Anthony Weiner: “Mr. Chairman, this is a very easy-to-understand issue, but a very difficult-to-understand fee. When someone writes…”

“Mr. Chairman, this is a very easy-to-understand issue, but a very difficult-to-understand fee. When someone writes someone a check and they do not have the funds in that account, they pay a penalty. They pay a fine. They violated the rules of the transaction. When they receive the check, what have they done wrong? What rule have they violated? What sanctions should be against someone for receiving the bad check? And the gentleman from Massachusetts was absolutely correct. This is a proconsumer measure. But let us remember who the recipients of most bounced checks are. They are small businesses, they are supermarkets, they are liquor stores, they are appliance stores that are not only out the money, they are out the goods. It simply makes no sense. I have seen some of the arguments against this. They say, well, it is going to increase the cost of banking for consumers. If there is a cost to this transaction, I ask only one question: Why does the victim pay it? All my amendment does is it says they cannot charge the victim of a bad check for that action. Why should the victim pay? Why should the victim pay?”