BRIAN ROSS REPORTS
Stray Guns in Baghdad
For McCain, Another Problem FundraiserTOP BLOTTER CATEGORIES
- Abramoff Lobbying Scandal
- American Al Qaeda
- Avian Flu
- Beirut Hospital Out of Gas
- CIA
- CIA Secret Prisons
- D.C. Madam Affair
- FBI
- Federal Air Marshal Service
- Homeland Security
- Hurricane Katrina
- Mark Foley Internet Scandal
- Millionaire Sex Scandal
- Nigerian E-mail Scams
- Norman Hsu, Clinton Fundraiser
- NSA: Wiretapping
- Osama bin Laden
- Payola
- Pharmacy Investigation
- Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert
- Terror
- U.K. Airline Terror Plot
- U.K. Bombing Attempts
- Wen Ho Lee
- William Jefferson
- Zarqawi
He Said, He Said: Republican In-Fighting Surrounds the Secret Hold
Email
Print
ShareAugust 31, 2006 1:35 PM
After Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) was officially outed for holding back a bill allowing the public easy web access to government contracts, new tensions are rising between old rivals about what really happened.
Aaron Saunders, Sen. Stevens' spokesperson, tells ABC News that after the bill passed the Homeland Security Committee, Stevens placed a hold on the bill to give his staff time to submit questions and hear responses from Sen. Coburn, the lead sponsor on the bill. "There was nothing secret about it," Saunders said.
When asked to respond to the widely blogged speculation that Stevens kept the hold secret, Saunders said they notified Coburn's staff so it was not really a secret. Saunders then quoted Stevens, "This senator does not put secret holds on bills."
According to John Hart, Communications Director for Sen. Coburn, "That's completely false. We had to do our own detective work to discover it was Stevens who placed the bill on hold."
Hart says that Stevens' not only missed the initial hearing on the bill, but also missed the July 28 voice vote when the bill passed unanimously in the Homeland Security Committee. After learning about Stevens' hold, Coburn's office says they have since requested meetings with Stevens' staff but have yet to hear back.
For many watchdog groups this backyard squabble is evidence that there is still too much secrecy in Washington.
"I think Sen. Stevens' response is an attempt to spin the situation. A secret hold means that the public at large did not know, and while Sen. Coburn may have known, it's sort of senate practice not to disclose that kind of information," according to Ellen Miller, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit group advocating more electronic transparency in government.
According to Miller however, on the bright side, the involvement of watchdog media from both sides of the political spectrum has helped clear one hurdle for the bill, named the Funding Accountability Bill. "I think there was amazing pressure on Sen. Stevens generated by the blogosphere, in his district, and around the country to come forth and announce that he was the one who had the hold on the bill."
August 31, 2006 | Permalink | User Comments (7)
maybe the senators loss of memory onthis isssue is like the bridge to knowhere---its still useless!
age has its perks,no/?
Posted by: nick gisler | Aug 31, 2006 3:56:56 PM
This is why career politicians have to go. There should be term limits for EVERY political position, and they should be subjected to the same rules and taxes as the common citizen.
Way to go Stevens, you just showed your true colors. Again.
Posted by: P Friedl | Aug 31, 2006 6:05:27 PM
What needs to happen is a change in Senate rules: no more "secret" holds. That means it is done without political price. If you think it is being rushed through without sufficient time for debate, a hold should be possible, if it is done out in the open.
Having lived with term limits out here in California, I can say without reserve that that is the dumbest idea to come down the pike. What you get is rookie politicians, in and out in six years, being bought and sold by professional lobbyists, there for a lifetime.
Honest redistricting, public financing -- there are all kinds of ways to limit the abuses of incumbency. Not term limits.
Posted by: Jim H. | Aug 31, 2006 7:51:40 PM
I guess all those "tubes" were emptying out a big ol' pile of angry email on the floor of his communications office.
This was one of those rare moments where both sides of the political spectrum, street-level activists, were fighting for the same thing. And it was two entrenched, aloof aristocratic senators (Stevens and Byrd) who were caught blocking it for their own conveniences. Take heed, gentlemen; the people will not be corked.
Posted by: BB | Sep 1, 2006 5:14:02 AM
Good job by ABC News because Stevens excuse for the hold makes no sense! Coburn chairs the Sub-committee on "Federal Financial Management, Government Information, and International Security" and Stevens is a member of that sub-committee.
So how could Stevens staff not have had AMBLE OPPORTUNITY to submit questions about the bill before it even came up for a vote in the sub-committee?
Posted by: Chris | Sep 1, 2006 12:55:44 PM
Until reading the Wikipedia encyclopedia articles, just this afternoon, on Senator Stevens, and on the proposed Senate bill, I wasn't aware that any member of the U.S. Senate could have this much single-handed power.
Perhaps something should be done about that. For now, this "secret hold" needs to be openly removed, so this important piece of legislation can be passed.
Posted by: Aakash | Sep 1, 2006 6:08:59 PM
The really twisted irony is all this is that an outside watchdog group has said they received a bid to do this project (estimated between $4MM and $15MM) for less than $300K.
Stevens obviously wants to keeps his dirty little secrets just that. But Obama and Coburn need to get new bids on this project.
Posted by: JoeBob | Sep 3, 2006 8:46:42 AM
Post a comment
