[Congressional Record: May 13, 2010 (Senate)]
[Page S3664-S3711]                 



 
           RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010

		  [debate on "secret holds"]

[...]

  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I am going to speak for about 5 minutes 
on the effort to finally, once and for all, eliminate secret holds in 
the Senate. Senator Grassley, my partner in this effort for a decade, 
will also speak. Then, two colleagues on our side who are a part of 
this large, bipartisan coalition, Senator Whitehouse and Senator 
Bennet, and who also have done very good work along with Senator 
Grassley, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Collins, who have been part of a 
bipartisan coalition, will take just a few minutes.
  Let me also express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Dodd, Senator Durbin, and others who have been so helpful.
  This bipartisan amendment will abolish the secret hold in the Senate, 
which, in my view, is a violation--an indefensible violation--of the 
public's right to know. With a secret hold, any Senator can block a 
piece of legislation or a nomination in secret simply by telling the 
leader of their party of their desire. This means that one person, 
without any public disclosure whatsoever, can keep the American people 
from even getting a peek at what is public business.
  When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said: ``That's where 
the money is.'' In the Senate, secret holds are where the power is. 
With a secret hold, one of the most powerful tools a Senator has to 
affect the lives of our people can be exercised anonymously.
  In 2007, the Senate sought to eliminate secret holds. Since then, big 
loopholes have been developed to keep too much Senate business in the 
dark, unaccountable, and away from the public.
  This bipartisan amendment closes those loopholes. With this 
bipartisan proposal, every single hold in the Senate will have an owner 
who is public within 2 days. It is an amendment that will be enforced. 
Here is how it would work: If a Senator puts a hold on a bill or 
nomination, they are required to submit a written notice in the 
Congressional Record within 2 days. When that bill or nomination comes 
to the floor and any Senator objects to its consideration on the 
grounds of a hold, one of two things will happen: either the Senator 
placing the secret hold will have their name publicly released or the 
Senator who objects on their behalf will own that hold, and then that 
individual will have their name published in the Congressional Record. 
For the first time, there would be both public accountability and peer 
pressure on those trying to keep Senate business behind closed doors.
  The bipartisan proposal includes two additional reforms. First, the 
proposal eliminates the ability a Senator has today to lift a hold 
before the current 6-day period expires and never have it disclosed. 
This has been a huge abuse. It has allowed a Senator to do business in 
secret and never have it reported.
  With the new proposal, if a Senator places a hold--even for a day, 
even for a minute--that hold is going to be disclosed. Second, the 
proposal makes it harder for a group of Senators to place revolving 
holds on a nomination or a bill. I particularly thank Senator 
Whitehouse, who has highlighted this issue of revolving holds in his 
past comments on the floor. With the 6-day time period, a group of 
Senators can literally pass a hold from one colleague to another and 
never have it disclosed. By requiring all holds to be made public, it 
will be much more difficult to find new Senators to place revolving 
holds.
  What this comes down to is the question of whether public business 
ought to actually be done in public. It seems to me that if it is 
important enough for a Senator to say they are making it a priority to 
keep a bill or nomination from coming to a vote, that ought to be a 
public matter and not be something that is decided in the shadows, away 
from the public and unaccountable.
  I thank my colleagues. This has been part of a bipartisan coalition. 
No one has put more time into this cause than my friend from Iowa, 
Senator Grassley. I also thank Senator McCaskill, who has prosecuted 
this cause of accountability and openness relentlessly, along with 
Senators Warner, Whitehouse, Bennet, Inhofe, and Collins--I could go 
on.
  Finally, there is a desire in the Senate to eliminate secret holds 
once and for all. I will close with this. I don't think that 1 out of 
100 people in this country have any idea what a secret hold is. Most 
people probably think it is some kind of hairspray. It is one of the 
most powerful tools in our democracy that is being used to keep what is 
public business from the eyes of the American people, and it has to 
change.
  I will yield to my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Whitehouse, and 
Bennet. I thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for indulging us at 
this time. It seems to me that when Senator Dodd has done so much good 
in terms of arguing for openness and accountability on Wall Street, 
this is a perfect time to say we ought to have that in the Senate. That 
is what we are going to do on a bipartisan basis today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Iowa is 
recognized.
  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

[[Page S3666]]

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.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader is 
recognized.

