|
 |
 |
|
It’s time for the Senate to enforce the ban on Secret Holds
-
12/04/09 01:36 PM ET
When they passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) two years ago, senators claimed that the new law would change the way business is conducted in Washington. Unfortunately, the so-called ban on “secret holds” has turned out to be as phony as the Colorado balloon boy story.
That’s why Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate why senators aren’t abiding by Section 512 in HLOGA. Although this law allows senators to place holds on bills or nominations, Section 512 requires any senators who place a hold to identify themselves by filing a written notice that they are “intending to object to a proceeding.”
How do we know senators are continuing to place secret holds? CREW conducted a day-by-day review of the Senate Calendar of Business, dating from the law’s passage in 2007 through December 1 of this year.
Over this two-year period, CREW found only two bills that had “a notice of intent to object” placed in the calendar — the procedure required by HLOGA. Over the same period, CREW discovered several bills and nominations that appeared to have had secret holds placed on them, but for which no corresponding objections were placed in the calendar and no senator publicly announced a hold.
We’re not opposed to holds; we are opposed to secret holds. The senator who placed a hold on the veterans health care bill should have identified himself publicly from the very beginning. The same can be said of the senator who placed a hold on the confirmation hearings for Hilda Solis as President Obama’s labor secretary.
Such violations are likely to continue unless the ethics committee steps up to the plate and starts enforcing the ban on secret holds. We have also asked the committee to provide guidance to senators on how the provision should influence their conduct in the future.
Ironically, the Senate adopted the ban as part of an ethics reform package, which we were promised would change the way Washington operates. An empty promise, it turns out. Where is the change in that?
If the ban is really as meaningless as it appears, the ethics committee should admit it and the Senate should repeal it.
That’s why Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has asked the Senate Select Committee on Ethics to investigate why senators aren’t abiding by Section 512 in HLOGA. Although this law allows senators to place holds on bills or nominations, Section 512 requires any senators who place a hold to identify themselves by filing a written notice that they are “intending to object to a proceeding.”
How do we know senators are continuing to place secret holds? CREW conducted a day-by-day review of the Senate Calendar of Business, dating from the law’s passage in 2007 through December 1 of this year.
Over this two-year period, CREW found only two bills that had “a notice of intent to object” placed in the calendar — the procedure required by HLOGA. Over the same period, CREW discovered several bills and nominations that appeared to have had secret holds placed on them, but for which no corresponding objections were placed in the calendar and no senator publicly announced a hold.
We’re not opposed to holds; we are opposed to secret holds. The senator who placed a hold on the veterans health care bill should have identified himself publicly from the very beginning. The same can be said of the senator who placed a hold on the confirmation hearings for Hilda Solis as President Obama’s labor secretary.
Such violations are likely to continue unless the ethics committee steps up to the plate and starts enforcing the ban on secret holds. We have also asked the committee to provide guidance to senators on how the provision should influence their conduct in the future.
Ironically, the Senate adopted the ban as part of an ethics reform package, which we were promised would change the way Washington operates. An empty promise, it turns out. Where is the change in that?
If the ban is really as meaningless as it appears, the ethics committee should admit it and the Senate should repeal it.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
