a statement in the "congressional record" when in the handful of instances we thought it was important to block a particular piece of legislation or a nomination, we felt it was important to be publicly accountable. all we are asking, mr. president, is that principle of openness, transparency and government in the sunshine apply to all members of the united states senate. the fact is, mr. president, secrecy has real consequences. i mentioned the fact that chief justice roberts has been so concerned about the judicial emergencies that he has seen develop in our court system. i will tell colleagues that i saw during the lame-duck session

on a bipartisan bill that senator cornyn and i spent many, many months on to combat sex trafficking, we saw the consequences of a secret hold when the bill passed the united states senate, went over to the house of representatives, was passed in the house, and then came back here to the united states senate, and it was blocked secretly. a bipartisan bill, mr. president, to allow us to strengthen the tools that law enforcement would have in order to fight sex trafficking, to provide urgently needed shelters to sex trafficking victims, a bipartisan bill that senator cornyn and i spent many, many months on, did not become law during the lame-duck session because of a secret hold.

so i think a lot of senators have seen exactly these kinds of problems. judges, u.s. attorney candidates, we had both from my home state -- two judges that couldn't be considered because of a hold with our being in a position to not identify who was objecting, same with a u.s. attorney. these are the real consequences, mr. president, of secret holds, and i want to close with one last point, and that is, the big winners, it seems to me, in these secret holds are the lobbyists. the lobbyists benefit tremendously from secret holds. practically every senator has got an request from a lobbyist asking if the senator would put a secret hold on a bill that

would kill it without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere. if you can get a u.s. senator to go out and put an anonymous hold on a bill, you've then hit the lobbyist jackpot. no lobbyist can win more significantly than by getting a senator to secretly object, because the senator is protected by the cloak of anonymity but so is the lobbyist. and with a secret hold, lobbyists can then go play both sides of the street. they can give lobbyists a victory for their clients without alienating potential or future clients. given the number of instances where i've heard of lobbyists asking for secret holds, i want to say that those who oppose our efforts to end secret holds are basically saying that we ought to give lobbyists an extra tool,

an extension of the tools they already have, in order to advocate for their clients and defy public accountability. in the past stricter ethics requirements with respect to lobbyists just looks to me to be the height of high poo chrissie if the senate adopts a variety of changes to curtail lobbying as has been done in the past and at the same time allow lobbyists to continue to benefit as so many of these special interests have from secret holds. so this is the opportunity, mr. president, after a decade and a half, for the public to get imawf a share shake -- to get a fair shake and for the public to come first. we have tried this in the past with laws. we've tried this in the past with pledges. but i this that the public has got on -- but i think that the public hasser caught on. there are going to be plenty of

differences between republicans and democrats with respect to how to form rules in the united states senate. what i think has come to light is it doesn't pass the smell test to keep arguing that senate business ought to be done in secret. the american people don't buy that anymore. they think this ought to be an open institution, a place wherever senator is held accountable. this time is going to be different. there are going to be owners, public owners, of any hold. there are going to be consequences for any senator who tries to block a bill or a nomination in secret. it's going to be an important vote when we come back, mr. president, a very important vote, and finally one that will require that public business here in the united states senate be done in public. mr. president, with that, i'd yield the floor.

mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for seven minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. murray: mr. president, i rise this afternoon to recognize and congratulate my good friend from maryland, senator barbara mikulski, on today becoming the longest-serving female senator in the history of the senate. this is an achievement that takes courage and passion and commitment. three things that all of us who know her so well know that she has in abundance. but even more important than honoring my friend on the length of her service, today i think it is important to recognize what she has done with that service. the senior senator from maryland, over her 24 years in the senate, has established her satisfies a trailblazer, a legislator, a leader, and a,

above all, a fighter for her people in her state. but to me and to all the other to women senators who followed in her footprints, she's simply a mentor. she's the senator who's offered us guidance, taught us to be fearless and has ho has stet a standard for all women senators who follow. mr. president, from the first time i ever spoke to senator mikulski, one thing was clear: she didn't run for the senate to be one woman senator. she ran to be one of many. i first came to the senate in 1992 in the so-called year of the woman. and i can remember a lot of the press that year being about how our incoming class of four women senators would open the door to changes in the culture of the senate. but when i golt here, i quickly -- but when i got here, i quickly realized that door had not already been broken, it had been broken down by senator mikulski. she was the first female democrat to serve on the senate appropriations committee, and

she was also the very first one to take all of the new women senators under her wing. senator mikulski realized back then there was no rule book for women in the senate, so she took it upon herself to help us guide the way. she drew on her own experiences to make the transition for all of us easier. she organized seminars, taught us about working together, taught us about the legislative process and the rules on the floor and many more subtle rules off the floor. in short, she showed us the ropes. and she has been doing it ever since. but her work doesn't end with helping women senators get their foot in the door. i don't know if it's because she was a social worker before she came to washington, but one thing senator mikulski knows is that relationships matter, and that's why she has worked to make sure that once women senators get here, we are working together on both sides of the aisle. it's why she brings republican

and democratic women together for dinners, so we can find common ground and help solve problems. because while senator mikulski knows it's important and courageous to be the first, shee also understands the first ones have to be responsible and successful so that others can and will follow. it's because she has done her job so well that other women have been able to million to her footsteps. and she has done her job well. mr. president, senator mikulski is here today as the longest-serving woman senator not by accident or by happenstance. she is here because she earned it. because the people of her state know she is an indispensable champion for their causes, because she works across party lines, because she delivers results, and because, as she has said to us so many time, she's always ready to square her shoulders, put on her lipstick

and suit up for the people who need it most. whether it's leading the fight for the very first bill president obama signed into law that guarantees women cannot be paid less than men for doing the same job or fighting for seniors that rely on social security or delivering investments for firefighters or police officers and first responders, or standing up for all those in maryland who depend on her state's environmental resources for their livelihood, there are few others that i want in my corner like her, and there are few others who work as hard as she does to give a voice to those who wouldn't otherwise have it. mr. president, since senator mikulski was elected back in 1986, she has helped guide the way for 22 more women senators. today there are 17. but she will also be the first one to tell you, we're not yet where we need to be. that more women need to serve in this body.

and that's why she has built a team of women senators wind her that continues to grow. every generation, every election, every year. today senator mikulski makes history by serving longer than any other woman, but i know that many years from now when women have achieved a larger, more representative body than we now have, senator mikulski will be at the very top of the list of people to thank. the person who not only cut the path but who went back and guided so many of of us down it. and thanks to herks one day the remarkable accomplishment we are celebrating today may no longer be such a remarkable thing for a woman to achieve; it will be commonplace. and that will be her true and lasting legacy. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mrs. hagan: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mrs. hagan: i am honored to honor senator mikulski. for more than 24 trail blazing years, senator mikulski has been one of the senate's fearest advocates for women, families, and for the people of maryland who have now elected her to the senate for five consecutive terms. before she arrived in washington in 1977, as the representative for the 3rd district of maryland, senator mikulski already had a distinguished career in public service working in baltimore as a social worker, then a community being a of itist and as a city council member. when she was first sworn in as a woman of the house of representatives, as a member of the house, she was one of just 18 female members whvment she intertd senate ten years later as the first democratic woman senator elected in her own right, she was one of just taboo

tbhim this upper chamber. but while those numbers have intimidated most, they only motivated and emboldened senator mikulski. she soon impressed her colleagues as she continues to do today with her work ethic, determination, keen understanding of issues, humor, and her commitment to her constituents. she has broken many barriers in her career. she was the first woman ever elected statewide in maryland. the first to chair an appropriations subcommittee. and the first woman to serve in the democratic leadership. if we are no longer surprised today when we see women in power in washington, it is only because we had pioneers like barbara mikulski. as she recently told cnn, quags i might be the first, but i don't want to be the last." there are now 17 women serving in the united states senate and senator mikulski, the dean of the women, is our leader and our champion. i was both humbled and honored

to have her escort me when i was sworn in as a united states senator two years ago. that was just the beginning of her ongoing mentorship. all of the senate -- although the senate can often be bogged down by partisanship, i appreciate that senator mikulski encourages and creates an environment of teamwork, respect, and friendship. but while we today mark her place in history has a woman senator, she is widely regarded as one of the most respected, accomplished, and effective public servants in all of congress. to use senator mikulski's own words, she has shoitsd a not about gender; it's about agenda. she is one of the senate's strongest advocates for science and technology and the importance of unvesting in innovation to spur our economy. in fact, earlier this year, i was watching a 3-d movie about the hubble telescope at the smithsonian with my daughter, a scientist, and there was senator

mikulski featured in the movie for her role preserving the telescope's budget, a feat she calls one of her proudest accomplishments. she also wrote the spousal ant antipoverty act which protects seniors from going bankrupt while paying for a spouse's nursing home care. she shepherded through the lily ledbetter act which shows no matter your age, religion, age or disability, you will receive equal pay for equal work. she fought tenaciously for her important amendment to health care reform legislation, ensuring that a comprehensive list of women's preventive services such as screenings for breast and cervical cancer would be covered with no added out-of-pocket expenses. i thank senator mikulski for her

mentorship, leadership and her fierce believe for empowerment for women in public office. i congratulate her on this tremendous accomplishment and i join my colleagues in looking forward to many more years of her distinguished service. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. mr. president, i notice -- i ask, notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. good to be back with you -- the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call, senator. mr. udall: i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. mr. udall: the process we're in right now -- we've had questions back and forth on this whole issue of senate rules reform, and i want to respond to senator alexander, because senator alexander raised some questions, and some of those questions were not answered on our side. and so i want to put in a couple

of responses here. the big question that he answered -- senator alexander, he asked the question: what is a filibuster? he was asking our side. he was saying in this debate, what is a filibuster. well, all of us know, and we've heard in this debate what a true filibuster is. we really saw a hero here on our side in terms of a true filibuster when it came to bernie sanders just a week or so ago where he stood up for eight hours to oppose a tax package on principle. and he took the floor and he spoke and spoke passionately. the other example, i think of a true, senator harkin, a true filibuster is the movie that the american public knows *t best is the jimmy stewart movie "mr. smith goes to washington." senator merkley earlier had some

charts on that, and he showed mr. smith on the floor surrounded by other senators, and he spoke until he collapsed. and then you have the old-time tales of the southern democrats when civil rights legislation was being pushed in the 1950's and 1960's, when a number of what you'd say northern senators were pushing antilynching law, an antilynching law because lynching was going on in the south and they were saying you can't do that. some of the southern senators were standing up 20 hours, 25 hours, completely exhausted on the floor speaking. that's what the american public thinks about a filibuster. we know that isn't what's happening here. and i -- because i've been here for two years and the only real filibuster i saw was the bernie sanders filibuster. i asked one of the historians, i

think, when was the last one. they said you go back to 1992 with alphonse d'amato where i think he took 12 hours to talk about an issue in new york that he was passionate about. when senator alexander asks us what is a filibuster, that's my description of what is a filibuster. but what i think the real question is -- and i would like senator alexander when he returns to answer this, is what impact has the threat of a filibuster had. what impact has the threat of a filibuster had? people are probably saying what is the threat of a filibuster? what are we talking about when we say the threat of a filibuster? well, actually we've been talking about it all day. first of all, it's the secret holds, as our presiding officer knows, who sits on the judiciary committee. they work very hard in the judiciary committee. they produce a bipartisan result