[...]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I congratulate Senator Wyden and 
Senator Grassley for their long effort to eliminate the secret holds in 
this body. They thought they had succeeded in 2007 with a mechanism 
that would scrub secret holds and make them public after 6 days. But it 
turns out that a number of our colleagues on the other side discovered 
a loophole in the rule. Whether it is called the old switcheroo or 
revolving holds or hold laundering, they found a way to defeat the 
purpose of a rule that was voted for by 84 Members of the Senate on a 
strong bipartisan basis. That is why we are back here today.
  I want to also add to the role of honor on this subject Claire 
McCaskill, who has done the lion's share of the work of shepherding in 
some cases 100 stalled nominees blockaded on the Executive Calendar 
through those 2007 year procedures so that we could get to the point of 
proving that there were, in fact, secret holds and that despite the 
rule, hold laundering was taking place and the rule was not being put 
into effect and holds were being kept secret.
  I suppose an asterisk on the role of honor should go to Senator 
Coburn, who is the one Senator on the Republican side who had the 
courage to stand up and disclose his actual holds. Everybody else went 
to some other Senator and said: I don't want my name on this. Would you 
please take my hold over so I can avoid the rule, keep my hold, and 
have no accountability.
  Perhaps there once was a reason for a secret hold, for this kind of 
business to be done in the dark, in the shadows, and anonymously. I 
think history and common sense tell us that deeds that are done in the 
dark are not usually ones of which we are proud. Certainly, the 
experience of the last few months has shown that if there ever was a 
legitimate use for secret holds, that purpose has evaporated. It has 
evaporated under the pressure of blocked nominees numbering, in some 
cases, over 100--a systematic approach, a systematic attempt to disable 
this administration's ability to govern by systematically opposing 
nominees, irrespective of the merits; opposing nominees who came out of 
committee in a bipartisan fashion; opposing nominees who came out of 
committee with zero opposing votes; with Senators raising objections to 
nominees they voted for in committee. There is clearly something more 
going on than a sincere concern about an individual nominee.
  Finally, this effort to what I call hold launder and to avoid the 
rule 84 Senators stood up and voted for that does nothing more than put 
your hold in the plain light of day shows that the 2007 rule, 
unfortunately, has been ineffective and that it is time for a change.
  I have continuing gratitude for Senator Wyden, Senator Grassley, and 
for all those who have supported us on this issue and particularly for 
Senator McCaskill for her relentless presence on the floor, making this 
actually happen.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I join my colleagues in support of the 
effort Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley have led to end the corrosive 
practice of secret holds. This is a reform that is needed and cannot 
wait.
  I have been in Washington for only about a year, but it did not take 
that long to realize our government needs to fundamentally change the 
way it does business. Coloradans deserve a government that works for 
them. They are tired of the petty partisanship in Washington. They want 
their elected officials to listen and address their day-to-day 
concerns. I cannot think of a worse example of this dysfunction than 
the secret hold. It is undemocratic, and it is hurting our economy.
  Quite a few of us in the Senate--the chairman and I--have young 
daughters, young kids who are familiar with the ups and downs of a long 
car ride heading out on vacation. The first hour always seems to go 
pretty well, full of excitement about where everybody is headed. But it 
is not long before that excitement turns to restlessness and that 
restlessness turns to secretly doing everything they can to bother 
their siblings just for the sake of doing it. And every time you turn 
around, they stop and smile and claim their innocence.
  It never occurred to me that experience would actually prepare me to 
come to the Senate. Countless nominations and important legislation 
make their way to the floor. Senators make speeches about the 
importance of doing the country's business, appearing motivated to get 
the job done, to get the American people's work done. But when the 
cameras are off, they use the secret hold to bring this progress to a 
stop.
  Since I have been here, I have seen nominees and bipartisan 
legislation held up for weeks, only to pass with 97 or 98 votes, all to 
score political points and waste the American people's time and the 
American people's money.
  Earlier this year, we spent months working to reform health care. We 
have spent a lot of time under the chairman's leadership trying to fix 
Wall Street. It is past time we fix the way Washington works as well.
  Congress must stop living under a glass dome. The Wyden-Grassley 
amendment is simple. It requires any Senator seeking to hold up the 
Nation's business to publicly announce his or her hold. All holds 
should be in writing, made public for the other 99 of us and, most 
importantly, for the American people so they can render their own 
judgment.
  While I support this amendment, I have legislation that would go even 
further. My legislation would not only end secret holds, as this 
amendment does, but also require that any hold be bipartisan or else it 
expires after 2 legislative days. All holds, public or private, would 
expire in 30 days. At that point, the pending business would be ready 
to be considered on the Senate floor.
  The Senate was designed to be the greatest deliberative body in the 
world. Let's have the debate and put an end to these secretive attempts 
to prevent debate.
  Once again, I thank Senators Wyden and Grassley for their leadership 
and look forward to the passage of this amendment. I also wish to 
recognize the great work our colleague from Missouri, Claire McCaskill, 
has done bringing this legislation to this point.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Madam President, first, let me say how grateful I am 
to Senator Cornyn for his patience. I will try to be very brief because 
I know he is waiting to address the underlying bill.
  I think everything that needs to be said has been said. I will be 
interested in this vote because there is a group of people right now 
who voted for a rule that simply said: You have to disclose your secret 
holds if a certain procedure takes place. There are a bunch of people 
who voted for that who are not doing it. I do not know how that 
computes in the mind of a U.S. Senator. I do not know how you vote for 
a rule that requires you to disclose and then you knowingly continue to 
keep a hold secret.
  I had a colleague tell me the other day they had talked with a 
colleague across the aisle about a couple of judges they desperately 
wanted to get released from the land of secret holds. This colleague 
visited with a Republican about it, and the Republican told her: The 
leader says he has to get something for it. You have to get something 
for it? Have we come to that, that you get to hold on to someone whose 
life is in limbo to be a U.S. district judge until you get something 
for it? That is not the way the American people want us to operate 
around here.
  I know Senator Grassley and Senator Wyden have toiled in this field 
for a long time. I appreciate their efforts. I thank all my colleagues 
who have been helpful in us bringing this to the attention of the 
American people. We now have 60 Senators who have signed a letter 
saying they will never engage in secret holds and they want them 
completely abolished. The Wyden-Grassley approach is almost as good as

[[Page S3668]]

never. It is a very limited window, and I pray that it will work. I had 
been wildly optimistic it would work right after I voted for the rule 
back in 2007. I thought, this is all it is going to take. I am not as 
optimistic, frankly, right now. Games may still be played. I think we 
have to get to 67 names on that letter.
  The American people have to rise with their pitch forks, the way they 
are in so many other ways, and say: Enough already. Stop this 
incredibly bad habit of thinking you can hold up nominations just 
because you feel like it and never have to own it.
  I encourage everyone to vote for the Wyden-Grassley amendment. I 
appreciate Senator Cornyn's patience with us this morning. I look 
forward to a vote on this amendment. I really want to find out who is 
secretly holding right now, who votes for this amendment, and how they 
reconcile those two things.

[...]


