It was not long ago that seemingly every online gambling news source reported that UIGEA was likely to be repealed this year. They touted accomplishments like Barney Frank’s bill passing the House Financial Services Committee. Meanwhile, I was one of the few people telling you not to hold your breath, that in the limited time left before mid-term elections, it was unlikely that a Congress that is concerned now more with elections than in passing legislation would floor such a controversial bill. Now it seems that Barney Frank agrees with me.

Representative Frank recently told Capitol Hill that he does not believe his online gambling legislation will be discussed on the floor before the mid-term elections. He also does not believe it will be discussed during the lame-duck session. Traditionally, Congress does not pass any major legislation during the lame-duck session because doing so would likely go against the will of the American people, who voted the people out for a reason. Still, some members of Congress have hinted that major controversial legislation such as a climate change bill could reach a vote due to lame ducks having no more fear of losing their job.

Aside from lame-duck legislation, the other dirty trick that could get Frank’s bill passed would be to tack it onto another larger bill, such as a jobs bill or a tax-cut bill. UIGEA was itself tacked onto the SAFE Port Act in 2006 as an amendment and the best chance bill that would repeal UIGEA has is likely to do the same.

Yet even if that happens and Frank’s bill passes the House in 2010, there is still a much bigger problem: the Senate. The closest thing the Senate has to a comparable bill has little support and is also not scheduled for debate. In order for UIGEA to be repealed in 2010, the bill would have to pass the House and then the Senate and if the two bills are different, which is almost guaranteed, it would then have to be combined by a Conference Committee and passed again. It would then have to go to President Obama and signed into law. All of that before the new congressional session in January.

It is for that reason that I think 2011 is the best chance we have for repealing UIGEA. Though Frank may no longer be Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee anymore (and may not even still be in office), Congress should be full of moderate Democrats and Tea Party Republicans that lean toward small-government libertarianism. If that happens, both sides should be able to agree that the government shouldn’t be banning online gambling.

Earlier today I wrote about how time limits and the strict procedure of the American legislative process could derail any hopes of online gambling legislation passing this year. Did you read it yet? If not, I’ll wait. Go ahead.

That is far from the only obstacle facing Barney Frank and Ron Paul’s Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (HR 2267), though. Another major obstacle is amendments added onto the bill by congressmen. For better or worse, lawmakers have the ability to tack amendments onto any bill being discussed, even if those amendments aren’t related. Sometimes it is done as a compromise to get more votes for the bill. Sometimes it is done to sabotage the bill by getting those who would otherwise support it to vote against it. Sometimes unrelated bills are tacked onto another bill (like the UIGEA being added to the SAFE Port Act).

Last week, 14 amendments were added to the online gambling bill that would repeal UIGEA and regulate the online casino industry in the United States. One such amendment was added by Brad Sherman, a California Democrat. Sherman’s amendment bans any online casinos that violate existing U.S. laws from receiving a license to operate in the country once HR 2267 is passed. Since federal laws on online gambling are extremely vague – when they exist at all – it is hard to say which online casinos are in violation of U.S. laws and which are in the clear. Therefore, that amendment’s impact is unknown, but it could cost a lot of online casinos the ability to accept U.S. customers. The online gambling lobbies, obviously, are not happy with Sherman’s amendment.

That wasn’t the only amendment added during the mark-up that hurts the bill. A similar amendment by Spencer Bachus (R-AL) and Michele Bachmann (R-MI) forbids overseas companies that have engaged in illegal online gambling business in the U.S. from receiving a license. It also bans anyone who had been employee of said companies from obtaining a license. Peter King (R-NY) added an amendment that prohibits sports betting.

Another amendment by Sherman allows states a full legislative session to opt-out of online gambling. Interestingly, an amendment by Joe Baca (D-CA) that allows states and tribes to opt-in to online gambling was defeated. So I guess they can opt-out but not opt-in.

The biggest head-scratcher was another amendment by Baca that would have allowed Native American tribes to participate in online gambling. Frank, as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, denied the amendment without allowing a vote on the basis that the amendment is not germane, meaning it is not relevant to the subject of the bill.

Excuse me? That seems pretty relevant. You want to legalize online gambling in the United States but don’t think the question of whether members of Native American tribes are allowed to participate is relevant?

First of all, the “not germane” argument is only used when a congressman doesn’t want something to be voted on. Unrelated amendments are added to bills all the time. The only conclusion I can draw from this decision is that Barney Frank wants you to be allowed to gamble online, as long as you’re not one of those Indians.

Whether the post-mark-up bill will have more or less support from Congress is unclear, but with no urgency to pass a similar bill in the Senate, it may not matter. For that reason, though it’s still early, Frank and Paul’s online gambling regulation bill just may be dead.

Many in the online gambling industry, including this writer, were excited to see the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection and Enforcement Act (HR 2267) pass the House Financial Services Committee last week. The bill, drafted by Barney Frank and Ron Paul, would repeal UIGEA and regulate the online gambling industry in the United States. Though many were quick to celebrate, the objectivity of time allows us to look at the obstacles still in the way of that bill becoming a law.

The first obstacle is simply the calendar. This is the beginning of August, but Congress is currently in their summer recess, from which they won’t return until September. The November elections will ring in a new Congress, so the 111^th Congress only has a small window – little more than one month – to get things done.

Though HR 2267 has passed the House Financial Services Committee, it has yet to be placed on the legislative calendar for floor action. From there, it needs to have a floor debate. Generally, bills receive an unlimited floor debate, which means the members of Congress can argue about and discuss the bill until the session ends and nothing will happen with it. Also, anyone who is strongly opposed to the bill can filibuster and talk the bill to death. Since online gambling is such a controversial issue, I’m sure there is a representative or two who would love to do just that.

Congress can avoid a filibuster by invoking cloture, which limits the debate to 30 hours and then requires a vote. However, a bill requires a 3/5 vote rather than a 2/3 majority to be passed once cloture is invoked. Though the bill passed the committee by a 41-22-1 vote, it’s hard to say whether it has enough support in the general House to pass by a 3/5 margin.

Once the online gambling bill is passed by the House, it would then be sent to the Senate for approval. Or, since a similar bill has been proposed by the Senate, that bill could be used instead. In any case, that bill would first have to be debated on and then passed by the committee by a 2/3 vote. It would then have to be put on the calendar for floor action and debated, just like in the House. It would then have to pass by a 2/3 vote in a normal debate or, if cloture is invoked, a 3/5 vote.

Once the online gambling bill passed the Senate, that version would likely be different from the House version, if for no other reason then due to the amendments added to the bill. Since both chambers of Congress would have a different version of the bill, it would then need to go to a conference committee. There, representatives from both chambers of Congress meet to work out the differences in the bill. There is no time limit for debate during the conference committee. If they are able to come to an agreement, the committee drafts a conference report, which is presented to both chambers. The House and Senate both then have to approve the conference report by a 2/3 vote.

After the bill passes both chambers (again), it would then be sent to President Obama, where he would have 10 days to sign the bill into law or veto it. The president’s veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, which would pass the bill into law.

All of that has to be done during the 111^th Congress. Once the next Congress takes over, all existing bills that had not been signed into laws are killed. The process would then have to start over again from scratch. Though Frank and Paul could use the same bill, it would have to repeat the same steps, going through committee again (this time with different members) and having a floor vote (again with different members).

Those are just the problems that go along with the time limit placed on the legislative process. There are also problems in the form of various amendments that have been added to the bill. I will have more on that later.

What all of this means is that no one should take the passage of the online gambling bill as a certainty. Even if there is enough support to legalize online gambling in the U.S., there may not be enough time for this Congress to get it done.