U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–771 PDF 2010

REGULATION OF MONEY SERVICE BUSINESSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS 

AND CONSUMER CREDIT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 10, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services 

Serial No. 111–107 

( 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts, Chairman 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

AL GREEN, Texas 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JOHN ADLER, New Jersey 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio 

SUZANNE KOSMAS, Florida 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JIM HIMES, Connecticut 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

DAN MAFFEI, New York 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

RON PAUL, Texas 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

ADAM PUTNAM, Florida 

MICHELE BACHMANN, Minnesota 

THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

JEANNE M. ROSLANOWICK, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONSUMER CREDIT

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois, Chairman 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

AL GREEN, Texas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

MELISSA L. BEAN, Illinois 

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

JACKIE SPEIER, California 

TRAVIS CHILDERS, Mississippi 

WALT MINNICK, Idaho 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

JOHN CAMPBELL, California 

KEVIN McCARTHY, California 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER LEE, New York 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

March 10, 2010 ................................................................................................. 1 

Appendix: 

March 10, 2010 ................................................................................................. 29 

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 2010 

Cachey, Joe, Chief Compliance Officer, The Western Union Company .............. 4 

McClain, Scott K., Deputy General Counsel, Financial Service Centers of 

America (FiSCA) .................................................................................................. 6 

Thoren-Peden, Deborah, Partner, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP ....... 8 

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Gutierrez, Hon. Luis ......................................................................................... 30 

Cachey, Joe ....................................................................................................... 35 

McClain, Scott K. .............................................................................................. 41 

Thoren-Peden, Deborah ................................................................................... 45 

(1) 

REGULATION OF MONEY 

SERVICE BUSINESSES 

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AND CONSUMER CREDIT, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Luis Gutierrez [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Gutierrez, Maloney, Watt, 

Sherman, Waters, Hinojosa, Green, Miller of North Carolina, Scott, 

Ellison, Foster; Hensarling, Royce, Marchant, Lee, and Paulsen. 

Ex officio present: Representative Bachus. 

Also present: Representative Lynch. 

Chairman GUTIERREZ. This hearing of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit will come to order. 

Good morning and thanks to all of the witnesses for agreeing to 

appear before the subcommittee today. 

Today’s hearing will examine how money service businesses are 

regulated under the current Federal and State system and examine 

proposed legislative reforms that have been introduced in this Congress. 

We will be limiting opening statements to 10 minutes per side, 

but without objection, the record will be held open for all members’ 

opening statements to be made a part of the record. 

I yield myself 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent to submit my 

opening statement for the record. Hearing no objections, it is so ordered. 

Mr. Hensarling, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HENSARLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate Chairman Gutierrez for holding this hearing on the money 

service businesses, the MSBs, and the positive role they can play 

in our financial sector, particularly for constituents without well established banking relationships. 

We have tens of thousands of MSBs ranging from mom and pop 

convenience stores to large international market players. I think 

we recognize that for most of our constituents, they provide valuable financial services, providing a vast array of options for consumers to determine which best meets their individual financial 

needs. 

Although the money service businesses are subject, as we know, 

to Federal registration and certain anti-money laundering proviVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:04 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 056771 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56771.TXT TERRIE
2 

sions, such as the Bank Secrecy Act, they are largely non-bank institutions that do not have a comprehensive Federal regulator, 

leaving State agencies to enforce State statutes governing their operations. 

This decentralized system coupled with frankly the sheer number 

of MSBs in our economy today has raised certain questions about 

the effectiveness of their anti-money laundering provisions. 

As a result, Federal financial regulators have proposed new compliance rules for institutions doing business with MSBs, and regardless of their intent, I believe this has had a perverse effect of 

leading some institutions to frankly just cut their ties with the 

money service businesses rather than deal with the increased obligations or scrutiny or indeed, potential increased liability. 

FinCEN has correctly stated that, ‘‘An effective AL program requires sound risk management,’’ a point which I wholeheartedly 

agree with, but we must also be cautious that in our pursuit of 

A&L compliance, we do not use such a heavy hand that we end up 

pushing currently monitored transactions underground into a shadowy world of illicit transactions. 

What is ultimately the impact upon many low-income citizens, 

low-income neighborhoods, if we drive MSBs deeper into the nonbanking sector, I think, is a relevant question for this subcommittee. 

As I said before, we know that each and every regulation that 

has been imposed on our banking system seemingly made sense at 

the time, but our challenge is to constantly look at the cost of these 

regulations that are being imposed on our economy and our Nation, 

particularly at a time when so many of our fellow citizens remain 

unemployed in this recession. 

It is important and incumbent upon us to recognize any unintended consequences that these regulations may cause. 

That is why last year I was pleased to join with Ranking Member Bachus in co-sponsoring our colleague Carolyn Maloney’s bill, 

H.R. 2893, which would establish a self-certification process for the 

money service businesses. 

This year, Ranking Member Bachus has once again led the way 

on the MSB issue with his bill, H.R. 4331, the Money Services 

Business Compliance Facilitation Act, co-sponsored by our chairman, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Gutierrez. 

Ranking Member Bachus’ bill would establish the Office of 

Money Services Business Compliance within Treasury and empower the director of that office to recognize a self-regulatory organization for MSBs and their agents and avoid a burdensome regime 

that could potentially drive participants underground. 

With that, I look forward, Mr. Chairman, to hearing the testimony of our witnesses today, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. [presiding] Thank you, Mr. 

Hensarling. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Scott, for 2 minutes, or slightly more, if he would like. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to our witnesses 

for appearing before us today. 

Money service businesses offer valuable financial services to the 

public, such as money transfers, money orders and check cashing. 

3 

These services, while often vital to the community, are regulated 

by the Internal Revenue Service in an attempt to impede any kind 

of abuse. 

There are reports that persist, that MSBs operate in this country 

without the proper compliance and registration where appropriate. 

My home State of Georgia is among 37 States that have some 

form of registration for MSBs. The MSB section of the Non-Depository Financial Institutions Division is responsible for supervising 

those who are licensed or registered to do business in Georgia as 

a check casher or a money transmitter. 

The department is charged with the supervision and examination 

of their business affairs to ensure that they operate in compliance 

with State law and for the protection and interest of consumers 

who are served by these entities. 

A comprehensive and effective registration and regulation system, perhaps resembling the one we have in Georgia, could very 

well provide a benefit on the Federal level in deterring money laundering or financial transactions that support terrorist activities. 

I anticipate informative testimony from each of the witnesses 

this morning on this very important and timely topic, and I look 

forward to their suggestions on how we in Congress can act. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

The ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from 

Alabama, Mr. Bachus, is not actually a member of this subcommittee, but I ask unanimous consent that he be recognized for 

4 minutes for an opening statement. Hearing no objection, Mr. 

Bachus is recognized for 4 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you 

for holding this important hearing about an issue that is long overdue for a fair and effective solution. 

Money service businesses or MSBs offer a valuable service to 

consumers who may not have access to other financial service providers. 

Among other functions, MSBs facilitate global payments and 

allow families to send funds back to their home countries. Unfortunately, regulation of money service businesses has not kept pace 

with the volume of their businesses. 

Right now, MSB compliance is a complex patchwork of regulations which involves both Federal restrictions on money laundering 

and terrorist financing as well as State consumer protection mandates. 

For tens of thousands of MSBs that exist, the Federal Government has fewer than 500 people on the regulatory beat. 

Mr. Chairman, failure to devise an effective MSB regulatory regime has led to the situation where banks who offer account services to MSBs are forced to act as de facto regulators. After a series 

of regulatory actions in which some banks were fined heavily in 

connection with the accounts they offered MSBs, most banks felt 

they had no choice or they had to make a choice to either do their 

own on-site investigation of an MSB anti-money laundering compliance or live with the liability. 

Consequently, most banks stopped offering accounts to MSBs. 

When banks discontinue account relationships with MSBs, the 

4 

MSB customers may seek financial services from the underground 

financial system, which could create greater money laundering risk 

and increase costs for MSB customers. 

In response to shortcomings of the current regulation, Chairman 

Frank and I, along with Representatives Maloney, Gutierrez, Hensarling and Biggert have tried for several Congresses to craft commonsense MSB legislation. 

