Online gambling to be attached to defense bill???- article Uh oh!!!

[Berge20]

The House passed DoD Authorization
The Senate passed DoD Authorization

These bills were different, so a meeting of the two chambers is underway to work out the differences. That is the conference committee on that bill.

There are few rules with substance that block this conference committee from adding anything to this report, the compromise version of the bills.

Language could be completely extraneous to the DoD matters, such as the internet gambling bill. It could be parts of the internet gambling bill. It could be something entirely new that neither chamber has seen.

The Senate doesnt have to act on any internet gambling bill to have language added to the DoD conference committee report.

At the end of the day, the DoD Authorization conference report will be sent back to both chambers for final passage if they can reach agreements.

[whangarei]

[ QUOTE ]
Berge and Mr. K,
You are guys are awesome. Thanks for keeping us political lame-brains informed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Props to "Nate the Great", too.

Agree with many here that a bill limited to outlawing credit card use for online gaming is ideal -- doesn't change anything (shhhhhh [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]) and keeps congress off our backs. Plus I think it's a good thing to not allow gambling w/ borrowed money (to the extent that this is not already prevented).

[SuperUberBob]

Not that it matters.

The two parties couldn't agree on what color the sky is much less any sort of bill.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
- "Spirit of the holds" is something that really just doesn't exist as far as I know. Senators always have a chance to find out what is in a bill, and what is coming to the floor, and if they want to hold it, they can try. Leaders can defeat holds through cloture, and that's the way the game plays out. Leaders would never waste time to get cloture on the Internet gambling bill itself -- it is too small -- but they might on a DoD bill that just so happens to have the gambling provisions attached to it. Their motivation for defeating holds via cloture on the DoD bill would not be to move gambling legislation... they just are not plotting to do this the way some of you think they are... but rather to move an important package of defense laws on procurement, troop pay, and other policy matters. I think the way holds would play on a DoD Authorization bill containing the gambling legislation is that Senators would threaten to hold it up if the gambling legislation is attached in a form they don't like -- and that threat can be powerful depending on how sincere it is perceived to be. This is why I think we're hearing all the talk about a significantly narrowed bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess what I'm saying is that, even if the DoD gambit allows Frist to win the procedural game, it seems somewhat likely that Frist would remain sensitive to the concerns of the holders, particularly if they are policy-related holds stemming from his own party (which they appear to be). I don't know that this is inconsistent with what you're saying.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

BTW, do we know who is on the conference committee? Does it matter much?

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that it matters.

The two parties couldn't agree on what color the sky is much less any sort of bill.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this may be true, bills are still passing, so don't count on partisan differences sinking the DoD Authorization. Bills like that are more immune to partisan sniping than most, even if their subject matter is very controversial.

[Mr.K]

Your point is not inconsistent with my remarks. I think you're right that there will be some give and take on the merits of the proposal, and that the holds will influence that process.

[Mr.K]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, do we know who is on the conference committee? Does it matter much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry if I am over-posting in this thread -- not my intention to do so. Just lots of info coming out that I want to share with all of you folks...

There are a fuckton of conferees on this bill. Some from 13 different House committees. Very unusual. The reason being that this is a very broad bill, and it touches on policy in many different areas. Here's the full list of conferees. The ones that matter most are the ones from the Armed Services Committees (House and Senate), and the ones from the Committees of jurisdiction with respect to online gambling... meaning the Committees that marked up the House bill, and the Senate Judiciary and Banking Committees:

6/22/2006:
Senate insists on its amendment, asks for a conference, appoints conferees Warner; McCain; Inhofe; Roberts; Sessions; Collins; Ensign; Talent; Chambliss; Graham; Dole; Cornyn; Thune; Levin; Kennedy; Byrd; Lieberman; Reed; Akaka; Nelson FL; Nelson NE; Dayton; Bayh; Clinton.

9/7/2006 3:43pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Armed Services for consideration of the House bill and the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Hunter, Weldon (PA), Hefley, Saxton, McHugh, Everett, Bartlett (MD), Thornberry, Hostettler, Jones (NC), Ryun (KS), Gibbons, Hayes, Calvert, Simmons, Drake, Davis (KY), Skelton, Spratt, Ortiz, Taylor (MS), Abercrombie, Meehan, Reyes, Snyder, Smith (WA), Sanchez, Loretta, Tauscher, Brady (PA), and Andrews.
9/7/2006 3:44pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence for consideration of matters within the jurisdiction of that committee under clause 11 of rule X: Hoekstra, LaHood, and Harman.
9/7/2006 3:45pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Education and the Workforce for consideration of secs. 571 and 572 of the House bill, and secs. 571, 572, 1081, and 1104 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference
9/7/2006 3:46pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration of secs. 314, 601, 602, 710, 3115, 3117, and 3201 of the House bill, and secs. 332-335, 352, 601, 722, 2842, 3115, and 3201 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Barton (TX), Gillmor, and Dingell.
9/7/2006 3:46pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Government Reform for consideration of secs. 343, 721, 811, 823, 824, 1103, 1104, and 3115 of the House bill, and secs. 371, 619, 806, 823, 922, 1007, 1043, 1054, 1088, 1089, 1101, and 3115 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Davis, Tom, Shays, and Waxman.
9/7/2006 3:47pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Homeland Security for consideration of sec. 1026 of the House bill, and sec. 1044 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: King (NY), Reichert, and Thompson (MS).
9/7/2006 3:47pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on International Relations for consideration of secs. 1021-1023, 1201-1204, 1206, Title XIII, secs. 3113 and 3114 of the House bill, and secs. 1014, 1021-1023, 1054, 1092, 1201-1208, 1210, 1214, Title XIII, secs. 3112 and 3113 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Hyde, Leach, and Lantos.
9/7/2006 3:48pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on the Judiciary for consideration of sec. 1021 of the House bill, and secs. 666, 1044, 1086, 1089, 1091, and 1094 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Sensenbrenner, Coble, and Conyers.
9/7/2006 3:49pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Resources for consideration of secs. 601, 602, and 1036 of the House bill, and sec. 601 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Pombo, Walden (OR), and Grijalva.
9/7/2006 3:50pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Science for consideration of secs. 312 and 911 of the House bill, and secs. 333, 874, and 1082 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Boehlert, Sodrel, and Gordon.
9/7/2006 3:50pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Small Business for consideration of secs. 874 and 1093 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Manzullo, Kelly, and Velazquez.
9/7/2006 3:50pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for consideration of secs. 312, 551, 601, 602, and 2845 of the House bill, and secs. 333, 584, 601, 1042, 1095, 2842, 2851-2853, and 2855 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Young (AK), LoBiondo, and Oberstar.
9/7/2006 3:50pm:
The Speaker appointed conferees - from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for consideration of secs. 666, 682, 683, 687, 721, and 923 of the Senate amendment, and modifications committed to conference: Buyer, Boozman, and Herseth.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Interesting. See Ensign, Leach, Conyers and Kennedy on here, among other names of note.

[otctrader]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. See Ensign, Leach, Conyers and Kennedy on here, among other names of note.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this now mean the House demagogues will get to exert their influence again, essentially bypassing the pro-gambling lobbying efforts in the Senate?