I started out as a Federal prosecutor, we did not hear a whole
lot of about gambling, frankly, from a lot of the people who crossed my
desk. By the time I left, gambling had become the means of choice for
disguising large sums of money being moved back and forth by drug
dealers.
It goes without saying that in this age of Internet access, a lot of
children are finding their way to a lot of things that parents do not
know that they are finding, and one of them is Internet gambling.
This is a positive bill. I will note that some people have raised
concerns about how financial institutions would go about enforcing it,
how they would go about policing and enforcing the various mechanisms
contained within it. And I will note for those who raised those
concerns that this legislation only requires financial institutions to
develop adequate policies and procedures for identifying and blocking
gambling payments.
Most of the credit card industry and most of the financial services
industry have said they can easily take on this burden. It is a burden
that they regularly assume in policing all kinds of transactions.
I do want to address one line of amendments that I do expect will
come before the House today, and it deals with the amendment offered by
my colleague from Wisconsin that refers to one very specific section of
the bill. Right now this bill would exclude from its coverage ``any
lawful transaction with a business licensed or authorized from a
State.''
That is an important provision, for a very simple reason. As many of
my colleagues well know, a number of States in this country permit
various forms of pari-mutuel betting. We may not like that, we may not
engage in it, but there is not one of us in this institution who
questions that it is the right of a State to determine what is gambling
and what is not gambling. It is the right of the State of Alabama to
decide and the right of our legislature to decide if we are going to
recognize pari-mutuel betting or not.
If this amendment, which I believe is well-guided, were to be
enacted, it would fundamentally change the purpose of this bill,
because what it would do, very simply, is it would prevent a State from
accepting pari-mutuel betting or any other forms of gambling that have
been recognized, frankly, and declared as permissible by State law.
We talk a lot about States rights in this institution, and both
parties now have picked up that mantra. It is in the interests of
States rights if we decide that States can decide what is legal and
what is not illegal. So I would urge my colleagues to reject the stream
of amendments that would take away the States' ability to decide what
is valid inside their own house.
So I close, Mr. Chairman, by saying this is well constructed,
bipartisan legislation of the kind, frankly, that our committee
regularly and routinely produces.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, I am reluctant to oppose my chairman of the full
committee, but I am doing it today. What
[[Page H5139]]
I am saying today is consistent with what I have said previously about
this bill. We reported the bill out of the Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security without the
Cannon amendment. The Cannon amendment was added in full committee and
comes back to us today when the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman
Sensenbrenner) submits his amendment subsequently.
The amendment, in my opinion, Mr. Chairman, will strike the provision
of the bill that states that the term ``bets or wagers'' does not
include any lawful transaction with a business licensed or authorized
by a State. This provision is duplicative of the actual definition of
``unlawful Internet gambling,'' which is defined as a bet or wager that
is unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law.
{time} 1645
I am told, Mr. Chairman, and I think the gentleman from Louisiana has
corroborated this, that some groups feel that this is a carve-out from
the prohibition set forth in the bill. I believe that those groups who
so declare are misinterpreting current law and, with or without this
provision, we still have to contend with the prohibitions of the Wire
Act.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Sensenbrenner amendment
will pretty well remove the muscle from the arm of States' rights. I
believe that the language that the Sensenbrenner amendment seeks to
strike simply preserves the ability of States to regulate gambling, and
that is where I think the regulatory issue should arise.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking
member.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, where are the libertarians
when we need them? What we have before us is the Inconsistency Act of
2003. Rarely has a bill come forward which is in conflict with as many
principles as Members of this House have professed. In the first place,
we have the question as to whether or not we should substitute the
government's opinion for individuals' choices.
Now, there are ills in this world against which people should be
protected. There are economic injustices, there are environmental
problems, there are criminal elements who would prey on people. I spend
all of my energy trying to protect people against things done by
others, whether forces of nature or individuals, that would harm them.
I envy my colleagues who have more energy than I. I do not have enough
left to protect people against themselves. This is an example of our
deciding that we cannot trust adults to decide what to do with their
own money.
Now, if we were talking about someone who was being forced to gamble
at gunpoint, I am with you. If there are people who are being coerced
into putting down a bet, let us protect them. But if an individual has
gone out and earned his or her money and decides he or she wants to
gamble, why in the world is it anybody in this building's business?
So we, first of all, have this inconsistency with the principle of
let us keep big government off our backs. I do not myself gamble. I do
not like to see my money go when I do not have any control over it, and
so I do not gamble. And other people who are opposed to gambling, I do
not always hold myself out as an example, but I will in this case. Be
like me: do not gamble. But if other people want to put a bet down,
mind your own business.
Now, there are people for whom this is enjoyable. I do not understand
why we should cast aspersions on them. And it is true, some people will
abuse it. There are a minority of people who will abuse this. But the
notion that we prevent adults from making their own choices with their
own money, to do things which have no harmful effect on anyone else,
because a minority of people will abuse them is, of course, a very
dangerous principle. There are people who drink too much. There are
people who go to too many movies. There are people who do a lot of
things in excess that most of us do in moderation. Ban the excess, if
you want to; deal with the consequences of the excess. This is a
violation, though, what we are doing now, of the fundamental principle:
leave people alone.
There is another principle that I have heard: the sanctity of the
Internet. We are told that we should not interfere with the Internet.
Indeed, this House has refused to cooperate with State governments;
now, many of them are in terrible fiscal crises, cutting back on health
care, laying off public safety officials, but we will not cooperate
with them in collecting sales taxes from people who buy things over the
Internet in competition with local communities, and they lose tax
revenue. But we say, oh, no, we cannot touch the Internet, unless it is
being used for something people here do not like. That is basically
what is involved here.
We have, and there is an interesting conjunction here of liberals and
conservatives. Conservatives do not like it, some of them because I
read from some of the very conservative groups that it is immoral to
gamble. I am often baffled by their morality, and I do not understand
why it is immoral to gamble. I am struck by so many of my liberal
friends who do not want people to gamble. Indeed, gambling is, to many
liberals, what sex-oriented literature is to conservatives. They do not
like it, so they do not want anyone else to do it. There are people who
do not like gambling; then do not gamble. But why use the law to
prevent other people from doing it?
Now, I know they say, well, but this is not just making it illegal;
this is doing this, that, and the other. But let us cut right down to
it. This is being put forward by people who do not like gambling and
want to make it harder to gamble, and their principle of keeping
government out of private choices, forget about it; their principle of
being able to use the Internet without interference, forget about that;
and their respect for financial institutions, forget about that.
Now, they say children will abuse it. I understand that. That is a
serious effort. I am prepared to cooperate in efforts to try to protect
children, although we should know that the major protection of children
ought to be their own parents. This is protecting children, forgetting
about any parental role; but that is another principle that is a
problem. You cannot, in my judgment, sensibly, in a society like ours,
make it illegal for adults to do things because there is a possibility
that some young people will do them when they should not. Let us work
on ways to prevent children from doing this sort of thing.
Gambling is a perfectly legitimate human activity. There are people
who enjoy it. There are people who find that it engages them. I do not
think they ought to be anesthetized on the floor of the House, but
being anesthetized, I guess a lot of people do not pay a lot of
attention to what we say. No real harm there. But when you take the law
of the United States and you now put further criminal penalties here
and further restrict people, I think we are making a very grave error.
So I hope Members who have talked about States' rights, who have
talked about individual liberty being protected from an overreaching
government, who have talked about not stifling the Internet and its
creativity, will think about one of those things when you come to vote
on this bill and vote it down.
I thank the gentlewoman for managing this time and yielding this time
to me. I am the senior minority member, but since the majority of
members of my committee, in a temporary lapse from their usual good
judgment, supported this bill; I did not think it was appropriate for
me to be the manager.
But I do hope that individual freedom, a distrust of overreaching
government, a respect for the rights of State and local jurisdictions,
and a respect for the Internet will count for something when we vote.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would say to the
gentleman that this bill is not about opposing legal gambling. This
bill is about opposing mob activity, criminal activity. The FBI says
that organized crime is behind these Internet sites. This is about the
unsupervised, illegal, untaxed Internet gambling. Illegal, offshore.
[[Page H5140]]
We talk about adults. These sites specifically target preteenaged
children; and as the University of Connecticut has shown us, it is
becoming a problem for many of our teenagers. They are becoming
addicted to it, and they then turn to crime. This is about protecting
Americans from crime that arises from these sites, specifically from
these sites.
In the gentleman's own State, Dr. Schaffer, Harvard Medical School,
likened illegal Internet gambling to crack cocaine, and he said, ``It
is changing the gambling scene as crack cocaine changed the drug
scene.'' We have all seen the scourge of crack cocaine. We have seen
how it has ruined our country, ruined our youth. We have seen Adrian
McPherson, a young man with a lot of promise, a star quarterback, a Mr.
Basketball in the State of Florida, Mr. Football, we have seen him on
trial, accused of Internet gambling.
Mr. Chairman, this is simply about enforcing the laws of this country
and protecting our youth. We take the animals of the field, the one
thing they do is they protect their youth. If dogs, cats, rabbits, any
animal, if they protect their youth, at least we can rise to that level
and above that level and protect the youth of our country.
