Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, is the question to negotiate or not negotiate? Is that the question? No, that is not the question. The question is, will the government do the negotiating, or will the private companies do it. And what will the result be?

Well, we already know. We don't have to speculate. In Alabama, we have 17 companies that have negotiated and provide over 2,000 drugs to Alabamians under the present plan. Under the VA, they negotiate and they provide less than 1,300 drugs. We have all heard about Lipitor. Look at the drugs in Alabama that VA seniors cannot get. They are the most modern drugs, they are the cutting-edge drugs, they are the drugs that most seniors want.

CBO says it won't bring down the cost, but it might inhibit the delivery of new drugs. You need to read that before you vote.

The question is not about cost; the question is about choice. And I can tell you in Alabama, with the VA, the veterans don't have the choices our seniors have.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the recent enactment of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act of 2006. Internet gambling legislation has been a priority for this Congress the last several years. In 2003, I sponsored H.R. 2143, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Act and have cosponsored Mr. Leach's Internet gambling bills in each of the last three Congresses. The Conference Report for H.R. 4954, the SAFE Port Act, which was enacted into law, reflects Mr. Leach's Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act, H.R. 4411.

Five years ago, there were less than 50 Internet gambling sites. Today, there are close to 2,000 sites that will generate upwards of $5.9 billion this year alone. The legislation that was enacted into law addresses the problem of illegal internet gambling through an enforcement mechanism. The new law does not change the legality of any gambling activity in the United States. The sole purpose of this law is to enforce against activities that are already illegal under the Wire Act and other Federal and State statutes. It enforces illegal gambling by preventing the use of any bank instrument--such as a credit card, check or electronic fund transfer--for Internet gambling.

Though online gambling has been illegal in this country from its inception--under state law, not just federal law--we have had serious problems enforcing these laws. The advantage and the disadvantage of the Internet is that it has no borders. Nothing can stop bets and wagers from being placed using a Web site hosted in another jurisdiction. When that bet or wager causes a violation of our laws, we had no effective means of enforcement until now.

Congress reviewed a number of possibilities to better enforce the law on the books. One enforcement option was to prosecute the gambler. However, enforcement against individual gamblers is a State prerogative under our federalist system. The Federal government has never claimed the authority to prosecute gamblers. And though gambling online is a misdemeanor in most States, it would be impossible for States to effectively enforce this way. The State would have to monitor people's

Internet usage, which raises serious constitutional issues.

Next, Congress considered ``notice-and-take-down'' measures to combat illegal Internet gambling. The Senate passed bills twice that would have authorized law enforcement to notify computer services when an illegal web site was using their services, and require them to take down or block the illegal site. Time has shown that blocking just about anything on the Internet simply does not work, though take-down orders do work for web sites hosted by domestic companies. So we have retained the notice-and-take-down option in the new law where it has a chance of being effective--for gambling web sites hosted or advertised by Internet companies based in the United States.

But take-down orders, and prosecuting gambling businesses that violate State and Federal laws, are completely ineffective for Web sites hosted offshore. The U.S. legal system cannot reach offshore companies, even though their Web sites can reach U.S. consumers. So the gambling operators deliberately locate in jurisdictions that will not cooperate with the U.S. Here, existing laws reach the end of the rope.

We concluded that the only real option, if we want to enforce our gambling laws in the age ofthe Internet, is to block the financial transactions that pay for illegal online gambling. Banks and payment systems located in the United States are fully within the reach of Federal law, and U.S. citizens usually have to go through them to send money over the Internet. So requiring payment systems to put in place blocking procedures allows us to effectively and efficiently stop the flow of money, even when the gambling business itself is beyond the long arm of our law. Without the money, gambling simply cannot happen.

We needed to pass this law because it is the only way we can effectively enforce State and Federal gambling laws when offshore Web sites offer illegal services to our residents. This is also why the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve Board need to write strong regulations that will not be easily evaded. I am proud to have supported this vital law, and I look forward to working with the regulators to ensure they properly reflect Congress's intent. My only regret is that my friend and colleague Jim Leach will not be here to assist Congressman Goodlatte and others in our continued efforts.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great admiration that I rise today to recognize the 25 years of public service that Chairman Oxley has bestowed upon this body. He is a dedicated and hard-working public servant whose leadership as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee has been exemplary. Under Chairman Oxley's leadership, the Financial Services Committee enjoyed an unprecedented level of collegiality and comity that permitted us all to work together and get things done.

Chairman Oxley has a series of legislative successes few others can rival. When investor confidence was at a low, Chairman Oxley restored confidence in our financial markets by authoring the landmark Sarbanes- Oxley Act. This legislation established tough new standards to ensure corporate accountability to all American shareholders. In addition Chairman Oxley was responsible for the passage of The Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, or FACT Act, which gave consumers new identity theft protections and also improved credit report accuracy. Chairman Oxley also spearheaded efforts to reform our nation's deposit insurance system and modernize our check clearing process which brought our antiquated systems into the 21st century. These achievements will have a positive impact on our financial services system for generations to come.

Aside from his leadership in the House, Mike Oxley has been a true mentor and friend. Fortunately, this is not a retirement for Mike Oxley but a beginning of a new chapter in his career. I look forward to working with him in whatever his future endeavors may be. Although I am losing a colleague and fellow Member, Linda and I look forward to many years of continued friendship with Mike and his wife Pat.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcalls Nos. 394-396, I was not present in the House due to a family emergency. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the leadership, Chairman Pombo, Subcommittee Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Member Pallone for allowing the House to consider this legislation. The bill before us today, H.R. 4947, represents a 2nd major step by this Congress in protecting and preserving one of the most biologically diverse areas of the United States.

