[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 4070-4071]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        ELIMINATING SECRET HOLDS

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I am hopeful that shortly the Senate will 
be voting on a measure that will take a very significant step forward 
by bringing sunshine and public accountability to the Senate.
  If you walk the streets of this country and ask someone what a hold 
is in the Senate, I don't think you will get 1 out of 100 people who 
will have any idea what you are talking about. But the fact of the 
matter is, a hold in the Senate is the ability to block a piece of 
legislation, block a nomination from being even discussed in the 
Senate. As a result of a hold, the Senate will not even get a peek at a 
topic that may involve millions of our citizens, billions of dollars, 
and affect the quality of life of citizens in every corner of the land.
  It would be one thing if the Senator who exercises this extraordinary 
tool--this tool that carries so much power with it--if that Senator 
would exercise the tool in public and could be held accountable. 
Unfortunately, holds are now placed in secret. They are done behind 
closed doors. The sponsor of a piece of legislation will not even know 
about it. It seems to me a Senate that is serious about lobbying reform 
absolutely must stop doing so much of its important business in secret, 
behind closed doors.
  I will offer later in the day, I hope, with Senator Grassley, Senator 
Inhofe, and Senator Salazar, an amendment to bring a bit of sunshine to 
the Senate. It is an amendment that would not abolish the hold. 
Senators' rights would be fully protected. Senator Collins is in the 
Senate, and as a result of the colloquy we had several weeks ago, this 
legislation also protects the Senator's right to be consulted on a 
piece of legislation. Certainly, that is something all Members

[[Page 4071]]

feel is important. If there are bills that affect a Senator's State or 
that they have a great interest in, that Senator would have an 
opportunity to study the legislation and to reflect on what it means.
  What we say in this bipartisan amendment is when a Senator digs in, 
when a Senator plans to exercise this extraordinary power, the power to 
block a bill or a nomination from ever being heard, we are saying that 
Senator has got to be held publicly accountable. What we require is 
that a Senator who exercises a hold would have to so state in the 
Congressional Record. They could still use their procedural rights to 
make sure they have a chance to oppose the legislation and to oppose it 
strongly, but they would be identified as the person who was so 
objecting.
  The intelligence reauthorization bill is now being prevented from 
coming to this Senate as a result of a secret hold. A lot of Senators 
give lengthy and eloquent speeches about fighting terrorism, but now a 
bill that is vital to national security is being held up in secret. It 
has been held up for months and months as a result of this secret hold. 
That ought to change.
  Certainly, it ought to change if Senators are serious about lobbying 
reforms because one of the best ways for lobbyists to work their will 
is to have procedures that help them behind closed doors. That is what 
the secret hold is all about. It is written nowhere in the Senate 
rules, but it has become one of the most significant and powerful tools 
a Senator can exercise. It is done without any public accountability at 
all.
  There has been a bit of irony in the last couple of days about this 
legislation. I thought it was going to come up already, given the fact 
that we had come back from the recess. I was under the impression that 
would be the first order of business. But we could not get to the 
bipartisan measure to abolish secret holds because, lo and behold, 
there was a secret hold on an amendment to try to get the Senate to do 
its business in public. That pretty much says it all. Not only do we 
have secret holds on national security legislation, legislation that 
would make a real difference in terms of striking a balance between 
fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting civil liberties, not only 
do we have national security legislation being held up, but even 
efforts to bring about basic reforms such as openness and sunshine for 
the Senate are being held up as a result of this secret procedure.
  I emphasize what the change will mean for the Senate. No longer if 
this change is put in place will staff be able to keep secret from 
Members an objection; no longer will leadership be the only one to know 
about an objection; no longer will it be possible for a Senator to be 
kept in the dark about something they have worked on for years and 
years. The fact is, Senator Grassley and I have worked on this 
legislation for a full decade.
  Senator Lott, the chairman of the Rules Committee, has been 
particularly helpful in terms of working with us on this measure. There 
have been hearings. Senator Byrd, who, of course, knows more about the 
Senate rules than anyone in the history of this Senate, has been very 
helpful in terms of giving us background about what we ought to do. 
This amendment puts the burden on the person who ought to be held 
publicly accountable: squarely on the shoulders of an objector. The 
person who exercises a hold will be identified and colleagues can 
discuss with that person how to move forward in a bipartisan way.
  No Senator is going to be stripped of their rights. No Senator is 
going to be kept from protecting constituents that have serious 
concerns about legislation. But with the right to stand up for your 
view and to object to a piece of legislation, there ought to be some 
responsibility. There ought to be some accountability.
  I find it stunning the Senate would even consider lobbying reform 
without an effort to do its business in public. We have already spent 
several days on this legislation. Hopefully, it will be completed 
shortly. It seems to me one of the most obvious reforms that Senators 
ought to be in favor of, if this Senate is serious about reform, is 
doing its business in public.
  Nowhere in the Senate rules does it say anything about secret holds. 
Nowhere is it written down that a Senator can exercise this enormous 
power and do it without any accountability at all.
  Senator Grassley and I believe it is time to bring some sunshine for 
the Senate and for Senators to do the people's business in public. 
Secret holds have been the bane of the Senate for decades. Back in the 
101st Congress, then-majority Bob Dole said:

       I have never understood why Republicans put a hold on 
     Republican nominees. Maybe I will figure it out some day. I 
     have been working on it. I have not quite understood it.

  In that same Congress, former Senator John Glenn observed:

       . . . as one hold would come off, there was agreement 
     another one would be put on, so that no one really had to 
     identify themselves. The objecting Senator would remain 
     anonymous. So much for sunshine in the United States Senate.

  Those are the words of one of our most respected colleagues, John 
Glenn, words that I hope Senators will remember later in the day when 
we will have a chance to vote on a bipartisan amendment to bring some 
sunlight to the Senate and some openness in the way the Senate conducts 
the public's business.
  When we have important national security legislation held hostage 
today by a secret hold, that alone says that this Senate needs to 
change the way it does business. It ought to do its business in the 
open. It ought to do its business in a way that will hold Senators 
accountable.
  After 10 years, Senator Grassley and I have watched these secret 
holds block legislation, block nominations in a way that does a 
disservice to all the people we represent.
  We are going to have a chance to end this. We are going to have a 
chance to ensure that while Senators can exercise their rights and 
debate topics that they feel strongly about, they can also be held 
publicly accountable.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burr). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________