Finally, as the NCAA said when they urged us to adopt this
legislation for 5 straight years, ``Illegal Internet gambling is
destroying the integrity of college sports and we have scandals in the
making.'' Let us put an end to it; let us put an end to it now. Let us
vote for this bill. Let us vote for the Kelly amendment. Let us vote
against the Cannon amendment, which is a poison pill, as we all
recognize, any of us who have studied the issue at all.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Mrs. Kelly), who has conducted extensive hearings on this matter.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with
the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clarify the intention of this
legislation. Section 4, subsection 2(E)(ix), exempts transactions with
a business licensed or authorized by a State from the definition of
``bets or wagers'' under the bill.
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
exemption will not expand the reach of gambling in any way. It is
intended to recognize current law that allows States jurisdiction over
wholly 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
prohibition 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. Is that correct?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. KELLY. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BACHUS. The gentlewoman's assessment of the intent is accurate. I
thank the gentlewoman for clarifying that point.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, 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. These Web sites are
extremely destructive, and it is time we put them out of business.
We all know that illegal money transfer has funded terrorism in this
Nation. We need to dry up terrorism's money. Anyone who cares about
their personal safety and the safety of the people in this Nation needs
to vote for this bill.
This legislation will bar Internet gambling access to the U.S.
financial services network by preventing the use of credit cards, wire
transfers, or any other bank instrument to fund gaming associations.
Representatives of the offshore casino industry have tried to make
the case that Internet gambling is a harmless activity that can easily
be brought under control by Federal regulation; but, unfortunately,
that is not true on many fronts. It is technologically impossible to
create safeguards that will regulate Internet gambling. That means
anyone with access to a credit card, including children, can access
these sites. Anyone who is a terrorist with a credit card can transfer
money this way.
As the FBI closes down on other money-laundering schemes, more
illicit funds are expected to move through Internet gambling sites. To
stop terrorism, we must dry up their access to funding.
{time} 1700
This legislation will help that. The bottom line is, Internet
gambling is illegal, and according to the Department of Justice and the
FBI there is no effective way to regulate it. The only way to stop it
is to cut off the financial flow to the illegal Internet casino
industry, which is precisely what this legislation before us does.
Finally, there has been a lot of misinformation spread about this
legislation in the past few weeks. Let me be very clear, this
legislation does not change current law by defining what is legal or
illegal; it simply ensures that we have a mechanism to enforce illegal
activity under the Federal law.
Reasonable people can disagree on offering a separate amendment to
the committee which makes it absolutely crystal clear that we are not
changing anybody's law regarding Internet gambling. I believe that the
base text speaks for itself. But if it needs to be clarified, my
amendment makes it absolutely clear: The legislation does not change
any law currently in place, Federal, State, or tribal, governing
gambling in the United States.
I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that will give law
enforcement an important new tool to fight crime and protect our
families in the United States.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good
friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat like a skunk at the church
picnic, but I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote against this
senseless and useless piece of legislation.
I know something about gaming and gaming law. I was a gaming attorney
for many years before I came to the United States Congress, and I
represent Las Vegas. This bill, in spite of what its sponsors say, will
not stop illegal Internet gaming, and, if passed, it will have serious
unintended consequences.
This legislation, let me reiterate, will not stop Internet gaming. It
exists today. There are over 1,600 gaming Web sites offshore already.
Americans are playing online now. But instead of playing on well-
regulated sites, they are placing wages on the existing 1,600 offshore
unregulated sites which have no requirement to verify the identity, the
age, the background, or the location of the person placing the wager.
In most cases, there is no regulation of offshore sites. A child can
place a wager on these offshore sites, a compulsive gambler can place a
wager on these sites, and there is no guarantee that players will
receive their winnings from these offshore sites.
My good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus), speaks of
mob influence and speaks of protecting children from gambling. There is
not one thing in this legislation that will remedy any of the problems
that he speaks of.
Let us not be foolish enough to believe that this bill will stop
people from gambling online. Despite efforts by every credit card
company in the United States to prohibit the use of their financial
instruments for Internet gaming, the General Accounting Office predicts
that the offshore Internet gaming industry will continue to grow to a
$4.2 billion industry in 2003 with a growth rate of 20 percent per
year. Passing this bill will do nothing to impede that growth. Online
gaming is here to stay.
If these unregulated and unscrupulous offshore sites continue to
flourish, the integrity of the legal gaming industry is also at risk.
Instead of prohibiting online gaming, we should be closely examining
online wagering to see if it can and should be regulated and taxed as a
legal business. No one knows the answer to this, but it might turn out
that it may be the only effective way to stop illegal online wagering
[[Page H5141]]
and the problems it creates. H.R. 2143 would cut off this option, and
we should not pass it.
For those people that are so worried about funding of terrorists, let
us have our so-called Saudi allies and our moderate Arab allies, let
them stop the money they are flowing into the terrorists, and not kid
ourselves to think that stopping online Internet gaming is going to do
the trick for us.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, major league baseball, the National Football League,
and the NCAA all endorse this legislation. We could have no better
representative than the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who many
of us still think of as Coach Osborne of the Nebraska Cornhuskers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Osborne).
Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for this legislation. I support H.R.
2143.
As the chairman mentioned, I spent most of my life working on a
college campus. I can attest to the fact that Internet gambling is
really hitting our college campuses very hard, because all you have to
do is have a computer and a credit card and you are in business. Almost
all students have this, so we see an explosion of gambling on the
college campuses. Many student athletes are becoming heavily involved.
I think someone mentioned earlier a quarterback from Florida State.
The reason that the NCAA, the NBA, major league baseball, all of
these organizations are against it, is that once a student athlete
becomes heavily indebted, there are really only a couple avenues he can
take to get out of the problem. One is to cooperate with gamblers.
Another is to shave points. So it tremendously compromises the athletic
scene.
According to a 1997 study by Harvard Medical School, students show
the highest percentage of pathological gambling. To say that students
are not involved is simply inaccurate. For some, as has been mentioned
earlier, gambling releases endorphins, much like crack cocaine, so this
is a highly addictive activity.
Our society is becoming increasingly dependent on gambling.
Individuals try to get out of poverty by winning the lottery or hitting
the jackpot. States try to cure economic woes through lotteries and
casinos.
Internet gambling does not fix the problem; it makes it worse.
Internet gambling provides no useful goods or services. It usually is
linked to organized crime. It often results in divorce, suicide, theft,
and poverty. It siphons money that would otherwise be spent to buy
food, clothing, appliances, housing, and thus hurts the economy. Above
all, it hurts our families and it hurts our children.
Please support H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding
Prohibition Act.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I would respond to the comments of the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Berkley). I think she gave a really good argument why we
should pass this bill. It may not do everything that we want it to do,
but right now offshore gambling is illegal.
What we are trying to do in this bill is very simple. It is to shut
off the financial spigot. Will it stop it totally? Probably not. Will
it make a dent? I certainly hope so. But unless we can shut off that
financial spigot, nothing will happen, and it will just continue to
grow and take that money out of our economy.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman
from Texas, (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding time to me. I thank her for her leadership and for her work.
Mr. Chairman, we know that unregulated Internet gambling does hurt. I
also believe we as Members of Congress want to do the right thing. I
would encourage that we look at the idea of the expanded study of this
question to make the right decisions.
I would also like to offer a comment on what I believe will be a very
helpful amendment that I will have the opportunity to expand on as we
go into the amendments on this legislation.
It is important to note that 8 percent of children under the age of
18 in America have a serious gambling problem, as opposed to a 3
percent number of adults. That is, of course, a distinctive difference
between those children under the age of 18.
I would hope that my colleagues would look upon an amendment that
hopefully answers that question and provides some of the comparable
legislation that was allowed in the Children's Protection Act that
dealt with protecting children from accessing pornography on the
Internet by utilizing a credit card.
My amendment will allow the use of a credit card in the instance of
legal Internet gambling so that it will prevent or prohibit or stop or
inhibit 18-year-olds, or those under 18, from using the credit card to
access Internet gambling.
What it will do is the fact that a credit card, one, requires one to
be at least 18 to secure one. Then, of course, it has a purchasing
coding system to alert parents of unauthorized charges. Then it records
the information on the charge. These are all ways of providing that
extra door, that extra fire door to prevent those youngsters from
accessing Internet gambling.
I hope my colleagues will listen to the debate. I expect to listen to
the debate so we in Congress can do the right thing, so we can do it
together, and do it on behalf of the American people.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).
Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise to register my very, very strong
support for this bill, and my opposition to the Cannon amendment; not
that I oppose the intent of the Cannon amendment, but simply because
that is likely to be a poison pill for this bill and result in its
immature death. Let me ask a few questions.
Does gambling cause any social good in this country? The answer is
absolutely not. It creates a great many social problems but provides no
social good.
Does it help when we assess taxes on it? Does that not provide some
good? It may salve our conscience a bit, but it certainly does not
overcome the problems that arise from gambling.
Is gambling addictive? Yes, without doubt. I can recount an example
that was just told me a few weeks ago by one of my constituents, where
a gentleman who had been reasonably well off had to go into bankruptcy
because his wife had become addicted to gambling. She had very
carefully hidden it from him. She had taken out credit cards which he
did not know about. The accumulation of debt from her gambling
addiction drove them into bankruptcy.
