Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Drew Johnston, the Wayne Morse fellow in my Senate office, be granted floor privileges during the debate on the DISCLOSE Act.

Reserving the right to object, I would like to ask the leader if he would be willing to modify his request this evening to include the bipartisan amendment No. 4183 that would once and for all eliminate secret holds here in the Senate.

Senator Grassley and I, as part of a large, bipartisan group, have come to the floor of the Senate again and again simply seeking to abolish secrecy, not holds, in the way business is done in the Senate. These secret holds are an indefensible violation of the public's right to know.

I ask the leader at this time if he would be willing to modify his request to include this bipartisan amendment No. 4183 to finally eliminate secret holds in the Senate?

Further reserving the right to object, I would inquire at this point of the majority leader--and I appreciate the graciousness of the leader and Senator Cochran as well--if he would agree to a consent agreement this evening that would provide for the consideration of a bipartisan resolution eliminating secret holds at a later point but prior to the July 4 recess and that that debate be limited to 2 hours, with no amendments in order to the resolution, and that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the Senate would then proceed to vote adoption of the resolution?

Further reserving the right to object--and I will be brief--I thank the leader, the distinguished Senator from Nevada. His desire to finally end secret holds is clear. All Americans should understand that the Senator from Nevada has worked very closely with Senator Grassley and me on this. I appreciate the Senator's statement tonight that he will try to get an up-or-down vote on this matter before the end of the next work period.

With that, I withdraw my reservation.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the following postal naming bills en bloc: Calendar Nos. 380, 384 through 387, and 389 through 395, and 397; S. 2874, S. 3200, H.R. 3250, H.R. 3634, H.R. 3892, H.R. 4017, H.R. 4095, H.R. 4139, H.R. 4214, H.R. 4238,

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bills be read the third time and passed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements relating to the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 398, H.R. 4840.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee- reported amendment be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; the title amendment be agreed to; the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; and any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4183, the Wyden- Grassley amendment to end secret holds in the Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.

Mr. President, this is the fourth time in under 2 weeks that Senator Grassley and I, with a large bipartisan coalition of Senators in the Senate--a coalition that spans the philosophical spectrum of membership in the Senate--has sought to pass this legislation to finally end the stranglehold of secret holds.

The American people want accountability from their elected officials, but there is simply no accountability when the Senate operates in secret. The fact is, this has gone on for years and years, and it has been done on a bipartisan basis. Right now there are scores of qualified nominees for important positions in the administration and the Federal courts who can't get a vote on the Senate floor--and it has also taken place on a bipartisan basis for years and years--as Senator Grassley and I have tried to make the point over this decade that we have been attacking secrecy in the Senate and that this has gone on in a bipartisan fashion.

The fact is a secret hold is one of the most powerful tools a Member of the Senate has today. I would be the first to grant that the American people have no idea what secret holds are. The fact is a secret hold can effectively kill a nomination or piece of legislation, and it can be done without anyone--colleagues in the Senate or the public--knowing who did it or why.

One of the points I also wish to make--and it hasn't been explored in the discussion of secret holds--is a secret hold is a very powerful weapon that is also available to lobbyists. My guess is practically every Senator has gotten a request from a lobbyist asking if the Senator would put a secret hold on a bill or a nomination in order to kill it without getting any public debate and without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. In fact, if you can get a Senator to put an anonymous hold on a bill, it is almost like hitting the lobbyist jackpot. Not only is the Senator protected by a cloak of anonymity but so is the lobbyist. A secret hold can let lobbyists also play both sides of the street and can give lobbyists a victory for their clients without alienating potential future clients. Given the number of instances where I have heard of a lobbyist asking for secret holds, I am of the view that secret holds are a stealth extension of the lobbying world in Washington, DC.

In the Senate there has been an effort to improve the rules and have stricter ethics requirements with respect to lobbyists. It is something of an irony if the Senate--which it has in the past--adopts a variety of changes to curtail lobbying without doing away with what, in my view, is one of the most powerful tools that is available to lobbyists, and that is the secret hold. So what Senator Grassley and I have been working on over the past decade--and with this bipartisan coalition we have been able to assemble in the Senate--is the desire, once and for all, to permanently eliminate the use of secret holds.

