[Congressional Record: May 13, 2010 (Senate)]
[Page S3664-S3711]
RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010
[debate on "secret holds"]
[...]
Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to speak for about 5 minutes
on the effort to finally, once and for all, eliminate secret holds in
the Senate. Senator Grassley, my partner in this effort for a decade,
will also speak. Then, two colleagues on our side who are a part of
this large, bipartisan coalition, Senator Whitehouse and Senator
Bennet, and who also have done very good work along with Senator
Grassley, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Collins, who have been part of a
bipartisan coalition, will take just a few minutes.
Let me also express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee,
Senator Dodd, Senator Durbin, and others who have been so helpful.
This bipartisan amendment will abolish the secret hold in the Senate,
which, in my view, is a violation--an indefensible violation--of the
public's right to know. With a secret hold, any Senator can block a
piece of legislation or a nomination in secret simply by telling the
leader of their party of their desire. This means that one person,
without any public disclosure whatsoever, can keep the American people
from even getting a peek at what is public business.
When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said: ``That's where
the money is.'' In the Senate, secret holds are where the power is.
With a secret hold, one of the most powerful tools a Senator has to
affect the lives of our people can be exercised anonymously.
In 2007, the Senate sought to eliminate secret holds. Since then, big
loopholes have been developed to keep too much Senate business in the
dark, unaccountable, and away from the public.
This bipartisan amendment closes those loopholes. With this
bipartisan proposal, every single hold in the Senate will have an owner
who is public within 2 days. It is an amendment that will be enforced.
Here is how it would work: If a Senator puts a hold on a bill or
nomination, they are required to submit a written notice in the
Congressional Record within 2 days. When that bill or nomination comes
to the floor and any Senator objects to its consideration on the
grounds of a hold, one of two things will happen: either the Senator
placing the secret hold will have their name publicly released or the
Senator who objects on their behalf will own that hold, and then that
individual will have their name published in the Congressional Record.
For the first time, there would be both public accountability and peer
pressure on those trying to keep Senate business behind closed doors.
The bipartisan proposal includes two additional reforms. First, the
proposal eliminates the ability a Senator has today to lift a hold
before the current 6-day period expires and never have it disclosed.
This has been a huge abuse. It has allowed a Senator to do business in
secret and never have it reported.
With the new proposal, if a Senator places a hold--even for a day,
even for a minute--that hold is going to be disclosed. Second, the
proposal makes it harder for a group of Senators to place revolving
holds on a nomination or a bill. I particularly thank Senator
Whitehouse, who has highlighted this issue of revolving holds in his
past comments on the floor. With the 6-day time period, a group of
Senators can literally pass a hold from one colleague to another and
never have it disclosed. By requiring all holds to be made public, it
will be much more difficult to find new Senators to place revolving
holds.
What this comes down to is the question of whether public business
ought to actually be done in public. It seems to me that if it is
important enough for a Senator to say they are making it a priority to
keep a bill or nomination from coming to a vote, that ought to be a
public matter and not be something that is decided in the shadows, away
from the public and unaccountable.
I thank my colleagues. This has been part of a bipartisan coalition.
No one has put more time into this cause than my friend from Iowa,
Senator Grassley. I also thank Senator McCaskill, who has prosecuted
this cause of accountability and openness relentlessly, along with
Senators Warner, Whitehouse, Bennet, Inhofe, and Collins--I could go
on.
Finally, there is a desire in the Senate to eliminate secret holds
once and for all. I will close with this. I don't think that 1 out of
100 people in this country have any idea what a secret hold is. Most
people probably think it is some kind of hairspray. It is one of the
most powerful tools in our democracy that is being used to keep what is
public business from the eyes of the American people, and it has to
change.
I will yield to my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Whitehouse, and
Bennet. I thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for indulging us at
this time. It seems to me that when Senator Dodd has done so much good
in terms of arguing for openness and accountability on Wall Street,
this is a perfect time to say we ought to have that in the Senate. That
is what we are going to do on a bipartisan basis today.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa is
recognized.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Wyden for his
leadership and for working together with me and other Senators over a
long period of time. I think he referred to maybe 10 years that we have
been struggling to get to what we are finally getting to today.
In the past, we thought we had victories and they turned out to be
hollow victories--maybe a little more openness but largely ineffective.
So maybe now we will finally be able to accomplish an effective
openness in the Senate on one of the most powerful tools a Senator has.
I think it gives hope to the fact that if you are right, eventually
right wins out, even in the Senate. Long struggle does pay. I think we
are bringing simply common sense to a process in the Senate. It is, as
my friend from Oregon said, transparency, and with transparency we have
accountability.
The amendment Senator Wyden and I have offered would restore the
prohibition on secret holds the Senate voted for overwhelmingly in a
previous Congress--the 109th Congress--and make it even more robust. As
I said, those turned out to be largely not very effective.
At that time, in the 109th Congress, our measure passed as an
amendment to the ethics reform bill by a vote of 84 to 13. That bill
never became law, but the next Congress passed then what is referred in
the title of the legislation as the Honest Leadership and Open
Government Act. Our provision was also originally included in that
bill.
Ironically, as I have alluded to, in a move that reflected neither
honest leadership nor open government, our provisions were altered
substantially--I might say too substantially--behind closed doors,
before we had final passage.
The current provisions essentially say it is OK to keep a hold
anonymous until 6 days after someone asks unanimous consent to proceed
to a bill or a nominee. I am not going to explain how that process
works out, but it can be summed up in the words that it is a very
ineffective sort of transparency, hardly doing any good whatsoever.
The amendment that is before us says Senators must go public from the
moment they place the hold.
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to address what a hold is all
about. A hold arises out of the right of all Senators to withhold their
consent when unanimous consent is asked.
It goes without saying that any Senator has a right to object to a
unanimous consent request that the Senator does not support because it
is not unanimous unless, obviously, we all support it.
