A resolution eliminating secret Senate holds.

Mr. President, the submission of this resolution marks a very important milestone in the seven-year effort I have pursued with Senator Grassley to bring the Senate practice of holds out of the shadows and into the sunshine. Throughout this time we have labored as a bipartisan team to champion the cause of the ``sunshine'' hold. I especially want to thank Rules Chairman Lott and the Senate's foremost authority on the Rules, Senator Byrd, for their commitment to working with us on this resolution. They know all too well the havoc ``secret'' holds can wreak on the Senate agenda.

Whether public or secret, the hold in the Senate is a lot like the seventh inning stretch in baseball: there is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition. Its capacity to tie the Senate and Senators in knots is notorious, and it has even given birth to several intriguing offspring: the hostage hold, the rolling hold and the Mae West hold.

The secret hold is a practice of Senatorial courtesy extended by the respective Leaders. Even though it is one of the Senate's most popular procedures, it cannot be found anywhere in the United States Constitution or in the Senate Rules. It is one of the most powerful weapons any Senator can wield in this body, and in its stealth version, known as the secret hold, it is even more potent.

The target of this resolution is specifically ``holds,'' which we define as a Senator's intent to object to proceeding to a motion or matter. The resolution does not deal with so-called ``consults,'' which are confidential communications between a Senator and the respective Leader informing the Leader of a Senator's interest in a bill or nomination. This resolution would say to those who want to kill or stop a bill or nomination that they must come forward and notify their respective party leaders. It would not affect the process known as the ``consult'' insofar as it is used to alert a Senator when a bill or nomination is moving toward the floor so that the Senator may prepare for floor consideration.

The resolution would establish a Senate Temporary Standing Order for the duration of the 108th Congress allowing ``sunshine'' holds. The resolution would require a Senator who wishes to object to a motion or matter to publish notice of the intent in the Congressional Record within 3 session days of notifying the respective Leader. The resolution would in no way limit the privilege of any Senator to place a ``hold'' on a measure or matter, it would simply say that the notice of intent to object to a measure or matter be published.

Throughout the Senate's history some of the most potent weapons-- procedural and otherwise--often have not

been rules but rather the absence of them.

Beginning in 1997 and again in 1998, the United States Senate voted unanimously in favor of amendments Senator Grassley and I sponsored to require that a notice of intent to object be published in the Congressional Record within 48 hours. The amendments, however, never survived conference.

So, Senator Grassley and I took our case to the leadership, and to their credit, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott agreed it was time to make a change. They recognized the need for more openness in the way the Senate conducts its business. The leaders sent a joint letter in February 1999, to all Senators setting forth a policy requiring ``all Senators wishing to place a hold on any legislation or executive calendar business [to] notify the sponsor or the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.'' Their letter said: ``written notification should be provided to the respective Leader stating their intentions regarding the bill or nomination,'' and that ``holds placed on items by a member of a personal or committee staff will not be honored unless accompanied by a written notification from the objecting Senator by the end of the following business day.''

At first, this action seemed to make a real difference: many Senators were more open about their holds, and staff could no longer slap a hold on a bill with a quick phone call. But after some time, the clouds moved in on the sunshine hold, obscuring the progress that had been achieved. Legislative gridlock resumed, and the Senate seemed to have forgotten the Lott/Daschle letter.

The problem the Senate faces today is not that a significant number of our colleagues make their holds public, but that a small number of Senators do not. It is their abuse of secret holds that contributes to legislative gridlock. By calling for publication of the intent to object in the Congressional Record, I believe the resolution puts the burden where it ought to be: not on the leadership, where it is today, but squarely on the shoulders of the objector. An objector who seeks to kill a bill by hiding behind a curtain of secrecy is hurting the leaders' ability to run the body and is obstructing rather than facilitating the Senate's business.

Public notice of holds may be an inconvenience for a few, but not a hardship. In any given week, Senators insert more than two dozen statements in the Record on subjects such as sports teams winning championships and charitable fundraisers. These important events should be recognized, and I would hope that the intent of a Senator to block action on a bill or nomination would be considered of equal importance.

The sponsors of the resolution have discussed at great length, most recently at the Rules Committee hearing on the subject, the matter of enforcement. My sense is that no Senator will ever go to jail for failing to give public notice of a hold, just as no Senator has gone to jail for violating the Standing Order adopted in the 98th Congress requiring Senators to vote from their assigned desks during the ``yeas'' and ``nays.'' There are any number of provisions even in the Senate.