Does gambling attract crime? Yes. Terrorism? Yes. Why? Wherever there
are large amounts of cash available with minimal accounting standards,
as we have with Internet gambling, we are going to attract crime. We
are going to attract terrorism.
What is the worst form of gambling? Internet gambling. It is easy, it
is convenient, it is anonymous, and we can do it from our own homes or
from a public library or any of a number of other places. It is very
tempting for any addicted gambler to use Internet gambling, and use it
surreptitiously when necessary, to cover the fact that he or she is
addicted.
I very strongly support this bill. I hope the Congress will approve
it, that the Senate will approve it, that the President will sign it,
and it will become law.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) have been fighting this issue and
offering legislation for some time. This legislation actually
appropriately would bear their names. I commend the gentleman from
Virginia. I think no one has done more than he and the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach) on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his leadership
[[Page H5142]]
on this issue. He has been fighting this for a long time, and I
appreciate his efforts to bring forth this legislation.
I am pleased to support it, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding
Prohibition Act, because it is an important first step in the fight
against Internet gambling. It hits illegal gambling institutions where
it hurts the most: their pockets. By shutting off the financial
lifeblood of this illegal industry, this bill will help to starve out
unlawful Internet gambling sites and in the process close off
opportunities for money launderers, terrorists, and organized crime.
Gambling on the Internet has become an extremely lucrative business.
The Internet gambling industry revenues grew from $445 million in 1997
to an estimated $4.2 billion this year. Furthermore, industry analysts
estimate that Internet gambling could soon easily become a $10 billion
a year industry.
The problems with Internet gambling are many. The instant access to
online gambling is particularly disturbing. This illegal activity is
available to adults and children alike with the simple click of a
mouse.
In addition, the social problems associated with traditional forms of
gambling have increased with the proliferation of Internet gambling.
Online gambling results in more addictions, more bankruptcies, more
divorces, more crime, the cost of which must ultimately be borne by
society.
I do believe that more needs to be done in the fight against Internet
gambling, including creating stiffer criminal penalties for violators
and updating the Federal Wire Act to make it clear that it covers new
technologies such as the Internet.
{time} 1715
However, H.R. 2143 is an important first step in this fight and I am
pleased to support this bill.
I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort. I want to thank the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley)
and others, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), who have helped to
lead this effort. This is a great opportunity for us today and I thank
the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for it.
The CHAIRMAN. For the record, the Chair announces that the
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) has yielded to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) 8 minutes, reserving 4 minutes for herself.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. Leach). Many fine things have been said about the gentleman,
that he and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) have been
fighting this issue, this problem, and have really brought it to our
attention, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I
commend him.
Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a great credit to the gentleman from
Alabama's (Mr. Bachus's) leadership. Also, as indicated, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Wolf) have worked on this for years, and I am very grateful for their
support.
Mr. Chairman, the bill as it comes before the floor today is,
frankly, not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It would have been
better if the Committee on the Judiciary had updated the Wire Act. It
would have been better if we had been more precise in allowing certain
law enforcement ties to the financial system. Nevertheless, this is a
very credible first step to slowing the growth of Internet gambling.
The issue has been raised on the floor, and I think it is worthy of
serious review, the question of is this an individual issue, a
libertarian issue or is it a social issue?
I believe very firmly that it is far more than a libertarian issue.
We ignore gambling at our peril. It is simply not good for the American
economy to send billions of dollars overseas. It is not good for
American national security to allow Internet gambling to provide the
ideal basis for money laundering, for narco-traffickers and for
terrorists. But most of all it is not good for the American family.
Anyone that gets hooked on Internet gambling or any form of gambling,
but particularly Internet which is gambling alone, will lose virtually
all of their assets. Anyone that gets hooked will, in all likelihood,
lose their family. Divorce is a serious element of the gambling
problem. In very many cases the extraordinary circumstance of suicide
is contemplated by gamblers that get this as a virtual disease.
It is a libertarian myth that only the individual, only the gambler
is affected. Its effects spill over to the financial systems. When
there are losses, everybody else has to pay higher interest rates. They
spill over to the social welfare system where people have to pick up
the costs of broken lives. It spills over to the economy where
suffering has to be picked up elsewhere; and they spill over into
national security concerns.
Internet gambling serves no social purpose whatsoever. It is a danger
to the American family. It is a danger to the American society. It is a
danger to the security of the United States. It should be ended, and
this is a credible beginning.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, how many more speakers does the
gentleman have?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, we have 2 more.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, it has become very apparent to me after listening to
this debate that the supporters of this bill not only oppose the
Internet gaming, they are opposed to any form of gaming whatsoever.
They speak of gaming and they speak of addiction and crime and drugs
and suicide.
Well, I grew up in Las Vegas. Las Vegas has 1.5 million residents; 37
million visitors come to our community every year to enjoy our
entertainment, and our wholesome family entertainment, I might add.
I grew up in Las Vegas. I represent the good people of Las Vegas who
depend on the gaming industry for their livelihood. My father was a
waiter when I was growing up. He worked in one of these casinos that
you disparage so handily.
Let me state what Las Vegas means to me. On a waiter's salary my
father was able to put a roof over our heads, food on the table,
clothes on our backs, and two daughters through college and law school.
That is not so bad on a waiter's salary. And the reason he was able to
do it was because of the strong economy that the gaming industry
created.
Las Vegas to me is churches and synagogues and families and Saturday
soccer and proms at this time of year and graduations and hopes and
dreams and aspirations to millions of people that come to Las Vegas and
the 1.5 million people that live there.
And, quite candidly, the people in this Chamber ought to be ashamed
of disparaging a community like Las Vegas that I daresay lays shame to
all of your own. So please be careful when you speak of my community
and the major industry that takes care of the people that live there
and provides good educations, good economy, good living conditions, and
a quality of life that is the envy of the rest of the United States of
America.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. Leach) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte)
for their efforts here.
I want to disagree with the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for
a moment. I used to be an FBI agent. And the old saying ``It takes
money to make money'' is as true for organized crime as it is for any
other business in America. This is not about Las Vegas. This is about
offshore entities; Russian organized crime establishing offshore sites
to develop low-cost/high-revenue venues where they can do two things:
A, make a tremendous return on their investment; and B, launder money.
And they are not laundering money that they have earned by betting or
working in legitimate businesses. They are laundering money that they
obtained illegally from drug sales, from prostitution rings, from
pornography rings, from street gang street tax, from street
[[Page H5143]]
taxing businesses who are trying to operate in New York and Miami and
Los Angeles.
These are exactly the kinds of activities that this bill will at
least attempt to put a tool in the toolbox to stop. The FBI already has
several cases today involving organized crime using Internet gambling
to launder money. They use this money and turn it around to do pretty
awful things, not only in America but now internationally. And they
have become very, very sophisticated at how they get there.
It would be sticking our heads in the sand if we do not stand up and
say we will not tolerate organized crime using the Internet to
negatively influence our communities and our business community all
across America.
This is dangerous, dangerous stuff. And to compare this to soccer
games in Las Vegas is both naive and shortsighted. I would encourage
the gentlewoman to understand where we seek to go and the very types of
people we seek to stop with this bill.
I would also take this opportunity to urge this body to reject the
Sensenbrenner and Cannon amendment. We are very, very close here today
to taking one step closer to knocking organized crime off their feet.
That is a poison pill that may slow that endeavor.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time
for closing.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I do intend to
close.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman through with his
speakers?
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers, but I do wish to
close.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to remind people this is not about
legal gambling. This is about illegal gambling. This is about offshore
casinos. This is about illegal Internet gambling.
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in favor of this
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. And I also want to
thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for all of the hard work, and it has taken more
than 1 year that they have worked on this.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to turn this debate into an
oversimplification, but I want to remind this entire Chamber that this
bill does not in any way prohibit Internet gambling. The bill does not
make Internet gambling illegal. This bill quite simply takes Internet
gambling that is already illegal, such as offshore gambling, and
prohibits financial institutions from funding those transactions. The
best way to put it is that this bill will actually enforce existing
law, which is something I believe that we all agree on is in this
country's best interest.
Finally, I would like to share a couple of quick facts that sum up my
support for this legislation. First, a study released by the American
Psychiatric Association concluded that about 20 percent of children-
oriented online game sites featured Internet gambling advertisements,
20 percent. Does that make any sense? Offshore illegal Internet
gambling sites are advertising to our children and we are not shutting
down these offshore illegal Internet gambling sites? That does not make
sense to me.
Second, the FBI and the Department of Justice have linked, without
question, offshore Internet gambling to organized crime, money
laundering and identity theft. Offshore illegal Internet gambling has
been linked to organized crime and terrorism and we are not going to
shut it down? That does not make sense to me.
It is time to enact legislation that empowers our law enforcement
officers to become tough on the existing laws and to put illegal
Internet gambling sites out of business once and for all.
Please support H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding
Prohibition Act.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this Congress has tried mightily, Members of this
Congress, to pass legislation to protect our children from this
organized criminal activity. And it is a criminal activity. To equate
this with the lawful supervised gambling in Las Vegas is simply to miss
the point.