In the old days, when Senators conducted much of their daily business
from their desk on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand
and say, ``I object'' when necessary, and, of course, that Senator was
immediately identified. Now, Since most Senators spend so much time off
the Senate floor in committee hearings, meeting
[[Page S3666]]
with constituents, and other sorts of obligations that we have, we have
tended to rely upon the majority and minority leaders to protect our
rights and prerogatives as individual Senators, asking them to object
on our behalf.
Just as any Senator has the right to stand on the Senate floor and
say, ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to
object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is
requested.
By that same token, it would be illegitimate, not to mention
impossible, for a Senator to stand on the floor and object anonymously.
Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf
and keep their identity secret.
If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a
bill or a nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so
publicly.
I believe this is part of expanding the principle of open government.
The public's business ought to be public. Lack of transparency in the
public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public
officials and, quite honestly, less accountability.
I maintain that the use of secret holds--with emphasis upon the
adjective ``secret''--damages public confidence in the institution of
the Senate. The public's business ought to be done in public, period.
I have made it my practice to put a statement in the Record when I
have placed a hold on a nominee or a bill for over a decade. I can tell
you that is no burden whatsoever, and it hasn't hurt me in any way
whatsoever to let my colleagues and the public know--for the last
decade--that Senator Chuck Grassley had a hold on a bill and why I had
that hold on a bill or nominee.
Our amendment--the one before us--would make it crystal clear that
holds are to be public. Senators placing a hold must get a statement in
the Record within 2 days, and they must give permission to their
leaders at the time they place the hold to object in their name.
Also, if a Senator objects, ostensibly on behalf of another Senator
but refuses to name the Senator he is objecting for and that Senator
doesn't come forward within those 2 days, the objecting Senator will be
listed as having that hold, owning that hold.
I wish to make it clear that we do not come to this lightly. We have
tried other paths to accomplish our goal. I said those other paths have
turned out to be largely ineffective.
We sought the advice and assistance of several majority and minority
leaders over the last decade, and we twice tried informal policies
issued jointly by the two leaders, in 1999 and 2003, but those turned
out to be as flimsy as the sheet of paper on which they were written.
So working with two former majority leaders, Senators Lott and Byrd,
we crafted the policy I mentioned earlier that the Senate adopted by a
vote of 84 to 13, which was later gutted.
It is this policy, with some improvements--in fact, some very needed
improvements--that we are introducing today. It is important the Senate
have the opportunity to speak on this issue as a body. I look forward
to this vote and finally having a true victory against secrecy.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is
recognized.
[...]
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I congratulate Senator Wyden and
Senator Grassley for their long effort to eliminate the secret holds in
this body. They thought they had succeeded in 2007 with a mechanism
that would scrub secret holds and make them public after 6 days. But it
turns out that a number of our colleagues on the other side discovered
a loophole in the rule. Whether it is called the old switcheroo or
revolving holds or hold laundering, they found a way to defeat the
purpose of a rule that was voted for by 84 Members of the Senate on a
strong bipartisan basis. That is why we are back here today.
I want to also add to the role of honor on this subject Claire
McCaskill, who has done the lion's share of the work of shepherding in
some cases 100 stalled nominees blockaded on the Executive Calendar
through those 2007 year procedures so that we could get to the point of
proving that there were, in fact, secret holds and that despite the
rule, hold laundering was taking place and the rule was not being put
into effect and holds were being kept secret.
I suppose an asterisk on the role of honor should go to Senator
Coburn, who is the one Senator on the Republican side who had the
courage to stand up and disclose his actual holds. Everybody else went
to some other Senator and said: I don't want my name on this. Would you
please take my hold over so I can avoid the rule, keep my hold, and
have no accountability.
Perhaps there once was a reason for a secret hold, for this kind of
business to be done in the dark, in the shadows, and anonymously. I
think history and common sense tell us that deeds that are done in the
dark are not usually ones of which we are proud. Certainly, the
experience of the last few months has shown that if there ever was a
legitimate use for secret holds, that purpose has evaporated. It has
evaporated under the pressure of blocked nominees numbering, in some
cases, over 100--a systematic approach, a systematic attempt to disable
this administration's ability to govern by systematically opposing
nominees, irrespective of the merits; opposing nominees who came out of
committee in a bipartisan fashion; opposing nominees who came out of
committee with zero opposing votes; with Senators raising objections to
nominees they voted for in committee. There is clearly something more
going on than a sincere concern about an individual nominee.
Finally, this effort to what I call hold launder and to avoid the
rule 84 Senators stood up and voted for that does nothing more than put
your hold in the plain light of day shows that the 2007 rule,
unfortunately, has been ineffective and that it is time for a change.
I have continuing gratitude for Senator Wyden, Senator Grassley, and
for all those who have supported us on this issue and particularly for
Senator McCaskill for her relentless presence on the floor, making this
actually happen.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I join my colleagues in support of the
effort Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley have led to end the corrosive
practice of secret holds. This is a reform that is needed and cannot
wait.
I have been in Washington for only about a year, but it did not take
that long to realize our government needs to fundamentally change the
way it does business. Coloradans deserve a government that works for
them. They are tired of the petty partisanship in Washington. They want
their elected officials to listen and address their day-to-day
concerns. I cannot think of a worse example of this dysfunction than
the secret hold. It is undemocratic, and it is hurting our economy.
Quite a few of us in the Senate--the chairman and I--have young
daughters, young kids who are familiar with the ups and downs of a long
car ride heading out on vacation. The first hour always seems to go
pretty well, full of excitement about where everybody is headed. But it
is not long before that excitement turns to restlessness and that
restlessness turns to secretly doing everything they can to bother
their siblings just for the sake of doing it. And every time you turn
around, they stop and smile and claim their innocence.
