【国会议事录:2010年5月13日(参议院)][Page S3664-S3711] RESTORING AMERICAN FINANCIAL STABILITY ACT OF 2010[debate on "secret holds"][...]怀登先生。主席夫人，我将谈论大约5分钟的努力，最后一劳永逸地消除了参议院的秘密。我在这项努力中的伴侣格拉斯利参议员十年也将讲话。然后，我们身边的两个同事是这个大型两党联盟，参议员怀特豪斯和本纳特参议员的一员，他们也与参议员格拉斯利，参议员Inhofe和参议员Collins一起做得很好两党联盟将只需要几分钟。让我还要感谢委员会主席，多德参议员，德宾参议员以及其他如此有帮助的人。这场两党的修正案将废除参议院的秘密，我认为这是公众知情人士的违法行为 - 是无可辩驳的违法行为。只需向他们的政党提出愿望，任何参议员就可以秘密地封锁一项立法或秘密提名。这意味着一个人，没有任何公开披露，可以阻止美国人甚至可以窥视公共业务。当被问及他为什么抢劫银行时，威利·萨顿（Willie Sutton）说：``那是钱的所在。''在参议院中，秘密保留是权力的地方。 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. [...]