Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2006--Continued

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2006--Continued

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you walked down the Main Streets of this country and asked people what a hold was in the U.S. Senate, I think it is fair to say nobody would have any idea what it is you were talking about. In fact, they might hear the world ``hold,'' and they would think it was part of the wrestling championships that are going on across this country right now. But the reason I am on the floor of the Senate today with my distinguished colleague, Senator Grassley, and Senator Inhofe, is that the hold in the Senate, which is the ability to object to a bill or nomination coming before the Senate, is an extraordinary power that a United States Senator has, and a power that can be exercised in secret.

At the end of a congressional session, legislation involving vast sums of money or the very freedoms on which our country relies can die just because of a secret hold in the Senate. At any point in the legislative process, an objection can delay or derail an issue to the point where it can't be effectively considered.

What is particularly unjust about all of this is that it prevents a Senator from being held accountable. I think Members would be incredulous to learn this afternoon that the Intelligence reauthorization bill, a piece of legislation which is vital to our national security, has now been held up for months as a result of a secret hold.

I am going to talk a little bit about the consequences of holding up an Intelligence authorization bill in a moment. But I want to first be clear on what the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment would do. It would force the Senate to do its business in public, and it would bring the secret holds out of the shadows of the Senate and into the sunshine. Our bipartisan amendment would make a permanent change to the procedures of the Senate to require openness and accountability. We want to emphasize that we are not going to bar Senators from exercising their power to put a hold on a bill or nomination. All we are saying is, a Senator who wants that right should also have a responsibility to the people he or she represents and to the country at large.

Now, to the hold on the Intelligence bill that has been in place for more than 3 months, I think every Member of the Senate would agree that authorizing the intelligence programs of this country is a critical priority for America. Striking the balance between fighting terrorism ferociously and protecting our civil liberties is one of the most important functions of this Senate. The bill that is now being held up as a result of a secret hold, the Intelligence reauthorization bill, has been reviewed by a number of Senate committees. It was reported by the Intelligence Committee late last September, by the Armed Services Committee last October, and by the Homeland and Governmental Affairs Committee last November.

I particularly commend Chairman Roberts who worked with me on a number of amendments, amendments that I felt strongly about, because this legislation does ensure that there will be accountability and oversight in the Intelligence Committee by establishing a strong inspector general, by requiring that the committees get the documents they need to perform effective oversight over the intelligence community, and by making the heads of the key agencies subject to Senate confirmation.

I think the Senate would particularly want to know if this legislation, the Intelligence reauthorization bill that is held up by a secret hold, does not move forward, it will be the first time since the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence was established in 1978 that the Senate has failed to act on an Intelligence reauthorization bill.

What we have is a situation where a single, anonymous Senator has invoked a practice that cannot be found anywhere in the Senate rules and has lodged an objection to a piece of legislation that is critically important to the well-being of America. Senators have often asked Senator Grassley and myself and Senator Inhofe: Where are the examples of these secret holds? Exactly why do you believe your legislation is important? We now have a textbook case of a secret hold that is injurious to America.

For all the talk about earmarks--we have been discussing that here on the Senate floor, as well as the scope of conference, line-item vetoes and the like--I would wager that no weapon is more important and more powerful to each Senator than the ability to stop amendments, legislation, and nominations through secret holds. I believe as U.S. Senators we occupy a position of public trust and that the exercise of the power that has been vested in each of us should be accompanied by public accountability.

I have no quarrel with the use of a hold. I have used them myself on several occasions. But what is offensive to the democratic process is the anonymity, the secrecy, the lack of accountability when a Senator tries to exercise this extraordinary power in secret.

Let me just wrap up, because I see the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee is here, with a quick minute on the history of these efforts. Senator Grassley and I have been at this for almost a decade. The Rules Committee held a hearing on our proposal in the summer of 2003. We worked with Chairman Lott and with the ranking minority member, Senator Dodd, extensively. This is a matter that has been considered at length by colleagues.

Senator Lott knows firsthand about this issue because he has personally spent many hours with me as he has wrestled with it, and in fact tried to set in place some voluntary procedures that would curtail the abuses of the secret hold.

These secret holds have been an embarrassment to the Senate in my view, and they have been an embarrassment for a long time. But I cannot recall an instance where we had a hold, a secret hold on the Intelligence authorization bill at a time when our country is at war. This is a practice that needs to end.

I yield now for the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley. I reserve the remainder of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is my intent at this point to wrap up.

I particularly thank the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, who has had a longstanding interest in this subject, for working with Senator Grassley and myself. We do have a bipartisan effort.

The Senator from Oklahoma has highlighted another problem with it, and a lot of Members who served in the other body bumped into this. A lot of these holds over the years have not even been placed by Senators themselves. They have been placed by staff, and Senators go up to each other and try to ask about a matter and it ends up a Senator may not even know about it.

I also see the Senator from Mississippi, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. He spent a lot of hours with me talking about this over the years. Senator Lott, to show his commitment to the cause of openness, has tried repeatedly to get Senators to do this voluntarily. I recall on a number of instances Senator Lott and Senator Daschle met with Senator Grassley and me. We put together a variety of letters and directives to Senators. It still would not come together.

We think you have to make this a permanent change in the Senate procedures, put the burden on the objector rather than on the leadership, as we have done so often in the past, and the leaders would then have to make phone calls. Senator Lott has a wonderful story that he has told me over the years about sitting in phone booths at airports calling Members, trying to figure out who in the world had a hold on something.

I say to colleagues, we have now reached that moment where the Senate has had it up to here with all of the secrecy and practice of doing business in the shadows.

To wrap this up, we are going to have a vote in a few minutes. The Intelligence Authorization bill, a bill that is vital to America's national security, is subject to a secret hold. I don't think anything could make the case for our bipartisan amendment more clearly than the need to move ahead with this country's vital business in intelligence. I have talked to Chairman Roberts about this. He wants that bill to move. It is a bipartisan bill. We have not had a situation since 1978 when we could not move forward on an intelligence bill.

I hope colleagues will finally bring the Senate into the sunshine. This enormous power that each Senator has is one that will continue, but if we can prevail on this vote, it will be one that will be exercised in the sunlight. Each Senator will be held accountable when they assert this particular power.

I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Wyden-Grassley-Inhofe amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time and I ask for the yeas and nays.

http://thomas.loc.gov/