The fact is the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) said, We do
nothing in this bill to make unlawful what is lawful or make lawful
what is unlawful.
What we do say is that where there is this criminal activity which is
causing such heartbreak and such sorrow and such destruction and really
a crime wave in this country, that it is time to put an end to it.
Now, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has for years
strived to bring the conscience of this Congress to this issue. The
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for years has brought this issue to our
attention. They want stronger measures. I would like stronger measures,
I will admit that, but we have to be practical.
We have to get what we can get. And what was the Cannon amendment
killed this legislation in the past, and it will be brought up and they
will attempt to kill this legislation. I hope that is not the case. I
hope that we do not vote for the Cannon, now Sensenbrenner amendment,
and again postpone facing this issue.
When it gets to the point that MasterCard, American Express, Visa,
and Discover are all urging this Congress to take action to stop the
illegal use of their networks, and they have written letters endorsing
this legislation that every Member of this Congress has gotten, and
they have said it will be an effective tool to stop the use of our
credit cards to this illegal activity, when Citibank, when Morgan
Stanley, when the largest banks in this country say give us the
regulations, give us the framework to stop this, it is about time that
we move.
We have talked about major league baseball, the NFL, and I think that
the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), more skilled than any of us
in college sports, he is the longtime football coach of the Nebraska
Cornhuskers, when he says this is undermining the integrity of the
sport, it is time for us to take action.
It is time for us to quit this turf fighting where someone tries to
expand gambling and someone else tries to limit gambling, and to come
forward with a bill to address this, what the FBI calls ``mob-drive,
crime-controlled activity.''
{time} 1730
When we started this debate, some 4 or 5 years ago, we had less than
a half a dozen sites, less than $300,000 being used. Today, the number
of addicted gamblers in this country has grown by 5 million, a great
number of them starting in their preteen or early teenage years.
It is time this Congress acted. It is time this Congress rejected the
Sensenbrenner amendment in a few minutes and voted for this
legislation. If it does not, we are going to be dealing with a $20
billion industry or $30 billion industry, and it is bad enough today
when we do not know who these people are. They are unregulated. We do
not even know where the money that is earned, how much of that money is
finding its way back to Washington; but it is a pretty strong
indication when we have one so-called faith group that battled for this
legislation until a few weeks ago and suddenly turned around 180
degrees and suddenly opposed this legislation; and we find from a
California paper that a few years ago they, in fact, took gambling
money to fight on behalf of the gambling industry.
The National Council of Churches has written us today, the National
Governors Association. The Fraternal Order of Police has urged us to
take action to accept no amendments other than the Kelly amendment. The
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has written us. They have
urged us to take action.
Mr. Chairman, the house is on fire and it is time for this body to
wake up and to take action and to protect the youth of this country and
the compulsive gamblers.
I close with one fact, and that is from the University of Connecticut
Health Center, an extensive survey that said 74 percent of those who
have used the Internet to gamble have serious problems with addiction,
and many of those have resorted to criminal activities to pay for the
habit. On the other hand, those that engage in legal gambling, they
find only a third as many have become permanently addicted.
[[Page H5144]]
We have a wave in this country which Dr. Schaffer at Harvard Medical
School compares to a cocaine epidemic in gambling, a crack cocaine
epidemic; and in a few minutes, each one of us will decide to end this
addiction and this heartbreak and this threat to not only our sports
programs in this country but to our fabric as a Nation, or we will
decide to vote for the Cannon amendment and, again, kill this
legislation and put it off.
I urge all the Members to take a strong stand against the killer
amendments that will be offered, a strong stand for this legislation.
Join with the credit card companies, the financial institutions, the
many church groups in this country, law enforcement officers, National
Governors Association, Attorneys General Association. If there is ever
a clear vote in this House, this should be the vote. If there was ever
a unanimous vote in this House, this should be the vote.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am troubled by and opposed to the
increasing reliance of government on gambling. We are seeing more
evidence of its destructive power, even as the current financial crisis
is driving more States to expand their gaming operations.
Gaming has been one of the tools that has enabled Native Americans to
regain some economic footing after centuries of neglect, abuse, and
broken promises. While this is not my favorite tool for their economic
development, I do not favor treating tribal interests differently than
we do for other private and State-sponsored gaming. The State
exemptions in this bill violate that fundamental principal by
regulating tribal gaming differently from State gaming, which is unfair
and ultimately an unwise precedent.
I am opposed to illegal offshore betting and I would be happy to
regulate internet gambling. I stand ready, if we can ever breach the
wide array of vested interests to support legislation that does
restrict gaming without singling out Native Americans for unequal
treatment. This bill falls short of that mark, and I will not support
it.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2143 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. 2143 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. 2143 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. 2143 violates the constitutional
limits on Federal power. Furthermore, laws such as H.R. 2143 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. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition
Act.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Unlawful
Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. While I support the bill, I
am disappointed that the legislation could not be further refined to
satisfy the concerns of the Native American gaming community. I firmly
believe that in its final form, any legislation must clarify the
absolute legality of Native American gaming.
Last Congress, in response to 9/11, the Financial Services Committee
passed significant new legislation curbing money laundering. During the
course of hearings on the legislation, law enforcement testified that
Internet gambling sites are often used for money laundering purposes by
drug dealers and potentially by terrorists. As I've often said,
criminals are like other business people in that they go out of
business if you limit their money. This legislation will give law
enforcement important new tools to cut off money laundering.
I also support the legislation because I fear that the explosion of
the Internet and the access that young people have to it in their homes
and schools creates an opportunity for them to fall victim to online
gaming. The best way to keep young people from getting hooked on
gambling is to limit their access to it. There is good reason that U.S.
casinos do not permit individuals under 21 years of age from entering
the premises.
While I support the bill, I am concerned that the concerns of the
Native American gaming community have not been fully satisfied. Gaming
has raised standards of living and provided economic development money
to the Native American community that was missing for too long.
Congress must not do anything to imperil gaming as a source of much
needed jobs and commerce to reservations. I look forward to working
with the Native American community on this issue going forward.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, you might remember a failed experiment the
U.S. government tried in the 1920s called Prohibition. Today, Congress
is rushing to pass a similar ill-conceived prohibition of Internet
gambling. Gaming prohibitionists believe they can stop the millions of
Americans who gamble online by prohibiting the use of credit cards to
gamble on the Internet. Just as outlawing alcohol did not work in the
1920s, current attempts to prohibit online gaming will not work,
either. Let me explain why.
In addition to the problems I addressed earlier, this bill lacks a
number of important protections. It does not require that the
businesses getting the special exception be licensed for Internet
gambling, any kind of license will do. It does not require that these
businesses keep minors from gambling as a condition of the license. It
does not even require that these businesses limit the amount that can
be gambled to protect problem gamblers.
And what about lotteries? Family values conservatives fight the
lotteries in State after State. They say that there is no greater evil
than State-sponsored gambling. The Justice Department said in their
testimony that this bill would ``absolutely'' allow Internet gambling
on lotteries.
This is not just my interpretation of this bill. The Free Congress
Foundation, led by conservative activist Paul Weyrich, says this bill
expands gambling. The Traditional Values Coalition, led by the Reverend
Lou Sheldon, says this bill expands gambling. The United States Justice
Department says this bill expands gambling.
And while many powerful gambling interests receive an exemption, less
favored interests get the short end of the stick. Native Americans
became more tightly regulated than the horse racing industries. It is
unfair and unjustifiable public policy.
Instead of imposing an Internet gambling prohibition that will
actually expand gambling for some and drive other types of Internet
gambling offshore and into the hands of unscrupulous merchants, I
believe Congress should examine the feasibility of strictly licensing
and regulating the online gaming industry. A regulated gambling
industry will ensure that gaming companies play fair and drive out
dishonest operators. It also preserves State's rights.
The rules should be simple: if a State does not want to allow
gambling in its borders, a licensed operator should exclude that
State's residents from being able to gamble on its website.
That is why I introduced H.R. 1223, the ``Internet Gambling Licensing
and Regulation Commission Act.'' The bill will create a national
Internet Gambling Licensing and Regulation Study Commission to evaluate
how best to regulate and control online gambling in America to protect
consumers and prevent criminal elements from penetrating this industry.
In addition, the Commission will study whether the problems identified
by gambling prohibitionists--money laundering, underage gambling, and
gambling addictions--are better addressed by an ineffective ban or by
an online gaming industry that is tightly regulated by the States.
Until now, Republicans and Democrats have stood together against
those who wanted to regulate the Internet, restrict its boundaries, or
use it for some special purpose. Except in the narrow areas of child
pornography and other obvious criminal activities, Congress has
rejected attempts to make Internet Service Providers, credit card
companies, and the technology industry policemen for the Internet. We
should not head down this road now.
Attempts to prohibit Internet gambling in the name of fighting crime
and protecting children and problem gamblers will have the opposite
effect. Prohibition will simply drive the gaming industry offshore,
thereby attracting the least desirable operators who will be out of the
reach of law enforcement. A far better approach is to allow the States
to strictly license
[[Page H5145]]
and regulate the Internet gambling industry, to foster honest merchants
who are subject to U.S. consumer protection and criminal laws.
