"Mystery" Senator Puts "Secret Hold" On Bill To Open Federal Records

[kpete]

Aug. 23, 2006, 11:46PM
Senator who put 'secret hold' on bill to open federal records is a secret, too


By REBECCA CARR
Cox News Service

WASHINGTON — In an ironic twist, legislation that would open up the murky world of government contracting to public scrutiny has been derailed by a secret parliamentary maneuver.

An unidentified senator placed a "secret hold" on legislation introduced by Sens. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., and Barack Obama, D-Ill., that would create a searchable database of government contracts, grants, insurance, loans and financial assistance, worth $2.5 trillion last year. The database would bring transparency to federal spending and be as simple to use as conducting a Google search.

The measure had been unanimously passed in a voice vote last month by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. It was on the fast track for floor action before Congress recessed Aug. 4 when someone put a 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.

more at:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4137637.html

[Nickster]

1. Hmmmm, Senator Frist anyone? n/t

[whistle]

2. What ever happened to government in the sunshine, no secret bills

...or secret counts or secret holds? When did this sort of shit start happening again?

[TheCentepedeShoes]

78. That's just in FL

where they're supposed to have all the sunshine. Yeah, right.

[atommom]

3. Pat Roberts is another likely candidate.

It wouldn't be the first time he prevented the administration from answering for its crimes.

[babylonsister]

27. He gets my vote, too, the slug. nt

[kitkat65]

64. K&R! This kind of shit needs to be brought to the light of day

for all voters to see what kind of representation they're getting.

[Marie26]

31. He's denied it. nt

[atommom]

38. Yeah, but he has no trouble lying if it will help Pat Roberts. nt

[Captain Hilts]

4. Didn't Phil Gramm get caught pulling this stunt for a pharma firm? nt

[ms liberty]

5. So many suspects - which would benefit most? n/t

[xchrom]

6. secrets in government

and democracy are mutually exclusive.

[whistle]

8. Government secrets = fascism

[Blackhatjack]

7. IRONIC? Secrecy abounds in Action to Expose Govt Secrecy....

....very much like the Sibel Edmonds case. Govt secrecy cannot be discussed because it is secret, therefore the case cannot be heard or the reasons given for the case being dismissed disclosed because ..... it is a govt secret! From the office of circular logic and govt secrecy preservation, but keep it to yourself --it is a secret!

[Solly Mack]

9. and it was an elected public servant that did that too

nothing like supporting your own oppression

lmao

oh wow...wake up and smell the lack of representation...

[treestar]

10. This kind of stuff is getting so ridiculous

The power mad are truly in their element.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Wouldn't be a republican by chance, would it? Joe included.

[wicket]

12. Too Many Secrets

Any "Sneakers" fans here?

[The Deacon]

33. Yep

Setec Astronomy LIVES!
But that's a secret.

[Me.]

13. Well Then

Using the goose and gander scenario why doesn't an "unidentified senator" put a hold on the net neutrality bill, or any future patriot acts or surveillance bills, or any of the others that the majority doesn't want passed. If it's that easy why aren't the dems using it to our advantage?

*shadow government*

[Blackhatjack]

14. Debate on Floor is Allowed. Who Will Step Up Call Out the Senator?

Nothing prohibits a Senator from going to the floor and putting it on the Congressional Record that this is an abominable act, repugnant to our Constitution, and call on the Senator to quit hiding and come to the floor and defend his cowardly action.

If we had real Senatorial representation .....

[Lasher]

51. Then the Cone of Silence rule would be invoked.

This rule would be employed by the Senator who put the Double Secret Hold on the legislation.

[julialnyc]

79. we have to make them

because without encouragement nothing seems to happen.

[OregonBlue]

15. Send to Keith and Lou. Make a big deal out of it. Force a Dem to

call the person out on the floor!!!

[Marie26]

26. At the Porkbuster.org website,

they're keeping a running tally of which Senators have denied placing the hold & which have not. They're asking people to call their Senators to ask if he/she placed the hold. It's worth a shot.

http://porkbusters.org/secrethold.php

[Clark2008]

36. Why havn't Kennedy and Kerry denied it, yet?

I think all the Dems (unless, of course, they did it), should call PorkBusters - or have staff do it - to deny the hold.

