>> how old are you? >> this is my daughter eliza. >> i'm the mom. >> you look like a sister, mom. >> congratulations. you must be really proud. it's a great day for you all. congratulations. congratulations. >> where is she? is she coming in? >> she's at the reception. >> you owe her. you owe her. >> thank you, honey. how old are you? 8? [laughter] >> you know, my dad use the to say to us, two brothers, one sister, you have one obligation,

keep boys away from your sister. [laughter] tomorrow you're 16? >> yeah. >> you guys are getting old. [laughter] >> have a great day, you deserve it. >> thank you so much. ..span,

and the senate on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have a senate historian, donald ritchie, joining us, as well as

congressional scholar norman ornstein. help us with a little historical perspective -- divided government, a big win for the house, the republicans and the house, a democratic senate and a democratic president. guest: it is unusual to have an election where one house goes to another party and the other stays the same, but it is important that divided government is far from normal in our adult lifetimes and then a united government. what is interesting about this new group coming in, this is after three consecutive wave elections. the first two, going in the same direction, you have to go back to the early 1930's when democrats won more than 20 seats in the house, it was almost inevitable that we would have a swing back.

a wave of this shortfall -- this sharp for republicans is quite extraordinary. so, i suspect that the new people coming in and new speaker john boehner are going to be cognizant of the reality that voters are not going to give them a lot of time to see that things get better. host: what do we know about john boehner's management style? guest: john boehner is probably somewhat closer to his republican predecessor than newt gingrich. he tries to do more things behind the scenes and then of front in public. he is delegating a great deal of power to other lieutenants in this process, both within the leadership, including of course the top team of eric kanter and

kevin mccarthy, but also to commit the leaders. how long that lasts a that way will be an interesting process. but also, for john boehner who has a law career, and then being dumped at a time when the republicans went through a great turmoil before it knew to gingrich left the leadership, when you have to say is that this is a very determined and persistent man. you do not fall off that ladder, get up and heal broken bones, get back on, and then rise in this fashion with a pretty strong backbone. host: also joining us is donald ritchie. one of the things the senate is going to do today is look at the filibuster rules. has it ever change? guest: is changed a lot. in the first congress, there was

a reference to one of the senators, trying to talk a bill to death. even before they had a filibuster, the day were filibustering. we've begun to see in the 19th century the filibuster. very early and its history, the larger house set of very tight limits on how long a person could speak. the senate has always believed in an unlimited debate. after a while, you need to limit on the mid debate. they have come up with ways to try to do -- after a while, you unlimited debate.limit there have been other modifications over time. the senate rules are altered in various ways, and the precedents

are changed in the senate. we have very few rules and thousands of precedents. it is an interesting institution to watch procedurally. host: what are the arguments for and against changing the filibuster rule? guest: , one of the arguments is in the constitution does not require majorities of foreboding. in fact, the vote in the senate is a majority vote. the constitution actually requires super majorities for a variety of things, including an overturning of a veto or convicting a person who has been in peak in the house. it allows the senate and house to write a their own rules. over time, the larger house wrote the rules for the larger majority to get their way. it is not just the minority party. it is often been a minority faction within in the minority

party. sometimes it is just one senator who objects. that gives an enormous amount of individual power to an individual senator. some are saying voters expect them to do this and this is obstruction. in fact, both parties have argued on both sides of this debate, depending on the majority or the minority. host: i don't think we will get an opinion from you, but i bet we can get an opinion from norman ornstein. guest: just one caveat. there was not unlimited debate in the first congress. the senate had a rule that allowed to move the previous question. it got taken out almost inadvertently a couple of congress's later.

there were some things that were extraneous. they did our realize what they have done, really for a couple of decades. then it became almost impossible to put it back in. it is not as if the framers started with the saying we want a body with an unlimited debate. i believe there is a need for reform. it is also much of that the rules themselves are awful. it is the culture has changed, the use of the filibuster has become something very different than what we saw in earlier decades. it used to be that filibusters were employed extremely rarely for issues of great national significance where the minority were willing to bring everything to a halt. now, filibusters are almost routine.