There are many different concerns with this bill, some of which I
just mentioned. These concerns range from doubts about the desirability
of having government regulate the personal behavior of competent adults
to the fact that the bill, under the guise of banning Internet
gambling, actually enables some favored gambling industries on-line.
There are concerns about the bill's fundamental unfairness to native
American tribal governments, and concerns about the precedent of
deputizing financial institutions to regulate the Internet. For all of
these concerns, I urge you to vote, ``no'' on H.R. 2143.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read for amendment under
the 5-minute rule.
The text of H.R. 2143 is as follows:
H.R. 2143
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 ``Unlawful Internet Gambling
Funding Prohibition 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. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REQUIRED TO PREVENT PAYMENTS
FOR UNLAWFUL INTERNET GAMBLING.
(a) Regulations.--Before the end of the 6-month period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the
Federal functional regulators 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:
(1) The establishment of policies and procedures that--
(A) 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
(B) block restricted transactions identified as a result of
the policies and procedures developed pursuant to
subparagraph (A).
(2) 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.
(b) Requirements for Policies and Procedures.--In
prescribing regulations pursuant to subsection (a), the
Federal functional regulators shall--
(1) 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;
(2) 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
(3) consider exempting restricted transactions from any
requirement under subsection (a) if the Federal functional
regulators find that it is not reasonably practical to
identify and block, or otherwise prevent, such transactions.
(c) 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 subsection (a) if--
(1) 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--
(A) identify and block restricted transactions; or
(B) otherwise prevent the acceptance of the products or
services of the payment system, member, or participant in
connection with restricted transactions; and
(2) such policies and procedures of the designated payment
system comply with the requirements of regulations prescribed
under subsection (a).
(d) Enforcement.--
(1) In general.--This section 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.
(2) Factors to be considered.--In considering any
enforcement action 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
Federal functional regulators and the Federal Trade
Commission 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 this subsection.
(D) The feasibility that any specific remedy prescribed 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.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall
apply:
(1) Restricted transaction.--The term ``restricted
transaction'' means any transaction or transmittal to any
person engaged in the business of betting or wagering, in
connection with the participation of another person in
unlawful Internet gambling, of--
(A) 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);
(B) 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;
(C) 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
(D) the proceeds of any other form of financial transaction
as the Federal functional regulators 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.
(2) 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.
(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
[[Page H5146]]
service, or any participant in such network, that the Federal
functional regulators determine, by regulation or order,
could be utilized in connection with, or to facilitate, any
restricted transaction.
(4) Federal functional regulator.--The term ``Federal
functional regulator'' has the same meaning as in section
509(2) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
(5) Internet.--The term ``Internet'' means the
international computer network of interoperable packet
switched data networks.
(6) 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.
(7) 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''--
(i) has the meaning given such term in section 903 of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act; and
(ii) includes any financial institution, as defined in
section 509(3) of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley 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.
The CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in House Report 108-145. Each amendment may be offered only in
the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered read, debatable for the
time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House
Report 108-145.
Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mrs. Kelly
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mrs. Kelly:
Page 13, after line 2, [page and line numbers refer to H.R.
2143, as introduced on May 19, 2003] insert the following new
section:
SEC. 5. COMMON SENSE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
No provision of this Act shall be construed as altering,
limiting, extending, changing the status of, or otherwise
affecting any law relating to, affecting, or regulating
gambling within the United States.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I strongly support the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition
Act, which seeks to cut off the lifeblood of illegal Internet gambling.
As we consider this important legislation, I am offering an amendment
to clarify the intent of the legislation and to specifically address
concerns raised by those who oppose the bill.
Over the last few weeks, there has been a lot of inaccurate and
misleading information spread about H.R. 2143. Let us be clear about
that, though. This legislation does not change current law by defining
what is legal or illegal. It simply ensures that we have a mechanism to
enforce illegal activity under the Federal law; but because reasonable
minds can disagree, I offer this amendment in an abundance of caution
to put concerns to rest that this legislation changes existing law. It
does not.
My amendment adds a straightforward section to the bill entitled
``Common Sense Rule of Construction'' to ensure that there are no
carve-outs, no loopholes, no new powers created by any section of H.R.
2143. The amendment clearly states in one sentence that this
legislation does not change any law, Federal law, State law or tribal
law, governing gambling in the United States.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
legislation that will give law enforcement an important new tool to
fight crime, stop terrorism, and to protect families across America.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim
the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Oregon?
There was no objection.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I am supportive of the gentlewoman from New York's (Mrs. Kelly)
amendment. I think it is a great idea that she came up with to make
very clear what this bill does and does not do.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, this is one of the simplest amendments I have ever
offered on the floor of this Chamber. In one sentence this amendment
says the legislation does not change any law governing gambling in the
United States of America. It makes clear that the legislation simply
seeks to cut off the financial flow to the unlawful Internet casino
industry. It guarantees there are no carve-outs in the bill, no
loopholes, no new powers created by any section.
I cannot understand why anyone would oppose this amendment unless
they want to change current law to open up loopholes for themselves.
Mr. Chairman, it is time we put the crooks out of business. We have
got to stop the drain of the money-laundering system that terrorists
can access. I ask for an emphatic ``yes'' vote on this amendment and an
emphatic ``yes'' vote on the final passage of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed
in House Report 108-145.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
Page 7, strike line 3 [page and line numbers refer to H.R.
2143, as introduced on May 19, 2003] and all that follows
through line 6 (and redesignate the subsequent subparagraphs
and any cross reference to any such subparagraph
accordingly).
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2143 to protect minors
from the dangers of Internet gambling. This amendment removes credit
card transactions from categories of prohibited financial transactions
under the bill. The purpose of removing credit cards from the list of
prohibited financial transactions is that credit cards have built-in
mechanisms that protect children from the dangers of Internet gambling.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment to H.R. 2143.
A study released by the American Psychological Association finds that
pathological gambling is more prevalent among youth than adults.
Between 5 and 8 percent of the young Americans and Canadians have a
serious gambling problem, compared to 1 to 3 percent of adults. Let me
repeat that again, Mr. Chairman. Between 5 and 8 percent of young
Americans and Canadians, young people, have a serious gambling problem
compared to 1 to 3 percent of adults. The study went on to say that
with gambling becoming more accessible in U.S. society it will be
important to be able to intervene in children
[[Page H5147]]
and adolescent lives before the activity can develop into a problem
behavior.
Many Internet gambling sites require bare minimum information from
gamblers to participate. Security on bets placed over the Internet has
proven ineffective; and unlike traditional regulated casinos, Internet
operators have no demonstrated ability or requirement to verify a
participant's age or identification. Also, an Internet gambling site
can easily take a person's money, shut down their site and move on. My
amendment will allow the use of credit cards to provide the protections
that many Internet gambling sites do not.
As H.R. 2143 is presently drafted, no betting or waging businesses
may knowingly accept credit cards, proceeds of credit, electronic fund
transfers, moneys transmitted through a money-transmitting business or
a check or similar draft in connection with another person's
participation in unlawful Internet gambling.
Allowing credit cards to be used in Internet gambling transactions
helps to protect minors. Credit cards, unlike the other methods of
payment prohibited in H.R. 2143, provide safeguards to help to ensure
minors do not engage in Internet gambling. For example, acquiring a
credit card requires the individual to verify he or she has reached the
age of 18. Credit cards are an effective method of verifying age
because minors are not issued their own accounts. Credit card companies
may also conduct a background or credit check to confirm the individual
is of age. The procedures help to deter minors from using credit cards
to gamble.
In fact, in previous legislation passed by Congress to protect
children from harmful Internet sites, credit cards were used as a
deterrent in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA.
Congress specifically allowed the use of credit cards as a method of
age verification in order to restrict access by minors to Web sites
containing adult material. Does it not seem logical for Congress to
follow its own logic? By prohibiting the use of credit cards, H.R. 2143
ties the hands of law enforcement agencies and Federal regulatory
agencies like the FTC to ensure sufficient control to identify minors
who may attempt to gamble online.
There are also transactional safeguards available from credit card
companies that will help prevent Internet gambling by minors. For
example, several of the major credit card companies have a coding
system that tracks the type of merchandise that is being sold by a
merchant. The coding system alerts the credit card company and the
credit card owner of purchases and charges that are not typical. For
example, if a child steals his parent's credit card and makes several
bets on an Internet gambling Web site, the coding system will recognize
the new purchases, alert the credit card owner, who in turn can take
necessary steps to stop the gambling by the minor.
Just about a year ago, we rewarded credit card companies with respect
to a new bankruptcy bill on the issue of credit card debt. Here we can
utilize credit card companies to do something effective and good to
protect our children.
Mr. Chairman, the age verification and merchandise tracking
safeguards provided by credit cards are not sufficient alone to cure
the problem of minors engaging in Internet gambling. I know that.
However, these safeguards are a step in the right direction, and they
will prevent some minors from using the Internet gambling Web sites
that remain, even in spite of this bill. If we pass this legislation
without this amendment to H.R. 2143, we will eliminate the one proven
method of effectively preventing children from accessing Internet
gambling Web sites.
For these reasons, I ask that my colleagues enthusiastically join me
in amending H.R. 2143 so that credit cards can be used and thereby
protect children, America's children, 8 percent of whom are engaged or
addicted to gambling from those activities and access to Internet
gambling.
