Senate's secret holds may be ended soon

BETTER 14 YEARS LATE than never. That's how long Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) have been pressing to eliminate the Senate procedure known as the secret hold. Now, the persistent duo has teamed up with Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill -- and secured a commitment from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to hold a vote on their proposal to end the practice when the Senate returns in September. That is a huge milestone, because the difficulty has been in getting to the point of a separate floor vote. Once the matter is in public view, few, if any, senators are likely to oppose it.

The noxious technique lets a single senator not only block Senate action on a nomination or piece of legislation, but to do so anonymously, without anyone -- even, sometimes, their fellow senators -- knowing who is behind the delay. Certainly, senators are for the most part perfectly happy to be public, even vocal, about their holds; they employ the device as a mechanism to force some desired action, often unrelated to the object of the hold.

But there are times when the secret hold is an effective way to silently forestall action, especially on relatively obscure matters. In 2007, after years of lobbying by Mr. Wyden and Mr. Grassley, the Senate tried to crack down on secret holds by requiring that authors come forward within six days. But senators have evaded that rule by handing off their anonymous hold to another, anonymous colleague, and in any event that time limit does not kick in until the matter is brought up for floor consideration. The Wyden-Grassley proposal would require senators who want to place a hold on legislation to do so in writing to their party leader; the statement would be published one day later.

At a breakfast Thursday sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) scoffed at the proposal, saying he did not think it would make much difference because most lawmakers are happy to trumpet their holds. But if Mr. McConnell is correct, surely there is no problem with eliminating the practice.

As Mr. Grassley said in a statement, "The bottom line remains that if a senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding with a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly."