will come to order, please. >> the senator will come to order. the chair lays before the senate one certificate of election to fill the uninspired term and for 43 senators elected for six-year terms beginning january 3, 2011. all certificates to chairs advised are in the form suggested by the senate. or contain all of the essential

if there is no objection, the reading of the certificates will be waved and they will be printed in the record in full. if the senators to be sworn in will now present themselves at the desk in groups of four as their names are called in alphabetical order, the chair will administer the oath. the clerk will read the names of the first group. mr. bennett of colorado, mr. blumenthal of connecticut, mr. blunt of missouri.

>> would you please raise your right hand? i'm going to read the entire oath. and you will respond appropriately. do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the constitution of the united states against our enemies, foreign and domestic, that you bear true faith and allee gents to the same that you take this oath freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will faith -- well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god. congratulations. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the clerk, the clerk will call the names of the next group. mr. wiseman of the arkansas, mrs. boxer of california, mr. bower of north carolina, mr. coats of indiana.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> would you all please raise your right hand and i will read the oath. do you solemnly swear that you will 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, and that you take this oath freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god. >> i do. >> congratulations, senators. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> senator please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. mr. coburn of oklahoma. mr. crapo of idaho, mr. gillibrand of south carolina,. >> i'm going to -- would you please raise your right hands. do you sol lowly swear to 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 the oath 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. >> i do. >> congratulations, welcome. [applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names. the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. >> mr. grassley of iowa, mr. hoeven of north dakota, senator of hawaii.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> all please raise your hand. right hand. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign around domestic that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties on the office about which you are about to enter so help you god. >> i do. >> congratulations. welcome. [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. mr. johnson of wisconsin, mr.

kirk of illinois, mr. leahy of utah, mr. lee of vermont. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> would you all please raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear to 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 the oath of 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. >> i do. >> congratulations and welcome. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. >> mr. mccain of arizona, mr. mil -- kulski of maryland, mr. murkowski of alaska.

>> would you all please raise your right hands? do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that you take this oath freely without any mental reservation and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties that you are about to enter so help you god. >> i do. >> congratulations. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. >> mr. murray of washington. mr. paul of kentucky. mr. portman of ohio, mr. reid of nevada. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> could you all please raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear that you will 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 end you take this oath of obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god. >> i do. >> congratulations. welcome. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> the senate will come to order please. the clerk will call the names of the next group. >> mr. rubio of florida, mr. schumer of new york, mr. shelby of alabama, mr. thune of south dakota. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> would you all please raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear that you

will support and defend the constitution of united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that you take the oath of observation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter so help you god. congratulations. [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. mr. toomey -- >> order in the senate. >> mr. toomey of pennsylvania,

mr. vitter of louisiana, mr. wyden of oregon. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> would you all please raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear to support the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and that you take this observation 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. >> i do. >> congratulations. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> honoring senator barbara mikulski for becoming the longer serving female senator in history. [applause] [applause] >> objection. the resolution is approved and the preamble is agreed to. >> i would move to reconsider that vote. >> without objection. >> mr. president i nams unanimous consent the follows senators be recognized to speak

on senator mikulski's historic milestone and i would note we will be in period of morning business when we complete the business today and ask that they agree to allow reid of nevada to speak for two minutes, mcconnell two minutes, cardin for two minutes, and mikulski for three minutes as consent. >> without objection. >> mr. president, i came to the senate in january 1987. in the same class as barbara mikulski. every 6th january since, including today, barbara mikulski and i have been sworn in together. taking that oath is humbling and meaningful for every senator. but it's a little more meaningful this time around for senator mikulski, for maryland, and for our country. she's now the longer serving woman senator in our nation's history. she's had a path-breaking career, and that's an under estimate. she was the first woman elected

to the statewide office in maryland, and the first democratic woman elected to the united states senate. she was the first woman to serve in the senate democratic leadership when we elected her the secretary, and she was the first woman ever to serve on the senate appropriations committee. a woman who's record she breaks was a significant senator in her own right. margaret chase smith of maine was the first woman to be elected in the house and senate. i know senator mikulski very, very well. she's my friend and confidant. more than any records, she's most proud of what she's done with that time. time she's dedicated to tireless, passionate, and effective advocacy of those who need a voice, or even a hand. she's committed to social and economic justice has any senator who's ever served in the great chamber. she's won the admiration of both democrats and republicans, especially those of whom she's

given her time and advise as a manner and a road model. alongside all of her records and accomplishments, i'll always admire the way she led us on one of our darkest days. as even fell on washington, d.c. for the first time after the twin towers fell in new york, hundreds of members of congress talked outside to the steps of the capitol. we joined hands. in a moment of silence, mikulski suggested we all sing "god bless america." we did. i'll never forget that moment. we'll always remember the speech that this good woman gave more than two decades ago. senator mikulski, john glenn and i went on a trip to poland. john glenn, of course, was an international celebrity, in addition to being the united states senator, he captivated

the crowd. we were in a basement, meeting with some disdense, knowing senator mikulski as a polish decent, i asked if she could speak about senator glenn. i thought she'd say a few words about her heritage. i've heard a lot of speaks, mr. president. none has ever moved we more than the speech barbara mikulski gave in the basement in warsaw, poland. so congratulations to my friend, senator barbara mikulski, and the state of maryland for returning such a strong servant on their behalf. >> the republican leader. >> i rise to honor our college from maryland on becoming the longest female senator in american history. no achieving this mild stone, barbara passes margaret smith who served the people of maine

from 1947 to 1973. as was indicated, she's only the second woman to be elected to both the senate and the house. when first elected in the senate in 1986, barbara was only the 16th woman to ever serve. today there are more female senators than that in the 112th congress alone. barbara has served as a role model and mental to any of them. i know they are grateful for it. she's been a champion of the space program, science research, welfare reform, major transportation, homeland security, and environmental issues in maryland. i think barbara would be the first to tell you that becoming the longest serving female senator wasn't easy. like all streaks, including that of another marylander, cal ripken, there are a lot of bumps in the road. she'd made it through it all. we're happy to share in the mild stone today. i'd like to recognize barbara

not only for her accomplishment for her achievement in the united states senate, but also for the accomplishments as a u.s. senator. and the pioneer model she's been to so many woman in her distinguished career. again, congratulations, senator mikulski. [applause] [applause] mr. cardin: marylanders take pride in a their hall of famers, from cal ripken o'our iron man, to brooks robinson with the golden glove to johnny unitas with the golden arm to frank robinson who was an all star in both the american and national leagues. now we add to that list our own senator barbara mikulski, the longest serving woman senator in the u.s. senate history. marylanders are proud of senator barb, not because of her length of service but what she has done

as a united states senator and as a united states senator and and is done throughout her entireyo career.mi u.s. jeni maryland or what they think about senator mikulski and they will start out by saying she is a fighter and then they will say we are glad she is on our side. she is an effective fighter for the people from protectingn neighborhoods from an unwanted highway to keeping jobs in maryland from being shipped overseas. there is no more effective playerht than senator barbara mikulski. she has protected herra strengthening of the u.s. this program and her position on the appropriations committee. she provided equity in health care from the health committee and she stands for up for our federal workers, advancing equity issues in the list goes on and on and on. she is taken or social worker background and her political training for more politics in east baltimore and her hard work ethic from her parents and her own common sense to be a voice for working families in the halls of the united states

senate. on a personal note i want to take of my friends were always being there for me, working together as a team for the people of maryland. on behalf of my two granddaughters, my daughter, my wife and all americans thank you senator mikulski for living the americani,ng dream in making tht yns.m a reality for so man americans. [applause] >> mr. president. >> the senator from a.from z. thank you mr. president. there are certain occasions in the life of this esteemed institution that are so steeped in history they havest remainedt indelibly etched in our mind and upon our hearts.ed this is one of those iconic moments that we share inr recognizing senator mikulski's venerable achievements with her colleagues, their families, loved ones constituent step and indeed the nation. this is also a special day of right, most especially to those of us who are senators for home

senator murkowski has been aent, role model and mentor as well as collating numerous efforts with senator hutchison a senior republican woman to foster camaraderie among all of us.r m having been purpose to know senator mikulski for more than 30 years, beginning with their mutual service in the house of representatives, i cannot receive of anyone i would rathee witness overtaking such a milestone in the senior senator from maryland, a beloved champion of the people of heraby state and unquestionably the women of america. indisputably, for both of my main colleagues, senator collins and made a landmark occasion we are commemorating is all the more personal and poignant given we are both colleagues and dear friends of senator mikulski and also direct inheritors and beneficiariesri of senator margaret chase smith

groundbreaking service.g it is in that light that i am deeply privilege today to stand at the very desks she onceer d graced and having sat across her desk when i first met her in washington years ago. sen it is to also pay tribute to senator smith by wearing her pev given to me by a very good friend from maine, susanac longley, one of the actual pins and with senator smith wouldh famously place the trademark row she wore daily on the floor of the senate. and d. there are numerous similarities between senator margaret chase smith and senatoa mikulski. the transit and longevity.de they both live the ideals of hard work and earning their own way in life. senator mccaul skate the proudmm descendent of polish immigrants work in her parents grocery during her formative years and years later after she graduated from college and acquired a masters degree. she pursued the noble calling oi social work.

senator smith was a textilean, worker, telephone operator,ice newspaper woman, teacher and an office manager. the point is neither started at the top but they most certainly arrived there. senator smith rose from the humblest beginning to represent maine in the u.s. house of representatives and the united states senate for more than 32 distinguished years with unequal courage, stability, compassion and integrity. she was a visionary of endless birth by the undoubtedly senator smith will best be remembered for the moment during her all my second year in the senate that d was truly uncommon courage andrh principled independence she telegraphed the truth about mccarthyism during the red scare of the 1950s with their renowned declaration of conscience speech here on the m senate floor. in 15 minutes she had done what 94 for w colleagues, male colleagues i might add, had notn dared to do and in so doing

swayed a giant of demagoguery's prompting american are not the route to say that a man made b that speech you would have become the next president of the united states. yet even as senator smith was a political pioneer, she never deliberately set out to establish some sort of precedent for women..if rather what her life proved isfa that gender was not the key factor in public service, but dedication and energy, a confidence, ability and sheerse work. with those foundational qualitiesal don't also encapsule the essence of the public service that senator barbara mikulski then i don't know what does. it is therefore all the more appropriate that of anyone it would be a person of senator mikulski's stature who proceed in the senate and the benchmark established today weren't enough, i might -- we will all h be back here in the floor of the

senate because senator mikulski will become the longest-serving female member in the history of the united states congress,ng house or senate. moreover -- [applause] she probably didn't have a chance to think about that one. moreover like senator smith senator barbara mikulski has always brought an unyielding tenacity, cornerstone and character that have time and again been reflected in the legislative site on behalf of the people she represents. this will not be a newsflash to my colleagues or evenol those tt are new colleagues will soon discover that taking no for an answer simply is not in senator mikulski's vocabulary nor herulr dna as she has often said she is not caffeine free. and nowhere have i witnessed the unfocused commitment of more intently than in senator mikulski's signature battle for

equity in women's health research, when did congress when patcheded rotor and i were ragir from the house side as well. and we all set aside our partisan labels at a time when incredibly women and minorities were systematically discredited from clinical medical trials at the national institute ofthe health, that often made theat a difference between life ande, death and a pivotal juncture. mikulski tackled this travesty hassan and launched the key panel stakeholders as she can do to explore the shocking discriminatory treatment which further galvanize national attention and in the end, we produced watershed policy changes that to this day are resulting in discovery for america's women. ultimately, what we are celebrating herele today are two legislative juggernauts who have defined the standard of principle public service by

