Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (16735)	5/8/2005 6:27:48 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

Advise and Consign The filibuster isn't the only procedure Senators are abusing. WSJ.com OpinionJournal Friday, April 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. With a showdown looming over the filibuster of judicial nominees, now is the time to point out another abuse of the Senate's "advise and consent" power. It's called the "hold," whereby an individual Senator can delay indefinitely a Presidential nomination, and it is seriously interfering with the operation of the executive branch. Call it every Senator's personal "nuclear option." If he doesn't like a nominee or, more likely, doesn't like a policy of the agency to which the nominee is headed, all he has to do is inform his party leader that he is placing a hold on the nomination. Oh--and he can do so secretly, without releasing his name or a reason. Like the filibuster, the hold appears nowhere in the Constitution but has evolved as Senators accrete more power to themselves. Senate rules say nothing about holds, which started out as a courtesy for Members who couldn't be present at votes. Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden has said holds are "a lot like the seventh-inning stretch in baseball. There is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition." Also like the filibuster--which was never intended to block judicial nominees from getting a floor vote--the hold is being abused by a willful minority of Senators. This being a Republican Administration, Democrats in particular are using it now to hamstring or stop its ability to govern. There's no formal list of holds, but the current batch may well be unprecedented in both in number and degree. Here's our unofficial list: • Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative. The Senate Finance Committee unanimously backed the former Congressman this week. But don't expect a floor vote soon. Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh has placed a hold on his nomination in hopes of forcing a vote on a protectionist bill he favors on trade with China. (Think AFL-CIO and the 2008 Presidential nomination.) Meanwhile, it looks like Mr. Portman will miss a high-level meeting next week in Paris to jump-start trade talks. • Stephen Johnson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Senator Tom Carper says Mr. Johnson "is qualified to head the EPA and would serve the agency well." Yet the Delaware Democrat placed a hold on him over a dispute regarding the Administration's Clear Skies program, regulating pollutants in the air. Mr. Johnson dodged an earlier bullet when California Democrat Barbara Boxer threatened a hold unless the EPA canceled a study of infants' exposure to home pesticides. Mr. Johnson, who is acting EPA head, canceled the program. • Lester Crawford,Food and DrugAdministration Commissioner. The sticking point here is Plan B, aka the morning-after pill. Democrats Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray want Plan B sold over the counter and say that the agency is stalling. They say they won't lift their hold until the FDA makes a decision. • Tim Adams, Undersecretaryof the Treasury for International Affairs. The person in this position is responsible for, among other critical issues, the Chinese yuan and the World Bank. But Democrat Max Baucus has higher priorities--namely, trade with Cuba. He objects to a legal ruling by an obscure arm of the Treasury that requires advance payment by Havana for purchases of U.S. agricultural products such as grain from the Senator's home state of Montana. There are six more Treasury positions open--including those responsible for tax policy, Fannie Mae and terrorist financing. Mr. Baucus promises holds on all of them. The Senator realizes he can't win a vote in Congress on his Cuba problem, so he's resorting to this nomination extortion. • Defense Department. Where to begin? With a war on, you'd think Senators would want to keep the Pentagon fully staffed. But John McCain, angry over the Air Force's tanker-leasing deal with Boeing, last year put holds on numerous Defense nominees, including two candidates for Army Secretary, the comptroller and the assistant secretary for public affairs, the long-serving Larry DiRita. Now that Mr. McCain's personal punching bag, Air Force Secretary Jim Roche, has left the Pentagon, the Arizona Republican has calmed down--though not enough to lift his hold on Michael Wynne as Undersecretary for Acquisition. President Bush gave Mr. Wynne a recess appointment last month. Meanwhile, Democrat Carl Levin has a hold on Peter Flory, who was nominated almost a year ago as Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy. Mr. Flory has the misfortune to work for Undersecretary Douglas Feith, whom Senator Levin has pursued like Ahab chasing Moby Dick. So Mr. Flory gets harpooned, too. Until Wednesday, John Paul Woodly was blocked as Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works by Alabama's two Republican Senators. Jeff Sessions and Richard Shelby said Washington favored Georgia in a decade-long dispute over water rights. (We're not making this up.) And in March, Mississippi Republican Trent Lott placed a hold on the chairman of the Base Closing Commission, which he feared might shut a military facility in his home state. The President again had to use recess appointments to name all nine members in April. Once upon a time in America, such policy disputes were settled in elections or with votes in Congress. But in today's permanent political combat, Senators wage guerrilla warfare against the executive. No wonder so few talented people want to work in Washington. Senator Wyden and Republican Charles Grassley plan to re-introduce legislation next month to kill holds that are secret. Better yet would be to get rid of all Senate holds. Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

