Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President and colleagues, I rise today to talk about this legislation, the DISCLOSE Act. Like much of the legislation that is being taken up in the Senate these days, the partisan battle lines are already being drawn on this bill. One side sees the impending vote as yet another opportunity to score some political points off the other, and vice versa. That makes for a lively debate, but I am not sure what good it does the American people. I will say on a personal note that I will always fight with every ounce of my strength for the people of Oregon and the folks whom I have the honor to represent. I say to the Presiding Officer, you and I have talked about this from time to time. I do not exactly come to the floor of the Senate looking for gratuitous, political, counterproductive fights. What I have been interested in, what I have tried to make the hallmark of my service here, is trying to find common ground, trying to find ways to bring people together. Some have said that is overly optimistic, almost too idealistic. But I prefer to say it is simply bipartisanship and principled bipartisan. It has been my experience in the Senate that if you can get folks to put aside their political talking points and focus on commonsense policy, not only are there opportunities for us in the Senate to find common ground, there are opportunities to advance policies that make sense for all Americans, whether they are Democrats or Republicans. I have joined Senator Schumer in cosponsoring the DISCLOSE Act because I continue to believe this is such an opportunity for bipartisanship and finding common ground. For me, this issue took hold after the 1996 special election where Senator Smith, my former colleague--my very good and personal friend-- and I campaigned against each other to be Oregon's first new U.S. Senator in more than 30 years. Suffice it to say that campaign was not the kind of calm and upbeat debate that folks here in the Senate would expect from either me or from Gordon Smith. Instead, it was one of the ugliest campaigns in Oregon history. There were attack ads being run by both the left and the right. Certainly, while policy differences and personal criticisms are fair and an almost inevitable part of a political campaign, what bothered Senator Smith and me at that time, during that special election--the only race that was being run anywhere in our country--is not only did Oregon voters not know who was responsible for the bulk of those ads; neither Gordon Smith nor I could figure out who was saying what about whom. My view was that something had to change. Something is way out of whack when you are having scores of ads, hundreds and hundreds of ads being run, and no one can figure out who is running them. My concern is that we are heading back into exactly that same kind of situation, given the decision from the U.S. Supreme Court. Shortly after my election in 1996, when I had watched all of those ads being run from all those various and sundry groups and not able to identify who was running them, I came back to the Senate and said I am going to do everything I can to change that. I got together with a number of us on both sides of the aisle; let me emphasize that, because it can't be emphasized enough. This was a bipartisan group that was concerned about that particular issue. We came up with a concept known as Stand By Your Ad, where, in effect, those who run ads in their campaigns--it has continued to this day--would have to own up to their being the ones sponsoring the message. As part of the campaign reform of 2002, Stand By Your Ad was included. In my view, it has ushered in a new era of personal accountability in political elections by requiring candidates to take personal responsibility for the contents of their ads. Not only has every Member of this body seen those ads; my guess is just about everyone but our new colleague from West Virginia has actually recorded those ads. That is, in effect, what is required. One has to say: ``I am Ron Wyden and I approved this message.'' It certainly isn't a hard thing to do, and it certainly is not out of line with what the American people have a right to expect, which is openness and personal accountability. Now with the Supreme Court decision giving corporations and unions and even foreign economic interests the ability to spend as much, if not more, money to influence elections than the candidates themselves, I think it is only right that these groups abide by the same rules as the candidates themselves. Just as voters have a right to know when a candidate is trying to influence their vote, I believe voters have a right to know when one of these powerful organizations seeks to do the same. Of course, this is going to have an impact on the content of political speech. Sunlight is the most powerful disinfectant, and I think all of us ought to understand these groups that are buying all these ads are going to be a little bit more hesitant to pay for an outrageous attack, an outlandish overreach, if they know they have to put their name on it. I think the question that ought to be asked here in the Senate is not why should organizations have to stand by their political speech, but the question should be why don't they want to. What are they actually ashamed of? In my view, if you feel strongly enough about an issue to buy television time, you ought to have the guts to put your name on it. I have felt that ever since 1996 when I first campaigned for the Senate, and I continue to believe that today. I know the debate we are going to have tonight and tomorrow on the DISCLOSE Act is going to spur a lot of very impassioned speeches about political elections, and there are going to be accusations flown by one side or another about who is going to get a political advantage and what ought to be done to quash the person who is somehow deriving a political advantage out of it. But I would simply say as we go into this discussion that everybody here in the Senate ought to remember exactly how we earned our seats in the first place. This very institution was founded on the idea of equality and free and open debate. Each and every citizen's voice and vote would be given the same weight as each and every other. What concerns me is that the Supreme Court decision, in my view--I say this respectfully--does a disservice to that concept by making it possible for some voices to drown out others. That is what ought to be contemplated at this point, and it is certainly what I have been talking about at home, which is that this decision has made it