It never occurred to me that experience would actually prepare me to
come to the Senate. Countless nominations and important legislation
make their way to the floor. Senators make speeches about the
importance of doing the country's business, appearing motivated to get
the job done, to get the American people's work done. But when the
cameras are off, they use the secret hold to bring this progress to a
stop.
Since I have been here, I have seen nominees and bipartisan
legislation held up for weeks, only to pass with 97 or 98 votes, all to
score political points and waste the American people's time and the
American people's money.
Earlier this year, we spent months working to reform health care. We
have spent a lot of time under the chairman's leadership trying to fix
Wall Street. It is past time we fix the way Washington works as well.
Congress must stop living under a glass dome. The Wyden-Grassley
amendment is simple. It requires any Senator seeking to hold up the
Nation's business to publicly announce his or her hold. All holds
should be in writing, made public for the other 99 of us and, most
importantly, for the American people so they can render their own
judgment.
While I support this amendment, I have legislation that would go even
further. My legislation would not only end secret holds, as this
amendment does, but also require that any hold be bipartisan or else it
expires after 2 legislative days. All holds, public or private, would
expire in 30 days. At that point, the pending business would be ready
to be considered on the Senate floor.
The Senate was designed to be the greatest deliberative body in the
world. Let's have the debate and put an end to these secretive attempts
to prevent debate.
Once again, I thank Senators Wyden and Grassley for their leadership
and look forward to the passage of this amendment. I also wish to
recognize the great work our colleague from Missouri, Claire McCaskill,
has done bringing this legislation to this point.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, first, let me say how grateful I am
to Senator Cornyn for his patience. I will try to be very brief because
I know he is waiting to address the underlying bill.
I think everything that needs to be said has been said. I will be
interested in this vote because there is a group of people right now
who voted for a rule that simply said: You have to disclose your secret
holds if a certain procedure takes place. There are a bunch of people
who voted for that who are not doing it. I do not know how that
computes in the mind of a U.S. Senator. I do not know how you vote for
a rule that requires you to disclose and then you knowingly continue to
keep a hold secret.
I had a colleague tell me the other day they had talked with a
colleague across the aisle about a couple of judges they desperately
wanted to get released from the land of secret holds. This colleague
visited with a Republican about it, and the Republican told her: The
leader says he has to get something for it. You have to get something
for it? Have we come to that, that you get to hold on to someone whose
life is in limbo to be a U.S. district judge until you get something
for it? That is not the way the American people want us to operate
around here.
I know Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden have toiled in this field
for a long time. I appreciate their efforts. I thank all my colleagues
who have been helpful in us bringing this to the attention of the
American people. We now have 60 Senators who have signed a letter
saying they will never engage in secret holds and they want them
completely abolished. The Wyden-Grassley approach is almost as good as
[[Page S3668]]
never. It is a very limited window, and I pray that it will work. I had
been wildly optimistic it would work right after I voted for the rule
back in 2007. I thought, this is all it is going to take. I am not as
optimistic, frankly, right now. Games may still be played. I think we
have to get to 67 names on that letter.
The American people have to rise with their pitch forks, the way they
are in so many other ways, and say: Enough already. Stop this
incredibly bad habit of thinking you can hold up nominations just
because you feel like it and never have to own it.
I encourage everyone to vote for the Wyden-Grassley amendment. I
appreciate Senator Cornyn's patience with us this morning. I look
forward to a vote on this amendment. I really want to find out who is
secretly holding right now, who votes for this amendment, and how they
reconcile those two things.
[...]
Amendments Nos. 4019 and 3987 to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending
amendment be set aside so that I may call up Senator Wyden's amendment
No. 4019 and Senator Thune's amendment No. 3987.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The assistant bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Wyden, for
himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Collins,
Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Merkley,
proposes an amendment numbered 4019 to amendment No. 3739.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To establish as a standing order of the Senate that a Senator
publicly disclose a notice of intent to objecting to any measure or
matter)
At the end of the amendment, insert the following:
SEC. __. ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS.
(a) In General.--
(1) Covered request.--This standing order shall apply to a
notice of intent to object to the following covered requests:
(A) A unanimous consent request to proceed to a bill,
resolution, joint resolution, concurrent resolution,
conference report, or amendment between the Houses.
(B) A unanimous consent request to pass a bill or joint
resolution or adopt a resolution, concurrent resolution,
conference report, or the disposition of an amendment between
the Houses.
(C) A unanimous consent request for disposition of a
nomination.
(2) Recognition of notice of intent.--The majority and
minority leaders of the Senate or their designees shall
recognize a notice of intent to object to a covered request
of a Senator who is a member of their caucus if the Senator--
(A) submits the notice of intent to object in writing to
the appropriate leader and grants in the notice of intent to
object permission for the leader or designee to object in the
Senator's name; and
(B) not later than 2 session days after submitting the
notice of intent to object to the appropriate leader, submits
a copy of the notice of intent to object to the Congressional
Record and to the Legislative Clerk for inclusion in the
applicable calendar section described in subsection (b).
(3) Form of notice.--To be recognized by the appropriate
leader a Senator shall submit the following notice of intent
to object:
``I, Senator _______, intend to object to ________, dated
_______. I will submit a copy of this notice to the
Legislative Clerk and the Congressional Record within 2
session days and I give my permission to the objecting
Senator to object in my name.'' The first blank shall be
filled with the name of the Senator, the second blank shall
be filled with the name of the covered request, the name of
the measure or matter and, if applicable, the calendar
number, and the third blank shall be filled with the date
that the notice of intent to object is submitted.
(b) Calendar.--Upon receiving the submission under
subsection (a)(2)(B), the Legislative Clerk shall add the
information from the notice of intent to object to the
applicable Calendar section entitled ``Notices of Intent to
Object to Proceeding'' created by Public Law 110-81. Each
section shall include the name of each Senator filing a
notice under subsection (a)(2)(B), the measure or matter
covered by the calendar to which the notice of intent to
object relates, and the date the notice of intent to object
was filed.
