Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!

[Berge20]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. K or Berge 20,

Correct me if I am wrong or please clarify.

If they attach something that differs from the House version at all, it has to go to conference. If it's very different, it can easily be stripped out, right?

I think this is what happened in 03 or 04 with this issue. I seem to recall both the House and Senate passing something, but they were each a little different and it was stripped out in conferrence. Yes, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

They are attaching it to another bill entirely that has passed both chambers entirely and is already in a Conference Committee. This is part of the legislative process that is messy.

Things that come out of conference reports can be extraneous, brand new, etc. Since this isn't on the poker bill (it is on the DoD Authorization) we are already at that point.

[JuntMonkey]

The Washington Post article pretty clearly states that it's about credit cards. It also says the measures would not be as sweeping. I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but it looks like there's a pretty good chance this could be a "compromise" that will hardly affect us at all, and keep us safe for a while.

Also, with the banks lobbying against it, isn't it much more unlikely that this will be major?

[DuderinoAB]

[ QUOTE ]
The Washington Post article pretty clearly states that it's about credit cards. It also says the measures would not be as sweeping. I don't actually know what I'm talking about, but it looks like there's a pretty good chance this could be a "compromise" that will hardly affect us at all, and keep us safe for a while.

Also, with the banks lobbying against it, isn't it much more unlikely that this will be major?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does appear that way on the surface...I really hope you're right.

[Mr.K]

A couple of points responding to the last 6 ot 7 posts:

- The DoD Authorization is already in conference, and the conferees + leaders can throw anything they want in there. They do not have to separately conference those items, or go through any other rigamaroll. They stick in what they want to stick in, and then all the need to do from there is: get the conferees from the House and Senate to separately approve the conference report (do not get hung up on this -- it is mostly routine and not done by some public vote, so don't latch on to this as a possible point of delay), then file the conference report in the House or Senate for consideration, pass it through the first body and then through the second.

- Points of order may lie against the conference report, if it includes the gambling legislation, but I guarantee they won't be raised, or, if raised, that they won't succeed. Just trust me. Don't get hung up on this, because if it comes to that, the points of order won't matter. The entire game is whether gambling provisions go in the conference report, if the conference report ever gets voted on, and what those provisions look like as far as substance.

- "Spirit of the holds" is something that really just doesn't exist as far as I know. Senators always have a chance to find out what is in a bill, and what is coming to the floor, and if they want to hold it, they can try. Leaders can defeat holds through cloture, and that's the way the game plays out. Leaders would never waste time to get cloture on the Internet gambling bill itself -- it is too small -- but they might on a DoD bill that just so happens to have the gambling provisions attached to it. Their motivation for defeating holds via cloture on the DoD bill would not be to move gambling legislation... they just are not plotting to do this the way some of you think they are... but rather to move an important package of defense laws on procurement, troop pay, and other policy matters. I think the way holds would play on a DoD Authorization bill containing the gambling legislation is that Senators would threaten to hold it up if the gambling legislation is attached in a form they don't like -- and that threat can be powerful depending on how sincere it is perceived to be. This is why I think we're hearing all the talk about a significantly narrowed bill.

- If the language being floated by Frist (and I 100% guarantee there is language circulating, although a select few staffers may have access to it) is as narrow as the newspapers are reporting, it could represent a MAJOR win for online poker players. Few players I am aware of use credit cards, and as I have said before, there may be very good public policy reasons for prohibiting credit cards from being used to finance gambling. Passage of a credit card only provision would not amend the Wire Act, and would not enact some of the other sweeping changes I have seen online poker players expressing concern about. Plus, passage of the narrow legislation would likely forestall passage of other, more comprehensive legislation for at least a year, if not longer. Once Congress acts on an issue, it is usually loathe to revisit it for a long while.

[Mr.K]

Some excerpts from a story that is running in today's edition of Congressional Quarterly:

"Conferees Pushing to Complete Defense Authorization Measure This Week

Negotiators hope to file by Friday a final version of the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill that would eliminate restrictions on the Pentagon’s ability to buy overseas goods and clear the way for multi-year procurement of the F-22A fighter aircraft.

The conference report on the bill (HR 5122) could reach the House floor early next week.

“We’re moving forward with reconciliation,” Senate Armed Services Chairman John W. Warner, R-Va., said Wednesday after two hours of negotiations on a handful of remaining issues.

...

Congressional sources said a last-minute concern was raised Wednesday about a House provision that would allow military chaplains to read prayers without fear of reprisal from their commanders. Senate negotiators suggested that the provision was unnecessary, but House conservatives pressed to keep it in the bill."

---

No mention in the article of the Internet gambling provisions being inserted. If I had to put a number on it, I'd say there is at least a 50% chance that we see a gambling provision in the conference report -- albeit one that is less expansive than the House version.

I do not know what this slimmed down provision would mean as far as the Tradesports contracts.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
If the language being floated by Frist (and I 100% guarantee there is language circulating, although a select few staffers may have access to it) is as narrow as the newspapers are reporting, it could represent a MAJOR win for online poker players. Few players I am aware of use credit cards, and as I have said before, there may be very good public policy reasons for prohibiting credit cards from being used to finance gambling. Passage of a credit card only provision would not amend the Wire Act, and would not enact some of the other sweeping changes I have seen online poker players expressing concern about. Plus, passage of the narrow legislation would likely forestall passage of other, more comprehensive legislation for at least a year, if not longer. Once Congress acts on an issue, it is usually loathe to revisit it for a long while.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to post something along these lines as a question, and it is greatly reassuring to see that somebody who knows the ins-and-outs of the process better than I do is thinking the same way.

In some ways, this would actually be a better outcome than having the bill fail outright and having to relive this whole thing during the next session. (Assuming, of course, that the new language is highly stripped-down, a big "if" for now).

[Berge20]

Agreed

It would be better in the long-run if we see a very narrow provision added in the DoD Authorization conference report dealing with the use of credit cards. It takes some of the pressure and a legitimate argument off the table for a broader bill.

That said, these conference report provisions could contain anything or everything. We could see the language today and it could be comepltely different with stuff penciled in as it is filed (unlikely in this scenario, but still possible).

I'll make some inquiries to see what I can find, but these things are generally challenging to find unless you are a staffer for the committee or a conferee staffer.

[MiltonFriedman]

"They are attaching it to another bill entirely that has passed both chambers entirely and is already in a Conference Committee. ....

... Since this isn't on the poker bill (it is on the DoD Authorization) we are already at that point."

Could you clarify the status ? I understand that Conferences can be messy, and all sorts of deals can be worked out ... but,

Has the Other Bill to which the gambling provisions will be attached already been passed ? Has it gone to conference ?

Is this what you mean by "already at that poiht?" ?

Thanks.

[DuderinoAB]

Berge and Mr. K,
You are guys are awesome. Thanks for keeping us political lame-brains informed.

[JPFisher55]

If, a big if, this provision only bans the use of credit cards to deposit funds at online gambling sites, then I would favor this law. US players generally can't use credit cards anyway at these sites. Also, this helsp prevent kids who are too young to be gambling online from doing so without their parents knowledge.