[House Hearing, 110 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] CAN INTERNET GAMBLING BE EFFECTIVELY REGULATED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AND THE PAYMENTS SYSTEM? ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JUNE 8, 2007 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services Serial No. 110-37 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 37-553 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800 DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DEBORAH PRYCE, Ohio LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware NYDIA M. VELAZQUEZ, New York PETER T. KING, New York MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina EDWARD R. ROYCE, California GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma JULIA CARSON, Indiana RON PAUL, Texas BRAD SHERMAN, California PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS MOORE, Kansas DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas Carolina WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut JOE BACA, California GARY G. MILLER, California STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West BRAD MILLER, North Carolina Virginia DAVID SCOTT, Georgia TOM FEENEY, Florida AL GREEN, Texas JEB HENSARLING, Texas EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin, J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota TOM PRICE, Georgia RON KLEIN, Florida GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky TIM MAHONEY, Florida PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina CHARLES WILSON, Ohio JOHN CAMPBELL, California ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado ADAM PUTNAM, Florida CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota JOE DONNELLY, Indiana PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois ROBERT WEXLER, Florida KENNY MARCHANT, Texas JIM MARSHALL, Georgia THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan DAN BOREN, Oklahoma Jeanne M. Roslanowick, Staff Director and Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on: June 8, 2007................................................. 1 Appendix: June 8, 2007................................................. 41 WITNESSES Friday, June 8, 2007 Balko, Radley, Senior Editor, Reason Magazine.................... 12 Colopy, Michael, Senior Vice President, Communications, Aristotle, Inc................................................. 22 Hogan, Reverend Gregory J., Sr................................... 20 Kitchen, Gerald, Chief Executive, SecureTrading Group Limited.... 14 Prideaux, Jon, Chief Executive, Asterion Payments................ 16 Schmidt, Jeff, Chief Executive Officer, Authis................... 18 APPENDIX Prepared statements: Carson, Hon. Julia........................................... 42 Cleaver, Hon. Emanuel........................................ 44 Balko, Radley................................................ 45 Colopy, Michael.............................................. 49 Hogan, Reverend Gregory J., Sr............................... 53 Kitchen, Gerald.............................................. 59 Prideaux, Jon................................................ 71 Schmidt, Jeff................................................ 81 Additional Material Submitted for the Record Statement of the Antigua Online Gaming Association............... 84 Paper submitted by the Gaming Law Review......................... 89 Statement of Mark Holland, Partner, Baker Tilly.................. 105 Statement of Craig Pouncey, Partner, Herbert Smith LLP (Brussels) 108 Statement of the Remote Gambling Association..................... 113 Statement of Keith Whyte, Executive Director, National Council on Problem Gambling............................................... 119 Statement of Mary Williams, Chief Secretary, Isle of Man Government..................................................... 122 Statement of Andre Wilsenach, Chief Executive Officer, Alderney Gambling Control Commission, Channel Islands................... 132 Letter to Chairman Barney Frank from Frank Catania, Catania & Associates, LLC................................................ 147 Letter to Chairman Barney Frank and Ranking Member Spencer Bachus from Chad Hills, Analyst for Gambling Research & Policy, Focus on the Family.................................................. 149 Letter to Chairman Barney Frank from Andrew Poole, Head of Online Services, GamCare.............................................. 151 Letter from the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church............................................... 165 Letter from the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion.... 167 Letter from the National Association of Attorneys General........ 169 Joint letter from the National Basketball Association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, and the National Football League 174 CAN INTERNET GAMBLING BE EFFECTIVELY REGULATED TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AND THE PAYMENTS SYSTEM? ---------- Friday, June 8, 2007 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Financial Services, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Barney Frank [chairman of the committee] presiding. Present: Representatives Frank, Carson, Cleaver, Wexler; Bachus, Paul, and LaTourette. The Chairman. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. First, let me apologize to the witnesses for the fact that only a couple of us are here. When I originally scheduled this hearing, we were under the impression that there would be votes this morning. On the other hand, your testimony will not be interrupted by our having to go off for an hour while you all sit here, so there are pluses and minuses to that. Staff members of various members are here, and they are often a very good way to get information to us. This hearing is on the subject of the regulation of Internet gambling. Gambling in general is not the jurisdiction of this committee, and in fact, I had a conversation on Monday, I believe of this week, or Tuesday, rather, with John Conyers, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has primary jurisdiction over gambling. In the previous Congress, we did enact legislation to restrict the payment of Internet debts where credit cards were involved, and that's wholly within our jurisdiction. I voted against that bill, and I think it's important to be clear about what I think is really at issue here. The bill was justified in part by people who said that we must prevent money laundering for the purposes of either terrorism or drugs, and that we must prevent young people from doing things that they shouldn't do. But my own conviction, having talked to a lot of members, and listening to the debate, is that the primary motivation came from people who think gambling is wrong. Now, I have no quarrel with people who think that gambling is wrong. My quarrel is with people who, thinking that gambling is wrong, want to prevent other people from doing it. This whole debate has driven me back to a book that I only vaguely remembered, and I have now become impassioned with: John Stuart Mill's, ``On Liberty.'' I recommend it to people for the great philosophic text in our tradition. The book makes the essential point that it is not the role of the government to send people with guns, under the threat of imprisonment, to make you better. We can give people information. We can, through various institutions in the society, give people instruction. But in the end, adults ought to be able to decide for themselves how they will spend the money that they earn themselves, as long as it does not have an effect on others. Now, it is possible to argue that everything we do affects everybody else. People have said, ``Well, you say it doesn't affect others, but if you gamble too much, then you're affecting others.'' Well, if you do anything too much, it affects others. The problem with that is it's a classic case of an argument that proves too much. If you take that argument that, in fact, people have a right to your services, that people have a right for you to be healthy, it goes to extremes. People start telling each other what to eat, when to exercise; all of those things affect you. Clearly, there is in the minds of most of us a distinction between those things we do that primarily affect ourselves and those who choose voluntarily to associate with us, and those things that we do that inevitably impact on others. That is a line that I think government would be well advised to respect, and this bill undoes that. It is one of the rare cases where some of my conservative friends and some of my liberal friends come together. I have conservative friends who tell me gambling is wrong, and apparently I hear from some that there are biblical injunctions against it, although apparently there is an exception for bingo, which I have not yet been able to--I don't have a good enough textual expertise to find it, but I gather it is there. On the part of my liberal friends, to be honest, I think many of them think it's tacky. I think that they just don't think it's a nice thing to do, and therefore feel free to ban other people from doing it. Some argue, well, we must protect the poor from spending their money unwisely. I reject that. If you want to help poor people, there are other ways to do it. I suppose if you don't have enough money, there are a lot of things that I might advise you not to do: drink beer; go to baseball games; buy certain things; or spend too much on articles of clothing. Yes, there are a lot of pieces of advice we should give people. But I would not legally ban lower-income people from spending too much on their athletic shoes and their jeans, and I don't think we should do that here. Now, I know the argument is, well, but there are abuses here. I believe we can deal with the abuses. Let me deal with one, and that is young people. There is a great danger in this society that we will substantially circumscribe the freedom that adults ought to have because we are afraid that some young people might abuse it. It is incumbent upon us to try to differentiate in our laws between what adults can do and young people can do, and as far as Internet is concerned, I will say, from a lot of my conservative colleagues, I hear the mantra, ``Never regulate the Internet.'' And I guess what they really mean is, ``Never regulate the Internet unless we find something offensive, and then we'll regulate it,'' because this is the most substantive interference with the freedom of the Internet that has ever been enacted into law. People are entitled to be for this. They are not entitled to be for this and then say, ``Oh, but we respect the integrity of the Internet to be free.'' And let me just close by saying this: We do allow a number of things to go on through the Internet that should be age- restricted. You can buy wine over the Internet. You can buy cigarettes over the Internet. You can look at--in fact, the courts have said to us, to the Congress, ``You have gone too far in terms of First Amendment rights in banning certain kinds of sexual-oriented material.'' Instead, they have said, ``Differentiate according to age.'' So we have been told by the courts, by the Supreme Court of the United States, that it is not appropriate simply to ban something entirely because young people might abuse it. Instead, we are under the obligation constitutionally to do the best we can to differentiate. I think we know that there are ways that you can not totally prevent, but substantially diminish, age-inappropriate uses through the Internet. That ought to be done here. But I again want to repeat, and we're also told, ``Well, gambling is this possible front for terrorism.'' Well, everything is a possible--everything. But there is zero evidence that we have, in fact, had people playing poker so they can bomb buildings. I await that evidence. I hope it isn't there. If it is, I'll look at it. But I don't believe it is. I think, just to close, what we have is people who don't like gambling and think that they have a right, through the government, to prevent other people from doing it. I regard that as a very grave crossing of the line that we in government ought to respect. I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama. Mr. Bachus. I thank the chairman, and I appreciate the opportunity for us to discuss the legislation that we passed last year. One of the last acts that this Congress passed last year was the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. It passed 317 to 93, and enforcement of the Act capped a multi-year effort to protect American families from the well-documented ill effects of illegal online gambling. The new law attacks the problem of Internet gambling, illegal Internet gambling, through the payment systems, by prohibiting financial intermediaries from processing transactions involving unlawful gambling under applicable State and Federal laws, including the Federal Wire Act, and the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act. It does not prohibit anything which is not already illegal. It simply enforces the law that has existed in this country for years. As the record developed by this committee and the Judiciary Committee over the past several years has shown, gambling too often, illegal Internet gambling, results in addiction, bankruptcy, the destruction of families, and criminal activity. Internet gambling magnifies the destructiveness of gambling by bringing the casino into the home. According to an extensive study conducted by the University of Connecticut Health Center, 74 percent of those who have used the Internet to gamble have serious, chronic problems with addiction, and many of those have resorted to criminal activities to pay for their habit. One of the witnesses who is with us this morning, Pastor Greg Hogan, will share with this committee the story of how Internet gambling addiction placed his high-achiever son on a path that ultimately led to prison. The NBA, the NCAA, major league baseball, all of those testified before our committee as to the corrupting influence of illegal Internet gambling on athletes. Some claim that illegal Internet gambling is a victimless crime. The chairman has done that this morning. In fact, the real, the very real victims of illegal Internet gambling, the ones I'm concerned about, are the ones he spoke of, the underage gamblers who, by the tens of thousands, are becoming compulsive, addictive gamblers. They can't go in a casino. They can't go in debt legally. So they do it on the Internet, which is prohibited and illegal, but they do it anyway. They do it in their bedrooms. They do it in their dorm rooms. It is a mushrooming