Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 283 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, whatever we do here today, let us be honest with the American people. Now, the gentleman from Massachusetts kept talking about the child tax credit. It is not a tax refund; it is not a tax credit. If we are going to do it, let us call it what it is, and it is welfare.

When you get back money you have paid in, when we give the American people money they have paid in, that is a tax refund. That is a tax credit. When we take money away from some American taxpayers and we give it to someone else, that is not a tax credit. That is not a refund. That is welfare. And that is what you have proposed to do. If an American pays in $1,500 and we give them back $4,000, that $2,500 is not a refund; it is not a credit. It is someone else's money. And if we want to turn our Tax Code into a welfare system, let us be honest with the American people that that is what we are doing. That is what we are doing.

Why represent this as a credit? Where is the credit? You pay in $1,500, you get back $3,000; $1,500 is a credit, but the other $1,500 is someone else's money.

Today, of 100 American families, 50 of them paid 96.1 percent of the taxes before the last tax cut, and in the last tax cut, we gave Americans back their own money. And what the Democrats have proposed is taking Americans' money, your money, America, and we are giving it to someone else, and that is not a tax credit. That is welfare. Let us be honest with the American people. We are turning our Tax Code into a welfare system. And if we want to do that, let us call it what it is. Let us have a little truth in labeling. We are requiring 86 percent of the American people to pay their tax dollars to someone else, and that is welfare.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2143.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf).

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). I understand he has an inquiry about this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It is intended to apply to gambling, which is primarily determined by chance, rather than the skill of one of the players over the other.

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

Mr. Chairman, I both commend and yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee, who has been instrumental in bringing this legislation to the floor.

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts. I would say to the gentleman that this bill is not about opposing legal gambling. This bill is about opposing mob activity, criminal activity. The FBI says that organized crime is behind these Internet sites. This is about the unsupervised, illegal, untaxed Internet gambling. Illegal, offshore.

We talk about adults. These sites specifically target preteenaged children; and as the University of Connecticut has shown us, it is becoming a problem for many of our teenagers. They are becoming addicted to it, and they then turn to crime. This is about protecting Americans from crime that arises from these sites, specifically from these sites.

In the gentleman's own State, Dr. Schaffer, Harvard Medical School, likened illegal Internet gambling to crack cocaine, and he said, ``It is changing the gambling scene as crack cocaine changed the drug scene.'' We have all seen the scourge of crack cocaine. We have seen how it has ruined our country, ruined our youth. We have seen Adrian McPherson, a young man with a lot of promise, a star quarterback, a Mr. Basketball in the State of Florida, Mr. Football, we have seen him on trial, accused of Internet gambling.

Mr. Chairman, this is simply about enforcing the laws of this country and protecting our youth. We take the animals of the field, the one thing they do is they protect their youth. If dogs, cats, rabbits, any animal, if they protect their youth, at least we can rise to that level and above that level and protect the youth of our country.

Finally, as the NCAA said when they urged us to adopt this legislation for 5 straight years, ``Illegal Internet gambling is destroying the integrity of college sports and we have scandals in the making.'' Let us put an end to it; let us put an end to it now. Let us vote for this bill. Let us vote for the Kelly amendment. Let us vote against the Cannon amendment, which is a poison pill, as we all recognize, any of us who have studied the issue at all.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), who has conducted extensive hearings on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, major league baseball, the National Football League, and the NCAA all endorse this legislation. We could have no better representative than the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who many of us still think of as Coach Osborne of the Nebraska Cornhuskers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) have been fighting this issue and offering legislation for some time. This legislation actually appropriately would bear their names. I commend the gentleman from Virginia. I think no one has done more than he and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) on this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach). Many fine things have been said about the gentleman, that he and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) have been fighting this issue, this problem, and have really brought it to our attention, along with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), and I commend him.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have 2 more.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this Congress has tried mightily, Members of this Congress, to pass legislation to protect our children from this organized criminal activity. And it is a criminal activity. To equate this with the lawful supervised gambling in Las Vegas is simply to miss the point.

The fact is the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley) said, We do nothing in this bill to make unlawful what is lawful or make lawful what is unlawful.

What we do say is that where there is this criminal activity which is causing such heartbreak and such sorrow and such destruction and really a crime wave in this country, that it is time to put an end to it.

Now, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has for years strived to bring the conscience of this Congress to this issue. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) for years has brought this issue to our attention. They want stronger measures. I would like stronger measures, I will admit that, but we have to be practical.

We have to get what we can get. And what was the Cannon amendment killed this legislation in the past, and it will be brought up and they will attempt to kill this legislation. I hope that is not the case. I hope that we do not vote for the Cannon, now Sensenbrenner amendment, and again postpone facing this issue.

