Keeping the ports safe... from internet gambling?

[KBCraig]

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20060930/2006-09-30T003934Z_01_N29416194_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-SECURITY-CONGRESS-DC.html

Internet gambling ban added to U.S. port security bill

Sep 29, 8:39 PM (ET)

By Susan Cornwell

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress was pushing on Friday to finish legislation that would boost security at U.S. ports, but at the last minute lawmakers added provisions to prohibit Internet gambling.

Rushing to finish their work by the weekend to go home and campaign for elections in which control of Congress is at stake, lawmakers were linking up unrelated measures in an effort to get them approved.

The House passed an Internet gambling ban earlier this summer, but the bill had difficulty moving in the Senate. However it was a priority of Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and attaching it to the popular port security bill appeared aimed at insuring its passage.

Votes were expected by midnight Friday in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

(snip rest)

[Rifkinn]

What is wrong with voting on one item at a time. Adding unrelated items together has never made any sense to me...

[Dreepa]

They did vote 100-0 to spend a shitload of money:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00261

[error]

I haven't seen a Senate vote on the ports bill, which leads me to believe they'll vote on it after getting back from the campaign trail in November.

[aries]

What is wrong with voting on one item at a time. Adding unrelated items together has never made any sense to me...

It's a way to pass items where there might not exactly be a majority in favor