unanimous consent: The usual Senate procedure for calling up bills for consideration. Under this procedure, the objections of a single senator can prevent a bill from coming to the floor. (pp. 571-572) Whenever possible, however, bills reach the Senate floor not by motion but by unanimous consent. The motion to consider a bill usually is debatable and, therefore, subject to a filibuster. Even before the bill can reach the floor, and perhaps face a filibuster, there may be extended debate on the question of whether or not the Senate should even consider the bill at all. It is to avoid this danger that the Majority Leader attempts to get all Senators to agree by unanimous consent to take up the bill he wishes to have debated. If Senators withhold their consent, they are implicitly threatening extended debate on the question of considering the bill. Senators may do so because they oppose that bill or because they wish to delay consideration of one measure in the hope of influencing the fate of some other, possibly unrelated, measure. Senators can even place a "hold" on a bill, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules or precedents, by which they ask their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any unanimous consent request to consider the bill, at least until they have been consulted. More often than not, the Majority Leader will not even make such a unanimous consent request if there is a hold on a bill. ============================================================== http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/92999pjl.htm Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy Confirmation Hearing 1st Session, 106th Congress Senate Judiciary Committee September 29, 1999 In February of this year, the Majority Leader and the Democratic Leader sent a letter to all Senators to address this practice of ³secret holds.² They told us then that ³members wishing to place a hold on any . . . executive calendar business shall notify the committee of jurisdiction of their concerns.² I am the Ranking Democrat on the committee of jurisdiction for these nominations and have not been shown that courtesy by a single Senator obstructing consideration of this nominations. The leaders¹ letter goes on to state: ³Further, written notification should be provided to the respective Leader stating their intentions regarding the . . . nomination.² I have checked with Senator Daschle and he has received no such notification. Thus, in spite of what was supposed to be a Senate policy that did away with anonymous holds, we remain in a situation where I do not even know who is objecting to proceeding to schedule a vote on the Paez and Berzon nominations, let alone why they are objecting. In this setting I have no ability to reason with them or address whatever their concerns are because I do not know their concerns. That is wrong and unfair to the nominees. ============================================================== http://www.commoncause.org/publications/030499.htm Senate "Holds" Now See Light Of Day; Common Cause Thanks Senators Wyden And Grassley Thursday March 4, 1999 Common Cause today commended Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) for their efforts to end the secrecy surrounding "holds" in the United States Senate. Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) and Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) announced the decision to end the practice of secret "holds" in a letter yesterday. Although Senators still may make use of "holds" to block bills or nominations, they now must notify the sponsor of the blocked legislation and the appropriate Senate committee, effectively making the information public. "Thanks to the efforts of Senators Wyden and Grassley, no longer will one single Senator be able to hold up the public's business with anonymity," Common Cause President Ann McBride said. Beginning in the last Congress, Common Cause and a coalition of organizations joined the efforts of Senators Wyden and Grassley to end the anonymity of Senate holds. ============================================================== http://www.commoncause.org/publications/021198_letter.htm The Honorable Trent Lott Majority Leader United States Senate S-230 The Capitol Washington, DC 20510 Dear Majority Leader Lott: As organizations representing millions of Americans who are committed to open and active public participation in our nation's policy-making process, we write to urge you to adopt in this session of Congress a change in Senate procedures to eliminate the use of "secret holds." As you know, in the first session of the 105th Congress the Senate unanimously adopted an amendment sponsored by Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) to require that a Senator who wishes to place a "hold" on legislation or other matters publish notice of the "hold" in the Congressional Record. The amendment, which was included in the District of Columbia FY 1998 Appropriations bill, was dropped from the final version of the legislation. We believe it is time to move forward with this reform and to put an end to the lack of public accountability surrounding the use of "secret holds" in the Senate. The public's business should be conducted in public. The considerable