Mr. Chairman, I propose this amendment to H.R. 2143 to protect minors
from the dangers of Internet gambling. This amendment removes credit
card transactions from categories of prohibited financial transactions
under the bill. The purpose of removing credit cards from the list of
prohibited financial transactions is that credit cards have built in
mechanisms that protect children from the dangers of Internet gambling.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of my amendment to H.R. 2143.
A study released by the American Psychological Association finds that
pathological gambling is more prevalent among youths than adults.
Between five and eight percent of young Americans and Canadians have a
serious gambling problem, compared with one to three percent of adults.
The study went on to say that with gambling becoming more accessible in
U.S. society, it will be important to be able to intervene in
children's and adolescent's lives before the activity can develop into
a problem behavior.
Many Internet gambling sites require bare minimum information from
gamblers to participate. Security on bets placed over the Internet has
proven ineffective. And unlike traditional regulated casinos, Internet
operators have no demonstrated ability or requirement to verify a
participant's age or identification. Also, an Internet gambling site
can easily take a person's money, shut down their sites, and move on.
My amendment will allow the use of credit cards to provide the
protections that many Internet gambling sites do not.
As H.R. 2143 is presently drafted, no betting or wagering businesses
may knowingly accept credit cards, proceeds of credit, electronic fund
transfers, monies transmitted through a money-transmitting business, or
a check or similar draft, in connection with another person's
participation in unlawful Internet gambling.
Allowing credit cards to be used in Internet gambling transactions
helps to protect minors. Credit cards, unlike the other methods of
payment prohibited in H.R. 2143, provide safeguards that help to insure
that minors do not engage in Internet gambling. For example, acquiring
a credit card requires the individual to verify he or she has reached
the age of 18. Credit cards are an effective method of verifying age
because minors are not issued their own accounts. Credit card companies
may also conduct a background or credit check to confirm the individual
is of age. The procedures help to deter minors from using credit cards
to gamble.
In fact, in previous legislation passed by Congress to protect
children from harmful Internet sites, credit cards were used as a
deterrent. In the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (``COPPA'')
Congress specifically allowed the use of credit cards as a method of
age verification in order to restrict access by minors to websites
containing adult material. By prohibiting the use of credit cards, H.R.
2143 ties the hands of law enforcement agencies and federal regulatory
agencies like the FTC to ensure sufficient controls to identify minors
who may attempt to gamble online.
There were also transactional safeguards available from credit card
companies that will help prevent Internet gambling by minors. For
example, several of the major credit card companies have a coding
system that tracks the type of merchandise that is being sold by a
merchant. The coding system alerts the credit card company and the
credit card owner of purchases or charges that are not typical. For
example, if a child steals his parents' credit card and makes several
bets on an Internet gambling website, the coding system will recognize
the new purchases, alert the credit card owner, who in turn can take
the necessary steps to stop the gambling by the minor.
Mr. Chairman, the age verification and merchandise tracking
safeguards provided by credit cards are not sufficient alone to cure
the problem of minors engaging in Internet gambling. However, these
safeguards are a step in the right direction and they will prevent some
minors from using Internet gambling websites. If we pass this
legislation without amendment, H.R. 2143 will eliminate the one proven
method of effectively preventing children from accessing Internet
gambling websites. For these reasons, I propose that H.R. 2143 be
amended so that credit cards can be used by betting and wagering
businesses.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
{time} 1745
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and I introduced this legislation, and I think
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) probably said it best when he
described the Jackson-Lee amendment as gutting the bill by removing
from it the major source of financing for illegal Internet gambling,
and that is credit cards.
What this entire legislation is about is about cutting off the money,
because these illegal Internet gamblers are not
[[Page H5148]]
offering a public service, they are making money. They are, in fact,
making a killing. It is all about money, and the way we address it is
by cutting off the money. Removing credit cards from the financial
instrument covered under the bill is tantamount to saying we are only
going to pretend to address the problem of illegal Internet gambling.
No one should seriously contend that children are not now gambling
over the Internet using credit cards in too many instances. How
difficult is it to borrow, with or without permission, mom or dad's
credit card and gamble over the Internet. College kids are doing it
every day; teenagers are doing it every day. How difficult is it for a
thief to obtain someone else's credit card number to gamble over the
Internet? They steal blank checks, they cash worthless checks, and they
steal credit cards, all to feed their addiction. A slew of identity
theft cases have hit this country in recent months. Many of those may,
in fact, have been driven by this very addiction.
This is a damaging amendment designed to turn a very strong
enforcement bill into a weak shadow of itself. I strongly urge a no
vote on it. I would like to close by reading a letter from MasterCard
because we are told they already have everything they need to do in
doing it, and this is a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).
``I am now writing to communicate MasterCard's strong support for
appropriate measures to combat illegal Internet gambling. In
particular, we commend the efforts of you and your colleagues on H.R.
2143. This legislation will build on the rules developed by MasterCard
and enable MasterCard to block branded payment card transactions in
connection with Internet gambling. These rules have been extremely
effective in impeding the use of U.S.-issued MasterCard branded payment
cards for Internet gambling transactions. MasterCard believes that H.R.
2143, introduced by Congressman Spencer Bachus, would establish a
workable framework for combating illegal Internet gambling. We are
committed to working with you and your colleagues to further refine and
pass this legislation as Congress seeks to provide a legislative
solution to this important problem.''
MasterCard, Discover, American Express, Visa, the Nation's largest
banks, Household Finance, Morgan Stanley, I could go on and on, have
all endorsed this legislation because it will work. It will not cut off
everything, but the bill as presently constituted covers money orders,
it covers e-cash, it covers wire transfers, but it also covers credit
cards and it must cover credit cards to be a comprehensive approach.
As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) said and as the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has said, there are more effective things we
could do, and hopefully we will to them, but both of them have strongly
endorsed this legislation as a first step.
I urge this body to defeat this amendment, defeat the poison pill
that will be offered next and vote on final passage of this bill
without these killer amendments.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-
Lee) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House
report 108-145.
Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner:
Page 9, line 22, after the semicolon, insert ``and''.
Page 10, line 17, strike ``; and'' and insert a period.
Page 10, strike lines 18 and 19.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 263, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 5
minutes of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) and that he may yield blocks of that time as he sees fit.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that has been the subject of much
name-calling by the proponents of this bill. I ask the membership to
look at the amendment. It strikes the carve-out that the authors of
this bill put in to exempt horse racing, dog racing, State lotteries
and other forms of gambling from the proposed regulations of this bill.
I believe that Internet gambling should be eliminated; but to have a
carve-out for horses and dogs and lotteries and jai lai, and Lord knows
what else, means that people will be able to use the Internet and use
their credit cards to place bets and lose a lot of money.
No, if Internet gambling is addictive, we ought to close the
loophole, because minors and others can lose just as much money on
horses and dogs and lotteries and jai lai as they can lose on other
forms of Internet gambling. I strongly urge support of this amendment.
This is a loophole that is big enough to drive a truck through. By
passing the amendment, we close the loophole.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) and in support of the base bill before us. The bill
before us effectively achieves its purpose, to prevent people from
using credit on illegal gambling activities, particularly offshore
Internet sites.
But if this amendment should be adopted, we might as well just call
this bill the ``Horse Racing Prohibition Act'' because it will
literally kill that entire industry. The intent of the amendment is not
to prevent illegal activity, rather it is intended to make current
legal activities illegal.
If the language regarding State license domestic wagering were
eliminated or changed, this legislation would not simply prohibit
credit in connection with Internet gambling, it would restrict the day-
to-day wagering activities of millions of horse racing fans by limiting
financial clearing transactions with domestic wagering facilities. As a
result, this would severely curtail simulcast wagering and personal
account wagering on any horse race.
Not surprisingly, over 80 percent of the amount bet on horse racing
is wagered at locations other than where the race is run. The result of
this amendment, should it pass, would be catastrophic to the $34
billion racing/horse breeding industry, especially to the States that
rely on it for tax revenue and the 500,000 full-time jobs it supports.
In Kentucky alone, there are 460 thoroughbred farms, 150,000 horses,
8 tracks and 52,000 jobs which add $3.4 billion directly to the State's
economy. On top of this, the U.S. horse racing industry is already one
of the most highly regulated industries in the country, governed by
both Federal and State laws.
States like Kentucky have highly sophisticated systems in place to
ensure that each transaction is made in accordance with the law.
Because of this State regulation, the integrity of gaming site
operators, the identity of the participants, consumer fraud and money
laundering are not at issue.
It is ironic that this Congress would stand here today and attempt to
trample on the rights of States to regulate
[[Page H5149]]
their own businesses. The adoption of this amendment would be the
triple crown of injustices. It would put hardworking folks out of work,
it would take away much-needed revenue from the States, and it would
deprive honest folks the fun of putting a couple of bucks down on their
favorite horse to win, place, or show. I ask Members to reject the
Sensenbrenner amendment and support the bill as written.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, what an exciting day on the floor of the House. The
Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act just happens to have
one problem: It accepts horse racing. Now, can somebody explain to me
why that is so? We are going to ban Internet gambling except horse
racing. Why?