effectively possible for a foreign economic interest to have a louder voice in this country's political process than a hard-working, tax-paying Oregonian. I don't think that is fair; I don't think it is just; and I am not prepared to stand for it. I am proud to join Senator Schumer in sponsoring and advocating for this important legislation that, in my view, is worthy of bipartisanship. I know there is going to be a strong push to deal with the politics of this issue, but I think this bill is now worthy of bipartisan support. Changes have been made to the legislation to address some of the original concerns that were expressed about the bill. There were concerns originally addressed that some groups weren't being held as accountable as others and I believe the legislation has been amended to correct many of those problems. I think Senator Schumer deserves considerable credit for it. I have always felt that a credible effort at transparency means you have to hold your friends just as accountable as those who may disagree with you, and this legislation does that. It does other important reforms in terms of electronic filing, and I think it is very much in the interests of the American people. It certainly will make it possible for the press to report more expeditiously on these kinds of expenditures. I wish to commend Chairman Schumer of the Rules Committee. I think he has been genuinely interested in a collaborative and open process. I believe Senator Schumer has asked me specifically to participate in this kind of process because he knows that is what I feel so strongly about. We have major issues we have to tackle in the days ahead. I heard Senator Kyl talk about taxes. Senator Kyl made a point, in discussing taxes with me, about the whole role of tax expenditures which, in effect, is a huge issue in this tax debate. Senator Gregg and I have put out the first bipartisan tax reform bill in two decades. So we have a lot of work to do here and we have to do it in a bipartisan way. I am very hopeful the changes that have now been made, particularly ones ensuring that one makes it clear--that it is so important that accountability and transparency apply in the broadest possible way--and that will make it possible to bring both sides together here in the Senate. We came together back in 1996 to write Stand By Your Ad. A number of those Senators on both sides of the aisle I know feel very strongly about open and transparent government. Let's find a way for the Senate to duplicate what we did in 1996, and let's make sure that as we go into this election there is transparency and accountability. I don't want to see again what we saw back in 1996 where ads are flying from all sides, in every direction, making charges that are clearly outrageous and over the line and in no way ensures that voters know who is paying for those ads. The country deserves better. The Senate ought to make it possible for the country to get better and more accountable government, and I am very hopeful this Senate will pass the DISCLOSE Act, particularly the important changes that Senator Schumer has made, in the days ahead. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are taking a huge toll on our servicemembers and their families. To date, 123 Oregonians have died in those wars, leaving behind grieving friends and families. I'll never forget the pain I've heard in the voices of the Oregon parents I've spoken to after they've lost a son or daughter to war. These parents are often called ``Gold Star parents'' because, by tradition, they display a Gold Star flag to let the world know of their sacrifice. Our nation can't lift the burden of their grief. No one can. However, our nation does commit to recognize the immense sacrifice of Gold Star parents by giving them certain benefits. One of those benefits is a 10-point hiring preference for unmarried Gold Star mothers when they apply for jobs with the federal government. But I was surprised to learn that this preference cannot be given to Gold Star fathers. This inequity is a relic from the past; an example of the law has not kept up with the times. We can now see that all unmarried Gold Star mothers and fathers deserve to have the federal government recognize their sacrifice equally. That is why I am introducing a bill to update the law. I learned of this disparity from my friend Steve Ellis of Baker City, Oregon. Steve lost his beloved daughter, Army Corporal Jessica Ann Ellis, when she was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad in 2008. Although Steve is a Gold Star father, he would still not be eligible for the benefit under my proposed change because he is married. But he didn't point out this inequity in the law for his own benefit. He did it for future Gold Star fathers. He saw an inequity in the law, and felt it was his duty to try and get it fixed for other Gold Star fathers. So today I introduce the Jessica Ann Ellis Gold Star Fathers Act as a small legislative fix that will make a big change to federal veterans' preference laws through true equality. This bill will give any unmarried Gold Star parent, regardless of gender, a 10-point hiring preference when they apply for federal jobs. It will also give the benefit to any unmarried parent of a totally and permanently disabled servicemember. Gold Star mothers and fathers deserve equal recognition for the loss of a child who bravely made the ultimate sacrifice for his or her country. The Jessica Ann Ellis Gold Star Fathers Act will give them that. This bill is supported by the American Gold Star Mothers organization, and is cosponsored by Senator Akaka, Senator Voinovich, Senator Collins, Senator Landrieu and Senator Lieberman. I hope it can be passed quickly. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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?

Mr. WYDEN. 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?

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN

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

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

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

Mr. WYDEN. 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.

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

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

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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, H.R. 4425, H.R. 4547, H.R. 4628.

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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. WYDEN. 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.