When it gets to the point that MasterCard, American Express, Visa, and Discover are all urging this Congress to take action to stop the illegal use of their networks, and they have written letters endorsing this legislation that every Member of this Congress has gotten, and they have said it will be an effective tool to stop the use of our credit cards to this illegal activity, when Citibank, when Morgan Stanley, when the largest banks in this country say give us the regulations, give us the framework to stop this, it is about time that we move.

We have talked about major league baseball, the NFL, and I think that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), more skilled than any of us in college sports, he is the longtime football coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, when he says this is undermining the integrity of the sport, it is time for us to take action.

It is time for us to quit this turf fighting where someone tries to expand gambling and someone else tries to limit gambling, and to come forward with a bill to address this, what the FBI calls ``mob-drive, crime-controlled activity.''

When we started this debate, some 4 or 5 years ago, we had less than a half a dozen sites, less than $300,000 being used. Today, the number of addicted gamblers in this country has grown by 5 million, a great number of them starting in their preteen or early teenage years.

It is time this Congress acted. It is time this Congress rejected the Sensenbrenner amendment in a few minutes and voted for this legislation. If it does not, we are going to be dealing with a $20 billion industry or $30 billion industry, and it is bad enough today when we do not know who these people are. They are unregulated. We do not even know where the money that is earned, how much of that money is finding its way back to Washington; but it is a pretty strong indication when we have one so-called faith group that battled for this legislation until a few weeks ago and suddenly turned around 180 degrees and suddenly opposed this legislation; and we find from a California paper that a few years ago they, in fact, took gambling money to fight on behalf of the gambling industry.

The National Council of Churches has written us today, the National Governors Association. The Fraternal Order of Police has urged us to take action to accept no amendments other than the Kelly amendment. The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association has written us. They have urged us to take action.

Mr. Chairman, the house is on fire and it is time for this body to wake up and to take action and to protect the youth of this country and the compulsive gamblers.

I close with one fact, and that is from the University of Connecticut Health Center, an extensive survey that said 74 percent of those who have used the Internet to gamble have serious problems with addiction, and many of those have resorted to criminal activities to pay for the habit. On the other hand, those that engage in legal gambling, they find only a third as many have become permanently addicted.

We have a wave in this country which Dr. Schaffer at Harvard Medical School compares to a cocaine epidemic in gambling, a crack cocaine epidemic; and in a few minutes, each one of us will decide to end this addiction and this heartbreak and this threat to not only our sports programs in this country but to our fabric as a Nation, or we will decide to vote for the Cannon amendment and, again, kill this legislation and put it off.

I urge all the Members to take a strong stand against the killer amendments that will be offered, a strong stand for this legislation. Join with the credit card companies, the financial institutions, the many church groups in this country, law enforcement officers, National Governors Association, Attorneys General Association. If there is ever a clear vote in this House, this should be the vote. If there was ever a unanimous vote in this House, this should be the vote.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley), the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), and I introduced this legislation, and I think the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) probably said it best when he described the Jackson-Lee amendment as gutting the bill by removing from it the major source of financing for illegal Internet gambling, and that is credit cards.

What this entire legislation is about is about cutting off the money, because these illegal Internet gamblers are not

offering a public service, they are making money. They are, in fact, making a killing. It is all about money, and the way we address it is by cutting off the money. Removing credit cards from the financial instrument covered under the bill is tantamount to saying we are only going to pretend to address the problem of illegal Internet gambling.

No one should seriously contend that children are not now gambling over the Internet using credit cards in too many instances. How difficult is it to borrow, with or without permission, mom or dad's credit card and gamble over the Internet. College kids are doing it every day; teenagers are doing it every day. How difficult is it for a thief to obtain someone else's credit card number to gamble over the Internet? They steal blank checks, they cash worthless checks, and they steal credit cards, all to feed their addiction. A slew of identity theft cases have hit this country in recent months. Many of those may, in fact, have been driven by this very addiction.

This is a damaging amendment designed to turn a very strong enforcement bill into a weak shadow of itself. I strongly urge a no vote on it. I would like to close by reading a letter from MasterCard because we are told they already have everything they need to do in doing it, and this is a letter to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley).

``I am now writing to communicate MasterCard's strong support for appropriate measures to combat illegal Internet gambling. In particular, we commend the efforts of you and your colleagues on H.R. 2143. This legislation will build on the rules developed by MasterCard and enable MasterCard to block branded payment card transactions in connection with Internet gambling. These rules have been extremely effective in impeding the use of U.S.-issued MasterCard branded payment cards for Internet gambling transactions. MasterCard believes that H.R. 2143, introduced by Congressman Spencer Bachus, would establish a workable framework for combating illegal Internet gambling. We are committed to working with you and your colleagues to further refine and pass this legislation as Congress seeks to provide a legislative solution to this important problem.''