Well, it is because the horse racing lobbyists and the dog racing
lobbyists have said that is what we ought to do. Why did they write a
bill like this? This is a bill that expands gambling, expands gambling
by accepting two industries.
Now I have been in touch with Reverend Lou Sheldon of the Traditional
Values Coalition and Paul of the Free Congress Foundation, and they
have told me this is a bad, bad bill, not to do it. We have a wire act
from 1961 that has forbidden gambling, and now we are making the
exception for horse racing. Can someone suggest why this bill was
written this way? Anyone on the floor, I yield.
I did not think so.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time left on each
side?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 4
minutes. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) has 7 minutes. The
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 3\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Wexler).
Mr. WEXLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment from
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary. I oppose it because it prohibits Americans
from using their credit cards for behavior that is entirely legal.
Pari-mutuels, horse tracks, dog tracks, and jai lai frontons are all
legal in many States. They are heavily regulated. They pay taxes. They
provide jobs, and in many communities are an important part of the
tourism industry and local culture. That is why the National Governors
Association is against this amendment.
{time} 1800
Pari-mutuels employ thousands of Americans and provide enjoyment to
millions more. The horse racing industry generates $34 billion a year
and creates 472,000 full-time jobs in America. Greyhound racing is a
$2.3 billion industry creating over 30,000 jobs in America. They both
provide very needed tax revenue to our States. It makes no sense for
Congress to usurp States' rights with the result being a loss of
employment of Americans and State revenue.
The underlying bill rightfully bans credit card use for illegal
gambling. Casino-style offshore Web sites are not regulated. They do
not pay taxes, and they do not employ Americans. They are illegal, and
American banks should not help facilitate them. But the issue here is
whether Congress is going to make a policy that says Americans cannot
use credit cards to engage in behavior which in their State is legal.
Not illegal, but legal.
I would respectfully argue that Congress should do no such thing and
should oppose this amendment.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
Mr. CANNON. I want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary for his work on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by expressing my great esteem for
the proponents of this bill. I believe that they honestly think that
this bill will limit or, to some degree, prohibit or slow the growth of
the pernicious vice of gambling on the Internet. I am personally not
convinced that that will happen; and if I might, I would like to just
focus on comments by the last two gentlemen who have spoken.
The gentleman from Kentucky talks about 52,000 jobs in his State that
depend upon horse racing, which is currently legal in his State and
currently legal in many other States in the Union and around the world.
The gentleman from Florida has just talked about 700,000 jobs in the
country or more that relate to horse racing and 30,000 jobs that relate
to dog racing; and, of course, the other two exceptions that are carved
out in the underlying bill are jai alai, which is, of course, a big
sport in Florida, and State-run lotteries.
The problem with this bill and the reason we have so much emotion and
so much emotional support for the idea that this amendment is bad is
that this amendment might make those activities illegal when in fact
what this amendment does is eliminate carve-outs and eliminate gambling
that is now illegal. The problem for me is that I represent the State
of Utah, one of only two States that actually totally prohibits
gambling. The other State is Hawaii. From the perspective of our
States, and I say this with all due respect, this is not the Internet
Gambling Prohibition Act, this is Internet Gambling Enabling Act. It
actually allows gaming in Utah and will do so in Utah and Hawaii and
other States where there are limitations on gambling unless the carve-
outs are removed.
The underlying bill provides these major carve-outs, and I think we
have broad consensus from those who have actually looked at the bill
and understand it. The U.S. Department of Justice and the National
Association of Attorneys General have expressed themselves on this
issue. In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, John Malcolm
of the U.S. Department of Justice testified that the aforementioned
section, the carve-out section, was one of the reasons DOJ could not
endorse Senate 627, which is nearly identical to H.R. 21 and now H.R.
2143. Testifying on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys
General, Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General of Connecticut, warned
that under that bill the exceptions could swallow the rule. Certainly
in those States where gambling is outlawed or some gambling is
outlawed, the exceptions could swallow the rule. In testimony before
the House Committee on the Judiciary, when asked if that action would
allow lotteries to go online, Malcolm responded, ``Absolutely.'' You
cannot do that in Utah today, but you will be able to if this law
preempts local State law.
Thus, H.R. 21 is not really an Internet gambling prohibition bill.
You might actually consider it an Internet gambling industrial policy
bill because we are choosing a favored class of state-sponsored
Internet gambling under this bill.
Last year during consideration of a similar bill, H.R. 3215 in the
107th Congress, the Committee on the Judiciary voted overwhelmingly
against allowing carve-outs in Internet gaming legislation. Last year
when the Committee on the Judiciary was considering the Goodlatte
Internet gambling bill, which had similar carve-outs, I offered
amendments to strike those carve-outs. The amendments were adopted by
wide margins, and the bill as modified was reported overwhelmingly by
the committee.
The argument that the provisions simply allow States to regulate
intrastate wagers does not wash. The provision is an exception from the
definition of ``bets or wagers.'' It is not confined to intrastate. It
essentially says that state-licensed facilities can do anything their
license allows them to do, be it pari-mutuel, casino-style, or any
other kind of betting.
This bill is ill considered despite the great intentions of its
proponents. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
withdraw my recorded vote request on the Jackson-Lee amendment. I will
work in conference to make sure that children are protected in America.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The request for a recorded vote is
withdrawn and, pursuant to the voice vote, the amendment is not agreed
to.
[[Page H5150]]
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, as a strong opponent of Internet gaming, I
rise in support of the Sensenbrenner-Conyers-Cannon amendment. The
Traditional Values Coalition supports this amendment, which removes the
exemption that would allow state-licensed or authorized businesses to
conduct Internet gambling. The bill does not provide equivalent
treatment for tribal governments. If this bill becomes law, the outcome
will result in the unequal treatment of Indian tribes because the
current Federal law, the Wire Communications Act that prohibits
Internet gambling will apply only then to Indian tribes. Only state-
licensed businesses will be permitted to conduct Internet gambling.
Mr. Chairman, this bill will actually make it possible to expand
Internet gambling rather than prohibit it. This amendment eliminates
the special interest exemption for various gambling groups that support
the bill. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), who rises in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. LUCAS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, as the cochair of the
Congressional Horse Caucus and a Member from Kentucky, I agree with the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). Kentucky is where more
thoroughbreds are born each year than in any other State. I rise in
strong opposition to this amendment, an amendment that seeks to change
the very intent of the bill before us. Horse racing is one of the most
highly regulated industries, and we do not want to do harm to an
industry that employs well over half a million people nationwide.
The title of the bill, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding
Prohibition Act, says it all. The intent is to address the problem of
unlawful, unregulated gambling over the Internet. H.R. 2143 does this
while respecting existing Federal and State gambling laws.
We have heard supporters of this amendment argue that it is needed
because it will keep the bill from expanding Internet gambling. This is
just not true. In fact, the bill itself without this amendment deals
only with the use of credit cards and other bank instruments in
connection with unlawful Internet wagering. The bill does not change
any Federal or State gambling provision. It does not make any unlawful
gambling lawful. It does not make any lawful gambling unlawful. And it
does not override any State prohibitions or requirements.
The National Governors Association is opposed to this amendment
because they understand and support this distinction in the bill and
its purpose. Governors in States like Kentucky that allow lawful,
state-sanctioned and regulated gaming activities such as pari-mutuel
horse racing know the importance of the economic impact of gaming in
the form of jobs and tax revenue generated to the State. State
governments across the country are grappling with shortfalls.
Regardless of what you hear, that is what passage of this amendment
will do. We need to oppose this amendment and support H.R. 2143.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Sensenbrenner
amendment. The underlying bill, as we know, exempts transactions with a
business licensed or authorized by a State from the definition of ``bet
or wager.'' This will permit lotteries, horse and dog tracks and other
gambling operations to go on the Internet, but does not cover
transactions with tribal governments. It is simply unfair not to
provide parity for Indian tribes.
If this bill becomes law, the outcome will result in unequal
treatment of Indian tribes because the current Federal law that
prohibits Internet gambling will only apply to Indian tribes. With this
bill, only state-licensed businesses will be permitted to conduct
Internet gambling. The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment, with the
gentleman from Michigan, ensures fairness for everyone, placing tribes
and States on a level playing field. Indian gaming, as we know, has
provided tribal communities with economic self-reliance; and it has
also helped to create jobs in surrounding communities, not just for
tribes but for other people in the surrounding communities. It is
simply unfair not to provide parity.
I would ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the Sensenbrenner
amendment if they feel strongly that there should be parity for Indian
tribes.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in opposition to the Cannon-Sensenbrenner
amendment.
Mr. WOLF. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
Sensenbrenner amendment. There has been a lot of talk on the floor and
sometimes what appears to be is not to be. It is very, very confusing
to somebody who is watching it. Simply, it is a poison pill. The
Sensenbrenner amendment is a poison pill. If you want to kill the bill,
vote for Sensenbrenner. It looks good. It looks good, but it will hurt
the effort. Many people, particularly young people, will be hurt by the
failure of this bill to pass.