I also believe that given the Wall Street reform bill that was just passed in the Senate to bring greater openness and accountability to financial institutions, it seems to me for the Senate to be telling Wall Street it has to operate in a more transparent, open way, this is a pretty darn good time for the Senate to reform the way the Senate does its business. If we are going to set about the task of telling folks on Wall Street to be more open and more accountable, certainly the rules in the Senate ought to be changed to abolish the secret hold.

Under current Senate rules, it is still possible for Senators to use a secret hold to block legislation or a nomination from coming to the floor without having to give any reason. There is no openness or accountability to anybody when a Senator places a secret hold. My view is the Senate shouldn't have a double standard where we are passing laws and rules to require greater openness and accountability of others, and particularly American institutions such as Wall Street, while tolerating a practice that keeps both the public and colleagues in the Senate in the dark without accountability to anyone.

Under the proposal Senator Grassley and I have sought to pass--and I see my good friend from Iowa here, and I noted that this is our fourth such effort in about 2 weeks to finally bring some sunlight to the way the Senate does business--under our proposal, somebody--a Senator--is going to have to own a hold publicly within 2 days. That is a key change because we have looked at the Executive Calendar, we have looked at all of the places where we might see someone actually publicly own up to having a hold, and Senator Grassley and I haven't seen that kind of transparency and accountability.

So under our proposal which we are seeking to pass this morning, every hold--every hold--is going to have to have a public owner within 2 days.

Let me give an example of how this would work. Let's say a Senator objects to bringing up a nomination on behalf of a colleague. If the Senator behind the hold who, in effect, is kind of the culprit in all of this secrecy doesn't go public by putting a notice in the Congressional Record within 2 days, then the Senator who objected on the floor on behalf of this culprit is going to be listed in the Executive Calendar as having placed the hold. The Senator who is in effect covering up for the colleague will get the blame if the real culprit--the real Senator who is trying to protect secrecy--would not come clean.

So, in effect, what Senator Grassley and I are seeking to do is put public pressure and peer pressure to get Senators to reveal their hold. If Senators keep objecting to legislation or nominations on behalf of other colleagues, pretty soon that Senator can get identified as responsible for dozens of holds. We think--Senator Grassley and I and Senators Inhofe, Collins, Udall, Bennet and Merkley, a big group that is involved in this on a bipartisan basis--with this approach we are going to create public pressure because nobody here in the Senate is going to want to go down in history as being ``Senator hold.''

In my view, it will also create peer pressure on Senators to come clean about their holds. Let's say Senator Grassley is on the floor or I am on the floor when a unanimous consent is made and one of us has to object on behalf of a colleague. We will go tell that colleague that he or she better come clean because we are not interested in having our names put on the Executive Calendar as the one who is supporting this secret hold.

I also believe the Grassley-Wyden approach cures other problems with the current holds policy by shortening the time period before a hold must be made public from the current 6 session days to 2 days. Our view is that 2 days is plenty of time for a Senator to determine whether to continue objecting

and make the objection public or to withdraw the objection.

Our bipartisan proposal also includes reforms that make it harder for Senators to place revolving holds on a nomination or bill. Senator Grassley and I have seen this problem, over this decade we have been involved in this. Senator Grassley mentioned the fact that we have always said this is being done in a bipartisan way that there is a very serious problem of revolving holds, where in effect a hold is passed on to another Member of the Senate. First, we eliminate the ability of a Senator to lift a hold before the current 6-day period expires and never has to disclose it. Under our proposal, if a Senator places a hold--even for 1 day, even for just a minute--that hold would have to be disclosed. Second, by shortening the time period, it will be even more difficult to keep finding new Senators to place new holds every 48 hours.

I want to close by expressing my appreciation to Senator Grassley, Senators Inhofe, Collins, and others on the other side who have worked for this badly needed reform, to bring sunshine to the Senate. Senator Grassley and I have put more than a decade into this effort.

I also thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle, particularly Senators Bennet, Udall, and McCaskill, who have brought a tremendous amount of new energy and passion to this cause.

Finally, after all this time, let us eliminate secret holds. Let's require public disclosure of all holds and ensure that there will be consequences if the Senator fails to disclose secret holds. I ask for our colleagues' support. It is a bipartisan effort that Senator Grassley and I have pursued for many years to bring greater transparency and accountability to the Senate by eliminating secret holds once and for all.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question, without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. President, I think the Senator and I are making some progress because I was about to pose almost the same question to my colleague.

