The rich irony — and the online whodunit

It’s quintessential Washington: Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) introduced legislation that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. Anyone would be able to search by by agency, recipient, and type of assistance.

The point, of course, is adding a layer of accountability and transparency to a process frequently hampered by abuse — as Cox News reported, the database “would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.”

The legislation sailed through the committee process with unanimous, bi-partisan support, and drew strong praise from Dems such as Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, and Republicans such as Bill Frist and Sen. John McCain. There’s just one small problem.

It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed on Aug. 4 when someone put [an anonymous] 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.”

As Tommy Vietor, Obama’s press secretary, explained, “It’s more than a little ironic that a bill designed to increase transparency is being held up by a secret hold.”

Cox reported that the secret hold has prompted conservative and liberal government watchdog groups to band together to “smoke out” the senator responsible.

That’s where the fun part starts.

It is, of course, a “secret” hold, so speculation is based primarily on lawmakers’ records in this area. No one has anything to go on, including whether the “secret holder” is a Republican or a Democrat. As the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling explained, “To place a hold, senators merely have to inform their leader that they don’t want the legislation to move forward.”

Nevertheless, trying to identify the culprit has become something of a parlor game. Paul Kiel reported yesterday:

Since he/she is unlikely to fess up, bloggers from the left and right have united in the effort of eliminating suspects one by one. The only way to do this is to call your Senator’s offices up and get an answer. Over at Porkbuster.org, they’re keeping a tally.

TPM Muckraker readers helped Kiel expand this list quite a bit. Based on the current tally, 65 senators have denied placing the hold. There are 34 whose positions are unknown, while one senator — Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) — refused to answer.

Chambliss’ office gave me a, “No senator would answer that question, I mean, come on, it’s a secret.” I replied that “Johnny Isakson’s office gave an on the record ‘No’; is Senator Chambliss willing to state publicly that he is not the mystery senator?” The answer was a “No, he will not state either he is or is not.”

First, the secret hold is outrageous and cowardly. To oppose transparency in federal spending is shameless, and Chambliss’ response should make him a key suspect.

Second, this is literally the first legislation I can think of in recent years that has garnered such enthusiastic support from the left and right.

And third, ain’t the blogosphere grand?

And fourth, isn’t it sad that Max Clelland is not still a Senator?

This chump is what we got instead of a three amputee Vietnam Veteran?

  • Boy- a searchable database which would allow netizens to REALLY draw some good lines in the pork-barrel wars?… I am shocked that only 1 Senator put a hold on this…

  • Maybe he is just pissed his parents named him Saxby Chambliss. I have a government question for you all. VP Dick(head) Cheney is the Presidnet of the Senate and apparently attends the GOP caucus meetings. Is it possible for Cheney to request a secret hold on a bill from Dr. Senator Wanker Frist?

    Is Senator “Bridge to nowhere” “its not a truck” Stevens down in the No column? I doubt he would like a light shone on his pork barrel windfall.

    This is so exciting! Who wants to bet the secret holder is a Republican?

  • I almost feel sorry for the senator who did this. The truth is going to come out, and they are going to look like a real chump.

    I sure hope it’s a Republican, but we need our side to prepare to pound whoever it is, Dem or Rep.

  • Fredrick is on the right track. When it comes to pork, there are the usual suspects.

    There are two or three factors to be considered …

    Factor One: Does the senator’s home state receive a lot of pork?
    Examples: Byrd of West Virginia; Stevens of Alaska.

    Factor Two: Is the the senator retiring or is expected to retire soon?
    Examples: Frist of Tennessee; Sarbanes of Maryland.

    Factor Three: Is the senator “an institution”? (Somewhat a combination of one and two)
    Examples: Byrd of West Virginia is an institution and he is running for re-election; others to be named.

    I will have to work on narrowing my list of suspects to ten or less. Byrd and Stevens are definately on the list.

  • There’s an inside-out scenario to all of this. Transparency will show where the federal pork is going, and those numbers might not match the numbers being “received” by a certain state. So—consider who might be doing a little “skimming” off the top….

  • Hey CB, you’re perfectly postioned straddling (so to speak) the left and right hemispheres of the blogosphere to coordinate the outing of this cowardly sentor. Rally the troops.

