NationStates Jolt Archive

There's a bipartisan bill before the Senate right now, authored by one of my favorite Senators (Obama) and one of my least favorite (Coburn) that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. It would create unprecedented openness in government.

Which means, of course, it can not be allowed to pass.

And this is how they kill it. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4137637.html)
The measure had been unanimously passed in a voice vote last month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. 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.

Porkbusters.org, for example, posted photographs of all senatorial suspects underneath a bold-faced headline asking, "Who is the Secret Holder?"

It remains unclear if the senator responsible will be able to withstand the pressure from the broad array of groups and senators supporting the bill.

"It really is a mystery, not only who did it, but what the rationale could possibly be and why they would go to the mat on this," said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a new Washington-based nonprofit devoted to helping the public understand Congress through the Internet. "There is no conceivable, rational explanation for killing this legislation unless they have something to hide."
It's a bit ironic that a bill to create openness in government is being killed by a secret hold, isn't it? I plan on calling both my Senators today and asking ther staffs if they can give me a guarantee that they're not behind the hold. You can find your Senators' contact information at www.senate.gov

Just so I'm clear here. This is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan bill that benefits everyone, regardless of party affiliation, and whoever placed the secret hold ought to be outed, regardless of party affiliation.

I had heard about this.

It could very well be one of the sponsors. Sort of the ultimate in cynicism.

They won't out anyone - that way, they all get to look like they support openness in government without it actually happenning.

You seem surprised - this sort of thing is normal in DC.

I had heard about this.

It could very well be one of the sponsors. Sort of the ultimate in cynicism.

They won't out anyone - that way, they all get to look like they support openness in government without it actually happenning.

You seem surprised - this sort of thing is normal in DC.Not surprised, really, but disappointed. I doubt it's either of the sponsors--Obama has been after this for some time, and Coburn stuck his neck out when he was trying to get funding from Ted Stevens' Alaska bridge to nowhere redirected to Katrina relief. He's an idiot on a lot of issues, but I think he's a true believer on this subject.

Not surprised, really, but disappointed. I doubt it's either of the sponsors--Obama has been after this for some time, and Coburn stuck his neck out when he was trying to get funding from Ted Stevens' Alaska bridge to nowhere redirected to Katrina relief. He's an idiot on a lot of issues, but I think he's a true believer on this subject.
If you lived here for as long as I have, you would either learn to accept how this place runs, or you would have jumped off of a building long ago.

What a surprise. Of course I find it unlikely that any politician could introduce truly helpful legislation. There is always some self serving involved not to mention plenty of pork. Either that or it will be neutered before even being passed or just full of holes.

What makes you think it was a Senator at all? Perhaps it was the President of the Senate, Dick "Halliburton" Cheney.

Two quick phone calls, one definitive no from Senator Bill Nelson's staff, and one "we have no reason to think he did it, but he's out of town and hasn't told us unequivocably yet" from Senator Martinez.

Two quick phone calls, one definitive no from Senator Bill Nelson's staff, and one "we have no reason to think he did it, but he's out of town and hasn't told us unequivocably yet" from Senator Martinez.

oh, like a Senator who anonymously blocked a bill would publicly admit it...

What makes you think it was a Senator at all? Perhaps it was the President of the Senate, Dick "Halliburton" Cheney.
As I understand it, Cheney doesn't have that kind of authority in the Senate. He's basically limited to casting deciding votes on the floor. He can't cast votes in any committee or serve in any committee.

As I understand it, Cheney doesn't have that kind of authority in the Senate. He's basically limited to casting deciding votes on the floor. He can't cast votes in any committee or serve in any committee.

That's a relief. I'd hate to think that the Executive branch was trying to side-step the Legislative branch.

...wait a sec! :eek:

There's a bipartisan bill before the Senate right now, authored by one of my favorite Senators (Obama) and one of my least favorite (Coburn) that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. It would create unprecedented openness in government.

Which means, of course, it can not be allowed to pass.