          Amendments Nos. 4019 and 3987 to Amendment No. 3739

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendment be set aside so that I may call up Senator Wyden's amendment 
No. 4019 and Senator Thune's amendment No. 3987.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Wyden, for 
     himself, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Bennett, Ms. Collins, 
     Mr. Udall of Colorado, Mr. Brown of Ohio, and Mr. Merkley, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 4019 to amendment No. 3739.

  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To establish as a standing order of the Senate that a Senator 
  publicly disclose a notice of intent to objecting to any measure or 
                                matter)

       At the end of the amendment, insert the following:

     SEC. __. ELIMINATING SECRET SENATE HOLDS.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Covered request.--This standing order shall apply to a 
     notice of intent to object to the following covered requests:
       (A) A unanimous consent request to proceed to a bill, 
     resolution, joint resolution, concurrent resolution, 
     conference report, or amendment between the Houses.
       (B) A unanimous consent request to pass a bill or joint 
     resolution or adopt a resolution, concurrent resolution, 
     conference report, or the disposition of an amendment between 
     the Houses.
       (C) A unanimous consent request for disposition of a 
     nomination.
       (2) Recognition of notice of intent.--The majority and 
     minority leaders of the Senate or their designees shall 
     recognize a notice of intent to object to a covered request 
     of a Senator who is a member of their caucus if the Senator--
       (A) submits the notice of intent to object in writing to 
     the appropriate leader and grants in the notice of intent to 
     object permission for the leader or designee to object in the 
     Senator's name; and
       (B) not later than 2 session days after submitting the 
     notice of intent to object to the appropriate leader, submits 
     a copy of the notice of intent to object to the Congressional 
     Record and to the Legislative Clerk for inclusion in the 
     applicable calendar section described in subsection (b).
       (3) Form of notice.--To be recognized by the appropriate 
     leader a Senator shall submit the following notice of intent 
     to object:
       ``I, Senator _______, intend to object to ________, dated 
     _______. I will submit a copy of this notice to the 
     Legislative Clerk and the Congressional Record within 2 
     session days and I give my permission to the objecting 
     Senator to object in my name.'' The first blank shall be 
     filled with the name of the Senator, the second blank shall 
     be filled with the name of the covered request, the name of 
     the measure or matter and, if applicable, the calendar 
     number, and the third blank shall be filled with the date 
     that the notice of intent to object is submitted.
       (b) Calendar.--Upon receiving the submission under 
     subsection (a)(2)(B), the Legislative Clerk shall add the 
     information from the notice of intent to object to the 
     applicable Calendar section entitled ``Notices of Intent to 
     Object to Proceeding'' created by Public Law 110-81. Each 
     section shall include the name of each Senator filing a 
     notice under subsection (a)(2)(B), the measure or matter 
     covered by the calendar to which the notice of intent to 
     object relates, and the date the notice of intent to object 
     was filed.
       (c) Removal.--A Senator may have a notice of intent to 
     object relating to that Senator removed from a calendar to 
     which it was added under subsection (b) by submitting for 
     inclusion in the Congressional Record the following notice:
       ``I, Senator _____, do not object to _______, dated 
     _____.'' The first blank shall be filled with the name of the 
     Senator, the second blank shall be filled with the name of 
     the covered request, the name of the measure or matter and, 
     if applicable, the calendar number, and the third blank shall 
     be filled with the date of the submission to the 
     Congressional Record under this subsection.
       (d) Objecting on Behalf of a Member.--If a Senator who has 
     notified his or her leader of an intent to object to a 
     covered request fails to submit a notice of intent to object 
     under subsection (a)(2)(B) within 2 session days following an 
     objection to a covered request by the leader or his or her 
     designee on that Senator's behalf, the Legislative Clerk 
     shall list the Senator who made the objection to the covered 
     request in the applicable ``Notice of Intent to Object to 
     Proceeding'' calendar section.

  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Dodd], for Mr. Thune, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3987 to amendment No. 3739.

  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for increased Congressional oversight through a 
 sunset of the authority created under title X related to the creation 
            of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection)

       On page 1208, between lines 12 and 13, insert the 
     following:
       (f) Expiration.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     this Act, the Bureau, and the authority of the Bureau under 
     this title, shall terminate 4 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, unless extended by an Act of Congress.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask the senior Senator from Oregon, does 
he want to be heard on his amendment?
  Mr. WYDEN. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.

                           Amendment No. 4019

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, thank you very much.
  Let me particularly express my appreciation to the chairman of the 
full committee, Senator Dodd. He has been extraordinarily patient, and 
especially with the large bipartisan coalition that has come together 
behind this amendment to ensure that finally the secret hold in the 
Senate--one of the most powerful tools a Senator has in the Senate--is 
no longer.
  I say to the Presiding Officer, you have done very good work on this 
issue, along with a number of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 
The reason we feel so strongly is because the secret hold in the Senate 
is an indefensible violation of the public's right to know.
  We all understand every time we are home in our States how frustrated 
people are with the way business is done in Washington, DC. One way to 
send a message we are going to start doing business differently is to 
throw open the doors of government and to make sure nominations and 
legislation that is important gets debated in public, and people 
actually get to see the give-and-take of colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle--Democrats and Republicans--that is essential to making good 
policy.
  Most Americans have no idea what a secret hold is, and I have said on 
many occasions that my guess is a lot of them think this is some kind 
of hair spray or something. But the fact is, this is an extraordinary 
tool that Senators have to effect the lives of our people, and it ought 
to be something that is exposed to public scrutiny and public 
accountability.
  When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said: That is where the 
money is. In the Senate, secret holds are where the power is.
  What our bipartisan group has said is, it is wrong for a Senator to 
block a piece of legislation or a nomination in secret by simply 
telling the leader of their party of their desire. What this has 
meant--and there have been scores and scores of these secret holds in 
recent years--is that one person, without any public disclosure 
whatsoever, can keep the American people from even getting a small peek 
at what is public business. That is not right, and it is time to 
eliminate secret holds.
  In 2007, Senators on both sides of the aisle sought to finally bring 
some sunlight to this practice. Senator Grassley, the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa, and I have worked on this for over a decade. 
Unfortunately, a number of loopholes have been developed since that 
provision was accepted, and today too much Senate business is done in 
the dark, unaccountable, and away from public scrutiny and public 
exposure.
  This amendment closes the loopholes, and it is going to be enforced.