on these judicial nominations, the judicial nominations. they came out, they're put on the calendar. and then months and months and months later some of them get up for a vote. i don't know about the exact number, but my understanding, we had to send back to the president a number of judicial nominations that had received bipartisan support from the committee. we finished our business in december, and we sent those nominations back only to have to have the president send them back down again because it's a new congress, we're going to have to have hearings all over again. this is the kind of situation that we're in. that's one specific case of a threat of a filibuster. and we have these all the time. one of the ones that is the most remarkable to me -- and i'm not going to pick out the senator or the exact committee, but a number of us as senators saw a

piece of, or a stack of bills, a stack of legislation that had come out on a bipartisan basis out of one of our committees that was this thick. and it was legislation from two years -- two years of that committee legislating in a bipartisan way and those democrats and republicans working together and doing the hard work. and one senator, one senator held up all of that legislation this last congress, held it up completely. that is the threat of a filibuster. you say, well, how did that happen? what happens is the legislation comes out of committee, and a senator who we don't even know -- i mean, a lot of us suspect after various things that have happened over time, but the senator comes down and says in a secret way to his leader if you bring any of those bills to the floor, i'm going to filibuster. that's what the threat of a

filibuster is. but that's an agreement that none of us know about. the threat of a filibuster is, has had an enormous impact on this institution. let me describe a couple of the other things. i talked about judicial nominations, executive nominations. i come from the era when my father was secretary of interior, i was a kid. i remember when he went into office and visiting with him about that later, and he said to me -- i said we can't get executive people in place. you don't have your team. and he said, tom, he says, i had my whole team in place the first two weeks. so you're talking department of interior, the whole the first two weeks. well, i remember the "washington post" did an extensive study first year of the obama administration. imagine president obama takes office, he goes through a year,

and he only had 55% of his executive nominations in place. he only had 55% of his team. so those of us that believe in government believe that government does good things out there find that appalling because we believe if you put people in place, they'll be responsive to citizens on the particular issues that those departments have. that is very, very important, i believe. getting executive nominations in place. so that's what the threat of a filibuster ends up doing. the other -- and i see my colleague from mississippi is here, and i don't know whether he's going to step in for mr. alexander and ask questions. we're in this questioning back and forth period. senator harkin may want to say something on the question issue too here.

what impact hassed threat of a filibuster had -- has the threat of a filibuster had? we can hear the argument -- senator alexander, i think, made this a number of times. look at all the great things you accomplished in the lame duck and look at all the great things you feel you accomplished in terms of health care, the stimulus package and financial reform. the reality is in order to accomplish those in the constant filibuster we were in, we have basically destroyed our institution. and as some of the more senior senators here have told me, the senate is kind of a shadow of itself. and what do i mean we've destroyed the institution? well, it used to be that our big oversight function was to look over the money bills for the government, the appropriations bills. well, guess what? last year we didn't do a single

appropriations bill on the floor of the united states senate. you don't have to go back very far. when we used to bring all 12 of those bills to the floor and we'd have two or three days of lively debate. every senator can put in amendments. senator harkin knows because he's one of the cardinals. he's the chairman of one of these committees. and it's a very helpful process, one for the agency to know that all senators are overlooking that agency, and for a person in senator harkin's position as the chair of the committee to know what the concern of the entire body is. but we've given that up. we don't do that any more. and it's because of the constant filibuster and the threat of filibuster. so you have that situation. i would think my friend from mississippi, the senator from mississippi, would be very concerned about this one. we didn't do a budget last year.

the one way we can really impact -- if you talk about fiscal responsibility and you talk about keeping the government under control and guiding it in the right direction, the one thing you want to do is a budget. you want to pass a budget and set some outlines there. well, we didn't do a budget last year because we were in a constant filibuster, threat of a filibuster. and the story goes on and on. and so senator harkin, we're in the question phase right now. i'm going to yield the floor. i'm sure there's time still on the other side. but i think the question is not as senator alexander raised, what is a filibuster? the real question out there, when senator alexander returns, is what impact has the threat of a filibuster had on this institution we love of the united states senate? i yield the floor.

mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: briefly, i know the senator from mississippi wants to speak and i won't interrupt that. but i would hope the senator from new mexico would stay on the floor. i understand the senator from mississippi is going to be relatively believe, but i would like to engage in a colloquy with the senator from new mexico on the topic he just spoke after the senator from mississippi finishes. the presiding officer: the senator from mississippi. mr. wicker: thank you, mr. president. i am compelled to ask unanimous consent that josh davis, a legislative fellow on my staff, be granted privileges of the floor during the balance of today's session. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wicker: thank you very much. i do not want to intrude too much on this discussion. it's very important debate. i don't want to disappoint my friend from new mexico or to delay my friend from iowa. i am speaking today,

mr. president, in morning business on a very important international foreign policy issue, and that will be the subject of my address today. i wanted to come down here the first day of this legislative session this, 112th congress, and talk about the deteriorating situation with regard to oppression and the rule of law in raoufrpblt -- russia. i've come to this floor a number of times to share my concern on this subject. and i want to begin this congress by, once again, expressing my deep concern over what we see happening just in the recent -- in recent days in russia. i remember looking back in 1990, 1991 at the hope that we had,

the optimism that we in the west had as we watched the -- the iron curtain fall, as we watched the wall tumble in berlin. and we watched with hope that this would be a new day for people behind the iron curtain and a new opportunity for freedom and openness there in that society. unfortunately, year after year, month after month we've seen since the fall of the sof soviet union, a very regrettable and disturbing deterioration in the rule of law in russia. and -- and a move back to the authoritarian rule of old that all -- all remember so well. recent events in russia, once again, cause us to believe that this problem is escalating and

caused me to come to the floor today on this subject. last month the leadership of this senate pushed through, i think in haste, the new start treaty with russia. i had concerns over the treaty, and i ultimately voted against it. we had a lot more debate that needed to take place. we had dozens of amendments that went undebated and unconsidered and not voted upon by this body and -- and i regret that. i always thought that nuclear arms policy and treaties with regard to our -- our nuclear stockpile should be based on the security of the american people. that the primary issue should be what is in the best united states interest. what we saw a lot of in the

debate last month was instead an emphasis on new start as -- as the centerpiece of this administration's effort to reset relations with russia. i -- i certainly support the resetting of our relation with russia, but i did not believe that the new start treaty was the best way to advance this. but it should concern all of us -- it should concern everyone within the sound of my voice, regardless of how we voted on new start, that within two weeks time of this body approving the new start treaty, a russian court issued a second spurious guilty verdict against vorskofki and levited.

almost simultaneously authorities in russia arrested former dispute prime minister boris nemzof. these events took place within days of each other. what do these events mean, mr. president? to me they are two other examples of the way that the russian leadership does not respect the rule of law or the freedom of expression in an assembly. the russian government does not share our commitment to international norms or fostering of modernization. a voting u.s.-russian relations will be ex readingly -- exceedingly difficult while these differences persist. during the last congress i spoke several times on the trial of khodorkovsky and plevidad.

i said that i hope that russia would choose the right path and somehow justice would prevail in that case. sadly it did not. a russian court issued another politically motivated guilty verdict against these two russian dissidents. this disturbing verdict revealed -- reveals that the russian judiciary lacks independence and that russian authorities can act above the law at will. this latest verdict was not only sad for mikail khodokovkw and lebdev's family, but all of us. prime minister putin's comments on the case before the verdict was even issued were very troubling, indeed. according to the associated

press russia's prime minister said the crimes of the former oil tycoon of khodorkovsky have been proven, said this before the -- before it was issued. mr. putin said that khodorkovsky's present punishment is more liberal than the 150 prison sentenced to madoff. citing the years of advocacy, the very respected publication "the economist" explained that it was a slap in the face of all those foreign dignitaries who lobbied medvedev to stop persecuting khodorkovsky. i agree with the comments contained in the publication of "the economist." in a democracy courts are independent and the executive

branch acts as a second branch of government with no say in final court decisions. prime minister putin's statement demonstrates that this separation does not exist in russia. as if the khodorkovsky verdict did not make it clear enough that opposition would not be tolerated in russia, russian authorities arrested opposition leader, former deputy prime minister boris nemzov on new year's eve. this took place during a reportedly peaceful antigovernment rally in moscow approximately 70 others were also arrested. a moscow court sentenced former prime minister nemoff for allegedly disobeying police. this arrest was a tremendous disappointment, but it certainly was not a surprise. the russian government had

recently begun granting permission for semi-regular protests. i used the term semi-regular because it was granted only for the last day of months with 31 days. i met with mr. nemzoff last month when he was here in washington. he came to my office and we had an enlightening discussion about the future of russia. i admire his dedication and commitment to promoting democracy in russia. and i hope and pray for his safety during the remaining days in a moscow jail cell. sadly we've learned that not all those who oppose the russian government do, in fact, return from russian jails. eserger manisky, a young lawyer in moscow, who blew the whistle on the largest rebate fraud in

russian history perpetrated by high-level russian officials is an example. manisky was arrested shortly after he testified to authorities. he was held in detention for nearly a year without trial under tortus conditions and he died in an isolation cell on november 16, 2009 in russia. during the 111th congress, i joined senators cardin and mccain in cosponsoring the justice for sergei monisky act which would block visas to russian individuals responsible for mr. minisky's unfortunate death. in this, the 112th congress, i will continue to highlight the treatment of opposition figures in russia and the regrettable erosion of the rule of law. i urge president obama and secretary of state clinton to

make the attempt of opposition figure -- the attempt of opposition figures a central part to reset relations with russia. russia needs to prove that it is truly committed to the rule of law. and to human rights of all of its citizen including those who disagree with the government. without this, our efforts to find common ground on other issues of mutual concern will continue to be undermine. i than thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, first of all, i ask consent that the -- the remarks i'm about to make and the colloquy i'm about to engage in with the senator from new mexico appear unbroken by the statements by the -- by statement just made by the senator from mississippi whose statement i would ask come after

we finish our colloquy and debate on the -- on the rules change. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. harkin: i thank -- i thank the senator from mississippi. the senator from tennessee, as i understand, had propounded the question of what is a filibuster? i say to my friend from new mexico, and the senator from new mexico has been very eloquent in responding to that and talking about the filibuster. but i say to my friend from new mexico the better question is -- the better question is, what has a filibuster become? because, as the senator pointed out, and as senator merkley pointed out, this whole image of -- of someone standing on the floor and speaking until you drop or senator demotto or even in the days of the civil rights bills or senator sanders a few weeks ago, that's not really a filibuster any longer.

so what has a filibuster become? let me go back again a little bit in history in the 19th century, in the 1800's, the filibuster was used, if i'm not mistaken, about 20 times during that whole 100 years. but it was used under a different set of circumstances. in the 1800's, a senator or congressman was elected in november, but the session of congress lasted until march. the senators or congressmen elected in november actually did not take their seats here until a year and a month later in december of the following year. so sometimes in this "lame-duck session" that ended in march, people in the majority party, especially if they lost the

election would try to ram through a lot of stuff, the minority party would speak until march and then they would pick it up again in september when the new senate and house would meet. so it was a means of -- of stopping onerous legislation for a short period of time. but that was in the -- that was in the 19th century. we have a different situation now. so it's not used -- the filibuster's not used to speak now and to slow up one piece of legislation or to stop one piece of legislation. it is used to slow down everything. one case in point, we had before my committee last year a nominee, patricia smith, to be solicitor general of the department of labor. we had our hearings, i say to my friend from kansas, who's not here right now, but we had our hearings this committee.