I believe the Senator from South Carolina is talking about the Coburn-McCaskill proposal To make sure Senators have actually read legislation. I have already indicated to Senators Coburn and McCaskill that I am interested in being a cosponsor of this legislation. I think it is a constructive idea.

In effect, we are asking each other the same questions. I think the measure the Senator from South Carolina is talking about, the Coburn- McCaskill measure, is an important one. I have indicated I will be a cosponsor.

By way of saving some time, would my colleague be willing now to let Senator Grassley and me advance our proposal to eliminate secret holds today, given the fact that we have gotten more than a decade's worth of work, now that I have publicly acknowledged that I think the point the Senator from South Carolina has made, which is very much in line with the Coburn-McCaskill measure, is a valid one? My hope would be that, after putting more than a decade into this effort, the Senator from South Carolina would let us finally get a vote on this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds, with this public acknowledgment, at least on my part, that I think the Senator's point is valid with respect to Senators reading bills and I intend to be a cosponsor of the Coburn-McCaskill legislation.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield again without giving up his right to the floor?

My understanding from the sponsors--Senators Coburn and McCaskill is they are not yet ready. In other words, we have been talking with them. I have already indicated to Senator Coburn that I would be a cosponsor of his proposal. We now have what amounts to not just a private acknowledgment that the point of the Senator from South Carolina is valid but a public one on the floor of the Senate.

I say to my colleague, my understanding from the sponsors is that they are not yet ready to bring this before the Senate, and that is why I am hopeful that--given the acknowledgment that the Senator from South Carolina has a valid point with respect to making sure bills are actually read, my hope would be that the Senator from South Carolina would let Senator Grassley and me go forward, finally have that vote, given the fact we have spent more than a decade laying the groundwork, and that we could at least make some progress today in the Senate.

Mr. President, let me speak very briefly on secret holds and then make a unanimous-consent request.

I express again my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley. He very often seems too logical for some of these debates. I very much share his view.

The point is, we do have a great deal of consensus. We have had three Senators, in effect, talking over the last 20 minutes with no substantive disagreement. The reality is, eliminating secret holds and shining some sunlight in the Senate on how we do business, it is ready to go. It has been ready to go now four times in the last 10 days.

I very much appreciate Senator Grassley's comments today. We ought to have a vote on it. I have tried to show my good will, as the distinguished Senator from Iowa has this morning, in saying that we happen to think Senators Coburn and McCaskill and Senator DeMint's comments reflect this--have a very good idea as well. I have told them privately and again I state publicly this morning that it is my intent to be a cosponsor of the legislation. It is not yet ready to go, which is, in effect, what Senator Grassley has touched on.

Efforts to reform the Senate and do our business in public when the American people are as angry as they are at the way Washington, DC, does business--one ought to have, as Senator Grassley says, the guts to go public when one is trying to object to a bill or nomination.

My thanks to Senator Grassley for our decade-long push--10 years-plus in trying to do it--and also for the very constructive way he has tried to reach out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle. That is what I have tried to do again this morning with my comments to Senator DeMint.

I note that the chairman of the Appropriations Committee is also in support of the effort to get rid of secret holds. I thank him for his indulgence and for giving us this opportunity to speak on the floor of the Senate this morning.

Senator Grassley and I are going to come back again and again until this secret hold, which is an indefensible violation of the public's right to know, is finally buried. I thank him.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate to conduct a hearing on May 25, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room SR-325 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Reducing Overpayments and Increasing Quality in the Unemployment System.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Role of Strategic Arms Control in a Post-Cold War World.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``ESEA Reauthorization: Early Childhood Education'' on May 25, 2010. The hearing will commence at 2 p.m. in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select

Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 9 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats of Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 25, 2010, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about a bipartisan amendment I have spent many weeks working on with Senator Brown of Massachusetts. It is an amendment dealing with a very crucial issue--a major gap in our system of financial regulation. It has been approved by Senator Shelby, the distinguished ranking Republican, and also by Senator Dodd. In fact, I think it is fair to say that if we can get a vote on it tonight, it would have enormous bipartisan support in the Senate.

I am concerned that we won't get a vote on amendment No. 3982, and as a result it is very likely this bill will pass.

