latest version of the bill

[Wynton]

From one of the other threads, I got the impression that the bill to be voted on today or tomorrow has been amended (yet again), so that certain exclusions are no longer there.

Is there yet a link to this version of the bill online? Also, does anyone know who proposed that the exclusions be deleted?

Thanks.

[Kevmath]

H.R. 4411 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109nJV9pL::)

[ChrisAJ]

[ QUOTE ]
H.R. 4411 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:2:./temp/~c109nJV9pL::)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not quite it. Check this link (http://www.rules.house.gov/) instead. It's to the House Rules Committee website. The most recent version is linked (PDF) there, as is the text of the "exception killer" amendment.

[theta]

Is the "exception killer" amendment a ploy to make the bill so strong as to make folks less likely to vote for 4411?

Seems like it could hurt state lotteries, horse racing, etc.

[Eric Stoner]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the "exception killer" amendment a ploy to make the bill so strong as to make folks less likely to vote for 4411?

Seems like it could hurt state lotteries, horse racing, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I know nothing about the internal politics of this bill, but know enough from my civics classes to know how government works...

However, when I first read the exceptions my first response was, "Why was the language there in the first place?" I think the removal of those exceptions could make the bill more difficult to pass, especially with representatives that have ties to the horse racing industry and the lottery industry. Wasn't there a provision in the original text that also excepted fantasy baseball leagues? If so, I also find it curious that that particular provision was not added to the exception amendments.

[Wynton]

Thanks for those links.

I'm still having trouble locating the version of the bill, after the "killer amendment." The version I see everywhere contains the exclusions.

If I read the summary of the amendment correctly, it was introduced by Berkley, Wexler and Conyers. Anyone know if they were generally pro/con the earlier versions of the legislation?

[Wynton]

Never mind, I found the amendment, specifying which precise language was stricken.

Interestingly, the amendment clearly kills the prior provision permitting certain gaming on Indian lands, etc. But the provision stricken concerning horse racing was kind of strange in the first place. That provision merely said that the Act did not change which activities may or may not be already allowed. So, arguably that provision was surplusage anyway.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for those links.

I'm still having trouble locating the version of the bill, after the "killer amendment." The version I see everywhere contains the exclusions.

If I read the summary of the amendment correctly, it was introduced by Berkley, Wexler and Conyers. Anyone know if they were generally pro/con the earlier versions of the legislation?

[/ QUOTE ]

All three are Democrats and cosponsors of the proposed study bill. IIRC, Conyers was also one of the primary sponsors of a study bill in a previous congress. Also, IIRC, Wexler was bitching about how the bill had a carve-out for horse racing, but not for dog racing, which is big in his home state of FLA.

In any event, it's a fairly savvy move on their part. If they vote for the amendment, and pick up enough hard-core religious right votes in the process to pass the amendment, then the bill probably doesn't see the light of day in the Senate. OTOH, if the amendment doesn't pass, it helps to underscore the hypocrisy of the whole affair.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Never mind, I found the amendment, specifying which precise language was stricken.

Interestingly, the amendment clearly kills the prior provision permitting certain gaming on Indian lands, etc. But the provision stricken concerning horse racing was kind of strange in the first place. That provision merely said that the Act did not change which activities may or may not be already allowed. So, arguably that provision was surplusage anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take this back. Reading this a second time, I can see its arguable significance. True, the language is kind of odd, because it doesn't explicitly condone activities relating to horse racing. But it definitely does create an argument that those activities are implicitly condoned.

I've got to start reading things completely before offering opinions. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]

I've got to start reading things completely before offering opinions. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Your half-read opinions are still insightful and valuable. I'd rather you continue offering opinions that you're not sure of yet, and correcting later, than not offering any opinions at all!

[disjunction]

FWIW, I skimmed it (and I don't have any knowledge of law), and your last post makes sense to a layman like me.

It seems to me that the section says:

We just want to note that we really really don't want anybody reading this in the future to think we meant horse racing, because we don't.

Which kind of makes the bill contradict itself, but at least on TV, judges rule for what the "spirit of the legislation" was?). Striking that section puts horse racing in the same boat as everyone else.

That's my halfass interpretation anyway. /images/graemlins/grin.gif