The House has sent bills to the Senate twice only to have them 

ignored. Last December, I joined Representatives Gutierrez and 

Tiberi in introducing H.R. 4331, the Money Services Business Compliance Facilitation Act of 2009, which takes a similar approach to 

Ms. Maloney’s bill. 

H.R. 4331 is based on the underlying principle that given the 

right guidance and oversight, industries can self-regulate. The legislation would centralize MSB money laundering compliance in a 

small office at Treasury and authorize that office to recognize the 

self-regulatory organization. The organization would be similar to 

the private nonprofit financial industry regulatory authority or 

FINRA, that regulates about 170,000 brokers and their branches 

and more than 600,000 of their agents. 

The bill would lead to the uniform registration and supervision 

of MSBs without creating a big, new Federal bureaucracy, and 

without preempting State safety and soundness and consumer 

laws. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4331 is a good solution to make thorough 

uniform and effective national registration and compliance for 

money laundering businesses a reality. 

MSBs will appreciate legislation that gives banks the confidence 

to continue working with them and helps to disrupt funding channels used by crooks and terrorists. 

Mr. Tiberi should be commended for his hard work on this issue 

and we look forward to working with the gentleman from Illinois 

and the gentlelady from New York and all other interested Members to make this effort a success. 

I thank Mr. Hensarling for his work, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Bachus. 

That completes the opening statements. We will have one panel 

this morning. Our panel consists of three witnesses: Mr. Joe 

Cachey, chief compliance officer for The Western Union Company; 

Mr. Scott McClain, deputy general counsel to the Financial Service 

Centers of America; and Ms. Deborah Thoren-Peden, a partner in 

the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. 

You will each have 5 minutes for your oral statements. Your 

written statements will be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Cachey, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF JOE CACHEY, CHIEF COMPLIANCE OFFICER, 

THE WESTERN UNION COMPANY 

Mr. CACHEY. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Hensarling. 

My name is Joe Cachey. I am chief compliance officer for The 

Western Union Company. Western Union is a leader in global payVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:04 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 056771 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56771.TXT TERRIE
5 

ment services with more than 410,000 agent locations in 200 countries and territories around the world. 

In 2009, Western Union completed 296 million customer-to-cus- tomer transactions worldwide, moving $71 billion of principal between those customers and also performed 415 million business 

payments, or people sending money to a business. 

Interestingly, the majority of Western Union’s customers in the 

United States also have bank accounts and use our services ancillary to the services they would normally obtain at their branch 

bank and local bank. 

Western Union applauds the committee’s efforts to provide a 

more streamlined and efficient regulatory model for money service 

businesses. Western Union does not fully support H.R. 4331, but 

looks forward to working with the committee to improve the bill or 

future legislation to improve the regulatory structure of money 

service businesses. 

Currently, MSBs like Western Union are licensed by States in 

which they do business. States are responsible for the day-to-day 

regulatory supervision and oversight of our businesses. Western 

Union itself is regulated by 48 States, the District of Columbia, and 

several of the United States territories offshore. 

Moreover, MSBs are also subject to Federal laws such as the 

Bank Secrecy Act, the USA Patriot Act, and other relevant Federal 

laws, such as the sanctions programs administered by the Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

With respect to its obligations under the BSA, Western Union is 

subject to regulatory oversight by FinCEN and as mentioned, is examined by the Internal Revenue Service. 

Western Union has several concerns with H.R. 4331. MSBs are 

highly regulated and supervised by both State and Federal agencies. However, H.R. 4331 does not create uniform standards for 

safety and soundness. 

Rather than preempting and providing uniform standards for 

companies, H.R. 4331 preserves State laws and State enforcement 

powers, leaving in place the current regulatory chaos that we experience and layers on top of that a new Federal regime which could 

potentially be in conflict with our State regulation. 

We encourage the committee to consider creating a single regulator for MSBs. This license would grant the Federal Government 

greater oversight over the industry and its related issues and 

would provide the industry with more consistent guidance and regulation than it currently receives. 

Federal oversight of compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and 

the anti-money laundering laws will better serve the interests of 

the United States and the industry in battles against terrorism and 

illegal drugs. 

This structure could provide for an optional Federal MSB license 

that companies could choose if they desire. The license would be 

issued and enforced by a Federal regulator responsible for all safety and soundness examinations and enforcement, as well as the examination and enforcement of all Federal money laundering and 

terrorist financing laws. 

Western Union appreciates the committee’s effort to take a first 

step towards modernization of the MSB regulations and looks forVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:04 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 056771 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56771.TXT TERRIE
6 

ward to working with the committee to improve H.R. 4331 or future legislation to achieve these important goals. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cachey can be found on page 35 

of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Cachey. You 

used 4 of your 5 minutes. You set an excellent example not only 

for the witnesses, but for members of the committee. 

Mr. McClain is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT K. McCLAIN, DEPUTY GENERAL 

COUNSEL, FINANCIAL SERVICE CENTERS OF AMERICA (FiSCA) 

Mr. MCCLAIN. Thank you. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member 

Hensarling, and esteemed members of the subcommittee, my name 

is Scott McClain. I serve as deputy general counsel to Financial 

Service Centers of America, also known as FiSCA. 

On behalf of the FiSCA membership, we are grateful for this opportunity to discuss issues concerning the regulation of money 

services businesses. 

FiSCA is a national trade association representing nearly 7,000 

neighborhood financial service providers operating in the United 

States. Our membership serves millions of customers from all 

walks of life, including those with bank accounts as well as the 

‘‘unbanked.’’ 

Our members, which we call ‘‘financial service centers’’ or 

‘‘FSCs,’’ provide a broad range of financial services and products, 

including check cashing, remittances, money order sales, and utility bill payments, to name just a few. 

FSCs make up an economically significant industry that conducts more than 350 million transactions each year, providing over $100 

billion in various products and services to over 30 million customers. 

FSCs specialize in delivering retail financial services, offering 

convenient locations, extended hours of operation, and transparent 

and affordable transaction fees. 

Our customers pay only for the services they use with no account 

maintenance fees, no minimum balance requirements, and no NSF 

fees. 

We are proud of recent industry surveys showing that more than 

90 percent of our customers rate the value and level of our services 

as ‘‘good to excellent.’’ 

Check cashers and other MSBs are dependent on access to depository and banking services for their very survival. Banks that service our industry, however, are faced with onerous regulatory burdens and are required to expend ever greater resources in maintaining customer compliance and monitoring systems. As a result, 

many banks have terminated their MSB customers, are refusing 

new accounts, or placing burdensome requirements on the accounts 

they maintain. 

There is a dangerously small pool of banks willing or able to provide services to MSBs. As a result of these trends, check cashers 

and other MSBs are experiencing problems in locating and maintaining accounts, banking costs are increasing, and would-be entreVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:04 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 056771 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56771.TXT TERRIE
7 

preneurs in this area are experiencing barriers in opening new 

businesses. 

Part of the current bank discontinuance problem stems from a 

misperception in the eyes of some regulators and bankers that 

check cashers are inadequately regulated. 

Let me demonstrate how this is not accurate. At the State level, 

check cashers are regulated in most U.S. jurisdictions, typically by 

banking departments or other regulators. 

State regulation typically includes licensing or registration requirements, mandatory recordkeeping, examinations, financial reporting, regulation of fees and consumer protections. 

Virtually every State with any sizable check-casher industry has 

enacted legislation to regulate these businesses. 

Moreover, all check transactions are subject to the Uniform Commercial Code adopted in all U.S. jurisdictions. 

In addition, at the Federal level, as of 2001, MSBs have been required to register every 2 years with the U.S. Department of the 

Treasury. They must also implement anti-money laundering programs, including policies and procedures, compliance officers, employee training programs, and independent compliance examinations. 

Like banks and other financial institutions, check cashers and 

other MSBs are subject to Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements, including currency transaction reporting and suspicious activity reporting for certain types of transactions. 

They are also required to maintain detailed records of monetary 

instrument sales and remittance activities at certain levels as mandated by the BSA. 

MSB compliance is overseen by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network with the examination function administered by the 

Internal Revenue Service. In a typical Title 31 audit, IRS examiners will go on-site to access the level of a check casher’s compliance, including a review of all reporting and recordkeeping functions. The IRS examination process is rigorous. 

In short, the perception that the check cashing industry is underregulated is simply not accurate. 

