This is clearly a bill, as the previous speaker outlined, that improves efficiency and hopefully reduces costs to banks. One thing that was not addressed in this legislation, though, is a remaining area of patent unfairness to consumers.

   We all know that a check is essentially an article of faith. It is a contract between two people. From time to time, people write checks that they simply do not have the money to cover. They are penalized. They pay a fine by their bank, anywhere in the neighborhood of $15 to $25.

   But what continues to be the case in this country, in many banks, in the neighborhood of about 85 percent of the big banks and about 75 percent of smaller banks, is someone who receives the check, who is already out the amount of money that they were supposed to be given, is also charged a fee, a fine. This is patently unfair. It is counterintuitive; and, frankly, it is indefensible. I think we should address this in this House.

   Some of the arguments that are raised to defend the idea that the person who gets the check should be fined when someone bounces a check say that there is an added cost to banks when someone bounces a check.

   This is true. It is estimated that that cost is in the neighborhood of 48 to 65 cents, depending on what study we see. It is clear that someone should be penalized for that. Frankly, we can argue it is too high, but the person who wrote the check is already getting a $20-some-odd-dollar fine.

   Also, there is a relationship between all banks in the system that when there is a bounced check, if the credit union has a bounced check that they have to return to CitiBank, there is a relationship there that they exchange a few dimes to make up for that cost.

   The net of all of this is the banking business makes about $6.1 billion of profits, according to 1999 numbers, just on these transactions. They cover the costs, and then industry-wide they make about $6.1 billion. So the idea that the costs are not getting covered is certainly not the case.

   Secondly, some have argued that we need to have a disincentive for a merchant who is going to get a bad check. We have to incentivize them, checking vigorously to make sure they are getting it from a legitimate person.

   Well, this is the silliest argument. They already have the greatest incentive of all. If they get a bad check, they are out the money or they are out the service or they are out the product that they exchange in exchange for that. That is why we all go to our local diners and we see the checks up, notices up, ``we do not accept checks from this person,'' because they definitely do not want to get snookered a second time. So the idea that they should get a $20, a $15 or $10 fine, somehow creates a disincentive is simply not the case.

   A third argument made is that, well, when we are receiving a check, we should be extra vigilant. We should call up to make sure the person has the money in their account. Well, I have news, because of excellent legislation passed by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and others, we cannot do that. We cannot receive a check for $100 and call up the bank and say, listen, I have account number 1751. Do they have $100 in their account? They cannot even exchange that information, so there is no way you as the person receiving the check can avoid that fee.

   Some people have said, well, the receiving banks have costs just like the issuing bank has costs. As I mentioned, those costs are already covered.

   Then, finally, after we cut through all of it, I have found in my one experience with this, and some industry leaders have said, do you know what, at the end of the day if you make a stink about it, we do not charge. That is not any way to run a railroad.

   Frankly, this fee, this fine, this penalty is indefensible. It does not penalize someone who does something wrong, it does not disincentivize activity in any way, and it does not encourage any type of activity that a person can protect.

   One of the things we are doing here is making this transaction more efficient. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus) said it in the debate on the rule, do we want to improve the efficiency here? That is the rationale. But I think we also have to restore a sense of fairness. This is one open fissure in the law that I look for opportunities to address.