Restoring American Finacial Stability Act of 2010

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I thank Senator Wyden for his leadership and for working together with me and other Senators over a long period of time. I think he referred to maybe 10 years that we have been struggling to get to what we are finally getting to today.

In the past, we thought we had victories and they turned out to be hollow victories--maybe a little more openness but largely ineffective. So maybe now we will finally be able to accomplish an effective openness in the Senate on one of the most powerful tools a Senator has.

I think it gives hope to the fact that if you are right, eventually right wins out, even in the Senate. Long struggle does pay. I think we are bringing simply common sense to a process in the Senate. It is, as my friend from Oregon said, transparency, and with transparency we have accountability.

The amendment Senator Wyden and I have offered would restore the prohibition on secret holds the Senate voted for overwhelmingly in a previous Congress--the 109th Congress--and make it even more robust. As I said, those turned out to be largely not very effective.

At that time, in the 109th Congress, our measure passed as an amendment to the ethics reform bill by a vote of 84 to 13. That bill never became law, but the next Congress passed then what is referred in the title of the legislation as the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. Our provision was also originally included in that bill.

Ironically, as I have alluded to, in a move that reflected neither honest leadership nor open government, our provisions were altered substantially--I might say too substantially--behind closed doors, before we had final passage.

The current provisions essentially say it is OK to keep a hold anonymous until 6 days after someone asks unanimous consent to proceed to a bill or a nominee. I am not going to explain how that process works out, but it can be summed up in the words that it is a very ineffective sort of transparency, hardly doing any good whatsoever.

The amendment that is before us says Senators must go public from the moment they place the hold.

Perhaps I should take this opportunity to address what a hold is all about. A hold arises out of the right of all Senators to withhold their consent when unanimous consent is asked.

It goes without saying that any Senator has a right to object to a unanimous consent request that the Senator does not support because it is not unanimous unless, obviously, we all support it.

In the old days, when Senators conducted much of their daily business from their desk on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand and say, ``I object'' when necessary, and, of course, that Senator was immediately identified. Now, Since most Senators spend so much time off the Senate floor in committee hearings, meeting with constituents, and other sorts of obligations that we have, we have tended to rely upon the majority and minority leaders to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual Senators, asking them to object on our behalf.

Just as any Senator has the right to stand on the Senate floor and say, ``I object,'' it is perfectly legitimate to ask another Senator to object on our behalf if we cannot make it to the floor when consent is requested.

By that same token, it would be illegitimate, not to mention impossible, for a Senator to stand on the floor and object anonymously. Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf and keep their identity secret.

If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or a nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly.

I believe this is part of expanding the principle of open government. The public's business ought to be public. Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials and, quite honestly, less accountability.

I maintain that the use of secret holds--with emphasis upon the adjective ``secret''--damages public confidence in the institution of the Senate. The public's business ought to be done in public, period.

I have made it my practice to put a statement in the Record when I have placed a hold on a nominee or a bill for over a decade. I can tell you that is no burden whatsoever, and it hasn't hurt me in any way whatsoever to let my colleagues and the public know--for the last decade--that Senator Chuck Grassley had a hold on a bill and why I had that hold on a bill or nominee.

Our amendment--the one before us--would make it crystal clear that holds are to be public. Senators placing a hold must get a statement in the Record within 2 days, and they must give permission to their leaders at the time they place the hold to object in their name.

Also, if a Senator objects, ostensibly on behalf of another Senator but refuses to name the Senator he is objecting for and that Senator doesn't come forward within those 2 days, the objecting Senator will be listed as having that hold, owning that hold.

I wish to make it clear that we do not come to this lightly. We have tried other paths to accomplish our goal. I said those other paths have turned out to be largely ineffective.

We sought the advice and assistance of several majority and minority leaders over the last decade, and we twice tried informal policies issued jointly by the two leaders, in 1999 and 2003, but those turned out to be as flimsy as the sheet of paper on which they were written.

So working with two former majority leaders, Senators Lott and Byrd, we crafted the policy I mentioned earlier that the Senate adopted by a vote of 84 to 13, which was later gutted.

It is this policy, with some improvements--in fact, some very needed improvements--that we are introducing today. It is important the Senate have the opportunity to speak on this issue as a body. I look forward to this vote and finally having a true victory against secrecy.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source