Congressional Record: April 17, 2002 (Senate)
Page S2850
STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS
______
SENATE RESOLUTION 244--ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS
Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. Wyden) submitted the following
resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
S. Res. 244
Resolved,
SECTION 1. ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS.
Rule VII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by
adding at the end the following:
"7. A Senator who provides notice to party leadership of
his or her intention to object to proceeding to a motion or
matter shall disclose the notice of objection (or hold) in
the Congressional Record in a section reserved for such
notices not later than 2 session days after the date of the
notice.".
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I am submitting, along with my
colleague Senator Wyden, a Senate resolution to amend the Senate rules
to eliminate secret holds.
I know Senators are familiar with the practice of placing holds on
matters to come before the Senate.
Holds derive from the rules and traditions of the Senate.
In order for the Senate to run smoothly, objections to unanimous
consent agreements must be avoided.
Essentially, a hold is a notice by a Senator to his or her party
leader of an intention to object to bringing a bill or nomination to
the floor for consideration.
This effectively prevents the Senate leadership from attempting to
bring the matter before the Senate.
A Senator might place a hold on a piece of legislation or a
nomination because of legitimate concerns about that legislation or
nomination.
However, there is no legitimate reason why a Senator placing a hold
on a matter should remain anonymous.
I believe in the principle of open government.
Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism
and distrust of public officials.
I would maintain that the use of secret holds damages public
confidence in the institution of the Senate.
It has been my policy, and the policy of Senator Wyden as well, to
disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place on any
matter in the Senate along with my reasons for doing so.
As a practical matter, other Members of the Senate need to be made
aware of an individual Senator's concerns.
How else can those concerns be addressed?
As a matter of principle, the American people need to be made aware
of any action that prevents a matter from being considered by their
elected Senators.
Senator Wyden and I have worked twice to get a similar ban on secret
holds included in legislation passed by the Senate.
But, both times it was removed in conference.
Then, at the beginning of the 106th Congress, Senate Leaders Lott and
Daschle circulated a letter informing Senators of a new policy
regarding the use of holds.
The Lott/Daschle letter stated,
. . . all members wishing to place a hold on any
legislation or executive calendar business shall notify the
sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction
of their concerns.
This agreement was billed as marking the end of secret holds in the
Senate and I took the agreement at face value.
Unfortunately, this policy has not been followed consistently.
Secret holds have continued to appear in the Senate.
For example, last November, it became apparent that an anonymous hold
had been placed on a bill, S. 739, sponsored by Senator Wellstone.
This bill had been reported by the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
However, neither Senator Wellstone nor Senator Rockefeller, as
chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, were ever informed as
to which Senator or Senators had placed the hold.
The time has come to end this distasteful practice for good.
This resolution that Senator Wyden and I are submitting would do just
that.
It would add a section to the Senate rules requiring that Senators
make public any hold placed on a matter within two session days of
notifying his or her party leadership.
This change will lead to more open dialogue and more constructive
debate in the Senate.
Ending secret holds will make the workings of the Senate more
transparent.
It will reduce secrecy and public cynicism along with it.
This reform will improve the institutional reputation of the Senate
and I would urge my colleagues to support the Grassley-Wyden
resolution.
[...]
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, One of the Senate's most popular
procedures cannot be found anywhere in the United States Constitution
or in the Senate Rules. It is one of the most powerful weapons that any
Senator can wield in this body. And it is even more potent when it is
invisible. The procedure is popularly known as the "hold."
The "hold" in the Senate is a lot like the seventh inning stretch
in baseball: there is no official rule or regulation that talks about
it, but it is has been observed for so long that it has become a
tradition.
The resolution that Senator Grassley and submit today does not in any
way limit the privilege of any Senator to place a "hold" on a measure
or matter. Our resolution targets the stealth cousin of the "hold,"
known as the "secret hold." It is the anonymous hold that is so
odious to the basic premise of our democratic system: that the exercise
of power always should be accompanied by public accountability.