It will make for some good headlines. :)

[Marie26]

40. Call them & see. :)

I think it's just a compilation of Senators who have specifically denied it to callers. If no one's thought to call them yet, they might not appear. It would be a really good idea for all the Dems to deny it together - that way there'd be no doubt as to who wants to hide this.

[w4rma]

16. LOL this could be any Republican.

The Republicans could override this scumbag if they wanted to. But, they don't want to. I'd suggest that Democrats do the same to *every* Republican bill until the hold is released. Either the Republicans will override the Democratic hold, proving that Republicans have the power to override the hold on the open government bill, or they won't be passing any more stupid laws for a while.

[ThomWV]

17. Such A System Already Exists And Has For Decades

Its called the Federal Procurement Data System and every agency has its own system that feeds into it.

The FPDS holds basic information about the original contract and every modification that has been made to it. Each agency has its own system, most of which hold much more detailed information, which are required by law to feed into the master (FPDS) system every single day.

So the thing that seems so mysterious is actually available.

[izzybeans]

58. I think the bill adds specificity to the database.

And maybe mandates more disclosure than what is already performed. In the bill the phrases "full disclosure" and "create a single searchable database" standout to me.

Here is the original database.

https://www.fpds.gov/common/html/login.html

I know as of now the DOD procurements are not listed in the database. But will be by the end of next year.

And then there is this from the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:1:./temp/~c109kGnIrE::

Website- The database website established by this section--

(1) shall not be considered in compliance if it links to FPDS, Grants.gov or other existing websites and databases, unless each of those sites has information from all agencies and each category of information required to be itemized can be searched electronically by field in a single search;

(2) shall provide an opportunity for the public to provide input about the utility of the site and recommendations for improvements; and

(3) shall be updated not later than 30 days after the award of any assistance requiring a posting.

They've apparently been able to hide some info. for quite a while and somebody doesn't like it.

[walldude]

18. The last line of the article is very telling

"There is no conceivable, rational explanation for killing this legislation unless they have something to hide." I don't think this "inidentified" Senator can hide for long.

[Cocoa]

19. does anyone know about this Senate rule?

there must be more to it, right?

Otherwise, what wouldn't stop them from doing this all the time?

[Marie26]

20. Doesn't seem like it

Trent Lott, among others introduced a bill in 2003 to end secret holds. (S. Res. 216)
This bill would require a Senator who places a hold to notify the committee leader & publish his objection in the Congressional Record. The bill was referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, where it is still languishing. I kind of wonder if someone put a secret hold on the bill to end secret holds!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:SE00216:@@@L&summ2=m&


ETA: OK, I tracked down what what happened to this bill. It was actually incorporated into the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006, which overwhelmingly passed the Senate on March 29, 2006. This Act prevents Senators from making anonymous holds, & requires a Senator to first notify committee leaders & the Congressional Record before he places a hold on legislation. This bill passed w/a vote of 90-8. The House passed its own version, so the law is currently in committee to coordinate the two acts.

http://electionlawblog.org/archives/2006_03.html

This makes it even worse. The Senate has already overwhelmingly passed a law prohibiting secret holds, which only needs the Presidential signature to become law. Then a Senator turns around and uses a secret hold anyway. It's not technically illegal yet, but it does violate the spirit of the Act that the Senate just passed.

[julialnyc]

72. Then how are they doing this?

[Marie26]

75. They technically still can

This bill was passed back in March, but there was a conflicting House version of the bill. So, each house is supposed to appoint members to a conference committee that will iron out the differences & present a final version to the President. Only here, it doesn't seem like that was ever done. The bill was refered to a conf. committee w/Lott, Dodd and others in March 2006 & promptly died there. Down the memory hole. Since the "lobby reform" bill passed the Senate w/major publicity in March, nothing has been done. It seems like Congress has been really dragging its feet on finishing the last formalities until this bill can be enacted into law. At this rate, the Senate bill won't actually become law until well after Nov. 2006.

If I were the suspicious type, I might think that they passed this bill in March to show their commitment to "election reform" now, while still raking in the cash until after the 2006 elections. Congressional Republicans know that the public is angry at their corruption, & are worried about keeping their seats. At the same time, they're dependent on, and beholden to, the big campaign cash from lobbies & corporations. So they pass this "lobbying reform" bill before the election to get public credit for trying to end corruption, while also postponing its actual enactment until after the election. I've stopped being surprised at how low this Congress will sink.