After all the problems the country has seen with these large banks and large financial institutions, it still will be possible for a bank to sell a product to an institution or a consumer, bet against that product, and it will not be disclosed to the buyer. That is not right.

What Senator Brown and I have been able to do, working with Senator Shelby's very capable staff and Senator Dodd's very capable staff, is we have been able to put together a bipartisan amendment--the new Senator from Massachusetts and myself--that would close this loophole, that would ensure there is at least simple, garden-variety, basic disclosure so that someone purchasing one of these financial products would know that the seller is actually betting against the product that is being sold to the consumer.

If I were to sell you a financial product and without your knowledge placed a separate bet that the product would decline in value, there is no question in my mind that the distinguished Presiding Officer, the Senator from Illinois, would feel wronged by that transaction and everyone would say: Rightly so. If I stood to gain by convincing my clients to buy something that I knew would fail, they would have every reason to feel betrayed, to feel swindled, to feel they had been had.

The fact is, some of these major financial institutions invented and sold incredibly complicated financial products that they actually were hoping would fail, and they hid their positions behind a wall of omission and complexity.

I think it would surprise most Americans to learn that somehow this kind of mischievous--actually devious--business behavior was actually legal. The tragedy, of course, is it may be legal but it is certainly not right.

At present, under current law and if this bill clears the Senate tonight in its current form, the major financial institutions, these Wall Street banks, would not be required to disclose an absolutely essential piece of information to a client, what, in my view, would be a material conflict of interest.

From everything I have heard, the folks on Wall Street see these transactions in which a bank constructs and invests in a financial product that is designed to fail and then markets this product to those with an interest in its success as an honest transaction. Boy, I do not know of anybody at home in Oregon who sees something like this as honest or, in light of the recent hearings, fabulous.

Senator Brown of Massachusetts and I said: We are going to get together on a bipartisan basis and do something about it. We put together an amendment, which I wish to point out to colleagues tonight is acceptable to Senator Shelby, is acceptable to Chairman Dodd. We are getting ready to vote on an amendment where we have bipartisan Senate sponsorship, we have the very constructive and very valuable input of Senator Shelby's staff, and we have Chairman Dodd's involvement. If we got it before a vote, we would have an overwhelming, bipartisan vote for a simple proposition that everybody can understand on the streets of Illinois, Oregon, or anywhere else, and that is, you ought to disclose when, in fact, you are selling a product that you are betting against.

The disclosure of conflicts amendment I am describing, coauthored by Senator Brown of Massachusetts, would direct the new financial stability oversight council, which is established in the underlying bill, to put forward rules requiring banks to disclose to their clients whether they have a material conflict of interest with respect to a financial product they are selling. It comes down to a simple proposition: If these firms are willing to create and sell these products, they ought to stand behind them and be honest with their clients. It is a very short amendment.

On Main Street, all across the country, everybody would understand what the bipartisan amendment that Senator Brown and I are offering-- disclosure. We are not saying we are going to ban all of these sales. Colleagues made a very compelling case, by the way, on going further than we do. But certainly there ought to be disclosure. We want to bring greater honesty and transparency to the relationship between buyers and sellers of complicated financial products.

It is fair to say--and I surely consider myself a market-oriented Democrat. That is what I tried to do on health care and what I continued to try to do in a bipartisan proposal with Senator Gregg to fix our tax system--you cannot have functioning markets without honesty and transparency. Without it, we end up with a game that is rigged against the typical American investor and taxpayer.

I also wish to express my appreciation to my new colleague from Massachusetts for working with me to advance this simple and straightforward

proposition. As I stated, I am very appreciative of Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby and their counsel with respect to our bipartisan idea.

I also want to make it clear that I do not see a problem with financial firms taking steps to manage their risks. In fact, I encourage it. If firms had done so in the early part of this decade, our economy might not have suffered in the meltdown we have seen in financial services.

My concern--and I see the chairman of the full committee, Senator Dodd, in the Chamber--my concern from the very beginning, as Chairman Dodd has done his very good work on this legislation, is the opaque nature of these transactions. The fact is, it is so hard for the American people and the purchaser to understand what these transactions are all about, and certainly they ought to be given information when the person selling it is taking a very different financial position than the person who is buying.

We ought to turn this curtain back on the current financial model and show it to the rest of the country. Let's pull the curtain back on the Wall Street business model and show it to the rest of the country.

