On the recordMay 18, 2010
But I think people ought to wake up to what is inevitable around here. When 3 or 4 years ago we had exactly the same substance up, it passed the Senate 84 to 13, I think, and through subterfuge, it was taken out in conference. The House doesn't conference a Senate procedure, so that is why I use the word ``subterfuge.'' So we ended up with something that has not worked in the last 3 or 4 years. Then we hear, particularly from the other side, about the holds, blaming this side for it. Every side has some guilt of misuse of holds. The fact is there is nothing in our amendment that changes the power of an individual Senator to hold up something. It is not as though we are trying to compromise this very significant power that an individual Senator has, but we are taking the adjective ``secret'' away from secret hold so that you know who the person is; so you can have dialogue with that person; so you can find out what their objections are; so you can reach compromises. That is the purpose of it. When things are secret, it is not only obnoxious to our principle of representative government; it violates the opportunity for an institution such as this to actually work.