[[Page S3694]]

With this approach, every hold--every single hold--is going to have a 
public owner within 2 days.
  I want to close by just briefly describing how this would work. Under 
this proposal, if a Senator puts a hold on a bill or a nomination, they 
are required to submit a written notice in the Congressional Record 
within 2 days. When that bill or nomination comes to the floor, and any 
Senator objects to its consideration on the grounds of a hold, one of 
two things is going to happen: either the Senator placing the secret 
hold is going to have their name publicly released, or the Senator who 
objected on their behalf is going to own that hold. That Senator will 
own it. Their name is going to be published in the congressional 
calendar.
  So for the first time--after all of these months and months of debate 
about secret holds in the Senate--there is going to be public pressure 
and peer pressure on those who try to do Senate business behind closed 
doors.
  Two last points with respect to reforms included in this amendment: 
The proposal eliminates the ability that a Senator now has to lift a 
hold before the current 6-day period expires and never have it 
disclosed.
  The Presiding Officer and I have talked a bit about this matter of 
revolving holds in a 6-day period. This has been a huge abuse. It has 
allowed a Senator to do business in secret and never have it recorded. 
With this new bipartisan proposal, if a Senator places a hold, even for 
a day, even for a minute, the hold is going to be disclosed.
  Finally, the proposal makes it harder for a group of Senators to 
replace revolving holds on a nomination or bill. With the 6-day time 
period, a group of Senators can pass a hold from one colleague to 
another and never have it discussed. By requiring all holds to be made 
public, it will be much more difficult to find new Senators to place 
revolving holds.
  The last point: It seems to me, in addition to taking a step the 
country feels very strongly about, which is doing more public business 
in public, this is being done in a bipartisan way. This is being done 
in a way that can bring Democrats and Republicans together, in a way 
that doesn't involve a lot of fingerpointing. I wish to mention a 
number of colleagues: the Presiding Officer, the distinguished Senator 
from Virginia, has been very constructive and has had many 
conversations with me about this; Senator Inhofe, Senator Collins, and 
Senator Grassley. Senator Inhofe has been talking about this issue with 
me and others for almost a decade as well. Senator Bennet, Senator 
Merkley, Senator Whitehouse, all of these Senators, a large, bipartisan 
group come together to urge the passage of this amendment. I want to 
single out too, though, for particular commendation, Mrs. McCaskill, 
the Senator from Missouri, because we wouldn't be on this floor today 
had not the Senator from Missouri prosecuted this cause relentlessly. 
She has brought to light the number of holds. When we have talked about 
it, she has made the point that this has gone on on both sides of the 
aisle. She deserves great credit for this reform being made today.
  Let me also thank Senator Coburn--Dr. Coburn--of Oklahoma. He has 
been very involved in reform issues for many years. We are looking 
forward to an additional reform he is going to be advancing that I look 
forward to sponsoring.
  I wrap up only by way of trying to highlight that after the Senate 
has spent a lot of time discussing secret holds over the last few 
months, on a bipartisan basis, the Senate comes together today with an 
approach that has actually brought Senators together and is going to 
ensure that every single secret hold is going to have an owner. That is 
going to be a big change. It is high time. The public deserves to have 
public business actually done in public, and with the adoption of this 
amendment, that will be done.
  The chairman of the full committee has been very gracious to me. I 
wish to ask for the yeas and nays at this time, and I wish to engage 
the chairman of the full committee in a colloquy. The chairman has been 
very helpful with respect to scheduling this.
  Is it the pleasure of the chairman of the committee that now, having 
debated this, we set it aside for a vote later in the day?
  Mr. DODD. My pleasure is we have the vote on the Wyden-Grassley 
amendment. So whenever that can occur, I am for it. We can do it right 
now. I am for it now.
  Mr. WYDEN. I am ready to go to the yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  Mr. President, I withdraw that request. I thank the chairman of the 
committee.
  Mr. DODD. It is not my sole decision, of course.
  Mr. WYDEN. The chairman of the full committee has been very patient 
with us. He has done an extraordinary amount of work. Let us, with that 
request, hold off on the yeas and nays, and I ask the chairman that it 
be scheduled with the next group of votes.
  Mr. DODD. I can say to my colleague from Oregon that I expect 
momentarily we will work out some time agreements and we will schedule 
a vote fairly quickly.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the chairman.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.

[...]

                Amendment No. 3852 to Amendment No. 4019

  Mr. DeMINT. Madam President, I call for the regular order with 
respect to the Wyden amendment No. 4019 and call up my amendment No. 
3852 as a second-degree amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from South Carolina [Mr. DeMint], for himself 
     and Mr. Vitter, proposes an amendment numbered 3852 to 
     amendment No. 4019.

  Mr. DeMINT. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To require the completion of the 700-mile southwest border 
  fence not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 
                                  Act)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

[[Page S3700]]

     SEC. __. BORDER FENCE COMPLETION.