I have wracked my brain to try and find another industry that would bet against their own product while selling it to the American people. Does the person selling me a toy for the Wyden twins stand to make additional money if the toy breaks? Obviously not.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 3 additional minutes.

Mr. President, it is obvious that in no other part of the American economy do we have people betting against their own product while selling it to the American people. You do not see Apple creating the iPod in the hope that sales will be far below expectations and then going out and betting some of its own money on the failure. No industry--none--thinks of betting against their own product while selling it to the American people. I do not even think that owners of racehorses bet against their own ponies.

The kind of disclosure that Senator Brown and I have called for is fundamental for investment confidence in the integrity of the U.S. financial system. If financial firms can market products they are betting will fail without disclosing that to their clients, the conditions that caused the current financial crisis, in my view, will be recreated with Wall Street firms packaging up toxic assets and marketing them as securities to unsuspecting buyers. ``Buyer beware'' will again become ``taxpayer beware.'' That should not be acceptable to any Senator.

I know colleagues are waiting to speak. I repeat, amendment No. 3982, authored by Senator Brown of Massachusetts and myself, will fill a loophole in this bill that is going to be passed tonight that, in my view, is a glaring omission that does not meet the test of the consumer protection the American people deserve.

This bill is clearing the Senate tonight without even minimal consumer protection, without even disclosure of financial institutions betting against products they are going to sell. That is not right. I hope we will return to this subject as soon as possible.

I see Chairman Dodd on the floor. I thank him for the time he has given me in the course of this legislation. I commend him for all his efforts on this bill.

I also thank Senator Shelby and his very able staff director, Mr. Duhnke, whom we know from our Intelligence work, for their support in putting together this amendment. I surely hope it will come out of conference because the American people deserve this kind of consumer protection and this kind of disclosure.

I yield the floor.

Exemptions

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the quorum call.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up amendment No. 4019, the bipartisan amendment Senator Grassley and I have worked on for years to end secret holds here in the Senate, and permit 10 minutes of debate.

Parliamentary inquiry: Could the Senator who objected to my request identify on whose behalf the objection was made?

Mr. President, if I could be heard on this very briefly, my friend Senator Grassley is here, and perhaps we could take 3 minutes or so each to discuss this.

We have worked on this now for more than a decade. The American people are furious at the way business is done in Washington, DC, and if ever there were a concrete reason why, we have seen it in the handling of this bipartisan effort to once and for all take business in the Senate out of the shadows and do public business in public. This has widespread, bipartisan support. It is designed to ensure that when a Senator uses one of the most powerful tools at their disposal to actually block the public from seeing public business, that Senator would be publicly accountable. That hasn't been the case, and again and again we have seen colleagues over the last decade abuse this process.

It used to be years ago something that was a courtesy. Now it has come to rule life here in the Senate. Scores and scores of instances of holds have been used by both political parties. There is one Senator in this body--just one--who has objected to this coming up, and that Senator has been unwilling on multiple occasions to come to the floor of the Senate and actually state why he insists on defending secret holds. So the effort to derail secret holds is, in effect, something that is also being done in secret.

We wish to open the Senate to the kind of transparency and accountability the American people deserve, but we can't even get to a debate because the person who wants to derail this effort for new openness and new transparency won't even come to the floor and say it to our face. That is what this is all about. One can have their own views with respect to holds. Colleagues will differ on this, but what we ought to insist on is what Senator Grassley has said over this decade and that is if you are going to object, you ought to have the guts to come forward and do it publicly.

I will tell my colleagues, I believe the secret hold here in the Senate is an absolutely indefensible violation of the public's right to know. Having an office here in the Senate, honored by the people of your State, in my view is a sacred trust. I believe if you told the people of your home State that you are going to go to Washington and keep the public from even getting a peek at a critical nomination or a bill, they wouldn't stand for it for a moment. They certainly wouldn't send you back to the Senate.

I intend to come back to this floor again and again and again. I see my friend Senator Grassley here, who has in my view been a leader in the fight for open and transparent government. I will tell my colleagues, I think the idea that one Senator--because we got this to a vote and we asked for 10 minutes tonight for a debate, this would pass overwhelmingly--but one Senator objects to our even getting a vote for more sunshine in government. Again, that Senator has been unwilling on multiple occasions to come to the floor and say why he favors secrecy.

