Jim Inhofe: “The situation is exactly the same here, Mr. President. In fact, the very stated reason for this whole bill is to require…”

“The situation is exactly the same here, Mr. President. In fact, the very stated reason for this whole bill is to require Congress to do the people's business in the open. A Senator may have a hold on a nomination or a bill or a unanimous consent agreement, and that hold is secret. It is just as possible for a Senator to keep his constituents and Americans in general in the dark now about their holds as it was for House Members before I successfully led the charge for transparency in discharge petitions. Indeed the Wall Street Journal was strongly in favor of my House efforts at that time. Toward that end, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal's six editorials on the issue of discharge motions. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 1993] Real House Reform On his first day in office in 1987, Rep. Jim Inhofe asked a fellow Oklahoma Member how he could be so liberal and keep getting elected in a conservative state. A third Congressman interrupted: ``It's easy. Vote liberal. Press release conservative.'' Rep. Inhofe took a big step toward ending such hypocrisy Tuesday, when Congress voted 384 to 40 for his proposal to end the secrecy of discharge petitions.…”