Rules that are not enforced at all or rarely today. Senate Rule XXVI requires the inclusion of various items of information in written committee reports, but Senate Rules do not require committees to file written reports on bills. Senate Rule VII, para. 5, provides committees shall make every reasonable effort to have printed hearings available for Senators before a measure comes to the floor for debate, although the Senate has debated any number of measures without the benefit of a printed report.

This resolution signals to all members the Senate's preferred manner of doing business. I think most Senators believe the Senate's business should be conducted in public, and I think the American people would agree.

Sunshine holds would strengthen the Leaders' hands as well as their options. A Leader may opt to continue to honor a secret hold, but a Leader wishing to move a measure or matter would be under no obligation to honor a hold unless the objecting Senator had complied with the Rule and published notice in the Record.

The resolution is constructed so as to become a part of the Temporary Standing Orders, or the series of unanimous consent agreements that are renewed at the outset of each new Congress. Because there may be unintended consequences and because I have no desire to inflict irreparable harm on the Senate Rules, I deferred to the experience and wisdom of Senator Byrd whose wise counsel urged that the terms of the resolution be limited to the 108th Congress. My intent is to revisit the matter with Senators Grassley, Lott, and Byrd at the end of the 108th Congress to determine the benefits of making the resolution part of the Senate Rules at that time.

As United States Senators we occupy a position of public trust, and I believe the exercise of the power that has been vested in us should always be accompanied by public accountability. I would argue that it is not the hold, but the anonymity of the hold that is so odious to the basic premise of our democratic system. The Lott-Byrd-Grassley-Wyden resolution would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the Senate. It would assure that the awesome power possessed by an individual Senator to stop legislation or a nomination would be accompanied by the sunshine of public accountability.

At its hearing in June, the Rules Committee weighed the merits of the Grassley-Wyden Resolution, and considered several fundamental questions: Whether the practice of secret holds is consistent with a democratic system; whether the elimination of the secrecy would disrupt the Constitutional balance of power between the various branches of government; and whether the removal of the secrecy would tip the balance between the rights of the majority and the minority in the Senate.

My response is that removing secrecy from the hold will not alter the practice, merely its form. Removing secrecy from the hold will not tip the balance in Senate Rules and procedures between majority and minority rights. And removing the secrecy will not alter the balance of powers created under the Constitution. On the contrary, surrendering secrecy will strengthen public accountability and lessen the gridlock that has increasingly come to plague the world's greatest deliberative body.

I would like to close by quoting the foremost authority on Senate Rules, who served as Majority Leader in the 95th, 96th and 100th Congresses. In Chapter 28, ``Reflections of a Party Leader,'' of Volume II of The Senate, the Honorable Robert C. Byrd wrote: ``To me, the Senate rules were to be used, when necessary, to advance and expedite the Senate's business.'' Giving the sunshine hold a place in the Senate's Rules would surely serve this worthy goal.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hear testimony on the ``Implementation of U.S. Bilateral Free Trade Agreements with Singapore and Chile.''

committee on foreign relations

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on ``Treaties Related to Aviation and the Environment.''

committee on governmental affairs

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 10:00 a.m., to hold a business meeting to consider pending Committee business.

Agenda

Legislation: S. 481, the Kurtz Bill; S. 589, Homeland Security Workforce Act; S. 610, NASA Workforce Flexibility Act of 2003; S. 678, Postmasters Equity Act of 2003; S. 908, United States Consensus Council; S. 910, Non-Homeland Security Mission Performance Act of 2003; S. 926, Federal Employee Student Loan Assistance Act; S. 1166, National Security Personnel System Act; and S. 1245, Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act.

Post Office Naming Bills: S. 508, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1830 South Lake Drive in Lexington, South Carolina, as the ``Floyd Spence Post Office Building''; S. 708, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, as the ``Michael J. Healy Post Office Building''; S. 867, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 710 Wicks Lane in Billings, Montana, as the ``Ronald Reagan Post Office Building''; S. 1145, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building''; S. 1207, a bill to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 East Ritchie Avenue in Marceline, Missouri, as the ``Walt Disney Post Office Building''; H.R. 825, an act to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7401 West 100th Place in Bridgeview, Illinois, as the ``Michael J. Healy Post Office Building''; H.R. 917, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1830 South