In fact, yesterday--I say this to my friend, the Senator from Alabama, my good friend--the objector said, Well, he was interested in the Senator from South Carolina having the opportunity to come and talk to Senator Grassley and me about our amendment. He has done nothing of the sort. So he objected the first time without notice when we were minutes away from a victory that would have transformed Senate procedure for new openness. He has objected through colleagues. He has been unwilling to come and talk to us about why he insists on secrecy-- and, by the way, what he apparently wants to do is something I have actually voted for.

This strikes me as an absolutely indefensible way to do business. It is a concrete case, in my view, of why the American people are so furious about the way business is done in Washington, DC.

I wish to have my friend from Iowa have a few minutes, and then, with the indulgence of the Chair, we will wrap up. This is our third such effort, and I don't care how many times we have to come back to the floor to win this fight for open, transparent, and accountable government. I think it goes right to the core of our duties in the Senate.

I yield the floor, and I particularly express my appreciation to the Senator from Iowa for his patience. We now have well over 10 years into this cause and we are going to prosecute this issue of openness and accountability until the public interest prevails.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

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.

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.

Madam President, I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am going to speak for about 5 minutes on the effort to finally, once and for all, eliminate secret holds in the Senate. Senator Grassley, my partner in this effort for a decade, will also speak. Then, two colleagues on our side who are a part of this large, bipartisan coalition, Senator Whitehouse and Senator Bennet, and who also have done very good work along with Senator Grassley, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Collins, who have been part of a bipartisan coalition, will take just a few minutes.

Let me also express my appreciation to the chairman of the committee, Senator Dodd, Senator Durbin, and others who have been so helpful.

This bipartisan amendment will abolish the secret hold in the Senate, which, in my view, is a violation--an indefensible violation--of the public's right to know. With a secret hold, any Senator can block a piece of legislation or a nomination in secret simply by telling the leader of their party of their desire. This means that one person, without any public disclosure whatsoever, can keep the American people from even getting a peek at what is public business.

When asked why he robbed banks, Willie Sutton said: ``That's where the money is.'' In the Senate, secret holds are where the power is. With a secret hold, one of the most powerful tools a Senator has to affect the lives of our people can be exercised anonymously.

In 2007, the Senate sought to eliminate secret holds. Since then, big loopholes have been developed to keep too much Senate business in the dark, unaccountable, and away from the public.

This bipartisan amendment closes those loopholes. With this bipartisan proposal, every single hold in the Senate will have an owner who is public within 2 days. It is an amendment that will be enforced. Here is how it would work: If a Senator puts a hold on a bill or nomination, they are required to submit a written notice in the Congressional Record within 2 days. When that bill or nomination comes to the floor and any Senator objects to its consideration on the grounds of a hold, one of two things will happen: either the Senator placing the secret hold will have their name publicly released or the Senator who objects on their behalf will own that hold, and then that individual will have their name published in the Congressional Record. For the first time, there would be both public accountability and peer pressure on those trying to keep Senate business behind closed doors.

The bipartisan proposal includes two additional reforms. First, the proposal eliminates the ability a Senator has today to lift a hold before the current 6-day period expires and never have it disclosed. This has been a huge abuse. It has allowed a Senator to do business in secret and never have it reported.

With the new proposal, if a Senator places a hold--even for a day, even for a minute--that hold is going to be disclosed. Second, the proposal makes it harder for a group of Senators to place revolving holds on a nomination or a bill. I particularly thank Senator Whitehouse, who has highlighted this issue of revolving holds in his past comments on the floor. With the 6-day time period, a group of Senators can literally pass a hold from one colleague to another and never have it disclosed. By requiring all holds to be made public, it will be much more difficult to find new Senators to place revolving holds.

What this comes down to is the question of whether public business ought to actually be done in public. It seems to me that if it is important enough for a Senator to say they are making it a priority to keep a bill or nomination from coming to a vote, that ought to be a public matter and not be something that is decided in the shadows, away from the public and unaccountable.

I thank my colleagues. This has been part of a bipartisan coalition. No one has put more time into this cause than my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley. I also thank Senator McCaskill, who has prosecuted this cause of accountability and openness relentlessly, along with Senators Warner, Whitehouse, Bennet, Inhofe, and Collins--I could go on.