debate that took place last year on the question of "secret holds" as well as the unanimous Senate vote on the amendment to eliminate them offer compelling reasons to avoid any further delay in ending this practice. We therefore urge you to support a change to the Standing Orders of the Senate that would require, as the amendment did, publication in the Congressional Record within 48 hours of a notice of the placement of a "hold." ============================================================== http://www.senate.gov/~grassley/releases/1998/p8r06-23.htm For Immediate Release Thursday, June 25, 1998 Contact: Jill Kozeny 202/224-1308 Grassley, Wyden Seek to Shed Light on Senate Secret Washington, DC ‹ Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa today joined Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon to win approval of an amendment that would make the Senate more open by eliminating the practice of secret holds on Senate business. The bi-partisan amendment was incorporated by the floor leader into the Defense Department authorization bill that is likely to be completed by the Senate tonight. The Grassley/Wyden amendment would require individual senators to disclose publicly when a hold is place on a motion or matter before the Senate. Today, an informal Senate tradition is practiced whereby individual senators can place a hold on any bill or nomination. The name of the senator who has objected is kept confidential by the floor leader of the senator's political party. According to analysis by the Bureau of National Affairs, the holds system is more complicated than commonly thought. Hold procedures differ on the Republican and Democratic sides of the aisle. Informal rules govern placing, discovering and removing holds. There are variations in the kinds of holds. Varying views exist about whether holds can be anonymous. And even the administration uses holds placed through senators. Grassley said his aim is not to eliminate the use of holds because "they can be very useful in resolving problems or addressing concerns of individual senators or group of senators with a bill that's moving to the floor. They really can smooth the flow of Senate business." Grassley said the problem is that senators are not required to be up-front about their objections, so holds can be misused to stall Senate consideration of a certain proposal indefinitely. "My goal is to let the sun shine in: Place a hold if you've got a problem with a bill. Then, state your concern on the record so that it can be addressed, and the Senate can be more productive," Grassley said. The Grassley/Wyden amendment would require any senator placing a hold on a pending matter to disclose through the Congressional Record the fact that the hold was placed within two session days. Grassley and Wyden won Senate approval for their amendment last fall, during Senate consideration of the appropriations bill for the District of Columbia. However, the no-secret-holds measure was dropped from the spending bill during conference committee consideration. Grassley said the legislative branch of government is the people's branch of government, "and the people's business should be done in the light of day." He said his initiative with Wyden is based on the principle articulated by Supreme Court Justice Louise Brandeis, that "sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light is the most efficient policeman." -30- ============================================================== http://www.senate.gov/~wyden/docs/holds.htm SENATORS WYDEN AND GRASSLEY VICTORIOUS IN FIGHT TO END "SECRET HOLDS" Senator Ron Wyden has announced that the controversial and arcane practice of secret holds has officially ended. Majority Leader Trent Lott and Minority Leader Tom Daschle released a letter on April 20, 1999, declaring that secret holds would no longer be tolerated under Senate rules. "The fog is beginning to lift in the U.S. Senate," said Wyden. "I have never understood how the Senate could expect to do the people's business without letting people see what we're up to." Wyden took up the "secret holds" issue upon entering the Senate in 1996. Last Congress, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) joined Wyden in introducing an amendment requiring Senators to publicly disclose all holds. For decades, individual Senators and their staff were able to block consideration of any measure without public disclosure simply by notifying one Senate leader of their objections. Every session of Congress, dozens of bills and nominations with widespread Senate support never made it to the floor for a vote on the basis of one Senator's anonymous objections. Wyden and Grassley have worked closely with Senators Lott and daschle over the past several years to end the problem of secret holds, and their efforts paid off with the new, bipartisan policy on holds. Wyden thanked Lott and Daschle for their willingness to embrace this important reform, saying, "It took a lot of courage on their part to agree to take away one of the most powerful tools in the arsenal of a Senator, but our democratic form of government will function far better as a result of their action today." ============================================================== http://www.impactnet.org/dirty.htm