exemplifying a special bond ofd trust that should exist between the governing and the governed.v the same problems confronting their constituencies and the nation and left no stone unturned to solve them. they recognize injustice and acted boldly to quell it. they have given a voice to the voiceless, power to the powerless and they will always be at one with those they represent because they never, ever forgot their roots. that is why as senator from the state of maine where mila j. smith's legacy has been forever and shine, senator and i areli profoundly honored to share in this rare if i'd moment as senator mikulski assumes the historic mantle of longest-serving women in the united states senate. indeed it bodes well to thetuti venerable institution of the senate and our great nation to have the senior senator fromangu maryland to be at the vanguard

of our ranks. thank you mr. president. [applause] [applause] >> mr. vice president? >> the senator from maryland.ant >> mr. vice president i want tou thank you my colleagues for their very very warm words. today when i walked down the aisle, escorted by my partner, my esteemed partner ben cardin, my former and beloved colleague, senator paul sergey and, when i walked down that aisle, i walked into the history books. i'd never set out to do that and for me it is a great honor to join margaret chase smith and the history books. as senator snowe has said andber also senator collins on a number of occasions margaret chase m

smith and i share many things in common.e, today day where the rows but s those two outstanding senators from maine also where the value of main and the values of barbara chase smith. a strong belief in constituent service, stand close to the people, focusing on jobs for the state, being a job supporter of innovation and a fierce, unrelenting streak of independence. i hope like her eye know that they bear that same set of characteristics. but for me it is not how long i have searched but how well i have serve. service for me is about eating connected, connected to my constituents, staying close to them so they don't fall between the cracks. meeting their day-to-day needs and also looking at the long-range needs of the nation. nobody comes here by themselvest later on today i will thank my friends andan supporters that it

want to thank the wonderful people who shaped me, the wonderful nuns who taught me,e, the school sisters of mercy who taught me about leadership, who taught me about service, talking about my -- ormack divide theha beatitudes that said hunger and thirst after justice. that today as i stand here i also think about my mother and father. i am filled with great emotion.d i wish my mother and father wers here today.y they worked so hard for my sisters and i do have an her education. but though they are not hereope with me today in the senate gallery i hope they are with me me -- i know they are in my heart, but i want them to be --e to know that they are with me when i fight for what wemy believed in. my father ran a small grocery store. everybody knew my father and for mother. they were known for honesty and integrity that my father up in

the grocery store every morning. he would say good morning, can i help you? values ihe kind of bring to the united states senate. our family came from poland.ved when my great-grandmother arrived in this country, she hah little money in her pocket, but she had it a dream in her heart and that dream was the american dream, where through hard work, hard work andnd dedication you o make something of yourself. you can on a home. you can have a job. you can get an education for your family. she didn't even have the right to vote and in this great country of ours, in threeons, generations i joined the united states senate. she knew about hard work and ino terms of economic opportunity. she didn't think too much about the constitution, but i do and particularly that first amendment. i got into politics fighting tht highway in other countries they take dissidents and put them isn

jail. in the united states of americat excess of the first amendment they put you in the united states senate. [laughter] god bless america. when i came to the united stateg senate, though i was all by myself i said i was never alonee because of the wonderful way the men have elected me. the history of thehe women in te senate is short. i might add 4 feet 11 inchese' short. [laughter] but everything we have done we have been able to work on together. i fought for seniors to try to pass the spousal impoverishmentt legislation to make sure that the very roles of our government didn't force people into bankruptcy and they had to turn to a nursing home.te to work on the lilly ledbetter bill to give equal work for equal pay and the wonderful work in women's health where we broke barriers in terms of research but we know we have saved lives because of what we have done ini

research and that preventive health amendment and for young people in national service. i have also fought for marylandg weather cleaning up the -- are fighting for jobs and be port of baltimore or looking out for the goddard space agency or theea funding of the national institutes of health. for me, again and it is all aboutgaut service. i'm fighting for a stronger economy and a safer america. i for me it is not about the past. is it is about the future. though i broke one record today i'm going to work with all ofo you on both sides of the aisle to break other records. let's break that high record of unemployment in our country.ow let's break that record of low graduation rates in our high schools. let's break the record of the longest war in american history and bring our troopse home as safely as we can.an i want to build a strong economy and work on this innovation of economy so that we are able to move ahead in this country. today when i take my oath, which

i did, i pledge that i want to help america be great again but the renewed self-confidence and achievement. i will be a global leader in this innovation economy. i want to help america be excellent again so we would not only nobel prizes and i want to win lots of them but i want to t win international markets and win lots of them. i want to promote a sense of community where we look out for each other and for our community and where the people of the america know of that they have a government on their side. for me, i want to close with ard quote from george bernard shaw. i'm convinced by lifelong -- walensa the whole community and it is my privilege to do l whatever i can. for the harder i work the more i live. iiv rejoice in -- it is sort ofa splendid torch which i get ahold of for a moment andd i want it s

burn as brightly before turning it over to the future generation. sunday in the future someone else will break that record. let's work together to break those other records. thanks for everything and god f bless america.or [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> mr. president, happy new year to you and happy new year to all of my colleagues. those returning to the senate, those taking office today for the first time. i am honored, humbled and will be forever grateful for the t people that have entrusted me

with another term as united states senator. i will continue workingi' hard y find jobs for the people of my state and our country and get our country back onr track. mr. president i'm also grateful for the continued support of my caucus, which has given me thes honor of serving as its leader. neither title, senator or majority leader, is the responsibility i take lightly or for granted. they say you can never step in the same river twice. new water flows and replacing the old and man continually renewing thene river. the senate is the same mr. president. this body never stops changing.u every two years and occasionally more frequently new senators take their seats in this chamber. they joined the senate family and is ever evolving team of 100 path with moving the country for it better fundamental responsibilities and provisions anchor us iner that river. our respect and reverence for

the people we serve and this or institution never waivers or changes. mr. president according to academics, pundits, and congres1 watchers say 111th congress, the last congress, was the most part it did in american history. the many challenges and opportunities still lie ahead that this new congress starts today. we have to do even more to help middle-class families, create h jobs and hasten our energy independence to improve ourra children's education and to fix our broken immigration system. we also have to makeo sure the senate can operate in a way that allows the people's elected legislatures to legislate so we will soon debate reform in thers senate procedure, reform proposed not do for the sake ofe change itself over partisan gains but because the current system has been abused and abused gratuitously. the filibuster in particular had been abused and truly unprecedenteasd fashion.

there were strong passions on both sides of this debate of as this issue.op there is nearly as many opinions about what to do about these abuses as there are senators. let us start the conversation with some facts. mr. president, could we have order? >> the senate will come to order. senators will please take their floor.stations off the the majority leader. >> thank you mr. president. here are some of those facts. there were about as manyer filibusters in the last two congresses as there were in the first six and a half decades that the cloture rules existed. there were nearly as many filibusters in just the last two years as there were in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and half of the 1970s all combined.

in the entire 19th century the senate saw fewer than 12, a dozen filibusters. m now we see that many in a single month. many of these recent filibusterp were terribly unproductive.ev many of them prevented us from even holding a debate on a bill let alone an up-or-down vote. after we waited hour after hour, day after day, sometimes weeks, many of those bills passed and many of those nominations were o confirmed overwhelmingly and sometimes unanimously. i have been forced to use my right as majority leader to fill what we call the amendment tree, more than i would have liked. but this has been for a simple reason mr. president. ratherla than compromise for the greater good as members of this body of done for generations, s the current minority has offered amendment simply to waste time or to score clinical points.

american people of government. they don'ty like too muchuc politics and government. finally these rules are central to the sacrosanct. senate procedure in cloture rules have changed since this institution was founded in the beginning of this country. when necessary and after serious consideration. those provisions have never been made without greater liberation and no future change should be made any different. the recent abuses we have seen in the senate heard our country and hurt our economic recovery and they hurt middle-class families. good they hurt the institutions that shape america because thedg key public f service for no rean other than partisanship.us even chief justice roberts criticized the senate a few days ago for how few judges we confirmed and how slowly we do even the few we have confirmed. i hope all my colleaguesr

consider the chief justice's warnings and that is what it means for the pursuit of justice in this country. lin mr. president, here is the bottom line. we may not agree yet on how to fix the problem that no one can credibly claim problems don'tat exist. no one who is what's this body operates as the current minority took office will say it functions just fine. that wouldn't be true.no it would be dishonest. no one can deny the filibuster has been used for purelyfar political reasons, reasons far beyond those for which thised protection was invented and intended. so mr. president, i say through the chair to my distinguished republican counterparts, my friends, senator mcconnell, in the coming days let's come together to find a solution. that is why we are here.ors i say to the 16 new senators, we need to do some things correctlv the united statese senate must solve problems, not create themo

and i'm going to work to the best of my ability to with myntc friend, the senator from kentucky, to work this out, toom work out a compromise. the last time congress convened without senator robert byrd as a member, harry truman was president of the uniteted state. 42 of our 100 senators hadn't even been bornen yet. no one knew the constitution better than robert byrd and no one rare glared at more. he taught many of us many things. among them he taughti me to ca. the constitution with me every day. i do that mr. president. i always have this copy of theor founding document in my pocket signed by senator byrd one of the most fervent defenders of the constitution. he has given me two of them.or the first one wore out but i have it in my desk in searchlight and i have such a fondness of looking at senator

byrd as we all know in his later years had a benign tremor and he shook a little bit when he wrote. he wrote this. and i will always always remember senator byrd. a fervent defender of this constitution. he loved the constitution. the cold minor son loved the constitution just like everyone in america whether you are a coalminer's son or an academic son, we all should love this constitution not just because of what is written in it that how those words were written and how it all came together. senator byrd knew our constitution was created througt compromise at a moment of particular partisan strife, 15 years ago.id t senator byrd came to this floor and said the following in thnde quote. i hope that we will all look at ourselves on both sides oft asylum and understand also that we must work together in harmony

and with mutual respect for one another. this very charter, talking about the constitution, under which we live was created in a spirit ofe compromise and mutual concession and it is only in that spirit that the continuance of this t charter of government can be prolonged and sustained. that is what he said.tain our friends in the house at decided to begin their daily business by reading the constitution. these first few minutes of the new senate session i think we should reflect on senator byrd's wise reminder of this constitution'sis history.it unlike the constitution the agreement that separate and different houses ba and the legislative branch was itself a compromise.id mr. president it is written tois be the great compromise, allowed us to have the constitution.e, as much as ever before are two branches need to find commonun ground if we are going to seee justice for the people we serve and serve in that same speech a decade and

a half ago, senator byrd reminded us and i quote, thede welfare of the country is more dear than the mere victory of a political party, and the quote.e i think we would do well to heed those words as we debate and decide how to best serve the b nation and its people in this new year. mr. president, senators, and go. majorities and minorities rotatc like a rolling wheel and records of service are written anden rewritten. the only constant in this great democracy is change. w change that we never anticipate, sometimes we do but most often w we don't. 16 senators who were here just a few days ago have moved on and o 16 new ones now take theirne se. laws that govern this nation anb govern this body continue to evolve carefully and byost necessity. the most important change we can make in the 112th congress is to work better and more closely

as partners, not as partisan tos fill our constitutionalrs responsibility to pursue the more perfect union established tranquility provide for theen common defense promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.ogni >> mr. president. >> the republican leader isconn recognized. >> mr. president, first i would like to take a moment to welcome back all of my colleagues and particularly the 13 new republican senators, who we officially swore in just a few moments ago. americans are looking for leaders. principled

i confident this impressive class of new republicans will not disappoint. i would also welcome to -- likey to look my good friend majority leader at a time when two people think the two parties can't even agree on the weather. i will not senator reid and i a get along just fine.ine. i expect it will stay that way and i look forward to working with him again throughout this congress. the biggest changes today are of course happening across the dome and i would like to welcome that many new republican members of congress who come to washington to change the way things are done around here. and this they will be led by aal very talented and determined ohioan whom i now have a great honor for frank to as speaker boehner. i congratulate speaker boehner and the new republican majority in the house and i wish them great success in achieving the kind of reforms and policies the last election was all about.er americans want by make her stewa cut washington's the dead, raini

in the government and create the right conditions for private-sector job growth. they also want us to reform the way laws arewa made.to they are looking to republicans to provide an alternative to thg kind of lawmaking we have seen too much of around here in the past few f years. a vision that disregards the views of the public in favor ofn an elite few. a vision that tells people they can look at legislation after it haser passed. that washington knows best. insured americans are looking for an entirely differenty approach. the new republican majority in the house is shown every sign that they have heard the public this and senate republicans joined them in their efforts conscious of the limitations and the opportunities that our minority status and the president's veto pen involves.e we will press the majority to do the things the american people clearly want us to do.

