Senators End Right to Derail Votes Secretly

The Senate on Tuesday voted to strip its members of the power to secretly place a “hold” on legislation they oppose, a parliamentary tool that has allowed a single senator to derail bills or nominations while leaving no fingerprints.

The proposal’s passage came as the Senate drew close to finishing debate on a bill that would overhaul the chamber’s lobbying and ethics rules.

That measure, criticized by some senators and government watchdog groups as too weak, is expected to pass today.

Provisions already agreed to would ban lobbyists from buying gifts or meals for senators or their aides, and would double the time -- to two years -- that senators or senior staff members must wait after leaving Capitol Hill before they may lobby their former colleagues.

It also would require greater disclosure by lobbyists of their business dealings and would allow senators to challenge some “earmarks,” the money often attached at the behest of lobbyists to spending bills for special projects.

In other action Tuesday, the Senate defeated an amendment that would have created an independent office of public integrity with authority to launch investigations into allegations of misconduct by senators and staff.

Several states have created such offices to initiate investigations of state legislators and other elected officials. But Senate opponents argued that it would undermine the chamber’s ability to police itself.

The vote against the amendment was 67 to 30.

California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats, were among those opposing the amendment.

The proposal to do away with the anonymous holds, used by senators to signal to Senate leaders their objection to legislation, won overwhelming support on a vote of 84 to 13.

Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who cosponsored the amendment, argued that requiring disclosure of a senator relying on the hold procedure would enable negotiations to occur on the dispute.

“If you walk the streets of this country and asked somebody what a ‘hold’ was in the United States Senate, I don’t think you’d get one out of 100 people who would have any idea what you’re talking about,” Wyden said.

“It seems to me that a Senate that is serious about lobbying reform absolutely must stop doing so much of its important business in secret, behind closed doors,” he said.

But Lawrence Evans, a political scientist at the College of William & Mary in Virginia who is an expert on Congress, said he expected that the practice would continue informally, even if it were formally banned.

Senators, Evans said, will either informally seek to thwart action on a piece of legislation or persuade a colleague to ask for a delay if he or she wishes to remain anonymous.

“The hold is part of the comity of the Senate,” Evans said in an interview. “It’s just a form of communication between the members and the leadership. It is a clear warning system for obstructionism on the floor.”

Some members acknowledged Tuesday that the bill likely to emerge from the Senate would fall short of the sort of sweeping changes some congressional leaders vowed to enact earlier this year.

“A lot of this is just show,” Grassley said. “These are small steps. But democracy moves in small steps.”

The push to change the way business is done on Capitol Hill came after Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty in January to federal charges of fraud and conspiracy to bribe public officials.

Abramoff, who funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations to members of both parties from his clients, is cooperating with a Justice Department investigation that may result in corruption charges against others.

The initial calls for reforms from GOP leaders in the Senate and House encountered opposition from rank-and-file lawmakers, who argued that they had done nothing wrong and that far-reaching changes were not needed.

As a result, both chambers seem to be converging on an approach that requires greater disclosure and reporting by lobbyists but that places few new constraints on lawmakers.

For instance, the House leadership has backed away from a proposal to ban travel by legislators that is paid for by private groups.

The Senate never seriously considered a similar prohibition.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who pushed for broader changes, said that if the final bill were not beefed up, “then I don’t think we’ve gotten at the fundamental problem.”

But Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who had designated Obama to press the Democratic case for reform, praised the measure headed for passage.

“This bill is not perfect, but it contains important reforms,” Reid said. “No one needs to hold their heads in shame about what we have done.... I would like a lot more in this measure ... but I don’t believe the perfect should get in the way of the good.”