Post by jdaddy on Dec 21, 2007 12:37:25 GMT -4
Sen. Jon Kyl statement on HR 2046
by Sen. Jon Kyl
INTERNET GAMBLING -- (Senate - December 18, 2007)
Sen. Jon Kyl [R-AZ]: Mr. President, I would like my colleagues to be aware of an important letter signed by 45 State attorneys general expressing "grave concerns" about Representative BARNEY FRANK's Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act, H.R. 2046.
The State attorneys general note that the recently enacted Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 has "effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the American marketplace." The Frank bill "proposes to do the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal licensing program that would permit Internet gambling companies to do business with U.S. customers."
A federal license would supersede any state enforcement action, because 5387 in H.R. 2046 would grant an affirmative defense against any prosecution or enforcement action under any Federal or State law to any person who possesses a valid license and complies with the requirements of H.R. 2046. This divestment of state gambling enforcement power is sweeping and unprecedented.
One final but very important point from the letter is the impact of the so-called "opt-out" provisions. Specifically, the letter reads:
[T]he opt-outs may prove illusory. They will likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization has already shown itself to be hostile to U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. If it strikes down state opt-outs as unduly restrictive of trade, the way will be open to the greatest expansion of legalized gambling in American history and near total preemption of State laws restricting Internet gambling.
The Frank bill is unacceptable to the State attorneys general and it ought to be unacceptable to Members of Congress as well. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Frank bill or any similar proposals that would create a permissive Federal licensing scheme for Internet gambling.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the letter from the National Association of Attorneys General.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ATTORNEYS GENERAL,
Washington, DC, November 30, 2007.
TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATE:
We, the Attorneys General of our respective States, have grave concerns about H.R. 2046, the "Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007." We believe that the bill would undermine States' traditional powers to make and enforce their own gambling laws.
On March 21, 2006, 49 NAAG members wrote to the leadership of Congress:
"We encourage the United States Congress to help combat the skirting of state gambling regulations by enacting legislation which would address Internet gambling, while at the same time ensuring that the authority to set overall gambling regulations and policy remains where it has traditionally been most effective: at the state level."
Congress responded by enacting the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (UIGEA), which has effectively driven many illicit gambling operators from the American marketplace.
But now, less than a year later, H.R. 2046 proposes to do the opposite, by replacing state regulations with a federal licensing program that would permit Internet gambling companies to do business with U.S. customers. The Department of the Treasury would alone decide who would receive federal licenses and whether the licensees were complying with their terms. This would represent the first time in history that the federal government would be responsible for issuing gambling licenses.
A federal license would supersede any state enforcement action, because ยง5387 in H.R. 2046 would grant an affirmative defense against any prosecution or enforcement action under any Federal or State law to any person who possesses a valid license and complies with the requirements of H.R. 2046. This divestment of state gambling enforcement power is sweeping and unprecedented.
The bill would legalize Internet gambling in each State, unless the Governor clearly specifies existing state restrictions barring Internet gambling in whole or in part. On that basis, a State may "opt out" of legalization for all Internet gambling or certain types of gambling. However, the opt-out for types of gambling does not clearly preserve the right of States to place conditions on legal types of gambling. Thus, for example, if the State permits poker in licensed card rooms, but only between 10 a.m. and midnight, and the amount wagered cannot exceed $100 per day and the participants must be 21 or older, the federal law might nevertheless allow 18-year-olds in that State to wager much larger amounts on poker around the clock.
Furthermore, the opt-outs may prove illusory. They will likely be challenged before the World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization has already shown itself to be hostile to U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling. If it strikes down state opt-outs as unduly restrictive of trade, the way will be open to the greatest expansion of legalized gambling in American history and near total preemption of State laws restricting Internet gambling.