(c) Removal.--A Senator may have a notice of intent to
object relating to that Senator removed from a calendar to
which it was added under subsection (b) by submitting for
inclusion in the Congressional Record the following notice:
``I, Senator _____, do not object to _______, dated
_____.'' The first blank shall be filled with the name of the
Senator, the second blank shall be filled with the name of
the covered request, the name of the measure or matter and,
if applicable, the calendar number, and the third blank shall
be filled with the date of the submission to the
Congressional Record under this subsection.
(d) Objecting on Behalf of a Member.--If a Senator who has
notified his or her leader of an intent to object to a
covered request fails to submit a notice of intent to object
under subsection (a)(2)(B) within 2 session days following an
objection to a covered request by the leader or his or her
designee on that Senator's behalf, the Legislative Clerk
shall list the Senator who made the objection to the covered
request in the applicable ``Notice of Intent to Object to
Proceeding'' calendar section.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Thune,
proposes an amendment numbered 3987 to amendment No. 3739.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide for increased Congressional oversight through a
sunset of the authority created under title X related to the creation
of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection)
On page 1208, between lines 12 and 13, insert the
following:
(f) Expiration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Act, the Bureau, and the authority of the Bureau under
this title, shall terminate 4 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, unless extended by an Act of Congress.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask the senior Senator from Oregon, does
he want to be heard on his amendment?
Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Amendment No. 4019
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
Let me particularly express my appreciation to the chairman of the
full committee, Senator Dodd. He has been extraordinarily patient, and
especially with the large bipartisan coalition that has come together
behind this amendment to ensure that finally the secret hold in the
Senate--one of the most powerful tools a Senator has in the Senate--is
no longer.
I say to the Presiding Officer, you have done very good work on this
issue, along with a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
The reason we feel so strongly is because the secret hold in the Senate
is an indefensible violation of the public's right to know.
We all understand every time we are home in our States how frustrated
people are with the way business is done in Washington, DC. One way to
send a message we are going to start doing business differently is to
throw open the doors of government and to make sure nominations and
legislation that is important gets debated in public, and people
actually get to see the give-and-take of colleagues on both sides of
the aisle--Democrats and Republicans--that is essential to making good
policy.
Most Americans have no idea what a secret hold is, and I have said on
many occasions that my guess is a lot of them think this is some kind
of hair spray or something. But the fact is, this is an extraordinary
tool that Senators have to effect the lives of our people, and it ought
to be something that is exposed to public scrutiny and public
accountability.
When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said: That is where the
money is. In the Senate, secret holds are where the power is.
What our bipartisan group has said is, it is wrong for a Senator to
block a piece of legislation or a nomination in secret by simply
telling the leader of their party of their desire. What this has
meant--and there have been scores and scores of these secret holds in
recent years--is that one person, without any public disclosure
whatsoever, can keep the American people from even getting a small peek
at what is public business. That is not right, and it is time to
eliminate secret holds.
In 2007, Senators on both sides of the aisle sought to finally bring
some sunlight to this practice. Senator Grassley, the distinguished
Senator from Iowa, and I have worked on this for over a decade.
Unfortunately, a number of loopholes have been developed since that
provision was accepted, and today too much Senate business is done in
the dark, unaccountable, and away from public scrutiny and public
exposure.
This amendment closes the loopholes, and it is going to be enforced.
[[Page S3694]]
With this approach, every hold--every single hold--is going to have a
public owner within 2 days.
I want to close by just briefly describing how this would work. Under
this proposal, if a Senator puts a hold on a bill or a nomination, they
are required to submit a written notice in the Congressional Record
within 2 days. When that bill or nomination comes to the floor, and any
Senator objects to its consideration on the grounds of a hold, one of
two things is going to happen: either the Senator placing the secret
hold is going to have their name publicly released, or the Senator who
objected on their behalf is going to own that hold. That Senator will
own it. Their name is going to be published in the congressional
calendar.
So for the first time--after all of these months and months of debate
about secret holds in the Senate--there is going to be public pressure
and peer pressure on those who try to do Senate business behind closed
doors.
Two last points with respect to reforms included in this amendment:
The proposal eliminates the ability that a Senator now has to lift a
hold before the current 6-day period expires and never have it
disclosed.
The Presiding Officer and I have talked a bit about this matter of
revolving holds in a 6-day period. This has been a huge abuse. It has
allowed a Senator to do business in secret and never have it recorded.
With this new bipartisan proposal, if a Senator places a hold, even for
a day, even for a minute, the hold is going to be disclosed.
Finally, the proposal makes it harder for a group of Senators to
replace revolving holds on a nomination or bill. With the 6-day time
period, a group of Senators can pass a hold from one colleague to
another and never have it discussed. By requiring all holds to be made
public, it will be much more difficult to find new Senators to place
revolving holds.
The last point: It seems to me, in addition to taking a step the
country feels very strongly about, which is doing more public business
in public, this is being done in a bipartisan way. This is being done
in a way that can bring Democrats and Republicans together, in a way
that doesn't involve a lot of fingerpointing. I wish to mention a
number of colleagues: the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator
from Virginia, has been very constructive and has had many
conversations with me about this; Senator Inhofe, Senator Collins, and
Senator Grassley. Senator Inhofe has been talking about this issue with
me and others for almost a decade as well. Senator Bennet, Senator
Merkley, Senator Whitehouse, all of these Senators, a large, bipartisan
group come together to urge the passage of this amendment. I want to
single out too, though, for particular commendation, Mrs. McCaskill,
the Senator from Missouri, because we wouldn't be on this floor today
had not the Senator from Missouri prosecuted this cause relentlessly.
She has brought to light the number of holds. When we have talked about
it, she has made the point that this has gone on on both sides of the
aisle. She deserves great credit for this reform being made today.
