PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 585.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 3, 2008
Payments System Protection Act of 2008 - Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Board) from proposing, prescribing, or implementing any regulation against funding unlawful Internet gambling, including proposed regulations published in the Federal Register on October 4, 2007, except to the extent such regulation: (1) pertains to unlawful Internet sports gambling; or (2) is developed on the record jointly by the Secretary and the Board, after opportunity for an agency hearing with an administrative law judge (or similar official), complete with a definition of "unlawful Internet gambling," and after conducting a full economic impact study of the proposed regulations under the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Requires the Secretary and the Board jointly to prescribe interim final regulations governing unlawful Internet sports gambling.
Defines "unlawful Internet sports gambling" as bets or wagers placed over the Internet on a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, gambling, or wagering scheme based, directly or indirectly on competitive games in which athletes participate (excluding parimutuel animal racing or jai-alai games), or on performances of such athletes in such games.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Declares ineffective any regulations to implement certain policies and procedures governing restricted transactions unless such regulations: (1) require the Secretary to compile and maintain a list of unlawful Internet sports gambling businesses; and (2) do not require any person to block or refuse to honor any transaction, or prohibit the acceptance of any product or service of such person, other than in connection with a business on a specified list maintained by the Secretary.
People & committees
Rep. Frank, Barney [D-MA-4] · D–MA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 585.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 110-910.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 110-910.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 30 - 19.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
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: Apr 7, 2025. 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.6870 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.6870 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.6870 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.6870 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.