Correcting misinformation on the gambling ban

[AlexM]

1. People aren't getting the vote count right. The House vote count was 409-2. ( http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll516.xml ) The 421-2 vote total listed in the Saturday Update thread is from a vote on a port security bill that took place last spring.

2. The Senate passed this bill 2 weeks ago, not Friday, BEFORE the onling gambling rider was added. I dunno if this means they have to vote on it again with the rider. I would think they would, but given everyone's belief that this has fully passed, I'm uncertain. (it would be nice to know though) If this is the case then this bill may not be actually passed until the lame duck session starts, which will give us more time.

[BluffTHIS!]

You are mixing up the vote totals from where the bill passed in each house, and then later passed in the form as ammended by the joint conference committee. Only in situations where one house passes a bill sent over from the other house with no changes is there only one vote in each house. And any bill appropriating money has to originate in the house of representatives.

[AlexM]

Well, I'm very confused then. I certainly don't see how a rider could be added after both houses have passed a bill. I also don't see how one could say the vote was 421-2 when a later vote on an amended version was 409-2.

[Lego05]

I'm not sure entiely how everythign works but I know it has been passed. The senate used some procedural thing or another to pass it unanmiously.

[BluffTHIS!]

Alex,

Each house had a vote a couple weeks ago and passed the ports security bill in different forms. Then a joint conference committee was formed to work out the differences. Unfortunately for us, the conference committee could and did add on extraneous issues having nothing to do with the original language of the bill passed by either house. So when the bill passed the first time in the House, some congressman may have voted for it and then against the final form, or vice versa, which accounts for the differing totals. And the Senate, as noted by the poster above, often passes bills by UC, unanimous consent, in order to avoid time consuming roll call votes, even when there are clearly senators who actually oppose it. If you watch C-Span you can see this in action every day they are in session and on the floor conducting business.

The bottom line is that these are "normal" procedures, even if ones often unfair to not only us but lots of members of congress who are denied the opportunity to debate conference reports once they are filed. So there is no basis for hoping the bill didn't pass in the correct form and so can't take effect.

[AlexM]

I'm not trying to hope for anything, I'm trying to understand it. I haven't seen anything official that the Senate did anything with this bill since they passed it on the 14th. I see that the House passed something concerning it on Friday, but absolutely nothing from the Senate. On senate.gov, it doesn't list the SAFE port bill as having been passed on Friday.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_2.htm

[BluffTHIS!]

It passed late Fri night/Sat morning, so their site probably just isnt' updated yet. Try googling for thomas.loc.gov + the bill number from either house, and then you should find a history of legislative actions on it, *if* that site has been updated already, which it probably hasn't.