Secret Holds

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. First, let me tell the Senator from Iowa how much I have enjoyed working with him on this. We have had, as incredible as it sounds, a 10-year campaign to try to end secrecy in the Senate, just so people know a little bit about it. I always think when people hear about a hold in the Senate, they probably think it is a hair spray or a wrestling move or something like that. Isn't it correct that a hold, the ability to block a nomination or a piece of legislation, is one of the most powerful tools a Member of the Senate has today to influence policy?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Wyden is absolutely right. It is a very powerful tool.

Mr. WYDEN. And with respect to transparency, what he and I have focused on all these years, people asked: Are you trying to abolish a hold? I think he and I have said we believe Senators ought to have a right to weigh in on something important. But at a time when the public wants transparency and openness and accountability, a Senator who wants to use what the Senator has said is an extraordinary power, the real public interest is satisfied by that Senator having to disclose promptly that they are imposing a hold; is that correct?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, Senator Wyden is correct. I would add this point, that not only is it transparency that is essential--and it happens that way--but also a lot of times holds are put on because there is something wrong. We have to know what it is somebody believes is wrong, if we are going to work out some sort of a compromise.

Mr. WYDEN. One additional point, is it the Senator's sense, because we have talked about this often as we have been watching the spectacle of all these secret holds, that the central problem is it is triggered too late and it takes too long to kick in? Is that a fair statement of what needs to be changed? We need to get the openness earlier? It needs to be triggered earlier, and it needs to get into the public domain earlier; is that correct?

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Senator is correct. The present rules are practically not much better than what we have always operated under. So there isn't transparency, and it isn't done soon enough.

Mr. WYDEN. I express my appreciation to the Senator from Iowa for giving me the opportunity to work with him. He and I have pursued a lot of issues in the past. Very often those issues are part of television news debates and the like. Obviously, the secret hold would not be something on Main Street in Des Moines or Portland that people know about. This is the time to get this right once and for all. We sought to do it literally for a decade. A number of majority leaders, Democratic and Republican, said they wanted to get this done. Yet as of this day, I personally believe it continues to be abused and flagrantly so. At a time when the American people are looking at these challenging economic circumstances, they deserve a government that is truly open, truly accountable, and truly transparent. That has been what has guided our bipartisan efforts over this last decade. I appreciate the Senator coming to the floor this evening. There are not that many opportunities to advance a truly bipartisan agenda. He has given us the opportunity to do that tonight.

I look forward to working with my colleague to once and for all get secret holds abolished in the Senate.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I yield the floor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Begich). The Senator from Oregon.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, to continue this topic, we need to kind of put into perspective a little bit about why this secret hold has become such a detrimental practice. When Willy Sutton was asked why he robbed the bank, he said: That's where the money is. Secret holds are where the power is. Senator Grassley and I have outlined the enormous effect a secret hold can have on a piece of legislation but, frankly, one of the other points that needs to be made is that a secret hold is a very powerful weapon that is available to a lobbyist.

I expect that practically every Senator has gotten a request from a lobbyist asking if the Senator would put a secret hold on a bill or nomination in order to kill it without getting any public debate and without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. If you can get a U.S. Senator to put an anonymous hold on a bill, it is like hitting the lobbyist jackpot. Not only is the Senator protected by a cloak of anonymity but so is the lobbyist.

A secret hold lets lobbyists play both sides of the street and can give lobbyists a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients. Given the number of instances where I have heard a lobbyist asking for secret holds, I am of the view that secret holds are a stealth extension of the lobbying world.

In the U.S. Senate, there has been an effort to improve the rules and have stricter ethics requirements with respect to lobbyists. It seems to me it would be the height of irony if the Senate were to adopt a variety of changes to curtail lobbying, as we have done in the past, without doing away with what, in my view, is one of the most powerful tools that can be available to lobbyists.

The overwhelming majority of our citizens, in every corner of the land, be it Alaska or Oregon or Rhode Island, say they want public business done in public. If you walk down the streets of this country, I do not think you could find 1 out of 100 people who would have any idea what a hold is or what a secret hold is all about. But the fact is, these secret holds in the U.S. Senate can dramatically affect and change the lives of our citizens, and our people will not even know about it.

The hold--the ability to block a piece of legislation, block a nomination--cannot even, in a number of instances, end up being discussed on the floor of the Senate. Literally, the Senate will not even get a peek, will not even get the briefest look, at a particular issue that may involve millions of our citizens, billions of dollars, and affect the quality of life of citizens in every corner of the land.

So what this is all about, what Senator Grassley and I have been working for lo, this past decade, what I have heard colleagues talk about--and Senator Whitehouse has spoken eloquently about this--is we believe now is the time, once and for all, to permanently wipe the secret hold off the rulebooks of the Senate.

