PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 13, 2000
Illegal Sports Betting Enforcement Act of 2000 - Directs the Attorney General to establish in the Department of Justice an Amateur Sports Illegal Gambling Task Force. Authorizes ppropriations.(Sec. 3) Amends the Federal criminal code to increase the penalty for transmission of wagering information in interstate or foreign commerce. Provides for enhanced penalties under provisions regarding: (1) interstate transportation of wagering paraphernalia, if the matter carried or sent in interstate or foreign commerce was intended by the defendant to be used to assist in the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event or contest (event); (2) illegal gambling business, if the business included the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event; (3) interstate and foreign travel or transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises, if the offense violated specified provisions and the illegal activity included the placing of bets or wagers on any sporting event; and (4) bribery in sporting contests if the purpose of the bribery is to affect the outcome of a bet or wager placed on a sporting event.(Sec. 4) Requires the Director of the National Institute of Justice to conduct a study to determine the extent to which minors participate in illegal sports gambling activities.(Sec. 5) Expresses the sense of Congress that: (1) illegal sports gambling poses a significant threat to youth on college campuses and in society in general; (2) State and local governments, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and other youth, school, and collegiate organizations should provide educational and prevention programs to help youth recognize the dangers of illegal sports gambling and the serious consequences it can have; (3) such programs should include public service announcements; (4) the NCAA and other amateur sports governing bodies should adopt mandatory codes of conduct regarding the avoidance and prevention of illegal sports gambling among our youth; and (5) the NCAA should enlist U.S. universities to develop scientific research on youth sports gambling and related matters.
People & committees
Rep. Berkley, Shelley [D-NV-1] · D–NV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4284 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4284 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4284 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4284 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.