MasterCard, Discover, American Express, Visa, the Nation's largest banks, Household Finance, Morgan Stanley, I could go on and on, have all endorsed this legislation because it will work. It will not cut off everything, but the bill as presently constituted covers money orders, it covers e-cash, it covers wire transfers, but it also covers credit cards and it must cover credit cards to be a comprehensive approach.

As the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) said and as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) has said, there are more effective things we could do, and hopefully we will to them, but both of them have strongly endorsed this legislation as a first step.

I urge this body to defeat this amendment, defeat the poison pill that will be offered next and vote on final passage of this bill without these killer amendments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from the United Methodist Church, the National Council of Churches, and four other faith-based organizations and a letter from the National Governors Association in opposition to the Sensenbrenner amendment.

June 3, 2003.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: As a diverse bipartisan coalition of

family and faith-based organizations, we are very concerned

with the effects of gambling on our society and the well-

being of young people and families. We write to strongly

support the passage of H.R. 2143. To Prevent the Use of

Certain Bank Instruments for Unlawful Internet Gambling, and

for Other Purposes. Internet Gambling is already against the

law in all 50 states, yet offshore gambling interests

continue to operate without any accountability and are

available in every state by utilizing the Internet. We urge

you to support H.R. 2143 and reject any amendment or proposal

which would weaken the bill or hinder its enforcement

according to current federal law.

The National Gambling Impact Study Commission Report

presents a disturbing and devastating picture of the effect

of gambling on families. Some crucial points to consider in

this report as it relates to Internet gambling are:

Gambling costs society $5 billion a year in societal costs

including, job loss, unemployment benefits, welfare benefits,

poor physical and mental health, and problem or pathological

gambling treatment, bankruptcy,

arrests, imprisonment, legal fees for divorce, and so forth.

Because the Internet can be used anonymously, the danger

exists that access to Internet gambling will be abused by

underage gamblers, our children and youth.

The high-speed instant gratification of Internet games and

the high level of privacy they offer may exacerbate problem

and pathological gambling.

Lack of accountability also raises the potential for

criminal activities, which can occur in several ways. First,

there is the possibility of abuse by gambling operators. Most

Internet service providers hosting Internet gambling

operations are physically located offshore; as a result,

operators can alter, move, or entirely remove sites within

minutes. Furthermore, gambling on the Internet provides an

easy means for money laundering. Internet gambling provides

anonymity, remote access, and encrypted data. To launder

money, a person need only deposit money into an offshore

account, use those funds to gamble, lose a small percent of

the original funds, then cash out the remaining funds.

Through the dual protection of encryption and anonymity, much

of this activity can take place undetected.

Computer hackers or gambling operators may tamper with

gambling software to manipulate games to their benefit.

Unlike the physical world of highly regulated resort-

destination casinos, assessing the integrity of Internet

operators is quite difficult.

Please support H.R. 2143 and reject the spread of a

predatory industry, which is contrary to the well-being of

individuals and all of society.

Sincerely,

Christian Coalition of America, Concerned Women for

America, Family Research Council, General Board of

Church and Society of the United Methodist Church,

National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion (NCAGE),

National Council of Churches.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), who, second to none, has led the fight against this illegal Internet gambling.

(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), along with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson) introduced this legislation; and the title of this legislation, I think, basically describes what this is all about. It is the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act. That is what we are doing.

We are replacing what the Chamber of Commerce has described as an antiquated method of presenting and returning checks.

It is amazing to me that we had not taken this step 10 or 15 or 20 years ago.

But I do want to commend the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), and I want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford). I want to commend a bipartisan group of Members who come together to push this legislation and bring it out on the floor today.

This is a model for bipartisanship. There are 33 co-sponsors, Democrats, Republicans. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), both made this a priority.

We have an amendment that was introduced by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) which is included on page 11 in section 3, paragraph E. Part of that language clarifies that nothing in this act shall diminish in any way and everything in this act shall preserve all consumer protections. In fact, we have added consumer protections in this act.

But let me be very brief and say what this does in a nutshell. Americans write 42.5 billion checks a year; and about three-fourths of those checks have to move physically from the bank where they were deposited to the bank where the original maker was, many of them all the way across the country. Most of them travel by air, but a good many of them travel by truck. When they do, they burn oil, making us more oil dependent. This bill as much as anything will help lessen our reliance on foreign oil.

And a lot of people have probably not thought about this, but it is good news for those who travel by air because it will lessen the congestion at our airports. In fact, it is amazing that most Americans do not realize that literally every day tens of thousands of aircraft take to the sky taking back these original checks.

Now, what we are changing today is not something we have not been doing. What the system will go to is actually the system the credit unions in this country have used for over 20 years. So this is nothing new. The credit unions have been using this process. In fact, some of our larger banks by agreement have been doing this process for years without any problems.