Let me also thank Senator Coburn--Dr. Coburn--of Oklahoma. He has
been very involved in reform issues for many years. We are looking
forward to an additional reform he is going to be advancing that I look
forward to sponsoring.
I wrap up only by way of trying to highlight that after the Senate
has spent a lot of time discussing secret holds over the last few
months, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate comes together today with an
approach that has actually brought Senators together and is going to
ensure that every single secret hold is going to have an owner. That is
going to be a big change. It is high time. The public deserves to have
public business actually done in public, and with the adoption of this
amendment, that will be done.
The chairman of the full committee has been very gracious to me. I
wish to ask for the yeas and nays at this time, and I wish to engage
the chairman of the full committee in a colloquy. The chairman has been
very helpful with respect to scheduling this.
Is it the pleasure of the chairman of the committee that now, having
debated this, we set it aside for a vote later in the day?
Mr. DODD. My pleasure is we have the vote on the Wyden-Grassley
amendment. So whenever that can occur, I am for it. We can do it right
now. I am for it now.
Mr. WYDEN. I am ready to go to the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
Mr. President, I withdraw that request. I thank the chairman of the
committee.
Mr. DODD. It is not my sole decision, of course.
Mr. WYDEN. The chairman of the full committee has been very patient
with us. He has done an extraordinary amount of work. Let us, with that
request, hold off on the yeas and nays, and I ask the chairman that it
be scheduled with the next group of votes.
Mr. DODD. I can say to my colleague from Oregon that I expect
momentarily we will work out some time agreements and we will schedule
a vote fairly quickly.
Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
[...]
Amendment No. 3852 to Amendment No. 4019
Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I call for the regular order with
respect to the Wyden amendment No. 4019 and call up my amendment No.
3852 as a second-degree amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint], for himself
and Mr. Vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 3852 to
amendment No. 4019.
Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be
dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To require the completion of the 700-mile southwest border
fence not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this
Act)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
[[Page S3700]]
SEC. __. BORDER FENCE COMPLETION.
(a) Minimum Requirements.--Section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
(8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the
following: ``Fencing that does not effectively restrain
pedestrian traffic (such as vehicle barriers and virtual
fencing) may not be used to meet the 700-mile fence
requirement under this subparagraph.'';
(2) in subparagraph (B)--
(A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(iii) not later than 1 year after the date of the
enactment of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act
of 2010, complete the construction of all the reinforced
fencing and the installation of the related equipment
described in subparagraph (A).''; and
(3) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the
following:
``(iii) Funding not contingent on consultation.--Amounts
appropriated to carry out this paragraph may not be impounded
or otherwise withheld for failure to fully comply with the
consultation requirement under clause (i).''.
(b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act
of 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a
report to Congress that describes--
(1) the progress made in completing the reinforced fencing
required under section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C.
1103 note), as amended by this section; and
(2) the plans for completing such fencing not later than 1
year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Mr. DeMINT. I yield the floor.
Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[...]
Amendment No. 4019, Withdrawn
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The DeMint amendment is pending for the Dodd-
Wyden first-degree amendment.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I now withdraw the Wyden amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
The amendment is withdrawn.
[...]
Secret Holds
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, the American people are
furious at the way business is done in Washington, DC. Today, on the
floor of the Senate, we saw a pretty good reason why.
For many months, a large group of Senators on both sides of the
aisle--Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, Senator Collins, and Senator
Bennett, among the Republicans; a host of my colleagues on our side of
the aisle, led by Senator McCaskill--have been working to try to
eliminate the secret hold in the Senate, which is, in my view, one of
the most pernicious, most antidemocratic practices in government.
What the secret hold allows is for just one Senator--just one--to
anonymously keep the American people from getting any sense of a
particular piece of legislation, someone who has been nominated for an
appointment--any sense of some of the most important business that is
before the Senate.
The Senator from Missouri, who is in the Chamber, has noted that at
times there are scores and scores of these secret holds. I have pointed
out this has happened for years on both sides of the aisle.
[[Page S3706]]
So this has been an opportunity, when the country is crying out for
bipartisanship, for Democrats and Republicans to together--as our large
group has done--fix this, to open our government, to ensure that
democracy is accountable, and that public business is actually done in
public.
Until about an hour or so ago, I thought we would win a dramatic
victory for the cause of open government. We had a good debate this
morning on the measure. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle talked
about it.
Not one Senator objected, not one was willing to say in public they
were in favor of secret holds. Quite the opposite: We talked for some
time, and no one objected at all. We were under the impression that the
matter would be scheduled for a vote this afternoon.
Given that, I was flabbergasted that right before it was time to
vote, one Senator--just one--without any notice whatever--no notice to
me, no notice to any of the other sponsors, sponsors on the other side
of the aisle--one Senator sought to attach to our amendment, which
would have received a resounding vote because Senators are not going to
vote in favor of secrecy when they are on the record--one Senator
attached a completely unrelated matter, a very controversial matter.
I say to the Chair, I say to all my colleagues, I never, ever would
have done that to another colleague. I have felt for many years now
that the great challenge in the Senate is to have colleagues work
together, to have colleagues come together on both sides, because that
is going to help us advance the cause of open government, it is going
to help us get the best possible policy.
So if I had been in our colleague's shoes, and I was interested in
advancing this other issue, I would have come to that particular
Senator and said: How can we work this out? That did not happen. So all
of us, at the last minute, when we were looking forward to celebrating
what, in my view, would have been a historic vote for open government,
after all these months of Democrats and Republicans debating secrecy in
government, we now sit here on Thursday evening, with secrecy having
won once more, doing government in the shadows winning once more,
denying the American people the accountability this institution is all
about winning once again.
I think the American people deserve better. We spent a lot of time
today bringing all sides together. The chairman of the committee,
Senator Dodd, is here with us. The whole essence of the Wall Street
legislation has been to ensure more openness and more accountability in
these essential financial transactions. Chairman Dodd has done a superb
job in advancing that case.