[[Page S2851]]
Our resolution would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the
Senate.
Senator Grassley and I have championed this idea in a bipartisan
manner for six years now. In 1997 and again in 1998, the United States
Senate voted unanimously in favor of our amendments to require that a
notice of intent to object be published in the Congressional Record
within 48 hours. The amendments, however, never survived conference.
So we took our case directly to the leadership, and to their credit,
Tom Daschle and Trent Lott agreed it was time to make a change. They
recognized the significant need for more openness in the way the United
States Senate conducts its business so Tom Daschle and Trent Lott sent
a joint letter in February 1999 to all Senators setting forth a policy
requiring "all Senators wishing to place a hold on any legislation or
executive calender business [to] notify the sponsor of the legislation
and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns." The letter said
that "written notification should be provided to the respective Leader
stating their intentions regarding the bill or nomination," and that
"holds placed on items by a member of a personal or committee staff
will not be honored unless accompanied by a written notification from
the objecting Senator by the end of the following business day."
At first, this action by the Leaders seemed to make a real
difference. Many Senators were more open about their holds, and staff
could no longer slap a hold on a bill with a quick phone call. But
after six to eight months, the Senate began to slip back towards the
old ways. Abuses of the "holds" policy began to proliferate, staff-
initiated holds-by-phone began anew, and it wasn't too long before
legislative gridlock set in and the Senate seemed to have forgotten
what Senators Daschle and Lott had tried to do.
My own assessment of the situation now, which is not based on any
scientific evidence, GAO investigation or CRS study, is that a
significant number of our colleagues in the Senate have gotten the
message sent by the Leaders, and have refrained from the use of secret
holds. They inform sponsors about their objections, and do not allow
their staff to place a hold without their approval. My sense is that
the legislative gridlock generated by secret holds may be attributed to
a relatively small number of abusers. The resolution we are submitting
today will not be disruptive for a solid number of Senators, but it
will up the ante on those who may be "chronic abusers" of the
Leaders' policy on holds.
Our bipartisan resolution would amend the Standing Rules of the
Senate to require that a Senator who notifies his or her leadership of
an intent to object shall disclose that objection in the Congressional
Record not later than two session days after the date of the notice.
The resolution would assure that the awesome power possessed by an
individual Senator to stop legislation or a nomination should be
accompanied by public accountability.
The requirement for public notice of a hold two days after the intent
has been conveyed to the leadership may prove to be an inconvenience
but not a hardship. No Senator will ever be thrown in jail for failing
to give public notice of a hold. Senators routinely place statements in
the Congressional Record recognizing the achievements of a local Boys
and Girls Club, or congratulating a local sports team on a State
championship. Surely the intent of a Senator to block the progress of
legislation or a nomination should be considered of equal importance.
I have adhered to a policy of publicly announcing my intent to object
to a measure or matter. This practice has not been a burden or
inconvenience. On the contrary, my experience with the public
disclosure of holds is that my objections are usually dealt with in an
expeditious manner, thereby enabling the Senate to proceed with its
business.
Although the Senate is still several months away from the high season
of secret holds, a number of important pieces of legislation have
already become bogged down in the swamp of secret holds this year. The
day is not far off when any given Senator may be forced to place holds
on numerous other pieces of legislation or nominees just to try to
"smoke out" the anonymous objector. The practice of anonymous
multiple or rolling holds is more akin to legislative guerilla warfare
than to the way the Senate should conduct its business.
It is time to drain the swamp of secret holds. The resolution we
submit today will be referred to the Senate Committee on Rules. It is
my hope that the Committee will take this resolution seriously, hold
public hearings on it and give it a thorough vetting. This is one of
the most awesome powers held by anyone in American government. It has
been used countless times to stall and strangle legislation. It is time
to bring accountability to the procedure and to the American
people.
____________________