  • KCinDC,

    What are the restrictions on these secret holds? I don’t understand why they aren’t being used all the time.

    My thoughts exactly. Can any senate bill be put on indefinate hold secretly? If so, why aren’t the Dems doing this for virtually every bill? And, puh-lease, don’t try the “comity in the chambers” line. Norquist and his pals effectively destroyed any sense of that.

  • If a Democrat did it now it wouldn’t remain a secret because the Administration would out them and the infotainment would go on and on about it. I’m not sure it’s a win situation for them.

    This is a tool I’d love to see removed from the Congressional toolbox.

  • How does the Senate ever justify that sort of anonymity rule? I’ve honestly tried, but I can’t think of a scenario where it would meet any reasonable definition of fair play.

  • Doubtful, I’m not sure that holds should be eliminated, any more than filibusters should be, but I definitely think that any senator who wants to place a hold should have to go on the record about it.

  • And we should believe those who say they did not place the hold, why? (Or is that a secret, too?)

    My guess: Pat Roberts (R-Cheney)

  • It seems that the Senate passed the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe-Salazar amendment this year which requires that a Senator who issues a secret hold has to reveal himself in 3 days. The rule was approved but what does that mean in the labyrinth of Senate rules?

    WYDEN AMENDMENT TO END SECRET HOLDS
    APPROVED BY SENATE
    Previously, Senate rules allowed Senators to block legislation anonymously;
    Wyden’s amendment changes rules to require that ‘holds’
    on legislation, nominations be publicly announced

    March 28, 2006

    Washington, DC – After nearly a decade-long effort, the Senate today passed an amendment by a vote of 84-13 to end the process of secret holds championed by Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), along with Senators Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Ken Salazar (D-Colo.). The Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe-Salazar amendment requires a Senator who intends to object to a unanimous consent request to publish in the Congressional Record within three days a notice of the objection. It does not limit any Senator from putting a hold a bill; it instead requires that the hold be made public.

  • It’s Byrd (who would do it on principle of not giving up any Senate prerogatives, ever, no matter what they are) or it’s Stevens (Senator Porkbarrell, who’s also pissed at the reformers for blocking his bridge).

    I think Byrd would probably say it was him, and state the principle on which he was standing.

    So my money is on the guy whose existence proves Alaska should never have been granted statehood. (Along with Wyoming and Texas)

  • Here’s the link at TPMmuckraker for the running count/list of senators: http://tpmmuckraker.com/secret_hold.php

    And here’s the current list of suspects:

    Senators Unknown or Who Refuse Answer

    Baucus, Max- (D – MT)
    Bond, Christopher S.- (R – MO)
    Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV)
    Carper, Thomas R.- (D – DE)*
    Chambliss, Saxby- (R – GA)*
    Crapo, Mike- (R – ID)
    Gregg, Judd- (R – NH)
    Hatch, Orrin G.- (R – UT)
    Murkowski, Lisa- (R – AK)
    Reid, Harry- (D – NV)*
    Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV)
    Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D – MD)
    Stevens, Ted- (R – AK)
    Talent, James M.- (R – MO)

    As you can see Byrd and Stevens are still in the running.

  • It seem that the amendment I mentioned in Message 17 is held up in committe and hasn’t been made law. I wonder if the secret hold amendment is under a secret hold.

    My guess for the secret holder is Frist himself at the request of the Prez.

  • Interesting that Rockefeller of WV & Murkowski of AK are also on the list. Maybe their offices heard about Isaakson’s “No” being used to shame Chambliss, so they felt they had to prevent something similar happening to their respective same-state colleagues, Byrd & Stevens. For this theory to work, we’d have to assume that neither Rockefeller nor Murkowski knows if Byrd or Stevens is the one, but both might have enough grounds for suspicion that they figure it’s the better part of valor to protect their state’s “institution” from embarrassment.

  • Just visited the TPMM page. Chambliss is the only one on the list (in slip kid’s post) who refuses to answer – the rest are unknown. So we may get answers on the others soon.

    The asterisk indicates co-sponsors – is Chambliss so cretinous that he would co-sponsor a bill, then use a “hold” to keep it from the floor?

    Yep.