only to use up time and drag out debate. the cleaning up a little bit to restore the original purpose, not eliminate it but make it what it was, i think is in order. host: any follow up? guest: i would agree with the general description but whether or not it is actually used -- one reason they dropped it, it did not seem to apply at that time. it was only after that it was dropped that the house began to realize how valuable the previous question was. the senate rules are a matter of debate. it is quite interesting now that senators are going back to 1917- type are doing. host: there is a third-party we want to bring into this

conversation. matthew wasniewski, thank you for being on the phone with us. when and how did you get your job? guest: thank you for having me on. i found out october -- host: how that process go? guest: the process started in the spring of 2010 when the former historian announced his retirement. speaker nancy pelosi appointed an academic search committee of outside academics of public historians to come up with a job description and do a job search. i had been working in the house for the better part of 10 years as an historian in the office of the car. host: dr., will your job continue with the new republican leadership?

discoed yes, it will. it was an appointment by speaker nancy pelosi, but john boehner confirmed the appointment. host: can you speak about the changing power or role of the speaker of the house? guest: sure. in the early era, in the early 1800's, the founders i think had originally conceived the speaker as being an impartial traffic cop who would monitor the flow of debate on the floor and make rulings from the chair. what very quickly evolved, and henry clay is a very good early example, elected speaker of the house on 1811, a very charismatic individual, he very quickly turned the speakership

into a party leadership position. it very effectively moved legislation through the house. that system evolved throughout the 19th century. in the late 19th century, very interesting characters, one from illinois.d reid revolutionized of the rules in the 1890's. essentially, the speaker had unlimited power -- chair of the rules committee, made all the appointments for all committee assignments in the house, presiding officer, party leader -- that was certainly the pinnacle of the power of the speaker. that changed in 1910 with a revolt against joe cannon,

which insurgent republicans and democrats combined to strip him of his chairmanship of the rules committee. for many decades, that power flowed downward and outward to committee chairs but it became consolidated again. host: who consolidated that? disco it was the affect of reforms -- guest: it was an effect of reforms. policy-making power or control floated back upward toward the house leadership. it has occurred gradually over the course of a number of decades, and the speaker still has tremendous control over the rules committees so that is a very powerful facet of the speakers at tool kit, to influence and direct legislation. host: matthew wasniewski is the house historian.

we appreciate you joining us for a few minutes. one more question. the of fact and the power of the tea party caucus and the tea party endorsed members, the freshman class coming in. guest: this freshman class is a full third of the majority. we are really talking about an extraordinary amount of leverage that new members have it. the vast majority were deeply involved themselves, and you have a significant number of members who jumped on the tea party bandwagon, the ones who got out front fastest. michelle bacchus's attempt twas not successful on, but they are in major driving force now. they are a force that is both a plus and minus four john

boehner. it propelled him to the speakership. it right after the election, he warned his new members coming in that there were going to be moments with it would have to swallow hard and the grown-ups. one of those was of the vote that will occur in a couple of months or so on the deb ceiling being reached. he may have significant headaches with those who voted on increasing the debt ceiling. host: donald ritchie, the 112th senate coming. 47 republicans, two independ ents. historically, that is a pretty close margin. how has the work in the past? guest: it is more of an average.

it has been 30 years since either party has had a 60-vote margin. you have to go back to the 1970's. 55 has been the average in between. that means the majority party has got to find some people on the other side who will support them on issues to get over the 60-vote limit. we have operated the government for the last 60 years under those circumstances. it may be very different atmosphere in the congress because in this last congress, there was a tremendous amount of pressure to not be the 60th vote. no one is going to be the 60th vote this time. it is going to have to be five or seven senators to join the majority. the majority may require more to come together. it is going to take a different type of mathematics to get

things through. host: the power of the senate majority leader compared to the speaker of the house. guest: i have heard many lament that they are not the speaker of the house. senator reid has said many times he wished he was the speaker of the house. the rules committee in the house really determines the length of debate, the number of amendments, how and when they are going to vote. those in the senate have no real control over similar situations. host: the power of mitch mcconnell opposed to harry reid. guest: mitch mcconnell had extraordinarily amount of leverage partly because of the approach that was used, to pull his minority together in an almost hysterically

unprecedented fashion, to use the leverage of 40 plus. it really be deviled harry reid a lot. it is somewhat of a different role for mitch mcconnell because the house is controlled by republicans. i think we will see a different strategy. ford matched mcconnell, who made his now famous comment in a speech at the heritage foundation, that the number one political goal was to make barack " -- was to make barack obama a one-term president, means his role becomes a differnet one. host: you have been very patient. you are on the air. tracy, are you with us? caller: i have a couple of comments. thank you so much.

