Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2143) to prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful Internet gambling, and for other purposes.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 10, 2003 • 4:23 PM
View full timeline
Introduced in House
June 9, 2003
The House Committee on Rules reported an original measure, H. Rept. 108-145, by Mr. Linder.
June 9, 2003
After general debate, the bill shall be considered for
June 9, 2003 • 7:22 PM
Placed on the House Calendar, Calendar No. 59.
June 9, 2003
Considered as privileged matter. (consideration: CR H5129-5136)
June 10, 2003 • 3:06 PM
DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H. Res. 263.
June 10, 2003 • 3:07 PM
On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 222 - 196 (Roll no. 252).
June 10, 2003 • 4:13 PM
Passed/agreed to in House: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 259 - 158 (Roll no. 253).(text: CR H5129)
June 10, 2003 • 4:23 PM
On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 259 - 158 (Roll no. 253). (text: CR H5129)
June 10, 2003 • 4:23 PM
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
June 10, 2003 • 4:23 PM
Voting History
2 votes recorded • Roll call available
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 263 on the floor
SB
AS
FRW
DH
SWK+17
Floor Debate
22 membersWhat members said about H.Res. 263 on the floor
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…
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, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on…
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.
168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.
197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.
Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
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…
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…
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.
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.…
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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), a member of the committee.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), our ranking member.
Mr. Chairman I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
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).
Mr. Chairman, how many more speakers does the gentleman have?
Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time for closing.
Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman through with his speakers?
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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time otherwise reserved for the opposition.
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.
Show 8 more
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…
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?
I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
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.
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.
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
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.
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.
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…
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. 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…
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
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. 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. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding…
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for yielding me this time.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act has the potential to eradicate illegal Internet gambling by disallowing merchants from accepting credit card, debit card, or other bank- sanctioned transactions as payment for online wagering.
Mr. Speaker, because online gambling has grave societal consequences, I support this legislation that aims to eradicate it. As the ``crack cocaine'' of gambling, Internet betting often leads to severe personal and family hardships, including debt, bankruptcy, foreclosed mortgages, and divorce.
Although I am pleased that three amendments were made in order, I find it especially disappointing and frustrating that the Pombo amendment will not be debated today.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) presented an amendment that would have treated Indian tribes on a par with State governments. The interests of the Native American people, a community that has been disenfranchised for all of their history, should always be heard and, in this case, should have been debated.
The price of Internet gambling can be measured best in terms of the human costs. As we debate the pros and cons of this act, the most important question we should be asking is, What does Internet gambling cost our children, and is this a price we are willing to pay?
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a bill that has the potential to stop the gambling with our future, because Internet gambling hurts children. I have learned of one young man that racked up debts of $70,000 and was kicked out of his house because he was stealing from his family, and of another teen who blew his tuition and 3 days after his father repaid it, he withdrew from his courses, demanded a refund, and spent the refund on gambling. Stories like these are innumerable.
The American Psychiatric Association is so concerned about the increase in youth gambling, primarily on the Internet, that it recently issued the following statement: ``In virtually all studies of the rates of gambling problems at various ages, high school and college-aged individuals show the highest problem areas.''
The APA says the increase in problems among young people can be attributed, in part, to the ease with which they can gamble on the Internet, where there are no enforceable restrictions on age.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is intended to help reduce the extent of existing illegal Internet gambling in the United States; and I support it as it is presently constituted, with hopes of continuing revision.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Alexander), a new Member, new in the sense that this is his first term; however, he has distinguished himself in many ways among freshmen and all of us.
Mr. Speaker, would the Speaker inform us of how much time remains on each side?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), my very good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), my good friend.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca).
(Mr. BACA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), my classmate and good friend, former Secretary of State of the State of Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. HASTINGS of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule; and my amendment will provide that as soon as the House passes this rule, it will take from the Speaker's table and immediately consider the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1308, which restores the refundable child tax credit that was removed from the recently passed Republican tax bill.