Finally, there is a desire in the Senate to eliminate secret holds once and for all. I will close with this. I don't think that 1 out of 100 people in this country have any idea what a secret hold is. Most people probably think it is some kind of hairspray. It is one of the most powerful tools in our democracy that is being used to keep what is public business from the eyes of the American people, and it has to change.

I will yield to my colleagues, Senators Grassley, Whitehouse, and Bennet. I thank Chairman Dodd and Senator Shelby for indulging us at this time. It seems to me that when Senator Dodd has done so much good in terms of arguing for openness and accountability on Wall Street, this is a perfect time to say we ought to have that in the Senate. That is what we are going to do on a bipartisan basis today.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question? Again, to save time--the Senator from Connecticut has been very gracious to allow an opportunity to do this--Senator Whitehouse, Senator McCaskill, and Senator Bennet are all going to speak. I think that would allow us to set up time later for the vote, and we would have to formally offer the amendment. Would that be acceptable to the chairman?

It is acceptable to the leader.

All right.

Yes.

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.

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?

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.

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.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

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.

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.

Mr. President, this week in Bend, OR, the community will be honoring one of the great advocates for Oregon's veterans, Mike ``Rocky'' Barker. Mike has been an incredible partner to me and my staff as we have worked to improve health and other services for central Oregon's military veterans.

Mike's incredible service to our Nation began with 8 years in the U.S. Air Force as an air traffic controller. He went on to a career with the FAA at the Butte, MT, Flight Service Station and then moved to central Oregon where he ran the Disabled Veterans Outreach Program. In that post he became nationally recognized as the VA's top service officer for 1999, and shortly thereafter he received similar national recognition from the VFW.

Always looking for ways to help veterans in need, Mike ran the incarcerated vet program for a number of years. During his leadership, more than 95 percent of the veterans who came through his program stayed out of prison.

He retired in 2003, and the hallmark of his career from 1970 to the present--whether as a professional or as a volunteer--has been his insight and leadership on issues that matter to military veterans.

When I was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, Mike immediately rolled up his shirt sleeves to work with me and our staff to open up the VA's Central Oregon Community Based Outreach Clinic--the first of its kind to open up east of the Cascades. Before this clinic got off the ground, central Oregon veterans had to drive to the Portland VA Medical Center for the medical services our Nation promised them--a 6- hour round trip. That hardship is now a thing of the past for Oregon's veterans. Today, the clinic is such a success that we are now in the process of expanding it.

Throughout all of his work on veterans' issues, Mike had a particular feel for the challenges his fellow servicemembers faced with post traumatic stress disorder, PTSD. He had started working with people dealing with illness during the Vietnam era, and continues to this day. Three years ago, Mike brought together a diverse group of veterans' leaders and formed the Central Oregon Vet Center Task Force to find ways to support veterans in their community. Mike led the group's monthly meetings, as they brainstormed strategies to persuade the VA how important it was to create a vet center in eastern Oregon. Almost a year ago we finally achieved that goal, and the Central Oregon Vet Center is now open for service. It is a place where combat veterans can get counseling and, just as importantly, find a community of people who have a common experience as warriors for the United States.

Thank you, Mike, for your friendship, your dedication, and your service to our veterans.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. Like Senator Feingold, I am an original cosponsor of the DISCLOSE Act, and would like to address the ``stand by your ad'' disclosure provision of that bill and the recent Citizens United Supreme Court ruling.

The Citizens United opinion was a reckless ruling that overturned decades of precedent and threatens the health of the democratic process. Citizens United laid down, for the first time, a sweeping new right for special interests of all types. It said that money is speech and corporations must have free speech. This directly overturns the position taken in the Supreme Court's

Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce opinion, which recognized the ``corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas.'' But now, the Court says that if individuals have the freedom to express themselves politically, then corporations, as well as unions and other special interests, should have the same rights as living, breathing human beings.

The DISCLOSE Act offers a significant step in countering this ill- conceived opinion. Although the full reach of Citizens United cannot be undone short of a constitutional amendment or reversal by the Supreme Court, the DISCLOSE Act would achieve important accountability within the bounds of the Court's ruling. In fact, even while a divided court was striking down common sense limits on corporations, a nearly unanimous court upheld disclosure requirements. Disclosure imposes ``no ceiling on campaign-related activities.'' They said, ``disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.''