FiSCA will continue to work with Members of Congress and this 

subcommittee to help ensure the availability of banking services to 

the industry. 

One solution currently being considered is H.R. 2893, the Money 

Service Business Act of 2009, introduced last year by Representative Maloney and co-sponsored by Chairman Gutierrez, Ranking 

Member Hensarling, and Representative Biggert. 

This proposed solution continues to have bipartisan support and 

industry support. We are grateful to the bill’s sponsors for their 

continued efforts in this regard. We also appreciate the concern of 

Congress for this problem as demonstrated in H.R. 4331, the 

Money Services Business Compliance Facilitation Act of 2009, as 

introduced by Chairman Gutierrez and Ranking Member Bachus. 

As a final point, although the MSB industry continues to experience significant problems in access to banking services, a number 

of depositories have seized on this as an opportunity. Many banks 

have found check cashers to be excellent, profitable customers 

8 

whose accounts can be efficiently and safely managed, and who can 

significantly add to the bank’s bottom line. 

FiSCA has developed written materials on banking MSBs and we 

will gladly work with any depositories who may want to take a second look at our industry. 

In conclusion, FiSCA and its members are committed to working 

with the subcommittee and our industry partners to help ensure 

that MSBs continue to have access to banking services. 

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to present these views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClain can be found on page 

41 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. McClain. 

Finally, Ms. Thoren-Peden is recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH THOREN-PEDEN, PARTNER, 

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Hensarling, and members of the subcommittee, I am very honored to 

be here and thank you for inviting me. 

My name is Deborah Thoren-Peden. I am a partner at the law 

firm of Pillsbury Winthrop. I am on the firm’s financial institutions 

team, and I am chair of the privacy team. I am also co-chair of the 

firm’s consumer and retail team. 

Prior to joining the firm, I spent 10 years in-house at First Interstate Bank in the retail sector, where amongst other things I was 

the Bank Secrecy Act attorney. I have been doing Bank Secrecy Act 

and financial work and payment work since the early 1980’s, so for 

almost 25 years. 

I have also been general counsel and a senior executive officer 

and chief privacy officer of an Internet payment company, as well 

as general counsel of a financial subsidiary of another Internet 

company. 

My practice includes representing many different sorts of companies in the payment space, ranging from money transmitters to 

check cashers, pre-paid card issuers, distributors, sellers, money 

order issuers, Travelers Checques, etc. I work with a broad range 

of people and companies, and in that regard, I have ended up working with most of the regulators in one way or another in this space 

throughout the country. 

One certainly strong opinion that I have is I believe the MSB industry is already among the most heavily regulated industries. 

Right now, they have the State regulators in virtually every State 

in which they offer services and licenses are required. Those State 

regulators, by the way, are extremely diligent in their duties and 

their oversight. They care tremendously as to whether or not the 

people, the consumers, and companies in their States are properly 

protected, and they are very vigilant in terms of their oversight 

and examinations, and for certain of my clients, what that means 

is actually they will have State examiners in their offices for 

months, literally months, every year, because different State examiners come in. 

Just to give you an idea, and this is by way of an example, I 

brought with me the Bank Secrecy Act and AML examination manual from FinCEN and the Department of the Treasury. This is just 

9 

one exam manual from one agency. As you can see, it is fairly robust. 

The MSB industry has FinCEN oversight, and people at FinCEN 

care deeply about the industry. Also, OFAC has oversight in terms 

of whether or not there is compliance with the economic sanctions 

by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

The IRS has the right under the Bank Secrecy Act to examine 

them. All the States have an examination right, and the Federal 

Trade Commission would have rights to oversee the non-bank financial institutions as well. 

You have a large number of different entities already in place 

regulating these industries today. 

One thing I know of significance to the committee, with which I 

wholeheartedly agree, is there does need to be more protection for 

the banks in terms of offering accounts to MSBs. 

What has happened today is the risk of banking MSBs has been 

heightened, many of the banks very logically have chosen to not 

take the risk because the risk of their having problems or encountering problems later is very possible for them, so it does not make 

it sensible for them to do so. 

I truly believe there needs to be some sort of a safe harbor enacted for the banks in terms of banking the MSBs, so that the 

banks cannot be gone after for an MSB’s actions. 

Additionally, I think the MSB industry, including the prepaid 

card industry, etc., needs to continue to be nurtured and supported 

because they offer extremely important financial services to millions of consumers in the United States, including the unbanked 

and the underbanked, which some estimate to be 10 to 15 percent 

of the population. 

If there is more regulation and more oversight requirements that 

are particularly burdensome, you will find that some people currently offering services through convenient locations, perhaps some 

retailers by way of example, will pull out of the business because 

it is simply not worth it to them to risk having potential actions 

brought against them in exchange for offering the services through 

their locations. 

In terms of even additional oversight, I think careful thought has 

to be given to what is going to be the impact of additional regulation, especially on some of the retailers, mom and pop stores, etc., 

that offer the products, because you may find the products are 

withdrawn from the marketplace, which I think is contrary to everyone’s wishes. 

I think one thing everyone can agree upon is no one wants these 

monies and transactions going underground. If they are not offered 

and available conveniently, they may go underground, and neither 

the industry, law enforcement or the regulators want that to happen. 

Instead, I think we need to help nurture the industry. Thank you 

very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thoren-Peden can be found on 

page 45 of the appendix.] 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. We will now have 

a series of questions from the members. Each member will have 5 

minutes. I will begin by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

10 

Mr. Cachey, you rejected the Bachus/Gutierrez model, although 

you said you would be happy to continue to work with the committee on a proposal, but you did support instead an industry selfregulatory model, full Federal regulation of MSBs. 

Do you have a notion of how big the price tag will be for the examiners it would take for the Federal Government to do it as opposed to an industry-based model with Federal supervision, which 

presumably either one will come out of fees charged to MSBs? 

Which do you think will be more expensive? 

Mr. CACHEY. The proposal that we are contemplating would 

allow for an MSB to choose in or out to be federally licensed and 

regulated. The idea would be that if you had a smaller MSB that 

maybe did business in one State, they could continue to be licensed 

by that one State. 

But if you had MSBs like Western Union or others that offer 

services throughout the country or maybe a significant region of 

the country, it might prove more efficient for them to opt-in to a 

Federal licensing scheme, thereby allowing entities where that is 

advantageous to do that, but not requiring the tens of thousands 

of smaller MSBs, what people commonly refer to as the mom and 

pop’s, to have to deal with a Federal licensing scheme when it is 

not suitable to their business model. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Ms. Thoren-Peden, you also 

proposed legislation for creating among other reasons an office 

within Treasury to ensure compliance with current regulations. 

Is the current oversight of MSBs by FinCEN and the IRS and 

any of the relevant agencies sufficient that non-compliant MSBs 

are receiving the regulatory oversight that is needed? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I certainly think that for MSBs that are licensed and are acting appropriately, the current regulatory structure is more than sufficient. 

I think there may be some shops out there, probably smaller retailers, to be honest, who may engage in activities that they do not 

understand to be money services businesses directly. I think some 

of that has come about because of need, where there is need for additional services. People may offer the services without being fully 

aware of the legal requirements. 

I do agree where you have entities that are operating in a context where they are subject to licensure and they have not been licensed, that is obviously a situation that needs to be addressed. 

For anyone who is already licensed, I believe there is a significant amount of regulation out there already. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Ms. Thoren-Peden, you described your clients who have an interest in this area. By way of 

explaining your interest and your expertise, are you representing 

any of those clients today? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I am not. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Is the point of view that you 

have expressed in any way at variance with the point of view of 

your clients? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I have not spoken with my clients about 

what my testimony was today. I cannot really speak to that. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The Chair now recognizes Mr. 

Marchant for 5 minutes. I yield back my time. 

11 

Mr. MARCHANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McClain, you 

talk about the small and dwindling pool of banks that continue to 

provide account services to MSBs. What separates a bank willing 

to offer services from one that does not? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. That is a very good question, Congressman. Currently, our industry is served by a handful of large national banks 

and I would say a broader base of smaller community banks and 

even some credit unions. 

There is not really a bright line that will identify what will cause 

a bank or enable a bank to service our industry versus those that 

do not. 

I think what we have seen, however, is a problem of perception. 

