GOP Senator Puts Secret Hold On Bill Restoring Public Access To Presidential Records

[donsu]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/09/20/coburn-hold/


President Bush signed an executive order that historians called “unprecedented” and “would turn the 1978 Presidential Records Act on its head by allowing such materials to be kept secret ‘in perpetuity.’”

In March, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), along with Reps. Russell Platts (R-PA), Lacy Clay (D-MO), and Dan Burton (R-IN) introduced a bill that would “nullify” Bush’s 2001 order “and restore public access to presidential records.” The bill passed the House with a 333-93 vote and the Senate Government Affairs Committee agreed in June to move its version to the floor for a vote, but the bill was stalled when an anonymous Republican senator put a hold on it:

A fight over White House secrecy has taken a new twist, with Senate officials confirming Wednesday that a Republican senator is secretly blocking a bill that would reverse President Bush’s 2001 executive order allowing ex-presidents to seal their records indefinitely. <…>

Suspicion for the hold initially focused on three senators — Ted Stevens of Alaska, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, and George Voinovich of Ohio — who objected in committee to a provision giving ex-presidents 40 days to review document requests. That was changed to 90 days to address their concerns.

Aides to Sens. Stevens and Voinovich said Wednesday that their bosses are not blocking the bill. Coburn aides didn’t respond to inquiries.

If Coburn is the Senator blocking the bill from coming to a vote, it wouldn’t be the only bill that he is currently blocking. Last month, Coburn placed a hold on a suicide prevention bill for military veterans that was introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA).

You can contact Coburn’s office here or call it at 202-224-5754.
-------------------

[Me.]

1. The ? Is

Why don't the sems ever use this tactic? Maybe could have used it yesterday on Chickenhawk Cornyn's resolution.

[Richard Steele]

2. The "leadership" need to act like leaders- set a new precedent by introducing the bill anyway.

Just IGNORE this "secret block" nonsense. It's not a LAW,
so just stop observing it.

What's Coburn gonna do? Go on TV and complain? HA! If he
wanted his constituents to know about any of this, he'd
have TOLD them about the 75 times he's done it already.

IGNORE him; respect DEMOCRACY. Introduce the damn bills!

[Kagemusha]

3. Amen to that.

It's sad to see Reid a hostage to rules that the other side has no intention of playing by.

[hisownpetard]

6. Right on. nt

[Bitwit1234]

4. Okla. has Inofhe (sp) what else do you expect of that state.

[mainegreen]

5. So, what the heck is a hold and how does it work?

Why does it work?
So weird.

[Igel]

7. I was curious, too.

Spent a few minutes reading up on it just now. Just a few. So there's no guarantee this is complete, or even that I'm getting this right.

It looks like there are two ways for a hold to work. In both cases, the motion being 'held' has to be placed on the list of General Orders, which would bring it up for a vote. However, the 'vote' has to be of a special kind: by unanimous consent. If debate and an actual vote are scheduled, it doesn't look like a hold is possible because there's no enforcement mechanism.

The two ways a 'hold' is enforced are straightforward, given what unanimous consent entails. First, since a single 'nay' causes the measure to fail, a hold is fairly straightforwardly interpreted as notice that a 'nay' vote is forthcoming. The gentleman's solution is for the person placing the hold to make clear his/her objections and to have them answered--and if they're not answered, the hold stands. Second, a hold can be interpreted as notice of a forthcoming filibuster attempt should the bill be introduced for debate--it's *not* a guarantee, but it's taken as one. Then again, this is a fairly weak enforcement mechanism, and the chair reasonably gets to decide on how likely such a filibuster is--something the chair should do in any event.

So when the OP's article says that a vote's been scheduled for the bill, it seems that the vote scheduled was on the 'unanimous consent' list. If Reid wants to foil the hold, he can simply schedule the bill for actual debate and a regular, not-by-unanimous-consent vote.

[mainegreen]

8. Interesting. Thanks! n/t