Coburn accused Stevens of blocking his Transparency Bill

[Oilwellian]

Twelve days ago, at a town meeting in Sallisaw, Oklahoma, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) accused Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) of obstructing his porkbuster-database bill with an anonymous hold.

That's according to an Aug. 18 article in the Fort Smith (Ark.) Times Record:

One of the senators most criticized for his personal projects, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has a hold of his own on Coburn’s bill to make public the spending patterns of the government. Called the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the legislation calls for the creation of a database open to the public where citizens can track government spending.
“He’s the only senator blocking it,” Coburn said of Stevens.


Coburn's office was not available for comment this evening.

The article has gone largely unnoticed in recent days, as hundreds of bloggers and blog-readers (at TPMm and elsewhere) have called Senate offices in an effort to determine who placed the "secret" hold on Coburn's bill. The piece does not turn up in a Nexis search, although it is in Google.

Stevens has been the odds-on favorite since the hunt for the Holder Who Dare Not Speak His Name began.

But did he really do it? Well, he had a motive: As the paper and others have noted, Stevens and Coburn have clashed before -- in particular over Stevens' now-legendary "bridge to nowhere." Coburn attempted (and failed) to block the $233 million boondoggle. And revenge certainly fits the senior Alaskan's m.o. "Stevens can play rough," the Seattle Times noted in June. "Despite denials from his staff, he retaliates - and doesn't mind waiting years to do so."

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001440.php

[Selatius]

1. How long can a hold last? Indefinitely? n/t

[Oilwellian]

2. Isn't it amazing...

a block like this can be done secretly? I haven't a clue how long it can last, but now that Stevens has been outed, I wonder if he'll cave.

[DeSwiss]

5. Selatius, I'm not certain, but....

...this "secret holds" business smacks of the most undemocratic action I've ever heard of. This is what I found on the internets:

"This hold is basically a signal of intent to filibuster. Holds generally are requests that any Senator can make that a bill or measure not be considered by the full Senate until certain issues in it are cleared up. It's not officially in the Senate rules, and the majority leader can refuse it."

http://icantbelieveitsnotademocracy.blogs.com/weblog/a_call_to_arms/index.html

The blog that I found the above explanation on, was referencing the "Net Neutrality" bill and a senator (Ron Wyden) who had placed a hold on the bill until certain language was "cleared up." It would seem to me that such a rule, whether an official one or not, would allow any senator to effectively kidnap legislation and hold it for ransom. Which when you think about it, would be in-keeping with the Mafia style government in the WH.

[magellan]

3. Another prime example of the problem with Repugs

...that a bill called The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act would be blocked by a secret hold -- and apparently out of spite.

Do any of the Rs in Washington possess an emotional age beyond that of a backwards 6-year-old?

[rodeodance]

4. Coburn is such a whiner!

[Sydnie]

6. Stevens said he would behave this way in his meltdown speech

on the floor when they first took out the drilling in Anwar. Remember? He said he would go to each Senator's state and tell them just what they were up to. I haven't seen him in my state. Has he been to yours?

This is typical. This is to cover his tracks and nothing more. His bridge and his drilling shall not be public knowledge if he has anything to say about it.