Let me make very clear to my colleagues in the House that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote on H.R. 2143 and on the Senate-passed version of H.R. 1308 as well. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from voting on this badly needed tax package to provide real relief to America's working families.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can send this bill to the President today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
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…
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
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.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unlawful Internet funding prohibition act and in support of the Sensenbrenner-Conyers amendment. I oppose this bill as a strong defender of tribal…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this unlawful Internet funding prohibition act and in support of the Sensenbrenner-Conyers amendment.
I oppose this bill as a strong defender of tribal government, a strong advocate for tribal sovereignty, a strong believer in fairness and equity. I state, a strong believer in fairness and equity.
This bill does not treat solvent tribe governments with the same level of respect it does States. Section four of this bill provides for a carve-out for States that allows States to license Internet gaming operations for lottery, horse track, and corporate gambling operations.
Although the bill grants States with this exception, it does not provide tribal governments with the same exception. Have we not learned that it is wrong to treat our Native American brothers and sisters as second class citizens? One would think that we would know better.
Let me be clear, I will not be standing here today in opposition to this bill if tribal governments were treated equal, if tribal governments were treated equal.
I do not disagree with the principle behind this legislation, but I disagree with the effects on Native Americans and their economy. H.R. 2143 gives an unfair advantage to private gaming enterprises, and it treats tribal governments and their industry as inferior.
Just when we think that the centuries of mistreatment and discrimination are ending, something like this comes up or shows up. Once again, Congress is trying to put tribal government at a disadvantage. Once again, Congress is trying to put tribal government at a disadvantage; and once again, I will stand up and defend the sovereignty of our tribal governments. I will stand up and make sure that our government lives up to its responsibility, lives up to their responsibility.
Gaming provides the financial resources the tribes need to survive and bring economic development to their people. It provides resources. The tribal governments need to provide health, education and hope for their people. It is the livelihood of our Native American brothers and sisters.
I will not stand by and watch Congress put tribes behind the eight ball once again.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 2143 and ``yes'' on the Sensenbrenner amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Defeating the previous question allows us to discuss H.R. 2286 introduced by Congressman Rangel to grant the Child Tax Credit to the thousands of needy families wrongfully ignored by the Republican majority.
When the conference report on the Republican tax cut was finished, the dividend tax cut got bigger and tax credits for working families got smaller. It is unconscionable that we are willing to sacrifice Child Tax Credits for the poorest in our society, so that we can give more money to the wealthiest.
Six and a half million families in this Nation earn $10,500 to $26,625 per year. If we do not pass a child tax credit for these families, 19 million children will be ignored. In my home State of California, nearly 1.3 million families alone, will not receive a child tax credit under the Republican's plan. These families need tax relief.
By not passing a child tax credit, 250,000 kids of active duty military families, many of whom are right now fighting overseas, will be ignored. Military families need tax relief.
Our economy is in desperate need of stimulation. Unemployment across the Nation has risen to 6.1 percent. The Hispanic unemployment rate alone is currently at 8.2 percent. America's families are suffering. They need immediate relief from the burden of a weak economy.
During this time of economic downturn we must not leave out those who are working harder for less pay or those who have recently joined the ranks of the unemployed. It is time to put working families back into the equation. America's families need our help. They need a child tax credit.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:
Previous Question for H. Res. 263--Rule on H.R. 2143: The Unlawful
Internet Gambling Prohibition Act
At the end of the resolution add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
House shall be considered to have taken from the Speaker's
table the bill (H.R. 1308) to amend the Internal Revenue Code
of 1986 to end certain abusive tax practices, to provide tax
relief and simplification, and for other purposes, with
Senate amendments thereto, and a single motion that the House
concur in each of the Senate amendments shall be considered
as pending without intervention of any point of order. The
Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read.
The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Ways and Means. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the motion to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his leadership on this issue. He has been fighting this for a long time, and I appreciate his efforts to bring forth this…
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) for his leadership
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.
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.
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.
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…
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
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. 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.
Show 11 more
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…
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. Speaker, I am the ranking minority member on the committee of jurisdiction, and I am pleased that we forestalled a suspension proposal here and that we do have a chance to debate some of the…
Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking minority member on the committee of jurisdiction, and I am pleased that we forestalled a suspension proposal here and that we do have a chance to debate some of the amendments. I will talk about that bill in due time.