she answered questions, answered written questions, we reported her out of committee, we came here to the floor, we had to file cloture on patricia smith to be i solicitor of labor. we filed cloture. we got the 60 votes, but, as we know under postcloture, you get 30 hours. well, the minority forced us to use the 30 hours. and, yet, senator enzi, our ranking member, came and spoke for 15 minutes and left and i sat here for 30 hours and no one spoke. so 29 hours and 45 minutes we sat here doing nothing, unable to do anything on a nominee who had over 60 votes. and at that time the record will show, i kept asking, why are we here? why are we using up 30 hours of

the senate time when no one is even speaking and we already have the 60 votes for patricia smith? that's an example of what the filibuster has become. it has become a tool in order to slow everything down. for example, nominees. we had nominees that got through here on a 99-0 vote after they had been held up for six months. well, what if, i ask, what if every nominee has to have -- we have to file cloture on every nominee, and then every nominee have two days on cloture, then you have a vote, and then you have 30 hours? if you did that on every nominee, i believe the majority leader said once if we did that for every nominee, we would be here from january through august doing nothing every day of the week except nominations. how would we ever get anything else done? so the question is what has the

filibuster become? it has become a means whereby a few -- and this i guess would be kind of the question i might propound to my friend from new mexico or at least a suggestion to which he might respond -- that has not, has not the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster become a tool by which one or two or three or four senators can absolutely slow down and stop things from coming to the senate. has not the filibuster become a tool by which one senator who publicly announces that his goal is total gridlock of the senate, total gridlock, has not the filibuster then become the tool by which one senator can impose gridlock on the senate? i ask my friend from new mexico, is that not what the filibuster

has become? mr. udall: the senator from iowa i think makes an excellent, excellent point, and i was here for your talk earlier where you led with the filibuster and you laid it out and senator alexander came back and asked these questions, but i think the question, the key question is the one that you asked, which is what has a filibuster become? he seems to be defending the old-fashioned filibuster that no longer exists. that's really the situation we have. this is -- some of our friends on the other side, i hear them talk about this and they are like, oh, this is the filibuster of the past. it's a very pure thing and it's a wonderful thing, but it has been distorted, it has been manipulated. the filibuster has been twisted in a way that it does exactly what you're talking about,

exactly what you're talking about. slowing everything down, and it's really an attempt in a way to defeat the -- the majority from governing. as i think you cited the federalist paper, one of the biggest dangers in a democracy is if you give the power to the minority to shut down the ability of a majority to govern. if you do that, you've rendered your democracy useless because then you get yourself in a situation, as the senator from iowa knows, that they can prevent the majority from doing anything and then run in a campaign and say well, they didn't do anything, which is a -- which is kind of a hypocritical way to approach things. but -- but one of the things that -- that's remarkable to me, and i -- i served over in the house of representatives for ten years and i know that we don't have to take up every house bill the way it's written and we

don't have to respond to every bill, but when you hear the fact that 400 house of representatives bills in two years, the last session of congress were sent over here and we ended up the earlier -- the younger members of the senate, we were interested in some of these bills and we looked into them and we found out that these were on veterans' issues and many of them were good bills. we found out that they had to do with small business and they were good bills. we found out they had to do with building the economy and economic growth and those kinds of things and that they were good bills, but we didn't have the time to act upon them because the way the filibuster is being utilized is to -- is to defeat our ability to move forward. the one other area i want to mention -- and i know this is something that concerns our

friends on the other side. you know, if you're talking about making government responsible, fiscally responsible, doing oversight over government, which they say they're going to do all of this oversight over in the house -- one of the best ways to do yost is in an authorization -- to do oversight is in an authorization bill. as everybody knows, we have an authorization process and we have an appropriations process. apparently now with the studies that are being done out of the center for american research -- and senator harkin, you would know this more than others because you serve on the appropriations committee. a major part of our appropriations are unauthorized now. i think the figure i saw was close to 40%. so that means these are unauthorized appropriations, it means the side of our senate and the side of our congress that deals with authorizations, that's an oversight. that's -- you go in there in the

authorization process and you look at an agency and you say how is this program functioning? is this program effective? is it a good program? is it something that -- that is working? and if the answers come back and you have the evidence it isn't working, you write into the authorization we're getting rid of that. but if you don't do any authorization at all and the authorization doesn't come to the senate floor and all senators don't have -- an opportunity to participate, then you're giving up that kind of essential oversight. and i would think that they -- they would really be for that. but guess how many authorizations we did last year, last year, how many authorizations? we did one, and we did it at the very, very last minute as we went out of town, and that was the defense department authorization. and that was held up with a filibuster because it had don't ask, don't tell in the bill. and so here we're at war, we have got two wars going on, and

as chairman levin said, a lot of the things in that bill were to help the military do a better job and to help the -- the fighters on the ground in these two wars, and we weren't able to get them done on the start of the fiscal year and move forward with that. so we were able to get it done, i was happy we got it done, but how about intelligence and all the huge agencies that run the health care programs and all of those, we haven't done that oversight. so i -- i would say to your question what has the filibuster become, it has become something pretty horrible in the -- in the history of the senate, and we -- if we don't fix this, we're -- we're going to be in a bad way, and the way to fix it is the constitutional option. that's the wonderful thing about where we are right today. today we're in the first legislative day of the beginning of the 112th congress, and

what everybody has told us on that first legislative day is guess what? we can have all these rules proposals, you've got one, senator merkley, myself, we have one, ron wyden, we get them all out here, and guess what? if we round up 51 senators, don't have to be democrats or only democrat. 51 senators that say, number one, here are some rule changes we want to make, 51 senators, we can cut off debate on those changes and 51 senators, a majority, can vote those rules in and we can fix the situation that we have all been talking about here. so i -- i -- i think your question is the right one, what has the filibuster become? it's become a procedural morass is what it's really become. mr. harkin: i thank my friend from new mexico, and i also want to thank him for his great leadership on the constitutional option. i am a cosponsor of his -- of his resolution which he sent to the desk earlier today.

he is right on target on that, that the dead hand of the past cannot bind us. every congress on the first legislative day, as senator byrd has said himself in the past, on the first legislative day, we have the authority with 51 senators to set our rules. not two-thirds, just 51. so we're on that first legislative day today. i understand the leader is going to put us into recess so that we'll stand on the -- we'll stay in the first legislative day when we come back. and so we will be on this issue when we come back on the 25th of january. i just wonder if i might explore a little bit with my friends who are here, i see the senator from oregon here who has been a great leader in this effort, has come up, i think -- and as the former speaker of a legislature and the oregon legislature has lent a great deal of expertise to our thinking and evolving of how we modify our rules here to make

this place function a little bit better. and so i thank senator merkley for his leadership on that. a lot of what was in the bill that i think senator udall sent to the desk earlier today is a lot of the things that senator merkley has devised. again, i'm proud to be a cosponsor of that because i think these are -- these are things that we need to do. now, i just wanted to ask, again, just to bring up here for maybe just a brief discussion, if i might, something that senator cornyn and i got a little bit into earlier. senator cornyn went on at length about building consensus, that we want to build consensus and have bills go through here with a consensus. well, i -- i agree with that. you know, that you try to get as much consensus as possible. obviously, if you can get 100 senators, that's nice, or 80 or 70. that's always very nice.

get as many as possible. but i ask my friends isn't it sometimes true that, let's face it, legislation comes up that can be contentious, and you can open it up. i think it ought to be opened up in the committee process for amendments. i pointed to the health care bill that we had in our "help" committee, which the occupant of the chair was so vitally involved with. that we had 54 hours, 13 days of open markup and open session. no senator was denied the opportunity to offer any amendment on that bill, republicans or democrats. senator dodd was chairing it at the time. we adopted 161 republican amendments. imagine that. over 13 days, 161 republican

amendments. as i said, no one was cut off, and yet at the end of that when we finally lined up for a vote, not one republican voted for it, even though they had had a big hand in shaping it. so whenever i hear these comments that, well, we didn't have a hand in shaping the health care bill, i say well, i don't understand that. i know the finance committee, too, i know that senator baucus bent over backwards to make sure that senators on both sides could offer amendments and be a part of the process. now, i say fine, if at the end they don't want to vote for it, fine. that's their right, their privilege for people here to vote their conscience, vote their constituencies. but we weren't able to get a consensus on it, so if you have a bill on which you can't get a consensus, does that mean you should stop? as i asked the senator from texas, does that mean that every

bill will have to have 60 votes? is that what we have become, that no bill is going to pass here unless it has 60 votes or more? as the senator from texas pointed out correctly that some bills pass here by unanimous consent. fine, that's 100 votes. so do people mean when they say we want to have consensus, does that mean we have to have a minimum of 60-100 votes in order for them to pass? what happened to majority rule? what happened to the idea that you only need 51%? isn't that sort of the basis of democratic government? so again i ask my friends about this idea of consensus. yes, we all want to get consensus. we all want as many senators as possible on our legislation. we try hard to do that. but if that's not possible, does that mean that 53 or 54 or 55 or

56 senators cannot then vote to pass a piece of legislation or an amendment? i ask my friends what about this idea of consensus? have we become where we have to have a supermajority? is that the situation we're in now, i ask my friend? mr. udall: the senator from iowa, and i know my good friend here, the senator from oregon, wants to speak. you mentioned, and i just want to put this quote in the record. you mentioned the senator from texas, senator cornyn, who came down to the floor and talked today. and one of the reasons i have a real belief that we might have some common ground is, you know, he was a judge before he came to the senate. i think he was on the supreme court in the state of texas, and on this issue of the constitutional option, he wrote a law review article in -- in the harvard journal of law and public policy, and the name of

the article was "our broken judicial confirmation process and the need for filibuster reform." in very brief -- in a very brief way -- and i'll -- i ask unanimous consent to put this into the record, the quote. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: the whole article, we may put that in a little later when we get in the debate, but listen to this, senator john cornyn, texas -- quote -- "just as one congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent congress could not amend by majority vote, one senate cannot enact a rule that a subsequent senate could not amend by majority vote. such power, after all, would violate the general common law principle, that one parliament cannot bind another." so he's basically driving home the point, basically driving home point that we have the authority today on the first day

of the 112th congress, first legislative day, to pull together and take a hard look at the rules. i think you've reached an important agreement on consensus. i'm going to hand it off to senator merkley in this colloquy and let him answer that. maybe he would have another question. i wish -- i wish our friends on the other side of the aisle were here for this. senator alexander was here earlier, when he senator wick, but nobody's -- wicker, but nobody's here to answer the questions we're putting that way. mr. harkin: i say to the senator from new mexico, hopefully when we come back on the 25th, we'll engage in more of this. my friend from -- i should yield the floor. i just wanted to raise that question about consensus because it sounds so good and we all love consensus. of course we do. but sometimes you can't get that. does that mean then that the majority can't act? if you don't get consensus of