It is one thing if a Senator exercises the extraordinary power that a hold presents. It is quite another when they cannot be held accountable because they exercise this power in secret. So the average person in America may not know what a secret hold is, but I am very certain they want the Senate to do its business in public.

I want to express my appreciation to Senator Grassley, who has left the floor, for working with me over this past decade to end what I think is a simply inexplicable denial of the public's right to know. That is what this is essentially about. This is a denial of the public's right to know. With colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I am determined to, this time, get this changed, shorten the period, to make it easier to trigger the requirements of public disclosure.

Mr. President, I know my colleague from Rhode Island is interested in getting in this issue. I look forward to his comments and yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Or I think there might be a third option, of course, which is to lift the hold. But the Senator has done a very careful and thoughtful analysis of the situation and particularly this situation of what Senator Grassley and I came to call the ``rotating hold,'' simply shifting to another person--something that has been done often over the years by Democrats and Republicans. I think now is the time to get this changed. By the way, the Senator is absolutely correct on the bipartisan nature of the rule change. The vote was 84 to 13. There was overwhelming bipartisan support for it.

The Library of Congress has actually put together a very thoughtful historical analysis featuring the discussion of things such as the ``Mae West'' hold, which came to be known as the ``come look me over'' hold, which I gather was not a full-fledged hold but it might actually blossom into one.

So the Senator is absolutely right about what the choices are. That is why it is time, once and for all, to get this changed. I so appreciate the Senator, and also Senator McCaskill from Missouri, coming and highlighting the fact that this has again gotten out of hand.

The historical analysis of this has been that the hold was something that would be used rarely. The hold was for something of great consequence. Yet now it seems we have these secret holds that are simply thrown out for nominations and pieces of legislation because someone has some modest interest or is carrying out a different agenda, and I think that is why the secrecy is so unfortunate.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. So to have 80 secret holds by one party, all at once pending in the Senate, is not consistent with the history of the use of this procedural tactic in this body. Is my understanding correct?

Mr. WYDEN. The Senator is absolutely right about the fact that 80 secret holds is clearly not what Senator Grassley and I and reformers thought would happen. Given all these secret holds, you would think at the back of the Executive Calendar--which is page 19; it is entitled ``Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding''--given what the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island has pointed out, one would think that page 19, ``Notice of Intent to Object to Proceeding,'' would be filled with these names if the rule was being honored.

I say to the Senator, both you and I are holding up this page 19 with nary a word on it.

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. We are looking at an empty page.

So just to summarize, the clock has run as a result of this series of unanimous consent requests Senator McCaskill and I have put forward. The 6 days have begun. By the end of that, one of three things--as the Senator has corrected me--will have happened. Either the hold will have been lifted, and then we can move to unanimous consent and clear these individuals who the President has nominated and get them to work for the American people or, two, the Senator who has the secret hold will have to acknowledge publicly and become transparent and clear and candid with the rest of the body about who they are holding and why, or, three, they can engage in this rather obscure, shall we say, game of rotating holds, what I called the switcharoo, ducking out before the time runs and getting somebody else to actually have your hold for you but get in a proxy.

Given this was a rule that was adopted with a very strong vote, a very strong bipartisan vote, and that it is now a rule of the Senate, what comment would the Senator have on that third tactic in terms of its merit and appropriateness, if we find it is being used at the end of the 6 days? Would that spur the need for reform of this rule?

Mr. WYDEN. It surely would. I am grateful to the Senator from Rhode Island for prosecuting the reform case. I have talked with Senator Grassley about it, and with Senator McCaskill and the Senator, and I think this is the time.

There are two points with respect to the secret hold: one as it relates to the institution and one as it relates to an individual Senator. With respect to the institution, in this example, the Senator has given us scores of these secret holds. I think this serves to undermine the credibility of the institution at a crucial time in American history. It is no secret Americans are divided on a host of issues.

Well, if the Senate insists on doing so much important business in secret--which is what happens if you honor these secret holds--I think that just undermines the institution. Because I think, first and foremost, you are absolutely right to zero in right now where we have all these secret holds.

Secondly, with respect to an individual Senator, what seems particularly important--the Senator and I share an interest in health care and a variety of economic issues--suppose an individual Senator works for years and years to try to build a bipartisan coalition on an issue and then is done in by an unknown or secret opponent, an unknown, unseen opponent who has been able, in effect, to block all that bipartisan work in secret.

So I want the Senator to know I am four-square behind his efforts to get this changed. Senator Grassley and I have been talking about it. I think there is an opportunity to make this bipartisan.

I will also say, in closing--and the Senator has been kind to give me all this time--I do not think the secret hold passes the smell test of openness in American government. It is time to change it. I look forward to working with my colleague to finally, after all of these years, get this done and send the secret hold off into the dust bin of history.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source