The bill's progress: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2349

The front-page headlines: "Senate Passes Lobbying Bill" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/29/AR2006032902424.html

[julialnyc]

77. Thanks

I'm still disgusted, but I understand it a bit more.


The one question I have is with the mystery senator. How are you allowed to do that...... and it certainly can't be a total mystery as they would have had to block this somehow. How are they being able to use this stalling tactic?

[ck4829]

21. And yet they try to take away our privacy?

[opihimoimoi]

22. WTH is with this DOUBLE SECRET HOLD move to hide his/hers id

Looks like whoever it is is scared and embarrassed to the point of incognitoes in the Tulips...

GOP COWARDICE in ACTION

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. What part of the word "PUBLIC" don't they understand?

[Jed Dilligan]

35. The part they don't get

to keep for themselves!

[Marie26]

24. My vote is on Ted Stevens. nt

[midnight]

25. Why don't the dems. do that with all the bills going through

via the gop?

[quiet.american]

28. Good question. n/t

[robinlynne]

29. ok, if one senator alone can simply stop a vote, why haven't we been doing

this for the past 6 years? What the hell kind of law is this? Call the republicans, so they can say "It deserves an up or down vote"...

[havocmom]

30. .

[Bandit]

32. Wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't Coburn himself

Although every Republican is slimy enough to do this. They do not want the public to know what they are up to.

[Supersedeas]

34. What??? A bill can be held hostage by one Corp Crony?? How??

[kentuck]

37. Who's on the committee ??

Doesn't the hold have to be by some Senator on the same committee??

[Hoooweee]

50. Not necessarily.The party leaders usually decide their own rules on holds.

So, it can change when there is a new party leader in the Senate. In the past majority and minority leaders allowed both types from any senator within their party.

Senators tend to make their name known on a hold if there can be a quid pro quo.

Secret holds are usually done only when there is no way they could be bought out. It's a message to the leaders that if this moves forward, there will be a filibuster. The leader does not know whether or not to take the threat seriously, because they don't know if it came from a committee chair or a first-termer, or how serious the senator is about filibustering. It's typically the only way a junior or minority party senator can block legislation they dislike.

[AspenRose]

39. We should start a pool (seriously!)

Place your bets!

Porkbusters website said it *could* be more than one senator...."one or more senators placed a secret hold on it"

I don't know why, but I vote for Cornyn. I can't stand him.

[hootinholler]

41. So why don't Dems just put holds on stuff?

This makes no sense to me.

-Hoot

[AngryAmish]

42. Word on the street it was Lott

[The Witch]

43. Could it have been the PRESIDENT of the Senate?

Ya know, Tricky Dick?

[julialnyc]

45. makes the most sense to me

Tricky "Halliburton" Dick

[tkmorris]

49. I kinda doubt he can

But he sure wouldn't have any problem getting a proxy to do it for him.

[Freddie Stubbs]

55. No, only a Senator can do this

[julialnyc]

44. hmmmm just as the Katrina anniversary approaches

with many unanswered questions to the lack of work after many sweet-heart contracts.

If Dems are smart they will take their mouths to microphone with this anniversary coming up and make this a huge deal.... for themselves in 06 (which is the more likely reason they'll do it), but more importantly for the people who have nothing, so that corporate buddies can get richer and richer.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

46. They are public employees - why do we let them get away with this crap?

"Secret" holds my ass! Things are usually only secretive when people have something to hide. Make this an election issue and sniff this loser out.

[AlCzervik]

47. my vote is Ted "Boeing" Stevens.

[Generic Other]

85. Not Cantwell or Murray

I called them.

[BlooInBloo]

87. TPM Muckraker agrees with you.

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

[julialnyc]

48. Hiding from Katrina for her anniversary. Article:

Coburn-Obama Effort To Curb Wasteful Federal Spending
By Steve M. Lilienthal
Aug 17, 2006

snipped......

The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act was approved recently by a unanimous vote of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee. This bill is receiving support from over 100 organizations, including the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Americans for Democratic Action, Concerned Women for America, Eagle Forum, Project on Government Oversight, National Taxpayers Union and the United States Chamber of Commerce. A similar bill passed the House of Representatives and Coburn is hopeful that his bill will be passed by the Senate this fall and signed by President Bush.

