A Hold Too Far

To activists, the Senate can be frustrating. It works slowly, the schedule is unpredictable, and everything is decided by negotiation. And the politics between Senators, factions of Senators, and the two parties are rarely transparent - so it's never easy for an outside observer to know what's going on.

Senate "holds" are a perfect example. Kagro X lays out the skinny here. But the short version: a Senator's hold is a threat to filibuster, but is only as durable as the holding-Senator's allies; if your caucus won't back you, the Majority Leader can essentially challenge a hold owner's threat that the bill will face a filibuster.

And while no Senator respects the slow procedural tradition more than Harry Reid, Tom Coburn went too far:

Majority Leader Harry Reid has had it up to here with Tom Coburn, the Senate's scourge of excessive spending and pork-barrel earmarks. Mr. Reid is telling reporters he will no longer tolerate the Oklahoma Republican blocking about 100 bills using the power Senate rules give individual member to stop legislation from coming to a floor vote. Mr. Coburn objects to many of the bills because he says they would enrich special interests and private developers at the expense of taxpayers.

What kind of legislation, pray tell, is Coburn holding up? Just two examples of many:

S.911 is one:

A bill to amend the Public Health Service Act to advance medical research and treatments into pediatric cancers, ensure patients and families have access to the current treatments and information regarding pediatric cancers, establish a population-based national childhood cancer database, and promote public awareness of pediatric cancers.

And S.1183 (known as the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act) is another:

A bill to enhance and further research into paralysis and to improve rehabilitation and the quality of life for persons living with paralysis and other physical disabilities, and for other purposes.

Coburn isn't following Senate procedure, he's exploiting it. And since Senate Republicans insisted on wedding themselves to President Bush the last few years, they're not so politically strong right now. So Reid is moving:

So Mr. Reid is taking the unusual step of assembling a package of bills that Mr. Coburn has stopped, forming an omnibus bill and ramming them through the Senate before it leaves for its August break.
...
Mr. Reid's decision now puts added pressure on Mr. Coburn's fellow Republican senators. An omnibus bill can proceed to a floor vote if 60 Senators agree to cut off debate. With many GOP Senators having inserted provisions into the bills Mr. Coburn is blocking, they will be torn between supporting their colleague in his fight against excessive spending or risking losing projects for their state. Mr. Reid's move is a clever way to force Republicans to choose between their self-proclaimed principles and pork. It will be interesting to see just how many side with Democrats in their effort to roll over Mr. Coburn.

In the Senate, your party can't stay powerful forever. Republicans spent so long wringing every last drop of political capital from their position. And now they're dry.



Display:


Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

In all fairness to Tom Coburn, if there is a pork-barrel giveaway to special interests or private developers, it isn't going to show up on the headline of the bill.  It will be buried in the bylaws and specific parsing of clauses deep inside the bill somewhere.  Plus I'm not sure how much I trust Harry Reid to stop or slow down pork barrel spending.

Obviously, giveaways to special interests have always been with us and are not that big of a problem in the grand scheme of things, but it still has the unfortunate stench of unfairness about it.


by the mollusk on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:09:23 AM EST

Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

I'm not sure I follow you point. Are you saying it's ok for Coburn to hold up so much legislation?


by Josh Orton on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:18:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

In a sense, yes, that's what I'm saying.  If the point of these bills really is to find a cure for cancer or help people with spinal injuries, then take the pork barrel spending out and pass them with >80 members.

I'm also saying that picking the headlines of two bills as a way of making Coburn look like he's being unreasonable isn't exactly fair.  If there is a problem with the bill it, doesn't show up in the front-page summary.


by the mollusk on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:31:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

In a sense, yes, that's what I'm saying.  If the point of these bills really is to find a cure for cancer or help people with spinal injuries, then take the pork barrel spending out and pass them with >80 members.

That's essentially what Reid's doing.

You might want to look at Coburn's background a bit for context.


by Josh Orton on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:43:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

"Mr. Reid's move is a clever way to force Republicans to choose between their self-proclaimed principles and pork."

That certainly doesn't sound like he's cutting out unneccessary spending.

When it was the Republicans doing this sort of thing, we were all up in arms about it.


by the mollusk on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many involve the military? (none / 0)

Military contractors are a major source of pork unchallenged by, even promoted by, Republicans.  Duke Cunningham's bribes invilved military earmarks for California contracors.  There is more pork than ever with a substantial number of overpaid contractors in Iraq.  Remember, the people directing the torture policy at Abu Gharib were contractors not the military commander.


by David Kowalski on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:14:09 AM EST

Re: How many involve the military? (none / 0)

maybe we need our own Tom Coburn.


by the mollusk on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many involve the military? (none / 0)

We also need our own versions of Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, and Ronald Reagan.  Care to start a search committee with me? :p


by TheUnknown285 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:38:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How many involve the military? (none / 0)

I was thinking more along the lines of Paul Wellstone.  

Where were these magic holds when things like the Patriot Act, FISA legislation, AUMF, and Bankruptcy Bill were coming up?


by the mollusk on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:41:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

well the demonization of "special interests" is also something to consider.  Just cause someone opposses "special interests" in a bill doesn't mean its a rightoues thing to do.  Try to remember people whats a public interest to you and your community is technically just as much as "special interest" to others as military pork.
Its just like the whole demonization of lobbyists.  Some say lobbyist and think oil and pharmacuetical giants, but women's rights advocates that recieve payment are equally lobbyists.
by goodleh on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:38:21 AM EST

Re: A Hold Too Far (2.00 / 1)

You know, although I hope they do roll over Coburn, it makes you wonder why our side can't exploit procedural rules to advance our agenda (or stop the Republican agenda).


by rfahey22 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 11:50:26 AM EST

Re: A Hold Too Far (none / 0)

> using the power Senate rules give individual member to stop legislation from coming to a floor vote.

I was wondering about that before the FISA vote.  Why didn't any Dems who'd vowed to stop the bill use this procedure?


by PatriotActor on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 05:54:13 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.