over 60, does that mean the majority simply can't act? mr. president, i yield -- i'll leave the question hanging and yield the floor. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: just continuing the conversation here, my colleague from new mexico pointed out the challenge with authorization bills. well, we should add to that that during 2010, the senate didn't manage to pass a single appropriation bill and so its dysfunction on top of dysfunction. and that's why we're here today. i just put back up the chart of jimmy stewart here in the well because i think at the heart of this conversation is a notion that, yes, every senator should be able to hold forth, to share their ideas, to advocate for the things that they believe in, to persuade their colleagues but not to simply lodge an objection and walk away and never present their case before the american people. our good colleague from tennessee said he wanted to see

the, how did he put it, something to the effect of talking your heads off form of filibuster. and he referred to jimmy stewa stewart. so there's a -- there's a sense of commonality here in our views that if you are going to vote to continue debate, then the debate should continue. it's almost that simple. so the citizens can see if you have a case to make that makes sense, they can weigh in and help turn the tide in the direction of the u.s. senate or that you have no case to make and they want you to sit down and have the senate get on with its business. so that's the simple thing. well, there is many ideas for much more radical steps, steps in which we would proceed to s say, yes, we'll do -- we'll do something different, we'll eliminate the filibuster. but that is not the proposal that i'm speaking to today. it's not the proposal that many of us are speaking to. we're saying, yes, you can keep

speaking but you've got to speak. you can't go on vacation. you cannot hide from the american people. you cannot object and hide. that is not in the tradition of the senate. now, there's a "wall street journal" article that came out yesterday and i -- i'm not sure if it was an editorial or an op-ed so i won't attribute it to anyone specifically, but it said in it, there is no chance for filibuster reform to address the filibusters on legislation because the democrats will not want to imperil their ability to obstruct the republicans when the republicans are in power someday. well, here we are, we're democrats and we are that we are talking about rules that we have placed against the test of whether or not we can support these rules when we're in the majority or the minority. the proposal we signed on to

today, the five reforms that we have laid out, we've run through the test of saying, does this meet a fairness standard? would this be fairer if we were in the minority? now, one of those proposals to make sure the majority and the minority get to have amendments of the that's a valuable protection for whichever party is in the minority. another piece of it is to say yes, the filibuster can still be used but you have to invest time and energy and make your case before the american people. we have felt we can live with that in the minority if we are going to obstruct the senate, we are willing to take this floor, we are willing to make our case but we are saying a senator shouldn't be able to obstruct and hide. they shouldn't be able to engage in the silent, the secret filibuster but should have to have the talking filibuster. so i applaud my colleague from iowa, my colleague from new mexico and my colleagues who are about to speak, senator mark udall from colorado, and just say we have a couple weeks now

here in america to have a debate on the dysfunction and brokenness of the u.s. senate. we're asking the american public to engage, to call your senato senators, to take and share your concerns about a senate that can't do authorizations, that hasn't done appropriations, that leaves hundreds of house bills on the floor and that cannot fulfill its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on nominations, thereby undermining our other two branches of government. this has to be addressed. that's why we're here. and i thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: mr. president, i thank the senator from oregon for his great leadership on th this. i want to rephrase my question that i left sort of hanging when i yielded the floor the last time. and i see a great friend from new york is here to speak. i won't take more than just a

minute or two. i want to rephrase the question. i asked the question, what has the -- what has the -- what has the filibuster become? then i further asked a question about consensus, is that, you know, if you don't get a consensus, that is, over 60 people to agree on something, should then the majority not have the right to -- to act. i want to rephrase that question and put it this way. if consensus, meaning over 60 senators -- if over 60 senators cannot agree on something, then should the minority have the absolute, total veto power over what the majority is proposing? that's the essence of it. if you can't get a consensus, should the minority have the

total, absolute power to determine the outcome? that's what's happened in the senate. that's what has become of this filibuster. the end result has become the fact that 41 senators, if you don't have 60 senators or more, 41 senators decide what we do, what we vote on, what comes before this body. how does that square with the principle of democratic government and majority rule? so i leave that -- i leave that out there. should we have -- continue to have -- if we can't reach consensus, should we continue to have veto power by the minority? and i see also the senator from colorado's here to speak. i'm going to yield the floor. i don't want to -- i also to want publicly thank the senator from new york, senator schumer, who i see is about ready to speak, chair of our rules committee. senator schumer has spent so

many hours and so many days this past year on this issue of reforming the senate rules. he was kind enough to let me testify before his committee and kind enough to let me actually sit with his committee to listen to others. senator schumer has really been in harness on this in trying to do everything committee to get us to the point where we can actually have some meaningful changes in the rules. so that this place can function a little bit better and a little bit more democratically with a small "d" i'm saying -- not in terms of political affiliation. and i know in the next few weeks i know that senator schumer's going to be very much involved as one of our leadership team along with senator reid and others in seeing what we can do to work things out so we can have a meaningful, a meaningful change in the rules.

a meaningful change. now, again, i'm all for getting rid of secret holds but that seems to be kind a no-brainer. i put this out here, that would get close to a hundred votes. but if that's all we're going to do, that's not a very meaningful change in the rules. i submit that what both senator udall and senator merkley and i and others have introduced earlier today or what i introduced myself, which i have been on for 15 years now, that's meaningful change in the rules. so i know that senator schumer's going to be very much involved in that. i applaud him for his efforts and for his leadership on this. and we'll be back. we'll be back on the 25th of january to take up this cause again. i know i -- i know i can speak for my friend from oregon. he's going to be here on the 25th. and my friend from new mexico and everyone else, we're going to be here because we cannot let this go. we cannot permit the united states senate to be so dysfunctional that we cannot

respond to the urgent needs of america and our place in the world today. we cannot continue to go downhill as a country and cannot continue to let the senate be a sort of a -- a dumping ground of everything that never -- and nothing ever gets done. and so these rules need to be changed and we'll be back on the 25th to do so, and i thank my friend from colorado for his indulgence. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. a senator: let me start by asking unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be included in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president, i'd like to also ask unanimous consent what senator schumer be i recognized after me for up to 15 minutes. the presiding officer: also without objection. mr. udall: mr. president, before i speak on the matter today which the group of senators here so eloquently and powerfully outlining for all of, i want to acknowledge that the 111th congress was one of the most

productive in history. legislation that we passed here will make real changes for american families who are struggling through a tough economy, as the presiding officer knows, and with rising health care costs. and what we did will also make our military and our nation safer and stronger. we should be proud of the work that we accomplished here in the previous congress 789 but i have to also say that the last two years were a time -- previous congress. but i have to also say that the last two years were a time of partisan conflict and frustration. and if you don't take my word for it, you don't have to go far to listen to many of the impartial observers of the congress who will tell you that was exactly the case. and i rise today to join my voice in a rising number of members of colorado and members of the senate who are deeply concerned about the gridlock that has at times paralyzed our chamber and prevented meaningful debate. many of us read with real dismay an article by george packer in the "new yorker" magazine several months ago which detailed too many examples of senate dysfunction.

americans from both political parties and independents as well have asked whether the rules of the senate are working to help solve these problems that face us. and some of my colleagues have understandably sought to change or eliminate the filibuster to make it easier to pass important legislation supported by the majority of senators. now, i may come to this debate from a somewhat different perspective than my colleagues. i come to this debate with this guiding principle and that is any attempt to limit the power of the minority by eliminating or weakening the ability to filibuster will simply lead to a further breakdown in what is already a fractured partisan relationship. and i share much of the frustration expressed by many of my colleagues. i also believe that we have to be thoughtful about how we approach changes to the senate rules. several years ago, the minister robert fulgham had everyone using the phrase -- quote -- "everything i need to know i learned in kindergarten."

end of the quote. and his essays made the point that the simple rules that we learned as children about getting along -- being kind to one another, cleaning up after ourselves -- apply throughout life. and at one level, you could boil down the debate we're engaging in this week and say we need rules that will help us get along better in the senate's sand box. we truly need to talk with each other more and we need to even listen more than we talk. and why? because the consequences if we can't find a way to work together are extremely serious. and no problem we face is more troubling or urgent than our economic future. mr. president, our unemployment rate is still above 9% nationally and it's much higher in some regions of the country. home foreclosures are still expected to rise. even more troubling is this fact -- americans are less optimistic about their economic prospects than they were during the great depression. that's a -- that is a,

mr. president, a very serious situation. on top of those grim statistics, we face a massive budget deficit and a crippling debt that not only threaten our long-term economic stability, they dark hn the horizon in a way that discourages investment and innovation in i way that we need to -- in a way that we need to spur job creation today. moreover, our apparent inability to address the problem in a bipartisan way is a signal to the american people as if they need further proof, that their institutions of government are not working. and that, in my opinion, is as dangerous as any attack on our country. many offer us have remarked that it's past time too have a serious discussion about how to turn our economic situation around. i have faith that we can do that. but only if we're able to set aside the id logical differences that have sidetracked our politics and frankly our policy-making up till now. mr. president, we can't reach the level of bipartisan cooperation we need in this body

if we prevent substantive debate and cut off the rights of the minority. but neither can we make necessary progress if members of the senate continue to be able to use technical loopholes and procedural gymnastics to hijack the senate literally for days and sometimes for weeks rat a time. and that's why today's debate, so ably led by my colleagues from across the country, is more than just an he i esoteric one t the senate's rules. it is a critical turning point. and it is why again today i am introducing a resolution that i believe can help reduce the opportunity for gridlock while also encurlinging both sides to work together on the most important issues we face. i developed this proposal after listening to and with experts on? the procedure from both sides of the aisle including norm ornstein of the conservative american enterprise institute. in a nutshell, i proposed that by eliminating unnecessary opportunities for delay without

making changes that would jam through legislation at the expense of the minority party, we can improve the way the senate works and make it more effective and fairer for the american people. so, mr. president, if i might, i might just make a couple of comments on some of the specifics of what i'm proposing, similar to what the senator from oregon, the senator from new mexico, the senator from iowa and others have put on the table. i would first level the playing field between the majority and minority on cloture votes and require that senators actually vote in opposition to the bill. staying home is the same as voting "no" and members can simply threaten a filibuster and skip town with no recourse. so my proposal would require that senators show up, debate, and actually vote against a bill if they are conducting a filibuster. by changingless the rules to invoke cloture not on three-fifths of the chamber but invoking chamber when three

three-fifths of those move to end a debate, we create an incentive to actually have a meaningful discussion. second, i would reduce the new mexico of votes required to end debate on a singles bill. the senate rules now allow for a filibuster on a motion to proceed to a bill, a substitute teement a bill, final passage, and the list continues. and there are three separate opportunities to filibuster before sending a bill to a conference committee. my proposal would eliminate all three opportunities to filibuster except for final passage. third, i would shortening the time frame required to invoke cloture. i would propose that we vote 24 hours after cloture is filed instead of waiting two days, as is required today. and i would also allow the 30 hours of postcloture debate to be split between the parties to avoid needless delays. in total, we could shorten the time required for cloture by nearly 40 hours for a single cloture petition. fourth, i would end the requirement that amendments be read in their entirety if they've been made available

online at least 24 in the course advance. fifth, i was in the requirement that senate committees seek comment to meet. after i propose that we changed rules to move more quickly on judicial nominations allowing a final vote immediately after cloture is invoked on a nomination. and final will i would provide a way to call up an amendment when a majority leader has filed the amendment tree. mr. president, the senate is famous for great debates and a free amendment process. but in a recent years, the process of presenting amendments has frequently been shut off by the minority -- i'm sorry, the jowsht party. so my proposal would on a limited basis give senators the opportunity to present their amendments when they are otherwise being blocked from doing so. mr. president, the senate has been called the world's greatest deliberative body. but what happens when we don't deliberate? i'm afraid we risk turning the senate into an extension of the

