Fighting H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act

[managra]

The WSJ poll is currently at 83% No and 17% yes with 6694 votes so far.

And quoting from the Discussion below that poll:

Gambling is perfectly acceptable to government so long as government gets a cut either directly as in the case of lotteries or indirectly as in the case of Las Vegas's economic growth. Once government doesn't stand to benefit, it is suddenly a moral issue that is destroying the fabric of our society.

[Cynthia777]

Senator Kyl's most recent amendment in regards to his opposition of online gambling, is:

S.AMDT.2953-Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006.


He has submitted this amendment under Trent Lott's pending bill S.2349-Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006. As previous posts state, Lott's bill was motioned to invoke cloture on March 8, and this motion was rejected yesterday. (To explain, the motion to invoke cloture is to set a time limit for any further consideration and debate, usually 30 hours from the time the motion is granted, to get to the final voting process. "Motion to invoke cloture" was originally designed to prevent filibusters via lengthy debate.) However, since the motion was rejected (after the rejection, Senator Frist made a motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked), Lott's proposed bill is still considered "pending" and placed on the Senate Calendar for the continuation of floor proceedings. The status of Kyl's proposed amendment remains as submitted (submitted to be printed in the Congressional Record as full text of his proposed amendment).

The next step for Kyl's amendment is to be referred to a committee (under Senate rules, similiar to rules of the House of Representatives). It then goes back to the Senate floor to be proposed for consideration, in which the final vote will be taken by Senate Members (accepted or rejected).

CM- I guess the thread title could be updated to:
"Fighting H.R. 4777/S.A. 2953" ??

... now that a similiar act has been introduced in the Senate as well.

[Casinomeister]

Posted this in the main section and hopefully Google will be picking up on this soon.
http://www.casinomeister.com/bill4777.html

If anyone could suggest any additional links to include here - please let me know. Thanks!

[Cynthia777]

I really think that after reviewing the past couple days of events, in my opinion, that Kyl has been using what could be considered 'sneaky tactics' in his presentation of this amendment.

If cloture had been invoked, the following guidelines would have applied:

- All amendments must be relevant to the debate. (Sen. Kyl's amendment 2953 would have been considered non-germane (not relevant [primary issue being the U.S. Ports/Dubai company]))

However, because Sen. Kyl submitted his amendment on March 8, and the petition to invoke cloture was made on March 8 (after Kyl's Amendment was submitted), and the decision on the motion was made on March 9, Kyl's Amendment may not have been thrown out because of the timing and possible protection under this next Senate guideline:

- No amendments may be moved unless they were filed on the day in between the presentation of the petition and the actual cloture vote.

I am not aware of any/all the loopholes when it comes to this type of situation, but it leant to my speculation when I learned that Senator Kyl voted "YEA" to motion to invoke cloture. (Meaning, he supported the process to 'speed up' voting on the Bill with minimized debate, which would have included Kyl's proposed amendment....if he thought that invocation of cloture would include 'throwing out' his 'non-germane' amendment, I am sure that he would not have voted "YEA" to this motion). But, knowing that his amendment had already been submitted, it may/would have been protected under the guideline that his amendment was not submitted between petition for cloture and the cloture vote (i.e., 'after the fact', hurry up and get it in there because there will be a rush and little review/time for debate.. so it can get voted on and possibly passed quickly).

Like I said, this is just my personal take on the matter, what some may term 'speculation' but it doesn't always mean that speculation is not correct, or leads to being correct, and I am basing it on facts of this process so far. What angers me the most, is if this was his intent, that he used the presentation of a Bill (S2349) and provisions of that bill, and debate that is revolving/focusing on such a sensitive matter (the Dubai ports deal (although they have now backed out)), that has conjured up high emotion in the U.S. and security issues, ... to serve his own personal selfishness in doing whatever he needs to do in getting Amendment passed (even his amendment co-sponsor Pryor voted "NAY" to invocation of cloture).

[sdaddy]

^Thanks for that great explanation of what happened with Kyl's amendment, Cynthia. I was confused myself as to why Kyl would support the motion to invoke cloture, but that clears it up.

So do you know which Senate committee will be taking up the Kyl amendment? Judiciary?

CM,

I think that given the recent course of events it would be wise for US players to begin contacting their Senators as well, expressing their opposition to S.AMDT.2953-Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006. Contact info can be found through this link:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contac...nators_cfm.cfm

[Webzcas]

Originally Posted by Casinomeister

Posted this in the main section and hopefully Google will be picking up on this soon.
http://www.casinomeister.com/bill4777.html

If anyone could suggest any additional links to include here - please let me know. Thanks!

I've referenced this page on CasinoMeister on the article concerning this on my main portal. I will also be writing an article regarding this proposed act which will appear on the home page of my politics site which is fairly active.

[Cynthia777]

Originally Posted by sdaddy

So do you know which Senate committee will be taking up the Kyl amendment? Judiciary?

More than likely, but his proposed amendment will not be formally referred until he has had the opportunity to propose his amendment for consideration. Since his submission of the amendment was "ordered to lie on the table" (set aside, and determined to not be considered by the Senate floor in that session)...the only action taken thus far is the printing of the text of his proposed amendment in the Congressional Record.

In the meantime, before Sen. Kyl has the opportunity to propose his amendment for consideration, he does have the right to "make an amendment to the amendment", outlining any additions, changes, or deletions to SA2953. Do not confuse the "motion to table" with rejecting his amendment, it has merely been "set aside" so to speak, until another Senate session. They were not in session Friday March 10, and will not reconvene until Monday, March 13.

[managra]

I have a question for Cynthia, since she has been so helpful in these threads and has been acting as our insider on the Hill. I wrote an email to my Representative. What other people (specific committee members???) could we email and where would we find their email addresses?

[Cynthia777]

Here is the link for the full member list of U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary:

http://judiciary.house.gov/fullcommittee.aspx

If you scroll down to "Committees" on the left menu, it will give you a list, and concentration on this will likely be under the subcommittee: Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property.

It will give you a list of members, and you can click on each name to get more information, including their individual website. For example, the Chairman of the Subcommittee Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property is Hon. Lamar Smith, and I have found under his website that you can sign up for his newsletter of ongoing events, news, and legislation to be emailed to you, and you can post comments as well to be sent to him. If the member's individual website does not post a direct email address, it does list the specific physical address, phone and fax number (probably easiest to fax as I can imagine the complexities trying to reach them by phone).

As well, this proposed bill (H.R. 4777) has also been referred to the House Committee on Financial Services, and the link to the members of that committee is: http://financialservices.house.gov/members.asp

Hope this helps

[Cynthia777]

Just a note- Goodlatte currently has 118 co-sponsors of his proposed H.R. 4777 (inclusive of 3 that just jumped on board on 3/1/2006)

The House of Representatives is comprised of 432 voting members.. and when this goes to roll call he needs to get 2/3 of the vote for this, meaning 332 would have to vote in favor, so we have a very good chance, but your efforts are still crucial (writing your reps., etc.) Although we cannot be sure how the members who are not co-sponsors of this bill feel about this legislation, by them not co-sponsoring this bill lends to the influence we can have on their potential decision.