Secret Hold put on legislation by Shadow Senator

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Sep 4, 2005
Messages
3,213
Location
Amerikan Twilight Zone
I learned something new today. Apparently, 99 senators are not really
necessary anymore. Whether or not you want transparency on how your
money is really being spent, I wonder how this could affect firearms
legislation? What allows this action in the Senate?

Furthermore, if such action is legal in the Senate, why hasn't some red-blooded
American Senator always come forward and put a hold on legislation that
infringes upon the Second Amendment?

Nation & World Home / Nation & World

Published: Aug 24, 2006 12:30 AM
Modified: Aug 24, 2006 02:31 AM


Secret 'hold' stops open-government bill

Cox News Service

WASHINGTON - In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver.

An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee unanimously passed the measure in a voice vote last month, and such heavy hitters as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., supported it. It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed Aug. 4 when someone put a hold on the measure.

Now the bill is in political limbo. Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

"It really is outrageous to do this in the dead of night as Congress is recessing," said Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a budget watchdog group based in Washington. "The public has a right to know how the government spends money."

The secret hold has prompted conservative and liberal government watchdog groups to band together to "smoke out" the senator responsible.

Let me re-quote for the skimmers out there:

Now the bill is in political limbo. Under Senate rules, unless the senator who placed the hold decides to lift it, the bill will not be brought up for a vote.

Yes, one Senator effectively vetos the bill for the other 99.
 
I seem to recall that the hold is not an official rule - it's a gentleman's agreement between members that indicates the intent to filibuster a bill in advance of the actual filibuster.
 
From the U.S. Senate web site:
hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

Source: http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/hold.htm

Nothing there about a "secret hold". :scrutiny:
 
That's not a "shadow senator." It's just an unidentified/anonymous senator. And the hold is not secret, since everyone seems to know about it.
 
How is this any different than small committees deciding which bills will see a floor vote and which ones disappear never to be seen again?
 
That's not a "shadow senator."

Let me check the Politically Correct Phrasology Database: how about
a "Senator in the shadows"? Oh, wait, we still can't use "shadow"
because of the negative connotation. Let me work on this some more
so it's palatable to the Two-Headed Partiya......working......working......
Ka-ching!

Here --the whole article has been re-edited:

"Gentleman's reservation applied to obscure minor bill by freedom-loving
anonymous People's Senator" (advertisement: Would you like to lose more
weight?). Subscribers may click here for the full story.

Titles aside, one must question which Senator leaked news about this
so-called "gentlemen's" agreement?

That's why the Web is on the crack-down list.

BINGO.
 
hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator's wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

Is anyone else tired of a bill not getting passed because it MIGHT be filibustered? I agree with the suggestion put forward when the judicial nominees were in limbo. Make them filibuster the darn thing. Let them bring the wheels of the Senate grinding to a halt in front of God and everyone. Let them look like political jackasses for holding up the business of the Senate because they don't want to give something an up or down vote.

Right now, this senator has effectively filibustered the bill already without expending any political capital or looking like an idiot for holding up the Senate. They should at least be forced to stand up and explain why they are opposing a bill that has wide support in both parties.
 
Is anyone else tired of a bill not getting passed because it MIGHT be filibustered?

Anyone else remember the threat to fili the 1994 AWB that wasn't pursued?
Again, interesting to see how they pick and choose when to apply these
floor tactics. When you know who the actors are that play the characters
of a particular scene, then you see how it all fits together as a rather lovely
choreographed stage play.......mostly like Kobuki Theater in its style.

Someone needs to shed the light on the Senator who would play the
Kuroko!
 
If the Majority Leader wanted, he/she could force the bill to the floor and disregard the hold. This is a courtesy hold for a period of time, and nothing more.
 
Is anyone else tired of a bill not getting passed because it MIGHT be filibustered?
The situation is worse. How about congressing laboring mightly creating legislation because it plays well to the Great Fed Up and then torpedoing the legislations effectiveness by inserting language with nullifies everything else in the bill. Who pulls this crap? Start with Snarlin' Arlen. Example? Try Arlen's legislation designed to fix Bush's wiretap efforts. Both parties engage in the practice. :banghead:
 
Imagine the number of bills that would be passed each year if not for all of these sleight of hand tactics. The more they can slow things down the better I like the government.

John
 
The reason you don't see "secret" holds in cases like the AWB, is that this tactic only works where most of the Senators are in agreement with it. It's a way for a bunch of Senators to block a bill, without any one of them having to own up to being the guilty party.

They could over-ride the "hold" any time they wanted; It's just a convenient excuse not to act on a popular bill that Senators don't like.
 
Point of order please.

I think the "secret hold" is just that, and it's to avoid embarrassment of the requesting Senator. A discharge petition is what is necessary for all the other Senators to get the leadership to release it over the objections of the secret Senator.

Does someone no the details of this?

Bob
 
republic democracy

I believe the whole process of referring bills, after the first reading, is a method used to bypass our republic form of governement so that a small oligarchy; committe, can thwart the will of the people.

With the computerization of the vote process within both the senate and house, there is no more a necessity for Committe review of proposed legislation, and for that matter, the practice of adding riders, etc. to bills can be eliminated, and must be, also!

Bills for legislation must simply be voted upon by their own merit. And without interference of fillibustering. After all, that was the purpose of a senate originally anyway; that regional issues could be reviewed susequently beyond the self interest of vested local constituents, legislating through their representatives.
 
Thin Black Line: Let me check the Politically Correct Phrasology Database: how about a "Senator in the shadows"?
It's not a matter of being PC -- it's a matter of not confusing us.

"Shadow Senator" and "Shadow Representative" refer specifically to Washington D.C.'s elected representatives in Congress. These people have the same lobbying/hobnobbing powers as other congressmen, they even have Hill offices and staff, but they cannot propose legislation or vote.

Thus, your title made many of us think you were referring to Paul Strauss or Florence Pendleton.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Delegations_from_District_of_Columbia
 
Notice how the "gentlemen" band together to cover their backsides. Maybe it's time for someone to burn down DC again. It is the anniversary of the last time that took place

BurningofWashington1814.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top