Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act

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. 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. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, so long as it is legal within that State, that is correct.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).

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.

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.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman's assessment of the intent is accurate. I thank the gentlewoman for clarifying that point.

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. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

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. 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. Chairman, I yield back 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).

Mr. Chairman, we have 2 more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close. I do intend to close.

Mr. Chairman, we have no other speakers, but I do wish to close.

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.''

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.

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. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

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.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to the time left on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lucas), who rises in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) in opposition to the Cannon-Sensenbrenner amendment.

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,

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.

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. Speaker, the previous gentleman who spoke indicated that the estate tax is immoral. Do Members know what is more immoral? Giving this tax relief to the wealthiest individuals in this country and passing it on through national debt to our children and our grandchildren.

The action we take today, which will cost over $800 billion in the next 10 years after fully effective, will be put on the national debt of the country to be paid back by our kids and grandkids. Boy, are we generous. Mr. Speaker, the only good thing about today's bill to repeal the estate tax for the billionaires of this country is that it is dead in the Senate, so all of the talk and debate today and the vote we will have later is for naught because the Senate is going to kill it. That is the good news. But let us see what we have done in this House and Congress over the last couple of years.

Last week we provided a tax cut of some $82 billion. The country is broke. We have a $400 billion deficit this year. The kids are going to pay that because that is part of the debt now. A month before that we passed another tax bill. This one totaled $350 billion, of which the wealthiest Americans would get about $92,000. The average taxpayer in my district would get about $400. We had no money for that one either. The real problem with that bill is once we total it up, that costs $1 trillion but that is a secret, so do not say anything. Quiet.

Now 2001 we passed another tax bill. How much did that one cost? That one cost $1.3 trillion. Again, the surplus is gone. The country is broke. We have a deficit. What the heck are we doing around here? When is this idiocy going to stop?

Today the estate tax has an exemption of $2 million. It covers everyone in my district. Well, we are going to have an option later today which would raise that to $7 million and that would take care of 99 percent of all small businesses and farmers in this country. But that is not good enough. That is

not good enough for the Republicans because that is not who they are trying to help. The people they are trying to help are the Hallmark Card people and the Mars candy bar people, who over the last couple of years have spent millions of dollars hiring lobbyists in D.C. and giving campaign contributions, and today they want their due.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a Washington Post article of this morning by Jonathan Weisman entitled, ``Estate Tax Compromise Sought.'' What we are doing today is sheer nonsense.

Let me say to my Republican colleagues, we have already voted on this proposition three times; and under the campaign finance law if we vote for an item three times and it does not pass, you are still entitled to the campaign contribution, okay. So Members are still going to get the money from Hallmark and the campaign contributions from the Mars candy bar people; but for God's sake, save the taxpayers of this country.

[From the Washington Post, June 18, 2003]

Estate Tax Compromise Sought

House Set to Pass Repeal, but Supporters Know Senate Votes Aren't There

(By Jonathan Weisman)

When a coalition of wealthy families, small-business groups

and farm interests won temporary repeal of the estate tax two

years ago, they immediately resumed their campaign for

permanent repeal. Now, even as the House is expected to vote

today for just that, some in the alliance have second

thoughts.

It's not that they have backed off their vehement

opposition to the tax on large inheritances. Rather, as the

Federal budget deficit grows and their patriarchs and

matriarchs age, they are losing faith that permanent repeal

will ever happen and are considering compromises that were

unthinkable two years ago.

The House is expected to vote today to permanently repeal

the estate tax after 2010, when it is set to expire after

being in effect for only one year. But no one expects the

Senate to pass the bill, leading some proponents to believe

that the vote and the distant temporary repeal date are more

political gamesmanship than a serious legislative attack on

the tax.

So some of the affluent families who have bankrolled the

repeal movement are exploring estate tax changes short of

repeal that could be implemented sooner.

``There is some real concern that 2010 is not soon

enough,'' said a lobbyist working on the issue, referring to

the deficit and the uncomfortable fact that some affluent

benefactors may not live until 2010. Grover Connell of

privately held Connell Co., for example, is 85. The

matriarchs and patriarch of the Hallmark greeting-card

fortune are in their seventies.

For more than a decade, the coalition has rejected

overtures for compromise and declared it will accept nothing

short of ``death tax'' repeal.