and we will insist in every possible way the voices of our constituents are heard, realizing at the same time the best solutions are forged the consensus not three confrontation. d now fortunately the senate was designed as a place where consensushe could and would he reach. look through modern history.it the social security act of 1935 was approved by all but six members of the senate. medicare and medicaid acts ofer 1965 were approved by all but 21 and all but eight senators voted for the americans with disabilities act 21 years ago this year. the lesson is clear.hi americans believe that on issues of this importance one party shouldn't be allowed to force its will on anyone else andate, thanks to the senate it rarely has.sal that is why our recent proposal to change the senate's rules by

some on the other side is such a bad idea. for two years americans have been telling us that they are tired of being shut out of the legislative process. they want to be heard and theirn response they are not getting from some on the other side instead is a proposal to change the senate rules so they can continue to do exactly what they want with fewer members thanin before.or instead of changing their behavior in t response to the lt election they want to change the rules.sely well, i would suggest that this is precisely the kind ofst approach a supermajority standard is meant to prevent. it exists, it existed for service and its role as the one place where the the people will in the end be h heard. and as a result, it has helped ensure that most major agreements enjoy the broad support of the public and the

stability that comes with it. regrettably, the current majority has too often lost sight of this important truth. since assuming control of the senatese in 2007, it has soughti erode the traditional rights of the minority and by extension the rights of our constituents.l the nonpartisan congressional t research service has looked into the way the current majority has run the senate. its conclusions are revealing. here are just a few.ie the current majority has denied the minority the right to amendr legislation a record 44 times or more often than the last six majorities combined. s it has moved to shut down debate the same day measures are considered nearly three times more often on average than the previous six majorities. and its unprecedented denial of the rights of the minority to de

debate and amend on the floor is compounded by its practice of regularly bypassing senate committees. all too often the majority has chosen to write bills behind closed doors depriving americans of yet another opportunity to have a y say in the legislativee process. has the current majority has set the record here as well, bypassing u committees 43 times at double the previousvi average. now the goal of all of this ofto course is to pass the most partisan legislation possibleme while at the same time avoiding difficuldit moves.ve h to listen to the leaders of the democratic party over over the past aromas they have had some success at it.r the president, the former speaker, the majority leader have described this past congress has the most successful in memory and most vocal elements of their party remainep restricted. they say the senate is broken.th is another thing people are describing it as the most successful in memory. why?wh their primary complaints appeari

to be the stimulus passed but it wasn't big enough. the health care pass but it didn't include the governmentsea planned. the senate extended unemployment benefits and cut payroll taxes but was blocked from raising taxes on small-business owners in the process.n a in other words the majority have been able to achieve most of what it wanted but because it didn't achieve everything itth wanted some aren't happy. they are not happy that those americans who have a different view of things actually had a say in how some of the legislation they passed over the past two years turned out. now the impulse to change the rules it's in some ways understandable. no one likes to take difficult both but that is nothing new is the majority cliff often says. if you don't like fighting fires and don't become a fireman and if you f don't like casting vots don't come to the senate. some have also suggested that one's view of the filibuster

depends on where one sits and it is true when i was in the majoritywh i posed filibusterine judicial mommies but i oppose doing so when i was in thele minority as well. h and i oppose doing so regardless of who was in the white house. in short i was against expanding the use of the filibuster into an area in which it traditionally have not been used . not. one can agree with that view are not but it is one thing to disagree with expanding the use of the filibuster and nontraditional areas regardless of who is president who is in the minority. is another thing altogether to be in favor expanding it when one is in the minority and turn around and urge its elimination when one is in the majority. when it comes to preserving the right to extend debate on legislation republicans have been entirely consistent. what is being considered here is unprecedented. no senate majority has ever -- i'm going to say this twice --

no senate majority has ever changed the rules except by following those rules, that is with the participation and thent agreement of the minority. let me say it one more time.orit no senate majority has ever changed the rules except by following thosefo rules. that is when the participation and the agreement of the minority, but it's also promises to frustrate those who would approve it. first, it is stating the obvious that anything that passes in the senate with a narrow majority than 60 is going absolutely nowhere in the newly republican house. so any short-term gain andwa halfway across the intone. second a change in the rules aimed at benefiting the democrats today could just as easily be used to benefit republicans do our friends across the really want to create a situation where

two or four or six years frommpe now they suddenly find themselves completely powerlesse to prevent republicans from overturning legislation theyo themselves have worked so hard to enact? particularly over the last two years?but at the larger point is this. the founders crafted the senate to be they crafted it to be deliberate a thoughtful place and changing the rules and the way that has been proposed with unalterably change the senate itself. it will no longer be the place for the whole country is herder the ability to have its say,co place that encourages consensus in broad agreement. in short it would make this place evenac less like the place americans wanted to be. so what is my hope that our friends on the other side will put aside their plan to respect the rules of the senate and evel more portly the voice of the people those rules are meant ton protect. then we can get about the business of what people are

centered to do. today's the day to renew our purpose in our commitment to bipartisanship, not to double on down on a partisan approach thaw has too often marred lawmaking in washington over the past twoo years. we it is a day to look ahead to what we can achieve together, prompted by the urgings of an electorate that has made itsha views very clear. and united by love for thisnsti institution and this nation. the problems we face are enormous. once in a generation challenges that will require vision hard work and a commitment to reach consensus. and the senate is the place for that.orks at its best, it is a workshop for the nation's most difficult challenges are faced squarely and addressed with civility and good will and at a time like our own when one in 10 working americans is looking for a job and can't find

one, when the national debt threatens the american dream itself, when the solvency of the social safety net is threatened, we must come together.we we must find a way to forget the petty skirmishes of the past and forge a new, more hopeful path. we must be motivated by determination to seek solutions not mere partisan advantages. americans are looking for republicans to address the problems we face but republicans cannot solve them along. problems are too big, too demanding for one party. and they will never succeed in solving them if we retreat to our corners until another election comes around. if our predecessors had done that they would have never solved anything at all. and this institution would have lost itslo relevance a long time ago.o. but they didn't.ho

and neither can we. the man who established this place have left us the right tools for the job and it is mye hope that in the weeks and months ahead we will use them to renew the promise that inspired them and that continues to inspire c americans, even in difficult times. that promise is the american dream. it is what unites everyone in this chamber, preserving it must be our common task. mr. president i yield the floor. >> i joined the entire senate family including my good friend a distinguished senior senator from maryland on becoming the longest-serving woman in the history of the united states senate. this is truly a remarkableni milestone. i know the cal ripken the former star of senator mikulski's hometown of baltimore orioles became known as the ironman for going 16 consecutive years without missing a game.aps now perhaps senator mikulski has earned the title of iron clement for going 24 consecutive years and this body without ever a

deviating from her role as a fierce advocate for marylanders and working people across ourth country.easu i hasten to add mr. president ao measure of a senator is not how many gears he or she serves in the body but what he or she accomplishes during those years. and as for senator mikulski has truly distinguish yourself over the last quarter of a century. i especially salute directed his men leadership on the committee on health education labor and pensions and formerly chaired of course by senator kennedy in c which i now am privileged to chair.mpio she has been a leading champion of pel gl grants and expanding access to higher education for students of modest means and of course as it's been stated, shew has been the senate's leading voice on women's healthlt issue, fighting to ensure that womeneac are included in clinical trials of medical research at the national institutes of health and securing access to andings

cervical cancer screenings for women without health insurance. senator mikulski took the lead in writing the sections of the new health reform law that focuses on improving the quality of care and at every turn in the drafting of that historic the legislation, she fought to insure that the unique health needs of women were fully recognized andgn accommodated. i as chair the subcommittee on retirement and aging, senator mikulski has been an outspoken advocate for seniors focusing especially on combating elder abuse and neglect. i know that she is especially proud of offering the spousal anti-impoverishment act which keep seniors from going bankrupt while paying for spouses nursing home care. i might also add mr. president no one has been a more fierce supportere of, defender of the right of poor people to have an attorney through the legal aidd system in america. she has fought very hard to make sure that we strengthen the

national legal services corporation and to make sure that it receives adequate tha funding so that people who have no money aren't barred from the courthousee doors. so mr. president we admired the work of someone not as a female senator per se but is one of 100 senators but on this day we also deny she was the first woman elected to the senate whose husband or father did not serve in high ie. office and we salutn as the proud dean among senateg bowman was gone to extraordinary lengths for so many years to mentor and guide senators of both parties. so i join my colleagues in congratulating senator mikulski has her longest-serving femalevg ever, female senator of her and wishing her many many more years of a compost bin and, service in the united states senate.sena >> mr. president? >> the senator from minnesota is

recognized. >> thank you mr. president and mr. president i rise today to add my voice to those of my colleagues as we commemorate an extraordinary milestone for a remarkable woman. today senator barbara mikulski the comes the longest-servingwo woman united states senator.iv for anyone who has had the privilege of working with or working for senator mikulski, this milestone comes as noev surprise. she is a devoted public servant andan a dogged advocate for her constituents. she has spent the vast majoritye of her life in public service ai a social worker, some member of the baltimore city council then as a member of the house of representatives and finally at the united states senator. with each step mr. president hed constituency and she worked evee harder to fight for the people of maryland. n senator mikulski is no stranger to celebrating first milestonese

she was the first democratic woman to be elected to the senate in her own right without succeeding a spouse or a father. she was also the first woman to serve on the united states senate appropriations committee. it is also worth reflecting on how far we have come in the 24 years since senator mikulski was first elected.ne she was one of only two women in the senate in 1987. in the next senate as in the last senate, we are now up to 17 female senators meaning mr. president that they can no longer call us sweet 16. as the dean of women senators, senator mikulski has always been ready to help women who are thinking about running for the senate and thenut t help newly arrived women senators when they get here. her wise counsele is absolutely invaluable. senator mikulski has always reach across the aisle to bring women senatorsom together as she puts it, women in the senate art

to understand issues not just on the macro level but on the macaroni and cheese level. two years ago around this time i went to the senate floor with several of my women colleagues to speak about the importance of passing the lilly ledbetter fair pay act. senator mikulski had championed the bill for years. i remember senator mikulskir, bringing us all together and i will always remember her words. she would say to the women of america, suit up, square your shoulders, put your lipstick on and get ready for a revolution. senator mikulski has always been a master of words and quips and she did it again and we pass that bill. on that issue as on so many others the cause of senator mikulski championed was victorious do in larger part to her tremendous work ethic andnd her devoted advocacy. senator mikulski, today we salute you for sitting up in

squaring her shoulders for 24 years and counting and we look m forward to so many more. mr. president, i yield the floor and i see that my great colleague senator stabenow from the state of michigan is here.fi >> the senator from michigan is recognized. >> thank youi' mr. president. i'm so pleased to be here today and i appreciate the words of the great senator from minnesota i am very very pleased to arrivo with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pay tribute to somebody who is much more than a colleague, someone who is also a mentor and a great, great friend, the senator from maryland, barbara mikulski. today as we all know, she became the w longest serving woman memr

of the united states senate in the history of our nation. i have a 3-year-old granddaughter, lily, who will bo able to read now in the history books about not only her grandfather but the woman who m holds this record, senator barbara mikulski and all that she has done and all that she us particularlyll as a role model for my granddaughter and other young children and other young women that will be coming after all of us.ec she is here today because she is bold and fearless and determined as we all know. in 1986 when she first ran for the senate, she looked for inspiration from her own great-grandmother who came to the united states from poland with noth money and no job, but,

her great-grandmother knew the importance of hard work and she built a life for herer family here, a new beginning and in so doing, opened the door for future generations and i know that todayha mr. president she g looking down from a special place with tremendous pride. when senator mikulski won that election becoming the first democratic woman to win a united states senate seat in her ownn right she carried on her great-grandmother's legacy, opening doors for future generations of women to follow in her footsteps. thanks to that, there are more women serving in the u.s. senate today than have ever served in the entireer history of our greo country. before senator mikulski was elected in 1986. from the moment she arrived in this august body she has been a tireless champion of working

families of maryland and across the country and i'm proud to have partnered with her on so many important efforts to make sure that we are building things in america again and supporting thean people who have built the great middle class of this country by their hard work. she greww up working in her parents grocery store andrkin understands the struggles ofing working families who want nothing more than to create a better life for their children and their grandchildren. she got her start in politics fighting to save a neighborhood in baltimore, stopping a proposed highway that would have divided the neighborhood and destroyed that today, because of senator mikulski, southpoint is a thriving residential andsi commercial community. she has continued from that day and every day fighting for

neighborhoods and fighting for m families and standing up for tha men and women who work hard every day to make a better life for themselves and theirn th families. when she first arrived in the senate she was one of only two women, as we know, two women senators. before then, women were appointed to the worst committees, were locked out of the old boys club and didn't have much of a voice.bu but she changed all that.ul she got appointed to the powerful appropriations committee, the first democratic woman to do so, giving the women of america a voice for the firsn time on how we set our priorities for the investment of our country. but more importantly, she learned how to build coalitionsf to work with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle, to get things done for the sent her here to work for them. today as dean of the women's

senate she continues that leadership. o her, the women of the senate get together, both democrats and republicans, for fellowship and friendship on a regular basis.re and now following in her footsteps there are women members on every single committee in the united states senate, every committee important to the operation of our country's business. her example shows us all the importance of hard work, determination and courage. mr. president i congratulate my friend, senator mikulski, today on her great accomplishments and most importantly on a distinguished record of public service on behalf of the people ofyl maryland and our country. i thank her for all that she has done for me personally and for all of the other women in thenae senate.

the ones who have already followed in her footsteps and the many who are still to come. this is an exciting day for the history books or as some of us like to say, another step in her story, her story, barbara mikulski's story is a special one for our country. thank you mr. president. >> the first item brought to the senate floor was proposed changes for procedural rules. democratic senators tom harkin, tom udall and jeff merkley introduced the resolution. it will also hear republican opposition to the measure. here is some of the debate.parl >> mr. president elementary and choir under the unanimous consent agreement agreed to previously. there was a period of 30 minutes for tributes to senator mikulski is there any of that time remaining?in

>> the time has been consumed sir. >> i appreciate that and now find not mistaken under the unanimous consent request them i was deemed to have 45 minutes. m >> that is correct. >> i appreciate the chair. first of all that mr. president i have a resolution for myself, senator durbin, senator mikulski and senator shaheen which i said to the desk and ask for it to be be. >> withoutin objection. >> mr. president?r. >> the clerk will read the resolution by title. >> mr. president? >> resolution amending the standing rules of the senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than three this majority after additional debate. >> mr. president? is there objection? >> mr. president reserving the right to object.to i attended good discussion from the senator from iowa. this is a long-standing proposal of his which is than -- t

considered. even though i'd meyer him i don't admire thend proposal ando what we would like to do the senator from iowa iowa tond make his proposal. i will listen and then when he has made the proposal i will ask him to yield me a few minutes and we may have a little discussion back and forth on the merits of the proposal, so with that in mind, i object.rd. >> at objection having been hurt.le the resolution will go under the rules. >> mr. president, thank you and i'm sorry my good friend from tennessee had to t object but iw understand that and nowside mr. president, we are going to engage for some time now on the senate floor in a discussion on the filibuster, on the filibuster. something that has been around a long time but which in the last several years, few years, it wouldn't say several, last 20 or

30 years has gotten to the point which it has paralyzed the united states senate and is really paralyze the country. so i intend to make some remarks here for a while and i appreciate my friend fromtennes tennessee and my friend from kansas who was here and i hope we can gauge in a nice colloquyh and a discussion about this in a back-and-forth way. i look forward to doing that but i did want to take some time to at least lay out my i case as ty did 15 years ago. i am sorry, 16 years ago on january 4 of 1995. introduced the same resolution and i found myself as a member of the minority party in the senate for the first time in eight years, however when i first came to the senate, the republicans were in charge and then the democrats got in charge and then the republicans got ins charge and then the democrats got in charge and then the republicans got in charge and sen the democrats got in charge

so i have been here since 1985,h five times the senate has changed hands. and i know that at the beginning of that congress in 1995, the republicans outnumber democrats 53 to 47, the same majority minority that exist today, just on the other side. but even though i was opposed do the majority party's agenda, i e introduced the same basic resolution to change the senate rules regarding theus filibuste. my plan would have ensured ample ample debate and deliberation. stated purpose of the filibuster, to have, to have debate and a liberation, but ita was also allowed the nominee to receive a yes or no vote. unfortunately my proposal didn'y pass and got 19 votes. my cosponsors than where senato, lieberman, senator pell and senator rap of virginia. introduced my bill and if youe

care to go back and read that debate it is the january 4, 1995 congressional record in theing senate, i saw an escalating arms race. .. sadly in the intervening years my has been fulfilled. because of the indiscriminate use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and address problems is severely jeopardized. 15 years after i introduced my proposal, it's even more apparent that for our government to the properly function, we must reform and curb the use of the filibuster. mr. president, the filibuster was once an extraordinary tool used in the rarest of circumstances. when many people think of the filibuster, many times it brings to mind the classic film of "mr. smith goes to washington." it's ironic in 1959, the year that frank capra filled "mr. smith," there were zero

filibusters in the senate. from 1917, across the entire 19th century, for 100 years, there were 23 filibusters in 100 there were 23 filibusters in 100 >> in 1849, there were only four filibusters. from 1917 when the senate first adopted rules to end the filibuster, there were fewer than 50, less than one filibuster a year. since then, unfortunately, the number skyrocketed. the rather thans i raise today are not new, but the problem has become far more serious. in 1992, my good colleague said this about the filibuster. unless, "we recognize that things are out of control and procedures have to be changed, we'll never be an affective legislative body again." 1992. during that congress, there were 31 filibusters, 31.

in 1985, former senator thomas eagleton said, "the senate is now in the state of incipient an ark ky. the filibuster used as a civil right manner, has now become a routine in almost all matters, for as our rules were to guarantee debate, they now guarantee unbridled chaos. " that was 1985, my first year. during that congress there were 40 filibusters. again, i want to refer to this number as a visual aid to see what happened. as we go back to 88, 91, and on up, you can see the number of filibusters creating from less than 10 a year, four or five, up to almost 136 and 139.

in 1994, former republican senator charles mathias said "filibusters are more frequent. the filibuster has become an epidemic, an epidemic." that's former republican senator charles mathias. used whenever they can oppose legislation. len to what he said. "the distinction between voting against legislation and blocking a vote between opposing an obstructing has nearly disappeared." senator mathias. before i introduced the legislation to modify the filibuster, there were 80 filibusters that year. if i might quote myself what i

said one year after senator mathias said his statement. this is what i said in 1995. "it is used, mr. president as blackmail to get their way on something they could not rightfully win in the normal process. i'm not accusing any one part of this. it happens on both sides of the aisle. i said that in 1995. i quoted myself from the rod. i believe each senator needs to give up our pride, prerogatives, and a little of our power for the good of this senate and for the good of this country. i think the voters of this country were turned off by the constant bickering, the arguing that goes back and forth in the chamber, the gridlock that ensued here, the pointing of fingers of blame. sometime in the fog of debate like the fog of war, it is hard to determine who is responsible for slowing something down.

it's like shifting sand. people hide behind the filibuster. i think it is time to let the voters know that we heard their message in the last election. i said this in 1995. they did not send us here to bicker and to argue, to point fingers. they want us to get things done to address the concerns facing this country. they want us to reform this place. they want this place to operate a little better, a little more openly, and a little more decisively. i said that when the republicans were in charge. with all of those filibusters, it wasn't really until the 110th and 111th congress that the true scope of the filibuster abuse would be truly realized. there were 139 motions to end filibusters in the 110.

275 filibusters in just four years. the fact is in successive congresses, democrats and republicans alike have made the filibuster an every day weapon of obstruction, obstruction, not as a way to ensure debate and deliberation, but as a way of obstruction. i say both sides have done it. i said it in 1995. i predicted an escalating arms race, an i said if we don't do anything about it, it's going to get worse, and unfortunately, it has. on a daily basis, one senator can use the threat of a filibuster to stop bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment. in the past congress, we started seeing the minority fbi bills they didn't even object to solely in order to slow down unrelated measures that they did oppose. the result is the legislative process is simply overwhelmed squeezing out the ability to do

important, relatively noncontroversial legislation. it is no accident that the esteems congressional scholar wrote about our broken senate. he wrote the that standard use on capitol hill is unprecedented and bringing the government to its knees. just the other day, mr. president, i received a petition signed by nearly 300 top historians, legal scholars, and political scientists urging senators to restore rule to the united states senate. i asked unanimous concept this petition be put in the record at this moment. >> without objection. >> last month our colleagues, a democrat and chuck hagel a republican, pushed an issue in "time" calling us to restore democracy to the u.s. senate by reforming the filibuster. the abuse of the filibuster is no way to govern a great

democracy. mr. president, i ask that that essay be printed at this point in the record. >> without objection. >> editorials throughout the country recognized that the filibuster must end. the concord monitor from nemplez called on the senate to remove the filibuster roadblock noting that the filibuster rule has ran the senate dysfunctional and harmed the nation's ability to deal with pressing issues. the los angeles times said both parties should be willing to eliminate such practices as the filibuster. mr. president, editorials throughout the country have called for reform of the fill buer, and again, i ask concept for it to be entered in the record. >> without objection. >> 275 filibusters in four years is not just a cold statistic. it represents the minority blocking measures sometimes, not all the time, but sometimes that enjoy broad support among the american people.

