This week, Congressman Pete Sessions, a Republican from Texas, introduced HR 6663, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Clarification and Implementation Act. It’s a bill that attempts to clarify the vague language of the UIGEA by taking aim at the sports betting industry in the United States. Under HR 6663, the Attorney General of the United States would be instructed to focus his UIGEA enforcement efforts on halting this enormous moneymaker. HR 6663 is summed up by its Rule of Construction at the end of the document: “No provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this Act, shall be construed as clarifying or implying that Internet bets or wagers, other than sports bets or wagers, which were accepted subsequent to October 13, 2006, are in violation of Federal law.” It’s gotten mixed reviews from around the online poker world.

While HR 6663 may seem like a welcome sight for the online poker industry, its major lobbying group, the Poker Players Alliance, does not support Congressman Sessions’ legislation. PPA Chairman Alfonse D’Amato commented in a press release, “While we agree with several findings in the bill that correctly identify the illegality of sports wagering, the PPA remains concerned with the implication H.R. 6663 asserts in that the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) has made Internet poker an unlawful activity that needs special protection from prosecution.” Executive Director John Pappas characterized the PPA’s stance as “not explicitly endorsing” HR 6663.

Jumping on the HR 6663 bandwagon with Sessions, the bill’s sponsor, are three original co-sponsors, all Democrats. They include Marion Berry (D-AR), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), and Bill Delahunt (D-MA). All three are at least five-term Congressmen from their respective districts. Calls to the press secretaries of these three Congressmen were not returned at press time.

The PPA takes issue with the following language in HR 6663, which actually names online poker specifically: “Federal Internet gambling prosecutions have involved sports betting, creating a lack of authoritative court decisions on the applicability of other federal criminal statutes to Internet poker and casino-style gambling.” The PPA, in turn, argued that the bill “only adds to the existing confusion and contradicts its own rule of construction by implying in its findings that the sites on which millions of Americans currently play are offering poker services in defiance of federal law.”

Rather than use valuable time and energy chasing after companies like PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, HR 6663 prescribes that the United States Attorney General should hone in on outlets that “offer Internet sports betting in the United States” or “process payments for illegal Internet sports betting in the United States.” Companies like Party Gaming and 888 that have found themselves in limbo since the passage of the UIGEA will be granted a free pass by the United States for any wrongdoing: “Criminal statutes applicable to gambling do not apply to any person who offered Internet gambling services that did not include sports betting prior to October 13, 2006, and who ceased offering Internet gambling services to persons in the United States upon passage of the UIGEA.”

Online poker rooms like as Bodog, for example, would become the main targets of this legislation, as even though the company offers poker, its sports book would make it illegal under HR 6663.

The bill is one of several currently in Congress and is the most recent one that has been introduced. It’s the only active bill introduced by a Republican. Here is a look at the other major bills in Congress along with some quick-hitting information about each to catch you up to speed:

HR 2046
Name: Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act
Introduced By: Barney Frank (D-MA)
Introduced On: April 26, 2007
Number of Co-Sponsors: 48
Purpose: To establish a comprehensive licensing and regulatory framework for internet gambling in the United States. It would allow companies like Party Poker to apply for a license to solicit U.S. customers legally. Read more.

HR 2610
Name: Skill Game Protection Act
Introduced By: Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Introduced On: June 7, 2007
Number of Co-Sponsors: 22
Purpose: To exempt poker, bridge, chess, mah jong, and other games of skill from all existing internet gambling law, including the UIGEA and Wire Act. Games of skill are defined as those where the action is player against player, not player against the house. Read more.

HR 2140
Name: Internet Gambling Study Act
Introduced By: Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Introduced On: May 3, 2007
Number of Co-Sponsors: 73
Purpose: Provides a one year study to determine the effects of the UIGEA as well as feasibility of regulating the internet gambling industry in the United States. It does not require any action by Congress after the study has been completed. Read more.

HR 6501
Name: Investing in Our Human Resources Act
Introduced By: Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Introduced On: July 15, 2008
Number of Co-Sponsors: 2
Purpose: Earmarks up to $40 billion over 10 years to social programs, all funded by the taxation of internet gambling in the United States, should Congress regulate it. It does not, by itself, legalize internet gambling. Read more.