host: you have to turn that volume down. deborah is in dallas. caller: in counterpoint of the gentleman who does not like c- span, i wrote would like to say that i start every day with you there because i do not like being at the mercy of cable tv news. i think c-span is one of the greatest innovations of cable. brian is a genius. my question is for norman ornstein. i would like to tell you, sir, you are one of those people i dropped everything to watch when you are on tv, and i know it. thank you for being there to answer my questions. i would like to know with the

restricted democrat minority, how many blue dogs and the conservative democrats are left to conceivably breakoff with republicans. i would also like to know -- house rules committee meetings used to be open and televised in the 1990's. in the last few years, i know they have been closed. with the new rules, i would like to know whether they will be accessible to the public. host: thank you. guest: i agree with you on c- span, and dawn bryant as well. the answer to the first question -- the blue dogs caucus was decimated in the election. they lost almost two-thirds of their members. they are still a significant -- there is still a significant number left.

you may get a few others who joined the caucus as much as for strategic reasons than anything else. when no the republicans will be targeting them to try to induce them to come over and give them at least a bipartisan subpoena on some of the votes that they cast. keep in mind, the blue dogs who survived the tsunami of the last election are probably not inclined to make some of those alliances. on the rules committee, we have a pledge for more openness coming from the incoming speaker john boehner. many of their contentious rules debates were conducted at 1:00 in the morning or 3:00 in the morning. they would not have any reporters willing to comment. that presumably is not going to be the case. we are supposed to have some

notice before and the markup of the rules. i don't think we are going to see television, c-span even, in there on a regular basis. we are going to have to rely on reports. host: whenever we can get in that small room, wheat get in there. tracy from omaha, go ahead with your comments. caller: i have a couple of things. i like to say that i think obama is doing an excellent job. he gets things done. he literally rolls up his sleeves. i like that. ok. what to want to talk about is the repeals. basically, what is happening is coming in this economy right now, in this recession, everybody out here working hard are being held through -- being held to a very high standard. you have to be there on time,

work your tail off and probably make less money than you are used to. here you have republicans wanting to repeal everything that the democrats accomplished in the last two years. i remember when they were all sitting there speeches and stuff, the ones who wanted to get elected, they were saying we need to concentrate on jobs. the other thing is -- well -- host: let's leave it there. guest: the framers of the constitution anticipated shifts. they wanted the government to be smooth sailing. one of the ways to deal with that was to cushion the u.s. senate. while every member of the house ran and confronted in the public opinion, only one-third of

senators were up for election, meaning 2/3 to continue on. they reflected very different forms of public opinion. that means a muted situation. that has always required a certain amount of compromise and moderation in opinions, despite the fact that people are responding to their constituencies. guest: of course we know their first real substantive move next week that house republicans said they are going to do is a vote on the health care reform care act. it very likely will pass. the commitment that incoming speaker john boehner has made it goes out the window on this one. there will be no amendments allowed. if you add to that the list of

things that they want to roll back, republicans are going to have to have a nice balance to make sure they focus on jobs. outgoing speaker nancy pelosi has a piece in the paper today where she talks about how they want to cooperate especially on jobs. we will see an interesting interplay with the desire to push back what is happened in the last two years. the last two years.

will come to order, please. the vice president: the senate will come to order. the chair lays before the senate one certificate of election to fill the unexpired term and the certificates of election for 34 senators elected for six-year terms beginning january 3, 2011. all certificates, the chair is advised, are in the form suggested by the senate or contain all the essential requirements of the form suggested by the senate. if there is no objection, the reading of the certificates will be waived 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 they are names are called in alphabetical order, the chair

will add minister the oath. the clerk will read the names of the first group. the clerk: ms. ayotte of new hampshire, mr. blumenthal of connecticut, mr. blunt of missouri. the vice president: 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 all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;

is that you take this oaths 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? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations.

