[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10222-S10225]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1998

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


           Vote On Amendments Nos. 1267, 1268, 1269, En Bloc

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
vote en bloc on amendments Nos. 1267, 1268, 1269, offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd].
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] and 
the Senator from Louisiana [Ms. Landrieu] are necessarily absent.
  I also announce that the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy] is absent 
due to a death in the family.
  The result was announced, yeas 69, nays 27, as follows:
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 27, as follows:

                      {Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Cleland
     Coats
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Frist
     Glenn
     Graham
     Grams
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Lautenberg
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Boxer
     Bryan
     Burns
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Domenici
     Feingold
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Levin
     Mack
     Reid
     Robb
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     McCain
       

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Biden
     Landrieu
     Leahy
  The amendments (Nos. 1267, 1268, 1269), en bloc, were agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote by which 
the amendments were agreed to, and I move to lay that motion on the 
table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. STEVENS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1250

  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I believe the Senator from Oregon would

[[Page S10223]]

like to now move to the consideration of his amendment. We have an 
agreement there will be up to 20 minutes of debate on that amendment 
and we will engage in a colloquy.
  I am glad to yield the floor so the Senator from Oregon can carry 
this out.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Wyden-Grassley amendment is before 
the Senate at this time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I will be very brief. I also want to 
thank the majority leader for his courtesy.
  This amendment involves one of the most awesome powers that a Member 
of the U.S. Senate has. That is the power to effectively block the 
consideration of a bill or nomination in secret.
  Now, it is a power that I think many Americans are concerned about. I 
have made it very clear that I am not seeking to abolish the right of a 
Senator to put a hold on a measure or matter. But I do think that if an 
important health or environmental matter comes before the Senate, as 
the Kennedy-Kassebaum measure did in the last Congress, involving 
health care for millions of Americans, that there ought to be public 
disclosure, that there ought to be sunshine.
  The majority leader, in my view, has made a number of constructive 
proposals in the past with respect to this procedure. I am particularly 
pleased that he sought in the beginning of this year, January 27, to 
limit Members from putting holds on blocks of legislation, in effect, 
blocking a whole package of legislation, from coming before the Senate. 
But we still have not been able to change the Senate rules to bring 
some sunshine in, to make sure that the American people can hold each 
one of us accountable.
  There have been reports that when the Senate passes the Wyden-
Grassley legislation to have public disclosure of holds in the U.S. 
Senate, this is just going to die in conference and it will just vanish 
in the vapor in secret. It is especially ironic that an effort to 
eliminate secrecy in the exercise of awesome powers of the U.S. Senate, 
that would somehow take place again in secret, but I am concerned that 
may happen. In fact, there is a report today in Roll Call, a Capitol 
Hill publication, that raises concern in my mind.
  I briefly would like to engage the majority leader in a colloquy on 
this point. He and I have been talking about it for about a year and a 
half now, I think. As I said, I believe the majority leader has made a 
number of constructive changes already with respect to the hold 
procedure. I would like to have his thoughts at this time with respect 
to his views on public disclosure of holds, and specifically whether it 
will be possible on a bipartisan basis to work out this change and 
ensure that there is real accountability with the American people for 
important actions taken by Senators.
  I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Madam President, first and foremost, I want to apologize to 
the Senator from Oregon for not being able to respond last week to his 
request that we engage in a colloquy regarding his amendment which is 
pending to the D.C. appropriations bill. He was generous enough to be 
understanding that we had a number of other issues we were dealing with 
late last week, including the campaign finance reform issue, as well as 
a number of other issues that are very pressing at the end of the 
fiscal year with the appropriations bills. So I am glad he was willing 
to allow us to do the colloquy now instead of last week. I appreciate 
his attitude on that.