The Federal Reserve has urged for several years that we go to this system. It is good for our economy. Not only will it lessen our dependence on foreign oil, not only will it relieve congestion on our highways and airports, but it will also make our process of clearing checks more efficient. In a world economy when we compete with European nations which are already doing this, we do not need costs and burdens to our financial system that they do not have. In fact, we need to have the most efficient system in the world; and, in fact, this legislation will assure that this happens.

In conclusion, we will talk about the nuts and bolts of this legislation in the main debate. We will hear from the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) on this legislation. I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for making this a priority. I want to commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) for his leadership on this issue.

In conclusion, I want to commend all the Members of this body for coming together on this important legislation. We built such a consensus piece of legislation that we have the credit unions endorsing this legislation. We have the community banks endorsing this legislation. We have the independent banks endorsing this legislation. We have the largest 100 financial institutions in the country endorsing this legislation. We have the regulators endorsing this legislation. We have the Chamber of Commerce and several consumer groups endorsing this legislation. And I fully expect that the overwhelming vote that this legislation received in the committee will be repeated out here on the floor with a strong bipartisan majority.

I would think that anyone that understands this legislation will vote in favor of it.

Mr. Speaker, the first time I got up, I talked about the subject at hand, and that was Check-21. But I do want to address what the Democratic Members have talked about, and that is the recently passed tax cut.

One would not think there would be such an uproar from the other side because, in fact, the bill we passed exempts 3 million-plus low-income workers from any Federal tax liability. But there is still an uproar. It increases the child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. But there is still an uproar. It actually gives back, and only in Washington could you give back a tax refund above what people pay in, but it actually gives back $2,000 more to low-income families with children than they paid in; yet there is still an uproar.

Why the uproar? Because the other side wants to take tax money, taxpayers' money that was paid in, and pay it back to people who did not pay taxes. In other words, an individual paying in $1,500 ought to get back $3,500. Well, let me tell my colleagues that there is only one problem with that, and that is who pays the $2,000? The answer is the middle class.

In Alabama, if my colleagues talk to my constituents and say to them that they are going to pay back $2,000 to people who did not pay taxes, with their tax dollars, because they have children, they are going to call that welfare. And that is exactly what it is. When we pay folks because they have children, and we pay them back $4,000 just because they have children, not in money they paid in but with someone else's money, that is welfare.

The other side is still upset that we cut welfare several years ago, and they want to use this as an opportunity to start a new welfare program and to fund it out of middle-class taxpayers' pockets.

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 material on H.R. 1474.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

(Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), who is last year's sponsor of the bill and is an original cosponsor this year.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris).

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

Mr. Chairman, present law requires that checks be returned to the bank where they were originally drawn, and that way of doing business has basically been the law and the procedure in this country for over 100 years. We have technology now that makes something else possible, and that is electronic transfer, as opposed to transfer of the paper check.

What we have in our country today is an antiquated process, which is also a tedious process, which each day involves as many as 10 to 12,000 cars, trucks and airplanes returning checks when none of this is necessary.

The credit unions some 20 years ago went away from this process. They have had zero consumer complaints. The largest banks have made agreements between banks, and they have gone away from this process; but today, two-thirds of the checks still are processed in this outdated manner.

What this House has done in a bipartisan way is take a bill that has been cosponsored by two of our most able Members, the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), very aware of this issue, very knowledgeable on the issue, they have drafted this bill. The committee has looked at the bill. We have made changes to protect the consumer, slight changes. The bill as it exists today has been endorsed by the Federal Reserve, all the regulators, all the financial institutions involved, all the trade groups, consumer groups. It is a model for what this House can do when it puts aside its differences and works together for the good of the Nation as a whole.

This bill is good for customers. This bill is good for consumers. This bill is good for the economy.

We have talked about little things such as airport congestion, how this will help address that, congestion on the roadway, our energy dependence.

I want to commend, in closing, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), who

has made this one of his three goals for this year to move this legislation; the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), the ranking member, who identified this as necessary legislation.

My colleagues may say, well, this ought to be simple. For 20 years we tried to reform our check-clearing process. We have not been able to do it until this moment. This House today I think will take a historic step in making us more competitive in the world economy by bringing our check-clearing system up to a model for the world.

Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

That is absolutely true. Our staff worked together very closely and in a very bipartisan spirit.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday April 30th I missed rollcall vote 149 due to attending an awards ceremony for the National Teacher of the Year at the White House. If I had been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 149.

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, April 7th, I missed rollcall votes 109, 110 and 111, due to a flight delay. If I had been present I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 109, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 110 and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 111.

We should be particularly concerned about the negative effects which needless regulatory uncertainty and policy turmoil are having on this country's telecommunications industry.