If you want this bill to pass, if you are opposed to Internet
gambling, if you care about the future of these young people, I ask you
to vote against the Sensenbrenner amendment and vote in support of the
base bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, unequal treatment of American Indians and
American Indian tribes is not an American value. I have great respect
for those who resist this amendment because I believe they are acting
in sincere good faith and trying to establish American values. But we
need to pass this amendment to assure that the American value of fair
treatment of American Indians, which has been denied them in certain
times in our history, to our great shame, is not repeated in this bill.
This amendment, when passed, will assure that we do not have special
interest legislation just for non-Indian Americans. Indian and non-
Indian Americans ought to be treated the same. That will not happen
unless we pass this amendment.
I will tell Members why I feel so strongly about this. About a year
ago, I was driving through the Tulalip Indian reservation by
Marysville, Washington. I spent a lot of time in my youth there. I
noticed a new building that had just gone up. It was the first Boys and
Girls Club on an Indian reservation in America. Today as we speak,
there are kids there who are learning teamwork and new skills and
getting new job training at that Boys and Girls Club. The reason that
club is there is because of this industry, this legal industry.
Let us not hearken back to the dark days of treating Indian tribes
with less respect of law than other industries in America. Let us pass
this amendment. Let us do what is right for a lot of folks, including
the Boys and Girls Club and the Tulalip Indian reservation.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the
United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, and four
other faith-based organizations and a letter from the National
Governors Association in opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment.
June 3, 2003.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: As a diverse bipartisan coalition of
family and faith-based organizations, we are very concerned
with the effects of gambling on our society and the well-
being of young people and families. We write to strongly
support the passage of H.R. 2143. To Prevent the Use of
Certain Bank Instruments for Unlawful Internet Gambling, and
for Other Purposes. Internet Gambling is already against the
law in all 50 states, yet offshore gambling interests
continue to operate without any accountability and are
available in every state by utilizing the Internet. We urge
you to support H.R. 2143 and reject any amendment or proposal
which would weaken the bill or hinder its enforcement
according to current federal law.
The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report
presents a disturbing and devastating picture of the effect
of gambling on families. Some crucial points to consider in
this report as it relates to Internet gambling are:
Gambling costs society $5 billion a year in societal costs
including, job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits,
poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological
gambling treatment, bankruptcy,
[[Page H5151]]
arrests, imprisonment, legal fees for divorce, and so forth.
Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger
exists that access to Internet gambling will be abused by
underage gamblers, our children and youth.
The high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and
the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem
and pathological gambling.
Lack of accountability also raises the potential for
criminal activities, which can occur in several ways. First,
there is the possibility of abuse by gambling operators. Most
Internet service providers hosting Internet gambling
operations are physically located offshore; as a result,
operators can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within
minutes. Furthermore, gambling on the Internet provides an
easy means for money laundering. Internet gambling provides
anonymity, remote access, and encrypted data. To launder
money, a person need only deposit money into an offshore
account, use those funds to gamble, lose a small percent of
the original funds, then cash out the remaining funds.
Through the dual protection of encryption and anonymity, much
of this activity can take place undetected.
Computer hackers or gambling operators may tamper with
gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit.
Unlike the physical world of highly regulated resort-
destination casinos, assessing the integrity of Internet
operators is quite difficult.
Please support H.R. 2143 and reject the spread of a
predatory industry, which is contrary to the well-being of
individuals and all of society.
Sincerely,
Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for
America, Family Research Council, General Board of
Church and Society of the United Methodist Church,
National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion (NCAGE),
National Council of Churches.
____
National Governors Association,
Washington, DC, June 9, 2003.
Hon. Michael G. Oxley,
Chairman, House Financial Services Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barney Frank,
Ranking Member, House Financial Services Committee, Rayburn
House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman and Representative Frank: On behalf of
the National Governors Association, we are writing to express
our interest in H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling
Funding Prohibition Act. We appreciate your efforts to
address the troubling problems posed by Internet gambling,
while recognizing the authority of states to regulate
gambling within their own borders.
We urge you to maintain the exemption currently included in
H.R. 2143 for Internet transactions with businesses licensed
or authorized by a state such as a state lottery.We
understand that there may be efforts to strip the bill of
this provision, and we encourage you to oppose such attempts.
An incursion into this area with respect to online gambling
would establish a dangerous precedent with respect to
gambling in general as well as broader principles of state
sovereignty.
Sincerely,
Governor Mike Johanns,
Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce.
Governor James E. McGreevey,
Vice Chair, Committee on Economic Development and Commerce.
{time} 1815
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who, second to none, has led
the fight against this illegal Internet gambling.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman, the gentleman from
Alabama, for his leadership on this legislation, which is a big step
forward in the fight against Internet gambling. This amendment, as the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) described, is indeed a poison pill.
The reason is, it does not have any effect on the lawfulness or the
unlawfulness of gambling, the provision that they want to pull out.
That provision simply protects the rights of States to regulate
gambling.
Historically, that is what we have always done in this country.
Gambling has always been the province of the States. They regulate
gambling, and this amendment would change that. This amendment would
take away from the States the right to do that.
We are simply attempting to maintain the status quo with respect to
underlying Federal and State substantive law on gambling. We are not
tilting the playing field one way or another unfairly, we are simply
trying to address the problem of unlawful gambling, as the title of the
bill suggests. I would love to do more on these other issues, but this
is not the bill, this is not the place to do it.
The term ``lawful'' is included in this provision of the bill to
indicate that no transaction will be exempted from the effect of the
bill unless that transaction complies with all other State and Federal
laws. The amendment already adopted offered by the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Kelly) makes that even clearer, so the complaints of the
gentleman from Utah, whose State I have great admiration for in terms
of their efforts to combat gambling, need have no fear of this
legislation. This does not open up Utah to any new forms of gambling.
It will tighten it down.
There are plenty of people in Utah today who pull up a chair in front
of their computer in their living room and go on and place a bet, using
a credit card or wire transfer or some other form of financial
transfer, that this legislation will stop. We should not allow a poison
pill to prevent this legislation from moving forward to accomplish
that.
In addition, States have traditionally had the power to decide
whether to allow gambling within their borders. We should not put into
question the authority of those States to decide these matters for
themselves. Utah, Virginia, or any other State in the country, they
ought to be able to make that decision, and we ought not interfere with
it. Striking this provision of the bill would eliminate a provision
that reinforces the rights of the States to decide whether or not to
prohibit gambling, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). All time for debate has
expired.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186,
noes 237, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 254]
AYES--186
Abercrombie
Akin
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Ballenger
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Bereuter
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Cannon
Capps
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Cole
Conyers
Cox
Crane
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dreier
Edwards
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gallegly
Gingrey
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Honda
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (IA)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schiff
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Solis
Souder
Stark
Stenholm
Stupak
Tancredo
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Tiahrt
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOES--237
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
[[Page H5152]]
Bishop (NY)
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Cardoza
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graves
Greenwood
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Hill
Hobson
Holden
Holt
Hooley (OR)
Hulshof
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Maloney
Manzullo
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Regula
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Ruppersberger
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sandlin
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Spratt
Stearns
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Waters
Weller
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
NOT VOTING--11
Cubin
Eshoo
Fletcher
Gephardt
Gordon
Houghton
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Smith (WA)
Tierney
Toomey
Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.
{time} 1848
Messrs. GILCHREST, UPTON, GREENWOOD, KIRK, DeMINT, DOOLITTLE, TAYLOR
of Mississippi, FRANKS of Arizona, BOSWELL, FRELINGHUYSEN, CAMP, RYUN
of Kansas, VITTER, NUSSLE, BURNS, GOSS, PORTMAN, JANKLOW, TAYLOR of
North Carolina, ROGERS of Alabama, FORBES, WILSON of South Carolina,
PITTS, BOOZMAN, and ISSA, and Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, and Mrs. JO
ANN DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. GEORGE MILLER of California, RODRIQUEZ, OWENS, BECERRA,
MARSHALL, VISCLOSKY, WYNN, BEREUTER, FOSSELLA, MENENDEZ, and Mr. YOUNG
of Alaska, and Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, and Ms.
VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
{time} 1850
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). There being no further
amendments, under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Bass) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2143) to prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful
Internet gambling, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution
263, he reported the bill back to the House with an amendment adopted
by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This vote will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on the motion to suspend the rules and agree to House Resolution
252.
The vote to suspend the rules and agree to House Concurrent
Resolution 110 will be postponed until tomorrow.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 319,
nays 104, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 255]
YEAS--319
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Allen
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cooper
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Crowley
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Filner
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harman
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Hooley (OR)
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Israel
Issa
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Janklow
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Manzullo
Marshall
Matheson
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothman
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Saxton
Schiff
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Serrano
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Van Hollen
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Waxman
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Whitfield
Wicker
[[Page H5153]]
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)
NAYS--104
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
Delahunt
Dicks
Dreier
Engel
Evans
Farr
Flake
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meehan
Menendez
Miller, George
Neal (MA)
Nethercutt
Ney
Oberstar
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Solis
Stark
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Weller
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--11
Buyer
Cubin
Eshoo
Fletcher
Gephardt
Houghton
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Smith (WA)
Tierney
Toomey
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bass) (during the vote). Members are
advised that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.
{time} 1906
Messrs. WELLER, GUTIERREZ, and HOLT changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay''.
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________