  I think also I should note that he has been talking with me over the 
past year and 4 months that I have been majority leader about his 
concerns in this area. I appreciate the fact that you noted, Senator, I 
have tried to be more open and more communicative with Senators about 
the procedures around here, trying to open up, trying to make them 
clearer and more understandable. As a matter of fact, I sent out a long 
letter clarifying to Members what is the process and what is the proper 
way to exercise a hold. I did feel that it had sort of evolved into a 
situation that was not fair and was not intended.
  I continue and want to continue working to have a fair system around 
here and one that everybody understands. I am sure the Senator also has 
learned to appreciate, as a Senator, the importance and the 
significance of the hold. It is a unique creature in the Senate and it 
is one that is used, I think reasonably and responsibly most all of the 
time, and can serve very positive purposes.
  For instance, I believe you noted in your comments that you used it 
earlier, or last month, with regard to the confirmation of the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to get an issue addressed that was 
important to you. You didn't do it secretly. You were pretty open about 
your hold. It led to some accommodations that I believe will be helpful 
to the families there in Oregon and satisfied the Senator.
  We want to be careful how we change things around here. When you come 
over from the House to the Senate you really have a lot of questions 
about how this place operates: What are the rules? This seems like an 
archaic way to do things. Then you begin to understand it better, then 
you begin to think to yourself, no, I don't want the Senate to be the 
House. You begin to appreciate the traditions and the rules and the 
procedures around here. You have an opportunity to talk to Senator 
Byrd, as the Senator from Oregon has, or in my case, to Senator Stevens 
or Senator Helms. If you go to them and say, why is this important? Why 
has it been done that way? Then you begin to have a whole different 
view about the institution and the tradition and how things are done.
  So, I will continue to move in the direction, I think, that the 
Senator is seeking. I want a clearer understanding and I like doing 
things in the daylight, not in the dark of night. I don't like secrecy 
generally on anything, as a matter of fact. I like sunshine.
  But it is a problem for the majority leader and for the Senate to 
make this kind of change on the D.C. appropriations bill. I think to 
change the standing orders of the Senate in this way is something that 
is troublesome to some Senators.
  For instance, I have not had an opportunity yet to sit down and talk 
with the minority leader about this. I had thought that the better 
place to do this would be at the beginning of a session when we meet, 
between the two leaders of the two parties, and we have knowledge and 
input from both sides of the aisle and that you do it at the beginning 
of a Congress when you have the organization of the Senate. I think 
that path would have been much preferable or is preferable to this 
approach.

  I assume that the minority leader has some reservations of the use of 
any Senator to effect the so-called standing orders with an amendment 
on an appropriations bill.
  So I say to my colleague, then, that I understand what he is trying 
to do and I am not unsympathetic to that, but I do have problems with 
doing it in this way on an appropriations bill.
  I will continue to listen to all Senators. I will sit down. This has 
caused me to find a time--and I am not complaining--to sit down and 
make sure that senior Senators understand what we might be thinking of 
doing. Are there problems with it? I don't know that there will be. I 
really think that any Senator who feels strongly enough about an issue 
to put a hold on it ought to be prepared to come to the floor and 
explain it. I have indicated to Senators on both sides of the aisle, 
sometimes when holds have been placed and have not been removed in a 
reasonable period of time that they better be prepared to come to the 
floor and object and debate because I was prepared to call up the 
issue.
  However, I also feel a real appreciation for the way the Senate is 
considerate of every single Senator--if she or he has a problem, I like 
to give them time to work through it, whether they are Republican or 
Democrat, regardless of philosophy, religion, or anything else. 
Sometimes there may be a good reason why they would not want, in a 
specified period of time, 2 days, for instance, to explain all of what 
is going on.
  I guess that is a long explanation to the Senator's comments and 
questions, but I understand what he is trying to do. I hope we can find 
a way to continue to work on it and come to a conclusion that would 
benefit the Senate as a whole.
  Mr. WYDEN. If the majority leader can spend another minute--these are 
thoughtful points that you raise, and I

[[Page S10224]]