In 2000, I introduced the legislation that created the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge. That bill passed this Congress and was signed into law. Since that time, each year the Appropriations Committee has dedicated funding for land acquisition. The initial 3,500 acres authorized in that bill have been completely purchased by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The strong support of local elected officials and property owners, coupled with that of many environmental organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Cahaba River Society, and The Land Trust has fostered plans to expand the existing boundaries of The Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge.

Alabama is the 5th most biologically diverse State in the country, but it also has the unfortunate distinction of being the most extinction-prone State in the continental United States, with at least 98 species extinct. The Cahaba River basin alone supports 69 rare and imperiled species. The river is recognized nationally for its unique biological diversity; the Cahaba Shiner, a federally endangered species is just one of more than 131 species of fish that call the Cahaba home. That is more species of fresh water fish than inhabit the entire State of California. The Cahaba's wealth of fish species is greater than any other river of its size in North America.

The Cahaba River also harbors the world's largest population of the imperiled shoals lily, known locally as the ``Cahaba Lily.'' Recently a population of Cahaba pebble-snails was discovered in the refuge. Once thought to be extinct, this marked the first time this species had been seen since the 1960s, an accomplishment that can be attributed to the protection offered by the Cahaba's designation as a Wildlife Refuge.

The proposed expansion of the Cahaba River National Wildlife Refuge would:

Increase direct protection of the banks of the mainstem Cahaba River from the current 3.5 miles to approximately 8 miles, thereby giving additional protection to additional large populations of the globally imperiled shoals spider lily (aka Cahaba lily), and many other rare species.

Provide large enough areas of forest to support viable breeding populations of declining Neotropical migratory birds, both in the longleaf pine forests (e.g. Northern Bobwhite Quail, Brown-headed Nuthatch) and in hardwood forests (e.g. Swainson's Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush, Acadian Flycatcher).

Provide significant increase in public access to the Cahaba River for canoeing, fishing and other riverine recreational activities.

Provide a significant increase in acreage available to the public for hunting, hiking, birding and other outdoor wildlife-based activities (Alabama has only about 3 percent public land, less than most other States in the Nation).

Provide a significant boost in revenue to Bibb County, one of the poorest counties in the Nation. Due to low prevailing property tax rates, the revenue to the County coffers from the Federal Refuge Revenue Sharing Program (payments in lieu of taxes) have averaged about $6 per acre per year (versus a yield of about $1 per acre per year as privately owned timberland).

H.R. 4947 authorizes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to purchase up to an additional 3,600 acres of land and waters. This would double the number of protected acres of the Cahaba, all of which will be purchased from willing sellers. Protecting the land upstream from the original refuge will add to the buffer zone needed to shield this critical habitat and watershed.

The bill before us will help protect one of the greatest natural treasures in my State of Alabama and I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization as an original cosponsor. I also rise in support of this amendment.

From the 1790s to the 1970s, our forefathers came to this country, America, from across the globe. They spoke a multitude of languages. They became American citizens. They exercised their right to vote, and they did so in English.

Teddy Roosevelt was right when he said: ``There can be no divided allegiance here. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language.''

It was good enough for our forefathers, it was good enough for our grandparents, it should be good enough for us. There is a tradition in this country. For 180 years, we voted in English. That is the true American tradition, and this amendment is true to our heritage, not what has existed unnaturally for the last 20 years.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman, and I would like to respond to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Massachusetts and tell you why we need this bill and we need it desperately.

We have been trying to move this legislation for 5 years, and in the 5 years that we have failed to move it, as many as half a million young teenagers have become compulsive gamblers. Now, the Harvard Medical School, the University of South Florida, and the American Psychiatric Association have all told us that the younger someone is exposed to gambling, the younger they start gambling, the more addictive it becomes. In fact, about three times more addictive.

The University of Connecticut did a recent study, and I am going to introduce it for the Record, that says Internet gambling is three times as likely to produce a problem gambler. Seventy-four percent of the young people that they surveyed who said they had gambled on the Internet developed a serious addiction.

Now, what happens when they gamble and they get an addiction? McGill University did a study, and they said that teenagers who gamble on the Internet show increased criminal activity, strained family relationships, and depression. Thirty percent of those who became addicted to gambling on the Internet actually attempted suicide. That is why Mr. Leach talked about the young man who was the class sophomore president at Lehigh University who actually robbed a bank. A 17-year- old who lost a $6,000 bet on the Internet committed suicide. We have got to move against this.

Finally, let me conclude with this: let me tell you what has happened in the past year. According to the University of Pennsylvania, in the last year we have gotten another 150,000 young compulsive gamblers.

It is already illegal. What we are doing is stopping it. You have got the criminals on one side, and you have got young people on the other side; and we must protect the young people from these criminals.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte-Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act.

I want to begin by thanking Chairmen Oxley and Sensenbrenner and Congressmen Goodlatte and Leach for bringing H.R. 4411 to the Floor today and for their undying determination to put an end to Internet gambling in the United States. H.R. 4411 would help stop the growing threat that Internet gambling poses to the most vulnerable in our society, kids and problem gamblers.

H.R. 4411 provides strong new enforcement mechanisms to stop the offshore casinos that flagrantly violate existing state and federal laws against Internet gambling. This bill enables our financial regulators to prescribe regulations limiting the acceptance of financial instruments for unlawful Internet gambling. In addition, H.R. 4411 amends the Wire Act of 1961 to expressly prohibit illegal online interstate gambling. H.R. 4411 was reported by both the Financial Services and Judiciary Committees. Similar legislation has passed the

House in the previous two Congresses. Now is the time to cut off illegal Internet gambling once and for all.