Parliamentary Inquiry
I did want to note today, though, and I guess I may need the Parliamentarian, Mr. Speaker. I know under our rules it is forbidden to speak ill of the Senate and from time to time people get exasperated and they speak ill of the Senate and they are duly chided.
But the question I have, Mr. Speaker, is, is it permissible to speak well of the Senate? Is it within the rules to lavish on the Senate the praise they deserve for passing the child tax credit bill?
In any way. Well, I regret my inability to give credit where credit is due. I was hoping that an example recently given would be followed in this side of the Capitol; but I will abide by the rules, though as foolish as I think this particular rule is, and not comment on the Senate.
I will, though, have to say that the refusal of the Republican leadership in the House to allow the House to vote on a proposal that would extend to hard-working, low-income people financial relief after all of the financial relief we have given to people in the upper brackets is truly distressing.
I know there has been an effort on the House floor to portray our interest in providing a tax credit to people, and let us be clear, we are talking about here people who work. They work very hard. They work at jobs that are not very pleasant, and that, by definition, are not well paid. Many of them have families.
It is true that because they work hard at jobs that this society has devalued in many cases they do not pay much or any income tax. They do, however, pay a significant percentage of their income in taxes. They pay the Social Security tax and the tax on Medicare. They pay the withholding tax.
For many of them because there are no exemptions from that, there are no deductions, they pay the full thing no matter how many children they have, no matter how many other expenses they have. For some of those people this is a larger percentage of their income paid in tax than is paid by many wealthier people. That reduction will be further.
What this House says is, no, they get no relief out of this bill comparable to what others get. It is unworthy of this House to say that to these hardworking people struggling to provide for their children when the Republicans have said, in the tax bill, this looks like $350 billion, but we are going to convert it into hundreds of billions more.
A bill is going to be introduced that would cost a total of $10 billion, or would expend $10 billion; but it would be neutral revenue- wise to help these low-income people. We are told we cannot do that.
When there was a parliamentary situation that the President confronted, and he was told he could only get $350 billion in tax relief over the next 10 years, he said that he did not think people should be for such a little bitty piece of tax relief. So $350 billion is a little bitty. We are asking for a very small percentage of that little bitty for the poorest, hardest-working people in this country.
The Republican leadership, I can understand in the core Republican philosophy that they would say no to these people, but to refuse to allow the House of Representatives to vote on it seems to me unpardonable. We are just asking, okay, let it come to the floor. Let us have a debate. Are they so afraid that their resistance to helping these low-income people is so out of sync with the American people that they will not let it come forward?
I hope we will see that bill on the floor fairly soon.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take the Senate tax bill off the Speaker's…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take the Senate tax bill off the Speaker's table for immediate consideration.
On May 22, this House passed a bill that gives a tax break of $93,500 to the average millionaire in our country. As Republicans rushed towards the Memorial Day recess, Vice President Cheney cut a deal that left working, tax paying families out of the child tax credit expansion. That is right, $93,500 for millionaires, not one cent to working lower-income families.
As the tax bill advanced in the House, I joined my colleagues and sent out three Dear Colleagues alerting Members of all parties to the fact that it left low-income, working, tax-paying families out in the cold by denying them marriage penalty relief under the earned income tax credit.
Republicans knew they were making low-income Americans wait years for the same benefit that they would offer more affluent families right now. Republicans of the House knew that their leadership and knew that the Bush White House had stuck it to low-income families again by denying them relief under the child tax credit, $93,500 to millionaires and not one cent to lower-income working families. Republicans knew that the bill they supported offered that $93,000 to millionaires and was a slap in the face to millions of tax-paying, working American families.
Democrats believe simple fairness demands that we act immediately to remedy the injustice; but the majority leader of the House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), says we will not do it, not while he is the Republican leader. He says there are a lot of other things that are more important than that. The majority whip, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), says we do not need to rush through this. Remember, $93,500 for millionaires, not a cent for lower-income working families.