But current disclosure laws were written for a time when corporations couldn't flood the airwaves with commercials and drown out the voices of individuals. Those laws need to be updated to mount a forceful response to this new reality. With those floodgates open, the DISCLOSE Act isn't just the smart thing to do--it is essential and it is constitutional.

Citizens United is a decision that is deeply unpopular with the American people--and for very good reason. The ruling unleashes a flood of new money into an election system already awash with too much money, too many special interests, and not enough accountability.

In February, a Washington Post-ABC News poll revealed that large majorities across the political spectrum opposed the decision. Eighty percent of respondents disagreed with Citizens United, with 65 percent ``strongly opposed.'' Even more remarkable, this number barely varied between Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. Regardless of age, race, education, or income, Americans disagree with this decision, and large majorities want Congress to take action to resist corporate influence of elections.

As part of the McCain-Feingold law, I worked with Senator Collins to make politicians stand by their ads, and now the DISCLOSE Act seeks to make corporations fulfill their civic responsibility in exactly the same way. Also, the bill would make sure that CEOs can't hide behind a trade association, or a shell company. In addition to a CEO disclaimer appearing in an ad, the DISCLOSE Act requires the top five funders behind an ad to be disclosed.

The bill would also make sure that TARP recipients and government contractors are not allowed to use essentially public money to influence elections. Finally, the bill would prevent foreigners from buying ads to influence the outcome of U.S. elections. The DISCLOSE Act seeks to protect the integrity of elections and to ensure that the American people have full knowledge about the messages that are delivered as part of political campaigns.

Contrary to critics' arguments, the DISCLOSE Act doesn't chill speech. In fact, it encourages the flow of information. Speak your mind, but let the public know who's doing the speaking. The marketplace of ideas is open, but like any marketplace, it only functions if everyone has the appropriate information. Without transparency, markets fail. In large part, it was a lack of transparency that allowed shady Wall Street deals to be perpetrated by Goldman Sachs and others at the expense of average shareholders and bond purchasers.

Without the DISCLOSE Act, there would be nothing to stop Wall Street firms from secretly funding a torrent of ads attacking the legislators and candidates working to bring accountability to Wall Street. These firms could covertly funnel money to a shell company or a trade association, with no way for consumers to know who was really behind those messages. Or, to use another example, BP could spend millions of dollars attacking members of Congress who pushed for stiffer laws on oil exploration and clean-ups, without revealing the source of the funding.

This is not idle speculation. It is an absolute certainty that special interests across the country will take full advantage of the opportunity that Citizens United affords them to spend freely on elections without disclosing their true identities. The only way to maintain a free and open democracy is to close that loophole. The American people are thoughtful and intelligent. If they know what special interest is behind a barrage of commercials before an election, they will understand the agenda and can evaluate the message accordingly.

The DISCLOSE Act will shed sunlight on all the new money entering our politics, and sunlight truly is the best disinfectant. I strongly urge my colleagues to enable the will of the American people, to ensure that corporations have the same responsibilities as people, and to guarantee that citizens' voices aren't drowned out.

I thank the chair. I yield for Senator Bayh.

Mr. President, on April 16, 2010, Senator Merkley and I objected to any unanimous consent agreement in connection with the nominations of Sharon E. Burke, to be the Director of Operational Energy Plans and Programs at the Department of Defense; Catherine Hammack, to be the Assistant Secretary of the Army; and Elizibeth A. McGrath, to be the Deputy Chief Management Officer at DOD. At that time, we needed assurance that DOD was taking the appropriate action to address the increasing conflict between national renewable energy policy and national defense.

I am pleased to say that we have dropped our objections to any unanimous consent agreement to consider these three nominations.

I am encouraged with the progress the Department of Defense, along with the Federal Aviation Administration, has achieved to acknowledge the critical nature of our future renewable energy program and its impact to national defense. Both agencies now appear committed to address the systemic process issues associated with siting our renewable energy programs. I hope this commitment continues. Because there is much more work to be done.

I believe we must pursue upgrading hardware and software for all of our radar arrays and adjust the siting permit process so that companies know in advance, not at the eleventh hour, of any DOD objections. But I also believe there is a need for an impartial entity with the authority to consider strategic civilian energy development and national defense needs. I know it won't be easy, but I look forward to working with the administration and Defense Department to establish such an organization.