Lake Drive in Lexington, South Carolina, as the ``Floyd Spence Post Office Building''; H.R. 925, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1859 South Ashland Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Cesar Chavez Post Office''; H.R. 981, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 141 Erie Street in Linesville, Pennsylvania, as the ``James R. Merry Post Office''; H.R. 985, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 111 West Washington Street in Bowling Green, Ohio, as the ``Delbert L. Latta Post Office Building''; H.R. 1055, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1901 West Evans Street in Florence, South Carolina, as the ``Dr. Roswell N. Beck Post Office Building''; H.R. 1368, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 7554 Pacific Avenue in Stockton, California, as the ``Norman D. Shumway Post Office Building''; H.R. 1465, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4832 East Highway 27 in Iron Station, North Carolina, as the ``General Charles Gabriel Post Office''; H.R. 1596, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2318 Woodson Road in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Timothy Michael Gaffney Post Office Building''; H.R. 1609, an act to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 201 West Boston Street in Brookfield, Missouri, as the ``Admiral Donald Davis Post Office Building''; H.R. 1740, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1502 East Kiest Boulevard in Dallas, Texas, as the ``Dr. Caesar A.W. Clark, Sr. Post Office Building''; and H.R. 2030, an act to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 120 Baldwin Avenue in Paia, Maui, Hawaii, as the ``Patsy Takemoto Mink Post Office Building.''

Nominations: Michael J. Garcia to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security; C. Steward Verdery, Jr. to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security; Susanne Marshall to be Chairman of the Merit Systems Protection Board; Neil McPhie to be a Member of the Merit Systems Protection Board; Terrence A. Duffy to be a Member of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board; Peter Eide to be General Counsel for the Federal Labor Relations Authority; Albert Casey to be a Governor for the United States Postal Service; and James C. Miller, III to be a Governor for the United States Postal Service.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Dark Side of a Bright Idea: Could Personal and National Security Risks Compromise the Potential of Peer-to-Peer Fine-Sharing Networks?'' on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Tentative Witness List

Panel I: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator, [D-CA]; The Honorable Tom M. Davis, III, U.S. Representative, [D-VA, 11th District], Chairman, House Committee on Government Reform.

Panel II: Nathaniel S. Good, Graduate Student, School of Information Science, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA; Aaron Krekelberg, Lead Web Developer, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; Randy Saaf, MediaDefender, Inc., Los Angeles, CA; Alan Morris, Executive Vice President, Sharman Networks, Ltd., London, England; Chris Murray, Esq., Legislative Counsel, Consumers Union, Washington,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on Senate Resolution 151, requiring public disclosure of notices of objections, holds, to proceedings to motions or measures in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, for a hearing to consider the nominations of Mr. Alan G. Lance, Sr., and Mr. Lawrence B. Hagel, to be Judges, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims. The hearing will take place in room 418 of the Russell Senate Office Building at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. to hold an open confirmation hearing on Frank Libutti to be Under Secretary for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection, Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on June 17, 2003, from 10 a.m.-12 p.m. in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs and Product Liability be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 17, 2003, from 2:30 pm on Reauthorization of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Water be authorized to meet on Tuesday, June 17 at 9:30 am to conduct a hearing to receive testimony on S. 525, the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act at 2003, a bill to reauthorize the nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act. The hearing will take place in SD 406, Hearing Room.

Mr. President, for seven years Senator Grassley and I have teamed up in a bipartisan way to champion the cause of the sunshine hold in the United States Senate. The sunshine hold is the less popular step sister of the more commonly used ``secret'' hold.

Even though it is one of the Senate's most popular procedures, neither the sunshine nor the secret ``hold'' can be found anywhere in the United States Constitution or in the Senate Rules. It

is one of the most powerful weapons that any Senator can wield in this body, and in its stealth version, known as the ``secret hold,'' it is far more potent and far more insidious.

The ``hold'' in the Senate is a lot like the seventh inning stretch in baseball: there is no official rule or regulation that talks about it, but it has been observed for so long that it has become a tradition.

Today, Senator Grassley and I are resubmitting the resolution we sponsored in the 107th Congress to amend the Senate Rules to require that any Senator who wishes to object to a measure or matter publish that objection in the Congressional Record within 48 hours. The resolution does not in any way limit the privilege of any Senator to place a ``hold'' on a measure or matter. It is the anonymous hold that is so odious to the basic premise of our democratic system: that the exercise of power always should be accompanied by public accountability. Our resolution would bring the anonymous hold out of the shadows of the Senate. The resolution would assure that the awesome power possessed by an individual Senator to stop legislation or a nomination should be accompanied by public accountability.

Beginning in 1997 and again in 1998, the United States Senate voted unanimously in favor of amendments Senator Grassley and I offered to require that a notice of intent to object be published in the Congressional Record within 48 hours. The amendments, however, never survived conference.