We had to rush to give millionaires this $90,000 tax break; but when it comes to tax breaks for working tax-paying families, Republicans need time to think it over. While Republicans have left working families out in the cold by refusing to advance tax fairness legislation, they have moved on other bills.
For example, since that May 22 date, since Republicans were rushing out of town for the Memorial Day recess, Congress has renamed Federal buildings and post offices, congratulated baseball star Sammy Sosa, commemorated the 20th anniversary of National Tourism Week, and made it easier to clear bank checks. There is nothing wrong for any of those bills. I voted for all of them. But was any of them more important than helping 12 million children who were intentionally left behind by the Bush-Cheney-DeLay-GOP tax bill? Was any one of them more important, any of those pieces of legislation more important than helping 3.7 million working, low-income, tax-paying families whose marriages this House said were not worth as much as the marriage of their bosses? Not by a long shot, not in the wake of a tax bill that gives $93,000 to millionaires, not one cent to tax-paying working families.
Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can take the Senate tax bill off the Speaker's table.
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…
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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30…
Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 263 and ask for its immediate consideration.
Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 263 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act. This is a fair, structured rule that merits the House's approval.
This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services.
This rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying H. Res. 263. It provides that the amendments printed in the report may be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated by the report, shall be considered as read, shall be 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 a division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
This rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
With respect to the underlying legislation, H.R. 2143, I want to acknowledge the efforts of my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, in bringing this important bill to the floor today. This rule we have before us today will give the House the opportunity to consider
H.R. 2143 and three additional amendments made in order under the rule.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 263 is a structured rule that will give the full House an opportunity to work its will on the major issues it raises, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we can move on to consideration of the underlying legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would just like to point out in the light of the conversations we have heard today that by definition a tax credit is a credit against income taxes paid. People who are left out supposedly were people who do not pay income taxes and do not get a credit because there is no place against which to lay that credit. I am sorry that we are turning the income tax system into a welfare program, but it appears that we are about to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule. This bill requires U.S. credit card companies and other financial entities to develop reasonable…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this rule. This bill requires U.S. credit card companies and other financial entities to develop reasonable policies and procedures to identify and block financial transactions made in connection with unlawful Internet gambling.
Online gambling can have a severe impact on family life. It can be done anonymously easily from someone's home and requires little more than a computer and a credit card. We know the dangers of online gambling: lost savings, excessive debt, bankruptcies, foreclosed mortgages.
This is an important issue that we discuss today. Equally important as an issue is the restoration by the House of the child tax credit to 6.5 million families that have been in fact left behind, families of 12 million children which are taxpaying families, Mr. Speaker, who deserve tax relief. They have bills to pay, mouths to feed, children to take care of. With the economy continuing its slide downward, they do not know where their jobs will be the week after next.
Let me be clear: as has been indicated, these families do pay taxes. They pay payroll taxes, sales taxes. They may not know week to week whether their next paycheck is forthcoming; but they know that if it does, that 8 percent will come off the top on the first dollar earned.
So we should not be kind of lulled or fooled into thinking that these families do not pay any taxes, because they pay a greater share of their income in taxes than a corporation like Enron did in 4 of the last 5 years. Just because these families do not have a powerful lobby, we must be their lobby in this institution. We must lobby for their hard-earned money and not take it from them.
Before we consider bills like the Internet gambling bill, this House should take up the other body's child tax credit legislation. The White House has said that the House should take up this bill, and if we do, that the President will sign our bill.
This is not a partisan issue; this is an issue of values, of character. Each individual, those of us who serve in this marvelous institution, come here to do the right thing. This reflects doing the right thing, and also it reflects what our national character is all about.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, though I support this underlying bill, I also support the motion for the House to take from the Speaker's table, agree to, and pass the Senate amendment on the child tax credit. It is time the House votes to extend the full $1,000 tax credit to the families of 12 million children, just like 25 million other families in America. Quite simply, it is the right thing to do. We should meet that July 1 deadline when others will be getting their tax cut.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise to actually speak on the underlying bill and the rule in support of both of those, and, as well, if I could take the…
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to actually speak on the underlying bill and the rule in support of both of those, and, as well, if I could take the opportunity to speak against one of the amendments.