And this is how they kill it. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4137637.html)

It's a bit ironic that a bill to create openness in government is being killed by a secret hold, isn't it? I plan on calling both my Senators today and asking ther staffs if they can give me a guarantee that they're not behind the hold. You can find your Senators' contact information at www.senate.gov

Just so I'm clear here. This is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan bill that benefits everyone, regardless of party affiliation, and whoever placed the secret hold ought to be outed, regardless of party affiliation.
Let me see if I have got this right? ANY Senator can put a "secret" hold on proposed legislation? If not, what are the rules?

Let me see if I have got this right? ANY Senator can put a "secret" hold on proposed legislation? If not, what are the rules?

Yes they can. This is an old rule.

I am going to email Harry reid and John Ensign about this. How do I refer to the bill so that they know what I am talking about? Should I just give them the link to the story?

There's a bipartisan bill before the Senate right now, authored by one of my favorite Senators (Obama) and one of my least favorite (Coburn) that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. It would create unprecedented openness in government.

Which means, of course, it can not be allowed to pass.

And this is how they kill it. (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4137637.html)

It's a bit ironic that a bill to create openness in government is being killed by a secret hold, isn't it? I plan on calling both my Senators today and asking ther staffs if they can give me a guarantee that they're not behind the hold. You can find your Senators' contact information at www.senate.gov

Just so I'm clear here. This is not a partisan issue. This is a bipartisan bill that benefits everyone, regardless of party affiliation, and whoever placed the secret hold ought to be outed, regardless of party affiliation.

very ironic.Im a brit, but I believe that all parliments,senates, whatever should be transparent.The parliament are doing the work of the people for the people, therefore the people shouldnt be kept in the dark.
I have to agree with you on taste of senators.When I stayed in america I saw the democrates national conference(I think thats what it was)and I watched obama's speech.He should be president!
more openness!less secrets!less spin!(and then maybe people can start to hold their politicians to account)

I like Obamba too.

Wait....so one Senator, one out of whatever number you have, can stall a Bill endlessly and nobody knows who did it?

What a crazy system you have over there.

Wait....so one Senator, one out of whatever number you have, can stall a Bill endlessly and nobody knows who did it?

What a crazy system you have over there.

We have 100 Senators, two for each state.

I had no idea they could do that either.

I didn't know of this bill, but your description has definitely piqued my interest. Do you know the bill's number? I always read the text of any bill or resolution before I try to contact senators or congresscritters about it. Kind of a general rule - I've noticed that bills don't always say what they are marketed to say and sometimes have aspects that would make anyone cringe.

If you don't know the number, I may be able to look up all bills authored by Obama and find it there. Since he's new, the list shouldn't be too long (or is this his first?), though this is usually a much slower way of searching for a given bill.

As an FYI, http://www.thomas.gov/home/bills_res.html is a really good source for those in the U.S. to keep track of congress' official legislative doings.

I don't particularly like or trust Obama, but if this bill is all it's cracked up to be then maybe this is one point in his favor.

We have 100 Senators, two for each state.

Yay for equal representation! :p

I had no idea they could do that either.

Seems a bit crazy, really. How would the Senate ever pass anything? Surely every time something went in that the minority didn't like, one Senator could just put a hold on it and that's the end of that?

Yay for equal representation! :p

We're still nominally a Federal Union, so it makes sense in that regard.

Seems a bit crazy, really. How would the Senate ever pass anything? Surely every time something went in that the minority didn't like, one Senator could just put a hold on it and that's the end of that?

Perhaps they save it's use for particularly special occaisions?

It's probably Ted Stevens or Ted Kennedy trying to get back at Coburn and Obama for their support of bills that stopped their personal projects from being passed; for Stevens it was the bridge to nowhere and for Kennedy it was the "posion pill" amendment that would have killed the offshore wind farms near his family estate.

Whoever did it is too much of a coward to come out and say it publically, but I personally feel it's one of these two scumbags or their allies.

Wait....so one Senator, one out of whatever number you have, can stall a Bill endlessly and nobody knows who did it?

What a crazy system you have over there.

thats what I thought,what is the actual law that alows them to do this? do they have to give good reason? and how come they can stay anonymous?
This makes the american system seem worse than I origionally thought....whoever block's a transparency bill obviously has something to hide!

What a crazy system you have over there.

Yes, there are a lot of things in the US Senate that one can definitely call "crazy." They don't tecnically even follow Robert's Rules of Order for example. And when you get to the interaction between the Senate and the House, it can get outright insane.

