Amending the Standing Rules and procedures of the Senate--S. Res. 8, S. Res. 10, S. Res. 21, S. Res. 28, and S. Res. 29--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I rise to support the Wyden-Grassley-McCaskill public hold proposal. I apologize to my two colleagues from Oregon and Missouri that I was not on the floor at the proper time. It is all my fault.

I am pleased to see this day come where the Senate will finally have the opportunity for an up-or-down vote on our freestanding Senate resolution to require public disclosure of holds. Senator Wyden and I have been at this for a long time. We have made progress at times, and we have also had many disappointments where things did not quite work out the way we had hoped and what we thought the Senate had spoken on through even rollcall votes.

It has also been good to have Senator McCaskill join us in helping push this issue to the forefront easily. She did that--I shouldn't say ``easily'' but recently because it has not been easy. Ending secret holds seems like a simple matter, doesn't it. But that has not proved to be the case because secret holds are an informal process. It is easier said than done to push them out into the open using formal Senate procedures. It is kind of like trying to wrestle down a greased hog. However, after a lot of thought and effort, two committee hearings, and many careful revisions, I think this resolution does a pretty good job of accomplishing our simple goal. That goal is to bring some more transparency into how the Senate does its business and, with transparency, more accountability.

This is not the only proposal we are considering today related to Senate procedure, and I do not want there to be any confusion. This proposal is not about altering any balance of power between the majority party and the minority party; neither does our resolution alter the rights of any of the 100 Members of this Senate.

Over the time I have been working on this issue, I have occasionally encountered arguments purporting to defend the need for secret holds. However, the arguments invariably focus on the legitimacy of holds, not on the subject of secrecy. I want to be very clear that secrecy is my only target and the only thing this resolution eliminates. I fully support the fundamental right of individual Senators to hold or withhold his or her consent when unanimous consent is requested. Senators are not obligated to give their consent to anything they do not want to, and no Senator is entitled to get any other Senator's consent to their motion.

I think the best way to describe what we seek to do with this resolution is to explain historically how holds came into being, as Senators have heard me do before.

In the old days, when Senators conducted much of their business in a daily way from their desks on the Senate floor, it was a simple matter to stand up and say ``I object'' when necessary. These days, most Senators spend most of their time off the Senate floor. We are required to spend time in committee hearings, meetings with constituents, and attending to other duties that keep us away from this Chamber. As a result, we rely on our respective party leaders in the Senate to protect our rights and prerogatives as individual Senators by asking them to object on our behalf.

Just as any Senator has the right to stand up on the Senate floor and publicly 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 the same token, Senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while keeping their identity secret. If a Senator has a legitimate reason to object to proceeding to a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly.

We need have no fear of being held accountable by our constituents if we are acting in their interest as we were elected to do. Transparency is essential for accountability, and accountability is an essential component of our constitutional system. Transparency and accountability are also vital for the public to have faith in their government. As I have said many times, the people's business ought to be done in public. In my view, that principle is at stake.

I see my colleague from Oregon. If he will indulge me, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Oregon to get his thoughts as well.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. It certainly does. Even if the process we talked about is not followed, once a hold comes to light in the form of an objection, someone will be required to own up to that hold. It will no longer be possible for a leader or their designee to object but claim it is not their objection. They can say on whose behalf they are objecting and why not.

We also require Senators placing a hold to give their permission to object in their name.

Still, if a Senator objects and does not name another Senator as having the objection, and another Senator does not promptly come forward claiming the objection, the Senator making the objection will be listed in the relative section of the Senate calendar as having placed that hold.

I yield, for a final conclusion, to the Senator from Oregon.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. My colleague is correct and that is pretty straightforward. The Notice of Intent to Object calendar should reflect all of the matter necessary to understand holds. If no other Senator has come forth and claimed the objection, then the Senator who actually made the objection should be credited with holding the matter objected to. It is also worth noting that this approach saves a Senator who actually made an open objection on the floor on his or her own behalf the trouble of filing the ``Notice of Intent to Object'' with the clerk.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. I agree. If something has passed the Senate, then obviously it is not being held. The Notice of Intent to Object calendar should be updated to reflect that development. Some of my colleagues have raised another small wrinkle on this issue with me--what if the matter passes after an objection has been made but before the 2 session days have elapsed? It seems to me that in that case, the clerk does not need to go through the ministerial motion of adding an item to the Notice of Intent to Object calendar, only to immediately remove it. Again, if a matter has passed the Senate, there obviously is no hold.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, the time has come to end secrecy on the floor of the Senate. The time has come for Senators who think they ought to put a hold on a bill to be able to continue to put a hold on a bill or a nomination, but it is also time to show that you have guts enough to let the people know who you are and, more importantly, to let your colleagues know who you are. So if there is something wrong with a piece of legislation or a nomination, we can find out what it is and move the business of the Senate ahead.

This is something that is going to make the Senate a much more efficient place to work and get the people's business done, and it will do what is most important--the public's business in public.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source