The United States' economy is very dependent on an efficient and effective telecommunication industry and the links they provide. Maintaining these important systems and building new advanced networks we are going to need requires a climate of regulatory stability. No one is going to invest heavily if they do not know what the fundamental rules of the game are.

The 1996 Telecommunications Act envisions the FCC coming up with a workable, judicially sustainable, competitive framework in short order. Seven years have passed since the act was signed into law, and according to most authorities, the FCC's latest decision is almost certain to be reversed and remanded once more.

In closing, Congress has a responsibility to the shareholders of these companies, to the hundreds of thousands of employees, and, most of all, to millions of consumers to end this turmoil. It is not good for anyone.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt).

Let me ask all Members to think about this, because there are some things we all agree to. We all agree that we are winning the war, but I think we all believe that it is going to be harder to establish the peace. That is our concern now. We have won the war, but we have to be successful in winning the peace.

We all agree, both sides of the aisle, that we are facing anti- American sentiments. We should ask ourselves, where have those sentiments come from? They have come from the regime in Iraq, but they have also come from those that have supported them. France, Germany, Russia, Syria, the people named in this amendment have caused a great deal of the anti-American sentiment that we are now facing.

I ask Members to picture themselves a citizen of Iraq. We hear what the French and Germans have said, that we are there to get the oil. Then we see the American tanks; we see the American bullets. There is a lot of work for Americans to do after that. The last thing we want is then to see the French coming in and the Germans coming in and rebuilding Iraq; America coming in and conquering or invading, according to the French, and then the French rebuilding. That is going to do nothing to dissolve the anti-American sentiments.

In fact, we know the French intentions are not good. We know what they said; we know what they have done. It would add tremendous insult to the injury that American families have had, those who have sent loved ones into Iraq and lost those loved ones, for us now to send the French in behind them to capture the good will and the hearts of the Iraqi people.

It is the American people; it is the British. We are the ones that ought to be at the forefront and those visible in building the peace and rebuilding Iraq; not those who have made our job harder, those who have openly promoted anti-American sentiments, not only in Iraq but around the world.

Mr. Chairman, I urge the Members, let us not compound the immense problem we have today in establishing the peace and in trying to restore our credibility with the people of Iraq. Let them see Americans rebuilding Iraq. If the French want to be there, we ought to invite them to be there; and the French taxpayers can pay for the French companies who come in and rebuild. But with our money, it ought to be Americans because of this tremendous amount of ill will in the world, and particularly in Iraq.

If we lose this opportunity, we will always be viewed as those that came in with tanks and bullets and guns, and the French and the Germans will come behind us and self-promote themselves as those that came in and repaired the damage.

I close by simply saying this: If the French had not supplied Iraq with many articles of war, and the Germans, if they had not encouraged Saddam Hussein to stand and fight, our job would be a lot easier. They have caused some of the damage in Iraq. They have not acknowledged that. Even today in their newspapers they are continuing to stir up ill feelings. Let us not take our money and give them an opportunity to continue to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials on the bill H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 522, the Federal Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. I want to begin by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the committee, for his tremendous leadership in steering what is a complex bill through the legislative process. I also want to thank the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), for his support of this important piece of legislation. The committee and the Congress in its votes on this legislation in the past, legislation very similar, has shown that it can work together in a very bipartisan manner.

Deposit insurance reform has been thoroughly discussed and debated over the past several years. During the 107th Congress, I introduced comprehensive deposit insurance reform, H.R. 3717. The legislation was a by-product of recommendations by the FDIC in early 2001, industry representatives coming together urging that we take action. The American Banking Association, The Credit Union National Association, Independent Bankers and Financial Services Roundtable, all urging the Federal Reserve, the administration, urging us to take action to reform Federal deposit insurance. We did take action, and the 107th Congress passed H.R. 3717 by a vote of 408 to 18.

Unfortunately, that bill died in the other body.

Earlier this year, I introduced the same legislation. This time it is H.R. 522, the Deposit Insurance Reform Act of 2003. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) joined me in introducing this legislation, along with 57 other cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. It was approved by the Committee on Financial Services by a unanimous voice vote. I am pleased that the Senate now plans to act on similar legislation in the very near future, and that the President's budget for fiscal year 2004 outlines a proposal similar to our legislation.

The legislation is supported not only by American bankers, the Financial Services Roundtable made up of the 100 largest financial corporations in America, but also by the credit unions, the thrift associations, the community bankers, the securities industry, and also by groups that we sometimes do not find on the same side; the American Association of Retired Persons has recently endorsed this legislation.

Federal deposit insurance has been the hallmark of our Nation's banking system for almost 70 years. The reforms made by this legislation will ensure that the system that serves savers and depositors so well for so long will continue for future generations.