For banks that may otherwise be willing to service our industry, 

I think there is a concern or there has been a perception that check 

cashers and other forms of MSBs are high-risk accounts. I think if 

you look to the record of the industry, you will find that perception 

is not borne out. 

The banks that do service our industry successfully, and I will 

add there really are some very fine banks, very fine financial institutions that service our industry, what they have been able to do 

is balance the costs and the risk associated—the regulatory risk, I 

should say—associated with banking MSBs with a profit structure. 

They have been able to develop a specialty in this area, man appropriate compliance departments, and do so in a profitable manner. 

The problem, I think, that we are faced with is that due to the 

regulatory structure, the burdens that banks that service this industry are faced with, it becomes unprofitable for them to service 

our industry. 

Again, one solution that was being considered in connection with 

the MSB bill, H.R. 2893, was to alleviate banks of this role as 

being a de facto regulator for the customer, thereby making it more 

profitable for them to service our industry. 

Mr. MARCHANT. In all instances now, the MSBs are regulated by 

the laws of the State in which they operate; is that correct? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. Not all States, certainly the vast majority and certainly any States with any sizable check casher or MSB industry 

generally have very rigorous regulatory structures for our industry. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Does the casa de cambio business fall into this? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. No, that is generally south of the border, Mexican 

casa de cambios, that is not something we see here in the United 

States, or that is my understanding. 

Mr. MARCHANT. There are quite a few in Houston. If that industry is located in a State, it has nothing to do with this money service business? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. To the extent they are offering any product or 

service that falls within the definition of a ‘‘money service business,’’ i.e., check cashing, money order sales, remittance activity as 

agents or principals, they would fall under the Bank Secrecy Act 

and they should be subject to regulation; absolutely. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Ms. Thoren-Peden? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes. The casa de cambios, basically currency 

exchange entities in essence, are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act. 

They are deemed to be money services businesses and are therefore 

12 

covered by the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering requirements. 

Certainly, some States do license them and they are subject to 

licensure. In addition to that licensure, the moment they do anything else that triggers licensure in a State, they are also required 

to be licensed. I thought this information might be helpful. 

Mr. MARCHANT. The proposal would create a national optional 

Federal charter for MSBs. Is that the essence of the bill? Mr. 

Cachey? 

Mr. CACHEY. The essence of the bill, and I will paraphrase, but 

my understanding is to create an office in the Department of the 

Treasury to regulate money service businesses which will then 

have oversight over an SRO, which would be an industry organization that would self-regulate itself under the Federal laws, but 

would also leave in place the 48 State law schemes that also regulate the money services businesses. 

Mr. MARCHANT. Would not an MSB have the ability or the right 

under this bill to not be regulated by this Federal entity? 

Mr. CACHEY. I think right now that is unclear. Typically, the 

SROs that I am familiar with, and there are a number I am familiar with, even offshore for the industry, there are internal standards that are set for an entity to be able to join that SRO, and 

those types of details would need to be worked out. 

With the tens of thousands of small money service businesses out 

there, it seems to me it would be difficult to make sure that many 

organizations can meet the type of standards that maybe some of 

the larger players in the industry would want to have to be comfortable and affiliated with those other organizations. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The gentleman’s time has expired. For the witnesses, you see the lights in front of you, if you 

see the time has expired during your answer, I am reluctant to cut 

you off or interrupt you, but if you would keep your answer succinct, and you may elaborate upon it later in writing. 

Mr. Lynch has joined us. Like Mr. Bachus before him, he is not 

actually a member of this committee, but I ask unanimous consent 

that the gentleman from Massachusetts be allowed to sit with the 

subcommittee, and that he be allowed to ask questions in turn. 

Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. Sherman is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I will be brief. 

People who purchase remittance services are often folks getting 

by on a very small amount of education and yet they are dealing 

with an international financial transaction, and they face three different charges. They face whatever charge is imposed upon the 

sender. There are sometimes charges imposed on the recipient, and 

then you have whatever currency conversion spread is being used. 

What do we do or what do you suggest we do so that people will 

have simple and clear information and can pick the best service at 

the best price? 

Mr. CACHEY. I guess I will address that, since we engage directly 

in remittances. We find our customers to be very financially savvy. 

Typically, if you interview a typical remittance customer, they can 

tell you what the price is and what exchange rate they are going 

to get with a number of services. 

13 

Additionally, anybody can walk up to a location for our service 

and many others, quite frankly, and just ask, what are you charging today, and what is the FX rate I am going to get if I send 

money overseas? That is freely shared with the customer because 

we think the customer should know that. 

Western Union does not charge people to pick up money, so there 

is not a receiver fee, if you will. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Do you have a consistent spread? I will define the 

spread as let’s say one customer is sending dollars for pesos and 

the other customer is sending pesos for dollars. The difference that 

those two customers face as the spread, do you have a consistent 

spread day after day or are there sometimes when you walk in and 

the fee for service part is probably consistent but the amount you 

are losing on the currency transaction is different? 

Mr. CACHEY. Depending on the currency, because some currencies are more volatile than others— 

Mr. SHERMAN. What I am saying is day by day. You are sending 

money to Zimbabwe. You are going to face some additional charges. 

Mr. CACHEY. Yes. Day by day. The spread stays consistent but 

it can change day by day. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Is the difference between the number of dollars 

you will give for a peso and the number of pesos you will give for 

a dollar—you may have somebody in Mexico sending money north, 

is that difference the same every day? 

Mr. CACHEY. I cannot answer that. I do not know. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will ask you to answer for the record and I yield 

back. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Royce of California for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROYCE. Ms. Thoren-Peden, if I could ask you a question, because in your testimony, you describe MSBs as being among the 

most heavily regulated businesses in the United States, and our 

other two witnesses in their testimony had commentary to that effect. 

I am going to ask you based on a line of argument here that 

while this may be true, that in terms of effectiveness, the current 

regulatory structure overseeing MSBs could probably be improved. 

Let me just see if you would concur with this. We have a number 

of recent studies, including some by the Treasury Inspector General, that found that the IRS could not be doing a complete job of 

ensuring Bank Secrecy Act compliance, and there are a couple of 

examples here. 

One, if they tally the number of MSBs operating in the United 

States, they get an estimate—a lot of these are small and local outfits—they are somewhere between 40,000 and 160,000, and they 

say something less than 20,000 are actually registered at FinCEN. 

Then they say due to the limited resources at the IRS, the enforcement of anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing 

oversight is largely left up to State regulators. 

One of the arguments they cite is the IRS entering into memoranda of understanding with 40 States to facilitate the sharing of 

information that would come from examinations, and the fact that 

the IRS actually examines 3 percent of MBFIs. 

14 

When we look at the collection of various State regulators, there 

are 37 States that have some form of registration or regulation apparatus, and then as you look further into the level of sophistication and aptitude within those States, you see a very wide range, 

it is a very dramatic range in terms of the ability or expertise that 

is applied here. 

Is there a segment of the MSB industry that is outside of the 

purview of strong anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financed compliance, and in your view, how could we bring increased 

registration and increased compliance of these smaller MSBs? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. In terms of the MSB registration, there certainly are more sites in the United States that offer money services 

businesses, but I think the higher numbers refer to authorized delegates, also known as ‘‘agents.’’ 

If they are only acting as a money services business on behalf of 

someone else who is licensed and registered, there is no requirement for them to register at the Federal level, although there are 

separate recordkeeping requirements. I just wanted to mention 

that. 

One thing that happens at the State regulatory level, and I believe 48 States as well as D.C. and other jurisdictions, actually 

have licensure for money transmittal purposes. There are very few 

States that do not have something in place. 

Part of their examinations go into not only what is the licensee 

doing, how are they financially, how are they compliant with the 

anti-money laundering, how are they compliant with OFAC regulations, but they also as part of their examinations go out and look 

at the agent locations as well. 

They do not look at every agent location. The same is true functionally for banks as well. If you have 10,000 branches in the 

United States, if there is an examination, quite logically the examination is of the entity itself and some of the branches. It is the 

same structure here. 

In answer to your question, do I think that everything is examined to the nth degree, no, but I also think if you impose that sort 

of a structure where every authorized agent location, every delegate has to have an examination, you will find many people will 

no longer offer those services. 

