Is Senator Stevens Holding Up Coburn-Obama?

By Erick Posted in Comments (26) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Coburn-Obama legislation has a "secret hold" on it. The legislation, also known as the "Federal Funding, Accountability, & Transparency Act", would create an online, searchable database of federal earmarks. The database would list which member of congress obtained the earmark, how much the earmark is for, what the purpose is for, which local contractors are involved, etc.

Someone has a hold on the legislation. Last week, I called every senator's office, except five -- those five are co-sponsors of the legislation. I've been told that the hold was placed by a Republican. Of all the senators I called, only one would not give me a definitive "no." Senator Stevens's office said he does not comment on holds and, in any event, they did not know if he had a hold. They also told me they had gotten "lots" of calls. That last bit is interesting because a friend also called the office the day before I called -- he called in the afternoon and I called the next morning. He was told the office had gotten no calls on the legislation and the office was not aware of the legislation. That does not add up.

We know Senator Stevens has a grudge to settle with Senator Coburn over the bridge to nowhere. Is Senator Stevens responsible for this hold? Bloggers want to know.


« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for CensorshipComments (5) | Oh, GoodyComments (17) »
Is Senator Stevens Holding Up Coburn-Obama? 26 Comments (0 topical, 26 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

seems another possibility - he is listed as the only one who refused to answer the question, according to a dk diary.

It is really great to see left and right converge like this on this issue.

--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

ah, bbut Chambliss is a co sponsor it seems. Never mind.

unless hes just really clever. I mean, a secret hold on your own bill? would be a pretty cool trick.

--
Dean Nation is now Nation-Building: Purple politics, muscular liberalism, principled pragmatism

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

And I called his office too. He is not the senator with the hold. In fact, he is adamant that this is good legislation.

It seems that once this bill's hold is removed (if ever removed), then it will be a good thing. Which means it probably won't pass. However, since today is my 1-year "birthday" at Redstate (maybe now I can do a diary!) I will be optimistic that this legislation will someday pass!

Since these are all grown men and women, I would hope that the bill is held up over some pettiness.

Wealth Weekly is back!

has been reduced to The World's Example of Pettiness.

And exactly what makes you think the collective egos are grown ups?

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I don't know what the deal is with those folks. Maybe their ego trip is on a return flight? Nah, I kid. They're on extended vacation. And by extended I mean permanent.

Wealth Weekly is back!

when he offered a bill to reinstitute the draft, then voted against the very bill he authored? I dont know, but secretly holding up your own bill would seem to be in that pantheon.

I can't help remembering the eternal quote from the book of "Animal House":
"You are a P-I-G pig!" - Babs Jensen

Ted Stevens is an embarrassment to the GOP. So long as the GOP tolerates people like him, we will fail to secure the moral high ground for good government. Ted Stevens makes me root for the Democrats to take over the House. Really. No government is better than Stevens government. DoD will get their funding, but let everything else grind to a wonderful halt.

I won't support any institution that looks the other way in its support for people like Stevens or even Chaffee. Libby Dole needs to get smart. The GOP needs to assume the role of the Reagan Revolutionary Party, and not the party of Big Government, greed, largesse, and laziness. Figh on them all.

I hope some of his staffers read this. Maybe they'll give that greedy fossil a kick in the butt. I'm not sure what would happen if someone did that...either a cloud of dust or wads of $100 bills would fly out.

I'm sorry if I'm attacking people here but I am REALLY REALLY mad about this. If you're mad as hell and are not going to take it anymore, please do chime in. I'm feeling like an old crank up here on my soapbox.

Ted Stevens makes me root for the Democrats to take over the House.

You do know that Stevens is a Senator, right? Not sure why you want the Democrats to take over the House just because you are mad at a Senator.

I have a feeling that by the time we get done banishing all the apostates from the party we will be lucky to have ten seats in the Senate. The list of offences which cause people to be unacceptable is seemingly endless.

I must have been in a Kossack-ish insulin blackout when I said House instead of Senate. Or when I posted that for that matter. All blogs should have a disclaimer that you should ensure your blood sugar is in balance before writing. But I kid.

