It's no secret that the White House does not support the House's Internet Gambling Prohibition Act. Solidifying its stance, the Administration released a statement today about the bill, which is slotted to be voted on this evening.
The statement reiterated that the Administration opposes the bill because it "appears to be
designed to protect certain forms of Internet gambling that currently are illegal, while potentially opening the floodgates for other forms of illegal gambling."
Following is a copy of the statement:
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
July 17, 2000
(House)
STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATION POLICY
(THIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN COORDINATED BY OMB WITH THE CONCERNED AGENCIES.)
H.R. 3125 - Internet Gambling Prohibition Act of 2000
(Goodlatte (R) Virginia and 34 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 3125, which appears to be
designed to protect certain forms of Internet gambling that currently are
illegal, while potentially opening the floodgates for other forms of illegal
gambling. The Administration is especially troubled by the exemptions
included in the bill for pari-mutuel wagering on activities such as horse
races, dog races, and jai alai. These exemptions could have the effect of
allowing individuals to bet on dog and horse racing from their homes, giving
children and other vulnerable populations unsupervised, unlimited access to
such gambling activities. There is no policy justification for such
exemptions.
The version of the bill that the Administration understands will be
offered on the floor of the House, apparently to resolve concerns over the
exemptions, may be more problematic than the current version of the bill.
The new version of the bill eliminates the requirements that wagers on horse
racing, dog racing and jai alai be "initiated from a State in which [such]
betting or wagering.is lawful and received in a State in which such betting
is lawful." The bill as expected to be offered can be read so that these
types of pari-mutuel wagering would only need to be regulated in the State
in which the wager is received, allowing a business to be licensed and
operated in one State but take wagers from people in any other State,
regardless of whether the State in which the bettor is located has
authorized such activity. The bill, therefore, would give regulatory and
taxing authority to the State in which the bet is received and take all
regulatory and taxing authority away from the State in which the bet is
initiated.
The Administration is also concerned that H.R. 3125 is not
technology-neutral and applies only to Internet gambling. Legislation that
is tied to a particular technology may quickly become obsolete and require
further amendment. The Administration believes that legislation addressing
conduct over the Internet should treat physical activity and cyberactivity
in the same way. This objective can most efficiently be accomplished by
amending existing gambling laws, as opposed to creating a new
technology-specific statutory scheme. The Administration continues to urge
Congress to address Internet gambling issues by amending the existing
gambling laws, rather than creating new laws that specifically govern the
Internet.