We have been discussing this issue for years. It has taken way too long. In the time we've been debating this issue, Internet gambling sites have virtually overrun the Internet. Five years ago, there were less than 50 Internet gambling sites. Today, there are more than two thousand sites that will generate upwards of $5.9 billion this year alone, nearly half of the $12 billion bet worldwide on Internet gambling.

Support for our efforts to stop the money flow to illegal gambling sites have 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. Speaker, it is far easier and far quicker to just list who doesn't support our efforts. That would, of course, be the illegal gambling industry itself. They have launched an all-out effort at obfuscation and mischaracterization in hopes of defeating this bill and perpetuating their noxious activities.

The ability of the Internet to penetrate every home and community has both positive and negative consequences. It can be a valuable source of information and a way to communicate quickly with loved ones. But, the Internet can also override community values and standards. Gambling is an excellent example of this. Gambling is currently illegal in the United States unless it is regulated by the states. With the Internet, however, prohibitions against gambling and regulations governing gambling are turned on their head.

The negative effects of gambling have been widely documented. All too often, gambling results in addiction, bankruptcy, divorce, crime and moral decline. Internet gambling magnifies the destructiveness of gambling by bringing the casino into your home. According to an extensive survey done by the University of Connecticut Health Center, 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. We heard testimony at one of our hearings that Internet gambling is proving to be a serious problem for many college students. One student reportedly lost $10,000 on Internet sports gambling over a three-month period.

Imagine if you found out that a casino was being built next door to your house, and that they had invited your children to participate in gambling activities. You would probably think that was unacceptable. But Internet gambling Web sites are actually worse than that. Sitting right on the computer desk in your home or in your child's bedroom is a computer with easy access to more than 2,000 Web sites that offer illegal Internet gambling services.

Worse yet, your kids could use your credit card to gamble on the Internet and run you into bankruptcy--without you even knowing it.

In addition, Internet gambling has been linked to terrorists and organized crime. The FBI and the Department of Justice have testified that Internet gambling serves as a vehicle for money laundering that can be exploited by terrorists. These Internet sites--most of which are operated offshore--represent a serious money laundering vulnerability for our country.

So what would H.R. 4411 do?

H.R. 4411 addresses the problem of Internet gambling in four ways:

First, it clarifies that the Wire Act covers all forms of gambling including Internet gambling and increases the maximum penalty for violations of the Wire Act from two to five years in prison.

Second, and most importantly, it cuts off the flow of money to Internet gambling Web sites by regulating the payments system.

The legislation directs the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to jointly develop regulations preventing financial transactions related to illegal Internet gambling.

Third, the legislation authorizes State and Federal law enforcement to seek injunctions against persons who facilitate illegal Internet gambling; and

Fourth, the U.S. government through the Treasury Department is exhorted to advance international cooperation in law enforcement efforts against illegal gambling and related money laundering.

Internet gambling is already illegal under Federal and State law, but most of the more than two thousand Internet gambling sites operate from offshore locations. Currently, these ``virtual casinos'' advertise the ease of opening betting accounts mainly through the use of credit cards. Therefore, they operate beyond the reach of our law. The regulations and anti-money laundering laws that apply to casinos in our country do not apply to these fly-by-night offshore Internet operators. Shutting off the money source is the only way to shut down these illegal Internet gambling Web sites.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that a vote for this bill is a vote against illegal Internet gambling. This bill shuts off the money. That is what these people are waiting for, the money. If we shut off the money, we shut off the sites.

My thanks again go to Chairman Oxley, Chairman Sensenbrenner, Congressman Goodlatte and Congressman Leach for their tireless efforts in moving this bill forward and bringing it to the floor today. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legisiation.

disordered gambling among university-based medical and dental patients:

a focus on internet gambling

George T. Ladd and Nancy M. Petry--University of Connecticut Health

Center.

The authors evaluated gambling behaviors, including

Internet gambling, among patients seeking free or reduced-

cost dental or health care. Three hundred eighty-nine

patients at university health clinics completed a

questionnaire that included the South Oaks Gambling Screen

(SOGS; H. R. Lesieur & S. Blume, 1987). All respondents had

gambled in their lifetimes, with 70% gambling in the past 2

months. On the basis of SOGS scores, 10.6% were problem

gamblers, and 15.4% were pathological gamblers. The most

common forms of gambling were lottery, slot machines, and

scratch tickets. Internet gambling was reported by 8.1% of

participants. Compared to non-Internet gamblers, Internet

gamblers were more likely to be younger, non-Caucasian, and

have higher SOGS scores. This study is among the first to

evaluate the prevalence of Internet gambling and suggests

that people who gamble on the Internet are likely to have a

gambling problem. Results also illuminate the need to screen

patients seeking health care services for gambling problems.

The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)

describes pathological gambling as a disorder that involves

preoccupation with, tolerance of, and loss of control

relating to gambling behaviors. A recent meta-analysis of

prevalence rates (Shaffer, Hall, & VanderBilt, 1999)

concluded that approximately 1.6% of North American adults

may be Level 3 (pathological) gamblers. An additional 3.9%

may be Level 2 (problematic) gamblers, bringing the combined

percentage of disordered gamblers to more than 5%.