appreciate the courtesy--the reason for acting now is this is the 
season when senior Members say that the abuses are greatest. At the end 
of a session when there is a rush to complete the business is when this 
practice which, as the majority leader points out, is a long tradition, 
that is when this practice is abused. I think the majority leader makes 
a very good point with respect to the need for courtesy and respect for 
traditions.
  I see our friend, Senator Grassley, is here. This is a bipartisan 
amendment. We share the majority leader's view with respect to this 
tradition. We are not seeking to eliminate the hold, seeking to 
eliminate the filibuster, seeking the right of Senators to work matters 
out. What we are concerned about is secrecy. At a time when the 
American people are so skeptical about our Government, when they go to 
hearings and day after day look at practices that they question, when 
they look at the U.S. Senate and see these procedures that are secret, 
it smacks of a backroom deal.
  I think the majority leader is right, the Senate is a good 
institution. It is not going to suffer if a bit of sunlight comes in. 
This is an institution strong enough to have a bit of sunlight and to 
have Members held accountable. I don't want to disrupt the tradition of 
the Senate, but if an important health or environmental measure or 
other important issue is held up for months on end because a Senator 
genuinely objects, then it is not just a matter of courtesy, it is a 
matter of being accountable to the American people.
  I will interpret the majority leader's response to this colloquy as 
willing to work with the Wyden-Grassley effort, and I appreciate the 
fact that it is going to pass today. I know the majority leader has 
other matters that he has to attend to. I want to thank him for his 
colloquy and look forward to working with him.
  I yield the time now to the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, what we are proposing in the Wyden-
Grassley amendment is not going to hurt anybody. Senator Wyden and I 
experimented with this so the other 98 Members of the Senate would not 
have to be hurt if it didn't work. Well over a year ago, we 
voluntarily, on our own, without any instigation from the rules or 
anything or anybody else, we publicly stated that we were going to 
follow the practice of our amendment, even though we didn't have to, 
and when we put a hold on a bill or a nomination, we would put it in 
the Congressional Record. We did that. I can speak for myself and say 
that there are no bruises, there is no harm, there is no retaliation. 
Nothing happened as a result of the whole world knowing why Senator 
Grassley or Senator Wyden were holding up a particular action.
  I think that ought to tell everybody else that they can likewise do 
whatever they need to do in the Senate to adequately represent the 
interests of their constituents through the use of a hold and freely 
tell everybody, and the end result can still be accomplished without 
anybody being hurt as a result of it. I hope that we will now 
institutionalize what I have found to be a very effective way of doing 
the job of U.S. Senator and, yet, at the same time, being open and 
aboveboard about it.
  This amendment requires simply disclosure by Senators of the holds 
that they place on legislation. As we all know, the current Senate 
practice allows Senators to block consideration of any measure without 
disclosing their actions just by notifying Senate leaders of their 
objection. Our amendment does not stop this practice. Rather, we seek 
to put an end to the secrecy surrounding the practice. If any Senator 
objects to legislation, that Senator should have the courage and 
conviction to express openly the reasons for opposition. It is critical 
to preserve the right of every Senator to represent the views of his 
constituents, but we cannot fully earn the trust of our constituents if 
we do not shed the brightest possible light on what we do here in the 
people's assembly.
  It is important for the Senators to remember that their right to 
place holds on initiatives about which they have objection, then, is 
very much preserved in the tradition of the Senate, but everything is 
out in the open. The only thing untraditional about it is, if you want 
to hold up legislation, you should state your reason in the Record and 
let people know. All we are requiring is that Senators make their 
objections known in one of two ways--either stating their objections on 
the floor, or publishing their objections in the Congressional Record 
within 48 hours of placing such a hold.
  It is a simple amendment that sends a very powerful message that the 
U.S. Senate is willing to operate in an open manner, according to the 
principles of representative democracy. I believe this amendment can 
only increase our constituents' belief that we are willing to be open 
and honest about the legislative process and what our legislative 
agenda is. It should help reduce some of the cynicism toward the 
processes of representative Government here at the Federal level.
  I thank Senator Wyden for his work on this amendment and the majority 
leader for accommodating this issue. It will go to conference. I would 
expect comity between the House and Senate because this is just a 
Senate issue, and that there will not be any objection on the part of 
the House because of comity. In the case of the Senate, since this is 
being adopted by the Senate, I would expect that our Senate conferees 
would uphold the amendment and it would become a part of the 
traditional process.

  I urge my colleagues to continue to work toward reform that makes 
Congress more open and straightforward in how we do the people's 
business. I thank you for your consideration.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for an 
additional 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WYDEN. Thank you. Mr. President, I want to especially thank my 
colleague, Senator Grassley, for a fine statement and for all his help. 
He has long been recognized as one of the most honest, up-front Members 
of the U.S. Senate. I want to tell him that it is a special pleasure to 
be able to work with him.
  Mr. President, certainly, if you walk down the main streets of this 
country and ask our citizens what a hold is in the U.S. Senate, you are 
certainly not going to find many Americans who are familiar with this 
practice. But the fact of the matter is, this is an awesome, awesome 
power exercised by a Member of the U.S. Senate. The power to put a hold 
on a bill or a nomination is the power to singlehandedly, effectively 
block the consideration of a bill or nomination from coming to the 
floor of the U.S. Senate.
  All Senator Grassley and I are asking tonight is that when a Member 
of the U.S. Senate exercises this extraordinary power, that it be 
publicly disclosed. All we are asking is for an end to the secrecy.
  My constituents look at the U.S. Senate sometimes and raise questions 
about how business is done here and, frankly, have some suspicions 
about the way the Senate conducts business. Sometimes I think they 
suspect that the procedures around here are a little bit like an 
elegant game of three-card monte. Now, my own hope is that with the 
passage of this amendment tonight in the U.S. Senate, and by making 
public the exercise of this extraordinary power by a U.S. Senator, our 
citizens will feel a bit more confidence and a bit more likely to see 
the Senate as an institution that is open and accountable.
  The majority leader, Senator Lott, is absolutely right about the 
traditions of the Senate and, particularly, making accommodations to 
work out issues wherever possible. All we are saying is that when a 
Member of the U.S. Senate digs in with all his or her strength to block 
a bill or a nomination, the American people deserve to know the name of 
that Senator. This effort does not eliminate holds, it doesn't 
eliminate the filibuster; it eliminates none of the traditions that the 
majority leader referred to. All it does is say that a Senator is going 
to be straight with the American people when they exercise their 
enormous power to effectively block the consideration of a bill or a 
nomination on the use of the hold procedure.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

[[Page S10225]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1250) was agreed to.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________