Morning Brief: A U.S. Special

As the current session of Congress draws to a close, amendments to the third installment of the Payments System Protection Act will be voted on today. Below, you'll find a brief primer on how the markup process works, what's at stake, the bill's outlook and (of course) a bit of editorial commentary.

What is a markup session?

This particular markup session will be held in the House Financial Services Committee, of which Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat who's sponsored the bill, is chair.

Committee members will not actually amend the text of the payment protection act but will vote on whether to include proposed amendments to the bill.

Should the committee by majority accept the proposed amendments, it will then vote on whether to send the amended bill to the full House.

How does this version of the bill differ from the previous two?

The original version of the bill, HR 5767, was proposed jointly by Mr. Frank and Ron Paul, the Libertarian Texas Republican, in April 2008.

Clearly, the bill was presented in order to curry favor with United States banks, which, as of now, are compelled to enforce the contentious regulations set forth under the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

The unamended bill -- known as the Frank-Paul bill -- sought to prohibit the Federal Reserve Board and Treasury Department from drafting any regulations under the UIGEA.

When the Frank-Paul bill entered its first financial services committee markup in June, Peter T. King, Republican of New York, proposed an amendment whereby the Fed and Treasury -- the entities responsible for drafting the UIGEA regulations -- would be required to draft a uniform definition of unlawful Internet gambling.

In essence, Mr. King's amendment would have delayed the UIGEA's implementation until "unlawful Internet gambling" had been satisfactorily clarified.

The King amendment, as it was called, was voted down in a 32-to-32 vote, and the unamended version of HR 5767 -- the Frank-Paul bill -- was then defeated in a voice vote.

The newly amended bill -- HR 6870 -- details of which were announced last week, allows the UIGEA to take effect immediately with regard to sports betting. However, on other forms of Internet gambling, an administrative law judge will need to clarify how the UIGEA applies.

What's at stake?

Clarity on regulations that, from the day they were proposed, have confounded the Fed and Treasury and, before that, drew a maelstrom of criticism during a public comment period in 2007.

The next chapter in a lobbying saga spanning more than decade, which has pitted the religious right and professional sports leagues against the Libertarian left (and right) and industry-lobbying powers like PartyGaming.

IGN's Take

Spencer Bachus, the ranking Republican member of the financial services committee, was understood to have played a significant role in garnering his party's vote on the King amendment.

Will the sports-betting-related concession be enough to satisfy the professional sports leagues and neutralize Mr. Bachus' influence on fence-sitting Republican committee members?

We'll find out today at noon, Central Daylight Time. Stay tuned for our full report.