24-hour political spin cycle which seeks to separate us rather than allowing us to work out solutions to the problems we face. every day proud americans come to our capitol hoping to watch debates like those of years past. many are increasingly dismayed to see a small number of senators, like those of us here today, debating among themselves in an empty chamber of we don't a. even require senators to attend their own filibusters. no mr. smith goes to washington, no actual debate. i want the senate to work the way americans envision it does, in which members discuss their differences, cooperate, vote on amendments, and improve legislation for the good of the country. so with that in mind, i hope that our colleagues will join me to seize this opportunity that we have before us. let's work together to improve the way the senate operates. i want to extend my hand to the republicans to ask for ideas how

we can improve the way the senate operates. i want to work with nirks as i think all of my colleagues do, to solve these problems in front of us. we have a responsibility to work together, to bring about the cooperation and the problem-solving that americans expect and deserve. mr. president, i appreciate your attention. i appreciate the important work all of my colleagues have undertaken. i look forward to working with all 99 other members of the senate to make the senate the senate that we know and love and believe is the greatest deliberative body in the world. mr. president, thank you. i yield the floor. mr. schumer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: thank you, mr. president. let me start again. thank you, mr. president. and i want to thank my colleagues. i am going to talk about the issue they've been talking about for a while in a minute. but first i want to say a few words about my dear friend, dear colleague, someone i so admire, senator barbara mikulski, on her

remarkable accomplishment. today, as she took the oath from office, the jo gentlemanwoman from maryland made history as few others can make. senator mikulski has long been affection nationally known here in the senate as the dean of the women. now she is facially the longest-serving female senator in the history of this great nation. the distinction adds to the considerable respect and admiration i already have for senator mikulski. and so much of who she is and what she does. barb, like me, cram from a decidedly middle-class fink. we often talk about her dad, will cheerks who owned a grocery store in east baltimore, and my grandfather and dad who were exterm nairts. they were similar because they were people of the community. and barb would tell me that people would come in during difficult times and they'd lost their job and willie would say, pay me when you can. wasn't quite the same with my feavment but my grandfather and

then father like him felt that people who had roaches or rats crawling through their little houses and apartments, when they couldn't pay, they shouldn't cut off service for them as well. and so we were both infused with that great upwardly mobile, middle-class, help-your-neighbor, be part of the neighborhood, be part of the community being. barb started her career as a social worker, made a name for herself when she led the fight to stop a highway project from destroying an historic section of her community. that's what launched her into politics and like our best politicians she came from the community. she didn't decide to be a politician. she came from the community, took on a fight, and saw how she could make government a friend to the people. so she went from the baltimore city council to the house of representatives, and of course to this august chamber, but all through, she never lost sight of

where she came from. she's fought tirelessly and effectively to protect maryland seniors, ensuring they have access to an affordable, healthy, and happy environment; shshe's been a leading advocatef medical research securing billions in funding for cutting-edge research into things as diverse as breast cancer, alzheimer's. she's helped countless women and veterans get the health care needed, the list goes on and on. let me just say one other thing, mr. president. *89 as somebody who believes that we have to focus on the middle class, talk to the middle class and have middle-class beings and values infused in our bones, no other senator does that as well as senator mikulski, because it's who she is. and because being the essentially humble and modest person that she is, she has never lost sight of where she's come frvment so, barb did, senator barb, as your constituents know you, you're beloved here as much as you're

beloved in your home state of maryland. your sense of humor, your tenacity, your work ethic, our love of community and your mother's crab cake recipe sun rivaled. it is an honor to serve along such an accomplished woman. senator mikulski, congratulations again. you are a great senator and a great friend. and now, mr. president, i'd like to turn to the issue that we've been discussing. and first let me congratulate my colleagues who have been on the floor on this issue, particularly the senator from new mexico, senator udall; the senator from oregon, senator merkley; the senator from colorado, also named udall; and the senator from iowa, senator harkin, and many others who have participated in this debate. and they've done a great job today n., and the other thing i think i appreciated -- and senator harkin helped do this -- there was not just debate; there

was actual discussion even when we didn't agree. i thought it was pretty interesting watching on the tv in my room -- in my office when senator roberts came and stood by a desk here on the democratic side and was just a desk away from senator harkin. and they didn't agree on the issues but they debated the issues. what a great first step metaphor for the kinds of debates we really want to have here on the senate floor. so this has been a very positive and hopefully prescient opening of the debate to change the rules, because, mr. president, we all know that if in the last congress the senate didn't function effect tiflt and the time for change as come and i want to salute the leaders as well as senator klobuchar, who has been so involved in our discussions; senator franken has been involved, so many others; senator lautenberg, for the work that they have done. and i want to say to my colleagues, this is not

something that's just happened recently. this idea that all of a sudden these -- this has been popped on the senate is wrong. last year the rules committee -- i was urged by senator udall to do this among the first days of the session two years ago, and i think we don't a pretty extensive and good job -- we held six theergs examined the history of the filibuster, trends and the use of the filibuster, secret holds, stalled nominations and proposals for change. in those hearings, we heard from snow showers from both parties -- from senators from both parties who have valuable ideas about the need to reform the filibuster. senators harkin, lautenberg, wyden, grassley, udall, udall, mccaskill, grerks and bennett all testified at the hearings. we also brought former senators of both parties, former scholars and former senate staff of both parties to come and testify. now, in the first half of the 21st century, filibusters and filibuster threats were

relatively rare events. that's been documented already. and our hearings document it extensivelyment. but since that tiernlg the number has continued to dramatically increase and when you face an average of two cloture petitions per week, which is what's happened currently, then we know there's a proficiency and it is no mystery that the senate is labeled "dysfunctional." between 1917 and 1971 there was an average of one cloture motion filed per year. in the 110th and 111th, we had more than 70. the cloture motions counts are a spreens to the filibuster and it's disport t torting the way the senate does business. for the legislative branch, hundreds of bills passed by the house in the 111th congress were not considered, even though they had passed the house by voice vote or with a majority of house republicans voting yevment

the senate is posed to be a cooling saucer, not an icebox. in the executive branch, in the judiciary, dozens of judicial appointments were delayed or blocked from floor consideration in the last congress. many of these were approved unanimously by both democrats and republicans in committee and yet sat on the executive calendar for months. because of secret hold. this is dangerous at a time when we need a federal government using awful its resources to fight terrorism, protect our curntion and address our economic needs. and i want to salute senators wyden and mccaskill and grassley for focusing us on this issue. it's important to end anonymous or secret holds and shine some light on the kinds of long-term delays that can hold up a nomination for a bill for weeks or months or even longer.

also, during the fiscal year 23010, half of all non-defense spending -- $290 billion -- was appropriated without legal authority, because congress hadn't reauthorized the programs. the unpress debited threat of a -- unprecedented threat of a filibuster prevented debate frequently that extended deliberation is a dying commodity. make no mistake about it, the everyday threat of the filibuster doesn't ensure debate. it restricts it. reforming the rules in a thoughtful way would clear the way for more legislating, not less. filibusters provide a minority of senators a way to make their voices heard, but they should not provide a way for a minority of senators or even a single senator to grind the senate to a halt regardless of whether they're democrats, republicans, or independents. reform will engage the american

people and reenergize this institution. this would not end the filibuster or cut off debate. on the contrary, it will pull back the curtain and show the american people what we actually believe and what our deliberations are really about. there have been many ideas for reform pented by my colleagues that are -- present bid my colleagues worthy of discussion. the senator from lautenberg testified before the rules committee about his plan which he called the "mr. smith goes to washington proposal." senator merkley, senator udall, and others developed their own versions of this important concept which i call the talking filibuster. this talking filibuster idea would require filibustering senators to keep speaking on the floor after cloture fails to show clearly their wish to continue debate and to allow them to talk for as long as they wish.

currently the only evidence the senator is face -- the senate is facing a filibuster is the vote on cloture. the senate floor has evolved into a place where the majority assumes that each bill will be opposed and that little actual debate occurs on legislation. the rules require a vote of three-fifths of the senators chosen and sworn to end debate on a matter or measure. the very question that is posed to the senate in a cloture vote is: is it the sense of the senate that debate should be brought to a close? those are the words. if it turns out that enough senators answer that question "no, we want more debate," then those senators should actually be required to debate. it's difficult to explain to the american people that the senators who voted for additional debate are silent when then given that opportunity. if they want to debate, well then, let's debate.

one way we can guarantee fair and meaningful debate after senators vote on a cloture to continue debate and cloture fails, the senate remains on that measure and senators must actually debate the bill. senators may be recognized one after the other as long as debate is continuous, if no more senators seek to debate the issue then the majority leader can move to close debate. obviously there are technical things that have to be worked out and we're working hard to do that to make sure this proposal works and is viable. in the past attempts to debate have been frustrated by quorum calls or unnecessary motions, all aimed at avoiding actual debate. if we change the rules tone courage -- to encourage extended debate after cloture fails, then the priority during this period will be to debate the matter or move forward and not play parliamentary games. the american people deserve better of their elected officials than what the senate

has been giving them. governing is not a game of share raids. -- charades. the majority will not choose to waste floor time on a matter the minority is committed to stop but will the minority choose to filibuster every single piece of legislation if actual debate is required? i don't think so, and that would apply whether republicans are in the majority or democrats are in the majority. in addition to the other worthy options proposed for reform, i think this proposal is strong because it allows the minority the same ability to debate and block legislation so long as they actually debate. if there is no actual debate, there can be no filibuster and the senate can proceed to do its business for the american people. now i believe this modest proposal is one that both democrats and republicans should agree on. it could be appointed bipartisan

agreement and i will present it in the bipartisan negotiations happening over the next few weeks. of course there are other good-faith proposals that my colleagues have put forward. many of them are thoughtful. most all of them would represent meaningful change without altering in a too jarring way the rules of this institution. nobody wants us to become the house of representatives. everyone understands that we should not rule simply by majority vote on every issue. however, we can pull the curtain back and make sure when people say they want more debate, they debate. in the next two weeks we should look at these proposals, all of them. during the recess we need to talk to each oh democrats and republicans, about genuine ways to reform this body to restore the senate to its traditional role as the world's greatest deliberative body and to do is so in a way that encourages full and open debate, both which the

majority which proposes and for the minority, which wishes to modify what the majority proposes. i believe we owe it to the american people to reform the senate so it functions in a way that best represents their interests. mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, first let me thank the senator from new york for his very distinguished leadership of the rules committee and for the very open and thorough way in which he engaged that committee in these issues of addressing the filibuster and the problems that have been caused by its current abuse on the senate floor. and let me also thank senators udall and merkley who have worked so hard to organize this and who have put together what i think is a very good proposal. and i'd like to at the outset of

my remarks ask unanimous consent that i be added as a cosponsor to the rules resolution that is here at this point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: thank you. the distinguished senator from oregon, senator merkley, showed a photograph a little while ago of jimmy stewart in "mr. smith goes to washington," and that has become the sort of emblematic signature demonstration of the american senate filibuster. and there's a scene in that movie that i'm sure the senator is familiar with, where a reporter is up in the galleries and is describing the action down here on the senate floor and describing jimmy stewart, the senator that he represents engaging in the filibuster. and the reporter describes the filibuster as democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off. the american privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. one lone and single american

