Senate May End Its Tradition of Blocking Bills in Secret
By Carl Hulse
New York Times
August 2, 2007
WASHINGTON - Nowhere in the ponderous rules of the United States Senate is there any reference to the Mae West hold, the chokehold or the rotating hold.
Yet over the past 50 years, all three variations on the Senate hold -- one of the most secretive backroom weapons in Congress -- have been used to tie the chamber in knots by allowing senators to block legislation and nominations anonymously, and to do so for reasons as simple as pique or payback.
Now senators are considering bringing the secret hold into the open by requiring those who use it to disclose their identity and their rationale in The Congressional Record. The proposed rule, virtually revolutionary in the staid realm of the Senate, is part of the ethics and lobbying overhaul headed for a final vote this week.
The latest effort to curb the number of holds reflects the frustration of many senators with the way colleagues have increasingly been able to stall stacks of bills and piles of nominations by virtue of a quick phone call to the Senate cloakroom.
''A hold in effect stops a bill dead in its tracks -- in secret,'' said Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon and a longtime advocate of banning anonymous holds. ''This is an acknowledgment of how serious a problem it is.''
Not all senators agree. They view the hold as a straightforward way for lawmakers to prevent party leaders and committee chairmen from ramming through legislation with little scrutiny.
''Holds are good government,'' said Senator Jeff Sessions, an Alabama Republican who is not shy about putting himself between a bill and its passage.
Technically, a hold is simply a notice from any senator that he or she intends to object to a move to advance a bill or nomination by unanimous consent -- the Senate way of clearing the decks and avoiding unnecessary votes on consensus matters.
The slang names come from the perceived goal of the objector. For instance, the Mae West version of the Senate hold occurs when the senator behind the objection is open to negotiation, inviting the author to ''come up and see me sometime.'' The chokehold is meant to kill the bill. The rotating hold involves a group of like-minded senators who regularly shift the objection among themselves, making the perpetrator harder to identify.
Donald A. Ritchie, the associate Senate historian, says the modern use of the hold began in the 1950s under the leadership of Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, who increased the use of unanimous consent agreements to bring more order to the Senate. Holds were initially allowed as a courtesy to senators who needed more time to get to the chamber to object in person, read the bill or try to negotiate changes with the sponsor.
But their use has proliferated and intensified to the point where lawmakers employ them not only to lodge substantive objections to legislation, but also to stall nominations and bills routinely in retaliation for other actions or to win concessions. Though leaders can break a hold with a 60-vote majority, they have often been reluctant to do so out of respect for the tradition -- and the chance they might want to impose a hold of their own some day.
Some senators -- remember Jesse Helms? -- revel in their holds and wield them publicly like a blunt instrument. In 2003, Senator Larry E. Craig, Republican of Idaho, openly put holds on 850 Air Force promotions while he demanded cargo planes for the Air National Guard in his state.
Others are more surreptitious. Watchdog groups and some Democratic senators are still trying to identify the Republicans who put a hold this year on a proposal to require senators to file campaign contribution reports electronically.
In reality, even anonymous holds are not completely confidential because cloakroom staff members and party leaders typically either know who placed the holds or they eventually find out. But the names of those who use holds often remain hidden from the public and from many colleagues. Several senators said Wednesday that the new disclosure requirements would improve the culture of the Senate.
''I think it has been a bad practice forever,'' said Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania. ''I think it will improve things around here if people have to stand up when they oppose legislation. Give a reason and let it come up for a vote.''
Under the proposed rule, any senator who instituted a hold would be required within six days after raising it to submit a Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding that would state their name, the date, the matter at hand and the reason for issuing the hold. Any hold lifted within six Senate working days after it is placed would not have to be disclosed.
While the change would not bar holds -- and its main target is the secret hold -- senators say the underlying intent is to reduce the number of such objections, both public and private.
But Senator Tom Coburn, the conservative Oklahoma Republican known for his frequent holds, said he would not be deterred. He said that if he had a problem with a bill he would see it as his duty to object.
''If I don't agree with it, why am I going to let it go?'' he asked. ''The members think the rule will intimidate people into not holding bills, but it doesn't bother me.''
Mr. Wyden and others opposed to blind holds had hoped to shorten the time period for public notification but accepted the six days as a breakthrough in efforts to curb what they saw as an abusive practice.
''It's a start,'' Mr. Wyden said.
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
$9,769,530,782,380.00
|
$31,868.15 Per Citizen |
|