Although prevalence rates in general populations have been

described (Shaffer et al. 1999), there is a paucity of

studies that have focused on the prevalence of gambling among

primary-care patients (Miller, 1996b; Pasternak & Fleming,

1999; Van Es, 2000). As a consequence, health care

professionals may not be aware of the impact that gambling

behaviors can have on the health of their patients. Health

comorbidities found to be associated with pathological

gambling include substance abuse, circulatory disease,

gastrointestinal distress, sexual dysfunction, anxiety

disorders, and depression (Bergh & Kuhlhorn, 1994;

Daghestani, 1987b; Lesieur, Blume, & Zoppa, 1986; Miller,

1996a; Pasternak & Fleming, 1999).

This study presents two central opportunities for

contribution to the existing body of knowledge about

disordered gambling. First, we directed our attention toward

gambling behaviors among a subset of the population that

seeks free or reduced-cost health care. A second focus of

this study was the types of gambling activities in which

people engage, with special attention paid to Internet

gambling. Many researchers have examined the prevalence of

disordered gambling (e.g., Shaffer et al., 1999), but few

have presented data on the types of gambling in which

individuals participate, and no known published studies have

focused on the prevalence of Internet gambling.

method

Participants for this study were drawn from patients

seeking treatment at the University of Connecticut Health

Center (UCHC) each year. Of the 389 patients included in this

study, 76.5% were from UCHC dental clinics, which serve

primarily uninsured patients. The remaining 22.5% of

participants were from other UCHC medical clinics. The UCHC

is located 8 miles southeast of Hartford, Connecticut, and is

approximately 65 miles from two large casinos.

Procedures

Questionnaires were left in the waiting areas of various

UCHC health and dental clinics for 13 months (8/1/99-9/2/00)

along with collection boxes. Approximately 2,000 patients

were treated in these clinics during the study period. Signs

encouraging questionnaire completion were displayed in these

general areas. On occasion, a research assistant would

approach patients within clinics and ask them to complete a

screen. No patients who were verbally asked to complete a

questionnaire refused. Nonresponses were probably a result of

failure to notice the signs and questionnaires rather than

refusal to participate. An overall average return rate of

85.7% across the UCHC clinics was determined on weeks in

which the numbers of screens left out and collected were

monitored.

Measures

The 2-page questionnaire consisted of the South Oaks

Gambling Screen (SOGS; Lesieur & Blume, 1987) as well as

questions regarding demographic information and gambling

activities.

Data analysis

We used the SOGS (Lesieur & Blume, 1987) component of the

questionnaires to classify

participants as Level I (score of 0-2), Level 2 (score of 3-

4), or Level 3 (score > 5) gamblers (Lesieur & Heineman,

1988; Shaffer et al., 1999).

We present here the types of participants' gambling

activities, along with the frequency and intensity of recent

gambling behaviors (past year, past 2 months, and past week)

by level of disordered gambling. We compared participants who

reported experience with Internet gambling and participants

who reported no experience with Internet gambling on

demographic variables and SOGS scores. We evaluated

differences among the three levels of gamblers, as well as

between Internet versus non-Internet gamblers, using the chi-

square test for categorical data, analysis of variance for

continuous data, and Kruskal-Wallis tests for non-normally

distributed continuous data.

results

Response rates and demographic characteristics of the

respondent sample

In total, 402 questionnaires were filled out. Thirteen

respondents left many SOGS items unanswered and were thus

excluded, leaving 389 questionnaires for further analysis.

Continuum of SOGS scores

Of the respondents, 46.8% scored a 0 on the SOGS,

indicative of no problematic gambling behaviors. Additional

segments of respondents scored 1 (17.0%) and 2 (10.3%) on the

SOGS. Therefore, according to the classification system

described by Shaffer et al. (1999), 74.0% of respondents

qualified as Level 1 gamblers, and 10.6% of the respondents

were classified as Level 2 gamblers, with 6.2% scoring a 3

and 4.4% scoring a 4. The final 15.4% of respondents were

classified as Level 3 gamblers, with 6.9% scoring between 5

and 9, 5.7% scoring between 10 and 14, and 2.8% scoring

between 15 and 20.

Demographic characteristics

Although no statistically significant group differences

were found with regard to gender, the three groups of

gamblers differed on other demographic characteristics.

Specifically, differences among the groups emerged with

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 895 by Chairman Oxley. I commend Chairman Oxley as the primary sponsor and author of the USA PATRIOT Act. He has been committed to combating terrorist financing, and I want to commend him for his tireless efforts in bringing this resolution to the floor.

We are at war against a savage and relentless enemy. While Americans have a long-established right to know about the actions of their government, when we are at war, when there is a national security concern, there is also a well-founded historical precedent for conducting covert actions out of the media spotlight.

Now, there can be alternatives, as the gentleman from Massachusetts said, but there can be no alternatives to a strong national defense. There can be no alternatives to a strong national security. And the judges of what those are and how to conduct those should not be left to the New York Times. They are for this body to determine.

Following the death of Zarqawi, an internal al Qaeda memo was recovered from his hideout. It explicitly states that al Qaeda's efforts have been hurt by tightening the resistance's financial outlets. This statement serves as concrete evidence, concrete evidence that programs such as the administration's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program are both necessary and effective.

Remember, the 9/11 Commission was critical of the government's failure to track the sources of terrorist financing prior to the September 11 attack. However, in its final report, the commission applauded the government-wide effort to combat terrorist financing after 9/11 for making significant strides in using terrorist finance as an intelligence tool.

They were talking about this program. This program was an important stride.

Indeed, the program paid big dividends, including the arrest of the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing, a violent bombing that killed 202 innocent people. In fact, he was convicted based on information from this program, a program The New York Times made a determination to expose.

