HR 4777 likely up in July

[Berge20]

Obviously the schedule is flexible and things can change, but just an FYI

House Leaders Plan Long List of Votes in July Aimed at Pleasing Conservatives
By Susan Ferrechio, CQ Staff
House GOP leaders say they plan to take up a series of bills next month favored by the Republican Party’s socially conservative base, including a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage (H J Res 88).

GOP leaders said they also plan floor action on a series of tax cuts, including the child tax credit, “marriage penalty” relief and tax incentives for those who adopt children.

House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said the bills will be spread out over the three weeks between the return from the weeklong July 4 recess and the start of the much longer August recess. The legislation includes top priorities of groups such as Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

“Through this agenda, we will work to protect the faith of our people, the sanctity of life and freedoms outlined by our founding fathers,” Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said in a written statement. “Radical courts have attempted to gut our religious freedom and redefine the value system on which America was built.”

House leaders, along with some members of the 50-member, highly conservative House Republican Values Action Team (VAT), met earlier this year with advocacy groups to get their input and assure social activists that their priorities would not be ignored.

The meeting shaped the agenda, Blunt said, and it was announced Tuesday “both to give our outside friends a chance to work on it and to let the members know before they go home for the district work period that this is what we’ll be taking up.”

The bills on the July floor-action list include a ban on human cloning (HR 1357) that has been at the top of the VAT wish list since the start of the 109th Congress.

House leaders announced they also plan to take up other VAT priorities, including a bill requiring those who perform late-term abortions to inform patients that the fetus feels pain (HR 356) and legislation that would prohibit monetary damages, costs or lawyer’s fees from being awarded when state or local officials are sued over public expressions of religion (HR 2679).

Also on the July list:

• A bill (HR 5092) that would give the federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives more tools to police gun sellers, short of revoking their licenses.

• A bill (HR <4777) that would apply current gambling laws to the Internet.

• A bill (HR 5013) that would prohibit governments from using federal funds to confiscate lawfully possessed guns during emergencies.

And for good measure, Hastert’s list includes a bill the House passed by voice vote Tuesday. That bill (HR 42) would forbid condominium associations, cooperative associations and residential real estate management associations from having policies against the display of the U.S. flag.

[Beastmaster]

Berge, still your opinion that time is running short and with some arguement for a 1 yr study that this will probably pass house but may not come up in the Senate this year?

[IronDragon1]

Is there any indication whether any provisions Leach bill (can't remember HR#) are in 4777 or has it been subsumed into 4777?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

May 29 - June 2 -Senate not in session
May 29 ----------Memorial Day (observed)
June 5 (Monday)--Senate reconvenes
July 3 - 7-------Senate not in session
July 4-----------Independence Day
July 10 (Monday)-Senate reconvenes
August 7 - September 4-Senate not in session
September 4------Labor Day
September 5 (Tuesday)--Senate reconvenes
October 6------------Target Adjournment Date

========

If this thing is approved in the House at some point in mid-late July, that would give the Senate essentially the four weeks in September to draft the measure, get it out of committee, and approve it on the floor. That seems like it's not enough time, particuarly since many Senators will be distracted at that time campaigning for re-election. But I don't know, and of course if the GOP leadership perceives this measure as a major political priority, it could be fastracked.

[Jay Cohen]

This is not good news people. If this passes the House, they can jam something through the Senate in a couple of days. Keep calling your Congressmen and women.

[Berge20]

I'd prefer to let one of the other guys more familiar with the Senate comment on if prospects have shifted any in the Senate (or if they would if/when the House passes a bill), but I would be surprised that if American Gaming Association fully comes out against such measures that it would move quickly, if at all, in the Senate. However, I do not know if they intend to actively oppose it and put their energy behind it.

The potential merging of HR 4777 with the Leach bill HR 4411 is possible, but I believe that House leadership would simply prefer to move one or the other (and it appears it will be HR 4777). That decision is coming from the significant pressure that Rep. Goodlatte is putting on them to move his bill over Rep. Leach's bill.

In addition, I believe that HR 4777 is less likely to get bogged down in discussions over matters involving financial institutions, allowing those opposing internet gambling to focus on that issue entirely. Many of these bills coming up are designed to rally the Republican base and the Goodlatte bill simply does a better job of reaching that goal.

Washington is politics first...then policy, so while it may make more sense to use provisions from both bills, I don't think it will happen.

Finally, the schedule here rarely sticks to the targeted adjournment date. It is likely we will be here in December this year, as we have for many years in a row. This is particularly true because the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Spending bill has been held up in the House over the minimum wage issue.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not good news people. If this passes the House, they can jam something through the Senate in a couple of days. Keep calling your Congressmen and women.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all. Given the fact that some reps in Nevada are favoring a study of gambling legislation over outright prohibition, odds of it being put on the fast track and "passed in a couple days" are slim to none. Nevada senators are likely to oppose this, making the "unanimous consent" way of passing a bill unlikely. Of course, people should continue to contact their members of congress, but let's be reasonable about posting things that are likely only to scare people.

