Controversial language to curb illegal gambling on the Internet snuck back into the defense authorization bill over the weekend.

While the language in the bill was not finalized as of press time last night, the insertion of the Internet gaming language could be a big win for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

But that potential victory hung in the balance on Monday as House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) continued his threats to postpone a vote on the overarching bill until negotiators from both chambers include unrelated measures on immigration and court security.

“The Speaker will not move this bill until these critical security measures are included in it,” Hastert spokesman Ron Bonjean said yesterday.

Conferees were still ironing out defense-related issues yesterday, but lawmakers are now fighting to include a number of non-defense items in the must-pass bill that has become a regular vehicle for pet projects.

The Internet gaming language would create an additional enforcement mechanism for federal officials to crack down on money transferred from banks, credit card companies and other financial institutions to gambling outfits overseas.

Internet gambling is already illegal in most of the country, with the major exceptions of Nevada, Indian reservations and other smaller locales where residents have voted to change the law.

The fight in Congress to enact further enforcement methods has persisted since former GOP lobbyist Jack Abramoff fought to defeat a bill offered by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) in the summer of 2000.

Goodlatte combined his language with a bill introduced by Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa) that passed the House earlier this year.

The language included in the defense reauthorization bill appeared to mirror Leach’s language, numerous outside lobbyists said over the weekend. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has been pushing a companion to the Leach bill, which is far narrower than Goodlatte’s legislation that would, among other things, revamp the 1961 Wire Act.

Frist has been working hard to include some version of the Internet gaming language in the defense reauthorization bill in what a number of outside lobbyists see as a push to ingratiate himself with social conservatives and, more specifically, Leach, whose endorsement would be a big boost during the Iowa primary.

Frist co-hosted a field hearing on Internet gaming with Leach earlier this fall in Iow.

The Internet gaming issue is far from settled because conference negotiations do not end until all the negotiators have signed off on an agreement.

This move to include an Internet gambling curb comes after Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) and Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the committee’s ranking Democrat, rebuffed Frist’s attempts to include it in the bill because it is not related to defense policy.

K Street has been watching the back-and-forth on Internet gambling intently. Wall Street, in particular, has already priced Internet gambling stocks to reflect some of the possibility that Congress will approve the legislation.

A unit of Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co, an Arlington, Va.-based investment firm, has been tracking the legislation closely as it related to various Internet gambling companies. In a report last week, the firm wrote that “failure to attach a gaming provision to the DOD authorization bill likely means that proponents have missed their last best chance to pass anti-gaming provisions…before senators head home for the final campaign stretch run.”

Hastert has told negotiators that he will not move the bill unless there is authorizing language to boost the security of judges in and out of courtrooms, eases the process of deporting convicted gang members, and bars their indefinite detention.

Senate leaders promised to include the courtroom language, which was part of a larger child safety that passed the House earlier this year, on must-pass bill some time this year, a House GOP leadership aide said yesterday.

Hastert has made a bill political issue of this push following the brutal murder of the family of a federal judge in Chicago earlier this year. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) has also pressed for the legislation.

On the immigration language, House leaders said they have borrowed language included in the Senate’s own comprehensive immigration bill that was approved this past spring.

Senate Democrats are critical of the gang-related measure, and the American Civil Liberties Union said the measure is too broad and could negatively impact legal immigrants. A spokesman for Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) refused to comment on the issue.

House leaders hope to include other border security provisions in a spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. At least one Republican conferee has criticized that move.

At a National Press Club briefing yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) Senate Judiciary Committee chairman and a member of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, criticized the House’s decision to enact its some immigration measures by including them in the 2007 homeland security defense appropriations bill.

“The House of Representatives doesn’t think much of the bicameral system,” Specter said. “The Senate and House passed bills, but somehow we can’t go to conference on them. Now the House wants to take their key provisions and enact them, which would take all the leverage away from the Senate bill.”

He said that the Senate has pending provision for a fence running along the southwest border, but that he is not for the “fence piecemeal.”