The simplicity of their demand, the strength of the small-

business coalition and the money of the families financing

the effort combined to turn an obscure tax affecting very few

Americans into a powerful rallying point, especially for

Republicans.

The movement culminated in 2001 with the 10-year, $1.35

trillion tax cut, which repeals the estate tax in 2010. But

the tax is to return in 2011 when the entire tax cut expires.

For the past two years, the repeal coalition has tried, and

failed, to gather the 60 Senate votes needed to make the

repeal permanent. One lobbyist working on the estate tax said

the appeal of the issue may have ``plateaued.''

And just as the surging Federal budget deficit is beginning

to shake up the Bush administration's plans for more tax

cuts, it is starting to change the politics of estate tax

repeal. Repeal supporters worry that the growing deficit will

make it more difficult to eliminate the tax, particularly by

2010, when the vanguard of the baby boom will retire.

The Treasury Department said repeal of the estate tax in

2011 through 2013 would cost the government $115 billion in

revenue. In 2014 through 2023, repeal would cost about $820

billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy

Priorities.

``The principal issue is the growing federal budget

deficit,'' said William Gates Sr., father of the Microsoft

Corp. founder, who opposes repeal of the estate tax. ``You

can't run a $400 billion deficit year after year and go

around repealing taxes at the same time.''

Even if Bush is reelected in 2004, a new president, who

could be far less friendly to repeal, will be elected in

2008. And the broad appeal of the anti-estate-tax movement

that caught fire in the 1990s may be dissipating simply

because people are not feeling so rich anymore, one lobbyist

said.

Even at the height of the stock market boom, the estate tax

affected very few families because estates worth up to a

certain amount are exempt. That amount is currently $1

million for a single person or as much as $2 million for a

couple. In 2000, the most recent year for which statistics

are available, more than 2.4 million adults died in the

United States, but only about 52,000 left taxable estates.

The strength of the repeal movement always came from

people's fear that their estates would be hit with a huge tax

bill. If that fear dissipates in a sluggish economy, so will

the movement, lobbyists said.

``I think some of [coalition members] are coming around to

`Let's get a common-sense solution that can work now instead

of just talking about this for eons,' '' said Sen. Blanche

Lincoln (D-Ark.), a past repeal supporter who is floating a

less expensive alternative.

With all those factors in mind, some of the biggest names

in the estate tax coalition are looking to compromise. The

candy-making Mars family of McLean gave more than $1 million

to lobbying powerhouse Patton Boggs LLP last year, in part to

explore ``estate and gift tax reform,'' according to lobbying

disclosure forms.

Koch Industries Inc., a family-run energy, ranching and

finance conglomerate, paid Hogan & Hartson LLP $40,000 last

year, while spending $500.000 on in-house lobbying on the

estate tax. The Connell Co. hired Washington Council Ernst &

Young for $120,000 to lobby for ``estate and income tax

relief,'' while Hallmark Cards Inc. spent $60,000 to hire

Capitol Tax Partners LLP.

Stephen Moore, a conservative tax-cutting activist with the

Club for Growth, and Mark A. Bloomfield, president of the

business-backed American Council for Capital Formation,

proposed taxing estates at the current capital gains rate of

15 percent. Taxable estates are subject to a 49 percent tax.

``There are Republicans who want this debate to last

forever, keep the [campaign] money flowing in, keep the

Democrats off guard,'' Moore said. ``Mark Bloomfield and I

have been on crusade to get this done, to break the logjam.''

If that proposal cannot be passed, another lobbyist

suggested taxing inheritances at income tax rates, which are

at most 35 percent. A stream of lobbyists has passed through

Lincoln's office to discuss her proposal to immediately

repeal the estate tax for family-owned businesses and farms.

The public faces of the repeal movement remain resolute.

``We are 100 percent united behind permanent repeal in

2010,'' said Patricia Soldano, a Southern California

financial planner who, in 1992, helped launch the repeal

movement with funding from the Mars family and the Gallo wine

heirs, among others.

Dena Battle, the National Federation of Independent

Business's lobbyist on the issue, conceded that the budget

deficit ``certainly changes the dynamics of the debate.''