Mr. ROYCE. Let me explain the dilemma. We have come some 

way in terms of combatting terrorist financing, but the level of resilience and innovation among those who would contemplate terrorism is out there, and they are desperate to find funding mechanisms that operate under the radar and out of the mainstream financial system. 

They understand their ability to carry out operations is directly 

tied to their fund raising. You saw recently in the paper here, we 

have an al-Qaeda leader, Shireen Mazari, who called funding, ‘‘the 

mainstay of Jihad.’’ 

As we look at reforming this portion of the non-traditional banking sector, I think transparency is the key to closing 

vulnerabilities. We need competent and consistent oversight that 

can address these apparent gaps and ensure anti-terrorist financing laws are properly enforced. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

15 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. If you want to respond to that, 

you may do so in writing. 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Can I respond to that? 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. In a sentence, but you may respond as fully as you like in writing for the record. You may respond in a sentence. 

Mr. ROYCE. Mr. Chairman, on H.R. 4049, whether she thinks 

that would be helpful or not. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. When I said ‘‘a sentence,’’ I 

meant in the Ernest Hemingway sense. 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I think the State banking regulators actually are very capable and they actually do an excellent job in terms 

of overseeing their licensees. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. Mr. Frank would 

be a great deal less polite in his wielding of the gavel. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Waters, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much. I would like to ask Western 

Union first, and maybe the other MSBs can answer. 

When you have disasters in places like Haiti and Chile, and 

these tsunamis that have taken place in the last decade or so, you 

have a lot of transmitting of money. The relatives here in the 

United States are trying to give support to their relatives in those 

countries. 

Do you have any policy that would reduce the amount that you 

charge to transmit when these disasters take place? 

Mr. CACHEY. The simple answer is yes, both for the tsunami 2 

years ago, I think, and most recently for Haiti. Western Union for 

a number of months after the disaster was sending money transfers for free for customers from the United States, France, and 

Canada into Haiti. 

As well, the Western Union Foundation, which is the charitable 

arm of Western Union, I believe made $2.5 plus million available 

to other charitable activities and disaster recovery activities to 

Haiti. 

Yes, these are our customers as well, because they are receiving 

funds through our dedicated service, so the people in Haiti are our 

customers as well as the people in the United States sending the 

money, and we understand they are in dire straits, so we do have 

programs to reduce or charge no fee at all, depending on the extent 

of the disaster. 

Ms. WATERS. Is that true of Chile also? 

Mr. CACHEY. Chili is less dependent on remittances than Haiti 

might be. I know we have made charitable contributions in one 

form or another. I am not personally familiar with what our reduction in fee structure was for that event though. 

Ms. WATERS. Thank you. Mr. McClain? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. Thank you. Our membership primarily provides 

retail financial services in the United States. We act as agents for 

Western Union. We did work with Western Union and our State 

associations and actually assisted to promote Western Union’s activities in terms of discounted remittance fees for serving Haiti and 

we also did some of our own internal fund raising, but again, we 

16 

do not directly provide financial services in Haiti or other external 

jurisdictions. 

Ms. WATERS. I have another question that I would like to ask, 

and that has to do with how you calculate the value of U.S. dollars, 

for example, if in fact one is transmitting $100 to Haiti and the exchange rate is $37.50, how do you do that? How do they get the 

full value of the $100 that is transmitted? 

In the calculation, do you round up? Do you round down? How 

do you do that? 

Mr. CACHEY. First, in Haiti, I believe it is a U.S. dollar payout 

because they want dollars in Haiti. There is no conversion for that 

particular portal of transactions. People sending a dollar from the 

United States, a dollar would be paid out in Haiti. 

From a currency exchange standpoint, in jurisdictions where we 

do pay out in the local currency, Western Union states what the 

exchange rate is that we are offering and then explicitly tells the 

customer this is the amount of pesos, pounds, euro’s, whatever the 

currency may be, that is going to be put into the hands of the customer receiving the money, so that the sender knows exactly how 

much money the receiver is going to have placed in their hands 

when they show up at our correspondent location in that jurisdiction. 

Ms. WATERS. It may be a problem in that the currency of the receiving country may not have the kind of denominations, I guess, 

to be able to capture the partial percentage point or what have you. 

It seems to me that could add up to a lot of money. Do you calculate how much that is and is that captured in your earnings report separately from the way you capture the other straight 

amounts that are transmitted? 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The witness may answer in a 

sentence with a maximum of two commas and no semicolons, and 

you may answer as fully as you like in writing for the record. 

Mr. CACHEY. I will answer in writing with a period. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. All right. Mr. Hinojosa of 

Texas is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the panelists 

for coming to visit today and get us better informed. 

I represent the 15th Congressional District in deep South Texas, 

along the Texas/Mexico Border. Hidalgo County is the largest county that I represent, and it is approximately 90 percent Hispanic. 

It is also one of the poorest counties in the whole Nation and 

home to the poorest of the poor because we have so many colonias 

in that county. It contains the largest number of colonias, like I 

said, and they number something like 800. 

I am concerned about the charges that are being charged by the 

check cashers and payday lenders, and many of my comments and 

questions will be directed towards that group. 

This cash society makes it very difficult for the majority of my 

constituents to obtain non-predatory loans and forces them to rely 

on these check cashers and payday lenders for their financial 

transactions, and such transactions make it very difficult for them 

to obtain non-predatory loans and thereby prevents them from establishing credit, possibly purchasing a car or appliances. It is just 

17 

very difficult for them to be able to get into the mainstream of financial institutions. 

In fact, payday loans over a period of time can result in my constituents paying up to 400 percent in interest if they do not pay 

the loans by the end of each month. 

Over the years, I have worked with Chairman Frank, Subcommittee Chairman Gutierrez, and Subcommittee Chairwoman 

Maxine Waters to find ways to move our unbanked constituents 

and all the unbanked in the United States into the mainstream financial services. 

Unfortunately, many of them remain unbanked, distrust banks 

and other mainstream financial services and entities, and continue 

to suffer at the hands of those folks I mentioned and predatory 

lenders. 

The first question would be to Joe Cachey with Western Union. 

What can you do to help us get many of these unbanked into the 

financial services and the system that we have here in the United 

States so they can have more disposable income to be able to enjoy 

a better quality of life? 

Mr. CACHEY. As I stated in my oral testimony, more than half 

of Western Union’s customers in the United States are banked and 

really use Western Union as an asset, a cash management vehicle 

for services that banks may provide but which Western Union provides at a more convenient and speedier manner than a bank 

might. 

Many people use our systems to make bill payments, for example, where they do not want to run the risk of bouncing a check 

and having to pay a $35 bounced check fee. Let’s remember that 

last year, the U.S. banking industry made approximately $40 billion just on returned check fees. 

A lot of people are banked and use our services to manage their 

cash flow to avoid the types of fees that banks charge people. 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Joe, let me interrupt you because time will get 

away from us. You said half of them are banked. You had about 

$71 billion last year. That leaves another $35 billion of transactions 

that are by people who are unbanked. I did not hear you say what 

you could do, your company, to educate and to encourage people 

that I represent to use the financial services, and if you cannot answer the question, I would like to ask the lady if you have some 

services that would help us in my district. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Time has gotten away from us. 

One sentence orally, and as full an explanation as you would like 

in writing for the record. 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes, sir. I think there are a number of prepaid products that have become available over the last couple of 

years that are offering many financial services to the unbanked 

and underbanked that hitherto were not readily available to them. 

Many of them are priced at a level that is reasonable, and it can 

be very helpful. Some customers are able to establish long-term relationships with the underlying banks. That is usually at the option of the customer, but there are a number of prepaid products 

that have arrived in the marketplace over the last couple of years 

that I believe and have seen really do facilitate getting the 

unbanked and underbanked financial services. 

18 

Mr. HINOJOSA. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. That was a very 

long sentence. If any of you testify before the full committee, you 

will think I am a real sweetheart. 

The Chair now recognizes for 5 minutes a leader on this issue 

who has introduced relevant legislation, the gentlelady from New 

York, Ms. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you very much. As the chairman mentioned in his opening remarks, I have re-introduced my bill, the 

Money Services Business Act, which is identical to the legislation 

that unanimously passed the House of Representatives last year. 