[Karak567]

They can pass it in the house, but I doubt it will ever pass in the senate.

[DING-DONG YO]

I AM THE SENATE!!!

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/8669/darthsidious4hq.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Sorry, just had to throw that out there.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it doesn't pass. C'mon, gaming lobby!!!!

[BluffTHIS!]

On the timing issue, let's say the session does run to December, which might be less likely if the democrats regain control and don't want significant action until their leadership is installed. Furthermore, let's say HR4777 passed mid-July. Even so, unless there is a compelling reason to skip the committee process, there just doesn't seem to be much time to pass this thing in the Senate.

Note that this bill has been fast-tracked in the house, and still managed to take 5 months from start to finish. So even if it were in the Senate, their fast-tracking has to actually be even faster. And then of course it has to go to conference committee.

While as I have said before I don't mean to paint an overly rosy picture here, I do think time is on our side for this session, though perhaps not overwhelimingly so. Also it is important that if action can't as seems likely be taken until after the election in the senate, then there won't be as much reason on the part of some senators to pander to the anti-gambling crowd.

[Jay Cohen]

I don't think it will need a conference committee. I believe Kyl will introduce whatever form of the bill passes the House to avoid the conference issue.

I think, and someone correct me if I am wrong that the Democrats winning will make a December session MORE likely. I don't think the Democrats would have any say until January. It would be the Republicans last shot to get their wish lists passed.

It seems to me that AGA's opposition is luke warm at best. We'll see.

[Berge20]

I'm not certain what impact a Democratic take-over in the House would do session wise this year. There are enough procedural hurdles in both chambers (particularly in the Senate) that if the Republicans lost and wanted to try and push some items through b4 they lost power that it would be challenging.

We have not left town before November 22nd in 9 years (to give you a more clear sense of how good at hitting target adjournment).

In the Senate, I think we will be fine if it goes through regular order. The UC (Unanimous concent) is what we absolutely can't have and that is the ultimate fast track.

I would imagine Kyle would introduce language exactly like what passed the House if he felt he could get it through this year. Avoiding long (or any) conference committees is done when possible and this is probably a situation that it would be tried.

[BluffTHIS!]

Berge,

Thanks for the additional info. What you said earlier about politics coming first is also encouraging. Because that means that some lukewarm representatives and senators who may want to be on record voting for this thing only really care about that and not actually working hard to see it gets through once their position is on record as ostensibly supporting the anti-gambling crowd.

BTW, we're counting on you to bog this down and maybe insert an additional word or two at the last minute to neuter the bill /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[dustyn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not certain what impact a Democratic take-over in the House would do session wise this year. There are enough procedural hurdles in both chambers (particularly in the Senate) that if the Republicans lost and wanted to try and push some items through b4 they lost power that it would be challenging.

We have not left town before November 22nd in 9 years (to give you a more clear sense of how good at hitting target adjournment).

In the Senate, I think we will be fine if it goes through regular order. The UC (Unanimous concent) is what we absolutely can't have and that is the ultimate fast track.

I would imagine Kyle would introduce language exactly like what passed the House if he felt he could get it through this year. Avoiding long (or any) conference committees is done when possible and this is probably a situation that it would be tried.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thought is that, according to that Congress Daily article posted here a couple weeks ago, the Senate typically does not like ammending the wire act. I wonder if this makes it less likely the same language gets used for the Senate bill (assuming one even gets drafted), and keeps things going slowly enough for them to run out of time. Seems like it would be another thing working in our favor.

[Jay Cohen]

Here is an article from today's Las Vegas paper. I don't find it encouraging. I don't like Boehner being so enthusiastic about it. The Shelby statement is disturbing as well.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2006/Jun-30-Fri-2006/business/8248138.html

[Berge20]

Good article - Guess I was wrong about the merging of the bills (Surprised, but not the first or last time I'll be wrong)

Article definately has some disturbing comments.

[spatne]

Another possible wrench is that the Senate could spend some extra time in a big war over pay raises. Harry Reid has vowed to marshal all Dems to block any pay raises/COLA for the Senate unless the Repbulicans agree to raise the federal minimum wage to...I can't remember the figure, but it's something like $7.15.

Am I mistaken, or does a fight like this have the potential to completely wreck the timetable?

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
Berge,

Thanks for the additional info. What you said earlier about politics coming first is also encouraging. Because that means that some lukewarm representatives and senators who may want to be on record voting for this thing only really care about that and not actually working hard to see it gets through once their position is on record as ostensibly supporting the anti-gambling crowd.

BTW, we're counting on you to bog this down and maybe insert an additional word or two at the last minute to neuter the bill /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hard to figure the politics of this thing in the Senate. Reid (and probably Ensign) will probably go where the B&M casino crowd goes. Kyl, on the other hand, is in a tough race and might feel the need to get something added to the accomplishment list. Reid, therefore, might have two reasons to gum it up: the casinos and denying Kyl a legislative victory.

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
They can pass it in the house, but I doubt it will ever pass in the senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you say that?