The Senate's Dirty Secret by: Dan McCandless In August of 1993 Representative James Inhofe, now Senator Inhofe, ( R. ­ Oklahoma ) stood in the well of the House of Representatives and exposed the "Secret Discharge Petition". The "Secret Discharge Petition" was used for over sixty years as rather effective tool to keep popular legislation ( debt reduction, campaign finance reform, balanced budget, etc.,) from ever becoming law. Thanks to Senator Inhofe we can now find out within a matter of minutes just where any particular member of the House stands on any issue. Their constituents can take those Representatives that profess conservatism, yet refuse to sign the Discharge Petition that would force a vote on a particular issue, to task. There is, however, in the Senate a method of stopping cold any legislation or appointment that is far more sinister. It is called the "SECRET HOLD" Over a hundred years ago one senator would put off or "hold" the passage of a bill or an appointment in order to accommodate a fellow senator. For example, let's say that senator "X" had promised a contributor (or relative) a job in exchange for a "voluntary" contribution or there was a vote due on a piece of legislation that affected his state while he was "detained" with a young female constituent and a bottle of champagne. Another senator would "hold" up the necessary action for passage until senator "X" could make it to the floor. What was once a simple "courtesy " to keep a degree of "comity" ( i.e., "I'll cover your bottom ­ you cover mine") in the senate has now become the most dangerous and damning threat to the people's right to know "who" is doing "what" to "whom" ever devised. The rules for using the "Senate's Secret Hold" are really quite simple: There are no rules! Unlike the "Secret Discharge Petition" that once kept House bills bottled up, the "Senate Secret Hold" has no WRITTEN RULES! What is really horrifying is that not only can senators place a "Secret Hold" but also literally ANYONE can! Yes ­ ANYONE! For example: "Šthis insidious manner of unknown people putting holds for unknown reasons on pieces of legislationŠ" (Senator Exon; Safety Legislation, Senate, October 08, 1994; p. s14991). By 1998, the number of KNOWN "Secret Holds" had swelled from just a few to "Šthere were over 42 holds in play at one time. As I mentioned, this game of legislative hide and seek was underway outside these Chambers" ( Senator Wyden; Secret Holds On Nominations And Legislation, Senate, June 22, 1998, p. s6757). On November 08, 1997 Senator Wyden made the following statement: " The irony of all this [referring to "Secret Holds"] Mr. President, is that often even Senators don't know when a hold has been placed in their name. I have had a number of Senators tell me since I've come to the Senate that they have been approached about holds. They were told they had a hold on a measure. It turned out the staff had put a hold on it without their even knowing about it." (Senator Wyden, Senate Holds, p.s12075). Not only can a Senator's staff member place a "secret Holds" on a piece of legislation ­ but so can a staff member of ANOTHER Senator in the name of the first Senator! Because there are no formal written rules who's to say that a lobbyist cannot place a hold on a bill? What is there to stop a senator from proposing a bill to get elected then killing their own bill with a "Secret Hold" after the election? If you honestly believe that a member of Congress wouldn't go that far ­ think again! It got "Read my lips ­ no New Taxes" Bush elected didn't it? As Mchiavelli stated "ŠI deem it best to stick to the practical truth of things rather than to fancies". The practical truth is those that are of a conservative philosophy are losing out and will continue to do so for one basic reason: They lack a common issue on which to focus. Liberal groups ­ from the Democratic Socialist of America to the Congressional Black Caucus ­ all have their own personal agendas yet work in unison to achieve their focused goals. To be successful, the Right must learn from the Left. Conservatives "MUST find a common issue to rally around. One such issue could be, and should be, the ABOLITION of the "Senate Secret Hold". No Republic, no Democracy can survive when those that are elected to make the laws are allowed to make their own rules. (St. Thomas Moore learned the hard way). That is an historical truth! ============================================================== Tom Daschle SD D Issued statement banning anonymous holds from being placed on Senate bills. Now bills can be held, but not anonymously. Acted with Trent Lott. [REF: AP News Bulletin, March 4, 1999. "New Rule Ends Senate's Secret Holds."] ============================================================== FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1999 THE MONITOR'S VIEW More Sunshine in the Senate Kudos to senate majority leader Trent Lott (R) of Mississippi and minority leader Tom Daschle (D) of South Dakota for ending the pernicious practice of "secret holds." Using secret holds, senators for decades have been able to anonymously block or delay bills and nominations they objected to. What originally began as a courtesy to members who couldn't attend a vote - or who might need more time to study a proposal - became a tool for obstruction. Senators often used it simply to stymie legislation or White House nominations, leaving a sponsor or nominee in limbo, ignorant of who was objecting or why. Toward a session's end, groups of senators would sometimes engage in "rolling holds," in which one senator would lift an objection, only to be immediately replaced by another. The two leaders responded to a long campaign against the practice waged by Sens. Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa and Ron Wyden (D) of Oregon. While both use holds themselves, they publically identify themselves in the Congressional Record when doing so. Senators Lott and Daschle last week jointly wrote to their colleagues announcing that from now on, a senator wishing to place a hold must notify the bill's sponsor, the appropriate committees, and his or her leader. The change protects individual senators' interests; they can still place public holds. But it also opens up the process to public scrutiny, levels the playing field, and should boost public confidence in the Senate. It's the way a democratic body should operate. Thanks to the leaders for doing the right thing. The URL for this page is: http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1999/03/12/fp10s2-csm.shtml ============================================================== http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/press_clippings/sort_by_date/031699.html The Senate has ended the practice of placing "secret holds" on nominations. Senators can still place holds, but they will have to identify themselves to the committee with jurisdiction. Editorial, No More Secret ŒHolds,¹ Wash. Post, March 10, 1999, at A22. ============================================================== http://www.washingtonpest.com/1999/no_we_are_not_99.html Know when to hold 'em In the Senate, there is a pernicious practice call a "hold" which any Senator can secretly place on executive branch nominations, usually a tactic to extort something out of the White House. But earlier this year, under the leadership of Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), the Senate agreed to end the practice. Comes the nomination of Richard Holbrooke to be U.N. ambassador. Oops, there are holds on the nomination. One of them is by Grassley.

But it gets even funnier. At least Grassley is out in the open on his hold. He wants the State Department to settle a dispute with a whistleblower. But there are at least two other secret holds on the nomination. But sources in the Senate outed the authors of the hold: Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). Both of them want President Clinton to appoint a person to a vacant seat on the Federal Election Commission, which is supposed to police federal campaign practices. The White House is balking because the fellow the two solons want on the job doesn't believe in any restrictions on election practices and especially on campaign spending. ============================================================== http://loper.org/~george/archives/1999/Mar/92.html "Senate leaders have ended the secrecy with which senators can put 'holds' on legislation or nominations, a controversial practice used to delay or block action, especially at the end of a session" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999). "While senators can still use holds to stall action, they will lose their power to do so with anonymity that has made holds such a powerful weapon in the arsenal of obstruction" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999). "From now on, a senator who wants to put a hold on a bill or nomination will have to notify its sponsor and the committee with jurisdiction over the issue and give written notification to party leaders. Holds imposed by staff members will no longer be honored unless accompanied by their senator's written notification by the end of the next business day" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999). The decision, announced by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) in a letter to colleagues that was disclosed yesterday amounted to a personal victory for Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who have been fighting for three years to end the secrecy of holds" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999). "What it means is that the fog is starting to lift over the Senate,' said Wyden. 'Secret holds have become indefensible ... and the Senate has known it for some time, but this institution changes slowly'" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999). "'It will make the Senate more accountable and also help us be more productive because there's a great deal of wasted energy by members find out who's holding up their billl' that could better be spent trying to resolve the problem that led to the hold, added Grassley" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999). "While holds are not specifically sanctioned by Senate rules, they are routinely honored by Senate leaders as an advance warning of other delaying action, such as a filibuster. They were begun as a courtesy but over the years became an instrument of obstruction" (Helen Dewar, The Washington Post, March 4, 1999).