The Senate's Turn
Yesterday I posted on the House ethics bills and noted that the Senate would be voting on its version of ethics reform today or tomorrow. While the House bill isn't perfect (it still allows earmarks, for example) it's still a good start. Hopefully the Senate will make that same start and not "let the perfect be the enemy of the good," as suggested by an editorial in today's Los Angeles Times. Apparently that is going to be a very real problem because of the rather 'clubby' Senate Rules which allow for such obstruction.
After both houses passed earlier versions of ethics legislation, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) blocked the convening of a conference committee because he was afraid it would bury provisions for robust disclosure of pet-project earmarks. Now DeMint is objecting to the bill passed to get around his obstructionism, because the Senate majority leader and relevant committee chairman, rather than the parliamentarian, will rule on whether earmarks have been appropriately disclosed. He plans to introduce an amendment that could derail the bill.
The Senate allows for all sorts of obstructionist tactics. Among the most repulsive is the anonymous hold, which is the subject of a rather interesting article in today's NY Times.
...senators are considering bringing the secret hold into the open by requiring those who use it to disclose their identity and their rationale in The Congressional Record. The proposed rule, virtually revolutionary in the staid realm of the Senate, is part of the ethics and lobbying overhaul headed for a final vote this week.
The latest effort to curb the number of holds reflects the frustration of many senators with the way colleagues have increasingly been able to stall stacks of bills and piles of nominations by virtue of a quick phone call to the Senate cloakroom. ...
Technically, a hold is simply a notice from any senator that he or she intends to object to a move to advance a bill or nomination by unanimous consent — the Senate way of clearing the decks and avoiding unnecessary votes on consensus matters. ...
While the change would not bar holds — and its main target is the secret hold — senators say the underlying intent is to reduce the number of such objections, both public and private.
Opponents of this part of the Senate ethics bill claim that the hold is necessary to keep Senate leaders from ramming a bad bill through without adequate consideration. That's all well and good, but then why is anonymity required? Why the secrecy? Doesn't that part of the equation allow for the obstructionism that creates the gridlock each party blames the other for?
Since the Senate bill maintains the right of a senator to issue a hold if he or she is willing to own up to it, what's the problem?
Like the Los Angeles Times editorialist said, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Pass the damned bill. It's a good start.
After both houses passed earlier versions of ethics legislation, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) blocked the convening of a conference committee because he was afraid it would bury provisions for robust disclosure of pet-project earmarks. Now DeMint is objecting to the bill passed to get around his obstructionism, because the Senate majority leader and relevant committee chairman, rather than the parliamentarian, will rule on whether earmarks have been appropriately disclosed. He plans to introduce an amendment that could derail the bill.
The Senate allows for all sorts of obstructionist tactics. Among the most repulsive is the anonymous hold, which is the subject of a rather interesting article in today's NY Times.
...senators are considering bringing the secret hold into the open by requiring those who use it to disclose their identity and their rationale in The Congressional Record. The proposed rule, virtually revolutionary in the staid realm of the Senate, is part of the ethics and lobbying overhaul headed for a final vote this week.
The latest effort to curb the number of holds reflects the frustration of many senators with the way colleagues have increasingly been able to stall stacks of bills and piles of nominations by virtue of a quick phone call to the Senate cloakroom. ...
Technically, a hold is simply a notice from any senator that he or she intends to object to a move to advance a bill or nomination by unanimous consent — the Senate way of clearing the decks and avoiding unnecessary votes on consensus matters. ...
While the change would not bar holds — and its main target is the secret hold — senators say the underlying intent is to reduce the number of such objections, both public and private.
Opponents of this part of the Senate ethics bill claim that the hold is necessary to keep Senate leaders from ramming a bad bill through without adequate consideration. That's all well and good, but then why is anonymity required? Why the secrecy? Doesn't that part of the equation allow for the obstructionism that creates the gridlock each party blames the other for?
Since the Senate bill maintains the right of a senator to issue a hold if he or she is willing to own up to it, what's the problem?
Like the Los Angeles Times editorialist said, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Pass the damned bill. It's a good start.
Labels: 110th Congress, Ethics
posted by Diane at 4:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home