Talk:Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

[edit] Secret Hold

I believe a secret hold is under Rule VII part 2 or Rule VIII part 1 (or both). If I can verify this I will include it in the article. A debate on secret holds a couple of years ago specifically targeted Rule VII.--Burzum 00:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for those links, especially the last one, which is extremely informative. We should consider adding something about these Holds to the Standing Rules of the United States Senate article and using that link. Cheers, CWC(talk) 01:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Reading a little more closely I noted that Sen. Wyden said:

One of the Senate's most popular procedures cannot be found anywhere in the United States Constitution or in the Senate Rules. It is one of the most powerful weapons that any Senator can wield in this body. And it is even more potent when it is invisible. The procedure is popularly known as the "hold." The "hold" in the Senate is a lot like the seventh inning stretch in baseball: there is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it is has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition.

This probably explains my difficulty in finding it in the Senate Rules. It is not a rule, it is an unwritten tradition. Sen. Feinstein in 2005 noted that the secret hold is useful as an alternative to a filibuster [1] and has been used multiple times to block judicial nominations. Her statement also supports what Sen. Wyden said about the secret hold, namely that it is a tradition and not part of the Senate Rules. Sen. Wyden has recently discussed it on the floor in more detail. I'm starting to get a better picture of what a secret hold is and once I nail it down with more information I'll update the Senate Rules and filibuster articles.--Burzum 11:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Burzum.

Ed Morrissey posted some interesting and useful info from Senator Frist on his blog[2] Tuesday evening. Some of the subsequent posts are relevant and interesting too. Looks like those ol' internet tube surfers might be closing in on their quarry![3] Cheers, CWC(talk) 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I missed this discussion earlier. Good stuff. As I suggested in an edit summary, I think secret holds deserve their own article, perhaps as Unanimous consent (United States Senate) in case secret hold seems POV and/or too informal (in which case secret hold should be a redirect). See also TPMmuckraker's summary on secret holds (I put this in external links for the article). Crust 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

While I think almost everyone agrees that this "secret hold" is objectionable, there's an interesting comment at redstate that makes a case that secret holds do serve a legitimate purpose:

“

Most of the time, a "hold" is simply a way for a Senator to say "Hey, I haven't looked at this and I don't know what I think - can you wait." Almost every Senator has, at one time or another, placecd a hold on something. They usually lift the hold after a few days once their staff has briefed them and such. So, I assume even Frist and Reid don't want to collapse the whole system. It does serve some purposes.

”

Crust 14:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pork Scandal

It has been noted by several groups that the secret hold may be scandalous for several reasons: 1) Sen. Stevens is a member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs which approved S. 2590 to go to the Senate, 2) Sen. Colburn claims that Sen. Stevens never explained to him (the author) his reason for the hold (nor attended the sessions on the bill), 3) Sen. Colburn claims that Sen. Stevens has been dodging his attempts to discuss the hold, and 4) Senators Stevens and Byrd are well known for placing earmarks into bills--something this act would allow the public to more easily see (potentially making it more difficult). Two additional ironies are that 1) some groups have noted is that Sen. Stevens was famous last year for supporting the $200 million Bridge to Nowhere project but has held this $15 million bill because he was concerned about the cost, and 2) a bill about opening the secrets of the Congresional budget process was held up with a secret mechanism. I'll grab the references for these statements a little later (though I believe that Instapundit, Porkbusters, and TPMmuckracker have all of these references on their front pages). I think we will have to be careful with describing the emerging pork scandal since neither Sen. Stevens nor Sen. Byrd have released many statements on the potentials scandals/ironies. One final issue that has been mentioned is that Sen. Colburn strongly opposed Sen. Stevens' bridge earmark last year. There is no evidence that Sen. Stevens held this bill for this reason (nor can we assume that), but it should be kept in mind.--Burzum 15:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. Conceivably this could be a separate article with a brief summary here. We obviously have to be very careful about NPOV. So e.g. to amplify your first point we can say that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved the Act, that Stevens is a member of that Committee and that he placed a secret hold (even then we should try to sort out whether he voted for it or simply wasn't present). But there is no need for us to comment that this is "ironic" or "hypocritical" or whatever; we can just let the facts speak for themselves (if desired, we can add third party commentary).Crust 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passage by the House

I believe the bill in the House was passed without amendment contrary to my whitehouse.gov link due to the Instapundit story[4] (which includes a letter from House Majority Whip Roy Blunt). I'll know for sure on 14 September 2006 when the Thomas database updates. The whitehouse.gov link indicates that the bill will be going back to the Senate, but I believe a cited letter from the Majority Whip is a more credible source for now.--Burzum 01:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction, it was passed with S.Con.Res. 114 by the House and the Senate on the same day.--Burzum 15:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please fix my poor edit of "info added" McTeedeium