epidemic, leaving in its wake suicides, crime, and financial and family tragedies. The Judiciary Committee, and our committee, had several instances of college students who committed suicide as a result of Internet gambling and the debts they drove up. When it comes to illegal Internet gambling--and I stress, we're talking about illegal Internet gambling. So those who are testifying in favor of this bill are actually talking about taking away prohibitions on what is already illegal. If the activity was legal, then it would have been in our court to try to make it illegal, but this is not a debate over whether it's illegal or not. Every State in this union has a prohibition against this type of gambling. When it comes to this type of gambling, illegal Internet gambling, there are three reasons in particular why it is dangerous. Number one, the Harvard Medical School, the University of South Florida, and the American Psychiatric Association all conducted studies showing that the earlier one begins gambling, the more likely it is he or she will become an addicted, problem gambler. In fact, the Harvard study--and you are a graduate of Harvard, Mr. Chairman--showed that teenagers are 3 or 4 times more likely to become addicted than the older population. Second, pre-teens, teens, and college students have unlimited access to the Internet, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Because of the repeated exposure they have to illegal Internet sites, gambling sites, they fall victim by the thousands. These are illegal sites operated, most of them offshore, or all of them offshore, I would assume. So the people who are operating these sites are violating the laws of our country. I don't know any other way to say it, other than that they are criminals. If you violate the criminal laws of our country, does that make you a criminal? I think it does. In fact, a University of Connecticut study showed that as many as three in four pre-teens and teens who are exposed to Internet gambling become addicted. Third, compulsive, problem gambling, particularly among young people, has been shown to result in the following: Increased withdrawal from normal activities; and turning to criminal activities to recoup financial losses. The NCAA testified before the Judiciary Committee about the starting quarterback at Florida State University, who on an illegal Internet site ran up over $10,000 worth of debt, turned to burglary to try to solve this problem, was betting on games involving his own institution, and ended up in prison. He is only 1 of about 14 NCAA athletes who have been convicted in the past few years of illegal Internet gambling. A lot of people don't care about this. They make money on these games, they make money on these athletes, and so they aren't really concerned with whether the athletes end up in jail. But this same study, the Connecticut study, showed that many of these teens turn to criminal activities to recoup their financial losses, they take drugs to deal with the depression, and as the Harvard study showed, the South Florida study, the American Psychiatric study, and 48 other studies by universities and health groups showed, their irresponsible behavior leads also to family and other relational problems. A study by McGill University, and this is in the past 2 years--we didn't have the benefit of this study--found that nearly one-third of teen compulsive gamblers have attempted suicide. The University of Pennsylvania has recently found that the number of young people addicted to gambling, largely due to what they found was an increased exposure to illegal Internet gambling, is growing by an alarming 20 percent between 2004 and late 2005. They call this an epidemic which the country will deal with socially and economically for decades to come. Thus, Congress's failure to act for many years, because of the resistance of many of the people pushing for today's bill, we are seeing the devastating consequences of efforts in this Congress for 2 or 3 years to stall our efforts. The law we passed last year has already had a significant impact on the market for illegal gambling services, prompting the major players in the industry, many of which are publicly traded companies in the United Kingdom, to cease their U.S. operations immediately. As reports in the Washington Post and others showed, they spent over $100 million resisting our effort to pass this bill. And yet, just as the new law is in the process of being implemented, through regulations that the Treasury and the Federal Reserve are expected to issue shortly, a concerted effort is already underway to undo it. Chairman Frank has introduced legislation that we regulate rather than prevent gambling over the Internet. I don't question his motive, but the bill would establish the presumption in favor of legalized online casinos and sports betting--something that the NBA, major league baseball, the National Football League, and the NCAA worked for years to stop--and reward and legalize offshore Internet gambling sites that accept debts from Americans in violation of the U.S. law. The licensing regime contemplated by the legislation is premised upon the ability of Internet gambling sites to detect and block attempts to gamble online by minors, compulsive gamblers, and individuals located in jurisdictions that legally prohibit gambling. Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that experts in the field of online protection and identity verification have openly questioned the effectiveness of technology currently available that attempts to verify age and identity in online settings, and advise the Judiciary Committee that only the prohibition we passed would work. In summary, Mr. Chairman, there is no compelling reason to change the course that Congress wisely charted last year when it passed strong legislation to combat the scourge of Internet gambling. Rather than spending our time trying to undermine the new law, we should be devoting our energies to rigorous implementation. America's youth, their families, and communities should expect no less. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me say this-- The Chairman. We're over 10 minutes. The gentleman from Florida. Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I just want to make a couple of quick points. First, I very much want to associate myself with Chairman Frank's remarks and simply want to point out what I think are certain misunderstandings in terms of the current law. If you were to listen only to those last year who advocated in support of the Unlawful Internet Enforcement Gambling Act and listen to the ranking member this morning, you might have the impression that there is no legal gambling on the Internet today in the United States. That's not true. The law, the way it was crafted last year, in the current state of the law, if you want to bet on horse racing on the Internet today, you can do it with perfect legality. So if your thing is betting on horses, you can bet on the Internet, and we sanction it. If you want to participate in lotteries, in many of the States across the Nation, you can bet on lotteries all you want, on the Internet. Off-track betting is now on the Internet. So the uneven state of the law simply says that if you're a horse racing fan, you can bet on the Internet, but if you're a poker player, you can't bet on the Internet. If you play Mah Jongg, and I represent a district that is probably the Mah Jongg capital of the world, if you play Mah Jongg, you can't bet on the Internet. So this statement of gambling versus non-gambling is not, I don't think, reflective of the reality of the law the way we are today. And if I can make one point as to personal responsibility, which I think gets to the heart of some of the objections, I have three kids. You could turn on HBO at 1:30 in the morning, and probably very simply watch movies I wouldn't want my 14- year-old child to watch. Does that mean we should shut down HBO? Of course not. What it means is, I or my wife ought to be wondering why my 14-year-old is up at 1:30 in the morning, and if he is, checking to see what he's watching on television to see if we permit it. But it's not HBO's fault if he's watching something at 1:30 in the morning, and I'm not bothering to check on my 14-year- old. Likewise, to bet on gambling on almost all sites, and I understand there are some exceptions, you need a credit card. Well, how does a kid get a credit card? He or she gets a credit card usually because mom or dad or the caregiver or the guardian permits them to have a credit card. And if they're really industrious and they're going about getting these phone cards from Eastern Europe or whatever it is, again, parental responsibility. So I find it somewhat ironic that those that often are so quick to argue parental responsibility, individual responsibility, when it comes to online gambling, all of a sudden parents have no responsibility at all, apparently, to monitor the conduct of their teenage children. The real issue is, adults that want to gamble on games of skill in particular, like poker and Mah Jongg, why not? Why should we make it into an illegal behavior? And with respect to adults gambling, they do it today legally with the Congress's blessing, with State legislatures' blessing, all across America, but they happen to be the preferred choice of gambling apparently, horse racing and lotteries, but if you want to bet on poker and Mah Jongg, and other games, dog racing, apparently that's somehow immoral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. The gentleman from Texas. Dr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this bill, since I am an original co- sponsor. I'm not sure that I can improve on John Stuart Mill, or your statement, because I endorse essentially what you said, but I do want to make a few comments about this. It has already been mentioned, but I strongly believe there are two major reasons why this is a good bill. One, freedom of choice is important in a free society. Responsibility for improving one's behavior should be on the individual, the family, and the church and local community, not on the Federal Government. It hasn't worked before, and it probably won't ever work in the future. Also, I strongly believe in supporting this type of legislation because I want to do my utmost to protect the Internet, in that this is a source of the spread of information. Even for good reasons, regulating the Internet can backfire on us and be used for other reasons. I was particularly interested in the chairman's comments about the economic right to spend one's own money, and I strongly endorse that principle, but I would like to emphasize that I'd like to see the day when the individual has an economic right to spend all their money and not just the money left over after the government took their share. So I would make a distinction there that I would like to see that we, as individuals, have the right to spend all our money. But I would like to identify with the ranking member's statement, as well, because he has made some very good points, and I agree with his concerns about the danger of gambling. Obviously, the issue of gambling doesn't interest me that much, because I don't like it, and I taught my kids not to do it, but it's back to the problem of who is really responsible. One thing, if we look at our history, prohibitions never worked. It was a total failure for alcohol, and we're currently failing with drugs, so if you come in and have another prohibition, it won't work. It will just drive it into the underground, and even in the electronic age, there are ways of doing that. One thing that is interesting in this new age of prohibition is that in the original prohibition era, when we thought we had to prohibit the use of alcohol to improve one's behavior, we did it, and because of great concern for the Constitution, we amended the Constitution. Then we repealed it when we found out it didn't work. Today, there's no concern. We just write laws of prohibition, whether it's gambling or drugs or whatever. And I think the way we do these things is every bit as important as the issue itself. But I'm a strong supporter of this legislation, and over the years, I had opposed the efforts of H.R. 4411, but I strongly support H.R. 2046 to restore the rights of Americans to decide for themselves whether or not to gamble online. I yield back. The Chairman. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll attempt to be brief. I want to welcome all our witnesses here today, in particular Reverend Hogan, whose church I understand is in Congresswoman Sutton's district, but you live in Hudson, Ohio, so I guess I get to claim you, and welcome you. And I think that, as I listen to the other opening remarks, I have to tell you, maybe after this hearing, the gentleman from Florida can tell me how you bet on Mah Jongg. I'm not familiar with that. And the other observation about parental responsibility-- The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield, I think the interesting question is, from my experience, how do you teach Mah Jongg players to use the Internet? [Laughter] Mr. LaTourette. It has been probably 25 years since I played Mah Jongg, so I don't know. But relative to the credit card issue, I understand the whole thing about HBO and bad movies, but I have two children, one 23 and one 19. I have more than two children, but those are the ones who are of age, and both of them have three credit cards, and neither one of them have a job. I was horrified to find that out, and it certainly wasn't done with my permission or consent, A former member of this committee, who is now elevated, I guess we call it, elevated to the United States Senate, Senator Sanders, I was always willing to join with him on this notion of these unsolicited credit card solicitations that go to people without jobs who are not of age. And so I think it's pretty easy for a person without a parent's knowledge, who is in college, to have a credit card and engage in this activity. I respect the chairman's principled opposition to the bill that we passed last year. I guess I'm saddened that before the regulations are written, we are attempting to adjust that. But I do hope that today's hearing does address some of the serious concerns, that even if the chairman's idea is a good idea, that the technology exists to actually do what the chairman envisions. And the only case that I'm aware of, that I've had the chance to review, was ACLU v. Gonzales, and I think in that case, the judge said that the stuff doesn't exist, and if it does exist, it doesn't work. So I respect the chairman's observations about children and keeping them from gambling and