Good morning. I welcome all of you to our hearing that will explore one of the more esoteric features of this hallowed institution–the hold.

In many ways, this hearing is a follow-up to the hearing I held less than two weeks ago on filibustering nominations; for the power of the hold is inextricably linked to the ability of Senators to filibuster.

You can search far and wide through the rules and precedents of the Senate and you will find no rule that specifically addresses this issue. Holds are an informal custom that reflects the Senate’s practice of requiring unanimous consent to take up and consider most measures. If one Senator objects, the Senate is precluded from considering the measure unless the leader is willing to go through the arduous and drawn out process of invoking cloture.

It has become increasingly common for holds to be placed on nominees and bills for reasons that have nothing to do with the nominee or the bill. Instead, bills and nominations are held hostage because a Senator is trying to leverage something from the Administration or from another Senator. These so-called leverage holds are routinely used by members from both parties.

During my tenure as Majority Leader, I, along with Senator Daschle attempted to address the issue of secret holds. We sent a letter to all Senators and indicated that members placing holds on legislation or nominations would have to notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction and the leaders. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of our February, 1999, letter be placed in the record.

Unfortunately, we had no mechanism to enforce those requirements and secret holds continue to plague the Senate.

I believe that holds, whether anonymous, or publicly announced, are an affront to the Senate, the leadership, the Committees and to the individual members of this institution. As leader, I could not establish a rational and timely agenda for the institution to perform its business without having to first consult with, effectively, every other member of the Senate.

One day, a Senator would have a hold on a bill and after I convinced him to lift the hold, the next day I was told another Senator had placed a hold on the same bill. And don’t get me wrong, these weren’t just holds from Democrats, they were holds from some of my best friends on this side of the aisle.

It was not that long ago that the former Chairman of the Energy Committee, Frank Murkowski, came to the floor and announced that every one of the 72 bills his committee had reported, every one of them, had holds. That is an affront to all members of that Committee and to the Senate as an institution.

I commend Senators Grassley and Wyden for their good faith effort to end secret holds by requiring that the names of Senators with holds be published in the Congressional Record. I strongly endorse this effort. Public identification of the Senator holding up legislation or a nomination can be a powerful weapon to eliminate a particular hold, especially a leverage hold.

But I think we need to go further than just publishing names. We need to put teeth into this proposal. And the best way to do that is to change our rules so that motions to proceed offered by the Majority Leader are non-debatable or debatable for one or two hours.

A little used provision in Rule 8 Paragraph 2 provides that motions to proceed to any measure, except a Rules change, are not debatable during the first two hours of a new legislative day. Maybe the leadership should consider using this rule more often.

Alternatively, we should consider a rules change allowing Majority Leader motions to proceed to be non-debatable for a measure that has been reported from a committee and has been on the calendar for a fixed period of time–for example, 30 days. The rule could also provide that within 90 days of an adjournment, motions to proceed by the majority leader would not be debatable on any bill reported from a committee.

Ultimately, I believe that if we adopt the Grassley/Wyden proposal, the public will have greater faith in this institution. Secrecy and anonymity in an institution of the people does not engender trust among our constituents. Holds belong in the wrestling ring, not in this hallowed chamber.

Unfortunately, one thing is certain. If this Committee decides that we should eliminate the secrecy surrounding holds, and we report this resolution, I am sure an anonymous Senator will put a hold on the resolution.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Because of the many witnesses we have today, I would ask that Senator Dodd be allowed to give an opening statement and that other members withhold their statements and have them included in the record.

###