holding the greatest floor in the land, bleary-eyed, voice gone. that is what we think of when we think of the traditional senate filibuster. in those days you stood up and you filibustered against a bill because you were opposed to it, because you hated it, because on principle you wanted to stand and fight against it. that was the old filibuster. now when this chamber is engaged in a filibuster, how does the american public know? when they're watching this floor on c-span and they're looking for a filibuster, they don't see democracy's finest show. they don't see anybody talking their head off. they don't see the american privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. what they see is a proning, tedious -- is a proning, teed kwrupl quorum call as -- tedious

quorum call as the parliamentary staff reads off the names one by one of those who are not present. why that? partly because when jimmy stewart was undertaking his filibuster, he was exercising the right of an individual senator to take this floor and to hold it and to speak. what's different is that when it's filibuster by party rather than filibuster by one individual senator, then there are a whole array of procedural mechanisms that the minority party has to provoke the majority leader to file for cloture. cloture is the filing that allows the majority leader to bring debate to a conclusion and to limit amendments. and when cloture is filed, then there is 30 hours mandatory for debate. and what has happened here is that the 30 hours mandatory for debate has become the prize, has

become the goal of the modern filibuster. and that explains why we are no longer filibustering bills that we're opposed to when we're in the minority. the minority actually filibusters bills that their members support. they filibuster nominees who get voted through unanimously when the vote's finally held. what is the filibuster about? it's about forcing cloture and forcing those 30-hour increments of time to be burned up. and if you're filibustering the bill itself and you're filibustering the motion to proceed, so you have a dual filibuster, and if you're filibustering amendments, you can load on an awful lot of 30-hour periods on the senate floor. and you can prevent anything from being done in those 30-hour periods just by sitting back and doing nothing and objecting when

the majority party tries to move to the vote. all it takes is one person waiting in the cloakroom for the minority to force that 30-hour period to run. and if you stack up dozens and dozens and dozens of 30-hour periods, what do you do if you take up the entire time available to the senate and you impede this institution in its ability to get its work done. and that is what we're doing right now. that is why i think it is so important that the changes that we've made restore -- or that we're recommending, restore the senate to the traditional filibuster. and we do it in two ways. first of all, you won't -- if these rules changes pass, you won't get to filibuster the motion to proceed to the bill and then get to filibuster all over again on the bill. a double filibuster. if you really care about the bill, if you're really opposed to the bill, if you really hate the bill, you can come talk your

head off, but you don't get to do it twice. once on a pure parliamentary measure. that will cut down some of the wasted time, some of these droning hours that you watch on c-span with nothing happening in the senate and the time being wasted locked into the filibuster. the other rules change i think is important is that when -- this is the 30-hour period is called the period for debate. and what this rules change would do is when the debate stops, the 30-hour period stops. and whoever is presiding would simply note that there is no longer debate and would call the vote. so you can still debate the whole 30 hours if you want to come here and debate. but when the talking stops, you vote. and you're not in a position where you can congressman dear 30 -- where you can commandeer 30 hours of senate time, force the senate into quorum calls and

force the senate to go into vote with one lone senator in the cloakroom able to come out and object whenever the senate tries to move into a vote and get the senate to its business again. these are two simple repairs to the cloture rule that will make it less of a prize for the minority, that will prevent us from being, spending all these 30-hour increments droning away in tedious filibuster, quorum calls and put the senate back to where it should be, the great chamber of debate where people actually have to come to the floor, say their piece, and when they're done we go on to the next piece of work. i commend everybody who has worked on this. i think it's a very valuable step that we're taking. i don't think it is a change away from the traditions of the senate. i see it as returning to the real traditions of the senate, of real debate, not just wasting

time for wasting time's sake, but allowing the senate to be productive while also allowing members who have an opposition to a bill to state it as forthrightly as they wish, to engage in, as the reporter said in "mr. smith goes to washington," democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off, the american privilege of free speech in its most dramatic form. i thank all the senators present for entertaining my thoughts, and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. lautenberg: thank you, mr. president. first, i want to say that i'm so pleased to be with colleagues here who are standing up for activity on behalf of the citizens, the constituents that we represent to get things done.

now, i doubt, mr. president, that many of us here would be happy with the report cards that we got in either high school or college or whatever education we got behind that. i doubt that we would be proud of any report card that resembles that which we have obtained in this facility. in this great house of debate, in this distinguished body of legislators, one of the most prominent -- the most prominently qualified of legislative bodies across the world. and the envy of so many who think that the united states is still one great country and we want to do the right thing. but here what's happened we find ourselves in a morass of

dilatory activities. things that do nothing but stop progress. and that's the mission that we seek. and i congratulate my colleagues who have taken hold here to make sure that we do whatever we can to change the facility. now, i have here my picture of jimmy stewart, mr. smith, and while i'm not anxious to admit it, i do, i remember seeing the picture. we needn't discuss the precise date, but it was some time ago when i saw this, and it left a vivid impression in my mind, but i can't tell you what it was about except that he was one trooper, that he stood on his feet for hours, so many hours it's hard to understand how the body responded to the opportunity. and trying to clean things up. the date of the film was somewhere around the end of the

1930's, 1939, most likely that was the exact date, but in that i have sinty. and even -- vicinity. and even then they were discussing what could be done to move things along and how the kind of effort that he gave, as mr. smith, was required to honor the people, the responsibility he had to the people. and so we know what kind of report cards the legislators here in the house have gotten from the american people because they're sick and tired of seeing all of this empty space, listening to words that i could describe more in the vernacular as gobblidy-gook, knowing very well that nothing's happening that will benefit them. so when we see this low public

opinion from all americans across the country, it's because they don't believe that we're getting things done that they sent us here for. and each one of us who have been elected, i don't care how popular or how remote, the fact is you had to work hard to get elected. and so proud, and i look today as i saw person after person hold their hand up to take the oath, i've done it five times here, and each time was a thrill. and even as i watched colleagues walk up there and hear their names called and see them raise their hand and feel the pride that they felt, i don't republican or democrat, the pride that they felt to be able to take this -- this job on their hands, to get the support of the public in their states enough to win an election. and when we then show the public a lack of activity here. we've been through discussions,

speeches made earlier, good on ones, describing the number of times a filibuster has been used. far more -- i think it's a record year by my -- ask the majority whip here, is it the record number of filibusters ever in the history of the senate? the senator from illinois confirms that and here we are. and the need has never been greater to get something done to let the american people know that their government is there to help them through a crisis, to help them regain their jobs and regain their -- their pride in themselves. no -- no mistake about it, the absence of progress in the senate promotes bitterness and anger among the american people. make no mistake. an empty senate chamber is no way to respond to the public's

needs. and all too often this is what happened because the minority now has simply been abusing senate rules. they can do it. but it's an abuse of the process. last year we were locked in a constant struggle to help jobless americans. several times we attempted to bring legislation to the floor to extend unemployment benefits for millions of people who had no other source of income, who were in jeopardy of losing their -- their homes, losing their opportunity to care for their families, and being personally humiliated and disgraced about that, and we couldn't get an agreement here to -- to pass an unemployment benefits bill until it was included with other things that -- that had to pass. back in june 59 senators wanted

to restore aid for these workers, who had gone without income for weeks. our colleagues on the other side of the aisle objected, delayed the vote, and then left town for a week-long break. and, by the way, i keep on reminding those that are hearing me, that this is under the disguise of a filibuster, a legal process that is permitted by the senate rules to be engaged in when there is a disagreement about a piece of legislation or a process that has to take place. we let more than a million americans in -- left more than a million americans in limbo for severallin agonizing weeks. our opponents said they were simply filibustering the bill. in other words, they wanted to talk more about the subject, but they didn't want to talk about the subject. they didn't want the public to hear the truth about their -- their views. but they didn't even want to

talk on the floor. they just left the senate empty and silent. and that's why i reintroduced my mr. smith bill. i brought this up initially last march. it's almost a year now since i brought mr. smith back to this chamber. and, as we know, legislation named for jimmy stewart's character in the classic movie "mr. smith goes to washington," and now, frankly, we look, the names are different, the mission is the same. there are those who want to make progress and those who want to do nothing more than delay progress. as i said earlier, mr. smith wanted to make a point. he spoke for 23 hours. in these days senators simply object to the proceeding, walk away, and leave an empty chamber behind.

now, how are we supposed to create jobs in an empty chamber? how are we supposed to increase educational opportunities in an empty chamber, how are we supposed to keep people in their homes in an empty chamber? the mr. smith act will bring deliberation back to the world's purportedly greatest deliberative body. it will make lawmaking more transparent and senators more accountable. members of this body will no longer be able, if we pass this legislation -- or this rule change to be able to launch a filibuster and then skip town, leaving the senate in a stalemate. and i ask, if you've got the courage, to stand up and explain to the american people why you're objecting to things that can help the average family. this is still a recession. yes, there are a lot of people at the top making lots and lots of money. we've seen it in the newspapers.

we've seen a list of billionaires who make that much money in a single year. but we don't see the same pictures of people who are forelorn because they can't help themselves and they look to the government to be there for them. i know from personal experience that my life changed radically when i got out of the army and was afforded a g.i. bill. my father died after i enlisted, my mother was a 37-year-old widow, my father was sick for 13 months with cancer, and at the time there wasn't -- there weren't the products that make pain less acute or that provide more help for recovery. it wasn't there. so we had not only the loss of a father. i had joined the army when i was 18 years old. i enlisted. and we had bills and bankruptcy

and life was miserable. the g.i. bill, mr. chairman -- mr. president, made the difference in my life. i was able to join two other people in -- in my -- my home city, friends of mine, in creating a company, the three of us, now employs 45,000 people. the company is called automatic data processing, better known as a.d.p., because i got help when we desperately needed it, when my family and i could never think about my going to college. i wound up at columbia university. something so far out of sight i never dreamed it was possible. but it was there. and there are times when people across the country say to our leadership, please, give us a chance. give a chance to stay in our home. give us a chance to educate my son or my daughter. they can learn. we don't have the money. make sure that health care is

available, that no matter what your condition of -- of being is, that you can be -- can't be precluded from getting insurance, that's what's proposed in the health care bill that right now is in deigner of being re -- in danger of being repealed if the house takes the action that it's purported to see. what we're talking about, mr. president, is to summarize that we have to get busy here and show the people across the country that this isn't just a -- a -- a ring for showing how clever a speech can be or how cute an idea might be when all that is being done is stopping progress, progress. there -- they object to bills being even moved along so that they can be considered. anything they can do to obstruct -- obstruct -- obstruct

a movement. so we may be unable to bring mr. smith back, but we can bring real accountability for filibusters and for the sake of a functioning democracy we should -- more than a functioning democracy, a degree of dignity and hope for people who have been hurt by an unemployment record never before seen in country and the number of people out of work and the multiple -- in the multiple millions. and they say, mr. senator, help us. be there to help us now. we're not looking for charity. we're looking for a hand that will get us started, get this economy going. and we owe it to them. and i say to those who want to obstruct it, be brave enough to stand up and tell the people here or the people on television