What Senators on both sides of the aisle sought to do, until there
was an objection from one Senator at the last minute--with no notice--
what we sought to do was to say: If we are going to open our system of
financial transactions so there would be more transparency and more
accountability, let's also open the way we do business in the Senate so
the American people are not kept in the dark any longer about major
judgments with respect to legislation or nominations. One Senator--just
one--without notice, kept us from bringing that new accountability and
openness to the Senate.
I know colleagues want to bring up other matters. I simply wish to
say--I think I have been in this body now for a little over a decade--I
cannot recall another instance where the cause of open government took
a beating, took a blindsiding, like the cause of open government took
this afternoon.
I wish to tell my colleagues, I intend to come back to my post here
again and again and again until we abolish the secret hold, until we
ensure that the American people see that government is being brought
out of the shadows and debates are out in the open, where they ought to
be.
We did not win this afternoon because I think we got kneecapped. I do
not know how to describe it any other way. But I do not think, at this
time in American history, where the American people are this angry--
this angry--at the way Washington, DC, does business, that those who
advocate secrecy are on the right side of history. I do not think they
are going to be able to defend in broad daylight opposing a bipartisan
coalition.
Senator Grassley has worked with me on this for a decade. He has,
again and again, championed the cause of transparency and openness in
government, not just on this question of abolishing secret holds but on
inspectors general and a variety of other practices.
So these are colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--who want to show
the American people they are going to stand for open government, and
they are going to do it in a way where the American people will say:
Those folks finally get it. Instead of spending their time in these
petty food fights, they are a group of Democrats and Republicans who
acted like adults and got together and solved a major problem--a major
problem--by eliminating secrecy and making government more open.
So it is my intent to come back, if possible, day in and day out
until this changes. I think this is unconscionable. I can tell you, I
have never seen anything like this in my time in the Senate: one
Senator coming in, at the last moment, with no notice, trying to derail
the cause of open government.
I am not going to stand for it. I do not think the American people
are going to stand for it. We will be back here for as long as it takes
to bring some real sunshine to this cause of the Senate doing its
business in public rather than in the shadows.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I know someone is going to be able to
use the figleaf and stand behind the argument that the amendment that
was offered at the very last moment this afternoon was about something
they cared about and something we need to vote on. It is a subject
matter we care about that we need to work on. But really? It is pretty
transparent what is going on here: that at the very last moment, when
all of a sudden we were this close for everyone having to go on record
about secret holds, that someone shot it out of the sky like a clay
pigeon. That is what this amendment did.
So the argument is: Well, the Wyden-Grassley amendment on secret
holds is not really about the financial reform bill. Why does it get a
chance to be voted on? It is very simple. The reason the Wyden-Grassley
amendment should be considered germane to every bill we debate in this
body is because it is about the way we do business. Every day that goes
by that we do not try to reform this nasty habit of secret holds, we
diminish the shine and the glory that is our democracy. We diminish
what this body should stand for and what our priorities should be.
Every day we allow the secret hold process to continue to take root and
grow and flourish, we are failing in our job as Senators who are here
to do the public's business.
We are not here to go in back rooms and get something for our secret
hold. We are not here to go in back rooms and leverage our secret hold
for something else we want. We are not here to go in back rooms and
have secret holds to keep this administration from succeeding or
filling the jobs that need to be filled. We are here to be accountable.
Of all the amendments out there that can be second degreed, this
amendment that would reform our process is selected to slow it down and
obviously, hopefully, kill it. Well, I have bad news for my friends
across the aisle who want to kill the longstanding attempts of Senators
Wyden and Grassley at reform, and my recent attempts, along with
Senator Bennet, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Udall, Senator Warner, and
others who have come to the floor and spoken on secret holds: We are
not going anywhere. It is probably a fault I have, but I am pretty darn
stubborn. In fact, I am probably stubborn to a fault. I think this is
something we all ought to be stubborn about.
We have different kinds of Senators. We have some who are kind of
feeling as though they are being marched to the gallows as they
grudgingly support cleaning up secret holds. We have others who want to
pound their chests and shout from the rooftops about trying
[[Page S3707]]
to get rid of secret holds. And we have others who are hiding in the
crevices, the little, bitty, tiny dark places, who are trying to keep
secret holds without anybody knowing who they are.
I will say this. One can make the assumption that whoever offered
this amendment to try to kill this amendment probably is a big fan of
secret holds. Because it seems to me if they wanted this amendment to
pass, they would have at least talked to the sponsors before they
offered the second-degree amendment. That is the common courtesy around
here; they would have at least given everyone some notice. But they saw
this amendment speeding toward the finish line. They realized they were
going to be called for the yeas and nays on reforming the Senate, and
they decided to take the path of least resistance and that is try to
kill the bill another way.
But along with my colleague and mentor on this subject, Senator
Wyden, and Senator Grassley, whom I have met with a number of times
over the last week, we are going to stay with it. I know I speak for my
colleagues who have been here 4 years or less, the freshmen and
sophomores in this body. I know how strongly we feel about this.
I wish to remind my colleagues, if I am wrong about you, if you are
against secret holds, the letter is still open. We have 60 Members who
have signed the letter. Sixty Members of this body, all of the
Democrats but one, both of the Independents, and now two Republicans
have signed the letter saying we will not exercise a secret hold and we
want to abolish secret holds. I look forward to seeing my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle, more Republicans joining in the signing of
this letter. It is available. I hope they will contact us. Senator
Warner, Senator Whitehouse, and I are the lead signators on this
letter. But it is time for everyone--by the way, if we get to 67
signatures, guess what we can do. We can amend the standing rules of
this place. We could say that an objection will not be in order if it
is anonymous. We could do that with 67 votes. What a great day that
would be. Wouldn't that be a wake-up call to the American people that
maybe we get it. Maybe we get why our approval ratings of Congress are
near historic lows for all the nonsense, ridiculous games that get
played around here.