I am proud to sponsor this legislation and to have it co-sponsored 

by the ranking member of the Financial Services Committee as 

well as the chairman and ranking member of the Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit Subcommittee, Congressman Luis 

Gutierrez and Jeb Hensarling, and Representative Judy Biggert. 

The Money Services Business Act addresses the critical problem 

of MSBs, money service businesses, being denied access to the 

banking system, and without a relationship, MSBs are unable to 

provide financial services to communities, making it difficult for 

millions of Americans to pay their bills, send money or cash checks. 

Federal regulatory agencies recognizing the problem facing MSBs 

have sought to address this issue through agency guidance and regulatory changes with very little effect. 

This bill establishes a mechanism that would allow MSBs to selfcertify their compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money 

laundering requirements, while allowing banks to make risk-based 

decisions about banking, particularly with MSBs. 

My concern has been that if this issue is left unaddressed, the 

viability of MSBs will be compromised, potentially pushing many 

of these transactions underground and potentially untraceable to 

law enforcement. 

This is something we all agree is not the result we are looking 

for, and I hope to have a discussion that can lead to the best possible conclusions. 

I would like to ask Mr. McClain, as you know, my colleague, Mr. 

Gutierrez, has a bill that would recognize a self-regulatory organization that would be delegated rulemaking authority as well as enforcement. 

Are there regulatory organizations that have been identified as 

capable of performing the self-regulatory function and how were 

they identified? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. Thank you, Congresswoman Maloney. With respect to this industry, I am not aware of any self-regulatory organizations that would be able to have oversight over the very large 

and very diverse money service businesses industry. 

We have, as you know, what I will term as ‘‘wholesalers’’ of financial services and products, such as Western Union and 

MoneyGram and others, and then we have at the level of our members, retailers of very basic financial services, check cashers, etc., 

that act as agents. 

I cannot as we sit here today perceive what type of self-regulatory organization could have oversight over this whole universe 

of MSBs, but it is certainly an innovative and creative bill, and it 

19 

is something that I think deserves some serious consideration and 

we will continue to look at it and work with the committee. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you believe this is a better approach to a selfcertification process? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. I think it is certainly a different approach. With 

respect to the self-certification process, the real focus and appeal of 

that proposed legislation is the fact that it would relieve banks of 

being in the role as de facto regulators of their MSB customers, so 

it is a very different bill. It is not contrary to the self-regulatory 

organization proposal. Again, I think it attacks the issue or the 

problem from a different perspective. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to ask Mr. Cachey and Ms. ThorenPeden, I know you both testified you do not believe that additional 

regulatory oversight is appropriate, and I am curious whether you 

view a self-certification process as additional regulatory oversight. 

I do agree that MSBs are already regulated at the State level, 

but would a self-certification process pose an additional burden on 

MSBs that might dissuade them from continuing to serve customers? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I think if the self-certification process allows 

a bank to rely upon the MSB’s certification and basically gives the 

bank a safe harbor for allowing them to be a banking customer, 

that would be very helpful. 

As you indicated, that is one of the core issues that has come up 

over the past couple of years. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Cachey, your response? 

Mr. CACHEY. I think self-certification is probably the easiest way 

for smaller MSBs to address the banking issue that everybody has 

expressed concern over. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would like to ask anybody on the panel to discuss the current banking situation for MSBs, how is it affecting 

businesses and their ability to deliver financial services? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. I think at least with respect to the retail MSB industry, I can address that. What we are seeing is, again, a very 

small pool of banks willing or able to service the industry. We are 

seeing some bright spots in some smaller community banks that 

are willing to step in. I think they see some opportunity here. 

Generally, the problem is certainly not on a large scale improving. We have some regional areas, particularly Florida, Ohio, the 

Northeast, where there are really just very few banks that can 

service our industry. It continues to be a problem. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for 

appearing. To make sure I direct my questions to the appropriate 

persons, if you believe that there is no need for additional regulation, will you kindly extend a hand into the air? Witnesses, if you 

think there is no need for additional regulation. 

[show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. Two. Thank you. Given my source of information, 

and I will share with you what I have, the indication is that we 

have approximately 40,000 to 160,000 MSBs with only 15,000 to 

20,000 actually registered. 

20 

Is this a fair statement? If you differ with the statement, kindly 

extend a hand into the air. Does anyone differ? 

[show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, sir. What would your number be in terms of the 

actual number of MSBs, please? 

Mr. CACHEY. I think something between 30,000 and 40,000 

MSBs. I think the 160,000 number is probably agent locations or 

locations that do not need to be registered. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you agree that we have more that are not registered than are registered? 

Mr. CACHEY. I do not know, but I think you are right in that 

there are a number out there that are not. 

Mr. GREEN. The indication was that we have about 40,000 that 

are MSBs; correct? My indication is we have 15,000 to 20,000 that 

are actually registered. If it is 40,000, we have at least as many 

that are not registered as are registered. Fair statement? 

Mr. CACHEY. Fair. 

Mr. GREEN. Ma’am, do you concur? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I do not have the estimates in front of me. 

Mr. GREEN. Without the estimates in front of you, do you agree 

we have more that are not registered than are registered? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I— 

Mr. GREEN. Do you agree that we have a good number that are 

not registered? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. That, I agree with. 

Mr. GREEN. Given that we have a good number that are not registered and given that we have found that some banks are having 

great difficulty with the current circumstance and they are discontinuing the service, do you both agree the banks are discontinuing this service and working with these MSBs? 

Do you agree? If you do, raise your hand. 

[show of hands] 

Mr. GREEN. This is the only way I can do it. I am sorry to be 

so elementary. 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I believe there are certainly a number of 

banks that have chosen to not bank MSBs. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you agree that banks are in a tough position? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. They are trying to engage in a legitimate business 

practice and they find themselves having to not only vet the MSBs 

but even after vetting, they may find that they have done something that is inappropriate, but they have not done it with malice 

or forethought. 

Do you agree, ma’am? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I agree, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Do you agree, sir? 

Mr. CACHEY. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. The banks are really the entities that are of concern, 

there are others as well, but it is hard to get around the fact that 

you have banks that are engaged in legitimate business practices 

that have this concern. 

Given that we have the banks with the concern and we have 

those that are not registered, my question to you is, how will you 

21 

stand on the premise that we do not need additional regulation, 

given this circumstance that exists with our banking institutions? 

How do you stand on this premise that we need no additional 

regulation? My guess is you may not like the regulation that is 

being proposed. You may think this is not a panacea, but surely, 

given the circumstance, something has to be done because we have 

legitimate business enterprises, known as banks, who are not engaging in the process and others that are considering discontinuance as it relates to this. 

How can you stand on this, and so as not to give you a moment 

to just talk about it endlessly, and I am sorry to do this to you, 

would you agree rather than answer the question, which was rhetorical, would you agree that some regulation is necessary? 

I will start with you, sir, Mr. Cachey. Would you agree that some 

regulation is necessary? 

Mr. CACHEY. No, I think we just need to apply the regulations 

that we have to the entire industry. 

Mr. GREEN. How would you apply the regulations that you have 

to the entire industry when the IRS only has 500 people and they 

are already overworked? How would you do that? 

Mr. CACHEY. Give them more people. 

Mr. GREEN. You would hire more people at IRS and let the more 

people at IRS, the 500-plus additional people, service this industry? 

I take it, ma’am, that would be your position as well? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes. The regulations and licensure structure 

are already in effect. They are on the books. 

Mr. GREEN. You would just enforce the regulations that are on 

the books? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. If the regulations that are on the books have not 

picked up as many persons as are registered, how can you contend 

that is an efficacious regulation? You have more people—this is my 

statement and at least one person agrees with me—unregistered 

than registered. 

How do you contend that is effective regulation when they are 

going under the radar to the extent they are? 

I thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Representative Maloney for her legislation as well as the other members. 

The members are trying to do something about the problem and 

I think while you may not concur with what is being proposed, you 

have to admit it is time to act. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. If any witness wishes to respond in one sentence with ordinary punctuation, or you may respond for the record, if you would like. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Let me ask Western Union, Mr. Cachey, 

what mechanisms do you use to ensure that the services that are 

provided by Western Union do not support terrorist activities or 

money laundering? 

