A controversial Internet gambling measure may hitch a ride on a Defense
Department authorization bill, but as of press time, a standoff over adding
legislation to improve courthouse security and crack down on illegal
immigrants in gangs continued to hold up action on the overall Defense
package. While it was not clear that Senate Armed Services Chairman John
Warner (R-Va.) has actually agreed to attach the anti-gambling legislation,
Republican leadership sources on both sides of the Capitol said the measure
would be added to the Defense bill. “It’s Kyl-style, with a Frist twist,”
said a senior aide to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) of
attaching the Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) bill designed to bar Internet gambling
by preventing credit card companies from honoring charges on gaming Web
sites. The aide said the Internet gambling bill has been tweaked slightly to
ensure optimum support in the Senate, though details of the changes to Kyl’s
original bill were not available. Warner spokesman John Ullyot declined to
comment, saying, “This is in line with the long-standing committee policy to
keep such negotiations confidential.” Still, one GOP lobbyist working
against the gambling bill said Warner and Frist had a “showdown” last week
over the Internet gambling legislation, with Warner telling Frist that he
wasn’t going to put the Internet gambling bill in the Defense authorization
bill. “Then Frist told him the [DOD] bill won’t come to the floor,” said the
lobbyist.

Meanwhile, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) has threatened to prevent the
measure from coming to the House floor if Warner does not agree to include a
House-passed courthouse security bill and the gangs legislation.

Warner is concerned that any of the three bills could complicate passage of
the larger authorization measure, sources said.

The wrangling over the three law enforcement measures provides a glimpse
into the end-of-session gamesmanship that goes on behind the scenes as
Members seek to add controversial measures to one “must-pass” bill or
another.

And because GOP leaders in both chambers have vowed to recess at the end of
this week so that Members can go home to campaign for this year’s pivotal
midterm elections, Members and lobbyists have stepped up their push to get
their measures sent to the president’s desk before Congress adjourns.

One Democratic lobbyist working against the gambling bill called the past
few days a “roller-coaster ride.”

“Frist has been on a jihad about Internet gambling,” this Democratic
lobbyist said.

Democratic Senate aides also complained that they have been left completely
out of the bargaining process, and that the Senate Judiciary Committee,
which has jurisdiction over all three bills, has not approved the versions
currently being considered for inclusion in the DOD authorization measure.

“It’s just such a sneaky and sleazy way to go about it,” said one of the
aides.

Three bills are moving this week that could play host to the Internet
gambling, courthouse security and gangs bill: the spending bills for the
Defense and Homeland Security departments and the Defense authorization
bill.

But GOP and Democratic Senate sources said that backers of the bills were
rebuffed in their attempts to get them attached to the annual Defense
spending bill, which has more of an imperative to move since it will
actually disburse funds to U.S. troops.

Because House and Senate conferees signed off on a conference report for the
Defense spending bill last week, any attempts to add extraneous language now
would send the appropriations bill back to conference committee – an
unlikely scenario.

Meanwhile, conferees for the Homeland Security spending bill were hoping to
wrap up their conference report last night.

That leaves the Defense authorization bill as the only measure in a position
to carry the controversial provisions and still have a chance of passing
this week.

Bill backers are betting that opponents of all three Judiciary bills will
fear the political ramifications of voting against any national defense
measure in this potentially volatile election year. And by threatening to
hold up action on the bill, both Frist and Hastert hope to force Warner’s
hand, reasoning that Warner would be loath to see his authorization bill
become unnecessary, like so many other federal agency authorization bills
that languish in committee each year.

While it is unusual for Congress not to pass a Defense authorization bill,
it only authorizes funds; it does not distribute them.

Even though leadership sources said the Internet bill would be included on
the Defense authorization bill, the conference committee on the bill has not
yet completed and the deal could hinge on whether the court security and
gang bills are also included.

Additionally, Democratic sources said they were not convinced that Warner
would go along with the gambit to include the law enforcement bills in the
Defense measure.

The Democratic lobbyist said that Warner was not likely to cave in to the
pressure.

“You very likely might not have a Defense authorization bill,” the lobbyist
said.

Other opponents of the Internet gaming bill said that any legislative
vehicle could be fair game.

“We remain on guard that the Internet gambling prohibition could be
included” in any remaining bills, said John Pappas, a spokesman for the
Poker Players Alliance, which opposes the ban.

Indeed, if the impasse does not get resolved this week, backers of the three
bills could attempt to add the measures to legislation such as an omnibus
appropriations bill that would be set to move through the lame-duck session
after the Nov. 7 elections. And of course, if the Defense authorization bill
does not get passed this week, the battle could then begin anew as well.