Article-Lawmakers press USTR for new tack in gambling case

[Jay Cohen]

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.

[oldbookguy]

Very nice indeed, we are making progress.

obg

[beanie]

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.

[JPFisher55]

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?

[Jay Cohen]

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.

[Skallagrim]

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

[Skallagrim]

[ 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.

[Jay Cohen]

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.

[JPFisher55]

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?

[Uglyowl]

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.