Wait....so one Senator, one out of whatever number you have, can stall a Bill endlessly and nobody knows who did it?

What a crazy system you have over there.

It depends on which stage you want to stall it.

Consider that the rule was designed by people who want an ability to cover their ass and still get their way.

It depends on which stage you want to stall it.

Consider that the rule was designed by people who want an ability to cover their ass and still get their way.

so it seems,what is the procedure.at what point can you stall?

It's probably Ted Stevens or Ted Kennedy trying to get back at Coburn and Obama for their support of bills that stopped their personal projects from being passed; for Stevens it was the bridge to nowhere and for Kennedy it was the "posion pill" amendment that would have killed the offshore wind farms near his family estate.

Whoever did it is too much of a coward to come out and say it publically, but I personally feel it's one of these two scumbags or their allies.

Damn US senators are less mature than my eight, nine and ten year-old cousins on a sugar high fighting over the X-Box. Depressing.

No.


Barrack Obama is a tool.

No.


Barrack Obama is a tool.

Phillips-head screwdriver or needle-nose pliers?

Phillips-head screwdriver or needle-nose pliers?


Neither - nail gun

No.


Barrack Obama is a tool.

really?how so?if so thats a shame, he made a good impression on me...:(

really?how so?if so thats a shame, he made a good impression on me...:(
Consider who's making the claim of Obama's tool-ness, then adjust your disappointment accordingly.

really?how so?if so thats a shame, he made a good impression on me...:(

Barack obama sounds so much like bareback yermama

Phillips-head screwdriver or needle-nose pliers?

Whatever he is, it's broken.

He's a socialistic gun grabbing non-GWOT supporter who also makes trips to Africa to drum up support from his home population.

If Obama supports it, chances are mostlikely it's something I won't. (Didn't Obama support the Lawful commerce in arms act?)

I am going to email Harry reid and John Ensign about this. How do I refer to the bill so that they know what I am talking about? Should I just give them the link to the story?

Obama-Coburn Transperancy Bill ought to do it. Their staffers will know what you're talking about.

Edit: Just as long as you realize that neither Reid nor Ensign will read the email (staffers will skim it and tell their boss what stats are for the daily emails). A written letter, however, has a significantly higher chance of being read.

It's a shame, I heard about that, it sounds like a good bill to me. I can't say that I'm really surprised this type of thing goes on all the time, but nonetheless it's upsetting.

Obama-Coburn Transperancy Bill ought to do it. Their staffers will know what you're talking about.


Thanks - I already sent off my emails doing basically just what you suggested (as well as a little description of the bill), but also with a link to the story.

No. In the interest of security, it is best that some contracts are not seen. If we're going to send a lap dog to Kim in North Korea after infecting that dog with some horrible disease to assassinate him (not that I advocate that kind of thing), it would be best to not let anyone know about it, because inevitably someone will stick his or her nose into it if it's out in the open.

No. In the interest of security, it is best that some contracts are not seen. If we're going to send a lap dog to Kim in North Korea after infecting that dog with some horrible disease to assassinate him (not that I advocate that kind of thing), it would be best to not let anyone know about it, because inevitably someone will stick his or her nose into it if it's out in the open.If we're putting that kind of stuff out in contract form, then we deserve whatever kind of crap we catch for it.

Barack obama sounds so much like bareback yermama



Whatever he is, it's broken.

He's a socialistic gun grabbing non-GWOT supporter who also makes trips to Africa to drum up support from his home population.

If Obama supports it, chances are mostlikely it's something I won't. (Didn't Obama support the Lawful commerce in arms act?)

So... you're not even really sure what this topic is about?

If we're putting that kind of stuff out in contract form, then we deserve whatever kind of crap we catch for it.

So you would advocate passing this bill and then having the government use even more odious means to do what it has to do?

Perhaps they save it's use for particularly special occaisions?
Yeah, like when people ask for democracy, I guess.

So you would advocate passing this bill and then having the government use even more odious means to do what it has to do?Well, for starters I wold suggest that our government doesn't have to do those odious things, but let's be realistic--if we're engaging in assassination of foreign heads of state, we're not going to contract it out (at least not where there will be any paperwork). We'll do it in house or we'll give some shady characters loads of cash to do it. So yes, I want this bill passed.

there were 2.5 trillion in federal contracts last year?

i don't remember there being 2.5 trillion in discretionary spending.

ha, this confirms what i have thought all along. they are all crooks. every last one of them.