or who read about what we're doing, tell them why it is you're objecting and then we'll make -- we'll restore a degree of confidence in those who serve here, those who worked so hard to be elected and those who -- who can represent the people well. but we cannot sit here in silence just wasting time. so, mr. president, with that, i yield the floor and hope that we'll come to our senses, make the changes in the rules that will stop the filibuster from being dis -- a disgietion for inaction -- a disguise for inaction. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois. mr. durbin: i rise to speak to the issue that has been considered on the floor by my colleagues, i thank the senators especially from utah, oregon, and colorado as well as many others for discussing the proceed yours of the united states senate. mr. president, when i went home over the break, i spent my time back in illinois with my wife in

my hometown of springfield and a lot of time around the house and a lot of things had to be considered. i left the decisions of war and peace behind in washington, d.c., and went home to face the real decisions, are we going to change our cable tv service? are we paying too much for the internet? things that my wife finally the put in front of me and said, we need some decisions here. and as i considered those waiting decisions, particularly when it came to cable television and what we would receive in springfield, i couldn't help but reflect on the fact, like many americans, we like to have c-span so that we can follow the house and senate. you may know in west virginia, as i know in illinois, that there are people who are obviously suffering from insomnia that watch c-span all the time and find it very restful and sleep inducing. if they watch the senate, it's something else. it is not only sleep inducing because of so little activity on the floor of the united states

senate, it is, in fact, an unfair economic situation that someone is paying a cable tv bill for c-span covering the senate when we do so little. they ought to get a refund.famie entitled to a refund if they tune into c-span senate version and watch us day after weary day with our delightful and talented staff people slowly reading the quorum call and names of the senators. that's it. and if you have watched c-span and the senate for the last several years, you'll see that more often than not. a lot of people say to me, senator, why doesn't anything go on in the senate, and when you talk in the senate, why isn't anybody there? basic questions an average person might ask. but they reflect on what's happened to the senate and that's why we're here with this discussion this evening. and i thank the senators who have been involved, including senator lautenberg who just spoke. i'll tell you one of the things that surprised me. when i first came to the united states senate, i heard this was the world's most deliberative

body and this was the place to come to debate big issues of the day. today when there was a swearing in of the senator from north carolina, one of his predecessors was here, senator faircloth. senator faircloth was the first senator that i faced off with over an issue on the floor of the united states senate when i was elected 14 years ago. it was an issue involving tobacco, which i have been following pretty closely in my congressional career, and he was from the state of north carolina where tobacco is a big issue, so he didn't like my amendment and he came to the floor and i was offering my first amendment, and the lady who worked in the senate named lula davis came up to me and i was nervous, had served in this house for 14 years, but i didn't quite know the senate procedures as well. i said to her, now, how much time do i have? she says you have one hour. i said now, is that equally divided? she said no, senator, you have one hour. well, house members don't get an

hour for anything. five minutes is the usual course. 15 minutes if it's a great deal or if you want to stick around until midnight, you might get a special order for an hour. but here i was with an hour on the floor of the senate to debate my amendment. and senator faircloth, the senator from the other side of the aisle. so i said -- stumbled through it, i'm sure, i asked unanimous consent to allow the time to be equally divided between myself and senator faircloth so we can debate this amendment. i thought that was fairly reasonable, equally divided. senator faircloth stood up and said i object. well, i was stunned. clearly, here i am with my amendment, being as fair as can be, and he is not interested in the debate. i'm not going to pick on him because he reflected the feelings of many senators here. they're here on the floor to give speeches, many of them written by very talented staff people, and then to leave the floor and go off and do something else. so there is very little debate on the floor of the senate, real debate. i can count on one hand the times that i think i have really

in 14 years engaged another colleague in an actual debate that went back and forth over the merits of the issue. now, one of the things we're discussing tonight is what to do with the rules of the united states senate so that we engage more debate. we need it, so that we have less time that is being wasted in the senate, fewer hours that are being ticked off a clock to reach 30 hours or whatever it happens to be in a cloture motion, and more actual debate so that senators with differing points of view can come to the floor and state their points of view and debate them back and forth, and other senators can then listen, certainly the public can listen, those in the gallery, decide who has the merits of the debate. so debate isn't something we should shy away from. i think, in fact, it's an important part of the senate that we should value and that we should honor to make sure that the rules create that opportunity. the presiding officer now from the state of oregon has suggested, along with others, that we have more debate and

more votes, and i think we should. for a time there, there was this feeling that we had to protect members of the senate from controversial votes, and that, i think, is behind a lot of the decisionmaking that's taken place and brought us to this moment in the history of the senate. now, perhaps i have a different view of it, but having been on capitol hill for a long time in the house and the senate, i have stacked up more controversial votes, tens of thousands of them, that it will be fair game for any political opponent ever running against me in the future. there is plenty to work with. i don't need to give them something new to beat me over the head with. i have plenty of votes in my past. i think i can explain and defend them, for the most part, and i'm prepared to do so. so i'm not afraid of tomorrow's controversial vote. in fact, i think it's part of what we're here. i say to the senator from oregon who is presiding over the senate that there was a man who served here many years ago from oklahoma in the house named mike

synar, and mike synar of muskogee, oklahoma, was one of my closest friends. synar was just an unusual character in the house of representatives. he was one who faced with a choice between taking an easy, noncontroversial way out or a controversial, confrontational approach would always choose the confrontational approach. he would walk right into the wall of fire and welcome it because he thought it was part of what he was elected to the house to do. he used to stand up in the caucuses with the house democrats in the house of representatives when they would be whining and crying over the thought of facing a controversial vote and say to them what's wrong with you people? if you don't want to fight fires, don't become a firefighter. if you don't want to cast controversial votes, don't run for the house of representatives, or i might add, the senate. and i think the same is true today. although some of my colleagues face tough election campaigns in tougher states than my home

state of illinois, the fact is coming here and casting tough and even controversial votes are part of why we were elected and why the people expect us to come and face the music on some difficult issues. so bringing debate to the floor, back to the floor, bringing more votes to the floor are certainly moves in the right direction. i would say to the senator from new mexico, the senator from oregon and others that their proposal that would allow germane amendments as part of the regular order of the senate is a move in the right direction. that way, minority and majority get an opportunity to amend the bill. can it be abused? it can be, but i think making these germane and relevant amendments makes a difference. i can recall one colleague on the other side of the aisle who kept coming to the floor repeatedly day after day and week after week to offer the same amendment over and over and over and over again, even when he was passing the amendment. sometimes he would pass it, sometimes he wouldn't, but he couldn't -- couldn't help

himself. he just had to keep offering it over and over again. and as he offered this amendment, it really didn't enhance the bill, it didn't enhance the debate. it gave him a chance to put out a press release. well, you can abuse that process, so making sure that the amendments that are available are limited to those that are relevant certainly in my mind is a reasonable thing to do. let me say, too, a word about the 60-vote margin. the 60-vote margin, as former vice president mondale wrote in his guest column recently -- i believe it was in "the washington post" -- was a compromise. in days gone by, it took 67 votes to end a filibuster to bring cloture, 67, and then in the 1970's, vice president mondale, then a senator, joined with others on a bipartisan basis and lowered that to 60 votes, but it was still a rare and unusual thing to do, to filibuster and need a cloture vote of 60 votes.

unfortunately that 60 votes now than -- standard has been corrupted into a new standard for passage of legislation. allow me to give you two examples. we considered a wall street reform bill. there were dozens of amendments offered. the senator from oregon had a controversial amendment and waited for days, many weeks for a chance for his day in court, his day on the floor of the senate. after about 25 amendments had been offered and considered to the wall street reform bill, with a standard of a majority vote, i had an amendment relative to interchange fees on debit cards, controversial amendment, credit card companies and big banks hated it, and at that point, the announcement was made, just made unilaterally. incidentally, the durbin amendment now coming up will require 60 votes. everything else had been a majority vote to that point. there was no way for me to challenge that. if i wanted my amendment to come to the floor, i had to accept a

higher margin to pass it than all the other amendments that have preceded it. why? because the threat of a filibuster was there. the filibuster against my amendment. and that threat alone raised the margin and standard for that vote to 60, because from the other side's point of view, so many of whom oppose my amendment, it's a pretty easy thing to start a filibuster if you don't have to engage personally or make a personal commitment to it, and so they tossed it out as a standard, 60 votes became the requirement. fortunately for me, i had 64 votes and passed it. now, the same is not true of another provision which means an awful lot to me and to many people, the dream act. the dream act is a reform of our immigration laws that i think is long overdue, for children brought to the united states who are asking for a chance to become legal in this country. they can do it through military service in the dream act or by education, achieving at least two years of college. i have tried for ten years to pass this measure, and

repeatedly have had a majority of support on the floor of the united states senate and it's been ruled not enough. you need 60, durbin. if you're going to pass the dream act, just recently, just in the last two weeks, three weeks, we had this considered again, and it failed by not reaching 60 votes but had 55 votes. so the fact is establishing this new 60-vote margin has become too commonplace for anything that anyone wants to brand as controversial that might require a filibuster. that's got to change. 60-vote requirements should be rare in this body, they should be used sparingly, and they shouldn't be applied on a daily basis to any amendment or bill that i or any other senator at any given moment objects to. let me also say that when it came to unemployment insurance, i had a little conversation, a debate with the senator, former senator from kentucky, now retired, jim bunning, and insisted that he stay on the floor. as i repeatedly asked for unanimous consent to extend

unemployment benefits. that was considered by some -- in fact, many -- some republicans came to the floor and complained that that was totally unfair to ask the senator from kentucky to stay on the floor, so that he could object to my unanimous consent request. i'm sorry. there were millions of americans who were not receiving unemployment benefits and i think it's not unfair to say to the senator who is objecting to those benefits, stick around, miss that basketball game which you wanted to see that night which he announced on the floor he was missing. stick around and suffer a little bit because you happen to believe that's the right thing to do. eventually, after a matter of days, unemployment benefits were extended. but the point i'm getting to is that we have reached a point here that is way beyond the protection of the minority. it is the protection of what i consider to be an indolent approach to the senate where we want the easiest way around things. we don't want to debate them, we don't want to vote on them, we don't want to face a majority vote that we might lose, and so

we have contrived a new set of standards, procedures and rules that we are addressing today as part of this reform conversation. let me also say that many of the times that senators file a cloture motion or an objection that is noted by their side of the aisle and then the clock starts to run the 30 hours before there is a vote, many times those senators leave. before the senator from oregon arrived in this body, there was one senator who objected to our moving to a measure forcing the senate to stay in session until saturday when in the afternoon the time expired and a vote was called and the senator who objected didn't show up. he wasn't there. we asked where he was. well, he had to go to a wedding. really? and the rest of us stayed here and waited for the vote that he demanded while he went off to a family social obligation? that's not right. the good part of the rules changes that are being discussed now would require senators like

that senator, if they believe the business of the senate should stop or be delayed, to invest themselves personally in the conversation, to be here. is that too much to ask? as the senator from pennsylvania once said, you know, earn it and own it. if you believe that the business of the senate of the united states of america should come to a halt for 30 hours, then for goodness sakes, have at least the decency and the personal commitment to park yourself at your desk and argue your point of view, and if you're too tired to do it or too distracted or can think of something better to do with your time, be my guest and walk through the doors and let the senate proceed with its business. but if it's important enough for you to stop the business of the senate -- i happen to agree with those who are calling for rules reforms -- we should have that change. we should make those who are invested in it stay and invest their time, their personal commitment to that undertaking. finally, let me say that i think the nomination process has

really been corrupted to the point i don't even recognize. let me tell you, when chief justice roberts chastises the senate for all of the judicial vacancies in america, i know what he's talking about. in my home district of illinois, the central district of illinois, in normal times there are four district court judges. currently, we have three vacancies. one judge, district court judge, mike makusky is running all over down state illinois, from courthouse to courthouse to try to keep the criminal calendar going and i'm afraid he has little or no time for the civil calendar because of three vacancies. two of those vacancies, the president nominated judges to fill. the judges were considered by the senate judiciary committee, reported unanimously by the senate judiciary committee to the executive calendar, and i literally beg the republican side of the aisle and leadership to allow these two to come up for a voice vote since there was

no controversy attached with them and a judicial emergency existed in that central illinois district. they refused. they refused, despite repeated efforts. i then went to the other side and said all right, you must have republican senators facing the same thing in their state. i found senator cornyn of texas, exactly the same circumstance. i said john, you have a noncontroversial nominee. let's team up together, make it nonpartisan. so there is no question that we're trying to do it for a partisan advantage. he said i'm with you. wasn't enough. the republican leadership still objected to filling these vacancies when a judicial emergency existed. although i asked for it repeatedly. that, to me, is abuse of the process. if either of those nominees had been controversial, if this were a situation where it was a new extra judge, some question whether it was needed, another story completely, but we need to have a nomination process where those that are not controversial are brought up and considered in a timely fashion.

