Posted on 09/01/2006 9:09:36 AM PDT by NonValueAdded
On April 17, 2002, Senators Grassley and Wyden submitted a Senate Resolution to eliminate the practice of placing secret holds. Note that the resolution did not eliminate holds but rather exposed them to the light of day. Without surprise, the resolution died in committee.
107TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION
S. RES. 244
Eliminating secret Senate holds.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
APRIL 17, 2002
Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration
RESOLUTION
Eliminating secret Senate holds.
Resolved,
SECTION 1. ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS.
Rule VII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by adding at the end the following:
‘‘7. A Senator who provides notice to party leadership of his or her intention to object to proceeding to a motion or matter shall disclose the notice of objection (or hold) in the Congressional Record in a section reserved for such notices not later than 2 session days after the date of the notice.’’.
We are their employers and we have the right to know what they are doing.
How long would a person stay employed if he insisted on keeping what he does at work, a secret from his boss?
ELIMINATING SECRET HOLDS
A lot of Senators give lengthy and eloquent speeches about fighting terrorism, but now a bill that is vital to national security is being held up in secret. It has been held up for months and months as a result of this secret hold. That ought to change.
Certainly, it ought to change if Senators are serious about lobbying reforms because one of the best ways for lobbyists to work their will is to have procedures that help them behind closed doors. That is what the secret hold is all about.
It is written nowhere in the Senate rules, but it has become one of the most significant and powerful tools a Senator can exercise. It is done without any public accountability at all.
I didn't mean to kill your thread.
I'm glad you posted the history and hope that isn't why you think the thread died :(
Readers should think for a minute on Lyndon Johnson's style of running the senate when they think about perpetuating this one vote filibuster method. Can't run the nuclear option when you can't get the bill to the floor. Further, the Historian is correct when he says the use has morphed from its original purpose into a black hole feature. LBJ would eviscerate a Senator holding up legislation he wanted for his majority. Frist would, well ... my mother always told me ...
The more I learn about LBJ the less I like him. Some Texans just ain't Texans, if you get my meaning.
For being in the wrong spot you still got 113 views.
The state legislature, should be the Senate's employer though, not the mob. The people are the employers of the House, and the state legislatures who chooses Senators. This is the original system before the XVII amendment, and its better for checks and balances. It is also easier for a state legislature to keep tabs on their Senator and kick them out if they aren't representing the state properly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.