National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011--Motion to Proceed--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, it is clear from the debate on the Defense bill and the vote that was held a bit ago that this is a partisan time for our Nation. I come to the floor this afternoon to talk about an issue that is not at all partisan; that is, the question of doing public business in public.

When you say those words--``doing public business in public''--people are almost flabbergasted when they are told that, regrettably, much of the important decisionmaking in the Senate is not done with that level of public accountability and public transparency. That is because of what are known as secret holds where one Senator--just one--in a completely anonymous fashion, can block a bill or a nomination from even coming to light, from even being heard in the Senate.

For years now, there has been a bipartisan effort to change this procedure, to require that all Senators be held accountable. Senator Grassley and I have been involved in this effort in a bipartisan way for over a dozen years--for a dozen years--trying every way we could. We established the principle that the Senate would do public business in public, and if a Senator wanted to object to a bill or a nomination, they would have to be publicly accountable.

For years now, the defenders of secrecy, the defenders of a system without transparency and accountability look for one dodge or another. But our bipartisan group--on the other side of the aisle, Senator Grassley, of course, the champion, Senator Collins, Senator Inhofe, a very significant bipartisan group; over on our side of the aisle, and particularly appreciative, is Senator McCaskill, who has done such hard work on the principle of establishing open accountability; my colleague from the Pacific Northwest, Senator Murray, an influential member of the Rules Committee, want this level of public accountability. It has been a big bipartisan group, and we seek to finally change this procedure through an amendment that would have been possible under the Defense authorization bill.

It was said in the course of this discussion that a bipartisan effort to end secret holds through an amendment to the Defense authorization bill is ``a corruption of the process and procedures of the Senate if ever there was one.'' I believe the use of secret holds and not a bipartisan effort to end them is the real corruption of the procedures of the Senate.

Secret holds cannot be found anywhere in the U.S. Constitution or anywhere in the Senate rules. We have had a considerable debate over the last few months about the Constitution, our reverence for this sacred document. Secret holds are nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere in the Senate rules. Yet in this Congress alone, they have been used to block what seems to be dozens of qualified nominees. I point out, this has gone on for years and years on both sides of the aisle. That is the point Senator Grassley and I have emphasized for over a decade: that this is an area of abuse where we have seen both sides of the aisle use the secret processes to the detriment of the public interest.

The real corruption of the process, in my view, is the way secret holds have been used to block the Senate from acting on numerous nominations and pieces of legislation without any accountability to the public. That is why I believe it ought to be possible to debate a bipartisan amendment, to do public business in public to end these secret holds.

The reason it needs to be done now is because past efforts to ban these secret procedures have been blocked from getting a vote. This has happened five times in just the past few months.

In the course of the debate as well, there was a discussion about what our bipartisan effort--to do public business in public--has to do with national security. The answer is: a great deal.

For example, earlier this year, one of our colleagues secretly placed a blanket hold on 70 nominations to critical positions in the Federal Government that were pending before the Senate. These nominations included nominees to positions in the Defense Department and the State Department. The Senator who secretly held up those 70 nominees said he was doing it to address national security concerns.

Let me repeat that. We had 70 nominees under a blanket hold being held up from even an open debate to address national security concerns.

It turned out that this particular Senator was concerned about a dispute about the Defense Department's contracting practices and an earmark for a counterterrorism center in the Senator's home State. This one example shows that secret holds have been used, and certainly the question of whether they have been abused, to hold up dozens of qualified nominees over defense and national security issues.

This is only one example. Even today, there is at least one nominee for a national security position whose nomination is secretly being held up. No one knows who has the hold or why it has been placed.

I come back to the connection, first, that changing these Senate procedures so public business is done in public is fundamental to all the operations of the Senate and certainly our accountability to the American people. But it has a direct link because of the examples I have cited this afternoon to the future of national security policy in our country.

The continued use of secret holds is an abuse of secrecy by the Senate, and there is no better time to end this undemocratic process than through an amendment to the Defense bill. With colleagues on both sides of the aisle determined, finally, to get this done, I believe we will get it done when we get an open debate.

Our democracy and our national security are weakened when secrecy is abused. I very much appreciate the opportunity this afternoon to highlight a number of key points in this discussion. First, this has absolutely nothing to do with partisanship. Second, it is absolutely key to the fundamental accountability of the Senate to the American people to end this process of secrecy and of all Senators held accountable. Finally, this has a direct
connection to matters of national security because in so many instances, these secret holds have kept appointments to key national security positions from being open to debate and scrutiny in the Senate.

At the end of the day, there are a lot of issues we face in the Senate that are hard to explain, that are complicated, and they are hard for folks to follow at home. What is not hard to explain is why it is so important to do public business in public.

At a time when the American people are certainly voicing considerable skepticism about the ways of Washington, this is a chance to show the American people that the Senate is listening to them, that we share their commitment to open government, to doing public business in public. I hope the Senate will be able to change this offensive, antidemocratic procedure that has been used way too long to keep the American people from seeing the way the Senate operates.

I look forward to our colleagues on both sides of the aisle having the debate on ending secret holds, doing public business in public. I believe that when we get that vote, we will get a resounding vote to finally close this dark chapter in the way the Senate does business and bring some sunshine to the decisionmaking process in the Senate.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source