``But,'' she said, ``you're talking about something that

takes place 10 years from now. There's no way we can know

what the economy is going to look like then. That's not an

excuse to vote against this.''

There is little doubt that the House will vote today to

repeal the tax, but lobbyists said they will look closely at

the tally. If past repeal supporters--especially Democrats--

vote against it this time, the fledgling movement toward

compromise will pick up steam quickly, a lobbyist for one of

the rich families predicted.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 281, I call up the bill (H.R. 8) to make the repeal of the estate tax permanent, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise in support of H.R. 8, the Death Tax Repeal Permanency Act of 2003.

The bill before us has been cosponsored by over 200 Members of the House from both sides of the aisle. This approach is simple. It makes elimination of the death tax permanent. Although the bill is only one short sentence, it will have a powerful impact on the millions of people we represent.

Two years ago, Congress voted to phase out and repeal the death tax. Due to the Byrd rule, however, the tax will come back in full force January 1, 2011, imposing a maximum tax of 55 percent on estates. In the last Congress, a majority of the House voted on three occasions to remove this sunset in the law and make repeal permanent. We are here today to complete this unfinished business.

I have no doubt we will hear a great deal of rhetoric from those who want to keep the death tax alive. Repeal only helps the wealthy, they will say. It will reduce charitable giving; it will increase the deficit; it will jeopardize Social Security. Time and again these arguments have been raised. The simple truth is none of them holds water.

Does repeal of the death tax help only the wealthy? The Joint Economic Committee in 1998 underscored how repeal of the death tax will help minority-owned businesses. Both the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce support repeal of the death tax.

Robert Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, said in 2001 that ``elimination of the estate tax will help close the wealth gap in this Nation between African American families and white families.''

Supporters of the estate tax say that it does not really affect rural communities or farmers. Mr. Speaker, I represent rural communities and timber landowners. Earlier this year experts at the United States Forest Service published findings on just how devastating the tax affected rural communities.

Over a 10-year period, 36 percent of forest estates owed the Federal estate tax. In 40 percent of the cases where a Federal estate tax was due, timber or land had to bo sold to pay part or all of that tax. The amount of forest land harvested to pay the Federal estate tax was approximately 2.6 million acres every year. Forest land sold was nearly 1.3 million acres per year; and roughly 29 percent of the land sold was developed, or it was turned into subdivisions or converted to other uses.

Supporters of the tax say just lift the exemption amount, but that does not solve the problem. As inflation erodes the value of the exemption level, it will just mean more acres will be sold or harvested or developed. This is not the answer.

They say repeal of the estate tax will reduce charitable giving. In ``The CPA Journal'' of August 2001, Arthur Schmidt said, ``Philanthropy will likely increase as a result of the repeal of the estate tax, both at death because of the greater net resources available, or during the lifetime of the taxpayer as a result of the remaining tax efficiency of the charitable income tax deduction. In either case, the net present value of philanthropy will likely increase.''

Does the estate tax really promote charitable giving? IRS statistics show that in four out of five cases of taxable estates no bequest is made. No bequest is made in four out of five cases.

Would estate tax repeal jeopardize Social Security benefits? Federal receipts as a result of the death tax represent less than 1.5 of all total revenues. None of that money goes to Social Security for the trust funds, and eliminating the tax will in no way affect Social Security benefits, not one bit.

The death tax does not prevent accumulation of wealth. It does not promote charitable giving. It does not lead to increased economic growth. It is not a tax on sin. It is a tax on virtuous activities like savings and investment, activities we should be encouraging.

It increases the cost of capital for small businesses. It affects rural communities. It imposes financial burdens on minority businessmen and -women. In sum, the case for the death tax has been made, and it has been over and over again in this House thoroughly rejected.

Woodrow Wilson signed the death tax into law in 1916, and the time has come to get rid of it for once and for all. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 8 and opposing the substitute amendment and providing small businessmen and -women, family farmers and minorities with the capital they will need to expand, to create jobs and grow the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to remind the gentleman from California, whose State is in very financial straits, that in the year 2002 his State and estates in that State sent to the Federal Government $4,201,408. Actually that is $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government, which I am sure his State could have made use of.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), a great member of the Committee on Ways and Means and very much in touch with his constituents on repealing the death tax.

(Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I think the gentleman has created not just a near miss, but a big, big miss when we speaks about family farms. Families own 99 percent of the Nation's farms and ranches, and they are capital intensive businesses. Their assets are not liquid, and so for that reason they are very much at risk at having to pay very large estate taxes. Nearly 20 percent of farmers have paid Federal estate taxes in the previous 5 years. Seventy-seven percent of farmers report that they spent money each year on estate planning.

Not only are we hitting the family farms and the people who are employed by them, but we are also wasting dollars that go into this economy not for the purpose of stimulating this economy, but to pay for life insurance policies, estate planning, and everything else that is there when there is unpredictability and they need to provide for the future of their business and the business that employs so many people throughout the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), a very strong member of the Committee on Ways and Means who has been close to his folks at home on this issue and who has done a great job for us on codifying the issue in the State of Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo), the chairman of the Committee on Small Business.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the gentleman from Wisconsin that we did vote three times on this legislation last year in different forms; and, in fact, the legislation passed each of the times by a bipartisan majority. It also passed in the other body by a bipartisan majority. But, unfortunately, because of their strange rule system, it required a 60-vote margin to pass in that body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), a very prominent member of our sophomore class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I want to remind the gentleman from California that his State, in the year 2002, sent $4,201,408,000 to the Federal Government. And you can about double that for the cost of complying with the death tax. That is what comes out of the economy. And so his figure of $80 billion, just take that and double it and that is what has been taken out of the economy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), a wonderful contributing sophomore Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the chairman of the Policy Committee, a cosponsor of this bill, and a longtime supporter and leader on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I remind the gentlewoman from Washington State that his State in the year 2001 sent back $578 million to Washington, D.C., with about an equal amount for compliance with that law. Also as a representative of a forested district, 36 percent of forest estates owe the Federal estate tax, 29 percent of the land was sold or developed or converted to subdivisions, and 1.3 million acres per year of forestland in this Nation were sold. The amount harvested to pay the estate tax was about 2.6 million acres every single year. I respect his point of view on this particular bill, but I think that there are many people who will be affected if he does not vote for this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Washington.

As the gentleman knows, retaking my time, I have already cosponsored that measure and supported it in the committee. We have worked very hard on that and will continue to do so. It affects a number of States. It is important to get rid of it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris), a very active member of the freshman class.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton), a great member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), freshman member of our class who has been one of the most active on the repeal of the death taxes.

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.

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

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.

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, illegal Internet gambling, that is something that many Americans do not know much about. They have not heard much about it until they look at their credit card and there is $4,000 or $5,000 worth of charges on their credit card because their son off at a university, or even their 14-year-old son, has gotten their card, gone in his bedroom, got on the Internet, and began to gamble.

Harvard University Medical School, the University of Connecticut, newspapers all over this country have looked at this problem. They estimate that as many as 5 million of our youth, as well as compulsive, what they call ``pathological gamblers,'' are gambling on the Internet today.

This is basically a new phenomenon. In 1997 it was first brought to our attention when groups came before the Congress and asked that we do something about it. At that time, there were about 24 sites offshore, and it is estimated at that time that anywhere from $50 million to $300 million being bet.

In 2001, an Internet gambling bill was killed by this Congress, despite the urging of groups as diverse as Major League baseball, the NCAA, the NFL, various faith-based groups, and the AARP, because AARP represents a lot of grandparents whose grandchildren are becoming addicted to gambling in these sites, and they urged us to act.

In 2001, and again in 2002, this Congress began to argue not about illegal Internet gambling, but they began to attach amendments to this bill that would make lawful gambling unlawful or unlawful gambling lawful. Everybody wanted to improve their position. Some Members wanted to eliminate certain types of lawful gambling. Others wanted to create lawful exceptions to what was illegal gambling in this country. These bills continued to go down.

Today, we are not faced with a situation where we have a half a dozen sites and maybe $10 million of gambling on these sites; we are faced with a situation where we have $6 billion a year bet on these sites, $6 billion. That we know. We also know that there are somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 sites offshore.

What else do we know about these sites? We know that they are untaxed. Not one dime of tax is collected. We know they are unsupervised. In fact, we do not know the identity of these people, except in two cases when the FBI prosecuted them and found out. The reason they prosecuted them is because they were laundering money. We found out they were money-launderers.

We do know, because the FBI has reported it, that organized crime is heavily invested in these sites, and they believe that organized crime controls these sites. We know that.

We know some other things about these people. We know they are not good people. We know they link these sites with pornographic sites, and we know some of these sites specifically target preteens. When they go on those sites, they also get a pop-up that exposes them to pornographic sites. We know that because various organizations have come before us and over the last 3 years testified that our youth, our preteens, are being led into addictive gambling.

The University of Connecticut, Harvard University, The New York Times, all of them have exposed this problem; but this Congress continues to take the occasion when these bills come up to try to have a turf fight on gambling.

In fact, the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) will offer an amendment which is another turf fight. Senators have said that if the Cannon amendment is attached that this bill will be

killed in the Senate. So we again have a choice to make: Do we want to continue to let this industry grow, a mob-run industry? Do we want to continue to not know who these people are? Do we want to continue, in the words of a professor at Harvard University, to allow what he calls the ``crack cocaine of gambling'' to take hold in America?

Do we want to continue to do that or do we want to vote down the Cannon amendment and vote up this legislation?

One final thing that I would like to remind this body. There is a trial that went on last week in Florida. Adrian McPherson, Adrian McPherson was Mr. Football in the State of Florida. He was also Mr. Basketball in the State of Florida. Imagine such a talent, both the best high school football player, the best high school basketball player, and he went to Florida State University. And what do we know from the testimony last week? We know that he, and this is according to testimony, he has not been convicted, but we know this: We know he has been suspended from the team; not suspended, but he has actually been thrown off the Florida State team. We know he has been accused of going in a business and stealing checks from that business. We know that he is accused of going to a grocery store and bouncing a number of checks. We know that he is facing time in jail. We know that if he is convicted in the trial that he will be going through in the next month or two, that he will be banned from organized college athletics for life.

And all because what? The accusations, the testimony is he became addicted to Internet gambling, and he had massive debts and that is why he went out and stole these checks. But that young man and his family have been devastated. Florida State University has spent over a million dollars investigating this case.

What if 3 years ago this Congress had quit fooling with these turf battle Cannon-type amendments and adopted this legislation? I wonder if this young man would be taking the field for Florida State? I wonder if we had listened to the NCAA when they testified before our committee 3 years ago when they said, please take action, do something; when the NCAA warned us 2 years ago in testimony that we are going to have a scandal one day because illegal Internet gambling is making it very difficult for us to protect the integrity, the integrity of this sport.

There was one Gallup poll which said that 25 percent of college athletes today are betting on the Internet on sports, and most of those are betting on their own teams, and almost all of them were betting on college sports. What are we going to do? Are we going to continue to stand by while families are broken apart?

This morning I was on C-SPAN and when I got off, a man from Georgia called and said, I support this legislation. He was asked why. He said, I am a compulsive gambler. And he said, If I have to go 50 miles or 100 miles to gamble, I feel like I can keep that under control. But, he said, If it is in my home, if it is in my bedroom, if it is on my computer, I have a difficult time handling that. That man was saying to us: Take action.

In a few minutes we will get an opportunity to do two things. We will get an opportunity to do what the National Governors Association, in a letter dated yesterday, has urged us to do. We will do what the attorney generals, when they urged us, the Attorney Generals Association usually says, hands off, let the States handle it. But the Attorney Generals Association has said do something about this, we cannot.

When the Methodists, the Presbyterians, the Southern Baptists, we received a letter, Focus on the Family have written us, different faith-based groups; when even major league baseball says there is a growing problem, it is time to take action. If we do not, there will be other Adrian McPhersons. There will be other lives ruined. There will be families broken up. There will be children addicted to gambling. Because if there is one thing these illegal Internet gamblers know is, they know that our children are fascinated with and very literate on the computers. They use the computers.

We have seen the statistics. The average teenager is on the computer 20, 30 hours a week. We hear incredible numbers, and what do they enjoy doing as much as anything? Sports. You combine the computer with sports and you get what the Harvard Medical School said is an explosive, the crack cocaine, as I said earlier, of gambling. Let us take action before any more lives are ruined. We have had suicides. We have had at least five suicides.

Let us take action. Let us vote down these killer amendments and let us vote up this legislation, and let us finally take action.