Types of Senate Holds

Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., is holding all Department of Defense nominations to protest its abortion policy. A hold is an informal practice in which a senator indicates they intend to object to another senator's unanimous consent request. Senators frequently use unanimous consent to waive the Senate’s rules and approve routine matters more efficiently. Those rules don’t allow senators to block action on something single-handedly. Senators can therefore hold something only when their colleagues try to set aside the rules and adopt new, temporary rules by unanimous consent. Senators can’t hold something when the Senate follows its rules.

What can senators hold?

Senators can hold any bill, nomination, or motion that their colleagues try to approve by unanimous consent. Senators typically hold debatable questions related to bills, amendments, and nominations. This is because using the procedures detailed in Senate Rule XXII to end debate on questions like these is a time-consuming process. Senators prefer to set aside Rule XXII’s procedures by unanimous consent instead to expedite debate – or skip it altogether – whenever possible. For example, the Senate almost always considers military nominations like those Tuberville is presently holding by unanimous consent because senators believe that using the process outlined in Rule XXII would take too long.

Why do senators place holds?

There are five reasons why senators hold bills, nominations, and related motions. First, senators may place a hold on something because they are opposed to it and don’t want it to pass. A hold in this scenario makes it more challenging – but not impossible – for the Senate to approve the underlying measure. But a senator’s hold cannot stop the Senate from acting on something if senators use the institution’s rules instead of unanimous consent to order their deliberations.

Second, senators may hold a bill or nominee because they have process-related concerns about how the Senate plans to consider it. For example, a senator may hold a bill others want to pass with limited debate. In this scenario, a hold gives that senator time to read the bill, debate it, and possibly amend it before voting. A senator may similarly place a hold on a nomination to ensure that they have an opportunity to meet with the nominee or that their colleagues have time to fully consider the nomination before voting to confirm the nominee.

Third, senators may hold a bill, nomination, or related motion to gain leverage in negotiations with fellow lawmakers or administration officials over something else. For example, Tuberville’s hold is designed to get the Department of Defense to consider changing its policy giving its employees paid leave to obtain an abortion or receive fertility treatments. Tuberville’s effort also pressures other senators to support his efforts to get the Defense Department to adopt a new policy.

Fourth, senators may also hold something for electoral reasons. By holding a bill, senators signal their position on the underlying issue to their constituents and donors. And senators often hold bills and amendments sponsored by their colleagues in the other party to prevent them from gaining an accomplishment they can tout in an upcoming election.

Finally, senators may hold bills, nominations, and related motions simply because it isn’t convenient to debate and vote on them at the time proposed in a unanimous consent request.

Hold Types

The five reasons senators hold bills, nominations, and related motions correspond loosely to five general hold types.

The Chokehold

A senator places a so-called chokehold on a bill or nomination when they oppose it and don’t want the Senate to approve it by unanimous consent. Senators use chokeholds to make it harder for their colleagues to advance legislation – or confirm nominees – that they oppose. They can use chokeholds to raise awareness of an issue with key constituencies outside the Senate. If done well, senators can change the environment in which senators debate an issue, making it harder for their colleagues to roll them using the Senate rules.

The Informational Hold

In contrast to a chokehold, senators place informational holds on a bill, nomination, or motion when they want more information before the full Senate considers it on the floor. Senators placing informational holds request that their party's floor leader (and the leadership staff) notify them about developments in negotiations over how the Senate will consider an issue. Informational holds may turn into chokeholds or Mae West holds based on the information that senators are placing them receive from their leaders.

The Mae West Hold

Senators place Mae West holds on a bill, nomination, or motion when they want to negotiate with its chief sponsor or supporters. The Mae West hold is an invitation to negotiate. It marks the beginning of the process, not its end.

The Blanket Hold

A so-called blanket hold - like Tuberville’s - is an iteration of the Mae West hold. According to the Congressional Research Service, blanket holds affect “an entire category of business, such as all nominations to a particular agency or department.”

Blanket holds could also be a type of chokehold. However, it is hard for senators to use them to effectively kill a bill or nomination because they negatively impact many other senators. For example, Larry Craig, R-Idaho, placed a blanket hold on more than 800 military promotions in 2003. Craig wanted the Department of Defense to give the Idaho Air National Guard four C-130 cargo planes. Craig eventually relented and lifted his blanket hold. 

The Retaliatory Hold

Senators use retaliatory holds to punish other lawmakers or administration officials for something that happened in the past or actions they intend to take.

The Takeaway

There is a lot more to Senate holds than the coverage of Tuberville’s effort to block Defense Department nominations suggests. Senators use different types of holds to accomplish a variety of goals. And while senators have tried to use a hold to defeat a bill or nomination, such efforts cannot succeed if their colleagues are willing to use the Senate’s rules to order their deliberations instead of unanimous consent.