age restrictions, but if we don't have the software or hardware or whatever ware we need to accomplish what he's attempting to accomplish, I have to remain opposed to this legislation. And I yield back. The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. I'm going to recognize myself for additional time. There are a couple of points that I want to make. First of all, with regard to credit cards, frankly, I'm somewhat surprised to hear my Republican colleagues complain about the excessively free use of credit cards. I didn't vote for the bill, the bankruptcy bill that gave the credit card companies all those advantages. Some of the people on the Democratic side of the aisle, our colleague from North Carolina, Mr. Watt, had tried to put some restrictions on credit card company solicitations to young people. So I do think it is the case that many of my Republican colleagues, in particular, have in every other aspect supported the ability of the credit card companies to solicit, to have special protections in bankruptcy, and now to complain that some of the people who get the credit cards that you have made so freely available and so iron-clad in terms of their collectability, that some people are misusing them, seems to me impinge on the freedom of others. And I am struck that what I heard from the ranking member and others is that some people will abuse this. The argument that you ban something entirely because some people will abuse it seems to me the wrong principle for society. I'm also struck by the inconsistency--my conservative friends, in particular, usually say, ``Listen, if you've committed a crime, you're responsible.'' This notion that society made me do it is generally mocked by Republicans when we talk about criminal behavior. And now what we're told is, ``Oh, you must stop everybody in America from doing this because a minority of them will be led into criminal behavior and it won't be their fault.'' Well, that is an abdication of the principle of personal responsibility. And the other thing I would say is that in terms of age restriction, I assume we will soon have legislation to ban the sale of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages over the Internet. To my understanding, you can buy cigarettes and alcoholic beverages over the Internet. Those are age-restricted, and I think they're very important. Actually, I am struck that we--and I may have misunderstood here. I thought we were talking about young people, though as the gentleman from Florida said, if your pre-teen has a credit card, for God's sakes, take it away. Don't come and tell adults that they can't do something because you can't keep your 9- year-old's hands off of your credit card. But we're talking apparently about adults, about people in their 20's, and I think we should make whatever we can available. I would also say this: If you are in your 20's, and you have this predilection to do something wrong, it's very hard for a free society to stop you. At some point, there are other ways you can do it. But I am struck again that what we are told here is not that this is inherently something wrong. You know, most things that I want to ban are just wrong. You should never take someone else's money. You should never assault someone. You should never start a fire. You should never cheat someone. But the argument that you make something illegal because a minority are going to abuse it is a problem,. And the last thing I would say is this, in terms of the consistency issue. Many of my Republican friends have again talked about the importance of free trade and living up to our international free trade obligations, and we have been told that we can't do certain things because we did adhere to the World Trade Organization--I voted no, but we did--and we have to live up to those obligations. We have been found in violation of our World Trade Organization obligations under this bill, and people are basically saying, ``Well, who cares? The people who complain about us are little, so we can ignore them.'' But, you know, people are entitled to one side or other of the argument, but not to both. Mr. LaTourette. Does the gentleman have any more time left? The Chairman. Yes. You have 2 minutes left on your side. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you. I'll try and just use about 30 seconds of it. I hope the chairman was using the royal ``you'' because when we had the discussions on credit cards and everything else, I did in fact join with Sanders and Watt and so forth and so on. I happen to not think that this unbridled solicitation of minors and people who aren't financially responsible should have credit cards, one, I thought it was a bad idea then, and I continue to think it's a bad idea now. And so-- The Chairman. I acknowledge that, but I was talking about, I thought I was explicit, the great majority of the Republican party. The bankruptcy bill was passed by-- Mr. Bachus. Will the gentleman yield? The Chairman. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. Bachus. How much time do we have left on this? The Chairman. On your side, none, but go ahead. Mr. Bachus. Okay. [Laughter] Mr. Bachus. That concludes my remarks. No. Let me just again say that the chairman has used the words ``make illegal,'' ``ban,'' ``prohibit,'' and ``stop.'' What we did late last year did none of those things. Illegal Internet gambling was illegal, prohibited in all 50 States except in one or two rare cases, and in those cases, we didn't--the law didn't operate. So yes, we have the right to decide what we're going to make legal and illegal, and we did that in this country, and that's why the-- The Chairman. I would ask the gentleman, what's the purpose of the law? If it was already illegal, what did you need this law for? Mr. Bachus. I mean, we didn't decide that-- The Chairman. But why did you want this law, then, if it was already illegal? Mr. Bachus. The law is an enforcement mechanism because even though there was a prohibition, it was a criminal activity to engage in it, people did it in offshore sites, and we weren't able to shut them down. And I will agree with you, the WTO has come in and said it's a violation of the WTO and our international trade agreement for us to try to stop illegal Internet gambling in our own homes, which, boy, is-- The Chairman. No, let me-- Mr. Bachus.--the testimony of the WTO and-- The Chairman. No, what the WTO said is what the gentleman from Florida pointed out, that it's hypocritical and inconsistent to allow your own gambling if it takes place at a racetrack in America or a dog track in America and ban it when it takes place in a foreign country. What the WTO found us guilty of was blatant hypocrisy and violating the fundamental principle of the WTO, namely, that you cannot give yourself economic rights that you then deny to other countries. Mr. Bachus. I think we let other countries come in if they want to come in and gamble at our racetracks-- The Chairman. You might, but again, you misstated the WTO's principle. The WTO, if we had banned all gambling in America, then I don't think you would have had this WTO case. But what they hit on was that we allow gambling in America, you can gamble on a racetrack in America, or a dog track in America, or State lotteries, or a whole lot of other things, but you can't--you know, And I guess, look, I suppose the next thing we'll see is that young people are buying too many scratch tickets. I don't know how you stop them doing that. Mr. Bachus. Well, of course, your scheme--you know, this legislation today, still the WTO has indicated they're still going to challenge what you do because it restricts access to our U.S. market. The Chairman. Yes. And I would like to, if we had jurisdiction, I would restrict that, as well, but our committee doesn't have jurisdiction over that. Mr. Bachus. In fact, they have indicated that it's going to be easier to challenge, the WTO challenge, if this legislation passes. The Chairman. Oh, I don't believe that's the case. We've already been found in violation. How can it be easier? Mr. Bachus. Well, you have arbitrary opt outs-- The Chairman. But it's already-- Mr. Bachus.--and carve outs, which they prohibit. The Chairman. You mean for the sports teams, the leagues? Yes, we did give those arbiters of absolute moral superiority, the professional athletic leagues, in a concession to reality, the right to opt out. Well, let's get to the witnesses. The gentleman from Texas is going to introduce the first witness. Dr. Paul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, I am pleased to welcome Radley Balko, senior editor of Reason Magazine, one of my favorite publications, to the hearing. Mr. Balko is one of the most perceptive critics of government policies that prevent individuals from engaging in what the government considers immoral or unhealthy behavior. Mr. Balko's defense of civil liberties has appeared in a wide range of publications, including the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and foxnews.com. His writings on the militarization of law enforcement were cited by Justice Stephen Breyer's dissent in the Hudson v. Michigan case. I'm sure my colleagues will benefit from Mr. Balko's thought on how banning Internet gambling is inconsistent with constitutional government and a free society. Welcome. The Chairman. Mr. Balko, go ahead. I know you went to some considerable trouble to get here, and we appreciate that. STATEMENT OF RADLEY BALKO, SENIOR EDITOR, REASON MAGAZINE Mr. Balko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, my name is Radley Balko, and I am a senior editor with Reason Magazine. I am also a former policy analyst at the Cato Institute. I have spent a good deal of my time writing and researching civil liberties issues, including the problems associated with the prohibition of victimless crimes. I'd also like to commend Chairman Frank for his work defending individual freedom, and I thank the committee for inviting me today. The Unlawful Internet Gaming Act was passed under rather dubious circumstances. It passed the U.S. Senate on the last day of Congress, late at night, with no Floor debate, after being attached to an unrelated port security bill. My problem with how the bill passed, however, is beside the point. Let's get to the crux of this issue, Mr. Chairman. What Americans do in their own homes, with their own money, on their own time, is none of the Federal Government's business. Take online poker, by far the most popular form of online gambling. Poker has enjoyed a surge in popularity over the last several years. The game is about as mainstream and uniquely American as baseball. Poker evolved from similar card games in the early 1800's, then flourished in popularity on Mississippi's river boats, winning over such iconic American aficionados as Mark Twain. Today, most daily newspapers have a poker column, including the New York Times. The game saturates cable television. And until recently, even members of the Supreme Court had a monthly poker game. Online poker is merely a new evolution of the game, similar to the way Civil War poker games introduced the straight, and gave us variations like draw and stud poker. The Internet merely removes the geographic barrier preventing those who love the game from finding opponents of similar skill who are willing to wager similar amounts of money. No one is hurt when two or more consenting adults sit down for a game of poker, be it online or in person. Why any of this should be of concern to the Federal Government is rather perplexing. I respect the fact that many Americans and many Members of Congress may have moral objections to gambling, online or otherwise. To them, I'd say simply, well, don't gamble, then. But in a Nation where Las Vegas is one of our fastest- growing cities and most popular tourist destinations, where Indian casinos are commonplace, where horse racing is a national pastime, where nearly every State in the union derives public funds from State lotteries, singling out Internet gambling for prohibition seems arbitrary, and, frankly, hypocritical. Yes, it's possible that a parent could bet away their family's savings or their child's education fund in an online poker game. They could also fritter that money away on eBay or on booze or fancy cars or exotic travel. But these are personal decisions, and if a free society means anything, it means we should have the freedom to make bad choices in addition to good ones. The ban on Internet gambling punishes the millions of Americans who are wagering online responsibly due to anecdotal evidence of a few who may do so irresponsibly. It's an affront to personal responsibility and symptomatic of a government that treats its citizens like children. A government based on the principle of liberty doesn't police the personal lives of its citizens for bad habits at any level, much less the Federal level. Supporters of a ban on Internet gambling say that the industry is unregulated, that underage people are more likely to gamble online, and that it supports money laundering and similar criminal enterprises. These are all problems wrought not by the decision of a consenting adult to gamble, but by the Government's decision to prohibit it. Were Congress to give its blessing to legalized online gambling, I suggest you'd soon see brand names like Harrah's, MGM, and Trump immediately enter the market. Reputable offshore brands like FullTilt Poker and PartyPoker would almost certainly incorporate in the United States and subject themselves to U.S. market regulation and Government oversight, including age restrictions. Customers want to know that they're playing a fair game, that their bankrolls are secure, and that their privacy is protected. Companies that set up shop in the United States with the blessing and encouragement of the U.S. Government will almost certainly dominate the market. Winning could be taxed. Market forces and, if necessary, the Federal Government, could regulate and monitor gaming sites for fairness and transparency. Most importantly, if online gambling were decriminalized, the Federal Government could get out of the trivial business of breaking up online poker games and Federal law enforcement officials and prosecutors could expend taxpayer-funded resources on more appropriate endeavors, like pursuing Internet or interstate fraud, theft, and protecting the country from terrorism. In closing, the Unlawful Internet Gaming Act is a significant and disturbing and disturbing encroachment on individual liberty. I'd urge the committee to correct this overreach and let Americans do as they please within the privacy of their own homes. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Balko can be found on page 45 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. Next, we have Mr. Gerald Kitchen, the chief executive officer of the Secure Trading Group. He has worked in a number of relevant capacities involving the administration of credit cards. Mr. Kitchen. STATEMENT OF GERALD KITCHEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, SECURETRADING GROUP LIMITED Mr. Kitchen. Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I have over 20 years global experience in the card and payments industry. I have served in various positions during this time, including as a director of Visa and Master Card, respectively. Until my current role of chief executive of SecureTrading, I was the managing director of Barclay Card in the United Kingdom, one of the largest processors of card and payment transactions in the world. SecureTrading is a U.K. company which operates a financial payments business providing secure processing and settlement of Internet payments across all sectors of industry. Mr. Chairman, the card and payment industry is a multi- layered cooperative and interdependent system that has matured and continues to mature over many years. This system provides regulation and compliance policies for consumers, credit card companies, transaction processes, acquirers, and operators. An overriding consideration of all participants in this system is balancing convenience and risk. In my decades-long experience, it is only in a licensed and regulated world that we participants are able to enforce such policies to protect all participants. The aim of the U.K. law relating to gambling is protection against underage and problem gambling, protection against consumer and operator fraud, and finally, protection against money laundering and organized crime. These objectives have largely been achieved. Achieving these objectives, however, comes at a price. The price is investment in appropriate technology and processes to achieve these regulations. The successful outcome is consumer protection, and, we believe, freedom of choice. It is far easier to protect consumers when they use industry issued bank cards to register and play. While other forms of payment may be possible, we do not believe they provide the same degree of security assurance as that associated with the bank cards. This approach keeps cash out of the system, a further protection against money laundering, and also allows player transactions to be tracked in the case of a dispute, and simplifies regulation. I will, Mr. Chairman, in this testimony, attempt to address some of the more obvious concerns being raised here today. As part of the responsibility of the operator in protecting against underage gambling and identity theft, strict, and at times lengthy and inconvenient consumer identity validations are enforced at both the time of consumer registration and during ongoing play. These today include production of a driver's license, a utility bill, and even a passport. Know your customer or, as we refer to it, KYC, provides a critical form of protection to the consumer when playing and when registering. Under prohibition, with unregistered operators, it is not possible to validate or authenticate that this practice is being adhered to. Underage gambling is, without doubt, a concern. As a father, I, too, share this concern. A further guard against that is the rules of credit card companies today, who do not issue cards to minors. In the case that a card is issued to minors, they can be tracked, as the issuing bank flags these cards at the time of issue, and subsequent authorization of credits from such a card is declined when it is received from a gambling operator in a regulated world. The challenge of compulsive gambling is not something we underestimate, nor am I an expert in this field. We do, however, recognize this problem, and work relentlessly and responsibly with various support groups and authorities to protect and attempt to support the vulnerable consumers. By way of example, operators and processors like ourselves provide daily limit-setting parameters for consumers to limit their betting. Operators limit the amount of daily bets accepted. Consumers can only use one card at a time with an operator, which further limits credit exposure. Further, too, we do provide and support access to self-exclusion databases for consumers to register themselves. One thing is certain, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. In an unregulated world, the consumer is far more vulnerable and at risk than in a regulated world. A further consideration is the question of enforcing laws where certain jurisdictions opt out from Internet gambling. Our implementations in place today allow for the exclusion of customers based on their location, in the event that a jurisdiction chooses to opt out. The individual's location can be identified using various forms of IP geo-location technology. This involves matching the customer's IP address to a specific State, and in some cases, a city or town. This evolving technology is provided by a number of third parties. These systems, under independent audit by companies such as PWC, are known to provide accuracy up to levels of 99.9 percent at a State level. This accuracy can be further enhanced by considering IP location together with both the registration information provided by the customer and the address of the payment card. Finally, our collaboration with Baker Tilly, the global accountancy firm which provides back office processing services for us, is an important part of the service. We insist that all gambling operators, and in fact all other potentially high-risk sectors, like travel, are required to open an escrow account or a rolling reserve with the back account being under the independent control of Baker Tilly. This deposit provides immediate access to funds in the event of a valid consumer dispute. Further, too, this rolling reserve provides protection against the risk of money laundering. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I trust that our experience gives you helpful insight as to how a regulated environment can work, and why we believe prohibition does not. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Kitchen can be found on page 59 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. By the way, I should have said that without objection, any written material that any of the witnesses wish to submit will be made a part of the record. Next, we have Mr. Jon Prideaux, who is an independent payments consultant. Mr. Prideaux. STATEMENT OF JON PRIDEAUX, CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ASTERION PAYMENTS Mr. Prideaux. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the honor and the privilege of giving my testimony to you today. As you said, my name is Jon Prideaux, I am an independent payments consultant, and I have nearly 2 decades of experience in the payments industry in Europe. Most of this was with Visa, though I should emphasize to the committee that I'm not speaking on behalf of Visa today. I've worked together with banks and as a consultant with payment systems providers and also with marketing companies. I must tell you that I have never consulted for any Internet gambling company and I have no plans to do so. Gambling in Europe, and in the U.K. in particular, is widely available, both on the main street and also online. Internet gambling, as has been mentioned, is offered by multi- billion dollar companies listed on public exchanges that are well-regulated and their shares are widely held and traded. To place a bet and to withdraw one's winnings for an Internet gaming transaction is a multi-stage process. In each of these stages, there is independent validation and checking. By definition, Mr. Chairman, in a regulated world, Internet gamblers cannot be anonymous. In this electronic medium, they must go through multiple ``know your customer'' stages in order to establish an account, and will necessarily leave an audit trail of their actions when they play. So what are the control processes that are in place in Europe? There is an important role for the State. In the U.K., the National Gambling Commission has the job of ensuring that the operator plays fair and also that the vulnerable are protected. And in addition, the Financial Services Authority, or FSA, the agency in the U.K. which performs an oversight role similar to that of the Federal Reserve, is charged with protecting the integrity of the payment system, is charged with ensuring protection of consumers, and also with minimizing financial crime. My own particular expertise, Mr. Chairman, is in the regulation and compliance programs operated by payment schemes. Visa, and to the best of my knowledge, Master Card and the other card companies, operate such regulatory and compliance programs and regimes directed at various different stages of the payment process. The first process is directed at the accurate flagging and identification of Internet gaming transactions. Controls also apply at the moment at which transactions are authorized. When they're cleared through the system, monitoring can be done for unusual patterns, as can also be done when credits or payouts are made. And in addition, as an important safeguard, there is a possibility to monitor the level of disputes or chargebacks. So these are the controls, this multi-leg process. What results do they give, Mr. Chairman? Well, in my experience in Europe, regulated Internet gambling transactions are less likely to give rise to a dispute than e-commerce in general. Certainly, regulated Internet gambling is significantly less dispute prone than other digital sales, such as music downloading or Internet service provider subscriptions. During my many years as the chairman of Visa Europe's compliance committee, I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that I did become aware from time to time of many different complaints that consumers had about various aspects of the Visa system. But during this same period, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that I did not receive a complaint, nor was I aware of any complaint relating to Visa of problem gambling, nor was I aware of complaints relating to operators cheating their customers on regulated sites, and neither did our anti-money laundering procedures cause us to make any suspicious transaction reports in the regulated sector. I conclude, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that Internet gambling can and should be regulated effectively. The arrival of the Internet, Mr. Chairman, has changed many industries. The gambling industry is no different. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Internet gambling is a fact. We must deal with it. This change of access to gambling has certainly brought with it new challenges, but, Mr. Chairman, it also brings with it new tools for management and for control, and a modernized regulatory regime will surely lead to better outcomes for all concerned. It is a matter of incentives, I would say. A prohibition regime provides incentives for operators to go underground. In a regulated regime, the incentive is to act responsibly. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that's what we all want. Thank you for your time. [The prepared statement of Mr. Prideaux can be found on page 71 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. And to introduce the next witness, I'll call on the ranking member. Mr. Bachus. Thank you. Jeff Schmidt is a recognized expert, author, and speaker on the topics of information security and infrastructure protection. He worked with MicroSoft Corporation in the Windows production security department. He was one of the CIOs of the Ohio State University, chief information officer. He was the founder and elected director of the InfoGuard National Members Alliance, which was the private sector component of the FBI's InfoGuard program. He's an entrepreneur who has started several successful ventures in the information security space. He actually worked with the FBI to start the InfoGuard program in 1998, and received his MBA from Fisher College of Business at Ohio State University. I welcome him. STATEMENT OF JEFF SCHMIDT, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AUTHIS Mr. Schmidt. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and committee members. I appreciate the biographical information. I can now scratch that off of my list here. I have been in the information security space for the last 15 years, and have focused specifically on identity and authentication-related issues for the last 3 years. I come to you today with the luxury of not having an opinion about Internet gambling. That's not what I'm here to talk about. I'm a security practitioner, and it's my job to give you a candid review of the state-of-the-art with respect to two specific technologies and techniques that we've been talking a lot about today, namely, identity and age verification, as well as geographic location or IP geo- location. My written submitted testimony contains several pages of excruciating detail on these particular technologies and techniques and again, a candid explanation of the state-of-the- art. I'm going to skip to the highlights. These technologies are not reliable in their current form today. Technologies that attempt to identify a person's age as well as identify their geographic location will fail on the order of 20 percent. These numbers come from the vendors of these technologies themselves. They come from independent parties that have researched these particular techniques. And they come from my own research and my company's own research. Again, 20 percent, I don't know if that's good, bad, or indifferent for the application that we're talking about today. It is my job to make sure that the committee is fully informed about this reality when considering the policy decisions that are in front of us. The policy decisions are again, fortunately for me, well above my pay grade. So the best way to demonstrate this is with a couple of very simple demonstrations. On this piece of paper I have written down my user name and my password, as do 70 percent of all Americans in this country. Mr. Hogan. Now, Mr. Hogan is Jeff Schmidt. Online, anywhere else, if that were an age verified credential, Mr. Hogan would now be my age. It really is that simple, and recent data has confirmed that. First of all, ACLU v. Gonzales, with respect to CAPA, did a lengthy discussion about age verification and identity verification technologies, and found them to be unreliable. Also, I would remind the committee that the largest and most quickly growing complaint to the FTC has consistently been