[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 76 (Wednesday, May 21, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6869-S6870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS

                                 ______
                                 

         SENATE RESOLUTION 151--ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS

  Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Lugar, and Ms. Landrieu) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
on Rules and Administration:

                              S. Res. 151

       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 resubmitting a Senate 
resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the United States Senate to 
eliminate the practice of secret holds. I'm pleased that I am once 
again joined by my colleague, Senator Wyden, in this effort. Senator 
Wyden and I have been working together on this issue for some time and 
we have made some progress in bringing this issue to light and having 
it addressed. Still, the problem continues to reoccur and a permanent 
solution is needed.
  I know many of my colleagues are well aware of the practice of 
placing an anonymous ``hold'' on a piece of legislation or a 
nomination. Some Senators have been victims of a secret hold placed on 
one of their bills and others may have used this practice.
  Holds are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Senate Rules, but 
they derive from the rules and traditions of the Senate where a single 
Senator possesses a great deal of power to derail any matter. 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. If the 
Majority Leader were to attempt to bring a matter up for consideration 
despite an objection, the Senate would be forced to consider the motion 
to proceed, which would be subject to a filibuster. Because this kind 
of delay would paralyze the working of the Senate, holds are usually 
honored as both a practical necessity and a senatorial courtesy.
  A Senator might place a hold on a piece of legislation or a 
nomination because of legitimate concerns about an aspect of a bill or 
a nominee. 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 to disclose in the Congressional Record any 
hold that I place on any matter in the Senate along with my reasons for 
doing so. I know Senator Wyden does the same. I have used holds in the 
past when I thought a matter was progressing too fast and more 
questions needed to be answered. However, I feel that my colleagues 
have a right to know that it was Grassley that placed the hold as well 
as why I did it.
  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. Unfortunately, this policy has not been followed consistently. 
Secret holds have continued to appear in the Senate. Last year, Senator 
Wyden and I decided that we needed to continue to pursue a permanent 
change in the Senate Rules to end this practice and we introduced a 
Senate resolution to do just that. We were later joined by Senators 
Lugar and Landrieu and I was glad to have their support. We are now 
submitting that same measure and I am encouraged that Rules Committee 
Chairman Lott has expressed interest in examining our legislation and 
the problem of secret holds.
  The Grassley-Wyden resolution 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. 
Moreover, this reform will improve the institutional reputation of the 
Senate. I look forward to working with Chairman Lott and all my 
colleagues to address the problem of secret holds and hopefully make 
progress toward ending this distasteful practice once and for all.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, for seven years Senator Grassley and I have 
teamed up in a bipartisan way to champion the cause of the sunshine 
hold in the United States Senate. The sunshine hold is the less popular 
step sister of the more commonly used ``secret'' hold.
  Even though it is one of the Senate's most popular procedures, 
neither the sunshine nor the secret ``hold'' can be found anywhere in 
the United States Constitution or in the Senate Rules. It

[[Page S6870]]

is one of the most powerful weapons that any Senator can wield in this 
body, and in its stealth version, known as the ``secret hold,'' it is 
far more potent and far more insidious.
  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 has been observed for so long that it has become a 
tradition.
  Today, Senator Grassley and I are resubmitting the resolution we 
sponsored in the 107th Congress to amend the Senate Rules to require 
that any Senator who wishes to object to a measure or matter publish 
that objection in the Congressional Record within 48 hours. The 
resolution does not in any way limit the privilege of any Senator to 
place a ``hold'' on a measure or matter. 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. Our resolution would bring the anonymous hold out of 
the shadows of the Senate. 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.
  Beginning in 1997 and again in 1998, the United States Senate voted 
unanimously in favor of amendments Senator Grassley and I offered 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 at that time, 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 clouds moved in on the sunshine hold and 
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 Senate offices. 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.
  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 this is not the ``high season'' for holds, the time is not 
far off when legislation will become bogged down in the swamp of secret 
holds. 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, 
and to put sunshine holds in the Senate Rules.

                          ____________________