       (a) Minimum Requirements.--Section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal 
     Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 
     (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by adding at the end the 
     following: ``Fencing that does not effectively restrain 
     pedestrian traffic (such as vehicle barriers and virtual 
     fencing) may not be used to meet the 700-mile fence 
     requirement under this subparagraph.'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B)--
       (A) in clause (i), by striking ``and'' at the end;
       (B) in clause (ii), by striking the period at the end and 
     inserting ``; and''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(iii) not later than 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act 
     of 2010, complete the construction of all the reinforced 
     fencing and the installation of the related equipment 
     described in subparagraph (A).''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (C), by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(iii) Funding not contingent on consultation.--Amounts 
     appropriated to carry out this paragraph may not be impounded 
     or otherwise withheld for failure to fully comply with the 
     consultation requirement under clause (i).''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act 
     of 2010, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit a 
     report to Congress that describes--
       (1) the progress made in completing the reinforced fencing 
     required under section 102(b)(1) of the Illegal Immigration 
     Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 
     1103 note), as amended by this section; and
       (2) the plans for completing such fencing not later than 1 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. DeMINT. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business for up to 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[...]

                     Amendment No. 4019, Withdrawn

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The DeMint amendment is pending for the Dodd-
Wyden first-degree amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I now withdraw the Wyden amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is withdrawn.

[...]

                              Secret Holds

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, the American people are 
furious at the way business is done in Washington, DC. Today, on the 
floor of the Senate, we saw a pretty good reason why.
  For many months, a large group of Senators on both sides of the 
aisle--Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, Senator Collins, and Senator 
Bennett, among the Republicans; a host of my colleagues on our side of 
the aisle, led by Senator McCaskill--have been working to try to 
eliminate the secret hold in the Senate, which is, in my view, one of 
the most pernicious, most antidemocratic practices in government.
  What the secret hold allows is for just one Senator--just one--to 
anonymously keep the American people from getting any sense of a 
particular piece of legislation, someone who has been nominated for an 
appointment--any sense of some of the most important business that is 
before the Senate.
  The Senator from Missouri, who is in the Chamber, has noted that at 
times there are scores and scores of these secret holds. I have pointed 
out this has happened for years on both sides of the aisle.

[[Page S3706]]

  So this has been an opportunity, when the country is crying out for 
bipartisanship, for Democrats and Republicans to together--as our large 
group has done--fix this, to open our government, to ensure that 
democracy is accountable, and that public business is actually done in 
public.
  Until about an hour or so ago, I thought we would win a dramatic 
victory for the cause of open government. We had a good debate this 
morning on the measure. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle talked 
about it.
  Not one Senator objected, not one was willing to say in public they 
were in favor of secret holds. Quite the opposite: We talked for some 
time, and no one objected at all. We were under the impression that the 
matter would be scheduled for a vote this afternoon.
  Given that, I was flabbergasted that right before it was time to 
vote, one Senator--just one--without any notice whatever--no notice to 
me, no notice to any of the other sponsors, sponsors on the other side 
of the aisle--one Senator sought to attach to our amendment, which 
would have received a resounding vote because Senators are not going to 
vote in favor of secrecy when they are on the record--one Senator 
attached a completely unrelated matter, a very controversial matter.
  I say to the Chair, I say to all my colleagues, I never, ever would 
have done that to another colleague. I have felt for many years now 
that the great challenge in the Senate is to have colleagues work 
together, to have colleagues come together on both sides, because that 
is going to help us advance the cause of open government, it is going 
to help us get the best possible policy.
  So if I had been in our colleague's shoes, and I was interested in 
advancing this other issue, I would have come to that particular 
Senator and said: How can we work this out? That did not happen. So all 
of us, at the last minute, when we were looking forward to celebrating 
what, in my view, would have been a historic vote for open government, 
after all these months of Democrats and Republicans debating secrecy in 
government, we now sit here on Thursday evening, with secrecy having 
won once more, doing government in the shadows winning once more, 
denying the American people the accountability this institution is all 
about winning once again.
  I think the American people deserve better. We spent a lot of time 
today bringing all sides together. The chairman of the committee, 
Senator Dodd, is here with us. The whole essence of the Wall Street 
legislation has been to ensure more openness and more accountability in 
these essential financial transactions. Chairman Dodd has done a superb 
job in advancing that case.
  What Senators on both sides of the aisle sought to do, until there 
was an objection from one Senator at the last minute--with no notice--
what we sought to do was to say: If we are going to open our system of 
financial transactions so there would be more transparency and more 
accountability, let's also open the way we do business in the Senate so 
the American people are not kept in the dark any longer about major 
judgments with respect to legislation or nominations. One Senator--just 
one--without notice, kept us from bringing that new accountability and 
openness to the Senate.
  I know colleagues want to bring up other matters. I simply wish to 
say--I think I have been in this body now for a little over a decade--I 
cannot recall another instance where the cause of open government took 
a beating, took a blindsiding, like the cause of open government took 
this afternoon.
  I wish to tell my colleagues, I intend to come back to my post here 
again and again and again until we abolish the secret hold, until we 
ensure that the American people see that government is being brought 
out of the shadows and debates are out in the open, where they ought to 
be.
  We did not win this afternoon because I think we got kneecapped. I do 
not know how to describe it any other way. But I do not think, at this 
time in American history, where the American people are this angry--
this angry--at the way Washington, DC, does business, that those who 
advocate secrecy are on the right side of history. I do not think they 
are going to be able to defend in broad daylight opposing a bipartisan 
coalition.
  Senator Grassley has worked with me on this for a decade. He has, 
again and again, championed the cause of transparency and openness in 
government, not just on this question of abolishing secret holds but on 
inspectors general and a variety of other practices.
  So these are colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--who want to show 
the American people they are going to stand for open government, and 
they are going to do it in a way where the American people will say: 
Those folks finally get it. Instead of spending their time in these 
petty food fights, they are a group of Democrats and Republicans who 
acted like adults and got together and solved a major problem--a major 
problem--by eliminating secrecy and making government more open.
  So it is my intent to come back, if possible, day in and day out 
until this changes. I think this is unconscionable. I can tell you, I 
have never seen anything like this in my time in the Senate: one 
Senator coming in, at the last moment, with no notice, trying to derail 
the cause of open government.
  I am not going to stand for it. I do not think the American people 
are going to stand for it. We will be back here for as long as it takes 
to bring some real sunshine to this cause of the Senate doing its 
business in public rather than in the shadows.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. McCASKILL. Mr. President, I know someone is going to be able to 
use the figleaf and stand behind the argument that the amendment that 
was offered at the very last moment this afternoon was about something 
they cared about and something we need to vote on. It is a subject 
matter we care about that we need to work on. But really? It is pretty 
transparent what is going on here: that at the very last moment, when 
all of a sudden we were this close for everyone having to go on record 
about secret holds, that someone shot it out of the sky like a clay 
pigeon. That is what this amendment did.
  So the argument is: Well, the Wyden-Grassley amendment on secret 
holds is not really about the financial reform bill. Why does it get a 
chance to be voted on? It is very simple. The reason the Wyden-Grassley 
amendment should be considered germane to every bill we debate in this 
body is because it is about the way we do business. Every day that goes 
by that we do not try to reform this nasty habit of secret holds, we 
diminish the shine and the glory that is our democracy. We diminish 
what this body should stand for and what our priorities should be. 
Every day we allow the secret hold process to continue to take root and 
grow and flourish, we are failing in our job as Senators who are here 
to do the public's business.

