James A. Leach

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I want to thank very much the chairman to-be of the Financial Services Committee for his cooperation in bringing this forth.

And I might say to the chairman to-be that I understand that you are thinking of a theme of being pro-business with an emphasis on fairness. I think that is a very appropriate theme, and I wish you every success. This Congress has a vested interest in seeing that the next Congress works well, so I wish you well.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I appreciate that very much. Thank you.

I also want to thank Tom Latham. Tom is a wonderful friend, and he has pursued this particular measure for an American citizen that fits all of our definitions of a hero. That is particularly the perspective of all Iowans and I am sure all Americans when we think about Dr. Borlaug's career.

I would only like to make one philosophical contribution to this debate, and that is that Dr. Borlaug has been awarded the Nobel Prize for the green revolution, the notion of pure science being used to expand the production of food crops of various kinds to make it possible for people in the world to have nourishment. But it is the same science that goes into expanding biological crops that allows crops to be used for energy, and so the same science that has produced the green revolution is also producing a black evolution, the idea that food can also be used for petroleum substitutes.

We are today facing a challenge of judgment as well as a challenge of new biology, which Dr. Borlaug is also continuing to work in, that there may not be enough crops that go around for both food and fuel. But, fortunately, it is not exactly an either/or; that is, the same kernels of corn can be used for extracting ethanol as well as producing a food additive for cattle. But we are going to have to continue to develop new techniques to increase yields.

That is what is happening in many great institutions in this country, such as Iowa State University, the University of Missouri, Purdue, Minnesota, et cetera, and we are very proud of that effort.

Dr. Borlaug stands on the shoulders of prior scientists. One from Iowa who we are also very proud of Henry Wallace, actually is the father of the movement which Dr. Borlaug pursued. It was Henry Wallace's idea to establish a research facility in Mexico in the early 1940s. That idea was brought by the then Vice-President to the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation who then chose Dr. Borlaug to head this research effort.

We in Iowa are naturally proud of the role that Iowa scientists have played. That role has been played with the help, to some degree, of government and, to a greater degree, of private charity. So this is a very American initiative and a very American scientific product that this body is honoring today. And it is honoring the leader of it, a gentleman who began his young life as many noble gentlemen begin, as a wrestler. As a wrestler from Cresco, a great Iowa wrestling town, Dr. Borlaug competed in the scientific arena where he has achieved as great merit as any scientist in this country in the 20th century.

We in Iowa are immensely proud, and I would like to thank Tom Latham, the leadership for allowing this bill to come forth, and the bipartisan spirit in which it is brought before us today.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 1051) expressing support for democracy in Nepal that will require the full participation of the people of Nepal in the political process to hold elections for a constituent assembly and draft a new constitution and calling upon the Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist to adhere to commitments it has made and to respect human rights, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous matter on this resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this timely resolution, which takes note of the recent comprehensive peace agreement between the government of Nepal and the Maoist insurgents and expresses the hope that this process will place Nepal on the path of lasting peace and democracy.

In particular, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) for his thoughtful assistance in this resolution and to commend my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh), for his leadership on the resolution and his long-standing interest in the welfare of the people of Nepal.

As my colleagues know, sandwiched between China and India and home to the soaring Himalayan Mountains, Nepal has long been known as one of the most beautiful countries on the planet. A constitutional monarchy since 1990, Nepal has long enjoyed good relations with the United States at the governmental level, nurtured in part by the many Peace Corps volunteers, such as Mr. Walsh, who have so ably served in the world's only Hindu kingdom.

Tragically, however, each year since the onset of a ruthless Maoist rebellion in 1966 has seen this country of 24 million ever more starkly challenged, not only by the insurgents, but by a panoply of developmental, governance and human rights problems that have converged to potentially jeopardize the viability of the state itself.

Most recently, popular anger at King Gyanendra's autocratic actions since early 2005 boiled over in April of this year, resulting in massive demonstrations across the country, and public support for a nationwide general strike called by Nepal's seven major political parties. Despite harsh reprisals by the security forces, the resolve of the democracy movement ultimately forced the King to restore sovereignty to the people of Nepal.

On April 24, the King bowed to public pressure and announced the reinstatement of Parliament. On April 28, Parliament convened for the first time since 2002 with G.P. Koirala of the Nepali Congress Party at the helm of a national unity government.