  • I wonder which is more ironic, that there’s a secret hold on the transparency in government law or that there’s a secret hold on ‘no more secret holds’ law.

    My head hurts.

  • The latest update knocks Baucus, Talent and Murkowski out of the running.

    It leaves us with this group of five Democrats and six Republicans:

    Bond, Christopher S.- (R – MO)
    Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV)
    Carper, Thomas R.- (D – DE)*
    Chambliss, Saxby- (R – GA)*
    Crapo, Mike- (R – ID)
    Gregg, Judd- (R – NH)
    Hatch, Orrin G.- (R – UT)
    Reid, Harry- (D – NV)*
    Rockefeller, John D., IV- (D – WV)
    Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D – MD)
    Stevens, Ted- (R – AK)

    I don’t know who to bet for or against (except Chambliss looks real good for refusing to answer), but I’d be very surprised if its Harry Reid. Co-sponsor of the bill, minority leader, it wouldn’t make sense. The others you can make various cases for.

  • Yeah, KCinDC. I think holds should stick around just not secret ones. Whoever puts a hold on something should have a valid reason to voice.

  • Darn. I was hoping Talent would stay on the list long enough for McCaskill to go to the press and ask him to answer the question.

  • Looks like Chambliss is now in the “Not me” column over at TPM. Somebody must have finally gotten a straight answer from his office. The remaining list includes one other refusal to answer (Mike Crapo). I would also very definitely not put this past Senator Ted “Bridge to Nowhere” Stevens. But that almost sounds too easy.

    Bond, Christopher S.- (R – MO)
    Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV)
    Carper, Thomas R.- (D – DE)*
    Crapo, Mike- (R – ID)
    Gregg, Judd- (R – NH)
    Hatch, Orrin G.- (R – UT)
    Sarbanes, Paul S.- (D – MD)
    Stevens, Ted- (R – AK)

  • As figured, Harry Reid no longer in the mix. Right now if you’re a betting man you gotta focus on Crapo for not answering and Ted Stevens for being, well, Ted Stevens.

  • I’m betting on Ted Stevens. Mainly because he’s the illustration next to curmudgeon in my dictionary.

  • I’m wondering if Kit Bond is the one. It didn’t seem to bother him to be one of the nine senators that voted against the torture bill. The man has no conscience.

  • I’m wondering what happens if we get 100 “wasn’t me, honest” responses. Chambliss included, on second call-around, when the net seems to be closing. And his refusal to answer might be perfectly innocent, supposing it’s not him but he happens to know who it is — a secret is a secret; honour among thieves etc…

    I’ve been watching the TPMMuckraker thing since yesterday (the tally of the un-cleared stood at 6 a minute ago) , and I’ve had some oddball questions of my own, unvoiced until now.

    The story may have turned out to be a bi-partisan one, but Porkbusters started the story and started clearing the first Senators. All of whom were Repubs. Anyone notice who funds the Porkbusters? The pick-up by the left and the effort to clear the Dems might not have been in the original game-plan.

    And then there’s this: whom do we believe and why should we?

    TPMM says the denial has to come from the Senator or from someone high on the office hierarchy ladder. But they still accept telephone avowals as “clearing proof”. As if “a Senator” never (no, nay, never) lied? Or, when push came to shove, never said “oh, it was someone in my office that said so, without my knowledge” then canned the “offender”?

    Who checks the checkers?

    As far as I’m concerned, the only ones who are cleared are those who’d written to one of the “clearing houses”, and even then I’d give such declarations the benefit of a doubt. Co-sponsoring the measure doesn’t clear them; who knows who might have gotten to them since then?

    What I find particularly interesting is how few people refuse to answer, since the secret hold is not something illegal, merely of dubious morality when applied to this particular situation.

  • Now it’s down to 6:

    Byrd, Robert C.- (D – WV)
    Crapo, Mike- (R – ID) – refused to answer
    Gregg, Judd- (R – NH)
    Hatch, Orrin G.- (R – UT)
    Stevens, Ted- (R – AK)
    Bennett, Robert F.- (R – UT) – a staffer denied, but not unequivocally

    Can you post these six and their phone numbers? If we inundate them with phone calls till they go on record, we may get it down to the culprit and the accessories who refuse, just to cover up for the perp.

  • Comments are closed.