In the House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday, HR 6870, the second version of Barney Frank‘s Payments System Protection Act, was passed by a 30-19 vote. After initially being discussed and voted on orally, Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus asked for a roll call vote. The Committee reconvened for the formal vote at 5:00pm ET, eventually passing the legislation comfortably. The measure may now move on to vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
HR 6870 was the fourth measure to be discussed on Tuesday and followed a fairly lengthy discussion of HR 6694, the FHA Seller-Financed Downpayment Reform and Risk-Based Pricing Authorization Act of 2008, which passed with two amendments to it. Frank opened up discussion on HR 6870, which would suspend all regulations of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act from being implemented except those dealing with professional sports leagues. At the same time, the bill requires the United States Treasury and Federal Reserve to work together with the Attorney General’s office to determine what is and is not legal under the UIGEA. The major piece of internet gambling legislation was introduced last Thursday, September 11th and has one co-sponsor, Republican Congressman Peter King.
Frank stated, “We made some changes to [HR 5767] to try to get a majority of the votes as well as a broader agreement. First, it had always been our intention to allow pro sports leagues to opt out. They asked to be opted out of the bill and we’ve done that. The bill will protect sports from being included. It also asks that a list be prepared by the Treasury of what is and isn’t acceptable. You have a right to know what the law is and this would give people the right to know what is and isn’t covered under the UIGEA.”
Bachus opened discussion from the opposition, claiming that while he recognized that the UIGEA may be a burden for banks and other financial institutions to enforce because of its ambiguity, “Online gamblers can play 24 hours per day from home. Children can play without proper age verification. Betting with a credit card can distort a player’s [respect for] cash. Before the act, Americans were sending $6 billion per year to offshore online casinos, nearly half of the $12 billion sent annually. Since the Act, big players in the industry such as PartyGaming have pulled out of the market. Federal regulations restricting the transfer of funds have had their intended effects. We shouldn’t stop now.”
A Manager’s Amendment, also introduced by Barney Frank, calls for professional sports leagues to be able to be exempt from the bill as well as what Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative spokesperson Michael Waxman called a “black list” to be developed to determine what activities are permitted under the UIGEA. Bachus noted that professional sports leagues have come out in opposition to HR 6870, although there was no formal discussion on the reasons why occurred.
Congressman Peter King (R-NY) and William Lacy Clay (D-MO) rounded out the discussion on Frank’s internet gambling legislation. The amendment was passed by an oral vote. Frank then offered up a vote on HR 6870, which also passed orally, but Bachus asked for a recorded roll call vote to take place. Because of the absence of many Committee members, the Financial Services Committee was forced to coordinate a time to reconvene for a vote. At 5:00pm ET, the bill was officially passed by a 30-19 vote.
HR 6870 may now move on to discussion on the House floor, although the target date for adjournment of the Congress is September 26th, which is next Friday. The recess allows for members to campaign for the upcoming general elections in the United States on November 4th. Normally, a “lame duck” session occurs after elections in Congress, although this may not take place in 2008.
I stand behind Barney Frank’s view on this whole issue. I agree that gambling is dangerous, but then again so is the Tabacco and Alcohol industries. It’s not fair to enforce a prohibition against online gambling on the grounds of what dangers could be a threat to those who would abuse such a liberty; while since the prohibition of alcohol was abolished, the statistics show that millions have died and are currently dying as a result of alcohol abuse. If lives were the real reason for the UIGEA, then Bachus would then follow suit against the Tabacco and Alcohol industries. If he doesn’t then he’s a hypocrite. Online gambling has not killed anyone, yet there are plenty of people who die on a regular basis from complications associated with smoking and/or alcohol abuse. How come there is not a major debate going on in congress against tabacco and alcohol based on the same premise as online gambling? The only logical reason is the government is receiving revenue from the alcohol and tabacco industries. People are indeed dying by the millions, but the government is receiving revenue. There is no problem with land-based casinos. There are no heated debates going on in congress against them. Could it be because they bring in revenue to the government? If money keeps the government quiet no matter what is going on, then when Bachus preaches that prohibition is the right thing to do in reference to online gambling because of what it could do to people, is he really being sincere or is his discourse the politically correct way of saying, “I don’t like online gambling because it’s not bringing in revenue to us, so therefore it should be illegal!” It should be up to the individual as an adult if he/she wants to gamble or not. Also, the moral responsability concerning those who are underage should also rest upon the parents. Otherwise, it should be illegal for parents to have alcohol or cigarettes in their home if they have children under the age of 18 living with them. I feel like maybe I should run for congress!