  We are not here to go in back rooms and get something for our secret 
hold. We are not here to go in back rooms and leverage our secret hold 
for something else we want. We are not here to go in back rooms and 
have secret holds to keep this administration from succeeding or 
filling the jobs that need to be filled. We are here to be accountable.
  Of all the amendments out there that can be second degreed, this 
amendment that would reform our process is selected to slow it down and 
obviously, hopefully, kill it. Well, I have bad news for my friends 
across the aisle who want to kill the longstanding attempts of Senators 
Wyden and Grassley at reform, and my recent attempts, along with 
Senator Bennet, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Udall, Senator Warner, and 
others who have come to the floor and spoken on secret holds: We are 
not going anywhere. It is probably a fault I have, but I am pretty darn 
stubborn. In fact, I am probably stubborn to a fault. I think this is 
something we all ought to be stubborn about.
  We have different kinds of Senators. We have some who are kind of 
feeling as though they are being marched to the gallows as they 
grudgingly support cleaning up secret holds. We have others who want to 
pound their chests and shout from the rooftops about trying

[[Page S3707]]

to get rid of secret holds. And we have others who are hiding in the 
crevices, the little, bitty, tiny dark places, who are trying to keep 
secret holds without anybody knowing who they are.
  I will say this. One can make the assumption that whoever offered 
this amendment to try to kill this amendment probably is a big fan of 
secret holds. Because it seems to me if they wanted this amendment to 
pass, they would have at least talked to the sponsors before they 
offered the second-degree amendment. That is the common courtesy around 
here; they would have at least given everyone some notice. But they saw 
this amendment speeding toward the finish line. They realized they were 
going to be called for the yeas and nays on reforming the Senate, and 
they decided to take the path of least resistance and that is try to 
kill the bill another way.
  But along with my colleague and mentor on this subject, Senator 
Wyden, and Senator Grassley, whom I have met with a number of times 
over the last week, we are going to stay with it. I know I speak for my 
colleagues who have been here 4 years or less, the freshmen and 
sophomores in this body. I know how strongly we feel about this.
  I wish to remind my colleagues, if I am wrong about you, if you are 
against secret holds, the letter is still open. We have 60 Members who 
have signed the letter. Sixty Members of this body, all of the 
Democrats but one, both of the Independents, and now two Republicans 
have signed the letter saying we will not exercise a secret hold and we 
want to abolish secret holds. I look forward to seeing my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle, more Republicans joining in the signing of 
this letter. It is available. I hope they will contact us. Senator 
Warner, Senator Whitehouse, and I are the lead signators on this 
letter. But it is time for everyone--by the way, if we get to 67 
signatures, guess what we can do. We can amend the standing rules of 
this place. We could say that an objection will not be in order if it 
is anonymous. We could do that with 67 votes. What a great day that 
would be. Wouldn't that be a wake-up call to the American people that 
maybe we get it. Maybe we get why our approval ratings of Congress are 
near historic lows for all the nonsense, ridiculous games that get 
played around here.
  Let's do the public's business and let's do it in public and let's 
end the secret holds, the nasty habit we can no longer afford.
  I will look forward to visiting with my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle and see if we can prevail upon them to withdraw their 
second-degree amendment so we can go forward or find some other way 
forward. But make no mistake, we will find a way forward and we will 
end the secret hold. I am confident it will happen. So you can fight as 
long and as hard as you want, but we are not going to give up.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes. I have 
been here a smaller amount of time than anybody who is on this floor. 
The chairman has been here longer than I have been here; Senator Wyden, 
Senator McCaskill, and others. I have been here about 15 months. What I 
can tell my colleagues is that this place doesn't operate like any 
other place in the universe. This secret hold business we are talking 
about right now, so people understand, allows a Senator to be able to 
hold up a nomination or a piece of legislation without having to tell 
anybody who they are. I spent half my career in business. No business I 
have would have ever tolerated a rule such as that. I have worked in 
local government. No local government I have ever been part of would 
have tolerated a rule such as that. There are city councils and State 
governments, county governments all over this country right now--by the 
way, they are probably still at work, unlike us, trying to figure out 
how to balance their budgets in the most savage economy since the Great 
Depression. They are not using secret holds to stop their ability to 
respond to the American people, and we shouldn't either.
  One of the things I want to say is that Senator Wyden should be 
congratulated, because this is not a partisan piece of legislation. The 
No. 1 question I hear from people when I go home is, Why can't you guys 
work together? We lack confidence in what you are doing. There are 
Democrats, Republicans, unaffiliated voters who say, Why can't you work 
together? It looks like a partisan food fight back here because it is, 
but it is a little more complicated than that. In this case, we have a 
bipartisan piece of legislation that has broad support in this Chamber, 
as do the nominees who are being held up whom we have brought forward. 
We haven't brought forward nominees who got just Democratic votes; they 
are nominees who were passed out of the relevant committee of 
jurisdiction on a bipartisan basis, and somebody has decided that they 
want to hold these people up for reasons that have nothing to do with 
the quality of the nominees or because they were passed out on a 
partisan way, which they weren't. They are bipartisan.
  So this isn't about everybody on the other side of the aisle holding 
up this legislation. This is bipartisan legislation. We should be here 
tonight. It is only 7:30. We should be here tonight debating this 
amendment, allowing people to come together in a bipartisan way to 