So we took our case directly to the leadership at that time, and to their credit, Tom Daschle and Trent Lott agreed it was time to make a change. They recognized the significant need for more openness in the way the United States Senate conducts its business so Tom Daschle and Trent Lott sent a joint letter in February 1999, to all Senators setting forth a policy requiring ``all Senators wishing to place a hold on any legislation or executive calender business [to] notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.'' The letter said that ``written notification should be provided to the respective Leader stating their intentions regarding the bill or nomination,'' and that ``holds placed on items by a member of a personal or committee staff will not be honored unless accompanied by a written notification from the objecting Senator by the end of the following business day.''

At first, this action by the Leaders seemed to make a real difference. Many Senators were more open about their holds, and staff could no longer slap a hold on a bill with a quick phone call. But after six to eight months, the clouds moved in on the sunshine hold and the Senate began to slip back towards the old ways. Abuses of the ``holds'' policy began to proliferate, staff-initiated holds-by-phone began anew, and it wasn't too long before legislative gridlock set in and the Senate seemed to have forgotten what Senators Daschle and Lott had tried to do.

My own assessment of the situation now, which is not based on any scientific evidence, GAO investigation or CRS study, is that a significant number of our colleagues in the Senate have gotten the message sent by the Leaders, and have refrained from the use of secret holds. They inform sponsors about their objections, and do not allow their staff to place a hold without their approval. My sense is that the legislative gridlock generated by secret holds may be attributed to a relatively small number of Senate offices. The resolution we are submitting today will not be disruptive for a solid number of Senators, but it will up the ante on those who may be ``chronic abusers'' of the Leaders' policy on holds.

The requirement for public notice of a hold two days after the intent has been conveyed to the leadership may prove to be an inconvenience but not a hardship. No Senator will ever be thrown in jail for failing to give public notice of a hold. Senators routinely place statements in the Congressional Record recognizing the achievements of a local Boys and Girls Club, or congratulating a local sports team on a State championship. Surely the intent of a Senator to block the progress of legislation or a nomination should be considered of equal importance.

I have adhered to a policy of publicly announcing my intent to object to a measure or matter. This practice has not been a burden or inconvenience. On the contrary, my experience with the public disclosure of holds is that my objections are usually dealt with in an expeditious manner, thereby enabling the Senate to proceed with its business.

Although this is not the ``high season'' for holds, the time is not far off when legislation will become bogged down in the swamp of secret holds. The practice of anonymous multiple or rolling holds is more akin to legislative guerilla warfare than to the way the Senate should conduct its business.

It is time to drain the swamp of secret holds. The resolution we submit today will be referred to the Senate Committee on Rules. It is my hope that the Committee will take this resolution seriously, hold public hearings on it and give it a thorough vetting. This is one of the most awesome powers held by anyone in American government. It has been used countless times to stall and strangle legislation. It is time to bring accountability to the procedure and to the American people, and to put sunshine holds in the Senate Rules.

Mr. President, today I am submitting a resolution that addresses the issue of anonymous ``holds'' that Senators use to prevent consideration of legislation and nominations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the distinguished former Majority Leader, Senator Byrd, along with the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Wyden.

The resolution we are submitting today builds on the work of Senators Grassley and Wyden who have pursued this issue for years. On June 17, I chaired a hearing at the Rules Committee to consider a resolution, S. Res. 151, that Senators Grassley and Wyden introduced that would have amended the Senate's Rules to require the publication of the names of Senators who have placed holds on legislation or nominations.

Many Senators and witnesses who testified before the Committee expressed concern about the propriety of incorporating an informal custom designed to obstruct--the hold--in the Senate's rules. Others were concerned that there could be unintended consequences to making this permanent change in the rules of the Senate.

As a result of that hearing, I worked with the sponsors of the resolution and with Senator Byrd to develop what we believe is an appropriate way to resolve the problem of anonymous holds. The resolution we are introducing today reflects that work.

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

The resolution we are submitting today would place a greater responsibility on Senators to make their holds public. Our resolution creates a Standing Order that would stay in effect until the end of the 108th Congress. The Order requires that the majority and minority leaders can only recognize a hold that is provided in writing. Moreover for the hold to be honored, the Senator objecting would have to publish his objection in the Congressional Record, three days after the notice is provided to a leader.

New sections would be created in the Legislative and Executive Calendars that would identify the names of Senators with holds on particular measures and nominations. The order also provides a brief written format that a Senator must use to indicate his opposition to proceeding. In addition, a format is provided to remove a hold.

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.

This Order does not eliminate the right of a Senator to place a hold. Some day, the Senate may decide that holds, in and of themselves, are an undemocratic practice that should no longer be recognized. I, for one, would consider eliminating the hold, by for example, limiting debate on the motion to proceed. However, I believe before we consider such a drastic step, we should, at the very least, eliminate the secret hold and I believe this Order will achieve that goal.