Let's do the public's business and let's do it in public and let's
end the secret holds, the nasty habit we can no longer afford.
I will look forward to visiting with my colleagues on the other side
of the aisle and see if we can prevail upon them to withdraw their
second-degree amendment so we can go forward or find some other way
forward. But make no mistake, we will find a way forward and we will
end the secret hold. I am confident it will happen. So you can fight as
long and as hard as you want, but we are not going to give up.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes. I have
been here a smaller amount of time than anybody who is on this floor.
The chairman has been here longer than I have been here; Senator Wyden,
Senator McCaskill, and others. I have been here about 15 months. What I
can tell my colleagues is that this place doesn't operate like any
other place in the universe. This secret hold business we are talking
about right now, so people understand, allows a Senator to be able to
hold up a nomination or a piece of legislation without having to tell
anybody who they are. I spent half my career in business. No business I
have would have ever tolerated a rule such as that. I have worked in
local government. No local government I have ever been part of would
have tolerated a rule such as that. There are city councils and State
governments, county governments all over this country right now--by the
way, they are probably still at work, unlike us, trying to figure out
how to balance their budgets in the most savage economy since the Great
Depression. They are not using secret holds to stop their ability to
respond to the American people, and we shouldn't either.
One of the things I want to say is that Senator Wyden should be
congratulated, because this is not a partisan piece of legislation. The
No. 1 question I hear from people when I go home is, Why can't you guys
work together? We lack confidence in what you are doing. There are
Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated voters who say, Why can't you work
together? It looks like a partisan food fight back here because it is,
but it is a little more complicated than that. In this case, we have a
bipartisan piece of legislation that has broad support in this Chamber,
as do the nominees who are being held up whom we have brought forward.
We haven't brought forward nominees who got just Democratic votes; they
are nominees who were passed out of the relevant committee of
jurisdiction on a bipartisan basis, and somebody has decided that they
want to hold these people up for reasons that have nothing to do with
the quality of the nominees or because they were passed out on a
partisan way, which they weren't. They are bipartisan.
So this isn't about everybody on the other side of the aisle holding
up this legislation. This is bipartisan legislation. We should be here
tonight. It is only 7:30. We should be here tonight debating this
amendment, allowing people to come together in a bipartisan way to
support the amendment, just as we should allow people to come together
in a bipartisan way to support the nominees who have come forward and
passed out of committee. There is no difference. The difference is that
this rule allows some individuals to bring it to a grinding halt, to
create more division rather than less division which, at least in my
view, is what we need as a country.
In my State, no matter where I am--in blue parts of the State, in red
parts of the State--my sense is that people have a pretty common set of
aspirations for our State, for our country, for their kids, for our
grandkids. They expect us to act on those aspirations rather than on
the divisions that are so easy to create for just political gain. That
is what has been happening when it comes to these secret holds. There
are other issues as well that relate to the rules of this place that
need to be changed, but this is one that is indefensible.
I came to the floor this morning and I said it reminds me a little
bit of a car trip with my three little girls who are 10, 9, and 5. It
happens every single time we are in the car: The first hour goes great;
everybody is fine. But then they start to fret with each other, they
get frustrated with each other. You can hear it. Any parent knows, the
hair on the back of your neck starts to rise, and you know something
bad is about to happen, and it does. Usually somebody slugs somebody
else, and then you look behind you and no one will admit what they have
done. No one will take responsibility for their bad act. We don't
tolerate that in my household, by the way. We try hard to get to the
bottom and the truth. We don't always, but we usually do.
This is the same thing. I am not saying people shouldn't be able to
hold things up on the merits, but they ought to have to come to the
floor and tell the American people who they are and why they are
holding it up. They may have good arguments to make. That is what this
is about. It is about debate, and that is what we need more of in this
country because we are wasting the American people's time. We are
wasting the American people's money, and we can't even get a debate on
a lot of the issues this country faces.
I am going to try hard to do everything I can to contribute to a
civil debate rather than an uncivil debate, and I think getting rid of
these holds is going to be one of the ways forward. It is not the only
thing we need to do.
I wish to thank Senator Wyden for all of his good work on this issue,
and Senator Whitehouse for his good work, and the chairman's indulgence
for letting us have this conversation tonight. Thanks for everything
you have done to advance Wall Street reform this week.
By the way, on that, the American people should know that this bill,
the Wall Street reform bill, is a very good bill. Unlike some other
work we have done recently, it actually has the benefit of being worked
on in a very bipartisan way, with a lot of amendments from Democrats
and Republicans which I think have improved the legislation. I can't
predict the future, but my guess is that it is going to pass with broad
bipartisan support.
[[Page S3708]]
I congratulate Chairman Dodd on his leadership and getting that done
in a way that gives the American people confidence that we are actually
doing their business.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in
expressing our support for Senator Wyden's continued efforts to get
this rule changed.
The circumstances in which these secret holds take place are quite
remarkable. Over and over again we see a committee vote clearing a
nominee for the floor, often unanimously, or by heavy, huge bipartisan
majorities; clearly qualified candidates; clearly candidates who enjoy
bipartisan support and, in many cases, candidates who are unanimously
supported. Even in this contentious and cantankerous time in this body,
they come through the committee with that kind of support.
Then they come through on the floor in some cases 98 to 0, 100 to 0.
But between that unanimous committee vote and the unanimous floor vote
is an endless, endless, endless delay. Many of them stack up and never
get that floor vote. We have had as many as 100 stacked up, waiting for
that floor vote on the Executive calendar.
What is happening between a unanimous committee vote and a unanimous
floor vote that creates all this hassle and delay and leaves people in
limbo for months and months, 100 at a time on the Executive calendar,
all of whom are in responsible positions in our Federal Government that
we need to have staffed? It is the secret hold. It is the secret hold
where you don't have to disclose who you are so you don't have to
disclose why you are holding. Because you don't have to disclose who
you are or why you are holding, you don't have to have a good reason.