There is no doubt that America and our allies in the war on terror are safer today because of this program, which is exactly the sort of protection that Americans want and expect from their government.

Some question or debate whether al Qaeda knew about this valuable program. Do they know about it now? Do they know the details? The answer to the question is, yes, no doubt about it.

How do they know? Because they put it on the front page of the newspaper. Not just any paper, but the largest newspaper in the biggest city in the United States.

Who are they? They are the editors and publishers of The New York Times. If you are al Qaeda, the appropriate response to this publication is thank you. If you are indifferent, the answer is so what. But if you are an American citizen endangered by terrorists, the insensitivity, the arrogance, the irresponsibility of this paper and its publication, then the appropriate response is anger and outrage and this resolution.

Now, due to their irresponsible actions, this vital intelligence- gathering program is virtually defunct. No longer would terrorists conduct their financial business with the Swift cooperative. Sadly, no longer will we be able to track their actions. This clearly hampers, clearly hampers, our Nation's ability to conduct the war on terror.

Hopefully, our intelligence agencies will devise other means to effectively monitor our enemies. It won't be easy. They will have to start over. We won't be restricting their financial operations as well as we did before this publication. But at least I would hope that if we do fashion a new program that it will not be reported by the media outlets who want to get a scoop ahead of national security.

Let me close by thanking the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 895, which is sponsored by Chairman Oxley, expressing our support for the Administration's efforts to track terrorist financing through the U.S. Treasury Department's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program. Chairman Oxley--one of the primary authors and sponsors of the terrorist financing provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act--has been committed to combating terrorist financing, and I want to commend the Chairman for his tireless efforts and for bringing this resolution to the floor today.

We are at war with a savage and relentless enemy. While Americans have a long-established right to know about the actions of their government, when we are at war and when there is an overriding national security concern, there is also a well-founded historical precedent for conducting covert actions out of the media spotlight.

Following the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an internal al-Qaeda memo was recovered from the terrorist's hideout. It explicitly states that al Qaeda's efforts have been hurt ``by tightening the resistance's financial outlets.'' This statement serves as concrete evidence that programs such as the Administration's Terrorist Finance Tracking Program are both necessary and effective.

Remember, the 9/11 Commission was critical of the government for its failure to track the sources of terrorist financing prior to the September 11th attacks. However, in its final report, the Commission's Public Discourse Project applauded the government-wide effort to combat terrorist financing after 9/11 for making ``significant strides in using terrorism finance as an intelligence tool.'' This program was one such important stride.

Indeed, the program paid big dividends, including the arrest of the mastermind of the 2002 Bali bombing, a bombing in which 202 innocent people were killed. In fact, he was convicted based on information from this program.

There is no doubt that America and our allies in the war on terror are safer today because of this program, which is exactly the sort of protection that Americans want and expect from their government to prevent further terrorist attacks.

Some question or debate whether al-Qaeda knows about this valuable program. Do they know about it? Do they know the details? The answer to the questions is ``yes.'' No doubt about it. How do we know that? Because they put it on the front page of the newspaper. Not just any paper, but the largest newspaper in the biggest city of the United States.

Who are they? The editor and publisher of that very paper.

If you are al-Qaeda, the appropriate response is, ``thank you.''

If you are indifferent, the answer is, ``so what?''

If you are an American citizen endangered by the insensitivity, arrogance and irresponsibility of this newspaper, the appropriate response is anger and outrage!

Now, due to their irresponsible actions, this vital intelligence gathering program is virtually defunct. No longer will terrorists conduct their financial business with the Swift cooperative, and sadly no longer will we be able to track their actions. This result clearly hampers our nation's ability to conduct the War on Terror.

Hopefully, our intelligence agencies will devise other means of effectively monitoring our enemies and restricting their financial operations at least until that program, too, is reported by media outlets that place getting a scoop ahead of national security. Outrageous conduct such as that exhibited in the disclosure of this legal, effective program cannot be allowed to escape just condemnation. Therefore, this resolution.

Let me close by again thanking this Administration and Chairman Oxley for their efforts in combating terrorist financing. Their dedication and vigilance with regard to these issues have made our nation and the world a safer place.

I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 895.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5341) to amend section 5313 of title 31, United States Code, to reform certain requirements for reporting cash transactions, and for other purposes, as amended.

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

Mr. Speaker, for some 14 years the Congress of the United States has known and identified a problem, and that is the number of currency transaction reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act.

The Internal Revenue Service, which administers this program, as early as 1993 made this statement. It said that 30 to 40 percent of these reports, and I quote, of routine deposits by large, well- established retail businesses have no likelihood of identifying potential money laundering or other currency violations.

The GAO in 1994 published a report which says, our analysis of CTR filing confirms that the volume of CTRs could be substantially reduced without jeopardizing law enforcement needs.

The GAO, the Internal Revenue, FinCEN, have all recommended that what we do to reduce the number of CTRs by 30 to 40 percent is simply to exempt large well-established customers, what are so-called ``seasoned customers.''

In fact, I want to read into the Record and introduce into the Record a report by William Fox, who headed up FinCEN, the government's top law enforcement agency charged with coordinating money laundering and terrorist financing activities.

Here is what he said: ``We know that some of the currency transaction reports filed by financial institutions are of little relevance in the investigation of financial crimes. We also know that depository institutions, especially our community banks, identify the time and expense of filing CTRs as the number one regulatory expense. It is clear that our efforts to encourage the exemption of routine filings on certain customers has not brought about the reductions of filings that were sought.''

