Being an election year, this is a recipe for an explosion of an extraordinarily powerful Senate practice. . . the use of secret holds. On Monday evening, Senator Grassley and I came to the floor to put members on notice that we would be offering the same amendment we offered last year on anonymous holds. We discussed the Century-old Senate tradition of members being granted the courtesy of ``holding'' a debate until they are available to participate. We believe this venerable Senate practice should continue. As a public institution, however, we believe the use of holds should occur in the full light of day. We believe in the not-so-radical notion that the public's business should be done in public. The amendment we are offering is identical to an amendment that the Senate adopted last Fall. The amendment would eliminate the secrecy of the Senate's holds procedure. It would simply require that any Senator who notifies leadership of an intent to object to a motion to proceed make that objection public within 48 hours.
Ron Wyden: “Being an election year, this is a recipe for an explosion of an extraordinarily powerful Senate practice. . . the use of…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing the issue of secret holds in the Senate during a speech on legislative transparency.
Share
More from Ron Wyden
We urge the State Department to ensure timely processing of F, M, and J student and exchange visitor nonimmigrant visas, consistent with the approach taken by administrations of both parties in the past, and to implement other measures to…
Look, Trump has had no plan for Intel. He’s had no plan for intelligence for months and months, and I assume that’s going to continue.
While these secrecy demands carry no force of law, their coercive effect is extremely successful.
Each person whose information was inappropriately disclosed is entitled to know what happened to it, and Congress is entitled to know how a federal agency came to violate the same court order three times in six months.