Of course Stevens is safe because so long as the Democrats are the party of retreat and appeasement I will vote GOP. Wasting money is no sin compared to that of sacrificing soldiers, or losing a war by losing your nerve.

This voter's dilemma is precisely why this country needs two strong and viable parties.

An airplane hanger to store his giant ego, when he's not using it. That's another structure like the bridge, that won't get much use.

Amen to that! LOL

Stevens needs to go. If he runs for reelection in 2008, the Republicans should due their best to "Murkowski" him. I hope that he is the last of a dying breed, and the Jeff Flake's/Mike Pence's/Tom Coburn's of the world can take the lead.

In addition to a no new taxes pledge, prospective candidate should sign a no Appropriations Committee pledge as well.

they will rename "you just got Murkoswkied" to "you just got even-Stevensed".

"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."

he'll die in office. And should he die in offices, Alaskans will reprise Weekend at Bernie's. Since the house is burning, we'll keep warm.

As to being "Murkowskied;" the only one who Murkowskied Murkowski was Murkowski. Nobody here nor any conservative or Republican "groundswell" had anything to do with that. Twenty-odd years in the Imperial City did that. Senatorial arrogance, solicitousness to the "old boys," and inattention to detail doomed him. Blogging is easier than governing; you ought to try some of that governing thing sometime. Might make you humble.
In Vino Veritas

I bet it IS Stevens holding up the bill. I am hopeful that the soon-to-be Governor Palin ends up replacing him in the Senate in the not-so-distant future. She seems good.

It's a bit disingenuous of him.

He should know very well who is holding this, assuming it is a Republican (if it is a Democrat, then Harry Reid must know).

Holds are not provided in the Senate Rules. However, what is provided is that virtually every procedural motion must be voted on. To eliminate this need almost all Senate business is conducted by unanimous consent. Example, in order to bring a bill to the floor, Frist needs to move that the Senate proceed to the bill. Usually he will ask for unanimous consent. If he can't get it there's a vote. This is where the hold comes in.

A Hold is simply when a single senator informs his party leader that he would object to the request for unanimous consent to proceed (forcing debate and a vote) and would effectively keep objecting to things to gum up the works on the bill. When Frist and Reid discuss Senate business one or the other MUST know a holder's identity as the only way to "hold" is to tell one of them.

So somebody other than the guilty senator knows who this is. Sens. Frist and Reid could very easily abolish the practice by declaring their intention not to keep such requests secret. Sen. Frist could also go ahead and bring the bill to the floor and force someone to actually make the objection to unanimous consent. Yet again, the reason this is even still an issue is that Sen Frist is not willing to show a little spine and force the issue.

I'd also note that Chuck Grassley introduced a resolution in the Senate that would expressly prohibit "secret holds" and would require all holds to be recorded in the Congressional Record with the name of the Senator(s) requesting the hold. The resolution didn't progress to enactment.

A quick question: so is it simply a matter of courtesy/comity that the Majority or Minority Leader does not identify who has the hold?

Most of the time, a "hold" is simply a way for a Senator to say "Hey, I haven't looked at this and I don't know what I think - can you wait." Almost every Senator has, at one time or another, placecd a hold on something. They usually lift the hold after a few days once their staff has briefed them and such.

So, I assume even Frist and Reid don't want to collapse the whole system. It does serve some purposes.

Clearly just anybody in the Senate can't do this to just any bill or we would never see a bill come out of the Senate. He's not the chairman of what appears to be a relevant committee.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Reldim explained it... So Frist should really be pinning this on himself for being a horrible leader with no backbone rather than the Senator with the "secret hold."
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

It doesn't matter who placed the hold; the fact is that most senators want this bill to fail!

Earmarks help individual senators bring home the bacon. The fact that they are all bringing home the bacon simply means that they all have a vested (as in reelection vested) interest in shooting this down.

Dana
Common Sense Political Thought

Recorded votes force some interesting choices on politicians.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

has lllllloooooonnnnnngggggg memories.

-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service