Working with William Fox, members of this committee, Mr. Frank, Mrs. Maloney, myself, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Moore, Ms. Hooley, and several others, we actually fashioned legislation which we introduced and have passed out of this House on two different occasions over the past year. That legislation has died or was not acted on in the Senate. In the last case, it was simply because it was included in part of the reg relief bill.

So the purpose of this legislation is to break it out, isolate it into specific legislation dealing with that and nothing else, and send it over to the other body in hopes that they will save our financial institutions from what the GAO in 1994 said was a cost of up to $15 per report, maybe as little as $3, but as much as $15, and save our law enforcement agencies $2 to $3 per report, an overall savings of tens of millions of dollars which will allow law enforcement and our financial institutions to concentrate on the bad guys, not well-established routine business transactions by their customers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to how much time remains.

Mr. Speaker, last September, William Fox, at that time head of FinCEN, made this statement at a hearing before the Financial Services Committee. He said: ``The Congress has in the past recognized the need to reduce the number of currency transaction reports that may not have a high degree of usefulness to law enforcement and ordered us to find a way to do so.''

As a result of that hearing, Chairman Oxley, the chairman of the full committee, made as a priority the committee working in a bipartisan way to find a way, working with law enforcement, to reduce the number of CTRs. It was a result of that hearing and numerous statements by both law enforcement, by financial regulators, by financial institutions, and by Members of Congress in both bodies to work out a solution to this long-existing problem. So I would like to commend Chairman Oxley.

As a result of those hearings, there was introduced 3505, the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act, by Congressman Renzi and Mrs. Maloney, who of course just spoke on this bill. They included a provision that was specifically drafted by Mr. Frank, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Hensarling and Mr. Moore, which included a seasoned customer exemption. We passed 3505 out of this body by a vote of 415-2 back in March.

More recently, the bill before us, 5341, which has 22 bipartisan supporters on the Financial Services Committee, passed the Financial Services Committee on a unanimous vote, and H.R. 5341 seeks to reduce the regulatory burden caused by the Bank Secrecy Act. Specifically, the legislation requires that the regulators promulgate new regulations and streamline the process by which financial institutions may be exempted from filing CTRs for seasoned customers.

CTRs are required to be filed for cash transactions of $10,000 or more. This filing is required even in the case of seasoned customers who are long-time bank customers that routinely file large volumes of cash and whose business dealings are well known and understood by the institution to the extent to rule out the possibility of money laundering or the financing of terror. Unfortunately, the current process by which a financial institution seeks an exemption under such a scenario is both cumbersome, hard to understand, and requires annual renewals.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), who helped draft this legislation and the original legislation which was included in H.R. 3505, for such time as he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I simply want to say to the Members who may be listening to this discussion, what we are talking about here is a restaurant, a movie theater, a corner drugstore, a retail establishment. These are businesses that have been in the community for years and years. As a matter of course, every week, sometimes every day, they file large sums of cash.

The very idea that we would impose, as we did in the Bank Safety Act, a requirement that the banks, every time this happens, file a report. As FinCEN estimated last year, it takes 25 minutes to prepare these reports, to review them, to catalog them and to file them. Then it takes the FBI or others, IRS, who administers this program, 5 to 6 minutes. So you are talking about, for the average small bank in a medium-sized town, as Mr. Hensarling said, you are talking about hundreds of hours of wages, not to speak of the time.

As we have been hearing for 10 or 12 years, these reports have absolutely no usefulness in identifying money laundering, serious financial crimes, terrorist financing. It is past time that this Congress lifts what is a multimillion dollar burden on our financial institutions and, at the same time, allows law enforcement, directs law enforcement, in fact, to go after the bad guys. Focus attention on those nonroutine, nonstandard transactions.

Remember, the banks still must require, any time something is out of the ordinary to the routine, causes any type of questions, they actually have rules and regulations where they are required, in those cases, even if it is an established customer, if it is an out-of-the- ordinary transaction or raises suspicion, they have to file a report. That is the purpose of this legislation, to streamline that process.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, for the record, I would like to introduce the September 2005 testimony of William J. Fox, Director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of Treasury.

Statement of William J. Fox, Director, Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network, United States Department of the Treasury

Chairman Bachus, Ranking Member Sanders and distinguished

members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to

appear before you today to discuss your efforts to balance

the burdens imposed on the financial industry by the

requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, specifically,

providing the government with highly relevant information

that assists law enforcement in making our financial system

more transparent and our country safer. I am the Director of

the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, which has been

delegated the responsibility by the Secretary of the Treasury

to administer the Bank Secrecy Act. The Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network is part of Treasury's new Office of

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, led by Under Secretary

Stuart Levey. The creation of this office has greatly

enhanced Treasury's efforts and accomplishments on issues

relating to money laundering, terrorist financing and other

financial crime.

As the administrator of the Bank Secrecy Act, we bear

responsibility for ensuring that the Bank Secrecy Act is

implemented in a way that achieves the policy aim intended by

the Congress, which is, simply stated, to safeguard the

United States financial system from the abuses of financial

crime, including money laundering and terrorist or other

illicit financing. This is a day-to-day challenge in a

financial system where we generally promote the unfettered,

free-flow of commerce and where criminals strive to

manipulate the system with the same ingenuity and

sophistication of the very best in the industry.

Ensuring that we strike the right balance between the cost

and benefit of this regulatory regime is, in my view, a

central responsibility for my agency. While I do not believe

this cost/benefit analysis can be reduced to a mathematical

formula, I believe we must constantly study how we can more

effectively tailor this regime to minimize the costs and

other burdens imposed on our financial institutions while at

the same time ensuring that the law enforcement community

receives the information it needs to combat financial crime

and terrorism.