i want to commend my colleagues because i think each and every one of them has added to this conversation. senators wyden, grassley and mccaskill on a bipartisan basis to do away with senate holds. senator udall of new mexico, senator harkin of iowa and senator merkley of oregon, who's now presiding i think have had an excellent proposal here of five different changes that would make this a more effective senate. senator lautenberg, who spoke just moments ago, had his own proposal. senator udall of colorado and senator harkin each have a proposal. it is time for us to sit down on a bipartisan basis to protect the rights of the minorities but to bring -- within the senate but to bring the senate procedure into a more efficient and more effective way. not just so that c-span viewers are not shortchanged when he sign up for c-span senate and all they get is an occasional "akaka" or some other name being listed in the quorum call but actually hear the senate working for its money. we can do better. i know what's going to happen

now. we are likely to recess for some period of time and an opportunity presents itself for the leaders on both sides to come together. there's room for us to reach agreement. we can say to the minority, you're going to get your chance for amendments. you always want that, you're going to get it. and we can say to our side, you're going to face some votes on amendments, like it or not, that's part of why we're here. we can have some real debate, we can have an investment in the cloture process that means that it's rule and personal and that those that believe in it are taking the time to make sure that the senate continues to function as a responsible part of our government. mr. president, at this point, i would yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, let me first say to our -- our majority whip, mr. durbin of illinois, that i -- i very much appreciate his -- his long-term effort at looking at rules. i know you've signed on to several proposals today.

i know i know you're on the one that senator merkley and i are on and you're also on the harkin proposal, and you were here back in those days and you saw how much the senate has changed. and so we really appreciate your contribution to this effort and -- and the remarkable job you have done trying to lead us in these difficult times we're in. i mean, for some -- it must be tough for somebody like you who came to a senate and saw it change over time and change in the wrong way and getting hyperpartisan. so i want to say that to you. and i also just, mr. president, want to say several of our speakers mentioned things that i think it's very appropriate to put them in the record because i think when people read the "congressional record" and things are mentioned, it's important that -- that they be

able to find them quickly. and so the first one is -- is george packer, who's a writer with the "new yorker" magazine, wrote a piece called "the empty chamber," august 9, 2010. and i would ask unanimous consent to put that article in the record. it was mentioned in the course of the debate and it's an excellent article and he's a very, very good writer. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and secondly, one of the -- the -- the big scholars on congress -- you know, there are a couple of people out there that study congress over and over again and write books and articles and monitor what we're doing, and one of them is a judge by the jake of norm ornstein. and norm wrote a -- this was also mentioned in the course of the debate by one of the senators here. and norm wrote a piece in "the new york times" called "a filibuster fix," and that was on august 27, 2010.

and i'd also ask unanimous consent that that go in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and let me just finally say to the senator from oregon, the presiding officer here, that i very much appreciate his support, both working with me on the constitutional option and sorting out the -- the details and making sure we had things right and also his incredible work in terms of pulling together the talking filibuster part of this. i -- i was here today when he showed his charts and he took our five ideas and in the most simple form so the american people could understand it capsulized those in those five charts. and i've been telling my staff, you need to do this by the end of the debate. we need to find a way to shrink those and put them in the record also because here we are sitting on the floor and we have these charts and we need to somehow have those be a representation also.

so with that, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the

consideration of s. con. res. 2. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 2, authorizing the use of the rotunda of the capitol for an event marking the 50th anniversary of the inaugural address of president john f. kennedy. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: mr. president, we run through these things, something like this, and really sometimes you don't understand the importance of things that we do to individuals. i just read about a half-hour ago one of the nicest letters i've ever received from caroline kennedy regarding this. i mean, it really -- when i think of ted kennedy, who when i came to the senate was just somebody that i could never believe i'd be working with ted

kennedy, and then i invite the presiding officer sometime, maybe you've seen it coming to my office, but as you come into my capitol office, as you walk into the door, i have a letter that was stoants me by -- that was sent to me by president kennedy between the time he was elected and before he was inaugurated. and ted used to come into my office and many, many times he would look at that letter from his brother and he'd say shall that's his real signature. it was a letter to me. congratulating me on establishing the first young democrat club at the utah state university. and then-to-have -- and then to have this wonderful letter from caroline. these things we do affect people and there's no better example than that nice letter i got from

caroline today regarding her father. reading that -- thanks for doing this for my father. so, mr. president, i further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, there be no intervening action for debate, any statements relating to this measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place. the presiding officer: without objection. reid rioted i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk be -- that it appear separately in the as if made by the chair. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, this has been an exciting day, beginning the 112th congress. it's been, i think, an historic day. the debate has been very, very good. it's changed between the republican leader and me, i think, kind of set the stage, i hope -- at least i believe, the conversation that came later from the democrats and

republicans about how this place is going to run. i think that's been very constructive for the senate and the country. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it recess under the provisions of the s. con. res. 1 until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 256789 following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. i fine aolly does that the senate recess from 12:30 until 2:15 p.m. to allow for weekly caucus meetings on that date. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, roll call votes are possible on tuesday, january 25. senators will be notified when votes are scheduled. if ther there's no further busis to come before the senate, i ask that it recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate stands in recess until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, january 25, under the provisions of senate concurrent

provisions of senate concurrent >> earlier today in the old senate chamber and the vice president joe biden held a ceremonial swearing-in for senators and senators were officially sworn into office on the senate floor earlier in the day. this is about an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations]

>> how are you all doing? happy new year. come on, chuck. you cannot change your mind now. you got your family, you win a primary. [inaudible] [inaudible] please raise your right hand. can we have order in the old senate chamber. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that she will better true faith

and allegiance to the same, that you take this oath, this obligation freely without any reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully uphold the duties of the office of which are about to enter so help you god? >> i do. >> bringing the crew. i'll tell you what, you've got a beautiful legacy. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> make sure we can see everybody here. come all the way around. >> yeah, come on. >> all right, here we go. [inaudible] >> all right, can you see us all? [inaudible conversations] >> over here, guys. over to the press.

>> all of the women under the age of 30, no dating -- [inaudible] [laughter] >> congratulations. >> what your name? how old are you? is this your sister? ,

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> okay, you read it? please raise your right hand, senator. do some research to support and defend constitution of the night it's against all enemies, foreign and domestic sugar true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god? >> i do so help me god. >> congratulations.

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> come on, let's get the family in here. who's this good-looking guy? >> this is patrick. >> hey, baby, how old are you? seventeen? [inaudible conversations] how are you doing?

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> maureen, how are you? >> i'm good. >> welcome. >> dano, right on that spot right there. the real boss stands in the

middle. [inaudible] >> welcome will do you first and then we do that again. your senate pro tem pete. you've got power. do you solemnly swear that you'll support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge duties of his office on which are about to enter so help you god? >> thank you. >> jenny, good to see you. >> she's very relaxed.

>> stand wherever you want. cnx doodad may be. are we looking up top? [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> this is my niece, kim. this is valerie. >> jessica, how are you, baby? how are you big guy? >> ninety-five. >> your five? i thought you were five. in your 17? >> ninety-seven. >> immunoassay seven in may. >> this is nikki. remember, don't eat until you're 30. >> what a nice looking man. great handshake. good to see you, pal. you know, do one of your sisters

want to hold that bible? for going through do a reenactment. we're going to swear you in again. senator, which you raise your right hand, please? you solemnly swear you will support the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that she will bear true faith and allegiance to the same? vegetate this obligation this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you are well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which are about to enter so help you god? >> by well. >> i don't doubt for a second. >> i can tell you something. i told dan and away that y'all got good blood.

[inaudible conversations] >> what are we doing? , on up. >> were going to take this one photo right now. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> okay, that they. [inaudible conversations] >> congratulations. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> senator, would you please raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear you

support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, you will bear true faith and allegiance and would you take this obligation freely without mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you are well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office from which are about to enter so help you god? >> thank you so much. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> good to see you, man. how are you? maybe make sure they can see that beautiful child, okay? we're going to look over there and then we're going to look up tap.

[inaudible conversations] >> thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] >> senators, would you please raise your right hand? do solemnly swear to support the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true and allegiance and you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the

duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? congratulations. hey, dad, come on in here. the next time out. i hope you are. it's an honor to meet you. >> how you doing, buddy, good to see you. [inaudible conversations] >> great to see you guys. i love north carolina.

the [inaudible conversations] >> you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united it's against all enemies foreign and domestic, social bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully the duties on which are about to come so help you god? [inaudible conversations] >> thank you. >> my pleasure. [inaudible conversations]

>> chuck. how are you, buddy? [inaudible conversations] senator, would you please raise your right hand? do solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all things foreign and domestic, that you bear truth, faith and allegiance to do the same and that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will welcome a faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter, so help me god? >> i do. >> congratulations, chuck. >> this is my daughter. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> mac, why don't you get over here? [inaudible conversations] now as unaccustomed as you may be come you got to look at the price. >> what? who are these people? [inaudible conversations]

>> we do this first and then we bring the whole family. >> you hold the bible. read your right hand. senator, please raise your right hand. use farmers for your support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, she'll bear truth be than allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion amnesty will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which are about to enter so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations again.

[inaudible conversations] >> remember, no dates until you're 30. [laughter] why don't you get the next to me. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> welcome back. the [inaudible conversations] >> congratulations again. >> i think i made the mistake. last night's >> will have the bible and johnny put his left hand on the. do you solemnly swear that you'll support and defend the

constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, which will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? [inaudible conversations] , not. this is the vice president. >> holy mackerel. how old are you? >> six. [inaudible conversations] >> hey, that guy.

hey, man, good to see you. stand right in the front. come on. you're not allowed to have any dates until you are 30 years old. >> and then you have to take your grandfather with you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> that's a good idea, man. i'll work with grandpa to see if we can get that done. that's a really good idea. the kid is thinking. he wants to build a lego shop here. ..