just in the last congress, they killed majority and bipartisan support may i mention the dream act? it had big support among the american people or the disclose act showing the 80% of the american people supported. we had a vote here for it, we just didn't have a supermajority. there's no surprise americans are fed up with their federal government in too many critical areas. they see a legislature that is unable to respond effectively to the most urgent challenges of our time. make no mistake, the problem goes beyonded sheer number of filibusters. for this once rare tactic is now used or threatened to be used on every major no , nominee even those that may enjoy near universal support. in the congress, the minority filibuster of martha johnson as

administrator of the administration, certainly a noncontroversial position and she was confirmed 96-0. what was that filibuster all about? for nearly five montes -- months to the court of appeal, and she was confirmed 99-0. what was that filibuster all about? again, to quote norm, "the senate took the term deliberative to a new level slowing not just contentious legislation, but also bills that have overwhelming support." secondly, mr. president, filibuster is increasingly used to present consideration of bills and no , nominees rather than to serve to ensure that the representation of minority views and foster debate and legislation by filibustering to prevent debate and prevent

deliberation. the filibuster is used to defeat bills and nominees without their receiving a notification here on the senate. the senate, which was renown as the world east greatest deliberative body has become the world's greatest nondeliberative body. we can't even debate important national issues. that's why i fully support the common sense proposals to restore the filibuster and restore the senate where issues are fully debated and deliberated. i support the filibuster to proceed and i believe those filibustering a bill or nominee should be required to come to the floor, hold the floor, make their case to the colleagues and the american people. senators should not be able to hide behind a curtain of secret holes. the rated is, however, -- the reality is, however, because the filibuster, the minority unchecked veto power in this

body. now, mr. president, when i say the minority, i'm not talking about republicans. i'm talking about the minority. it may be the republicans or the democrats. it's changed five times since i've been here in 1985. when i say the minority, i mean, the minority. i don't mean a political party. as james madison noted when rejecting a supermajority to reject a filibuster, he said, "if you had a supermajority, it would no longer with the majority ruling, the power is transferred to the minority." that's james madison. unfortunately, his prediction has come true. we are the only democratic body that i know of in the world where the minority, not the majority controls. in the today's senate, american democracy is turned on its head. the minority rules, the majority is blocked. the majority has accountability, by lacks the power to gonch.

the minority has power, but lacks accountability and responsibility. this means that the minority blocks bills that would improve the economy, create jobs, and turn around and blames the majority for not fixing the economy. the minority could block popular legislation and accuse the majority for being ineffective. again, i repeat, i'm not saying republicans or democrats. i'm saying the minority whoever it may happen to be here. both parties have abused the filibuster in the past, and both will. absent reform will abuse the filibuster in the future. the republicans are currently in the minority. there's no question the control of this body will change as it periodically does. the fact is reform is urgently needed and that's why i'm reintroducing my proposal again which would permit a decreasing majority of senators over a

period of days to invoke closure under a given manner. a determined minority could slow down any bill. senators have ample time to make their arguments and attempt to persuade the public and majority of their colleagues. this protects the rights of the minority to deliberation maintaining the hallmark of the united states senate, but at the end of ample debate, the majority should be allowed to act. there should be an up or down vote on legislation or nominee. as former senator henry lodge, a republican, stated many years ago, "to vote without debating a pearlless, but to debate and never vote is imby sol." my plan has another advantage. the fact is the minority right now has no incentive to compromise. not only do they know they have the power to block legislation, but they can campaign on the message that the majority can't

get anything done. in contrast, if the minority knows that at the end of a period of time a bill or nominee is subject to majority vote, they will be more willing to negotiate seriously. like wise, the majority wants to compromise because they want to save time. there's nothing more valuable to the majority party in the senate than time. under my proposal on the first vote, you need 60 votes. if you didn't have 60 votes, you would have another vote in three days and need 57, three more days, 54 votes, three more days, 51 days. the majority would finally act, but you would chew up almost two weeks of time. if on the first vote, let's say 53 senators voted for cloture, well, the minority would know

that in several days or maybe in a couple weeks time, 53 senators will get cloture. well, the minority then goes to the majority and says, look, we can drag this out for a couple weeks, chew up all your time, but we got things we would like to have considered. the majority, and i say there's nothing more important to the majority than time here, not wanting to spend a couple weeks on a bill, on a cloture, on a filibuster would say, okay, maybe we can make an agreement. we'll collapse the timeframe. the minority can get some things they want, and the majority gets a vote. i see my proposal of encouraging compromise. right now, there's no reason to compromise for the minority. again, i repeat, i'm not talking about democrats or republicans. i say the minority because they know they can absolutely block

it. now, i want to say one thing also, and i want to say that i have changed my resolution since i introduced it in 1995. i change it because republicans have said that, and i heard the minority leader say earlier that they have done this because democrats in the majority this time have employed procedural manners to the right to offer amendments. well, i'm sympathetic to this argument, and that's why i included in this resolution the guaranteed rights remain in amendments filing in advance of the cloture vote so everybody knows what's coming. again, the minority should have the right to offer some amendments that are germane to the bill. i think one the reasons that both no matter who the majority is that are perhaps concerned about the amendments for the minority is that you have a bill

dealing with housing and someone wants to offer a bill dealing with an abortion amendment. there is a time and place for that, but not on that bill. that's why i say it's germane to the bill. if they have ideas to improve the bill, strike that bill, but p ought to be germaned to the bill. i heard it on the radio this morning driving in that this is something like a power grabby democratic senator reacting to recent elections in which my party lost numerous seats. well, i want to be clear that the reforms i advocate are not about one party or one agenda gaining an unfair advantage. it's about the senate as an institution operating more fairly, effectively, and more democratically. i first offered 24 in 1995 when i was in the minority, so to use a legal term, i come here with clean hands. the truth is with republicans

controlling the house, any final legislation will need to be bipartisan with or without the filibuster. reform of the filibuster i don't see it as a democratic or republican issue. indeed, it was the former republican majority leader, senator frist, who said when he nearly shut the body down, "this filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." 2004, senator frist, the majority leader at that time. well, as i said, one of the problems here is this was done in the middle of the term. see, i think the senate ought to be able to set up rules in the beginning on the first legislative day which we're in now and will extend for some time, but the senate ought to set its rules at the beginning for that congress. now, you can't go changing the rules every month, but you

should be able to set the rules at the beginning of a congress so you know for two years what the rules are that you're operating under, so, again, it's time for the arms race to end. that's what this is. it's an arms race. i dare say if we don't do anything of it and if the republicans take control of the senate in two years, well, democrats will do the same thing to them. guarantee it. guarantee it. the republicans did what i say, what, 136 filibusters, that's the rules, if we don't change them, democrats will match it. you wait and see. people a lot of times say, well, harkin, you are advocating that the senate would become like the house. since when i asked my friends and any senator on both sides of

the aisle, since when did the senate become defined by rule 22 which is the filibuster? why does that define the senate? i thought the senate was defined by the fact that you get two senators from every state. two senators from north dakota. two senators from california. two senators from new york. two senators from iowa. i thought the senate was defined that as a fact that we have unlimited debate here. when a senator gets the floor, you can't take it away from him. we operate on unanimous consent. the power of one single senator would remain, but the senate, what do we do? we do treaties, nominations, sit on judgment on impeachment. the senate was not like the house. we don't have a filibuster as we've known it for the last 90,

what, 93 years? 94 years, it does not mean that the senate becomes like the house. eliminating the filibuster will not change the basic nature of the united states senate, so i say to those who say that the senate would be like the house if we did away with this filibuster, would they also suggest that the senate of henry clay or daniel webster was the same as the house of representatives? i don't think so. the fact is what was never intended was that a supermajority of 60 votes would be needed to enaiblght any piece of -- enact any legislation or nominee. they were clear about where a supermajority is required. there are only five in the original constitution, radification of a treaty,

passage of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a member. if they wanted to have supermajorities, they would have said so, but it's not in the constitution, the filibuster is not in the constitution. the first senate expressly included a rule excloud colluding the majority to bring a measure to vote by excluding the previous question. i repeat, the first senate, the first senate, had a rule that permitted the majority to end debate. alexander hamilton explained that a supermajority requirement means a small minority can destroy the energy of government. hamilton said that the government would be subject to the caprice of an insignificant tour by lent or corrupt government. hamilton's word. moreover, reform of filibuster

rules meet squarely with the tradition of updating rules as needed to foster a government that can handle the challenges of the day. the senate has adopted rules that forbid the filibuster in certain cases such as the war powers act and the budget. imagine that. what could be -- what should be more debatable than the budget? our rules do not permit a filibuster of the budget. we pass the rules here limiting the filibuster. since 1917 we passed four significant reforms concerning the filibuster. the fact is as senator tom udall made clear, section 15 # falls in the constitution, specifies each house follows rules to the proceedings. record byrd was opposed to filibuster reform, and we had a great debate back in 1995 as he emphasized, and he said this, he

said that any time 51 senators are determined to change the rule, that rule can be changed. i'm reading here from what he said. he said at that time, "the constitution in article section 105 says each house determines the rules of its proceedings. now we are at the beginning of congress. this congress, he said, are not obliged to be bond by the dead hand of the past." i listened to the minority leader when he said the minority never changed rules except by following those rules. well, the rules set down by a congress a long time ago by a senate said in order to change the rules, you need two-thirds of a vote in the senate. i submit that's unconstitutional, and i submit that that congress, this senate

on this first legislative day doesn't have to abide by that. no. what if some -- what is one party got 90 senators one time, and they adopted a rule that said from here on out you have to have 90 votes in order to change rules. here are the rules, and they set up runes that made it impossible for minority to ever become the majority. would that be constitutional? i don't think so. senator byrd said we're not obliged to be banted by the dead hand of the past. they approved 19 rules by majority vote. those rules change from time to time, so the members of the senate who method in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think or believe or pretend that all succeeding senates would be bond by that senate and here is the essence of what senator byrd

said. he said, "it is my belief which has been supported by rulings of vice presidents of both parties and by votes of the senate, in essence upholding the power and right of a senate to change the rules of a senate at the beginning of a new congress." well, i would say the byrd has not been alone in views or tactics. this option was endorsed by three vice presidents and three times by the senate itself, so why wasn't is used? because senators then reached a compromise, reached a compromise, and therefore we never had the constitutional option, but that doesn't mean that we can't use that. the constitution is very clear. i think three votes the senate and three former vice presidents made clear in the rulings that at the beginning of the

congress, we can set the rules. well, mr. president, chief justice john marshall said any enduring constitution should be able to respond to the various crisis of human affairs. i said many times, i don't believe that we can be a 21st century superpower bound, bound, bound by our archaic rules of the 19th century. we have to have a responsive government, responding to the challengings -- challenges of our time. i'm not afraid. i say to the friends on the republican side, i am not afraid. what the minority leader said, he said that sometimes the republicans might be in charge and they might want to undo what the democrats did and the democrats better be careful. while that was in the post this morning.

i'm not afraid of democracy. i'm not afraid of the votes of the people. the people vote to put certain conservatives in power, then they ought to have the right to govern. they ought to have the right to respond to the people of this country. the minority if i would be in the minority at that time, i think the minority ought to have the right to be heard, have the right to debate, we ought to have the right to amend, but we should not have the right to totally obstruct. i'm not afraid. people said that tea party in the house are going to do all this stuff. i'm sorry, i'm not afraid. people voted. there ought to be, there ought to be things that happen because people vote a certain way. no wonder so many people are frustrated. they vote and think things are going to happen, and things

don't happen. yes, i don't know why we should be so afraid of each other. why should i be afraid that the republicans are going to institute legislation that i don't like. they have in the past, and our country endured. i would say there's times when the democrats passed legislation republicans don't like, and our country has endured. i just don't like this thing of fear that we have to be afraid, that somehow the majority is going to do things. what we want to make sure of is the rights of the minority are guaranteed to be heard, that the rights of minority to offer amendments, but i don't think it ought to be the right of the minority to obstruct, and i don't think it's the right of the minority to demand, to demand that their views be i want --

imlemented. that's the right of the majority. i close where i began, mr. president, and i thank my friends for this indulgence. the bedrock, the bedrock of the principle i believe of our constitution, our founders was majority rule with respect for minority rights, but i say this, and i said it many times. it's kind of the dirty little secret of the united states senate, and here's the dirty little secret. the power of an individual senator comes not by what we can do, but by what we can stop. that's the dirty little secret of the senate. one senator can stop something, can block it. well, i say, i say that each senator needs to give up a little of our privilege, give up a little of our power, give up a little of our prerogative for the greater good of this country. mr. president, i yield the