This effort is particularly important because I am more

certain than ever that compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act's

regulatory regime is a critical component to our country's

ability to utilize financial information to combat terrorism,

terrorist financing, money laundering, and other serious

financial crime. Moreover, the systems and programs that are

mandated by the Bank Secrecy Act make our financial system

safer and more transparent.

Over the past year I have traveled quite a bit around the

country listening to the frustrations members of the

financial industry have with the Bank Secrecy Act. Many of

those frustrations relate to how the Act is being

implemented. Many in the financial industry complained about

the lack of clarity in requirements and consistency in

examination. At the same time, the Congress has

questioned the effectiveness of our collective ability to

implement this regime in light of several highly publicized

and significant regulatory failures by certain financial

institutions. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to report that by

working diligently with my colleagues at this table, we have

made significant progress on these issues. In the past year:

We have signed groundbreaking information-sharing

agreements with the five Federal Banking Agencies, the

Internal Revenue Service and thirty-three (33) state

authorities. We are working to finalize similar agreements

with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the

Commodities Futures Trading Commission.

We have assisted the Federal Banking Agencies with the

development of a comprehensive Bank Secrecy Act examination

manual that we believe will ensure greater consistency in

examinations for depository institutions, and will provide a

significant source of guidance and help for those

institutions.

We are together issuing more and better guidance to ensure

greater clarity and consistency of regulatory policy. A good

example of this is the recent guidance we issued jointly with

the Federal Banking Agencies on the provision of banking

services to money services businesses.

We have created and staffed an Office of Compliance within

our Regulatory Division to ensure better clarity and

consistency in how the Bank Secrecy Act is implemented and

provide us with an assessment of the overall success of our

Bank Secrecy Act Regulatory Program.

We are--for the first time--devoting nearly 25 percent of

our analytic muscle to regulatory issues and programs. These

analysts are not only identifying compliance problems and

targeting problematic institutions for examination, they will

also develop and provide information to the financial

industry to help them better understand and assess the risks

posed by their business lines and customer base.

We believe these steps and the steps we have planned have

helped improve the overall implementation and effectiveness

of the Bank Secrecy Act. Ensuring that we present the

financial industry with regulatory requirements that are both

clear and consistent is, in my view, one of the best ways we

can reduce the burden associated with Bank Secrecy Act

compliance.

Consistency is a crucial element of the effective

implementation of the Bank Secrecy Act, and, indeed, is one

of our core objectives. While we, of course, stand ready to

assist the Committee and this Congress by examining any

aspect of the Bank Secrecy Act, I would emphasize that over

the past year, the level of cooperation between my agency and

the Federal Banking Agencies has grown significantly. As

reflected in the steps we have taken together, we all

recognize the need for a consistent voice on these important

regulatory issues, and are building the necessary

coordination mechanisms.

The focus of my testimony before the subcommittee today is

on H.R. 3505, specifically, how that bill would affect the

Bank Secrecy Act. I would like to focus on one key concept in

this legislation; your effort to reduce the burden imposed on

the financial industry of filing Currency Transaction

Reports. We have been grappling with the issue of how to

improve the Currency Transaction Report regime for some time.

We know that Currency Transaction Reports are valuable to law

enforcement. These reports--often coupled with other

information--are used every day to identify and locate

criminals and terrorists. However, we also know that some of

the Currency Transaction Reports filed by financial

institutions are of little relevance in the investigation of

financial crime. We also know that depository institutions,

especially our community banks, identify the time and expense

of filing Currency Transaction Reports as the number one

regulatory expense. Indeed, the Congress has in the past

recognized the need to reduce the number of Currency

Transaction Reports that may not have a high degree of

usefulness to law enforcement, ordering us to find a way to

do so. However, it is clear that our efforts to encourage the

exemption of routine filings on certain customers have not

brought about the reductions in filing that were sought.

Two years ago we turned to the Bank Secrecy Act Advisory

Group, bringing in the viewpoints of the industry, law

enforcement, and regulatory communities, to address this

question. Through this process, we learned that our

colleagues in law enforcement have made significant strides

recently in their ability to utilize currency transaction

reporting data, marrying this data with other law enforcement

data to maximize its benefit. We also have enhanced our

analytic capability to exploit this data source on both micro

and macro levels. Such innovations enhance the utility of our

analysis, and it is essential that we not reduce the flow of

critical information just as the technical firepower to

exploit this information is reaching new heights.

This Committee now is considering language that would amend

current exemptions by allowing banks to qualify certain

customers as exempt from routine currency transaction

reporting. We believe this language addresses many of the

issues with our current exemption regime that were causing it

not to have its intended effect. Due to its complexity and

the burden involved in exempting customers, financial

institutions were not taking advantage of the exemption

regime. This proposal seeks to streamline the exemption

process by focusing on a one-time notice to my agency of an

exemption and focusing on the customer's relationship with

the bank as the grounds for such exemption. We believe that

these changes will make the exemptions more effective while

still ensuring that currency transaction reporting

information critical to identifying criminal financial

activity is made available to law enforcement.

