Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act of 2007--Continued

LEGISLATIVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - January 09, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if you walked down the main streets of Oregon or Rhode Island or anywhere else in our country and asked what a secret hold was, my guess is that most citizens would have no idea what it was, or maybe they would think it is some kind of hairspray or maybe a smackdown wrestling move.

But the fact is that a secret hold is one of the most powerful tools that exists in our democracy. I and Senator Grassley have worked for a decade to ensure that if a Senator puts a hold on a piece of legislation, they would have to do it in the open. They would have to do it in a way that was considered accountable. A hold in the Senate is, in fact, what it sounds like; it keeps a piece of legislation or an important measure from coming up. In some instances, it can affect millions of people and billions of dollars.

It would be one thing if a Member of the Senate, such as the Senator from Rhode Island or the Senator from Iowa, felt very strongly about something and they came to the floor and said: I am going to do everything I can to block it because I don't think it is in the public interest and I am opposed. That is one thing. It is quite another thing for a Senator to exercise the power and to keep something from even coming before this body in total secrecy. When he was asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said, ``That's where the money is.' The reason I and Senator Grassley have called for openness with respect to holds is we believe the secret hold is where the power is.

We particularly want to reduce the power of lobbyists who so often hot-wire, the way things work here in the Senate, to block everything through a secret hold that the public knows nothing about. Getting a Senator to put a secret hold on a bill is akin to hitting the jackpot for the lobbyists. Not only is the Senator protected by a cloak of anonymity but so are the lobbyists. A secret hold, in fact, can let lobbyists play both sides of the street. They may have multiple clients. They may have multiple interests, and they can figure out how to orchestrate a victory without alienating potential or future clients. This is one of the most powerful tools a lobbyist can have, and it is particularly powerful at the end of a session in the Senate.

We are delighted that the Presiding Officer, the new Senator from Rhode Island, is here. He will see what it is like at the end of a session. Suffice it to say that it is pretty darn chaotic. Measures and proposals are flying every which way, and through a secret hold you can keep something from ever being heard at all. What I was struck by when I had a chance to come to this distinguished body is that in a number of instances in the past, it has not even been a Senator to exercise one of these secret holds; it has been a member of a staff--a personal staff or committee staff--or somebody else. So what you have is this extraordinary power exercised by someone who doesn't even have an election certificate. I think that is an abuse of power, and that is what I and Senator Grassley have sought to change.

We want to make it clear we are not trying to reduce the ability of a Member of the Senate who feels strongly about a measure to make sure they can weigh in and be heard on that particular concern. Under our proposal, you are not going to have the end of holds. In fact, last year, I put a public hold on something I felt very strongly about.

Mr. President, I am sure the Chair heard about it in the course of his experience over the last couple of years. I felt very strongly about protecting Internet democracy and making sure there wasn't discrimination against those who use the Internet. A piece of legislation passed the Senate Commerce Committee that, in my view, would be very detrimental to Internet users. Right now, you pay your Internet access charge and you go where you want, when you want, how you want. Nobody faces discrimination. That would have changed under the bill that was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee. So I came to the floor of this body a few minutes after it passed committee, and I announced I was putting a public hold on that legislation because I wanted to do everything in my power to make sure that the Internet, as we know it today, would continue. So anybody who disagreed with me--and as the Presiding Officer knows, the cable and phone lobbies were spending millions and millions of dollars on advertising. They could tell who was accountable because while I was exercising my hold, everybody knew about it. It wasn't done in the dead of night, wasn't done by skulking around in a fashion where there was no way to hold somebody accountable. I came to the floor of the Senate.

I see my good friend, the distinguished Senator from Iowa. When he and I started working on this, he said: I am going to try this. I think doing public business in public is the way to go and, by the way, I don't think this is going to hurt. I don't think it is going to bite you. I remember the words of the distinguished Senator from Iowa because he and others have seen it. We have had a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle join us in this effort, including Senator Inhofe, who has been a strong supporter, and Senator Salazar from Colorado, a strong supporter. It is almost as if there is a new openness caucus that has come together in the Senate behind the simple proposition that Senator Grassley has stood for and that is that public business ought to be done in public. Senator Grassley and I have worked for a full decade to bring this about.

We are very pleased that as a result of the bipartisan cooperation between the distinguished majority leader, Senator Reid, and the distinguished minority leader, Senator McConnell, it has been included in the legislation in the ethics bill before the Senate. Senator Grassley and I know that no matter what you put into law, there will be efforts by some, we are sure, to try to find a way to get around it. But I will tell you that we have seen such an abuse of this practice in recent years, where Senators in secret can avoid any accountability at all. It seems to me that this legislation that is part of the ethics package that requires a Senator who weighs in on a measure to be held publicly accountable is long overdue. We have allowed, particularly through the help of the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, that it will be possible for Senators to consult on measures very easily.

Senator Grassley and I have no intention of blocking the ability to conduct those consultations that give Senators an opportunity to learn more about a piece of legislation and work together on a bipartisan basis. But what we do feel strongly about is when Senators weigh in, when they make it clear they are going to block something, as I sought to do--and, fortunately, I was successful on the communications debate last year--when Senators weigh in and they want to block something that can affect, as that particular bill would have, billions of dollars and millions of people, then everyone ought to know who is going to be held accountable.

I see my good friend from Iowa. Similar to myself, he has put a full decade into this campaign for a new openness in the Senate, for more sunlight in the Senate. We will have to continue to prosecute our cause as the debate goes forward, and we still have a conference with the other body. I think the fact that this has been included as a result of the strong support of Senator Reid, the majority leader, and the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, is a strong blow for the cause of open Government and accountability.

With that, I yield the floor and look forward to the remarks of my partner in this whole effort, the Senator from Iowa.

http://thomas.loc.gov/