[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Really hard to say without seeing the actual language.

Could be great, could be terrible

[/ QUOTE ]

Berge,

What happens to the holds if the bill is attached as a rider to defense bill or some other piece of legislation? I assume they no longer apply?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's right -- the holds would not generally apply, UNLESS the Senators that placed them want them to. There are exceptions to this rule, but that's the gist of it. In this case, I consider it very unlikely that any Senator will place a hold on the FY07 Defense Authorization bill just because an online gambling amendment is attached to it.

Now, some Senators could be motivated to *threaten* to place holds or just tie things up for the Defense Authorization, and those threats alone might be enough to keep the langauge out, or to keep its scope very narrow. Boys and girls, this is the type of moment where you get what you pay for in lobbying services. If the PPA has done its job, whatever comes out of the Defense Authorization conference will be non-threatening at most, and non-existent at least. If the PPA has not, then watch out.

I also want to caution that I don't know if the Senate will have time for the Defense Authorization this year. For decades, the Congress has always passed one every year, but this year could be the one where it doesn't pass. It doesn't technically NEED to pass -- the defense appropriations bill, which is a different bill, would get the military all they need. As usual, the ability to work out time agreements via unanimous consent will be key to whether the Defense Authorization passes or not. Detainee treatment, military tribunals, and Iraq policy also present tricky policy issues that may make the GOP want to avoid spending much time on it, or that may encourage the Dems to hold it up.