What does the legislation do? First, it merges separate insurance funds that currently apply to deposits held by banks on the one hand and savings associations on the other, creating a stronger, more stable fund that benefits banks and thrifts alike.

Second, it changes the ``pro-cyclical'' bias of the current system. In other words, it spreads out over time the assessments to the institutions which results in, by doing this, a more uniform assessment. Presently we have sharply higher premiums served during recessionary times and much lower premiums during good times. Banks can least afford to pay a higher premium during recessions, and we found that out, and this corrects that.

Third, the legislation includes modest increases in the amount of coverage available. The system has gone from 1980 without an increase in coverage. If we took 1980 as our basis and we increased coverage based on inflation, we would go to $200,000. If we went back to 1980, the $100,000, and we increased it based on per capita income, it would actually go to $300,000. So we are proposing $130,000, a very modest increase.

If we went back to 1974, because some have said they should not have raised it in 1980, they should have kept it at the 1974 level, and we increased it for inflation, it would go to $140,000.

Mr. Chairman, there are some who will offer amendments who have actually publicly stated that they do not believe in Federal deposit insurance, one of the gentlemen offering an amendment later on. So there are Members of the body who do not believe that our deposits in banks should be federally insured.

I understand that; but I, for one, disagree with that. I think Americans have come to rely and have a sense of security in knowing that when they put their retirement funds in a bank or thrift that it is federally insured. Particularly in light of the recent volatility on Wall Street, people have, I think, come to rely more and value more the fact that they can put their money in a federally insured financial institution and not lose that money.

All of us have heard from community bankers in our districts about the challenges that they face in competing for deposits with large- money center banks that are perceived by the market, rightly or wrongly, as being too big to fail. By strengthening the deposit insurance system, our legislation will help small neighborhood-based financial institutions across the country, especially in rural areas, continue to play an important role in financing economic development.

The independent bankers have actually said that this legislation is key to maintaining local home-owned banking institutions. The deposits that community banks are able to attract through Federal deposit insurance guarantees are cycled back into local communities in the form of consumer and small business loans. One reason for this legislation is we value the right of every American to go down to his corner financial institution.

My thanks go to the chairman of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Tiberi).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

(Mr. OXLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

(Mr. BURGESS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as remains.

Mr. Chairman, there are opponents to this legislation. Those opponents give several reasons, and we may hear those during the amendments; but I think the most honest opponent of this legislation is the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), who will offer an amendment or who may not offer an amendment but who has filed an amendment to strike the increases in coverage.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said in the American Banker, and I quote him, in today's edition, ``I don't believe in Federal deposit insurance.'' I think that pretty much sums up the opposition because if a person does not believe in it, then a person does not want it to increase to allow for inflation or for increase in per capita income. If a person does believe in it, then they want it to remain current. They want it to remain current with per capita income and inflation.

As I said, we last increased the levels in 1980. If we adjusted them for per capita income, they would actually go to $300,000. If we increased them for inflation, they would go to $200,000. We, to build a consensus, only increased them to $130,000; but we did increase retirement funds to $260,000, but we felt that there were people other than retirees who deserve the protection to keep up with per capita income and inflation.

So we increased everyone's coverage to 130, including small businesses and depositors, many of whom we found in testimony sell their house, deposit the entire proceeds in a financial institution and assume, sometimes tragically, that there is sufficient coverage.

There are additional reasons why people are opposing this legislation. There is a question of cost. The CBO scored the same bill last year as a savings of $750 million. This year they say it has a cost of $1 billion.

Chairman Powell of the FDIC responded to the CBO estimate and said this, because it conclusively rebuts any CBO estimate that this will cost the taxpayers and any argument that may be made on the floor today about the budgetary impact of the legislation, and he says, ``H.R. 522 provides the FDIC with the tools to achieve revenue neutrality in the management of the deposit insurance system. Because any analysis that determines 522 will result in an increase in net government spending must necessarily rely on assumptions regarding how the FDIC Board will exercise the discretion provided in the legislation.'' And here is the most pertinent part: ``I can assure Congress that the leadership of the FDIC has no intention of managing the deposit insurance system in a way that increases the cost to the government or increases the burden on insured institutions. The costs of the deposit insurance system will continue to be borne by the banking industry, but in a manner that establishes a strong risk-based premium system and avoids the procyclical risks inherent in current law.'' I do stress there are risks in the current law if we do not amend it.

He also in a letter to this body on March 31 says, ``No analysis of the `costs' of legislation is complete without a full consideration of the benefits provided by the bill,'' and he goes on to list many benefits to the economy, to savers and to strengthening our banking institution.