Secret holds have no place in a publicly accountable institution. A measure that is important to a majority of the American public and a majority of Senators can be stopped dead in it's tracks by a single Senator. And when that Senator can hide behind the anonymous hold, democracy itself is damaged.

How do you tell your constituents that legislation they have an interest in, legislation that has been approved by the majority of a committee, is stalled and you don't know who is holding it up? What does that say about this institution? I think the secret hold has no place in this revered institution.

I believe that if we adopt this Resolution, the public will have greater trust in the Senate. 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.

This resolution is an experiment in making the Senate and Senators more accountable. At the end of the 108th Congress, the Senate will be able to determine whether it wants to make this a permanent Standing Order or whether it wants to modify the Order. I hope my colleagues will give the Senate the opportunity to see if this approach will eliminate the secrecy surrounding holds and facilitate dialogue that breaks the logjam on legislating in this body.

I ask unanimous consent that the text a copy of the February, 1999, letter I sent with Senator Daschle be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am resubmitting a Senate resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the United States Senate to eliminate the practice of secret holds. I'm pleased that I am once again joined by my colleague, Senator Wyden, in this effort. Senator Wyden and I have been working together on this issue for some time and we have made some progress in bringing this issue to light and having it addressed. Still, the problem continues to reoccur and a permanent solution is needed.

I know many of my colleagues are well aware of the practice of placing an anonymous ``hold'' on a piece of legislation or a nomination. Some Senators have been victims of a secret hold placed on one of their bills and others may have used this practice.

Holds are not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Senate Rules, but they derive from the rules and traditions of the Senate where a single Senator possesses a great deal of power to derail any matter. In order for the Senate to run smoothly, objections to unanimous consent agreements must be avoided. Essentially, a hold is a notice by a Senator to his or her party leader of an intention to object to bringing a bill or nomination to the floor for consideration. If the Majority Leader were to attempt to bring a matter up for consideration despite an objection, the Senate would be forced to consider the motion to proceed, which would be subject to a filibuster. Because this kind of delay would paralyze the working of the Senate, holds are usually honored as both a practical necessity and a senatorial courtesy.

A Senator might place a hold on a piece of legislation or a nomination because of legitimate concerns about an aspect of a bill or a nominee. However, there is no legitimate reason why a Senator placing a hold on a matter should remain anonymous.

I believe in the principle of open government. Lack of transparency in the public policy process leads to cynicism and distrust of public officials. I would maintain that the use of secret holds damages public confidence in the institution of the Senate.

It has been my policy to disclose in the Congressional Record any hold that I place on any matter in the Senate along with my reasons for doing so. I know Senator Wyden does the same. I have used holds in the past when I thought a matter was progressing too fast and more questions needed to be answered. However, I feel that my colleagues have a right to know that it was Grassley that placed the hold as well as why I did it.

As a practical matter, other members of the Senate need to be made aware of an individual senator's concerns. How else can those concerns be addressed? As a matter of principle, the American people need to be made aware of any action that prevents a matter from being considered by their elected senators.

Senator Wyden and I have worked twice to get a similar ban on secret holds included in legislation passed by the Senate. But, both times it was removed in conference.

Then, at the beginning of the 106th Congress, Senate Leaders Lott and Daschle circulated a letter informing senators of a new policy regarding the use of holds. The Lott/Daschle letter stated, `` . . . all members wishing to place a hold on any legislation or executive calendar business shall notify the sponsor of the legislation and the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.''

This agreement was billed as marking the end of secret holds in the Senate. Unfortunately, this policy has not been followed consistently. Secret holds have continued to appear in the Senate. Last year, Senator Wyden and I decided that we needed to continue to pursue a permanent change in the Senate Rules to end this practice and we introduced a Senate resolution to do just that. We were later joined by Senators Lugar and Landrieu and I was glad to have their support. We are now submitting that same measure and I am encouraged that Rules Committee Chairman Lott has expressed interest in examining our legislation and the problem of secret holds.

The Grassley-Wyden resolution would add a section to the Senate Rules requiring that Senators make public any hold placed on a matter within two session days of notifying his or her party leadership. This change will lead to more open dialogue and more constructive debate in the Senate.

Ending secret holds will make the workings of the Senate more transparent. It will reduce secrecy and public cynicism along with it. Moreover, this reform will improve the institutional reputation of the Senate. I look forward to working with Chairman Lott and all my colleagues to address the problem of secret holds and hopefully make progress toward ending this distasteful practice once and for all.