the vice president: the clerk will read the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. boseman of arveg arc, mr. boxer of california, mr. burr of north carolina, mr. coats of indiana. the vice president: please

raise your right hand. 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; 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? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations.

the vice president: the senate will come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. coburn

oklahoma, mr. poe of idaho, mr. demint of south carolina, mrs. gillibrand of new york. the vice president: 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 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? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations.

the vice president: 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. the clerk: mr. grassley of iowa, mr. hoeven of north dakota, mr. inouye of hawaii, mr. isakson of georgia. the vice president: 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 you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations. welcome.

the vice president: the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. johnson of wisconsin. mr. kirk of illinois, mr. leahy of vermont, mr. lee of utah.

the vice president: 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 you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations. and welcome.

the vice president: the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. mccain of arizona, ms. mikulski of maryland, mr. moran of kansas, ms. murkowski of alaska. the vice president: 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 you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you god? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations.

the vice president: the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mrs. murray of washington, mr. paul of kentucky, mr. portman of ohio, mr. reid of nevada.

the vice president: please raise your right hands. 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 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? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations. welcome.

the vice president: the senate will come to order, please. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. rubio of florida, mr. schumer of new york, mr. shelby of alabama,

mr. thune of south dakota. the vice president: please raise your right hands. 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 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? the group: i do.

the vice president: congratulations.

the vice president: the senate will please come to order. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. -- the vice president: order in the senate, please. the clerk will call the names of the next group. the clerk: mr. toomey of pennsylvania, mr. vitter of louisiana, mr. wyden of oregon.

the vice president: 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 you talk this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon wu which you are about to interks so help you god? the group: i do. the vice president: congratulations.

>> 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]

mr. reid: mr. president, happy new year to you and happy new year to all my colleagues. those returning to the senate and those taking office today for the first time. i'm honored, humbled and will forever be grateful that the people of nevada have entrusted me with another term as a united states senator. i'll continue working hard to create jobs for the people of my state and our country and get our country back on track. mr. president, i'm also grateful for the continued support and confidence of my caucus, which has given me the honor of serving as its leader. neither title -- senator or majority leader -- is a responsibility i take lightly or

for granted. they say you can never step in the same river twice. new water flows in, replacing the old, and continually renewing the river. the senate is the same, mr. president. this body never stops changing. every two years, and occasionally more frequently, new senators take their seats in this chamber. they join the senate family and this ever evolving team of 100 tasked with moving the country forward. but our fundamental responsibilities and traditions anchor us in that river. our respect and reverence for the people we serve and this institution never waivers or changes. mr. president, according to academics, pundits, and congress watchers, the 111th congress, the last congress, was the most productive in american history. many challenges and opportunities still lie ahead for this new congress that starts today. we have to do even more to help middle-class families, to create

jobs, to hasten our energy independence, to improve our children's education, and to fix our broken immigration system. we also have to make sure the senate can operate in a way that allows the people's elected legislators to legislate. so we'll soon debate some reforms to senate procedure, reforms proposed not for the sake of change itself or for partisan gain but because the current system has been abused and abused gratuitously the filibuster, in particular, has been abused in truly unprecedented fashion. there are strong passions on both sides of this debate of this issue. there are nearly as many opinions about what to do about these abuses as there are senators, but let us start the conversation with some facts. mr. president, could we have order. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. senators will please take their conversations off the floor.

