The following article is why you should contact your representatives. It takes about 1 minute using the link below.
Here is the site you need to go to to Tell your Representative and Senators to oppose H.R. 21 and S. 627, the so-called Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Acts! Fill out the form on this page to take action on this important issue:http://www.profreedom.com/
INTERNET GAMING: New ban bill quickly advances
Proposal preserves exemptions
By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- After one House panel put the brakes on an Internet gambling ban last week, the chairman of another committee on Tuesday put it back on track.
Rep. Mike Oxley, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rammed a scaled down version of the ban through his committee in less than three minutes with no debate and no amendments.
The new version, which was approved by voice vote, would still outlaw the use of credit cards, checks, wire transfers or any other bank instrument to pay for bets on gambling Web sites.
But unlike legislation approved May 14 by the House Judiciary Committee, the new version of the ban preserves exemptions for the horse racing industry and other factions whose support is considered vital to move the ban through the House and Senate.
Perhaps most importantly, the new version removes language from the original version of the bill that could trigger jurisdiction of the bill by the Judiciary Committee.
"We think the House leadership will prefer this new version of the Internet gambling bill," said Megan McCabe, a spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, the original author of the online wagering ban.
Although Leach proposed the ban, Oxley has become its most powerful advocate. A former FBI agent, Oxley has said Internet gambling sites provide an opportunity for money laundering by terrorists.
There are 1,800 gambling Web sites and the number is increasing exponentially. Online wagers, which totaled $445 million six years ago, are expected to reach $4.2 billion this year and $10 billion annually in the near future.
Sources said Oxley was infuriated when the Judiciary Committee voted 16-15 last week to add an amendment by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, that would abolish all exemptions in the Leach bill.
"I think this is an attempt to revisit the issue without letting the Judiciary Committee have a shot at it," Cannon said Tuesday.
The Judiciary Committee asserted jurisdiction over the Leach bill after it first passed the Financial Services Committee by voice vote on March 13.
Cannon and Leach have said they are willing to negotiate to resolve differences between the two bills. But it's not clear if Oxley is willing to compromise, and calls to his office on Tuesday were not returned.
If the two committees cannot resolve their differences, House GOP leaders would be faced with the uncomfortable option of choosing one version of the ban over another. A more likely scenario, sources said, is that the leadership would do nothing and neither version of the ban would come up for a vote on the House floor.
"As far as one or the other, we don't want to see either bill become law," said Dan Walsh, a lobbyist for the Interactive Gaming council that represents online wagering companies.
Here is the site you need to go to to Tell your Representative and Senators to oppose H.R. 21 and S. 627, the so-called Unlawful Internet Gambling Funding Prohibition Acts! Fill out the form on this page to take action on this important issue:http://www.profreedom.com/
INTERNET GAMING: New ban bill quickly advances
Proposal preserves exemptions
By TONY BATT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- After one House panel put the brakes on an Internet gambling ban last week, the chairman of another committee on Tuesday put it back on track.
Rep. Mike Oxley, R-Ohio, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rammed a scaled down version of the ban through his committee in less than three minutes with no debate and no amendments.
The new version, which was approved by voice vote, would still outlaw the use of credit cards, checks, wire transfers or any other bank instrument to pay for bets on gambling Web sites.
But unlike legislation approved May 14 by the House Judiciary Committee, the new version of the ban preserves exemptions for the horse racing industry and other factions whose support is considered vital to move the ban through the House and Senate.
Perhaps most importantly, the new version removes language from the original version of the bill that could trigger jurisdiction of the bill by the Judiciary Committee.
"We think the House leadership will prefer this new version of the Internet gambling bill," said Megan McCabe, a spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa, the original author of the online wagering ban.
Although Leach proposed the ban, Oxley has become its most powerful advocate. A former FBI agent, Oxley has said Internet gambling sites provide an opportunity for money laundering by terrorists.
There are 1,800 gambling Web sites and the number is increasing exponentially. Online wagers, which totaled $445 million six years ago, are expected to reach $4.2 billion this year and $10 billion annually in the near future.
Sources said Oxley was infuriated when the Judiciary Committee voted 16-15 last week to add an amendment by Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, that would abolish all exemptions in the Leach bill.
"I think this is an attempt to revisit the issue without letting the Judiciary Committee have a shot at it," Cannon said Tuesday.
The Judiciary Committee asserted jurisdiction over the Leach bill after it first passed the Financial Services Committee by voice vote on March 13.
Cannon and Leach have said they are willing to negotiate to resolve differences between the two bills. But it's not clear if Oxley is willing to compromise, and calls to his office on Tuesday were not returned.
If the two committees cannot resolve their differences, House GOP leaders would be faced with the uncomfortable option of choosing one version of the ban over another. A more likely scenario, sources said, is that the leadership would do nothing and neither version of the ban would come up for a vote on the House floor.
"As far as one or the other, we don't want to see either bill become law," said Dan Walsh, a lobbyist for the Interactive Gaming council that represents online wagering companies.