Another rabbit that has been turned loose by opponents of this bill is that the increase in coverage, the last increase was what precipitated the savings and loan crisis. That is simply not a fact. There were many causes. In fact, let me read from a report from this own body as to the reason for the savings and loan crisis. The causes of the thrift crisis can be traced to a number of factors: poorly timed deregulation, the dismal performance of some thrift management, inadequate oversight supervision and regulation.

Mr. Chairman, I was standing to claim the time in opposition.

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

I speak in opposition to this amendment. One of the statements by the proponent of this amendment has been that the former increase in coverage was the primary reason for the savings and loan crisis, and let me say in that regard that the cause of the savings and loan collapse, crisis in this country, has been well examined and well documented. The FDIC, in fact, issued a report called ``History of the Eighties, Lessons for the Future and Examination of the Banking Crisis of the 1980s.''

Here is their reasoning. The rise in the number of bank failures in the 1980s had no single cause or short list of causes. Rather, it resulted from a concurrence of various forces working together to produce a decade of banking crises.

First, broad national forces, economic, financial, legislative and regulatory established the preconditions for the increased number of bank failures. Second, a series of severe regional and sectional recessions hit banks in a number of banking markets and led to the majority of the failures. Third, some of the banks in these markets assumed excessive risk and were insufficiently restrained by supervisory authorities with the result that they failed in disproportionate numbers.

As a result of that, Mr. Chairman, we have made several changes in the law in this body in an attempt, and I think a successful attempt thus far, to make these institutions subject to more oversight and to stronger capital requirements.

One Member of our body's father served as the FBI director during the savings and loan crisis. He was asked in a congressional hearing for his comment on the savings and loan crisis, and he said that criminal activity, fraud and looting were the primary causes of the crisis. In fact, the committee staff has made a fairly exhaustive study of the various articles written concerning the collapse of the savings and loans, and these were the reasons given at the time.

My colleagues can see we have a basic laundry list of reasons, but there is actually evidence that the increase in coverage at the time gave savers some degree of security and actually prevented a panic at many institutions, and some of that body of evidence supports that it actually helped in a contagion of that crisis.

Mr. Chairman, the final argument is a moral-hazard argument. The offerer of this amendment has argued that increasing coverage will create a greater moral hazard in the system; but then, surprisingly, his amendment does not raise the level from $100,000 to $130,000. It does away with that, but then he raises retirement accounts to $260,000, and he raises municipal deposits; and by doing that, they have managed in the subcommittee to basically arouse everyone's opposition to the amendment because if we raise the coverage for retirements in municipal deposits, then one is, in fact, arguing against the reason for offering his own amendment.

I will close simply by saying that this moral-hazard argument has been looked at by the FDIC. They asked two respected economists to make a report, and they were Federal Reserve Governor Alan Blinder, and this is what he said. The point is made that if the FDIC is given the authority to charge risk-based premiums, and that is what H.R. 522 does, then ``most objections based on moral hazard should evaporate.'' He goes on to state, ``In a world of properly priced deposit insurance, it seems more appropriate to ask the opposite question: Why have any coverage limits at all?''

In fact, I think that ought to be the question we are debating: Why have any coverage limits at all? Even the CBO says that this bill will result in an increase of insured deposits in our institutions. Is that not something that we have all argued for? Do we not want an increase in the deposits in our financial institutions? Does that not strengthen our economy? Is that not good for America? They say that some institutions will fail and some people in that institution will lose 200 or $220,000 worth of retirement funds. Do we not want them to have federally insured coverage? Do we want them to lose this money? I do not think so.

Finally, do we believe in insurance? I think that is the essence of this whole argument. I mean, do we believe in insurance? Do we believe in insuring for losses? If we do, and I for one think that insurance is a good thing, I believe that insurance is a prudent thing, and I believe that in order for our Federal deposit insurance system to survive and have any relevance then that insurance protection, which I believe in, I believe in insuring against risk, I believe it is a prudent thing to do, then why would we want the Federal deposit insurance system to wither on the vine?

Why would we not want it to stay current with inflationary rates and per capita income? And the only way to do that is to vote ``yes'' on this bill. A vote against this bill basically would be like going back to 1980 and reducing the coverage from $100,000 to $30,000 if you went on per capita income, or $47,000 if you went on inflation.

How many in our body would do that? How many in our body would vote today to take those levels back to the 1980 level? I do not think any of us would. A few of us would because, as the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) says, I do not believe in Federal deposit insurance. I do not believe in the Federal Government supplying insurance. Well, it is the depositors, for one thing. The Federal Government does not. If he would look, he would see it is the banks through their premiums.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume and simply close by doing two things. One is responding to the gentleman from California when he uses the analogy that if someone wants to deposit or wants over $100,000 in their account they can simply take part of that money out of one account and place it in another account or they can drive down the street.