However, we also recognize that we need to monitor these

changes to ensure that they do not result in a reduction in

information that would be highly useful to our law

enforcement clients, and accordingly the proposal contains a

wise requirement to conduct a study after some time has

elapsed to ensure that we are striking the proper balance.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I hope that my testimony today

conveys the sense of commitment, energy, and balance with

which all of us at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

are addressing the challenging issues that confront our

administration of the Bank Secrecy Act. The importance of

your personal and direct support of these efforts cannot be

overstated. Your oversight will ensure that we meet the

challenges that we are facing. I know how critical it is that

we do so, and we hope you know how committed we are to

meeting those challenges. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and urge all Members to vote in favor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, June 16, I was absent from the House in order to attend the wedding of my eldest son and was forced to miss rollcall vote No. 288. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, from April 29-May 1, 2006, approximately 1,200 students from across the country participated in the national finals competition of We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am pleased to announce that Vestavia Hills High School from Birmingham, Alabama placed fourth in the competition. The We the People program is administered by the Center for Civic Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

The We the People national finals is a three-day academic competition that simulates a congressional hearing in which the students ``testify'' before a panel of judges on constitutional topics. Students demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of constitutional principles as they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Among the questions students

responded to in the competition includes, ``Is judicial review essential for the functioning of our American constitutional democracy? Explain and justify your position.''

Mr. Speaker, the names of these outstanding students from Vestavia Hills High School are as follows:

Grace Anthony, George Bolshinskiy, Barrett Bowdre, Courtney Bragg, Jeannettee Dooley, Daniel Driscoll, Claire Foster, Sarah Graffeo, Lauren Howard, Sarah McKibben, Patrick Mulligan, John Nicholson, Tiffany Parrish, Hanna Perry, Julie Phillips, Joseph Siegelman, Kendal Spires, Wes Stevenson, Emily Unnasch, Amy Watson, Ryan Woodford, and Ansley Zarra.

I also wish to commend the teacher of the class, Amy Maddox, who was responsible for preparing the student class for the national finals competition. Also worthy of special recognition are Janice Cowin and Kerri Williamson, the state coordinators and Jeff Northrup, the district coordinator, who are among those responsible for implementing the We the People program in my district.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues in the House, please join me in congratulating these young constitutional experts for their outstanding achievement.

Mr. Speaker, doctors of optometry from around the Nation will convene in Las Vegas, NV, June 22-26 for the American Optometric Association's 109th annual convention. On Saturday, June 24, they will elect Dr. Tommy Crooks as the association's 85th president.

Doctors of optometry are the Nation's largest eye care profession, serving patients in nearly 6,500 communities across the country, in more than 3,500 of these communities; they are the only eye doctors. The American Optometric Association is the professional society for optometrists nationwide and has more than 34,000 members. Dr. Crooks will lead the association on its mission to improve eye and vision care in the United States.

Dr. Crooks is a resident of Birmingham, AL. He is a native son, a 1975 graduate of the University of Alabama and a 1979 graduate of the University of Alabama's School of Optometry who has practiced optometry in our State for 27 years. He is currently president and CEO of Eyecare Associates, Inc., in Birmingham, AL, a group practice consisting of 19 locations and 33 doctors.

Dr. Crooks has been a leader in his profession at the State, regional and national levels. He has been a member of the Alabama Optometric Association since 1979, serving as president in 1990. In 1985, the Alabama Optometric Association named Dr. Crooks Alabama Optometrist of the Year. He is also a past president of the Southern Council of Optometrists and the Birmingham Area Optometric Society and in 1990 was named University of Alabama-Birmingham Alumnus of the Year.

At the national level, Dr. Crooks has been a member of American Optometric Association, AOA, since 1979, and has served in the association's volunteer structure since 1989. He was elected to the AOA Board of Trustees in 1999 and was re-elected in 2002.

Dr. Tommy Crooks has built a distinguished record of service and leadership in his profession and in his community. I am confident that he will have a very successful term as president of the American Optometric Association. I join his wife Kaye and their two sons, his friends and colleagues in congratulating him on this achievement and wishing him good luck and good health.

Mr. Speaker, I was inadvertently detained and missed rollcall votes No. 251-254. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on each.

Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 5252. Communications technology today is advancing rapidly but communications law is not. H.R. 5252 will allow the law to not only ``catch-up'' with technology, but also to get out of the way so consumers may benefit from new innovations and competition for broadband video services.

It is odd to me that, at the same time we are streamlining our policy in one area, we are considering new regulation in another area that has enjoyed explosive growth and innovation precisely because it has been free of government regulation. Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to start regulating the Internet.

Some voices say new regulation is necessary to preserve the Internet and protect consumers. I do not agree. The Internet is growing and thriving without regulation. Until there is a specific problem to fix, I think Internet regulation is a heavy-handed solution in search of a problem that will have many unintended consequences.

It is important to remember that the FCC has already adopted principles designed to ensure that Internet services are provided in a fair and neutral manner. Provisions of H.R. 5252 reinforce these principles without imposing innovation stifling regulation. Plus, my colleague on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Smith, is offering an amendment making it clear that our Nation's anti-trust laws are in place to protect consumers as well. I support his amendment and encourage my colleagues to approve H.R. 5252 and reject calls for Internet regulation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I think Members back in their offices ought to know this, and this is a longstanding dispute between the States of Florida, Alabama and Georgia. What this amendment does is authorize $15 million or as much as $15 million to be spent by the Corps of Engineers to revise their manuals to try to interject their decisions into what is in court today.

The court proceedings are still going on. They are on appeal. And they are not only going to affect our three States, they are going to affect everybody who eats oysters because, as Mr. Boyd said, 90 percent of the oysters come out of the basin at the bottom of the Apalachicola River. These things do not need to be decided; the purity of that water in that basin or in those seven rivers does not need to be decided on the floor of the House by people who do not know what the right decision is that ought to be made.

It ought to be made in the courts in the deliberative process and not by some bureaucrat or not by Congressmen or -women who do not understand the issues involved. I urge a ``no'' vote.