Mr. CACHEY. That is actually the function that I am personally 

in charge of at Western Union. We spend over $35 million a year 

22 

and I have over 325 employees located in 40 offices around the 

world who work on anti-money laundering and the counter financing of terrorism. 

This includes not only monitoring transactions, looking for suspicious activity that can be reported to the government under the 

Bank Secrecy Act, but also doing things like government-sanctioned programs in conjunction with OFAC and the Department of 

Treasury, but also gathering and building relationships with law 

enforcement and regulators around the world, since we do business 

in 200 countries, and bringing that intelligence back in and trying 

to determine where in our system there might be abuses, and then 

either eradicating those abuses or if there is potential abuse, reporting those to the government so they can be acted upon. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can you share with us some examples perhaps of 

where you have found out that terrorists, organizations or sympathy organizations for terrorists have been able to use Western 

Union’s services, and if you could tell us, does most of your business now—Western Union is international—how much of it is national and how much of it is international? 

Mr. CACHEY. Approximately 60 percent of Western Union’s transactions do not touch the United States. Therefore, the money goes 

from France to Algeria, let’s say, or some other corridor. 

Frankly, when we report to the government what we suspect 

may be some type of illicit activity, we do not get a lot of feedback 

from the government as to hey, good job, that was something connected to money laundering or terrorist financing and we stopped 

it. 

We do not get that feedback with all the reporting that we do. 

I cannot cite examples of that, although anecdotally, you see things 

that might get reported in the paper or you hear something, oh, 

yes, an investigation occurred and yes, we know we were part of 

what people are reporting. 

There is not a good mechanism to get information back from the 

government on how much we are helping with the government’s efforts. 

Mr. SCOTT. You would say in conclusion that there have been 

several suspicious examples, but nothing concrete. For 9/11, if my 

memory serves me correctly, there were about 28 individuals who 

were intimately involved. They were over here. They received 

money. 

Was any of that suspicious activity through Western Union? 

Mr. CACHEY. Actually, there was about $5,000 that was returned 

the day before 9/11 back to the Middle East. Again, it was not suspicious because these individuals had the appropriate governmentissued i.d.’s on the State level. They had bank accounts. They had 

credit cards. 

In looking at our system, the transaction looked like a normal 

day-to-day transaction to us because there was nothing irregular 

about the identification or about the mode in which the people sent 

the funds. 

The only way the funds were identified as being part of that was 

after the names were released by the government and then we ran 

the names through the system and found that $5,000 transaction. 

23 

Mr. SCOTT. There have been reports of MSBs that falsely certify 

they are compliant with the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. 

How prevalent is this problem? 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Again, one sentence orally, and 

as long as you would like in writing for the record. 

Mr. MCCLAIN. Thank you, Congressman. I will field that question. I am not aware of any particular circumstances involving 

those types of violations. 

I am aware that the IRS has conducted thousands upon thousands of examinations of MSBs and there have only been a handful 

of cases that have been referred to FinCEN for enforcement action. 

Again, I am not aware of any of those circumstances to which 

you referred. 

Mr. SCOTT. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Foster, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. My questions have to do with the technological future of this industry. I think you all must be thinking 

about whether even 2 to 5 years from now, everyone is just going 

to have their smart phone and that is how they will do everything 

from check cashing, money transfers, prepaid cards, all this sort of 

thing. We are going to just be transferred to electronic platforms. 

I think just the existence of storefront operations is in question 

within a few years. 

The two questions I have, first, if you could just comment on 

what you think the industry will look like 5 years from now, from 

a technological point of view, and what regulation, if any, we 

should be thinking about to get ahead of the curve on the changes 

here, and finally, any comments you have on the proposals that I 

guess are coming through the Senate for effectively a biometric 

worker i.d. card, which could be an important part of authentication, which is a huge issue in all these things, and what are the 

main reasons why you would have a remaining need for a store 

front operation. 

A wide range of issues. Let’s start with Mr. Cachey. 

Mr. CACHEY. We agree with you, things like mobile money transfer, mobile banking, that we think are the wave of the future, although we do not think the storefront is going to become obsolete 

because eventually people want to figure out how to get cash in or 

cash out of their cell phone. 

Mr. FOSTER. Is that not why God invented the ATM? 

Mr. CACHEY. In a lot of places around the world, they do not 

have ATMs, but there is a Western Union location there that can 

help people with their financial needs. 

That is why we still think the brick-and-mortar locations will be 

viable. 

From a transfer standpoint, we agree and we are already offering 

services between the United States and the Philippines and the 

United States and Kenya based on mobile money transfers as pilots 

to determine what is the best way to offer those services and also 

be compliant with things like the Bank Secrecy Act and foreign jurisdiction bank secrecy acts. 

Mr. FOSTER. Mr. McClain? 

24 

Mr. MCCLAIN. It is difficult to foresee the future, but as Mr. 

Cachey has pointed out, I think there will always be a need for 

brick-and-mortar retail financial services. 

Cash will always be with us, I think. I think we are seeing in 

our industry a decline in the number of check transactions, as some 

payments move toward electronic payment systems. I do not think 

we will ever get to a point or certainly not in the foreseeable future, where all of a sudden checks will just be obsolete. There is 

certainly a need for them and they serve a very convenient need. 

With respect to regulation, it always takes some period of time 

before the law catches up with the technology. I think it is just a 

question of identifying how new technologies create these risks and 

acting aggressively to enact appropriate legislation to address that. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. Ms. Thoren-Peden? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I agree. I think a lot of payments and payment systems are absolutely growing electronically, whether it is 

going to be through E-Wallet, mobile payments, even the clearinghouse in the Federal Reserve is opening up to 37 countries by the 

end of the year through the ACH system. It tends to be faster, 

quicker. I believe there will be a shift. 

Like Joe, I still think there is going to be some cash as well in 

the community. 

In terms of the biometric question, it would be a convenient identification methodology. I recognize that on a privacy front, there 

are significant privacy issues. Certainly, in a voluntary capacity, I 

think it would be terrific. I think it is a good way to do i.d. 

In terms of the current regulations, most of them are written 

with an eye toward electronic payments, so I think while the regulations are in pretty good shape, probably there needs to be a little 

more guidance on some of them. I think it is going to be more 

adapting them and helping people understand as they offer new 

services how it applies to them. 

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Foster. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Lynch, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

your courtesy in allowing me to sit in. I am not a member of this 

subcommittee, but along with Mr. Royce, the gentleman from California, I co-chair the Taskforce on Terrorist Financing. This overlaps with that jurisdiction. 

As Mr. Royce has indicated, we have had some success there in 

terms of denying access to the legitimate financial system to terrorists. We owe a lot of credit to Treasury, FinCEN, OFAC, FATF, the 

Financial Action Taskforce, which is an inter-governmental agency, 

but there has been some success. 

We have been able to drive out a lot of terrorist financing from 

the major banks and major institutions, but what has happened is 

like squeezing a balloon; we have seen that it has gone down to 

less formal institutions. 

Right now, we just concluded a round of discussions with the 

Central Banks in Pakistan. We were very involved in Jordan, Tunisia, and Morocco to get them to adopt anti-money laundering statVerDate Nov 24 2008 18:04 Jun 18, 2010 Jkt 056771 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 K:\DOCS\56771.TXT TERRIE
25 

utes and to actually stand up financial intelligence units in those 

countries. 

Part of our focus has been on these hawalas that operate, and 

it is an informal value transfer system, you might call it the ‘‘Muslim Western Union.’’ Because of the connection with Muslim culture, it has been a delicate area. 

Here we are requesting these foreign governments to require 

hawalas to register and to adopt anti-money laundering measures, 

to know their customers. 

It seems like what you are suggesting here because of bank discontinuance is that we are going to move away from that in this 

country. It is just going to make it very difficult for us to require 

other nations to be more prudent while we, at least at your urging, 

are moving away from this tighter regulation and tighter standard, 

at least with respect to terrorist financing. 

I am just wondering how you think this is going to help us on 

the terrorist financing end if banks are required to do less and if 

MSBs are required to do less. How is that going to help? 

Mr. CACHEY. I think in the bank certification bill, if I can call 

it that, my understanding is banks still have the right to say to a 

prospective client, you are an MSB, so I need to see your FinCEN 

registration. I do not think it is the guys who already play by the 

rules who are the challenge here. 

