Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1)

07-28-2010 , 12:22 PM
I understand the point of having these operators on U.S. soil...But that infrastructure investment is not free and will be passed on to the customers...

Michael of NJ
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:22 PM
I didn't know there was video..I was listening to the audio.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by novahunterpa
listing to this it almost feels like banonlinepoker is going to get the last laugh
Ha, I had the exact same thought. We're moving towards a bill he himself would write. That is not a good thing.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
Which working ways to cheat is Bachus referring too?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
Bachus is so round about...Get to the point...He says he supports an amendment...Then reads an FBI letter that opposes the very amendment...

Michael of NJ
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newff
I didn't know there was video..I was listening to the audio.
Audio is probably a better idea, Congresspeopeople aren't much to look at
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
LOL @ Buchus's collusion argument. He needs to read the Internet Poker forum.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
Roll call may be done once all amendments are discussed and do a roll call vote on amendments needing a voice vote, then the bill itself.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PokerXanadu
If the bill gets passed by a vote of the full floor of one chamber of the Congress (the House of Representatives in the case of this bill), it then gets sent to the other chamber (the Senate). The bill, or a companion bill, then goes through the same process in the other chamber including committee markup & vote (although this step could be skipped), full floor debate and vote.

If the bill that emerges (with a passing vote) from the Senate differs from the bill that was sent to them from the House, then the changed bill either goes back to the House for another full floor vote for passage, or goes to a reconciliation committee consisting of members from both houses to develop a compromise bill, which then needs another full floor vote in both chambers for passage.
Dumb Canadian guy question.

Based on the set of hoops that has to be jumped through, how was the UIGEA ever able to be tacked on at the 11th hour of the Port Security Bill back in '06? Sounds like any significant amendments to a bill would have to go back to the other chamber, undergo another vote, possible reconcilitation committee etc. etc.. The system seems to be structured well enough to have failsafes in places to prevent those type of shenanigans from occurring.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpethybridge
parallel regulatory authority in the states sounds unworkable.

thoughts?
Maybe not and could make licensing easier, you locate in a state with gaming and meet that states regs.

Could set up a competition between states to bring jobs there.

obg
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:25 PM
Looks like Bachus has read that mysterious anti-poker website we don't like linking to directly.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:25 PM
omg somebody make him stop
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:25 PM
is Bachus really pulling the collusion and money laundering tactics again......this is just such ignorance......any type of regulation only enforces the unlikeliness of it.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
Ha, I had the exact same thought. We're moving towards a bill he himself would write. That is not a good thing.
Are we sure he wasn't somehow involved in writing it
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:27 PM
The sites that are unregulated right now do a fine job in my opinion of preventing and punishing collusion. Once the sites are regulated this can only improve.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:28 PM
So was there any point whatsoever to Bachus's little speech? Imediately after: "all in favor aye", everyone: aye
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:29 PM
Why did that pass? Parts of it seem bad...

Requiring all licensees to have all facilities located within the US... is this an impediment to international poker rooms or not?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:29 PM
Can't say I'm surprised the 90 day opt-out was extended to allow for a full legislative session.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:30 PM
So an amendment just passed requiring ALL facilities of a licensed site to be located in the US?

Wouldnt that eliminate, like, everyone? Google isnt located 100% US.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:31 PM
This is crazy...Bachman is supposed to be a tea party broad...What happened to the tea party talking points about freedom and individual rights...We need to get any PPA members in Minnesota to question this woman.

Michael of NJ
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
So an amendment just passed requiring ALL facilities of a licensed site to be located in the US?

Wouldnt that eliminate, like, everyone? Google isnt located 100% US.
guys, this is all in the wording, companies could still operate offshore, they would just need for their US Processors, and US Servers to be placed in the US, the sites could work around this easy.....
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:32 PM
So far this bill has been made worse through the markup process.

Any talk about the 50% tax provision we were hoping to remove?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
So an amendment just passed requiring ALL facilities of a licensed site to be located in the US?

Wouldnt that eliminate, like, everyone? Google isnt located 100% US.
is this correct?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skallagrim
Details matter on the withdrawn amendment. If the licensing is based on "taking unlawful bets or wagers" both Stars and FTP will have the ability to argue that they never did that by making the case that online poker is not against current law.
The opt-in amendment is both more and less dangerous. Opt-in is bad momentum wise. But requiring a legislative action is good procedure-wise.

Skallagrim
Do you mean like seeking a Declaratory Judgment to that effect ?

Isn't that something the PPA has refused to pursue on behalf of poker players since 2006 ?
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote
07-28-2010 , 12:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsGambool
So an amendment just passed requiring ALL facilities of a licensed site to be located in the US?

Wouldnt that eliminate, like, everyone? Google isnt located 100% US.
I'm not surprised something like this was approved after listing to the hearing last week. The 100% will probably have to be defined at some point.
HR 2267 Markup (Passed 41-22-1) Quote

      
m