It is rare in Washington to assemble such a diverse coalition but a few examples demonstrate that there is good reason to demand greater transparency and accountability in contracting by the Federal government.

After Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), relying on emergency authority, issued four no-bid contracts related to temporary housing to Shaw Group, Inc., Bechtel Corporation, CH2M Hill Construction Inc. and Fluor Corporation. R. David Paulison, Acting Director of FEMA, was quoted in an October 7, 2005 Cox News Service story by Julia Malone entitled “FEMA To Put No-Bid Contracts Up For Rebidding” as promising the Senate Committee, “We are going to rebid all the no-bid contracts.” Because one and one-half months later the contracts had not been rebid, Coburn and Obama were able to secure passage of an amendment to the tax reconciliation bill expressing in a Sense of the Senate resolution that FEMA without delay should rebid the contracts. Obama and Coburn then met with Paulison who, according to Obama, told the Senators the contracts would be rebid.

The Associated Press reported nearly six months later, in a March 24, 2006 story, “FEMA Breaks Promise On Katrina Contracts,” posted on MSNBC, that the contracts would not be rebid, “including three that federal auditors say wasted significant amounts of money.” FEMA officials cited good performance and said the contracts actually had been extended. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) had issued a report at the same time criticizing the performance on a number of Katrina-related contracts, including three of the four temporary housing-related contracts cited above.

Obama stated on May 2, 2006 on behalf of an amendment that he and Coburn sponsored to stop no-bid contracts for the Gulf Coast: “The abuse doesn’t stop with these four contracts. We learned just two weeks ago that the Army Corps of Engineers missed an opportunity to negotiate a lower price on a $40 million contract for portable classrooms in Mississippi. Instead, a no-bid and overpriced contract was awarded to an out-of-state firm.”

much more at link:
http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27267772.shtml

[jwdeviant]

52. Dear Federal Government

This year, in the spirit of the US Senate, I've decided to put a secret hold on my tax information. I know that you think you have the right to know how much I earned and how many deductions I have, but I can't find those rights anywhere in the Constitution or Bible. Please accept my assurance that I'm doing everything that I can do for the good of the country in spending to keep the economy going full-tilt, but that costs money and my net income is only $1 (cross my heart and hope to die!). I know that you might resent the fact that I'm not going to be paying my fair share, but I'm sure all the taxes from multi-billion dollar Halliburton will more than cover it.

Sincerely,

Joe Taxpayer

[Pacifist Patriot]

67. Beautiful!

[MzNov]

53. It was probably LIEberman.

[julialnyc]

54. call or write any news outlet today

and try to get this story covered!!

[julialnyc]

56. read this link

http://www.reconstructionwatch.org/index.php?s=20&n=63

[julialnyc]

57. MUST READ INFO

SNIPPED......
Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has raised many protests and questions over inflated prices. “It is hard to overstate the incompetence involved in all of these contracts -- we have repeatedly asked them for information and you get nothing.” Republican U.S. Representative Charles Bustany, who represents an area heavily damaged by Hurricane Rita, asked FEMA for reasons why the decision was made to stop funding 100 percent of the cost of debris removal in his district. FEMA refused to tell him. He then filed a Freedom of Information request to get the information, and was again refused. When he asked to appeal their denial, he was told that there were many appeals ahead of his and he would have to wait.

If a US Senator and a local U.S. Republican Representative cannot get answers from FEMA, how much accountability can the people of the Gulf Coast expect? There are many other examples of fraud, waste and patronage.

How did a company that did not own a truck get a contract for debris removal worth hundreds of millions of dollars? The Miami Herald reported that the single biggest receiver of early Katrina federal contracts was Ashbritt, Inc. of Pompano Beach, FL, which received over $579 million in contracts for debris removal in Mississippi from Army Corps of Engineers. The paper reported that the company does not own a single dumptruck! All they do is subcontract out the work. Ashbritt, however, had recently dumped $40,000 into the lobbying firm of Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, which had been run by Mississippi Governor and former National GOP Chair Haley Barbour. The owners of Ashbritt also trucked $50,000 over to the Republican National Committee in 2004.