The King's seizure of civilian authority and disdain for the political parties led them to seek a rapprochement with Nepal's Maoist insurgents, based on their mutual rejection of the King's royal coup. This rapprochement led to a formalized 12-point understanding between the parties and the Maoists, the key element of which is a commitment by the parties, now the government, to support elections to a constituent assembly charged with drafting a new constitution, a long- standing Maoist demand in exchange for Maoist commitment to support multiparty democracy.

Under the comprehensive agreement reached this November, the Maoist rebels will join a transitional government, while their weapons are to be put under U.N. supervision. The new agreement also establishes an ambitious timetable for democratic reform with the objective of holding elections monitored by the U.N. to the constituent assembly by mid- June, 2007.

The Government of the United States has welcomed the announcement of this agreement. The administration and Congress hope this step will place Nepal on a path to lasting peace and democracy. All of us hope that the Maoist commitment to peace and multiparty democracy is genuine, and that they have irrevocably abandoned their stated goal of establishing a one-party authoritarian state.

While it is always prudent to judge those who take law into their hands by their actions, not their words, the Congress is committed to giving reconciliation approaches as a fair and reasonable chance. America fully supports any peace process that safeguards the aspirations of the Nepali people.

As the resolution suggests, this means that violence and intimidation and criminal acts, such as forced recruitment of cadre and extortion, should cease forthwith. Nepali people who have lived in fear and insecurity for over a decade deserve not only a chance for peace and prosperity, but to choose their own form of government through free and fair elections.

America is committed to helping the Nepali people build a peaceful, prosperous and democratic future. I urge support for this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all understand, this body is composed of 435 Members, and one of the unique features of membership is everyone brings a different background. It has been my experience here that the Members that have some of the most helpful backgrounds possible are those that have served in the United States Peace Corps, and this applies both to knowledge of the area of the world that they may have served, but also just in general. Every Peace Corps volunteer that I have known that has served in this body has been of exemplary character and compassion.

Symbolic of it all is the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, one of our most decent, thoughtful Members, who served in Nepal, whose leadership on this issue and whose introduction of this bill is so much appreciated by this body.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend, the gentleman from New York, Jim Walsh.

Mr. Speaker, I thank very much my distinguished friend, and I wish him every great success as he takes on the leadership of this committee in this coming Congress. We all have a vested interest in the Congress doing well and the country moving forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to note that folded into the SAFE Port Act is the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which is one of the most important pieces of family legislation this Congress has ever considered.

Internet gambling restraints have been under review for four Congresses. This evening we are finally poised to act decisively on this subject, and I want to extend my personal appreciation to the Speaker; to the majority leader, Mr. Boehner; and to the Senate majority leader, Mr. Frist, for their steadfast support.

Companion legislation to the House product was forthrightly led in the Senate by John Kyl of Arizona. Many Members have played an important part over the years in this legislation, particularly Mike Oxley and Spencer Bachus from the Financial Services Committee and Bob Goodlatte and Chris Cannon from Judiciary.

But I want to stress this is bipartisan legislation. The majority of Democrats voted for it just a few weeks ago. Indeed, all of us can be proud of this legislation. It should be considered a significant accomplishment of this Congress. After all, with each passing day we learn of friends and neighbors touched by devastating losses from Internet gambling. Never has it been so easy to lose so much so quickly at such a young age.

As a professor of business at the University of Illinois has noted, Internet gambling is crack cocaine for gamblers. There are no needle marks; you just click the mouse and lose your house.

The reason the NCAA, the NFL and the NBA, the NHL, and Major League Baseball support this legislation is their concern for the integrity of the games. The reason the religious community from Baptists and Methodists to Muslims has rallied to this cause is because it is concerned for the unity of the American family.

The reason we should adopt this approach is that we must be mindful of our obligations to the American family.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I will submit for the Record at this point its legislative history.

Legislative History for the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act

Section 801. Short title

This Act may be cited as the `Unlawful Internet Gambling

Enforcement Act of 2006.'

Section 802. Prohibition on acceptance of any payment instrument for

unlawful Internet gambling

Subsection (a) adds a new `Subchapter IV--Prohibition on

Funding of Unlawful Internet Gambling' to Chapter 53 of Title

31 (Monetary Transactions). The new subchapter will come

immediately after subchapter III, covering Money Laundering

and Related Financial Crimes.

Section 5361. Congressional findings and purpose

(a) Findings. The Congressional findings note that: (1)

Internet gambling is primarily funded through the personal

use of payment system instruments, credit cards, and wire

transfers; (2) the National Gambling Impact Study Commission

in 1999 recommended the passage of legislation to prohibit

wire transfers to Internet gambling sites or the banks which

represent such sites; (3) Internet gambling is a growing

cause of debt collection problems for insured depository

institutions and the consumer credit industry; and (4) new

mechanisms for enforcing gambling laws on the Internet are

necessary because traditional law enforcement mechanisms are

often inadequate for enforcing gambling prohibitions on the

Internet, especially where such gambling crosses State or

national borders.

(b) Rule of Construction. No provision is to be construed

as altering, limiting, or extending any Federal or State law

or Tribal-State compact prohibiting, permitting or regulating

gambling within the United States. This is intended to

alleviate fears that this bill could have the effect of

changing the legality of any gambling-related activity in the

United States.

Section 5362. Definitions

This defines the term `bet or wager' as the staking or

risking by any person of something of value upon the outcome

of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject

to chance with the agreement that the winner will receive

something of value in the event of a certain outcome. This

subsection clarifies that `bet or wager' does not include

bona fide business transactions such as securities trading or

buying or selling insurance contracts, or participation in a

simulation sports game or educational game. ``Something of

value'' does not include personal efforts of the participants

in playing the game or contest, or points or credits that the

sponsor of the game or contest provides to participants free

of charge and that can be used or redeemed only for

participation in games or contests offered by the sponsor.

Defines the term `unlawful Internet gambling' as placing,

receiving, or transmitting a bet or wager by any means which

involves the use of the Internet, where such bet or wager is

unlawful under any applicable Federal or State law in the

State or Tribal lands in which the bet or wager is

initiated, received, or otherwise made. Clarifies that

purely intrastate transactions conducted in accordance

with state laws with appropriate security controls will

not be considered unlawful internet gambling. Likewise,

transactions solely within Tribal lands complying with

similar security requirements and the Indian Gaming

Regulatory Act will not be considered unlawful. Section

5362(10)(D) addresses transactions complying with

Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA) which will not be

considered unlawful, because the IHA only regulates legal

transactions that are lawful in each of the states

involved. Also clarifies that intermediate routing of data

packets does not determine the location in which bets or

wagers are made.

The Internet gambling provisions do not change the legality

of any gambling-related activity in the United States. For

instance, if use of the Internet in connection with dog

racing is approved by state regulatory agencies and does not

violate any Federal law, then it is allowed under the new

section 5362(10)(A) of title 31.

The Internet gambling provisions do not interfere with

intrastate laws. New section 5362(10)(B) creates a safe

harbor from the term ``unlawful Internet gambling'' for

authorized intrastate transactions, if the state law has

adequate security measures to prevent participation by minors

and persons located out of the state. The safe harbor would

leave intact the current interstate gambling prohibitions

such as the Wire Act, federal prohibitions on lotteries, and

the Gambling Ship Act so that casino and lottery games could

not be placed on websites and individuals could not access

these games from their homes or businesses. The safe harbor

is intended to recognize current law which allows states

jurisdiction over wholly intrastate activity, where bets or

wagers, or information assisting in bets or wagers, do not

cross state lines. This would, for example, allow retail

lottery terminals to interact with a processing center within

a state, and linking of terminals between separate casinos

within a state if authorized by the state.

Tribal gaming laws are similarly preserved. Transactions

solely within tribal lands complying with similar security

requirements and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act will not be

considered unlawful, under section 5362(10)(C). Moreover, the

principle of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act is that state

governments cannot apply discriminatory laws against gaming

authorized by tribal governments within the state. If a state

authorizes use of the Internet for gambling pursuant to this

section and the tribal government also authorizes this,

gambling businesses located on tribal lands within that state

would be permitted to ``export'' gambling services to persons

in the rest of the state, off of tribal lands, if the

``exported'' game complies with state law, pursuant to

section 5362(10)(B). This does not give the state

jurisdiction over the operation of the tribal gambling

business, including licensing requirements, and does not

allow the state to dictate tribal gaming laws. Only the game

itself--including the method for playing the game--must

comply with state law if a person physically located off of

tribal lands places a bet that is received by a tribal

gambling business. This principle also applies in reverse: if

a person on tribal lands plays a gambling game with a state-

based gambling

business, the game must not violate tribal law.

Section 5362 also defines the terms `business of betting or

wagering,' `designated payment system,' `Internet,' and

`restricted transaction.' Several additional terms are

defined by reference to other sections of the U.S. Code.

Section 5363. Prohibition on acceptance of any financial instrument for

unlawful Internet gambling

Prohibits persons engaged in the business of betting or

wagering from knowingly accepting credit, funds, bank

instruments, or proceeds of any other form of financial

transaction in connection with the participation of another

person in unlawful Internet gambling. This is called a

'restricted transaction' according to the definitions

section.

Section 5364. Policies and procedures to identify and prevent

restricted transactions

(a) Regulations and (b) Requirements for Policies and

Procedures. Requires the Secretary of the Treasury and the

Federal Reserve Board, in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney

General, to prescribe regulations within nine months

requiring any payment system to establish policies and

procedures reasonably designed to identify and block

restricted transactions, or otherwise prevent restricted

transactions from entering its system.

(c) Compliance and (d) Liability. Provides persons

operating financial systems with immunity from civil

liability for blocking transactions that they reasonably

believe are restricted transactions, or in reliance on the

regulations promulgated by the Treasury Department and

Federal Reserve. Though a financial institution may block

additional transactions based on reasonable belief, it has no

duty to do so, and may rely solely on the regulations to

fully discharge its obligations.

(e) Enforcement. The Federal functional regulators and the

Federal Trade Commission are given the exclusive authority to

enforce this section.

Section 5365. Civil remedies

Authorizes the U.S. Attorney General and State Attorneys

General to pursue civil remedies, including a preliminary

injunction or injunction against any person to prevent or

restrain a violation of this legislation. It clarifies that

the bill does not alter, supersede or otherwise affect the

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act; generally limits responsibility

of an interactive computer service to the removal or

disabling of access to an online site violating this section,

upon proper notice; restricts the ability to bring injunctive

cases against financial transaction provider activities.

Internet gambling operators primarily use the resources of

two types of businesses to conduct their unlawful

enterprises: payment systems and interactive computer

services. The unlawful use of payment systems is addressed by

section 5364, not by injunctions. The legislation addresses

the unlawful use of interactive computer services through

injunctions, but with appropriate limits to avoid imposing

any duty to censor or monitor on these computer services.

Section 5365(c)(2) also extends to interactive computer

services the same immunity from liability that common

carriers are afforded when complying with a notice from law

enforcement pursuant to section 1084(d) of title 18 to

discontinue service to a gambling business.

Section 5366. Criminal penalties

Authorizes criminal penalties for violating section 5363,

including fines or imprisonment for not more than five years

or both. Also authorizes permanently enjoining a person

convicted under this section from engaging in gambling

activities.

Section 5367. Circumventions prohibited

Provides that, notwithstanding the safe harbor provided in

section 5362(2), a financial intermediary or interactive

computer service or telecommunications service that has

actual knowledge and control of bets and wagers, and operates

or is controlled by an entity that operates, an unlawful

Internet gambling site can be held criminally liable under

this subchapter.

Section 803. Internet gambling in or through foreign jurisdictions

Subsection (a) provides that, in deliberations between the

U.S. Government and any other country on money laundering,

corruption, and crime issues, the U.S. Government should

encourage cooperation by foreign governments in identifying

whether Internet gambling operations are being used for money

laundering, corruption, or other crimes, advance policies

that promote the cooperation by foreign governments in the

enforcement of this Act, and encourage the Financial Action

Task Force on Money Laundering to study the extent to which

Internet gambling operations are being used for money

laundering. It also requires the Secretary of the Treasury to

submit an annual report to Congress on the deliberations

between the United States and other countries on issues

relating to Internet gambling.

Subsection (b) requires the Secretary of the Treasury to

submit an annual report to Congress on any deliberations

between the United States and other countries on tissues

relating to Internet Gambling.