You could have a downright nefarious reason and you could still use the
hold. It is pretty widely known that deeds that are done in the dark
are not the deeds we are proud of, and this is a deed that is by
definition always done in the dark. Senator Wyden and Senator
Grassley's long efforts to get rid of it are very commendable. We are
going to work very hard to make sure we have their back on this rule.
In this particular circumstance, Senator Wyden has been here 14
years. He has never seen a stunt like this one. I have only been here 3
years; I can't say that. But 14 years of service in the Senate and he
has never seen a stunt like this particular one.
The idea that this is on the merits, the idea that this is about
trying to get a vote on that second-degree amendment, seems mighty
improbable. Of all of the amendments on this bill, of all of the
amendments we have voted on, of all the amendments that are pending, of
all the amendments people are arguing for to get on the floor, which is
the one amendment that somebody chose to drop this second-degree
amendment on and jam up its passage through this body?
Which is the one? It is the secret hold. In kind of a perverse way,
it is actually sort of appropriate that a procedural vehicle, the
secret hold, that has such an odor of mischief around it--that the
reform of that should itself be blockaded by a procedural trick that
also has that same odor of mischief about it.
But what we want to do is get through that mischief so that the
business of this body no longer wreaks of the odor of mischief and
instead gives off the healthy air of open debate and public process and
transparency. I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, who is not on
the floor. We will continue to push on this.
[...]
[Congressional Record: May 17, 2010 (Senate)]
[Page S3801-S3819]
[...]
Amendment No. 4056 to Amendment No. 3739
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment
offered by Senators Bond, Warner, Corker, and myself be considered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement
be modified to include the Wyden-Grassley amendment No. 4019 to finally
end secret holds and add that amendment to the list of amendments
included in the agreement.
I point out that last Thursday, the Wyden-Grassley amendment was
pending to the financial reform bill, and it was ready for a vote by
the Senate. Then at the last minute, out of nowhere, this bipartisan
effort was blindsided without any notice whatever by a second-degree
amendment that effectively prevented a vote to open government and end
secret holds.
In light of what happened, I think it is only fair that this
bipartisan amendment be given the opportunity for a vote as part of
this consent agreement.
I also wish to make it clear that, in my view, anyone who objects to
adding the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley amendment to this agreement is
objecting to ending secret holds. They are objecting to even have a
vote in the Senate on ending secret holds, therefore, allowing the
Senate to continue to operate in secret and against ending this
indefensible denial of the public's right to know.
Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to
add the Wyden-Grassley amendment to end secret holds, and it is No.
4019.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
Mr. RISCH. Reserving the right to object, I do not have any problem
with the substance, but I know Senator DeMint has serious issues with
it. We would like to have an opportunity to talk with him.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
Mr. RISCH. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
[...]
Amendment No. 4019
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I
intend to be very brief in my comments tonight. I thank the chairman
for his indulgence.
I note that Senator Grassley, who is on the floor, and I have
prosecuted this cause for more open government in the Senate for over a
decade. Senator McCaskill is here. She has tried relentlessly to do the
same thing. I think it is very regrettable, because we have seen, once
again, tonight, as we did on Thursday, that defenders of secret holds
in the Senate continue to pull out all the stops, employ every tool in
the toolbox to throw a monkey wrench into the effort to open the Senate
to transparency and accountability.
This has been a bipartisan effort. It has always been a bipartisan
effort. I particularly credit my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley,
because when we talked about this over a decade, the two of us said we
are going to make this bipartisan every step of the way because
sometimes in the Senate you are in the minority, sometimes you are in
the Senate as part of the majority, but the cause of open and
transparent government ought to be available all the time. It should
not matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority.
I will say the American people are furious at the way business is
done in Washington, DC. The fact that it has been impossible to even
get an up-or-down vote on doing Senate business in public is a textbook
case of why people are so angry.
It is my intent to come with colleagues to the floor again and again
and try to make sure that once and for all we change this pernicious
practice, a practice that, in my view, is an indefensible violation of
the public's right to know.
At a minimum, every Senator ought to be on record publicly with
respect to how they feel about doing the Senate's business in public.
That is what this is all about.
This is not complicated. A hold is one of the most powerful tools a
Senator has. With a secret hold, one colleague can keep the American
people from even getting a peak at important Senate business. That is
not right. That is not accountable government. That is not transparent
government.
What we ought to do--and I commend particularly Senator Grassley,
Senator Inhofe, and Senator Collins on the other side of the aisle;
Senator Udall has joined me in this effort, Senator Bennet--we have
made this bipartisan every step of the way. It is time for an up-or-
down vote in the Senate with respect to ending secret holds.
We have not even been able to get a direct vote, though we have been
working now for weeks and weeks on a measure that is bipartisan. The
American people want public business done in public, and they certainly
want Democrats and Republicans to come together. That is what Senator
Grassley and I have sought to do.
It is unfortunate that, once again, there has been an objection
tonight to doing public business in public. That is something that
ought to change around here. There is a bipartisan group of us who are
going to stay with it until it does.
I particularly thank the bipartisan group of colleagues on the floor
tonight, led by Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill. We will be
back, and we will be back at it until there is the kind of transparency
and openness in the way the Senate does business so, once and for all,
every hold in the Senate has a public owner. That is what this is all
about. If you want to put a hold on a bill or a measure, as Senator
Grassley has said, you ought to have the guts to go public. Every hold
ought to have a public owner. We are going to stay with it until that
happens.
I express my appreciation again to the chairman of the Banking
Committee who has, at a time when he has a very important piece of
legislation on the floor, indulged this Senator repeatedly in giving me
the opportunity to be on the floor and prosecute this cause for more
openness and transparency. I thank my good friend, the chairman of the
committee. He has done an excellent job on this bill. I appreciate the
time tonight.
[...]