support the amendment, just as we should allow people to come together 
in a bipartisan way to support the nominees who have come forward and 
passed out of committee. There is no difference. The difference is that 
this rule allows some individuals to bring it to a grinding halt, to 
create more division rather than less division which, at least in my 
view, is what we need as a country.
  In my State, no matter where I am--in blue parts of the State, in red 
parts of the State--my sense is that people have a pretty common set of 
aspirations for our State, for our country, for their kids, for our 
grandkids. They expect us to act on those aspirations rather than on 
the divisions that are so easy to create for just political gain. That 
is what has been happening when it comes to these secret holds. There 
are other issues as well that relate to the rules of this place that 
need to be changed, but this is one that is indefensible.
  I came to the floor this morning and I said it reminds me a little 
bit of a car trip with my three little girls who are 10, 9, and 5. It 
happens every single time we are in the car: The first hour goes great; 
everybody is fine. But then they start to fret with each other, they 
get frustrated with each other. You can hear it. Any parent knows, the 
hair on the back of your neck starts to rise, and you know something 
bad is about to happen, and it does. Usually somebody slugs somebody 
else, and then you look behind you and no one will admit what they have 
done. No one will take responsibility for their bad act. We don't 
tolerate that in my household, by the way. We try hard to get to the 
bottom and the truth. We don't always, but we usually do.
  This is the same thing. I am not saying people shouldn't be able to 
hold things up on the merits, but they ought to have to come to the 
floor and tell the American people who they are and why they are 
holding it up. They may have good arguments to make. That is what this 
is about. It is about debate, and that is what we need more of in this 
country because we are wasting the American people's time. We are 
wasting the American people's money, and we can't even get a debate on 
a lot of the issues this country faces.
  I am going to try hard to do everything I can to contribute to a 
civil debate rather than an uncivil debate, and I think getting rid of 
these holds is going to be one of the ways forward. It is not the only 
thing we need to do.
  I wish to thank Senator Wyden for all of his good work on this issue, 
and Senator Whitehouse for his good work, and the chairman's indulgence 
for letting us have this conversation tonight. Thanks for everything 
you have done to advance Wall Street reform this week.
  By the way, on that, the American people should know that this bill, 
the Wall Street reform bill, is a very good bill. Unlike some other 
work we have done recently, it actually has the benefit of being worked 
on in a very bipartisan way, with a lot of amendments from Democrats 
and Republicans which I think have improved the legislation. I can't 
predict the future, but my guess is that it is going to pass with broad 
bipartisan support.

[[Page S3708]]

  I congratulate Chairman Dodd on his leadership and getting that done 
in a way that gives the American people confidence that we are actually 
doing their business.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in 
expressing our support for Senator Wyden's continued efforts to get 
this rule changed.
  The circumstances in which these secret holds take place are quite 
remarkable. Over and over again we see a committee vote clearing a 
nominee for the floor, often unanimously, or by heavy, huge bipartisan 
majorities; clearly qualified candidates; clearly candidates who enjoy 
bipartisan support and, in many cases, candidates who are unanimously 
supported. Even in this contentious and cantankerous time in this body, 
they come through the committee with that kind of support.
  Then they come through on the floor in some cases 98 to 0, 100 to 0. 
But between that unanimous committee vote and the unanimous floor vote 
is an endless, endless, endless delay. Many of them stack up and never 
get that floor vote. We have had as many as 100 stacked up, waiting for 
that floor vote on the Executive calendar.
  What is happening between a unanimous committee vote and a unanimous 
floor vote that creates all this hassle and delay and leaves people in 
limbo for months and months, 100 at a time on the Executive calendar, 
all of whom are in responsible positions in our Federal Government that 
we need to have staffed? It is the secret hold. It is the secret hold 
where you don't have to disclose who you are so you don't have to 
disclose why you are holding. Because you don't have to disclose who 
you are or why you are holding, you don't have to have a good reason. 
You could have a downright nefarious reason and you could still use the 
hold. It is pretty widely known that deeds that are done in the dark 
are not the deeds we are proud of, and this is a deed that is by 
definition always done in the dark. Senator Wyden and Senator 
Grassley's long efforts to get rid of it are very commendable. We are 
going to work very hard to make sure we have their back on this rule.
  In this particular circumstance, Senator Wyden has been here 14 
years. He has never seen a stunt like this one. I have only been here 3 
years; I can't say that. But 14 years of service in the Senate and he 
has never seen a stunt like this particular one.
  The idea that this is on the merits, the idea that this is about 
trying to get a vote on that second-degree amendment, seems mighty 
improbable. Of all of the amendments on this bill, of all of the 
amendments we have voted on, of all the amendments that are pending, of 
all the amendments people are arguing for to get on the floor, which is 
the one amendment that somebody chose to drop this second-degree 
amendment on and jam up its passage through this body?
  Which is the one? It is the secret hold. In kind of a perverse way, 
it is actually sort of appropriate that a procedural vehicle, the 
secret hold, that has such an odor of mischief around it--that the 
reform of that should itself be blockaded by a procedural trick that 
also has that same odor of mischief about it.
  But what we want to do is get through that mischief so that the 
business of this body no longer wreaks of the odor of mischief and 
instead gives off the healthy air of open debate and public process and 
transparency. I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Grassley, who is not on 
the floor. We will continue to push on this.