Now, Americans today are a highly mobile society, and we know that Americans sell their homes and we know that in almost every case, when they do that, they deposit that money in their bank. They do not take that check and split it. They do not ask for two checks. We know that the average cost of a house is well in excess of $100,000 and we know that they deposit that money in a bank. And if that bank fails, they lose all but $100,000. We do not think that is right.

The authors of this amendment also do a strange thing. They say we are increasing the coverage and that is a bad thing; but then they increase the coverage for retirement accounts to $260,000 and municipal accounts to $2 million. So they basically argue against their own amendment.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire into the amount of time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 758) to allow all businesses to make up to 24 transfers each month from interest-bearing transaction accounts to other transaction accounts, to require the payment of interest on reserves held for depository institutions at federal reserve banks, and for other purposes, as amended.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 758.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The legislation before us today, H.R. 758, the Business Checking Freedom Act, is a result of two things. In 1996, in a joint report called Streamlining Regulatory Requirements, the board of governors of the Federal Reserve, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency and the OTS determined that the 1933 statutory prohibition against paying of interest on business checking accounts no longer serves a public purpose.

Last year, President Bush joined many others in saying that small banks should be allowed to pay interest on their small business checking accounts. The reasons for this are basically two- or threefold.

One is, it is a free-market approach. More than that, though, there is an advantage now in the present prohibition against small banks. Large banks can offer complex sweep accounts or other sophisticated ways of offering implicit interest on checking accounts. Small banks simply do not have the resources to do this.

Secondly, large corporations today have several alternatives with what they can do with their funds to get interest. Small businesses, more often than not, have to rely on checking accounts and are denied equal treatment. So this will level the playing field between small banks and larger financial institutions. It will also level the playing field between small and large businesses.

I want to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), the cosponsors of this legislation. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for making this a priority.

In closing, I want to say that this legislation has passed the House twice in the 107th Congress. It has wide bipartisan support. It came out of the Committee on Financial Services on a large, one-sided vote. It has the endorsement of certain groups, of the Chamber of Commerce, NFIB, Independent Insurance Agents, American Community Banks, and I could go on and on.

Finally, I simply want to say there is another provision in this, and this offers the Federal Reserve the right to pay interest on sterile reserves. Recently, they testified before our committee that by being allowed to pay interest, it would both increase the amount of interest that small depositors could make or a depositor could make on their deposits in financial institutions, and it would also lower the cost of consumer credit.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelley), the sponsor of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), who, along with the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), is one of the two primary cosponsors of the legislation and both drafted legislation.

(Mr. TOOMEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce) to speak in favor of the legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to address the issue of what this bill does and what it does not do. The bill authorizes the Federal Reserve to pay interest on sterile reserves, and as has been testified before our committee, that should result in depositors in banks, thrifts, credit unions, receiving higher interest on their deposits. It should also result in lower interest rates for consumers.

The second thing that this legislation does, it allows banks to pay interest on accounts established by businesses in those banks. It does not authorize any new types of accounts. It does not in any way change who can own a bank and who cannot own a bank. It does not in any way allow these industrial loan companies to offer accounts which they are prohibited from offering now. And they are prohibited at the present time from offering demand deposit checking accounts; there is nothing in this legislation that allows them to offer those accounts.

The Bank Holding Company Act establishes the rules for who can own a bank and who cannot. We do not amend that legislation in any regard. The bill does not, with respect to the gentleman from Iowa, authorize Wal-Mart, WorldCom, Enron or any other company to own a bank or expand the authority that they might have under existing law. They already have authority under existing laws and under the Bank Holding Company Act, which specifically permits them to own certain limited-purpose banks, including credit card banks, industrial loan banks, grandfathered unitary thrifts, grandfathered nonbank banks, and trust banks. That is the present law.

There is nothing in this legislation that expands their right to own an institution. So WorldCom presently, Wal-Mart presently, they could own an industrial loan company or a unitary thrift, or some of these grandfathered institutions. We do not expand that authority at all.

The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has a fear, first of all, that we are mixing banking and commerce. Well, we are already mixing them. Present law already allows them to mix. We do not expand that in any way under this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we addressed the amendments of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach); he offered two amendments in committee. And I have great respect for the former chairman of the committee. He offered two amendments to strip the ILC language from the bill. They were overwhelmingly rejected, 55 nays, 8 yeses; the other amendment, 55 nays, 8 yeses. The gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) has legitimate concern with certain types of commerce and financial institutions and the mixing of them. However, this legislation does not do that. That will have to be addressed in the Bank Holding Act.

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman agree that an industrial loan company can already offer a NOW account?

Mr. Speaker, what Chairman Greenspan has said is, these institutions are not regulated by the Federal Reserve. There is nothing in this that takes any regulation or adds any regulation.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, this does not authorize them to offer any accounts which they presently cannot offer nor expand the rights of corporations to own these industrial companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.