JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY
Secrets of the Senate
A bipartisan proposal would make the body more open.
Thursday, June 19, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT
The U.S. Senate, once touted as "the world's greatest deliberative body," has become a dysfunctional mess. Filibusters and "blue slips" block judicial nominations. Midnight additions swell legislation with pork-barrel spending. Partisanship stymies the budget process. And a single member can put a secret "hold" or "block" on legislation and nominations.
But now there is a glimmer of hope in a bipartisan proposal to remove the veil of secrecy. Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley and Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden want new rules that would force senators to identify themselves publicly if they use a hold to stall Senate action.
The hold is a legitimate practice, allowing senators to slow legislation down so it can be studied--thus providing more time work out a consensus or stop harmful legislation. But there's little legitimate reason for secrecy. Many senators already make their blocks known publicly. And many blocks are kept in the dark because they are holding up Senate action for petty reasons. One such block eventually made public was Idaho Republican Larry Craig's hold on 850 Air Force officer promotions--including the general chosen to head all U.S. Air Forces in Europe. The senator's reason? The Air Force, Mr. Craig argued, welshed on a promise by delivering only four out of eight C-130 cargo planes to an Idaho Air National Guard base.
Sen. Craig has beaten a partial retreat and lifted his hold on all but a few dozen promotions--but only after his hold was made public and the national media hammered him.
Misuse of holds occurs on both sides of the aisle. In the 1990s a few Republican senators used them to deny votes to some Clinton nominees. More recently, West Virginia Democrat Robert Byrd pointed out a bigger problem: Special-interest groups will often call Senate staffers and have them stop a bill or nomination in secret. "They call the staff and get a staff person [to do it]," he told senators this week. "I'm surprised sometimes to find I have a hold on something." Despite such outrages, the 85-year-old senator is so loath to depart from Senate traditions that he will probably oppose reform. "I think we can find a way to achieve the goals of these two senators without changing Senate rules."Sen. Byrd's warning may mean that the Grassley-Wyden reform is headed for a legislative graveyard. "Unfortunately, one thing is certain," said Mississippi Republican Trent Lott in supporting their proposal. "If this committee decides that we should eliminate secrecy surrounding holds, and we report this resolution [to the full Senate], I am sure that an anonymous senator will put a hold on the resolution."
Someone should emulate Oklahoma Republican Jim Inhofe, who in 1993 was a rambunctious member of the House and pushed to end a secretive tradition. At the time, legislation supported by a majority of the members would get bottled up in committee. One way to force a vote on such a bill is to get a majority of members to sign a discharge petition. But House rules forbade identifying who'd signed such a petition. That made gathering signatures impossible and allowed a member to say publicly he supported a bill even as he quietly refused to sign the discharge petition.Mr. Inhofe's crusade touched a nerve and talk radio picked up the fight. The public's outrage forced House leaders to end the secretive practice, and Mr. Inhofe's new fame won him a Senate seat in 1994. Now--with the Internet joining talk radio as a powerful political tool--it's time for a similar battle. The Senate doesn't have to be steeped in secrecy.
URL:http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003644 |
