The US Senate has been described as the world’s most exclusive club, and like other exclusive clubs it has its own peculiar customs and rituals – some of them charming, many of them the opposite.
One of the least charming ones is the “secret hold,” a rule that allows any senator to block action on a piece of legislation simply by objecting to it – and he doesn’t even have to reveal his identity. It’s the legislative equivalent of blackballing.
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, from Iowa, and Oregon’s own Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden have been fighting the good fight against the secret hold ever since 1997. Just this year they’ve tried five times to push forward a bill to severely restrict the use of the secret hold; five times Senate Republicans have gunned it down.
But they’re not giving up. Now that the Senate is back in session, they’re going to take another shot.
“Wyden and Grassley are both frustrated and angry because their proposal does nothing to weaken the use of holds,” according to an Oregonian story Tuesday. “They just want the objector to be named. The measure they wrote would require that the senator using the hold be named publicly within two days.”
Present rules require the identity of a senator imposing a secret hold to be disclosed within six days, but Wyden and Grassley said in a news release that’s not good enough because “the holding period has proven too long to be effective, and because this requirement is triggered only when the bill is brought to the floor for consideration, it is possible for senators to indefinitely block legislation from reaching the floor without ever disclosing that they are doing it much less why.”
Among other things, secret holds have been used to block judicial and other appointments by President Obama. According to Huffington Post blogger Victor Williams, “over two hundred top federal posts remain vacant due to confirmation obstruction.”
“This is about fundamental accountability and fairness,” Wyden said in the news release. “If senators feel strongly enough about an issue that they are going to take the extreme step of blocking a nomination or a piece of legislation, then they should have the courage to take responsibility for their actions and explain why. The bottom line is that if you can’t make a good public case for why you are doing something, you shouldn’t be doing it.”
Pretty hard to argue with that logic, seems to me. In fact, whether it’s done secretly or not, the idea that a single senator can thwart the will of the other 99 seems totally nuts.
But if anybody wants to defend the practice of holds – secret or otherwise – go ahead and take your shot.
written by jeff H. , June 10, 2010
written by H. Bruce Miller , June 10, 2010
They're killing it with parliamentary maneuvers. It's never had an up-or-down vote by the Senate.
written by spaceelftim , June 11, 2010
Wait, didn't the democrates do the same thing to Bush nominees? I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Joe Biden could have declaired this a new congress at the beginning of the year which would have voided any existing rules including the filabuster. For some reason, he chose not to.
written by H. Bruce Miller , June 11, 2010
No.
"Joe Biden could have declaired this a new congress at the beginning of the year which would have voided any existing rules including the filabuster [sic]"
I'm not sure but I believe you are misinformed about that. The Senate rules don't change with each new session.
written by Ron Bergundy , June 11, 2010
written by spaceelftim , June 11, 2010
Yes, the DEMOCRATS delayed judge nominees during the Bush administration. If you deny that, you are either ignorant or a liar.
I am not misinformed about the Senate rules. Joe Biden did declare this congress as a continuation by giving it it's assigned number of the 111th congress back in January 2009.
It is the VPs option as president of the congress to declair it a continuation or a new congress. To this date, no VP has used that option to declair a new congress.
And all this time I thought you knew everything Mr. Miller....
written by H. Bruce Miller , June 11, 2010
Not nearly as many. The Republicans have blockaded Obama nominations on an unprecedented scale. For example, in February Sen. Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, put a "blanket hold" on 70 Obama nominations. The Democrats never did anything like that to Bush.
"Joe Biden did declare this congress as a continuation by giving it it's assigned number of the 111th congress back in January 2009."
Yes, but I don't believe that declaring it a new Congress would have negated all the Senate standing rules. As I said I could be wrong, and if you can cite an authority that proves I am I will accept it.
written by Stephen Cramer , June 11, 2010
elf--Where in your conservative philosophy does it say that two wrongs make a right? This kind of 'logic' will result in total gridlock--a do-nothing congress unable tom do do anything regardless of the necessity. You are choosing politics over governance.
written by spaceelftim , June 11, 2010
SENATE RULES AND PROCEDURES:
A MAJORITARIAN MEANS TO OVER
COME THE FILIBUSTER
MARTIN B. GOLD & DIMPLE GUPTA
The above is very good reading about the history of Senate Rules.
The Senate has the authority to change their rules at anytime. The concept that Standing Rules automatically pass onto the next Senate has been extensively debated. It is obvious that neither party wants to give up a rule, even if it works in their favor, because they may find themselves needing that rule at some future point. The fact remains that the opposite of Progress is Congress.
When the VP gavels in the new Senate every 2 years, it is given the next sequential number. This numbering is not provided for in the Constitution. It is therefore up to debate that if a Senate is not provided with the next number, it could be forced to officially adopt new (or existing) rules as provide in the Constitution under no other rules except standard Parliamentary Rules.
I could not find any documentation relating to the forced reset of the rules by the VP simply by announcing that this Senate is not a continuation of the previous Senate. I read that possibility in an article within the last few weeks. I do not recall the source.
However, Mr. Miller, your concern for the Standing Rules still remains unanswered. Will any Senate be willing to cut it's own throat by voting for the bill put forward by Senator Wyden? We can hope so, but it is doubtful. Until and unless term limits are imposed on them, the fat cats will continue to dine on power and authority.
written by aaychbee'em critic , June 11, 2010
Thank God for Richard Shelby. I've seen too many whack jobs hoisted by this administration (excluding judicial nominations).
But know this, HBM, for non-judicial/non-cabinet positions Obama gets around this by creating all these cabinet level "czars" who are not accountable to Congress and can't be subpoenaed.
But I will agree with you that if you're going to "hold" we should know who you are right away. Heck, HBM, maybe someday I'll even tell you who I am.
written by spaceelftim , June 11, 2010
I do not believe that two wrongs make a right. I was pointing out that Mr. Miller attempted to make it appear that only Republicans do these kinds of things.
The House of Representatives decided decades ago to adopt new rules with every new House. Even though the Constitution allows both houses of Congress to adopt their own rule (no difference specified for either house), the Senate has yet to do the same. Senator Byrd is still the greatest manipulator of Senate Rules.
I am sure - without question, that you, Mr. Miller and myself could come to a concensus and write Senate Rules that would be fair to 1st, the American People and 2nd, to both the majority and minority parties in any Senate. I say this because we want the same thing. We both want the majority party to be able to flex it's majority, but don't want the minority party to be without a voice. Is that not correct?
written by H. Bruce Miller , June 12, 2010
Please, I'm not that naive; of course both parties have done it. But the Republicans under this president are doing it to an extent never seen before, at least in modern times.
"We both want the majority party to be able to flex it's majority, but don't want the minority party to be without a voice. Is that not correct?"
Works for me. But the minority party's voice should not be so loud that it can drown out the majority's voice. The filibuster and the practice of "holds" are two egregious violations of that principle. Get rid of 'em, I say.