[...]





[Congressional Record: May 17, 2010 (Senate)]
[Page S3801-S3819]

[...]

                Amendment No. 4056 to Amendment No. 3739

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment 
offered by Senators Bond, Warner, Corker, and myself be considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement 
be modified to include the Wyden-Grassley amendment No. 4019 to finally 
end secret holds and add that amendment to the list of amendments 
included in the agreement.
  I point out that last Thursday, the Wyden-Grassley amendment was 
pending to the financial reform bill, and it was ready for a vote by 
the Senate. Then at the last minute, out of nowhere, this bipartisan 
effort was blindsided without any notice whatever by a second-degree 
amendment that effectively prevented a vote to open government and end 
secret holds.
  In light of what happened, I think it is only fair that this 
bipartisan amendment be given the opportunity for a vote as part of 
this consent agreement.
  I also wish to make it clear that, in my view, anyone who objects to 
adding the bipartisan Wyden-Grassley amendment to this agreement is 
objecting to ending secret holds. They are objecting to even have a 
vote in the Senate on ending secret holds, therefore, allowing the 
Senate to continue to operate in secret and against ending this 
indefensible denial of the public's right to know.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that the agreement be modified to 
add the Wyden-Grassley amendment to end secret holds, and it is No. 
4019.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Mr. RISCH. Reserving the right to object, I do not have any problem 
with the substance, but I know Senator DeMint has serious issues with 
it. We would like to have an opportunity to talk with him.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have the floor.
  Mr. RISCH. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

[...]

                           Amendment No. 4019

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee. I 
intend to be very brief in my comments tonight. I thank the chairman 
for his indulgence.
  I note that Senator Grassley, who is on the floor, and I have 
prosecuted this cause for more open government in the Senate for over a 
decade. Senator McCaskill is here. She has tried relentlessly to do the 
same thing. I think it is very regrettable, because we have seen, once 
again, tonight, as we did on Thursday, that defenders of secret holds 
in the Senate continue to pull out all the stops, employ every tool in 
the toolbox to throw a monkey wrench into the effort to open the Senate 
to transparency and accountability.
  This has been a bipartisan effort. It has always been a bipartisan 
effort. I particularly credit my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley, 
because when we talked about this over a decade, the two of us said we 
are going to make this bipartisan every step of the way because 
sometimes in the Senate you are in the minority, sometimes you are in 
the Senate as part of the majority, but the cause of open and 
transparent government ought to be available all the time. It should 
not matter who is in the majority and who is in the minority.
  I will say the American people are furious at the way business is 
done in Washington, DC. The fact that it has been impossible to even 
get an up-or-down vote on doing Senate business in public is a textbook 
case of why people are so angry.
  It is my intent to come with colleagues to the floor again and again 
and try to make sure that once and for all we change this pernicious 
practice, a practice that, in my view, is an indefensible violation of 
the public's right to know.
  At a minimum, every Senator ought to be on record publicly with 
respect to how they feel about doing the Senate's business in public. 
That is what this is all about.
  This is not complicated. A hold is one of the most powerful tools a 
Senator has. With a secret hold, one colleague can keep the American 
people from even getting a peak at important Senate business. That is 
not right. That is not accountable government. That is not transparent 
government.
  What we ought to do--and I commend particularly Senator Grassley, 
Senator Inhofe, and Senator Collins on the other side of the aisle; 
Senator Udall has joined me in this effort, Senator Bennet--we have 
made this bipartisan every step of the way. It is time for an up-or-
down vote in the Senate with respect to ending secret holds.
  We have not even been able to get a direct vote, though we have been 
working now for weeks and weeks on a measure that is bipartisan. The 
American people want public business done in public, and they certainly 
want Democrats and Republicans to come together. That is what Senator 
Grassley and I have sought to do.
  It is unfortunate that, once again, there has been an objection 
tonight to doing public business in public. That is something that 
ought to change around here. There is a bipartisan group of us who are 
going to stay with it until it does.
  I particularly thank the bipartisan group of colleagues on the floor 
tonight, led by Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill. We will be 
back, and we will be back at it until there is the kind of transparency 
and openness in the way the Senate does business so, once and for all, 
every hold in the Senate has a public owner. That is what this is all 
about. If you want to put a hold on a bill or a measure, as Senator 
Grassley has said, you ought to have the guts to go public. Every hold 
ought to have a public owner. We are going to stay with it until that 
happens.
  I express my appreciation again to the chairman of the Banking 
Committee who has, at a time when he has a very important piece of 
legislation on the floor, indulged this Senator repeatedly in giving me 
the opportunity to be on the floor and prosecute this cause for more 
openness and transparency. I thank my good friend, the chairman of the 
committee. He has done an excellent job on this bill. I appreciate the 
time tonight.

[...]