Spencer Bachus

Mr. BACHUS

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

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

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

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

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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).

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

Mr. BACHUS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS

Mr. BACHUS. 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. BACHUS. 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.