How did a company that filed for bankruptcy the year before and was not licensed to build trailers get a $200 million contract for trailers? Circle B Enterprises of Georgia was awarded $287 million in contracts by FEMA for temporary housing. At the time, that was the seventh highest award of Katrina money in the country. According to the Washington Post, Circle B was not even being licensed to build homes in its own state of Georgia and filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

The company does not even have a website.

FEMA spent $7 million to build a park for 198 trailers in Morgan City Louisiana -- almost 2 hours away from New Orleans. Construction was completed in April. Three months later only 20 of the trailers were occupied. One displaced New Orleans resident who lives there has to walk three miles to the nearest grocery.

Hurricanes are now a booming billion-dollar business. No wonder there is a National Hurricane Conference for private companies to show off their wares -- from RVs to portable cell phone towers to port-a-potties. One long time provider was quoted by the Miami Herald at the conference that there are all kinds of new people in the field -- “Some folks here said, ‘Man, this is huge business; this is my new business. I'm not in the landscaping business anymore, I'm going to be a hurricane debris contractor.’”

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Quigley22.htm

[underpants]

66. EXCELLENT INFORMATION

thanks

[julialnyc]

68. this and the and the original posters article are a connection that

people need to scream and shout about!

[Marie26]

76. This is why

people in the Gulf Coast are upset - nothing has actually been done to help the area rebuild. The federal contracts are doled out, but the money disappears into cronies' pockets instead of being used to reconstruct the Gulf Coast.

[izzybeans]

59. Cheney casting a preemptive tiebreaker?

[gatorboy]

60. What's the fucking point of government then?

It would be one thing if a known single official froze the bill, but that you can do it in secrecy is such a slap in the face. And none of this story will get much push because it's not as "meaty" as the Karr story.


This has ruined my morning!

[nolabels]

90. The point of government is to help rich people become richer

That thought(What's the fucking point of government) occurred to me quite awhile ago (say like 30 yrs ago) in that the Federal government costs way more than it was ever worth




Everybody say hellow to agent mike :hi:

[Blackhatjack]

61. Is There Not One Senator Who Will Step Up and Oppose This????

....reminds me of the silence in the Senate Chamber after the Gore election when not one senator would sign on to a contest of the election results.

Is there no integrity left?

No clearer proof that the House and Senate belong to someone other than the people of this country.

[julialnyc]

63. we have to scream and shout about this!!!!

If the Katrina anniversary comes and goes without our senators or our news talking about this I'll just throw in the damn towel!

[Blue_Tires]

62. is that legal?

[Ian_rd]

65. Kick

[Javaman]

69. And down it goes into the memory hole. nt

[julialnyc]

70. kick!!!!!

[julialnyc]

71. Recommend at Kos!

I posted this at Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/8/25/101253/429
Please recommend this and help this story get more exposure!

[julialnyc]

73. link:

http://porkbusters.org/

[julialnyc]

74. KICK!!!!!

[julialnyc]

80. main page at kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/26/17347/5684

[julialnyc]

81. link:

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=71212

[Wretched Refuse]

82. WTF?

What I have NOT heard about this SECRET Hold thing, is WHY has not the DEMS used this before on more important bills? Like Patriot I and II? And other crap.
I mean this is like better than a nuclear bomb. It is the Anti-neutron bomb of politics. It leaves everyone still standing, but kills the bill.
Unbeleivable. What Senate rule book is this thing in?

[terip64]

83. levin's office said it wasn't him

[terip64]

84. kick

[Dinger]

86. Kicked & Recommended (nt)

[McCamy Taylor]

88. If "he" can hide then it is a broad conspiracy. Bipartisan even.

I know this is DU, but both parties like their pork.

[Nutmegger]

89. Steven's gets my vote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kv4vj_vlIOw

Check out this COOT OFF!

[Marie26]

91. We have a winner - Ted Stevens placed hold

"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."

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

Mr. Bridge to Nowhere blocked a pork reform bill? I'm shocked. :eyes:

[Solly Mack]

93. Great find!

[mirandapriestly]

94. I heard that this morning, it made me sick

It's funny after the Daily Show did that funny segment on him, that it would be "Mr Tubes". How do guys like that even get into office?

[calimary]

92. Kick! Especially for Post 91. Seems we may have an answer.

:thumbsup: