Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006--Continued

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006--Continued

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, today I put a hold on the President's nominee for the Export-Import Bank. I don't usually issue a press release when I do that, but I did that because it is in relationship to a problem we are having with the Export-Import Bank on an ethanol issue, and I want the people to know that it is broader than just some of the small reasons you do holds around here.

But I have had a practice, as this amendment would mandate--I have had a practice over the last 7 or 8 years of putting a statement in the Congressional Record when I use a hold. I believe I use a hold a little less often than some of my colleagues do, but I agree. A lot of people maybe use a hold because they do not want to put up with the fuss that goes on when you make public why you are holding up a bill and who you are. But I want to assure you, I have been in the Senate for 25 years, and I have not lost one ounce of blood. I have not had one black and blue mark. I don't believe I have had any fight with any colleague over the practice when they know who I am.

Of course, if they were secret and they never knew I was doing it, I wouldn't have to worry about any of these things. But I believe, as my colleague from Oregon does, that the people's business is the people's business, and the people's business ought to be public. I believe if you have guts enough to put a special hold on legislation, you ought to have guts enough to say who you are and why you are doing it. I think your constituents ought to know that. But more importantly, just to get things done around here, your colleagues ought to know who it is because if you have a gripe, let's get the gripe out in the open and let's talk about it.

What is wrong in America that we do not want to talk about some things? I don't know how often my constituents brag about: ``There are two things I never talk about, religion and politics.'' There are no things that you ought to talk about more than religion and politics because they have more influence on your life than anything else that we do in American society. But somehow you can't think that you can do it in a civil way when you ought to be able to do it in a civil way. In the U.S. Senate you ought to be able to do all this stuff in a civil way.

I hope my experiences of not having any harm done to me in any way for putting a hold on, that people will back this amendment and get the public's business out. There is nothing wrong with the word ``hold,'' but there is something wrong with the word ``secret.'' When you read it in the newspapers you never hear the word ``hold'' unless the word ``secret'' is connected with it.

The people around the countryside of America, at least in my State of Iowa, think what is wrong with American Government is that there is too much secrecy, too much behind-the-scenes dealing, too much money in politics--all those things that give us kind of a black eye with the public. This is not going to solve these problems, just taking the word ``secret'' out of the hold.

But at least the newspapers won't be able to use the word ``secret'' anymore. And maybe when bit by bit we do some of these things around here we will be able to elevate public service to be the honorable profession that it ought to be.

This is a small effort on the part of my colleague and myself and now Senator Inhofe to do that.

How do you eat 10,000 marshmallows? You eat one at a time. How are you going to raise public respect for the Senate? You are going to do it a little bit at a time. This may be too little for some people. But the way caucuses are being held around here on this very subject in the last hour, you know this is a big deal--and it should be a big deal.

This is the public's business. Having expressed those views, I would like to go to a statement I have that maybe will make more sense.

The time has come for the Senate as a body to rid itself of a serious blemish. And, of course, I am talking about the practice I just spoke about of placing anonymous holds on legislation or nominations.

The power of the hold is to stop a bill or a nomination in its tracks, which each Senator possesses. It was never authorized or even intended. It is just a practice. It is not in the books.

I do not object to the use of this powerful tool, so long as it is accompanied with some public accountability. However, the current lack of transparency in the process is an affront to the principle of open government, and I think it is an embarrassment to this body.

The amendment by Senator Wyden and myself and Senator Inhofe which we proposed today would establish a standing order requiring that holds be made public. We believe it is time to have the Senate consider our proposed standing order and then decide as a body whether to end this secret process.

For my colleagues who might be apprehensive about this change in doing business, I ask you to just give it a try. I should point out that this measure is a standing order which, while binding on Senators, does not formally amend the Senate rules and can more easily be changed if it turns out to be unworkable.

I have no doubt that once instituted this reform will be found to be very sound and no reason will be found why it should not be continued for a long period of time. For years, I have made it my practice to publicly disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place along with a short explanation. It is quick, it is easy, and it is painless. I want to assure my colleagues of that.

Our proposed standing order would provide that a simple form be filled out, much like we do when we add cosponsors to a bill. Senators would have a full 3 session days from placing the hold to submit the form. The hold would then be published in the Congressional Record and the Senate Calendar. It is just as simple as that.

This amendment is essentially the same as S. Res. 216 in the 108th Congress, which was a collaborative effort between myself, the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Wyden, Senator Lott, and Senator Byrd.

In the last Congress, Chairman Lott held a hearing in the Rules Committee on the issue that is before us. Since that time, I have worked with Senators Wyden, Lott, and Byrd to come up with what I think is a very well thought out proposal to require public disclosure of holds on legislation or nominations in the Senate.

It says a lot that this proposal was written with the help of such outstanding Senators as Senator Lott and Senator Byrd. As chairman of the Rules Committee and as former majority leader, Senator Lott brings valuable perspective and experience. It is also a great honor to be able to work on this issue with Senator Byrd, who is also a former majority leader and an expert on Senate rules and procedures.

I can think of no reason a single Senator should be able to kill a bill or a nomination in complete secrecy. Despite recent attempts by the leadership to curb abuses of holds, the secret hold remains a stain on the fabric of the Senate.

It is time for the whole Senate to consider our proposed standing order and speak as a body on this issue. If any Senator believes I am misguided in this, I welcome their discussion.

I have yet to hear a single good reason we should allow secrecy to creep into what ought to be a very public legislative process. In fact, public discussion on this matter is long overdue. If this practice that is in the shadows of legislation is to continue, let us at least say so publicly.

I can think of no better time to consider this long overdue measure than in the context of a bill titled the ``Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act.''

If we don't end this in a bill with this title, we are missing a chance that we have been waiting for for 10 years. I thank the chairman of the committee for that opportunity. That is why this measure is all about transparency and accountability.

The purpose of the underlying bill is to restore public confidence in Congress by making our actions transparent and accountable. Secret holds run contrary to both principles. They are done in complete secrecy and allow Senators to avoid public accountability for action. The underlying bill requires disclosure of earmarks in advance of conference negotiations and increased disclosure of trips and employment negotiations.

I ask my colleagues to support the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment so that we can use this one small step to restore confidence and have more public accountability.

http://thomas.loc.gov/