floor. >> president from tennessee. >> i thank the senator from iowa with his consistency over the years with his proposal. i wonder if i can make remarks on that proposal and if he's still here, i'll pose a question here. i see the senator from kansas is here who spent a lot of time on the rules committee, a subject that is one the most forceful speakers on the manner, and i'll defer to him, and i know there's other senators, senators from oregon and new mexico have proposes to offer, so i'll wait for those proposals then to be offered, and there may be other senators from the republican side come to the floor, but the few remarks -- first i want unanimous concept in the an address i made yesterday at the heritage foundation entitled the filibuster, democracy's final show for the right to talk your head off, let that be put in the

congressional record. >> without objection. >> i borrowed those words from mr. smith, and it goes to washington. i was -- i'm a little aplewsed by the suggestion -- amused by the suggestion that the senator from iowa made and others made that the senate is paralyzed over the years. most are concerned about what the senate did rather than didn't do. it's hard to say you are paralyzed when you passed a health care law and financial regulation law, ect., ect., and insofaras, here's been airful to say holding things up. we didn't have a budget last year. most households have to have budgets. we ought to have one. why didn't we have a budget? why didn't republicans? as the senator from iowa said, under our rules, it only takes 51 votes to pass a budget, and during the last couple years, the democrats had 59 or 60

votes, so it was -- the reason we didn't have a budget is because they didn't want to pass a budget, or at least they didn't pass a budget. it had nothing to do with the senate being "broken." the senator from iowa made this proposal with modifications in it, but basically this proposal in 1995. i remember those days pretty well. that's when -- that was right off the so-called gingrich revolution in 1994. republicans took control of the senate and of the house, so the senator from iowa made this proposal to diminish the effectiveness of the filibuster, and what did the republicans do? the republicans who had the most to gain at least temporarily from being able to get their agenda through the senate, every one voted no. every single republican senator

in 1995 said no, we may love our agenda, but we don't want to change the senate. we don't want to jeopardize the senate as a forum for forcing consensus and protecting minority rights and letting the voices of all of the people be heard on the senate floor. not only the republican senators in 1995 said that. here are some things said mostly in 2005 by democratic leaders. they were saying there were some republicans who got the idea, the same idea that the senator from iowa has, about diminishing the effectiveness of the filibuster. in this case, it was on judicial nominations. there was great consternation because they decided to filibuster president -- -- president bush's decisions. i didn't like that either.

senator byrd said we must never ever tear down the only wall, the necessary defense the senate has against the branch. what is that necessary defense? he said in the last testimony before the rules committee, that necessary fence is anchored in the filibuster. senator schumer of new york, the checks and balances at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated. this was in response to the republicans who were trying to diminish the effectiveness of the filibuster. the chebs and balances, senator schumer said, if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time. former senator hillary clinton, now secretary of state. "you got majority rule, then you got the senate over here where people slow things down or debate where they have something called the filibuster. you know, it seems like it's a little less than efficient. well, that's right, it is, and

deliberately designed to be so." senator dodd more recently. "i'm opposed to changing the filibuster rules. that's foolish in my view." senator byrd, "that's why we have a filibuster to debate freely." i can understand why we change the rules that make it unique and frustrating but it is tempted to speed up the process or clear expediency, i believe such changes would be unwise. senator dodd, "therefore my fellow senators who never served a day in the minority, pause in your enthusiasm to change rules." senator reed, then the democratic leader, but the minority leader, he said in 2005, "it's far from a procedural giving. it's part of the fabric of this institution that we call the senate.

for 200 years we had the right to extend the debate. it's not a gimmick. some want to throw out 214 years of history in the quest for absolute power. they want to do away with mr. smith as depicted in that movie coming to washington. they want to do away with the filibuster. senator reed says "they are wiser than our founding fathers? i doubt that's true. there's one other senator who spoke and said this, the senator from illinois, senator obama, "if the majority chooses to end the filibusters, speaking of republicans, if they refuse to change the rules and put an end to the democratic debate, then the fighting and gridlock gets worse." i dissh -- to me, the uniqueness of the senate -- let me put it this way. the last two years have been an aberration. i'm coming to my question for

the senator from iowa. we had no incentive for the majority to take the ideas of the minority because the majority had these huge majorities, and nearly 60 votes here and a democratic president, so that when senator, my colleague from tennessee, began to work on the financial regulation bill, the republicans said, well, we like him. he's got good ideas. we don't need the votes, we won the election. we had a democratic bill. we had a democratic health care bill. we had a democratic stimulus bill with one or two republicans voting for it. for the last two years, we haven't had any experience in working across party lines. i mean, what the filibuster does is say, you're not going to pass the senate anything, anything

unless at least some republicans and some democrats agree, unless you get a consensus, and then that changes behavior, and people say, okay, let's bring, let's bring no child left behind bill to the floor, but it's got to have senators in it, but it's not going anywhere because it needs 60 votes. what's the advantage of that? the advantage of that is at comparison of the civil rights bill in 1964, and the health care law of 2009. in 1964 after a bitter fight led by senator rustle of -- russell of georgia, the civil rights bill passed overcoming a filibuster. the bim was written in the office. it wasn't there in the middle of christmas, but it was written in his office. you had senator dirksen saying this is good for the country, and a lot of people hated the bill. some people thought it didn't go

far enough, but they hated the bill. what did senator rust sell do? he went home to georgia and said, i did everything i could to stop it, but it's the law, and we must obey it, so not only do we need a consensus to get a bitter bill, we need a bill the country will accept. compare that to the health care law. there's good intentions with the health care law. i know that. senator harken was in the middle of that, but the fact of the matter was it was a democratic bill. it was rammed through christmas eve in the middle of the night after we barely had a chance to look at it solely partisan votes, and what happened? instead of everybody saying it's the law of the land, we supported it, it caused an instant movement to repeal it and replace it, so i hope that we will not do what senator harken suggests. i'm, i think his proposal is, well, we're going to hang you, but we'll either hang you in three days instead of tonight.

i mean, we'll narrow it down. that's a little worse. we know that if you got 51 votes, you can pass it. the house of representatives passes a bill, a republican house to repeal the health care law, you know, if we got 51 votes over here, we'll do it too. if the democratic house says they did last -- as they did last year passes a bill to repeal the ballot of secret elections, if the democrats have 51 votes over here, they'll do it too, but when it requires a con consensus, if bills like that come from the house to the senate, we say, woah, let's think this over, and we don't pass it. we don't pass it unless we have some kind of consensus. now, that doesn't mean all the republicans and all the democrats on the tax agreement that just was passed. we had almost all the republicans and some of the democrats. on the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty it was almost all the democrats and some republicans, but at least you had substantial consensus from both parties, and i think

the country respects and appreciates that, and i think the framers knew what they were doing when they created a ma senior tearian house. in other words, the freight train can run through whatever the election is in a different kind of senate, and the different senate as the senator byrd and senator from kansas will probably address this is one where we can say, they'll pass anything unless we do it together. that's called consensus and cooperation. i think the american people would be greatly relieved. now, my question i want to pose to the chair to senator harkin, and then i'll sit down because the senator from kansas and tennessee is here, but just what is a filibuster? senator andrews was on the floor for several hours speaking on the tax debate 7-8 hours. that's a filibuster in a sense,

but let's say senator reed brings a health care bill to the floor, and i over here have an amendment to the health care bill, and senator reed says, sorry, i'm going to co-op your omit. i object. that's a filibuster. you know, we are not just talking and amending and debating. that's not a filibuster. it's not a filibuster until the majority leader cuts it off, so what they count as filibuster is the number of times the democrats have cut us off from doing what we're supposed to do which is amend and debate. they invited to sing, and then coming up there, you are not allowed to sing. people from tennessee don't expect me to sit on a log because no matter how distinguished the leader is, you can't say i don't want your amendments. what was traditional in the senate is the senators came in almost any time on almost any amendment or bill, and the days of senator byrd they have 300

amendments and they start voting. some say, it's thursday, we go home. they say, no, we are going to vote unless you want to give up your amendments. we don't vote on a friday this year. both members of the aisle don't want to vote on controversial issues. if we are willing to vote on controversial issues, mr. president, in a way that the three day workweek, 23 the majority thinks the minority is abusing the filibuster, they can confront it, sit over there, and say to us, okay, senator alexander, if you're going to in a post cloture time, 50 of us are ready to cut this off and vote. you got 7 hours 20 speeblg, and you have -- you got 7 hours to speak, and if you spot -- stop talking, we have motions to make. in other words, we can make life miserable for you because we'll do it all night long. you do this once or twice as

senator byrd said in his last testimony, the rules exist today to confront a filibuster. my question to the senator from iowa that i would pose to the chair is what is a filibuster? is it a filibuster when i come down to the floor to amend the health care bill and the majority leader says, sorry, i'm going to use my power to cut it off. you can't amend the bill, and them he files cloture. that's a filibuster. that's what he calls a filibuster, i think. what i call it is cutting off my right to debate, amend, and right to do my job. >> senator from iowa. >> i respond to my friend from tennessee who makes a cogent argument as he always does. he is a good friend of mine, and we work together on a lot of things. i hope this is the beginning of some colloquies we can have.

i want to indulge and let other senators have their say too. i'm willing to stay here as long as possible, but i say to my friend from tennessee that as i listened to him, and i did very carefully, there's just a couple things i want to point out in the terms of the idea of a filibuster and being able to amend things. my friend referred many times to the health care bill, and i don't know if my friend said this, but i heard it said we wrote it behind closed doors and all that stuff. let me point out, when it came to our committee, the health education and pensions committee, we had 13 days of markup, 54 hours, we allowed any amendment to be offered. senators remember that committee. we allowed any senator to offer any amendment on our comee..

we adopted 161 republican amendments either through votes they won or just through adopting the amendments. after that, after all of that, all the republicans voted no. that's fine. there's a lot of times i know in the past when i have an amendment on a bill which i thought improved it, but overall, they didn't like the bill, so i voted against it. i think that's the right of the minority. then to obstruct it and try to obliged instruct it -- obstruct it from being enacted i don't think is right. i would say to my friend is i don't think the health care bill is a really good example. i say to my friend that there's a saying something about quoting someone, it may have been senator reed saying to people think they are wiser than our founding fathers? please show me where our founding fathers ever set up a system where the senate could

have unlimited debate. they never did that. it's not in the constitution. as i pointed out, the first senate actually had the motion of the previous question to be cut off from debate. they didn't set up a majority house. article i section v is clear saying each house sets up its rules. if the new majority in the house wanted to, may could set up rules to be like the senate. they could do that. they could set up rules however they wanted as long as they were constitutional, i suppose. i suppose someone could take it to court to see whether it's constitution or not, but they don't want to operate under those rules, and we don't have to operate under these rules. constitution gives us the right to change the rules. our founding fathers never set up this system by the way. never. there's no mention of it in the constitution. they did not set up the majority

house, but set up article i section v saying each house sets its rules, but they outline certain prerogatives. the senate has certain prerogatives, the house has prerogatives. for example, all bills of rev new have -- revenue have to originate in the senate, not by the house. treaties are done by the senate, not by the house. i say to my friend that honest thing on the filibuster i think there's a reason for a filibuster. i think there ought to be filibusters. i think there ought to be times when the may norty can schoa -- majority can slow things down in order to get their views heard or offer amendments to make the bill better in their views. that's the right of the minority. i don't think it's the right of any my torety. when i say minority, i'm not talking republicans. i'm saying any minority here. i don't think it's the right of

any minority here so they if i don't get my way, i'm going to stop everything, but that's kind of what i see happening around here. if i don't get my way or if one senator can stop things, i point out one other bill to my friend from tennessee that i thought was a great bipartisan bill. we worked hard on it. the senator from tennessee was instrumental. that was the food safety bill. we reported in december, unanimous vote. everybody voted for it, republicans and democrats on our committee. we got it out, but there were some things in the bills that senators not on our committee and maybe one on our committee didn't like, so we worked on the months to get everybody on board and to work it out which is fine. i have no problems with that. that's the legislative process. i got patience, and as my friend in kansas knows, i love patience working on farm bills takes

time, but we worked it all out, yet one senator who really disagreed with it was able to hold it up from coming on the floor. we finally got it on the floor, but it took almost a year, but one senator was able to do that. i say one senator should be able to have the right to offer amendments, to be heard, but not to stop everything. i guess that's what i come down to with my friend from tennessee. there ought to be -- i think there's a reason, and a good reason, for the senate to be a soft serve that cools things down. that story about jefferson and washington, but it should be at some point in time where the majority has the not only the authority, but the power to act after a due consideration and a due period of time, and i believe, i say to my friend in all sincerity, i believe that will promote more compromise than the present system.

you may disagree, but i feel that would. i'm not trying to take away compromise. i believe in compromise and working things out. as chair of the agriculture committee and framer of two bills, we work things out. there were things i didn't like and the senator from kansas didn't like even though i was chairman. we work these things out and compromise and get things done, so i believe in that spirit of compromise, but i think what we have here now and that escalating arms race is doing away with that spirit of compromise and working things out and moving things, and that's why i think we have to change the rules. that's why, i don't know if i adequately responded to my friend from tennessee, but they are just my thoughts at the end, and i'm looking forward to other comments from other senators and engaging in other colloquies, and i promise i won't take so long.