around identity fraud and identity theft-related issues. It really is, that is the sad state of affairs right now. We will see failure rates. Another way to think about what the failure rates might be is to consider a very simple and very common age verification problem, the problem that we see when credentialing a youth at a bar. According to research done by the University of Wisconsin, the University of Arizona, and the FBI, use of forged, faked, or borrowed IDs for the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol exceeds 20 to 25 percent. Online age verification is a much harder problem. You're not in person, you're not inspecting a government-issued ID. Therefore, it is safe for us to assume that failure rates will be higher in the online scenario. The second technology that we've discussed is IP geo- location. The way that the Internet is constructed, it is extremely difficult to determine the geographical location with any sort of precision or reliability. Again, a very simple demonstration. Mr. Chairman, Boston is one of my very, very favorite cities. I was there yesterday. I used this Verizon card to access the Internet. I used the same card again this morning to access the Internet from my hotel here in the District. And in both cases, I received different answers from all the major IP geo-location providers. One had me in Dallas, Texas; one had me in Reston, Virginia; and one had me in Minneapolis. In no case did they agree or in no case did they actually put me in the accurate locations. Now, I understand that the use of these wireless cards is somewhat of a curve ball. However, this is the emerging technology, and this technology is standard equipment in almost every new laptop that is being built today. My other personal research around geo-location technologies has demonstrated failure rates for non-curve ball types of applications in the 20 to 30 percent range, as well. So again, it's critical to understand that you will see very high failure rates and it is critical to factor that in when making these important policy decisions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt can be found on page 81 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. And to introduce our next witness, the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I did welcome this witness earlier, but Gregory Hogan, Sr., is the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Barberton, Ohio, which is in Representative Betty Sutton's district. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Education from Tennessee Temple University. He is married with 4 children, and he is here to talk about the experience of his family and one of his children. And so welcome, Reverend Hogan. We look forward to hearing from you. STATEMENT OF REVEREND GREGORY J. HOGAN, SR. Rev. Hogan. Thank you very much. Chairman Frank, Ranking Member Bachus, my own Congressman, Mr. LaTourette, and members of the House Financial Services Committee, thank you for inviting me here today. As a parent, we dread a call that often comes to us. That call came to me on December 9, 2005. On the other end of the line was my son. It was not his cell phone number that showed up on my wife's phone, but one we did not recognize. He immediately started crying, and he said, ``I've done something terribly wrong. I'm in jail for robbing a bank.'' Time stopped. My wife couldn't even drive across the street, and I do not remember today how we got home from the restaurant that evening. But my son was under arrest for doing something that was inconceivable for him. What could have put my son in a state of mind to do that act? He was president of the sophomore class at Lehigh University. He was second-tier cellist in their orchestra. The high school psychologist who worked with him for 4 years called him a ``straight arrow.'' And no one who knew Gregory could believe that he had done such an act. How could this young man who appeared twice at Carnegie Hall in New York City think that he could rob a bank? The answer has to do with illegal Internet gambling. It all began when a non-student came into his room, walked over to his computer and said, ``Hey, look how much money I made on the Internet.'' He keystroked a few things into my son's computer, and up on the screen popped $120,000. He downloaded the program so my son could gamble through his preferred site. And then for 14 months, we began to watch our son's descent into the black hole of addiction to Internet gambling, especially poker. It began when a few overdraft charges showed up at our house, and our first conversation was on wasting money and avoiding spending money frivolously. It included a battle with depression, daily notices from the banks about overdrafts, and I had to live at a home that I did not like. I had to take out all the computers in our house. I had to lock them up. I had to make sure that my wallet was beside my bedside every night and all my financial papers were in the safe. Whenever Greg was around, I had to secure our family finances, and the TV was always turned to Texas Hold 'em. After interviews with a certified gambling therapist, with members of GA, and begging colleges to provide a counselor for him, we sent Greg back to Lehigh University for his sophomore year. With him he had taken, without our knowledge, $2,000 in savings bonds from our family safe, and he began to gamble again. Greg's student account at the bank in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, did not allow Internet payments, so he found an intermediary site to continue his gambling. I installed Gamblock, an anti-gambling program, on his personal computer, and so he began gambling at the Lehigh University library, up to 12 hours a day. I asked the university to block his access to the computer, and I was told that nothing could be done. By December of 2005, he had been shut out of all the sites because of bad bank transactions. His fraternity brothers were asking for their money back so they could buy Christmas gifts for their families. Greg's grades were slipping. And he was descending into the pit of addiction. He became two different people. The weekend before his arrest, he ran a volleyball tournament to raise money for the local Boys and Girls Club. He had to make one more bet. So, with the bravado of a bluffing gambler, dressed as a typical college sophomore, Greg walked into a bank, waited in line, passed a note to a teller, and walked out with the money in his backpack. He was arrested that evening, as he came into the college arts center on his way to orchestra practice. Greg has pleaded guilty to a first-degree felony, and is now serving 22 months to 10 years in Pennsylvania. After Greg's arrest, we sent him to a gambling rehab center, CORE, in Shreveport, Louisiana. He came home and said, ``Dad, you never told me gambling was evil.'' You can't imagine a Baptist pastor not saying gambling is evil, but I never had talked that way to my children. He realized how evil it was, emotionally and intellectually, and how it was damaging so many lives. This time next year, instead of watching my son receive his diploma from Lehigh University as president of his class, I'll be waiting proudly outside the gates of prison to see my son released. I will count myself fortunate, because many dads have stood by the graves of their sons who took more drastic steps to end their addiction to Internet gambling, such as suicide. Why tell my personal story for a piece of Federal legislation? Well, Greg's story is being repeated in so many young lives. According to the AMA, the APA, up to 5 percent of all college students will become compulsive gamblers when exposed to Internet gambling. Are we willing to see up to 16 million new gambling addicts in our Nation? Greg's story is one that recounts loss. I have met many people who have $30,000 to $50,000 in online gambling debts. Many people drop out of college. They drop out of life. They drop out of society, to pursue online gambling. The World Series of Poker that's going on this week may be glamorous, but the life of an addicted gambler on the Internet is not. It is just a series of broken hopes, promises, dreams, and lives. The question I ask this committee today is the same that the apostle Paul asked the Romans: ``Shall we continue to do good, or shall we continue to do evil that good may prevail?'' The answer to that, obviously, is no. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Reverend Hogan can be found on page 53 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Next, Mr. Michael Colopy from Aristotle International, who manages communications for Aristotle. And I know you are the first non lawyer, the Wall Street Journal noted, to be a general partner in a U.S. law firm. I don't know if you're the last, but you're the first. Go ahead. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL COLOPY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, COMMUNICATIONS, ARISTOTLE, INC. Mr. Colopy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add to your comment about John Stuart Mill. Your predecessor, and my family friend, Bob Drinan, said years ago, referring to how some of these debates develop, that policy is often formed by the voices that are heard rather than the realities that exist. He said, if Rene Descartes were alive today, he wouldn't say, ``Cogito ergo sum,'' he would say, ``Dico ergo sum''--``I speak, therefore I am.'' And so, reluctantly drawn by that dictum, I'm here today. The Chairman. My predecessor, Father Drinan, was much more adept at Latin than I, I should acknowledge. Mr. Colopy. Moving right along, there are so many things that, in his day and now, have to be elucidated by these hearings, and that is why Aristotle, the company that is the leading provider of verification technology for most elected officials of the United States, and is also now the industry leader in online age and ID verification, insisted that I respond to your request and be here today. So I'm going to make a few generic remarks, and I want to address some things that are said here today and that are put about by PR and interested parties in confusing an issue that must be seen clearly for policy to be framed in a coherent and an effective manner. Number one, let's look at what society wants to do, which presumably is to do the right thing--protect our most vulnerable members, mitigate risk of fraud and abuse and so on. And then the second question is, what is the market, what is the free enterprise system doing to address these issues? Those are two fundamental questions. First off, we have to point out the fact that while time flies, technology rockets forward, that technologies that were discussed in just the last Congress are now almost obsolete. I know, for example, that there was a report aired in November 2005, which I believe we have, right? Let's take a look at it. This is from ``60 Minutes,'' November 2005. [A videotape was played.] Mr. Colopy. Mr. Chairman, many of the points you made resonate with this report, but as I said, that was in November of 2005. ``60 Minutes'' re-aired it in November of 2006, because members here and elsewhere were saying they weren't aware that there were any technologies available that could age verify and identity verify. The court record that was referred to earlier is already being noted as an example of judicial opinion that is way behind the times. Right now, the company that I represent here today, Aristotle, and others, are doing tens of millions of high-risk verifications all the time. All of the major motion picture studios that show R-rated trailers use the verification system to keep kids out. Tobacco sales. In the State of Virginia, it's on the books that you have to have online age verification. We have not had a single sale get through the system. California has similar rules. So do-- The Chairman. Internet sales? Mr. Colopy. Online Internet sales and marketing. So I'd like to point out that, like 120 years ago, there was a great cartoon in ``Punch,'' where two wealthy socialites are rolling along in a carriage, and on all sides of them are vehicles driving by. And one fancy lady says to the other, ``They're showoffs. They say bold things about what they can do.'' That cartoon applies to much of what I hear being said now about online age and ID verification. I'm not making a bid for gaming in any form. I'm simply saying that we have to have an honest and truthful representation of what is possible, and that brings me to the second part of it. What's the market doing? Why does American Express use it? Why do 350 major financial institutions use it all the time? They're not doing it for their health. They're doing it to mitigate risk. They're doing it to make sure they're not sued for dealing with underage kids. On the question of credit cards, by the way, a very important point should be made. The U.S. operations of Visa, Master Card, American Express, and others have a prohibition on the use of credit cards for verification for a very specific reason--that credit cards were in fact sold and distributed to many people who are, therefore, underage. But there are also other reasons why they do not believe that a credit card by itself is a sufficient proxy for age. That is a very important point. It's not a sufficient proxy for age. It is a system with lots of weaknesses if just the credit card is used. However, when you use a mix of data, as Nigel Payne mentioned here, and as others have said, and you use state-of- the-art technology, including geo-location, which despite what Mr. Schmidt said here today, which was a technologically incorrect representation of the technology, you can identify up to a very high degree the location of an individual from where they are accessing your site. I'd like to make another point. Many of these arguments are put forward by interested parties who don't want to be inconvenienced by child protection. That should not be taken as a technological argument. Ours is the leading technology in this field, but there are many others. None of us have been surveyed by the opponents of this. The most definitive paper, by Adam Tier, includes on data, and he spurned a request to look at the state-of-the-art of online age and ID verification. I put that before you when you're listening to these dramatic tales about how unreliable these systems are. [The prepared statement of Mr. Colopy can be found on page 49 of the appendix.] The Chairman. Thank you. If we get to the questioning now, we may have a chance for a couple of rounds. I'm struck here, actually. We talked about age, but it does seem to me, as I listen to the sad stories of some of the younger people who are involved, that we're not talking about 10 or even 15-year-olds; we're talking about college students. So first of all, we ought to be clear that the age verification issue seems to me to be secondary, in that the sad tales we've heard tend to be young adults. And whether age verification is good or not good isn't going to resolve the problem of people who are 18 or beyond, and then you do get to the philosophical question, do you prohibit some adults from doing something because a small number of adults are going to abuse it? But with regard to age verification, I want to ask Mr. Schmidt one question. You said that 20 percent was the failure rate, but you then suggested that it would be much higher by comparison because you said the FBI statistics are that in person failure rates for alcohol and cigarettes are higher than 25 percent, and therefore it's probably higher online. How does that square with your citation of the 20 percent figure? Mr. Schmidt. Mr. Chairman, the 20 percent number was a general number for both cases. I think you can make a case very strongly that age and ID verification would fail to that level or greater-- The Chairman. Well, no, I guess-- Mr. Schmidt.--comparison. The Chairman.--no, if it's 25 percent for in person and it averages out to 20 percent, online must be below 20 percent, because how do you get--if you start with 25 percent and you wind up with 20, somebody has to be below 20. But I don't want to bog down too much here. I do think we're not talking age verification. But I want to ask you this, in the figures that you gave, you said that it is probably about 25 percent. That's based on alcohol and cigarettes. Can I ask, do members of the panel think we should ban the sale of alcohol and cigarettes online? Mr. Schmidt, what would you think the incidence is of underage people buying wine or cigarettes online? Mr. Schmidt. I'm not aware of any direct research about incidents-- The Chairman. But you would expect it to be well above 20 percent? Mr. Schmidt. Well, it's a little different, because there's a delivery of a physical product, that would increase the rates of success, that, you know, a bottle a wine or a pack of cigarettes that showed up. I would expect-- The Chairman. You don't think that children-- Mr. Schmidt.--lower. The Chairman. You don't think that 15-year-olds clever enough to get by this couldn't find a place to have the mail delivered? Mr. Schmidt. I would expect it to be lower, probably not dramatically lower, but-- The Chairman. Well, but I do want to make that point, that my point is this. You know, we have real reasons and reasons that are advanced. I think the real reason for this legislation is that people don't like gambling, and they don't think other people ought to gamble. I think there is a moral disapproval of gambling. And I don't gamble. For one thing, I have a short attention span, and you can't gamble if you're thinking about something else. You're going to lose your pants. And that's why I don't gamble. But I don't do a lot of things, and I certainly do not think the world should be restricted to things I like to do. But to the extent that it is age, here is the great inconsistency. I have had people who were strong advocates of this bill, but they're also strong advocates of selling wine over the Internet. And, you know, it seems to me, just a clear contradiction with regard to that, and how people can be for this and talk about underage, and continue to support the sale of tobacco and wine, just seems to me to show that's not the real reason. But let me ask philosophically, because this--and Reverend Hogan, and I sympathize and admire--the story you told is of an extremely dedicated parent, the lengths you went to to try and be supportive and protective of your son. But would you, if you could, restrict other forms of legal gambling? People can bet on horses. They can go to lotteries. And we have certainly had addicts. I have been in public life for 40 years. I've heard stories of addictions to gambling when we considered a lottery in the Massachusetts legislature in the 1970's. People said, ``Don't do that, there are addicted gamblers.'' Casinos, we talked about casino gambling in Massachusetts. Again, all in-person gambling. And so the problem of addiction, a sad problem, certainly pre-existed the Internet and continues today. Would you personally propose--you said, you know, that gambling is evil, or your son said--would you restrict other forms of gambling that are now legal in the United States? Rev. Hogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 2005, the Media Awareness Network said that 23 percent of male students in grades 10 and 11 reported visiting a gambling site, so there is a lot of underage gambling going on, and I have known families who do that. In my own personal life, as some people--personally, myself, I would recommend that no one gamble, because-- The Chairman. So would I, by the way. But the question is, there is a difference between what we individually would do and what we would recommend to others, and what we would use the law enforcement mechanism to enforce. Would you, given the prevalence of addiction in other parts of gambling, not just you, or the fact of it, would you legally ban other forms of gambling that are now legal in the United States, non-Internet gambling? Rev. Hogan. I was relieved last year when the Congress passed the Internet gambling bill, because it reinforced the Wire Act of 1961. I was relieved because I knew that my son was doing an illegal activity, and yet it seemed like I was powerless to stop him from doing it. We have a principle, I believe, in the government, that we allow the States to decide these questions, and now you're trying to make the Federal Government decide the question. The Chairman. I guess I would differ with you on this, and I understand, and I admire the lengths to which you went to work with your son. But the argument is not one of federalism, in substance, it is if gambling is wrong and that you get into addiction, and I guess again, it is--I am not very confident that if you were able to ban all Internet gambling, that addictive gambling would go away. Addictive gambling preceded that, and wouldn't go away, and if we ban Internet gambling, or increase the effectiveness of the ban on Internet gambling, because there is addiction, then I don't understand, again, we let cigarettes and tobacco be sold on the Internet. Why don't we shut down all forms of gambling? Because it is certainly the case that there is a wide range of addiction, gambling addiction, other than that. But my time has expired. The gentleman from Alabama. I'm sorry. I don't mean to-- Rev. Hogan. I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm an American Baptist pastor, and the American Baptist denomination has passed a resolution against gambling-- The Chairman. In all forms, legal gambling? Rev. Hogan.--warning people against gambling that really is not a profitable aspect of State government. I used to be employed by a public school district. Our public school district received very little money from the State lottery, but the lottery was perceived as the panacea for paying for public schools. And I just don't see where gambling is a necessary-- The Chairman. I appreciate the consistency, and I think that's an honest and consistent answer. But I don't see one for saying, let's restrict Internet gambling more, but allow it to go elsewhere. The gentleman from Alabama. Mr. Bachus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Balko, in your testimony, one of the brands that you singled out for praise was FullTilt Poker? Mr. Balko. Well, it is one of the more reputable poker-- Mr. Bachus. One of the more reputable firms. Have you looked at their Web site? Mr. Balko. Yes, I have. Mr. Bachus. Did you read--you know, they have the biographies of some of the players, and you've seen those, haven't you? Mr. Balko. I'm familiar with several of the biographies of the top poker players, yes. Mr. Bachus. Are you familiar with Ross Boatman's biography on their Web site? Mr. Balko. No, I'm not. Mr. Bachus. Let me tell you about him. Ross was 10 years old when he played poker for the first time. His brother Barney, who is a little older than Ross, was playing with some friends, and after much pleading, they let him sit in. His gambling career really didn't get started until a couple of years later, though, when he was 12 years old. Ross was too young and didn't have the money to play with those guys--I guess they're talking about his 14-year-old brother-- but they let him sit and watch, and he learned plenty. I guess the verification system didn't work. Mr. Balko. I believe that was well before the age of Internet gambling, Congressman. Mr. Bachus. Okay. Was it? I wonder why it's still on the site today. Mr. Balko. Well, I think--well, first of all, if I understand the biography correctly, he didn't actually wager, he was allowed to sit and watch. Mr. Bachus. Oh, just sit and watch. Okay. At 18--this is Howard--deferred college for a year, moved to New York to pursue his passion. He discovered poker. He was immediately hooked. For the next 2 years, he played poker relentlessly, clocking 70 to 80 hours a week. He went home broke 9 nights out of 10. Well, they're pretty honest about that. Alan attended UCLA where he planned on pursuing an engineering degree. While he enjoyed his study, he discovered playing poker. Soon, the success he experienced led him to leave school and pursue poker full-time. It's a move he hasn't regretted. It worked out well for him. Mr. Balko. Can I respond, Congressman? Mr. Bachus. What? Mr. Balko. Can I respond very quickly? Mr. Bachus. Yes. Mr. Balko. The second part of the question, I guess, all occurred after he was 18, and in this country, I think we recognize 18 as the age of consent to contract. Mr. Bachus. You know, at 18, in every State in the union, and I have a letter from attorneys general that I'll introduce at this time, where they wrote us last year, illegal Internet gambling that he was doing is prohibited in all 50 States. I'd like to introduce that for the record. The Chairman. Reserving the right to object, I guess. Mr. Bachus. Let me--Mr. Kitchen, you process Internet gambling payments, your company? Mr. Kitchen. We process transactions in all industry sectors, yes. Mr. Bachus. Okay. So you actually make a lot of money processing the payments of these illegal Internet gambling sites? Mr. Kitchen. We don't process for any illegal companies, and I'm not sure that the-- Mr. Bachus. They're legal companies, and you can--you're aware that they're engaging, they're allowing people in the United States, where it's illegal--are you aware that it's illegal to gamble over the Internet in the-- Mr. Kitchen. I am aware that companies that we process for do not take U.S. bets. Mr. Bachus. Okay. Are you aware that the companies that you process payments for, that a lot of those payments are people who are gambling here in our country? Mr. Kitchen. Will you repeat that, please, sir? Mr. Bachus. Are you aware that the companies, that some of the companies that you're processing their payments, you say they're legal. They're legal in the U.K. But are you aware that they are gambling sites that are--people in the United States are gambling on those sites? Mr. Kitchen. The companies that we process for do not take bets from U.S. consumers. Mr. Bachus. Okay. How about the ones that did before the law passed last year? Mr. Kitchen. Well, I joined the firm as previously managing director--joined before the ban, and at that point my company was doing none of that. Mr. Bachus. So you don't have any financial interest in any of these, in any Internet gambling sites? Mr. Kitchen. Absolutely not. We are a processing company, and we process transactions-- Mr. Bachus. And you don't do business with Internet gambling sites? Mr. Kitchen. We do business with Internet gambling sites which are legalized and regulated in the United Kingdom. Mr. Bachus. Okay. I'd also, Mr. Chairman, like to introduce a letter from the National Coalition Against Gambling Expansion, and they actually pointed out again, reminded me in their letter of June the 6th that it was Mr. Abramoff who lobbied for 10 years against the bill we passed last year on Internet gambling. I'd like to introduce it for the record. The Chairman. Without objection. Mr. Bachus. And finally, I'd like to introduce a letter which I received last week from the NFL, major league baseball, the NBA, the NHL, and the NCAA. And I'll say this to all members of the panel. Are you all aware that this Congress in 1992 bipartisanly and overwhelmingly, with a vote in the Senate of 88 to 5, passed the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act which prohibits Internet gambling of sporting events online? So it wasn't actually our bill last year. Mr. Kitchen, were you aware of that Act? Are you familiar with that Act? Mr. Kitchen. I've been asked to comment on the effectiveness of regulation of the Internet. I'm not aware of the-- Mr. Bachus. Okay. Mr. Kitchen. No, I'm not. Mr. Bachus. I'll just--let me introduce this. It also points out that--well, their very strong opposition to this bill today, which they believe will allow, if passed, that sports betting will likely proliferate and the integrity of American athletes would be compromised. Now, that's the NFL, major league baseball, the NBA, the National Hockey League, and the NCAA. The Chairman. Was that about steroids? Mr. Bachus. I'm sorry? The Chairman. Was that about steroids? Mr. Bachus. About what? The Chairman. Was that about steroids? Mr. Bachus. I couldn't hear you. The Chairman. Was that about steroids, this letter? Mr. Bachus. No, but I'll try to get you a letter on that, if you like. [Laughter] The Chairman. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that you talked in your questioning about it's not just underage, and I think that Mr. Hogan, Reverend Hogan's story does point to the fact that it's a problem that goes to these people who are maybe away from home for the first time. And I mean, I probably shouldn't tell this story in public, but even though I'm from Ohio, I went to the University of Michigan, and the reason that I went to the University of Michigan is, at the time, Michigan had a drinking age that was 18, and Ohio was still 21. It was not a good reason to pick an educational path, but I benefitted from my degree. But I think Reverend Hogan's story is not unusual, in someone being away from home for the first time, with a credit card, in a dorm room or apparently even after he loads software onto his computer at the library, and you can do it all night. And so I appreciate this hearing, and I appreciate your principled stance. I have enjoyed this hearing, because it's very rare, we often have people coming in with different opinions, but unless I'm wrong, we now have people have different facts, and have a severe disagreement. So Mr. Colopy, I understood you, and I think also Mr. Kitchen, to talk about effective rates of the, let's take the IP locator technology of 99 percent or some such thing, and Mr. Schmidt's testimony is a 20 percent failure rate. So Mr. Colopy, I'll put it as directly as I can, being from the midwest. I mean, you think that Mr. Schmidt is full of baloney with his observations? Mr. Colopy. I only insist on what the evidence shows. What Mr. Schmidt referred to is no evidence; what we do daily is evidence. You know, arguments and PR have no beta test. Data and companies that use them do. They perform or they're not used. They're effective or they're not paid for. No company takes on age verification, the extra burden of a check, unless it has a direct material impact on benefits to that company, meaning to their consumers. So what I'm talking about are facts, and as I mentioned earlier, in the research that's been bandied about about this topic, efforts to actually look at real-time online age and identity verification were not accepted. No one has never asked us for any information on what we do that opposes this. That is significant, because public relations is often damaged by data. What we're talking about is hard data, what's happening today, what the marketplace is doing. Whether you're liberal, moderate, or conservative, in our society, we have this combination of humane principles and a market economy. In both cases, the movement of the market under those humane principles is toward real-time, effective, robust, reliable age verification and identity verification. Mr. LaTourette. Let me ask, and then I'll go to you, Mr. Schmidt. I have trouble turning my computer on, so I don't know a lot of the different things, but there is something called spooling or spoofing, and when Mr. Schmidt was talking about using his phone card, in my small world, when we said spoofing, when I was growing up, it meant playing a joke on your parents, but apparently now it's a computer term. Are you indicating that Mr. Schmidt's experience with whatever he used, and I'll ask him about that again, where he got three different answers on where he was and none of them were Boston and Washington, is nothing more than a story that he's telling? Mr. Colopy. Again, I can't comment on data I haven't seen or a fact base that's put before me. I've never seen any of that information. In prior events like this, there's been no hard data presented. The hard data that I see all the time is what the Aristotle operation shows. Now, the other important point here is that in doing work, for example, for the New York State lottery--no offense, Mr. Chairman, but we actually assist them in complying with agreements they have with other States. I don't mean an offense to what you said, but to bring up that lottery question again, this is a contentious issue, and as the reverend said, people have different views about it. But, as an operational matter, which is the only thing I'm talking about, as an operational matter, it's fundamentally important that the State of New York know that the purchaser of that ticket is within the State of New York. It's also fundamentally important for banking operations, both internationally and nationally, to know where somebody is when they're attempting to execute a transaction. What was said earlier about how unreliable it is does not square with the facts of 2007, but it probably is relevant to the facts of 2001. I'm suggesting that technology in the service of social good in the private sector is here, it's available, it's effective, and we should be using it. Mr. LaTourette. I appreciate that, and just by way of a commercial, I use your software and have never been fined by the FSA, so I appreciate it very much. Mr.-- The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield, for a representative from Ohio, that's a significant-- [Laughter] Mr. LaTourette. Well, Mr. Schmidt, let me ask you the same question, because I listened to your testimony, and I listened to your story about the IP locator and your experience. And so is it a fair representation that you and Mr. Colopy don't agree on this issue, and I guess are you willing to stand up for yourself, because basically he says that you have--well, I'm not going to put words in his mouth. You heard him. So what do you have to say? Mr. Schmidt. I believe it was full of baloney. Mr. LaTourette. No, no, no, that was my question. He did not say you're full of baloney. I asked him if you were full of baloney and he would not respond in that kind. Mr. Schmidt. First of all, as an Ohioan who went to Michigan, I'm having a little trouble over here, as a Buckeye myself. Mr. LaTourette. I got it. Mr. Schmidt. I, in addition, rely on the facts and the data, and the leading provider of IP go-location data says that their data is 99 percent accurate to the country, 85 percent accurate to the city, and 80 percent--I'm sorry--85 percent accurate to the State, and 80 percent accurate to the city. That's the leading provider, in their own--so in our research, and we use, my company uses geo-location data as one of many factors to determine information. It cannot be solely relied on, because it is unreliable, but it is perfectly valid for, you know, one of many factors. We found reliability in the 70 to 80 percent range, in general. Again, that's from factual operational experience. Now, two comments. First of all, the experience that I had with the wireless card that I mentioned with respect to D.C. and Boston, that was with no attempts on my part to actively circumvent the system. That's a standard issue piece of technology from the carrier, not unlike the technology that's embedded in many laptops these days, with no active attempt by the user to circumvent it. IP geo-location is absolutely trivial for a user to actively circumvent. So in addition to its inherent unreliability, with no active attempt to subvert the system, it is absolutely trivial to subvert through a whole host of technical measures, none of which are terribly difficult. And moreover, anybody with an engineering and technical understanding of how the Internet works would not disagree with my statements here. It simply was not designed to allow geographic location. It was designed to survive failures, it was designed to allow, you know, an infinite number of paths between any two points, and there are a whole host of reasons why, technically and engineering-wise, it is just not reliable technology. Mr. LaTourette. Mr. Chairman, I know my light is on. Mr. Colopy stuck his hand up, and I think he wants to respond to that. The Chairman. Go ahead. Mr. Colopy. I think it's an important point to make that, just like an automobile does not run alone on its transmission or on its cylinders, it needs brakes, tailpipe, and the works, we're talking about a system that, to be effective as age an identity verification, has many component parts. These systems, by the way, have several levels of tolerance, which are set according to the risk confronted. What they call it is, process matched to risk. Therefore, it is a complex mix, algorithm if you will, of capabilities that are adjusted in the cases in which they are used. It is not appropriate to make any general statement about all of these cases and give a statistical number without looking at the context and the set of data you're talking about. Again, the data tells the story. The data tells the story in the marketplace every day, in the tens of millions, where a lot is at risk. That is what we do. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. The gentleman from Missouri has joined us. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I had another committee hearing. Thank you for this meeting on gambling. We had a very lively debate last year when we considered legislation to address unlawful Internet gambling, and I'm always in a struggle with these kinds of issues. I served as the Mayor of Kansas City for 8 years, and during that 8-year period, we enacted riverboat gaming, which I did not support as the Mayor. However, I wasn't elected to serve as the pope of Kansas City, so I signed it into law. I normally believe that Congress should not be involved in any way, shape, or form with regard to regulating morals as a policy or as a practice, so I always struggle when these kinds of issues surface. But where there is a longstanding public policy interest in regulating activities that do harm our society, such as illegal gambling, then there is an appropriate Federal legislative role. I'd like to thank all of you for coming. I apologize for not hearing your comments, but I do have your comments. And Mr. Prideaux--hopefully I pronounced that-- Mr. Prideaux. Prideaux, in fact. Mr. Cleaver. Prideaux--you mentioned that the U.K. is starting to regulate online gambling. I wonder how many people are gambling on the regulated sites versus the ones in countries such as Antigua, that have fewer regulations, and is there any data available that the U.K.'s experience with regulating has actually reduced the problem with regard to gambling behaviors? Mr. Prideaux. I wish I had precise data, but the weight of evidence essentially is that gamblers are attracted towards regulated sites, for a number of reasons. The first thing is, that gamblers are attracted towards regulated sites because they know that they're going to be treated fairly. I mean, if you're operating in an underground prohibition environment, where there are sites who are not subject to regulation, then gamblers have less confidence in the fairness of the games that they're being offered, and they have less confidence in the payment scheme they're operating. So, there is a huge commercial incentive for sites to operate within a regulated regime. I think it's also the case, Congressman, that there is evidence that within a regulated regime, better safeguards can be put in place to protect vulnerable people playing on sites. And so you do have this kind of self-reinforcing process, whereby consumers come to sites that are regulated, and that tends to capture, as it were, the overwhelming preponderance of the market. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. You know, talking about this conflict I have anytime something like this comes up, the Bible actually supports gambling, which is a bit troubling theologically, but I think, Reverend, you would agree that there are some rather bold examples of gambling in the Bible. But my struggle continues, anyway. Mr. Balko, you have an interesting blog, theagitator.com. You recently wrote, ``On Friday, I'll be testifying before the House Banking Committee in support of Representative Barney Frank's bill to repeal the Internet gambling ban. I'll be taking the it's-none-of-the government's-damn-business position, though I'll probably refrain from using the word damn.'' I've been your surrogate. [Laughter] Mr. Cleaver. If I read this blog correctly, you understand H.R. 2046 to be a bill that will legalize many forms of currently illegal gambling and expand the U.S. market for Internet gambling. Mr. Balko. Yes. Mr. Cleaver. Yes. Okay. Mr. Balko. Yes. Mr. Cleaver. And so the chairman has invited you here to testify, so I think that your understanding is instructive. By contrast, some persons advocating this bill have claimed that it is designed to be a more effective system for enforcing U.S. gambling laws. If this argument were true, and the net effect of us passing this bill would be less Internet gambling, would you still support this bill? Mr. Balko. I'm not sure that this bill would result in less Internet gambling. I think, had this bill passed before the Unlawful Internet Gambling Act passed, I think you may have been correct, but I think what this bill does is it gives Web site operators a path to legitimacy and a way to establish legitimacy with consumers, and it also allows consumers of Internet gambling sites to have a reputable site where they can wager, knowing that their money is secure, that they're playing on a fair site, that if something does happen, they have some recourse. You know, also, the law that was passed last year didn't really stop Internet gambling. It put a significant dent in it, but it still goes on, and it's still fairly easy to place a wager online. The difference now is that the companies that are facilitating the wagers are less reputable, and there are less avenues for recourse if a consumer is defrauded. So I think what it's actually done is, like a lot of prohibitions, it's forced a lot of this stuff underground, and it's removed some of the market regulation, in addition to a lot of the government regulations that were in place. Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. I'm just going to give myself a second round. First of all, I'm sorry the ranking member isn't here, because I want to take very strong exception to what I think was an unusual breach of appropriateness on his part by noting that this bill had been opposed, the one that was passed by Jack Abramoff. That kind of ``McCarthyite'' guilt by association has no place in this discussion. I did note that my colleague seemed a little abashed as he was reading it. But bad people support good things and good people support bad things, and this is a position I've long held, wholly unrelated to Mr. Abramoff, and I would not think it would behoove members of the Republican Party to start tallying up who more often found themselves on the side of Mr Abramoff. It's an irrelevancy. Mr. Balko. Mr. Balko. I'd actually like to respond to that, because Mr. Abramoff's name was invoked in the original bill to ban Internet gambling by the proponents of the bill several times, and in fact, if you look at the bill that Mr. Abramoff was pushing, it was actually a prohibition on Internet gambling with carveouts for the clients that Mr. Abramoff was representing, including State lotteries. That's exactly the bill that we have now. So Mr. Abramoff actually was pushing for the bill that we have-- The Chairman. Thank you for that correction, and obviously, it doesn't affect the merits one way or the other. I do want to get back, first of all, I want to say on geography, to me that's an irrelevancy. Mr. Colopy has inspired me to ``Latinize'' a little bit more, and I think one important set of Latin phrases here is the distinction between ``mala prohibita'' and ``mala per se''--something evil only because it is banned and something which is evil in and of itself. Gambling to me is clearly ``mala prohibita,'' and underage gambling, gambling by 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, I would say was ``per se.'' That's a bad thing. Gambling by someone who happens to live in one State rather than another is simply because of prohibition, so I would distinguish. I am much more concerned about our ability to do age distinctions. Geographic distinctions, I cannot understand why any rational human being would care whether you put the bet down in one State or another. And you say what about federalism? We're talking about national laws. And again, we have been told over and over again by many people that the Internet, after all, doesn't know interstate versus intrastate commerce. The Internet is transcendent of State boundaries, so I would put aside the geographic location. I think that is irrelevant. The age one is relevant, but again, I would say, and I just want to reiterate as we talk, I think even if we had a 100 percent foolproof age cut, that opposition to this--the sides wouldn't change. That is, I believe the motivation for trying to further restrict the ability of people to gamble on the Internet is based on a moral disapproval of gambling, a fear about addiction, but all of the examples we've heard about addiction have been from older people, who are of age. The last thing I just would want to agree with Mr. Prideaux about, and this--my basic motivation here is, I spend a lot of time here, as a Member of Congress, trying to protect people from other people who would treat them unfairly, certainly people who would physically abuse them and steal their property, people who would unduly pollute the atmosphere in which we all have to live, people who would be economically exploitative in ways in which you have to come together. I have no energy left to protect people from themselves. Adults have to do that without me. And I think once the government does that, once we accept the principle that we have the right to protect people from things to which they might become addicted, our lives would become very much poorer in terms of the richness of things we could do. I think it is a terrible mistake to say that government has an obligation to protect adults from making poor choices in matters that affect them. And addiction, there are addictions to gambling, there are addictions to sex, there are addictions to video games. We've heard about kids who spend much too much time on video games, or young adults. There are addictions to alcohol, to tobacco. We should give people the information with which they can be told that this is bad for them. We should--I'm prepared to provide funding through various medical programs to recognize inability to fight addiction. But banning something because adults will misuse it in a minority, when it is not otherwise harmful, is a grave error. The last thing I would say with regard to Mr. Prideaux, I would agree with him that intelligently regulating something may--in that it does take away from the illegal site, and the best example is, it has been the experience, I believe, in Massachusetts, and much elsewhere, 30 years ago, before you had State lotteries, what was called the numbers racket was very prevalent. People would bet on what number was going to come out. Maybe it was a parimutuel handle, etc. I know that has substantially diminished. The existence of legal lotteries has essentially, in a way that no law enforcement and no rules could ever have done, substantially diminished the numbers racket in America, because people do prefer, most rational people, a legal status. And, you know, people can be upset about the State treasurers, they can be upset about the State lottery, but I know of no State treasurer who has ever broken a kneecap, or refused to pay when someone hit it. With that, I have no further questions. Does anybody in the panel--the gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just a piece of housekeeping. The ranking member has asked that I ask unanimous consent to submit a letter dated today to you and he from Focus on the Family, and I would ask that it be included in the record. The Chairman. It's a letter to me from Focus on the Family? I will treasure that. I get so few of them. [Laughter] The Chairman. I thank you. I thank the gentleman. Mr. LaTourette. It is, in fact, addressed to you and to Mr. Bachus. The Chairman. Could I just ask the gentleman, is it signed, ``Yours truly,'' or ``With great affection?'' Mr. LaTourette. Let me just see. The Chairman. What is that? Mr. LaTourette. ``Sincerely.'' The Chairman. Oh. Well, all right. That's good. Mr. LaTourette. If we're doing a second round, does that mean I can have 5 minutes? The Chairman. Yes. But let me recognize the gentlewoman from Indiana first. Mr. LaTourette. Okay. The Chairman. And then I'll give the gentleman a second round. She came in afterwards. The gentlewoman from Indiana. Ms. Carson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I come from Indianapolis, Indiana, probably the State that has more gambling casinos than any other State in the United States. I have a question in terms of consistency. The race, the Kentucky Derby held in Louisville, Kentucky, you could bet on it from anywhere in Indiana, by computer. According to the question, what's the difference between Internet gambling and being able to gamble on the horses? Could one of you refined gentlemen answer that question for me, please? You're not going to answer? Mr. Kitchen. I'm not sure there is a difference. Ms. Carson. I'm not, either. That's why I'm confused. [Laughter] Mr. Kitchen. I think we all are. Rev. Hogan. Madam Congresswoman, to me, as the chairman said to me, last November in Ohio, we had an issue on the ballot which basically would allow slot machines in Ohio. The vast majority of Ohioans said no to that. And the vast majority of Ohioans also said yes to the election of Mr. Brown to the Senate, which gives your party-- helps them quite a bit to have a majority in the Senate. Ms. Carson. How do you know what party I'm with? Rev. Hogan. You're on that side of the room. [Laughter] Rev. Hogan. But coming down to this issue, I think the issue of this bill is that in Ohio, we said no, but West Virginia said yes, and I have friends who drive down to West Virginia. I don't think we should put roadblocks over the West Virginia border saying you can't go play slot machines in West Virginia. But the issue is, with the Internet gambling, the situation has been, we do not want to see bets put across State lines. I know that they made an exception for horse racing, and now we're not going to discuss the wisdom in that, but still, right now, we're actually expanding that, so why should we have more of it? And the issue is now it is illegal, it has been illegal since 1961 before Al Gore invented the Internet, and it's going to--and we want to continue to keep it at that standing there. So that's why I'm saying, I would love to see every individual locality continue being consistent, the Federal Government being consistent, and allowing the locals to decide what they want to do, and we've all said Internet gambling is illegal in all 50 States, or at least the majority of them. Thank you. Ms. Carson. Thank you. I know I have heard objections to this for family reasons, because they feel like they'll gamble all their money before they bring the paycheck home to their spouses, but they do that now. It doesn't require Internet gambling to make some irresponsible person not accommodate his or her responsibilities first for the family. But I'm still confused on how you can bet at a racetrack-- you go up, they put your numbers in by computer, give you a receipt, and in this situation, beginning with this legislation, you can do it over the Internet, either by credit card or whatever kind of card you use. And I guess the bottom line, and I don't want to belabor the point, is why are we debating this? People gamble because they want to gamble. As long as it's consensual adults gambling, whether they're being responsible or not responsible--wouldn't it be wonderful if we could legislate responsibility among human beings of age? We can't do it. So while I think I voted for restrictions the last time-- and I don't feel hypocritical, either--I just think more time has passed, and you understand better what it is that you're trying to do. We have changed a lot of laws, reversed a lot, and I don't know what the chairman is going to do with this one, but if he wants to repeal what we did, I'm going to vote to repeal it, because it just doesn't make any sense, to me. But I'm not the brightest star in the galaxy, either, so I have to have some help. I've enjoyed the testimony. Believe it or not, I've read it. And I thank you very much. The Chairman. I thank the gentlewoman for her support, and I would caution the witnesses, if they haven't already figured this out, that it is when the gentlewoman from Indiana is at her most self-deprecatory, that I would be very careful, if I were you. [Laughter] The Chairman. The gentleman from Ohio. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And Reverend, most of the folks who live in the northern part of the district where I am, in Lake County, go to Niagara Falls instead of West Virginia, but now they can't get passports, so there will probably be more of them going down to West Virginia. And I want to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman on Mr. Abramoff. A lot of the stuff that goes around reminds me of gang reporting, the way they used to in the 1920's and the 1930's, and I really think it's disgusting, and as I said on the Floor the other night, even though I didn't get a lot of converts to join me, I really think that we're engaged in a race to the bottom on some of these things. People who do bad things should be punished, and they have. But Mr. Prideaux, I want to focus on Page 8 of your testimony, and get to the compulsive gambler. I think we've talked about the technology, we've talked about the underage problem, but the compulsive person. And you talk about velocity controls, and maybe somebody else talked about velocity controls. I know, even though it pisses me off, sometimes I go to an ATM and it only lets me take out $200 of my own money, then charges me $2.50 for the privilege of giving me my own money back, but they won't give me $300, they'll give me $200. And so it seems to me that may be a way to deal with the compulsion problem, and I'm not aware of any constitutional right to be able to not only bet online, but bet a lot of money online. Can you describe for me what you mean about the velocity controls and how that's utilized in your experience relative to online gambling? Mr. Prideaux. Yes. Thank you, Congressman. In essence, though, I mean, if I could just interpret your question a little broadly, and talk about velocity controls in general--and clearly, some can be applied by the payment scheme, I think as you have said, particularly for credit cards, where gaming transactions are considered quasi-cash. The risk profile that issuers take is to not extend the whole of a credit line for quasi-cash style transactions, and certainly that's one mechanism as far as the payment scheme that can operate, that can provide some safeguards to the problem of compulsive gambling. At the same time, I mentioned in my testimony that there was a multi-layered approach from this. I think there are a number of other important aspects to talk about. The first one, of course, is that of the operator themselves acting in their self-interest, and the majority of reputable regulated sites will establish limits for new players to the extent that they can play, and indeed, they will also make available to players the ability for that individual to self-limit, a sort of a cooling off period. And of course, the regulators themselves, if they felt it was appropriate, could enforce some of these mechanisms. I think the point that I want to make is that we talked about how the Internet was transforming businesses, and clearly it transforms the Internet. And they also have access based controls, being substituted by these controls here, to address compulsive gambling. None of the features that I've described have really been available in the face-to-face gaming environment. This is a good example of a place where the problem of compulsive gambling which exists today can be better controlled in a regulated environment for Internet gambling as opposed to gambling in the face-to-face environment. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you. And just my last question relative to the bill that the chairman has put forward, I understood from your testimony that in the United Kingdom, the Gambling Commission regulates the gambling activities, while the Financial Services Authority has no particular responsibility for gambling. As I understand the chairman's bill, the Treasury Department takes responsibility for the financial transactions, which it obviously knows, but it doesn't know much about gambling, I would assume. Have you looked at the chairman's bill, and have you had the chance to compare his proposed regulatory scheme to the one that exists in the United Kingdom that you are familiar with? Mr. Prideaux. I must profess that I'm not an expert in the regulatory apparatus of the United States, but to the extent that I have looked at the bill, it does seem to me that the same twin regulatory structures of the financial system on the one hand and of the gambling perspective on the other do seem to be features of the chairman's bill. Mr. LaTourette. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. If the gentleman would yield--because there was a concern raised when the bill was passed about money laundering, terrorism, etc. That's why we did assign the FinCen operation there. I thank the members for participating on a Friday. Frankly, I like Friday hearings. The fewer members you have, the more you can get in. I thank the witnesses. It is a topic on which reasonable people can differ. I think, on the whole, we have done that today. Before we adjourn, I am going to ask for a blanket unanimous consent to insert various statements into the record. I have one from our colleague, Congresswoman Berkeley, from the United Methodist Church, and one from the National Coalition on Gaming, basically agreeing with the point Mr. Prideaux made about how to do this, and I know that on the Republican side, there are also a number of statements, o we'll get unanimous consent to put those statements into the record. And with that, the hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X June 8, 2007 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]