Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7087682

Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case

By Doug Palmer
WASHINGTON, Nov 19 (Reuters) - The Bush administration should explore legislation to roll back a U.S. ban on Internet gambling instead of paying compensation to the European Union and other trading partners, the chairmen of two House of Representatives committees said on Monday.
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and six other lawmakers criticized the Bush administration's handling of the issue in a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.
"Your agency has chosen not to consult with Congress, but instead to take what we view as a drastic step which could have significant consequences for the whole WTO (World Trade Organization) system," the lawmakers said.......................................
.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..."We are writing to express our interest in considering possible legislative solutions that might restore U.S. compliance with the GATS agreement without renouncing any of our commitments under that agreement," the lawmakers said.

Click on the link for the whole story.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

Very nice indeed, we are making progress.

obg

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

what is interesting about that suggestion is that is exactly why they were all put there. To do something that conflicts with the administration. This is as good of a time for that as any.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

I wonder if Rep. Conyers and Rep. Frank really know what must be done to comply with the WTO decision. Neither repeal of the UIGEA nor the IGREA is sufficient.
I wonder if they knew that to comply with the WTO, online gambling must be exempted from all federal and state gambling laws because no consistent approach to regulating and taxing all gambling exists in the US.
Maybe the next committee hearing will focus on what the US must do to comply with the WTO. Would these two gentlemen be in favor of complying if they knew what compliance meant?

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

I know what you mean.

They could comply by exempting Antiguan companies from three laws and be done with it. It would be less than 100 words, maybe less than 50. Let them do it. Let them "Port Security" it like they did with the UIGEA.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

You dont only have to have wide open internet gambling to comply with the WTO, JP. A system similar to the UK's would work also.

Basically that means a single nationwide system that does not discriminate against foreign competition. IGREA could satisfy this if it dropped the state opt outs and made getting a US license a task that did not hamper foreign operations. The league opt out is probably going to have to go to, although some kind of creative legislation to maintain it is not impossible.

Or, as I am very unpopular for saying, the US could pass the Wexler bill and at the same time ban all remote "gambling" including horse racing and state lotteries. Fantasy sports would probably also qualify as skill. This is the only way to maintain sports betting as illegal (which - before you flame - I dont want, but would guess most congresspeople do) and still have a credible argument as to WTO compliance. The WTO would probably be asked, and I cant say for certain what they would conclude, whether a US "skill games/OK - gambling/illegal" law is compliant with our obligations.

Skallagrim

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know what you mean.

They could comply by exempting Antiguan companies from three laws and be done with it. It would be less than 100 words, maybe less than 50. Let them do it. Let them "Port Security" it like they did with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]

That would make Antigua happy - but it doesn't stop other countries with gambling interests from filing a similar complaint (like the EU). The law change would have to apply to all foreign companies to settle the matter.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

I don't think most of the other countries are interested in bringing their own case. Even the EU seems more interested in what other concessions they can extract, despite their latest public comments. If another country brought a new case it could take years and have to be dealt with by another administration.

Squaring up with Antigua would allow the US to cancel their Article 21 withdrawal. The matter would be "settled" until another country brought and litigated a case.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

Skall, IMO a system like UK's would have to apply to horse racing, state lotteries, fantasy sports, maybe the so-called skill games and all other games that most US citizens think of as Internet gambling, including online poker. IMO this is unlikely to pass. The 100 word compliance is more likely if WTO cracks down.
Jay, are you sure about EU, I have read numerous articles about their gambling execs wanting the EU to get tough with US about opening online gambling market.
Of course, if the law stated that Antiquan online gambling companies were exempt from federal and state gambling laws that would greatly benefit Antiqua. Can its islands hold all the online gaming companies in the world?

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

If I am the EU, I am quite livid that they shut out their gaming in the US, but AOL and MSFT, etc. are setting up shop in Europe.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
If I am the EU, I am quite livid that they shut out their gaming in the US, but AOL and MSFT, etc. are setting up shop in Europe.

[/ QUOTE ]

A point I have made in several letters to my congressional reps. and one I think needs to be brought out more.

obg

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]

They could comply by exempting Antiguan companies from three laws and be done with it. It would be less than 100 words, maybe less than 50. Let them do it. Let them "Port Security" it like they did with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the other countries are interested in bringing their own case. Even the EU seems more interested in what other concessions they can extract, despite their latest public comments. If another country brought a new case it could take years and have to be dealt with by another administration.

Squaring up with Antigua would allow the US to cancel their Article 21 withdrawal. The matter would be "settled" until another country brought and litigated a case.