>> mr. president? >> senator from kansas. >> mr. president, i understand that we are in a primary situation where there is a colloquy and that i don't know whether the senator, senator alexander is yielding the time to me? >> mr. president, in fact we don't have a colloquy, just an informal understanding, and i believe the senator from kansas has the floor. >> the senator from kansas does have the floor. >> thank you, and thank you to my colleagues who are present and pertinent and very necessarily remarks as we go forward with this. as a matter of fact, senator from iowa said that in the past that he 4 entered into -- he had entered into a colloquy with his colleagues on our side of the aisle in the past where they wandered over into each other's pasture, so i'm going to

put down the microphone for a moment. >> i'll speak right here, and this gesture of bipartisanship to jump the fence as a partisanship own tactics to improve the senate. i know we heard a lot of talk of robert c. byrd, a loved individualed and i know the acting officer is close to the former senator, but at any rate, it was the last time that bob byrd spoke publicly either in the senate or committee when he rose to the occasion, and a very

passionate way and the chairman, of course, chuck schumer, the senator from new york with great deference recognized the senator, and we were all on the age of our chairs as i remember that, and the chairman of tennessee said what he said at that time, ben previously to that i remember when i first came to the senate and it was almost required, well, it was required that we sort of go to school, and senator byrd even though he i was in the house for 16 years and thought i knew something, and he recognized that fact, but he talked to us in all of the freshmen of that particular time or the new members. the keeper of the institutional plane was the tag i put on senator byrd and my life frank ky and i became close friends of the senator. he was fond of frankie, and he sort of put up with me, # but at

any rate, he recounted that story that you attributed to overson and washington, but i think it was really more attributal to robert c. byrd because he told every incoming class the role of the people's house and perhaps what happened when they put the coffee pot on in regards to legislation, that that coffee was so hot it would boil over, and it was the senate's duty to act as a saucer as you will as folks did back in west virginia or kansas or iowa in earlier days or texas that they would pour the coffee out on the saucer and let it cool off to put your biscuit in and then eat it, or the legislation would pass. you said, i think to me, that a while ago the real problem was you didn't think it was necessary to throw the coffee pot out the window and you end up with no legislation. the problem is on our side

sometimes we want coffee or tea or want to start over. i think the senator from tennessee hit the nail on the head here with three. my goodness, if we're talking about getting things done or not getting things done and there's three massive things that happened in regards to legislation, i say massive, they are so comprehensive and overwhelming we are just now learning what they are about. the financial regulatory reform, health care act, and the stimulus. now, the health care act. i just have a personal feeling about that in that i had a 11 amendments all on rationing, all by the way worried about the confirmation that didn't happen in regards to dr. donald c. berlick, the president of medicaid services, and we plan to ask a lot of questions of the doctor because the statements made in the pass, obviously, that confirmation didn't happen,

and he was a recessed appointment. that's something to deal with as well. i had 11 amendments all on rationing at 12:30 in the morning in the finance committee, and i had 11, and finally we got to the last two, and i said why don't we consider the block, i had a minute or two to explain each amendment. they were voted down automatically. it was on a party line vote. by the time we got to one o'clock in my amendments, well, there were a lot of people, you know, you simply hand over your vote to somebody else, and they will vote you in regards that your absent, they had a lot of proxies. there were not too many in the room, but i noticed senator schumer was in the room, and i stuck one of his bills that didn't make it along with my additional bill, and it was defeated on the party line vote, and then i said, well, how on

earth do we get this problem solved? it simply didn't happen. defeated his amendment as well. wasn't too happy with that. but it just showed that you the process had broken down to the point that even in committee if had you two amendments, if you had five, if you had 11, you were simply ignored. and then that bill came to the floor as you indicated, and it worked its way and i think since the senator from tennessee brought up the fact of the grand ole opry, i saw it was making a bill behind closed doors, that's a famous country western song. we didn't like that process over here at all. and now you're seeing an effort to repeal the bill and also an effort to try to fix it if we possibly can. hatsibly can. and also an effort to try to fio it if we possibly can.lly get t i'm not as upset about that in f some people are because they think we can really get to the y proper kind of debate. i finally had one of the recourse to go to the

reconciliation process, which i going to be successful, but we h have re tad -- i read both and l were defeated in knots whenever i was milling about. by the way, robert c. byrd woul. not permit that at all. you would call for regular order and that would have been. but there n again stuck in there cards his demanding concerns about the health care bill that were not allowed as far as i'm concerned about on the floor of the senate i'm not going to go into the close by senator byrd has done already been done by senator to alexander. but i would like to quote h senator dodd in his valedictoryy speech. the history of this young democracy to femurs decided to not be written solely in the hands of the majority. this isn't about the filibuster. that's the most important thingt to me. what will determine whether it works or not is whether each of- the 100 senators who are togethe together.

how can we do not a classic example. right before christmas we were going to be and unfortunately at usual and there were several bills the majority wanted tolowe pass without allowing the minority of the american people to debate or amend them.ve l the victory was filled enough the legislative language to sayt i'm sorry, but we are going to cut off debate.in ninety-eight times 110ththat congress that happened. t the moment the question was all raised on the floor before a one debate was even allowed to take place. so on one hand you can talk about filibusters. the other hand is killing the tree are not allowing members to offerm amendments to senate frog tennessee the classico example. let's go back here just a few days ago right before christmas. in the dream act was >> host: that i know the

wao pas senate leadership here wanted to pass it.ouse. never had a legislative hearing in the house. house. never had a markup in the housee it's very a senate have never had a legislative hearing. had he senate version of the the dream act has not had the markee since 2003. and some of them featuring the a controversial measure was very passionate police on both sides of a the audio and within theha parties as well have not had anf amendment opportunity to it and even hostile congress, either te houses of congress can either f. committees are in the floor. now some may believe that the tree not as perfect or certainly is the best deal possible and i. would not need any amendments to improve it, but obviously i canl featuring do feel that way andf it's a very controversial bill. but instead of addressing their thncerns, the majority shut dow

debate and amendments and in thd process shutdown rights of americans to be heard. and as a result, the minority refused to end debate and not an city with a filibuster. 275 filibustered, well it's been it filibustered aired in this particular case we did it the right way. hows, about this, and this getsr ch question. whi contrast this with the approachs taken on the 9/11 bill, which the majority senate to pass juss a few days later.e victimsf the goal of providing help tomer the victims of 9/11 is one thats members of both pretty shared that senate republicans noted that particular version of theee bill with democrats supportedndg this problematic and records to a much money we were spendingim. and certainly could need improvement. so he insisted on having their t concerns addressed, most of theh

were addressed with a revisedths bill on which we did have input. the bill passed with unanimous consent.would a even proponents of the original legislation would've meant the final bill is a better one and now enjoys broader support due to the minority's input.ne so what i think the majority needs to do is involve the bill, not shut us out, not shut. us down like it did on the dreal act and other acts. question i and i would really present the case in the question i have to you.hat if that happened, if youree, i wouldn't feel the treaty i thine possibly 75%, 80% of filibusters will go away.but it her son would like to filibuster anything, i know.nt to but he gets back to what youion. said on why we're here.tant, it's important to pass ithat legislation. it's important i know to do that.passin but it's equally important to prevent thatg h legislation froa happening or if you have ane alternative to like to offer anl

at least have that ability. process in the last two years of that process is simply broken down. t why not?k why can't we work together? that the senatort to third.er e he said whether each of the 100 vendors can work together. it isn't about filibustered. we can stop this business of secret hold.ms t it seems to me we could have a timely piece on nominations.inao certainly end these recess appointments, or people who should be confirmed have to go through the confirmation process and set up all of a sudden parachuting somebody in who is very controversial and now weios have over 100,000 regulations pouring out of the department of health and human services. cares our entire health care providers around the nation. iowa,ee tennessee, kansas are wondering what on earth iswhen o happening. h i when i go home, i don't get thei question of late bill didn't pass or not. i get the question about what oh earth are you guys doing backret

there passing all the t legislation in all the regulatory stuff i have to puto. up with et cetera, et cetera. as a matter of fact, when they pose the question, i say i am a not a u.k., i'm an honest guy.sv we have a debate, but usually it's a debate that should have taken place on the florida have senate woburn able to do so. so i guess the question i have for the distinguished senatorrec from iowa and i appreciate hiset reference to her work in. previous farm bills, we were able to work it out. it is very contentious.it would and sometimes the farm bill would come to the floor and it would take a week and a half ane then we'd have an appropriation bill and the appropriators who think they could rewrite the and farm bill and take another week and a half.bu but twe could. we worked through it.ry, you nobody said i'm sorry come you can't have that amendment. inste now i'm making a speech instead of asking a question. zeapologize for that.--pologi i am in agreement on secret agrt holds. i think there should be timely piece on nominations.ough

i do think we should go througho the regular confirmation process, but i too feel a exacts as senator from tennessee is puf out by once again on the numbe business of ending the filibuster going down the number of requisite to run a slipperyvo slide and then you're into the tyranny of the majority and that's not what the senate is pi all about. so i will stop at this pointnt e ask the senator from iowa if he has any comment. preside president,se i think a friend fm kansas. i think he makes some good points. i would say to my friend, i think we have to go through process is in our committees to have hearings on nominees, to flesh out a site that. so to that extent, the senator from kansas is right. we shouldn't have, especially if there's any controversy at all.o rthink the committees that tohe have responsibility to bring them forward, let theommittees

committee's question i'm. in we did that and our hopeom committee i say to my friendhat from camp -- and trying to remember the person we had. a lot of controversy about craig becker rethink his name wascrai going to ther nlrb. >> i think you're exactly right and among the house committee a" you ma cy recall. i was trying to get when amendment to say that we would w prohibit the use of rationing to achieve cost containment and itn was involved in several of the . commissions that have been in the bill.lly i regret that that bill reallyft didn't happen somewhere and it collected dust. we never got a score. i thought i was quite frankly oe better bill. and and you recognize me at night as opportunity to offer some leastw amendments.ebate, at least there was some debate

and i think it was a much moresi bipartisan effort.f >> if it's out of our committee committee, obviously was a better bill than the finance. but i say to my friend, again rb i'm going to be quiet and listen to you.in: you k >> you know, i say to my friendn and listening to my friend from kansas say this, it occurred to me that certain of his amendmeno enough for them, but they weren't the top eight. to it seems to me as i said before the rights of the minority ought to be to offer amendments, havee been considered, have been voten on. but it doesho notse mean it's te right of the minority to win every time on this amendment. and i say to my friend on theane financial services they'll addn. an amendment to when i couldn't get it in and i was on theey wod

majority side.ere botides so these are things they think we're both sides have some frief legitimate point.s i also say to my friend from kansas and others that we can get into the for tat, who started this?ave you know, they think we've got l to kind of quit that. last two years, the tree was filled 43 times -- 44 times that there were 136 filibusters. why wouldn't there be 44? we can get into that, who did what to whom. i'd like to forget about all i mean, if we can go back to the 18th century, who did what to in them at some point in time. does my friend -- does my friend from kansas who has been heree,d long time, serve together in the

house, my friend was chairman of the agriculture committee and ks the house can with an name of the legislation together. this may friend from kansas to the senate is operating today in the best possible way? does my friend from kansase believe there could be some bit things done to make the senate and fairly, with rights for thet minority to l be protected, but without letting the minority and i don't think republicans. i mean whoever happens to be in the minority, to keep the t minority from abstract containss this may friend feel there could be some changes? no, i >> i'll just answer the question now. job we could do and we should do better and i stand ready to gth all concerns to see if wenm could do that, but my time is ug and i'm going to ask -- i'mo going to seize your anonymouste. senator from texas. i >> senator from texas is on o recognized.