The typical challenge that we are all having with hawalas is that 

they do not register with whatever entity they are supposed to register with, they do not get the licenses they are supposed to get at 

the State level, and therefore, they are outside the scope of examination. 

A self-certification process as contemplated in the bill would not 

preclude a bank from doing its normal due diligence which we recommend to banks, let me see your FinCEN registration, let me see 

your State license, to make sure you are being regulated appropriately, let me see your compliance program, and let me see your 

certification that you are doing everything that you say you are 

doing. 

I do not think it diminishes or sort of opens the banking system 

up, if you will, to hawalas to infiltrate it. 

Mr. LYNCH. No, but I am using our example here in this country 

with MSBs. The fact that we have half the folks maybe registered. 

I am not sure what the exact number is. Half the people are not. 

We seem to have a very loose and informal system here. You are 

arguing, at least from the testimony here, because of bank discontinuation, we are going to lower the responsibilities they have 

and also with no further regulation on MSBs, we are going to reduce the requirement to you as well. 

It seems to be sort of an open system or a less secure system. 

I just see problems in that. I just was wondering how you anticipate addressing that. 

Ms. Thoren-Peden? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes, sir. I do not think the banks are going 

to go away at all. I just think transactions are going to become 

more electronic. That is what I was saying. 

Even under the current regulations, the bank’s obligations to file 

suspicious activity reports will continue under the Bank Secrecy 

26 

Act, as is the case with the money services businesses as well, 

which today are also subject to the filings. 

The monitoring systems and the filings, I do not see as changing 

with any of the proposals for self-certification. 

Mr. LYNCH. As long as there is a connection between the bank 

and the MSB; right? 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. Yes. 

Mr. LYNCH. Are we talking about the possibility that is no longer 

the requirement here? 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. A one sentence answer, orally. 

Ms. THOREN-PEDEN. I think financial services would continue to 

be provided either through the bank or the money service businesses, both of which are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and will 

continue to be. 

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Lynch. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Ellison, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your work here, and 

thank you for this hearing. 

In my district in Minneapolis, we have a number of hawalas. 

These folks are small business people. I think they are trying to 

do the right thing. A number of them have had their relationships 

with their financial institutions cut off. 

I guess my question to the panelists is, for hawalas doing business, trying to get money to remote parts of the world, who are 

working to try to comply but for whom there is no specific reason 

to believe they are not in compliance, how will this affect their 

business? How will the bill, H.R. 4331, affect their business? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. I will take that, Congressman. I do not think it 

was really designed to affect their businesses at all. I think this 

proposed—first of all, if they are conducting business and acting as 

a money transmitter, they have to be registered as a money transmitter, and at the State level, they have to be licensed in most jurisdictions. That is an absolute threshold they do have to meet. 

With respect to the proposed legislation, I do not think it would 

impact at all their ability to do business. One of the proposals is 

the creation of a self-regulatory organization. 

I think that again bears some further examination by the industry and some additional work with the subcommittee. I think again 

it is something that would not necessarily directly impact a money 

transmitter’s ability to conduct business. 

Mr. ELLISON. I am also curious to get your views on this topic. 

Post-9/11, our country very correctly took measures to try to stop 

terrorist financing. 

Given the 9 years or 81⁄2 years hence, in your view, are there 

things we should do to allow for more enterprise and more money 

transmitting that will not sacrifice our ability to stop terrorist financing? 

Mr. MCCLAIN. I think I will direct that to Mr. Cachey, who represents Western Union. 

Mr. CACHEY. Our point of view is that the laws are there. The 

Patriot Act has been very effective if you look at the reports coming 

out of the Department of the Treasury year after year. Therefore, 

27 

the need here is not a different regulatory scheme or a regulatory 

scheme that has more laws, but how do we push the effectiveness 

of the regulations through the entire industry? 

When you have a Western Union or a MoneyGram, which is a 

Minnesota company, and you are doing the right thing, that is one 

thing, but when you have 5,000 or 10,000 other companies out 

there that according to the statistics are not even registered with 

FinCEN, it seems to me that is where the risk is, and that is where 

the effort should be put, as opposed to passing more laws and trying to just create more regulations for the industry. 

Mr. ELLISON. Why do you think this large number of companies 

are not registered with FinCEN? Is it because they are just small 

mom and pop operations? Based on your institutional knowledge, 

is there any general reason why not? 

Mr. CACHEY. I think it is typical of regulation of any industry. 

The small guys are the start up’s, they are entrepreneurial, they 

are willing to take the risk. Compliance costs money. If you are 

only making $50,000 a year on this service, are you going to go out 

and spend $20,000 on a compliance system and a person to take 

a look at it and lawyers to advise you on it and all that type of 

stuff. That is their decision to make. 

I could see how a small business person starting something up 

could say maybe I am just going to take the risk for the first couple 

of years to see if this works before I am going to build a process 

to comply with these laws. 

Mr. ELLISON. What about a more streamlined way to build compliance that ensures safety of the system but reduces some of the 

barriers to entry? As much as it is great to have a big company like 

Western Union and MoneyGram, this is still America. We still believe in enterpreneurism. 

Any reflections on that? 

Mr. CACHEY. I think there has been a lot of talk recently about 

the risk-based approach to compliance, meaning build a system 

that is commensurate with the risk that your institution offers. I 

think that sheds some light on the subject and gives us sort of a 

light at the end of the tunnel for the smaller remitters. 

Mr. ELLISON. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. Thank you, Mr. Ellison. 

The gentlelady from New York has a great interest in this topic 

and has further questions, so we will have a second round of questions out of the Chair’s great affection and respect for the 

gentlelady and because she is from Greensboro, originally. 

The Chair waives his round. I understand Mr. Marchant waives 

a second round of questioning. The Chair now recognizes the 

gentlelady from New York. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I would just like to ask Mr. Cachey, and I know 

you testified earlier, I have been in and out with meetings with 

constituents in the other room, but I do know you testified you had 

concerns about H.R. 4331. 

I am wondering whether you can provide your views on the bill 

I have introduced that would allow for a self-certification process 

for MSBs while maintaining the State regulatory structure. 

Do you believe that this approach is more in line with your proposal to create a licensing system? Do you see the licensing system 

28 

better than these two bills? Do you see it working in conjunction 

with these bills? How do you see us moving forward with some type 

of legislative framework that could help the commerce, help the 

people, and solve this problem? 

Mr. CACHEY. Congresswoman, I see two separate problems. One 

is that the smaller remitters, smaller MSBs, are having problems 

maintaining or obtaining bank accounts which they need to do 

their business. I see the self-certification bill that you mentioned 

as an appropriate way to address that. 

On the issue of licensing, as a nationwide business, if you will, 

right now, I have 48 licenses. I get examined between 15 and 20 

times a year from various State banking departments. I would 

rather have one Federal regulator license me and come in and examine me every year. To me, that is a more efficient way to operate 

our business. 

I really see them as two separate issues. I think the certification 

process is appropriate. I do not think there is any hidden bogeyman 

in there. I think it is a way for smaller businesses to get the services they need from their local banks. 

For a company like Western Union, MoneyGram, which we mentioned before you came in, and the other larger MSBs, the bifurcation of licensing among 48 States just is burdensome, contradictory 

in some circumstances, and just is not an efficient way to operate 

a business. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, that was my focus, to 

try to figure out what would be a way to move forward. Thank you. 

Mr. MILLER OF NORTH CAROLINA. The Chair thanks the 

gentlelady, and the gentlelady from the upper east side of Manhattan is proof that if you can make it in Greensboro, you can make 

it anywhere. 

Mr. Ellison does not have a second round. 

I would now like to thank all the witnesses and the members for 

their participation in the hearing. As I have said repeatedly to the 

witnesses and to the members, the record will remain open. 

Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 30 

days for members to submit written questions to the witnesses, and 

to place the witnesses’ responses in the record, as well as any written responses to oral questions asked today. 

The subcommittee hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(29) 

A P P E N D I X 

March 10, 2010 

30 


56771.001
31 


56771.002
32 


56771.003
33 


56771.004
34 


56771.005
35 


56771.006
36 


56771.007
37 


56771.008
38 


56771.009
39 


56771.010
40 


56771.011
41 


56771.012
42 


56771.013
43 


56771.014
44 


56771.015
45 


56771.016
46 


56771.017