[/ QUOTE ]



Jay,

Surely you and your contacts in Antigua don't see this exempt Antigua only solution as being plausible do you? If the U.S. is going to cave, the effects of either exempting Antigua alone and the world's gaming companies moving there to market to the U.S., or exempting the entire world (complying fully), would be the same. So why would the U.S. wish to especially benefit Antigua which forced them to comply in some manner?

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]

Jay, are you sure about EU, I have read numerous articles about their gambling execs wanting the EU to get tough with US about opening online gambling market.
Of course, if the law stated that Antiquan online gambling companies were exempt from federal and state gambling laws that would greatly benefit Antiqua. Can its islands hold all the online gaming companies in the world?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of the articles you are referring to can all trace their roots back to the same quote or press release. There are EU gaming interests that are doing an excellent job at publicity and getting their view out there, over and over.

Yes, the head of EU trade did make some comments recently, but everything else you read is being pumped out by other organizations. I could be wrong, but the vibe I am getting is that this is not important to them. Could it change if the gaming companies lobby hard enough, maybe leave some money on a table somewhere? Sure.

Antigua and Barbuda are merely two islands, and only one would really qualify. It is 108 square miles. And no, there's not room for everyone.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

They could comply by exempting Antiguan companies from three laws and be done with it. It would be less than 100 words, maybe less than 50. Let them do it. Let them "Port Security" it like they did with the UIGEA.

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
I don't think most of the other countries are interested in bringing their own case. Even the EU seems more interested in what other concessions they can extract, despite their latest public comments. If another country brought a new case it could take years and have to be dealt with by another administration.

Squaring up with Antigua would allow the US to cancel their Article 21 withdrawal. The matter would be "settled" until another country brought and litigated a case.

[/ QUOTE ]



Jay,

Surely you and your contacts in Antigua don't see this exempt Antigua only solution as being plausible do you? If the U.S. is going to cave, the effects of either exempting Antigua alone and the world's gaming companies moving there to market to the U.S., or exempting the entire world (complying fully), would be the same. So why would the U.S. wish to especially benefit Antigua which forced them to comply in some manner?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it plausible? Yes. Likely, No.

But if the US really wants to "Comply," that's all they need to do.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it plausible? Yes. Likely, No.

But if the US really wants to "Comply," that's all they need to do.

[/ QUOTE ]


Jay,

I guess we got a semantics thing going on here. I equate plausibility with reasonable likelihood. So I would say that the scenario you propose is "possible", but not "plausible". Mainly because if the administration is forced by congress to cave in, that they are going to seek to spite Antigua in some way for forcing the situation upon them.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

http://www.majorwager.com/forums/mes...-gambling.html

additional info, same tack

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. GATS has already been ratified by the
Senate. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[/ QUOTE ]

The law that ratified the WTO requires the USTR to consult Congress when the US loses a WTO case and advise Congress on necessary legislation to obey the WTO decision. Somehow that did not happen in this case.

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[/ QUOTE ]

The law that ratified the WTO requires the USTR to consult Congress when the US loses a WTO case and advise Congress on necessary legislation to obey the WTO decision. Somehow that did not happen in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

JP I edited my post. The treaty I was talking about was GATS. That treaty is the root of this problem I thought.

Again, I don't know.???

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why any law or any involvement by Congress or even any acceptance by the states is necessary to end this dispute. When a treaty is ratified, Congress is giving the Executive Branch the authority to enact that treaty. If Antigua and the USTR come to some agreement on how to satisfy Antigua, and thereby the WTO decision, then that agreement will trump existing law (Wire Act, UIGEA, etc.) through Charming Betsy.

I don't know though. I certainly could be wrong.????

[/ QUOTE ]

The law that ratified the WTO requires the USTR to consult Congress when the US loses a WTO case and advise Congress on necessary legislation to obey the WTO decision. Somehow that did not happen in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]

JP I edited my post. The treaty I was talking about was GATS. That treaty is the root of this problem I thought.

Again, I don't know.???

[/ QUOTE ]

So in political terms like Pres Clinton showed you need more than 34 Senators to agree to be held by the WTO's sense of Congress of is some past Congress really meant to include gaming in the GATT agreements?

Not quite the first and goal on the one inch line, but more Hail Mary, perhaps...........



D$D

Re: Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case
 

The WTO is the organization that adjudicates disputes over the GATS treaty. I think that they are part of the same treaty. The federal statutues refer to decisions of the WTO. While they state that federal law has priority over WTO decisions (is this constitutional?), they also require the USTR to advise Congress about adverse WTO decisions and work with Congress to comply with adverse WTO decisions.
Problem is that the lawyers in the USTR seem to have forgotten how to read.