>> mania inquire how much more time is left? th >> mime senator and going to ase unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes. spe i probably will speak about five minutes or so in the thicket particularly roundup, which couldul take 10 minutes.nsent i ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes. >> without objection. without objection so order. >> i think chair. but i'm president, i think we are playing with fire when weate talk about amending the senate rules. all of us have been here for for different periods of time. i have been here for eight time, years, which actually sounds like a long time, but in the life of the senate is not very long ago, an institution that has existed for more than 200 years. and that 10 year when our side d was in the majority. a matter of fact, we have the white house. we both houses of congress and

i've been here when we've had he president obama in the white house and a democrats control bh houses of congress. and i can tell you unequivocallt it's a whole lot more fun to be here when you're in the tem majority. but there are certain temptations that the majority has, which i think are exa, exacerbated when, for example, during most of the last two abi years, when one party with thene other has the ability and the p senate to basically passly a legislation by essentially ay-le partyline vote. in other words, as i recall on that morning, 7:00 a.m. onve a christmas eve a year ago, when the vote on the health care bilb came up, where all 60 democrats voted for the bill and no republicans voted for the bill.h my point being that temptation is when you have such a large ae majority, 60 or more, there's a,

huge temptation on n both partie not just the democrats. try republican censure would be tempted to sell to try and go ik alone. and those, i think it detracts from what is one of the great strengths of its institution, which is that this institution's roles force consensus. things dt or there's not consensus, things don't happen.s the and where does the saucer that s cools the tea from the coffin of of the various analogies that wa have heard. but the important thing is nots how this affects us asal individual senators.sion abohe this is not just an abstractresf discussion about the rules. this is about what is in the best interest of the country of, more than 300 people.ne anytime i would submit where one party or the other is not only tempted, but yields to that alo temptation to gone it alone, to try to push legislation through without achieving that consent

is, i think it perks the a institution and i think it provoked a backlash as much as we thought november the second.u because the american peopleheckd understand that the checks and important. important. and we didn't have checks and balances either through the self-restraint off the majority or through recognizing the rights of the minority to offer amendments, to have debates, to contribute to the legislation.tb in the american people are going to fix that are changing the balance of powers they did on be november 2nd. misunderstood is neck and a partisan i think republicans will be just as tempted as democrats to doths the w same thing, but i thinkhow that's where we have to show not self-restraint and if we do not show self-restraint, then the wl american people will change thef balance of power and establish those checks and balances.who ae

here again, i think for most people who are listening, if to there is anyone listening on c-span or elsewhere to thisthisd debate, this should not be about us. he should not be about t the arcana of these rules. they should be about the rights of the american people to get legislation that affects all 300 plus million of us debated, amended in a way to try to achieves broad support by the american people. to because anytime we try to yield or we do go to the temptation to do it alone on a bipartisanulmay basis, it will ultimately we've seen over the health care. example. and this is not a small thing.en i had theg honor of representin, 25 million people in the senate. and this is just about my rights

as an individual senator or even the minority right. this is about their right.dequae their right to be heard through adequate time for debate, theiro right to have an opportunity to change or amend legislation and then to have a chance to have ad the voted on. and i understand the frustratiof of our colleagues when the to majority leader, due to his right of prior wreck nation, he can get the fuller. he can put something on the senate calendar that doesn't come through a committee markupe and that sort of due process and fair opportunity for amendments and participation.is and then again if he's got 60 th votes on this site to be able ty push it through, then deny us ve any opportunity to offer a amendments, much less to have ai full debate on these importanth. issues. and i think i country suffers from athat.fer i think the american people suffer when we are tonight on their behalf an opportunity to

have a wholesome debate and to offer amendments.of so i hope that -- i don't doubt the good faith of our colleagues who are offering some of these i fin propositions or even some of them but i find that would attract good.r the idea of secret holes, for t example if there ever was a timi for thats, that time is long pat nime. op agree on everything, but we ought to at least have an opportunity for everyone to be beard and for individual senators rights be respected,are not because they are senators because they represent a large segment of the american peoplege and it's their rights that are impinged when the majority leader, for whatever reason decides to deny a senator or a right to offer an amendment and the right to have a full debate in the interest of getting legislation passed. but although there may be a senr senator reid said this morning,n

the 111th congress has the good in history as being one of the most productive congresses. at the same time your complainte about wiccans filibusteringlegio legislation. there seems to be an inherent contradiction there. but i suggest the explanation for that is the fact that her friends on the other side have e had such a large supermajority, they been able to muster the 60 votes to go it alone. alo. again, i think that is yieldingn to temptation that everyone wouldnd understand in the amerie people it now since correctedso that as result of the november 2ndou election. all so i would suggest imposing, madam president, to all of our friends on both sides ofsl the aisle. again, i recognized the sincerity of those who have offered these proposals, but i would suggest there's not -- there's not a malfunction with s the rules themselves are not broken, but the rules will not

be abused. temptation abuse those rules by, doing it alone isthink understandable, but something that needs to be avoided. i think the election outcome is0 since we are more evenly divided senate that he will be able touo get 60 votes unless there is a e bipartisan consensus to the extent that 60 votes are needed, that the american people haveur sent sort of fix the problem that some of our colleagues have perceived. so i thank the chair and i healed.. cornyn >> what's up for a: question. fd >> i think my friend from texas. he and i forgot legislation passed,et too. just a thought of senator and ad good legislature. i just asked my friend fromjustn texas this. i ug almost had the feeling that myto friend from texas is saying we ought to have a supermajority tn pass anything. we should have 60 votes in order to pasis anything.

i asked my friend, is that what have 60 d really means or implies, that everything shouldm have 60 votes?esting tout my friend is suggesting? , i appreciate the question for me friend, the senator from iowa. that's not what i'm suggesting, at i do think we need to andmes repress is which allows for an w opportunity for amendments and debate. and if we don't have a process m requiringpt a threshold of 60mar votes, temptation is going to be again for the majority leader te did i opportunity forndmemendmet amendments, construed time allowed for debate by filing sho cloture. we're going to see things floating through here that have not had an adequate opportunity for deliberation.tution this institution has famously been called the world's greatese collaborative bodies. but i daresay we have intimatem. treated that in recent memory.

again, as the senate from the tennessee and others have observed, this isn't a problem with the t rules. this is the way the rules have actually been implemented. e that and i think we've learned an important lesson from this and respect the rights of all to senators, whether they be thenoe senator or majority to debate these amendments that because they are about our rights, butre the rate of 25 million people everse present. get the rights rights to be heard. suggestions or improvements of legislation to be considered. that's all insane.urther? >> if my friend revealed ai further. my again, i had my resolution, a -- there is a guarantee that thendt minority has the right to offer amendments. absolute guarantee. as a side, there's something they've i have learned sincethao 1995 tiered and i think i'm verf sympathetic to that argument, i.

to me, ses. happening even the majority sometimes.inot so i believe there ought to be a rate for a minority.say my, i'm and ilec said to have nasi m minority republicans. i'm saying a minority. and maybe yes.ws -- it goes back and forth with a friend of his. their vce they will have to offeras theatr paired with the senator says to represent the people overstates, adequately. fasked my friend again, what happens when you have one or two or three or four senators who ps really don't want to see a bill passed in any form. it's some bill.at m just taken a bill that has maybe been worked on by both republicans and democrats as broad bipartisan support, but there's one or two or three, ana senators that don't want it to

pass anyway and they are able te gridlock the place under rule 22. anotherci senator type that exercising self-restraint, but t say but that's fine. o what if you have the situation. we have two or three senators say i don't care how manyd senators are on it. i don't want it to move in theye invoke their rights under rule 22. i mean, how do we get over the hurdle? >> by the president, i would take my friend at the peak will come before us the achieving consensus is good, not unanimity. h perhapsun record anything it's impossible to get 100 senators owould say to my friend andhe n sometimes is first-rate as he ie when one or two or three or fours and others say we're going to force this to a cloture vote because were just not going tog. agree. and i just think that it'sing oo

frustrating to all of us,oot the depending on which the tissue assigned. but i would say that is a small price to pay, that frustration to insist on assuring the rights of the minority. again, not because of an individual senator because beer wat'laulse import.stituent because of the rights americans to choose who we represent areos so important and the support tos make it right. there is nobody else after we get through that gets to vote n this.co it becomes thens law of the lani unless it's unconstitutional, not even the supreme court considered the site you are important we get it right. i'm just saying we need to takei the time necessary and i think that's what the rules arehe c ad designed to provide for her. >> i think the chair. >> by the president, as myust friend would indulge one more so it is not t minute. so does not the position of myih friend from texas that everything needs 60 votes in

which to move in the senate, is that correct? >> madam president, i would say there aren't long list of bills that pass on a regular basis by 's lik unanimous consent. and you know, we're almost focused on the exception rathers than the rule. can't there are many times, and a lot of times were legislation will b pass by unanimous consent because it has gone through thpe committees. an people have had an opportunity to offer amendments they are. both havrie ndit in opportunityo contribute a minute passes passes by without objection. fod again, i can't quantify that, but the ones we seem to bess the focused on are the ones that exception to the rule, where there is genuine disagreement, r when there is a need to have a r more full some debate in the opportunity for amendments. so i think the current rules serve the interests of our constituents in the american

people well. i think the chair and i think my colleagues. >> madam president. senator udall and senator merkley awaited a great length of time in order to make their remarks. i just want to propound recog unanimous consent request atam e this time. >> senator is recognized. wou >> by the president, at this point under udall would be thee, next speaker. speak there would be a republican who, was the next and i'm very, hopeful that that will be bee senator grassley because he and i have been partners for almostn 14 years in the effort to force the united states senate to do d public business and public and get rid of the secret holes. bea so after senator udall, theressy would be senator crass way.leag after somebody grassley, there would be my friend and colleague, senator merkley withn the paired at that time, there would be a republican who wouldt

be next in the?o to speak. and so my unanimous consent request, not a president is at that point i would like to be able for up to 30 minutes to have the bipartisan sponsors of the effort to get rid of secret, holes once and for all,presiden upcluding the distinguished president from missouri to havey up to on this bipartisan effort to. reiminate secret hold. the >> are there any time limit on a the motion for any senators other than the 30 minutes designated for the cosponsors of the legislation?a senator: >> by the president. >> senator from new mexico.mr. l to his you see, we have myself t 15 minutes, senator merkleyhe fr