The bill was written in cooperation with the bureau, and according to Carle, the Bush administration never expressed an objection to the proposed reforms. Leahy, he says, has no idea who is blocking the measure.

In the sometimes arcane culture of the U.S. Senate, holds are considered a courtesy. Whenever legislation is scheduled to be brought to the floor for a vote, unanimous consent is requested. Party leaders poll their cloakrooms and if a single member objects, that senator informs his party leader privately and the bill is held back.

A year and a half ago, Senate leaders Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and Trent Lott, R-Miss., moved to curtail the use of anonymous holds. They sent out a letter informing colleagues that when asking for such a hold, senators would have to notify not just their party leader, but also the chairman who has jurisdiction as well as the bill's sponsors. According to Senate staffers though, the proposed rules have not been enforced.

Recently, when Leahy tried once again to move the FBI Reform Bill to a vote, he was informed by Lott that the hold remained in place.

"The bill's fallen into legislative limbo and out of sight but the public deserves to know that these constructive steps are available [to fix the FBI] and can be done quickly," Carle says. "The public isn't aware of it and the press hasn't asked about it." That's partly because neither Leahy nor Grassley has publicly addressed the anonymous hold.

Their silence is not unusual, says Kris Kolesnik, director of the National Whistleblower Center and formerly Grassley's chief congressional investigator. "It's typical not to discuss the hold. It's sort of a mating dance. First you need to try to find out who's behind it and why they did it. Then if the senator gets really ticked off he starts a public campaign to try to smoke out whoever's doing it."

While it's possible the hold was put on the bill out of substantive concerns, said a Grassley spokeswoman, "generally speaking, the reason for the hold does not have anything to do with the matter at hand."

Several Capitol Hill sources suggest it was likely in retaliation for the Pickering vote. Following the judge's defeat in March, Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the GOP's assistant minority leader, vowed the party would do "whatever is necessary" to make sure Democrats hold confirmation hearings for President Bush's judicial nominees.

According to an Associated Press story at the time, Nickles' spokeswoman said the GOP would consider using procedural tactics to stall Democratic nominees and legislation. The fact that Republican Grassley is a co-sponsor may not be a deterrent, either. Because so many bills have bipartisan sponsors, the impact on Grassley might be considered unavoidable.

Also in the wake of Pickering's defeat, minority leader Lott blocked a Judiciary Committee request for $1.5 million to investigate the intelligence community's performance during the Sept. 11 attacks.

A spokesman for Nickles said the senator did not put a hold on the bill. Calls to Lott's spokesman were not returned.

For now, the congressional guessing game continues -- and the brinksmanship builds. In the end, Kolesnik predicts, the strategy will backfire. "Whoever's putting a hold on this is going to lose," he said, "because the public doesn't support opposition to reforming the FBI."

Recent Stories