I am from New York's 20th Congressional District, the home of Saratoga, New York. We like to say it is the home of horse racing. It certainly is the home of the oldest flat track in the Nation, the proud home of Funny Cide, the winner of the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness.
While we are a little less jubilant today than we were, maybe, a couple of days ago, we are still very bullish on the whole idea and the whole horse racing industry.
I am also the cochairman of the Congressional Horse Caucus. I want to talk a little bit about how important this rule is and this underlying bill is to horse racing and the horse racing industry. U.S. horse racing is regulated
by Federal and State laws. It is in fact the most highly regulated form of entertainment sports initiative in this Nation.
The specific concerns expressed by many in this Congress about offshore international wagering, the integrity of operators, the identity of the participants, consumer fraud, and money laundering are not an issue as it relates to horse racing. Horse racing is a $34 billion domestic industry, along with the agribusinesses that it supports. It is critically important not just to the economy of my district but through vast regions throughout the Nation.
The underlying bill respects existing Federal and State gambling law. It does not make any unlawful gambling lawful; it does not make any lawful gambling unlawful. It does not override any State prohibitions or requirements. It does not expand or contract wagering. It simply maintains the status quo with respect to the underlying substantive law on gaming.
There will be an amendment later today brought forward sponsored by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Conyers) that would prohibit State license activities and represents a broad overuse and abuse of Federal power.
I want to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) for bringing this rule forward. I want to congratulate the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for recognizing the importance of this underlying legislation and how important, critically important, it is to vast areas throughout the Nation.
I want to ask my colleagues to support both this rule and to support the underlying legislation and oppose the so-called Sensenbrenner- Cannon-Conyers amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not only because I believe the House should finally address the child tax credit, but also because the Committee on Rules refused to include an…
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule, not only because I believe the House should finally address the child tax credit, but also because the Committee on Rules refused to include an amendment by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) to allow American Indian tribes to operate Internet gambling sites on their reservations, the very action the overall bill gives to the States. Without the inclusion of this amendment, Indian tribes are unfairly singled out and cannot reap the same benefits States will receive if this legislation becomes law.
Mr. Speaker, I join my Democratic colleagues in calling on the Republican leadership to follow the Senate's lead and immediately approve legislation that will provide a child tax credit to 12 million children, children Republicans left out of their bill last month. Included among these 12 million children are the children of U.S. military families.
A report out last week showed nearly 1 in 5 children of active duty U.S. military families will not benefit from the increased tax credit because their parents earn too little to qualify.
Mr. Speaker, it appears the only Republicans who do not fully comprehend the huge mistake they made in their tax bill are my Republican colleagues here in the House. Last week the Senate passed a bill. Yesterday the President's press secretary said his advice to the House Republicans is to pass it, to send it to him so he can sign it. And yet House Republicans continue to fight against common fairness.
Just today in an AP story that I will quote, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) said, it ``ain't going to happen.''
``DeLay said the House will not pass the Senate's bill. Instead, it will use the child tax credit as a bargaining chip to encourage the Senate to pass bigger tax cuts favored by the House.'' And I have a quote of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), ``What we are interested in is real solid tax relief for those who are paying taxes,'' he said.
So the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), on behalf of the House leadership, continues to stop the child tax credit from becoming law for these 12 million working families.
Now, let me point out that these workers do pay Federal taxes; 7.65 percent of their earnings go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. These hardworking parents also pay State and local taxes as well. An analysis released earlier this year by the New York Times found that families pay 14 percent of their income.
These people pay taxes and they deserve the child tax credit, too. Pass the bill.
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…
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
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. 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…
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. 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…
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.
Bill Text
2 versions available
[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 263 Engrossed in House (EH)]
In the House of Representatives, U.S.,
June 10, 2003.
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the
bill (H.R. 2143) to prevent the use of certain bank instruments for unlawful
Internet gambling, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. 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 as read, shall be 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 in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the
bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House
with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Attest:
Clerk.