To: jttmab who wrote (16735)	5/8/2005 6:36:31 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Frist vs. the obstructionists The Washington Times: Opinion/Editorial For decades now, members of both political parties in the Senate have used procedural tactics to prevent up-or-down votes on high-level judicial nominations made by presidents of the opposition party. Who says? Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said so. In his April 28 "Dear Harry" letter to Minority Leader Harry Reid, Mr. Frist acknowledged that "it has become clear to me that both parties have significant complaints about the process by which the Senate exercises its responsibility to advise and consent" on judicial nominees. He candidly noted that Democrats have complained that "some of President Clinton's nominees were blocked in committee." Now, Democrats "rely on that foundation to justify the filibusters" against President Bush's appellate-court nominees, the majority leader said. "The cycle of recriminations and partisanship it exacerbates must stop," Mr. Frist said, adding: "Reform of the confirmation process is badly needed, and it must take account of issues raised by each party." To that end, Mr. Frist offered a two-stage reform plan for circuit court and Supreme Court nominations. First, no longer could the Judiciary Committee bottle up nominations. Second, he proposed "establishing a procedure by which every Supreme Court and circuit-court nomination can be debated for up to 100 hours" on the Senate floor and then "receive an up-or-down vote." Mr. Frist rightly argued that these reforms "will serve the Senate well, regardless of which party is in the majority and regardless of which party controls the White House." In effect, for high-level judicial nominations, he has offered what Democrats repeatedly demanded when they objected to Republican tactics under President Clinton. In light of the disdain with which Democrats greeted Mr. Frist's offer, it is worth recalling what they previously said on the Senate floor: • On June 9, 2001, one month after President Bush issued his first set of circuit-court nominations and four days after Democrats officially gained majority-party status in the Senate, then-Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid said: "I think we should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor." • On Sept. 14, 2000, Sen. Tom Harkin said: "Governor [George W.} Bush had the right idea. He said the candidate should get an up-or-down vote within 60 days of their nomination." • On Oct. 3, 2000, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, cited "one very significant issue" on which he and then-Gov. Bush agreed. "We are paid to vote either yes or no -- not vote maybe. When we hold a nominee up by not allowing them a vote and not taking any action one way or the other, we are not only voting maybe, but we are doing a terrible disservice to the man or woman to whom we do this." • On Oct. 5, 1999, then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle said: "An up or down vote, that is all we ask for [circuit-court nominees] Berzon and Paez. . . . I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." On March 8, 2000, the day before the Senate would finally elevate U.S. District Court Judge Richard Paez to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sen. Russ Feingold said: "All Judge Paez has ever asked for was this opportunity: an up-or-down vote on his confirmation. Yet for years the Senate has denied him that simple courtesy." • On Sept. 16, 1999, Sen. Dianne Feinstein said: "A nominee is entitled to a vote. Vote them up; vote them down." The next month, she declared, "Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote." • On Sept. 28, 1998, Sen. Dick Durbin stated: "I am not suggesting that we would give our consent to all of these nominees. I am basically saying that this process should come to a close. The Senate should vote." • On Jan. 28, 1998, Sen. Barbara Boxer said: "[W]hether the delays are on the Republican side or the Democratic side, let these names come up, let us have debate, let us vote." • On Dec. 15, 1997, Sen. Paul Sarbanes said: "If the majority of the Senate opposes a judicial nominee enough to derail a nomination by an up-or-down vote, then at least the process has been served." If Democratic senators insist on perpetuating "the cycle of recriminations" by rejecting Mr. Frist's fair-minded, long-term proposal to end the politicization of high-level judicial nominations, then they will prove that their earlier arguments for up-or-down votes were nothing more than self-serving demands unrelated to ending this decades-old problem. washingtontimes.com