[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.

                          ____________________