So you would advocate passing this bill and then having the government use even more odious means to do what it has to do?

I'd rather our government not have to use means like that in the first place frankly. I say pass it, accountability and transparency are good things that we need more of as of this time.

A senator or senators cannot put an anonymous hold on a bill that is going through normal channels. An anonymous hold can only be placed on a bill that is being fast tracked by unanimous vote. Obviously this bill did not have unanimous approval. It has a long way to go before it becomes law at any rate because the house version of it only wants to make government grants transparent. I reckon it wont get fast tracked but will pass next full senate session. I seriously doubt that the house will pass the full senates bill however. They may go for making more than just grants transparent however.

Porkbuster's desperate manhunt will probably come up empty.

Sure, if it did get through, Bush would probably just put a signing statement on and ignore the whole thing.

A senator or senators cannot put an anonymous hold on a bill that is going through normal channels. An anonymous hold can only be placed on a bill that is being fast tracked by unanimous vote. Obviously this bill did not have unanimous approval. It has a long way to go before it becomes law at any rate because the house version of it only wants to make government grants transparent. I reckon it wont get fast tracked but will pass next full senate session. I seriously doubt that the house will pass the full senates bill however. They may go for making more than just grants transparent however.

Porkbuster's desperate manhunt will probably come up empty.

Doesn't change the chickenshit nature of the anonymous hold. If the reason for the hold is to keep it from being fasttracked, then put the hold on and say that's why you're doing it. Sack up. That's a reasonable explanation for a hold. The anonymous hold makes it look self-serving.

Doesn't change the chickenshit nature of the anonymous hold. If the reason for the hold is to keep it from being fasttracked, then put the hold on and say that's why you're doing it. Sack up. That's a reasonable explanation for a hold. The anonymous hold makes it look self-serving.

I never said it was a good thing or that transparency was a bad thing. I was trying to explain to those who did not know and could not conceive how an anonymous hold could happen. It can and does happen only in bills being fast tracked in the senate via unanimous vote when the vote is indeed not unanimous or the person doing the holding has unanswered questions. It can be a check of the check and balance nature when bills are getting bulldozed through the Senate in a mad rush or it can be abused.

I never said it was a good thing or that transparency was a bad thing. I was trying to explain to those who did not know and could not conceive how an anonymous hold could happen. It can and does happen only in bills being fast tracked in the senate via unanimous vote when the vote is indeed not unanimous or the person doing the holding has unanswered questions. It can be a check of the check and balance nature when bills are getting bulldozed through the Senate in a mad rush or it can be abused.

Makes me wish Feingold had done that back in 2000 with the PATRIOT Act. He'd have probably been lynched on the floor of the Senate if he had, though.

Makes me wish Feingold had done that back in 2000 with the PATRIOT Act. He'd have probably been lynched on the floor of the Senate if he had, though.

That's exactly why it gets to be anonymous and only on fast tracks. I agree though about that godawful patriot act.

there were 2.5 trillion in federal contracts last year?

i don't remember there being 2.5 trillion in discretionary spending.

ha, this confirms what i have thought all along. they are all crooks. every last one of them.

i mean, someone correct me here if i'm wrong, but there is a bigger story than some transparency bill surely

i mean, someone correct me here if i'm wrong, but there is a bigger story than some transparency bill surely

I'm sort of assuming that the 2.5 trillion includes defense spending and the like--some stuff that might not fall under discretionary spending.

Yeah, like when people ask for democracy, I guess.

It is rather infrequent.

so it seems,what is the procedure.at what point can you stall?

thats what I thought,what is the actual law that alows them to do this? do they have to give good reason? and how come they can stay anonymous?
This makes the american system seem worse than I origionally thought....whoever block's a transparency bill obviously has something to hide!

Yay for equal representation! :p



Seems a bit crazy, really. How would the Senate ever pass anything? Surely every time something went in that the minority didn't like, one Senator could just put a hold on it and that's the end of that?

See post 44