the majority leader. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. here are some of those facts. there were about as many filibusters the last two congresses as there were in the first 6 1/2 decades that the cloture rules existed. there were nearly as many filibusters in just the last two years as there were in the 1920's, 1930's, 1940's, 1950's, 1960's and half of the 1970's, all combined. in the entire 19th century, it is senat --the senate saw fewera dozen, filibusters. now we see that many in a single month. many of these recent filibusters were terribly unproductive. many of them prevented us from even holding a debate on a bill, let alone an up-or-down vote. after we wasted hour after hour, day after day, sometimes weeks, many of those bills passed and

many of those nominations were confirmed overwhelmingly and sometimes unanimously. i've been forced to use my right as majority leader to fill what we call the amendment tree more than i would have liked to, but it's been for a simple reason, mr. president. rather than offer amendments to improve legislation or compromise for the greater good, as members of this body have done for generations, the current minority has offered amendments simply to waste time, delay us from proceeding to a bill, or to score political points. the american people love government but they don't like toliketoo much politics in gove. finally, these rules are central to the senate but they're not sank rosacrosanct. senate procedures and rules have changed since the senate was founded at the beginning of this century. those decisions have never been made without great deliberation and no future change should be made any differently.

the recent abuses we've seen have hurt the senate and hurt our country. they hurt our economic recovery and they hurt middle-class families. they hurt the institutions that lead and shape america because they keep public servants and judges from their posts for no reason other than partisanship. 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 confirm. his criticism and concern are well-founded. i hope all my colleagues consider the chief justice's warning and that what it means for the pursuit of justice in this country. mr. president, really, here's the bottom line. we may not agree yet on how to fix the problem but no one can credibly claim problems don't exist. no one who has watched this body operate since the current minority took office can say that it functions just fine. that wouldn't be true, it would be dishonest.

no one can deny that the filibuster has been used for purely political reasons, reasons far beyond those for which this protection was invented and intended. so, mr. president, i say through the chair to my distinguished republican counterpart, my friend, senator mcconnell, that in the coming days, let's come together to find a soluti solution. that's why we're here. i say to the 16 new senators, we need to do some things to correct some of the things that have taken place. the united states senators must solve problems, not create them, and i'm going to work to the best of my ability with my friend, the senator from kentucky, to work this out, to work out a compromise. the last time congress convened without senator robert byrd as a member, harry truman was president of the united states. 42 of our 100 senators hadn't even been born yet. no one knew the constitution

better than robert byrd and no one revered it more. he taught many of us many thin things. among them, he taught me to carry the constitution with me every day. i do that, mr. president. i always have this copy of our 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. the first one wore out but i have it in my dech desk in searchlight. and i have such fondness of looking at senator byrd, as we all know in his later years, he hadn't benign tremor and he shook a little bit approximate when he wrote, but he wrote th this. and i'll always, always rememb remember. senator byrd, a fervent defender of the constitution. he loved the constitution. this coal miner's son loved the constitution, just like everyone in america, whether you're a coal miner's son or an

academic's son, we all should love this constitution. not just because of what is written in it but how those words were written and how it all came together. senator byrd that our constitution was created through compromise. at a moment of particular partisan strife, 15 years ago, senator byrd came to this floor and said the following, and i quote, "i hope that we will all look at ourselves on both sides of this aisle 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 of compromise and mutual concession and it is only this that spirit that a continuum of this charter can be sustained." that's what he said. our frefnedzs have decided to begin their daily business by reading the constitution.

these first few minutes of the senate's new session, i think we should reflect on senator byrd's wise reminder of this stoss history. unlike the constitution, the agreement that established two separate and different houses in the legislative branch was itself a compromise. mr. president, it's written to be the great compromise, allowed us to have a constitution. as much as ever before, our taboo branches need to find common ground if we're going to be productive for the people that we serve and serve together. in that same speech, a decade and a half ago, senator byrd reminded us, i quote, "athe welfare of the country is more dear than the mere victory of a political party. " i think we would do well to heed those word as we debate an decide how to best serve the nation and its people in this new year. mr. president, senators come and go. the majorities and minorities rotate like a rolling wheel.

the records of service are written and rewritten. the only constant in our -- in this great democracy is a change, change that that we never anticipate, sometimes we do but most often we don't. 16 senators who were here just a few days ago have moved on. and 16 new ones now take their seats. laws that governed this nation and the rules that govern this body continue to evolve carefully and by necessity. but the most important change we can make in the 1112th congress is to make better and more closely as teammates, not as opponents, as partners, not as partisans to fill our constitutional responsibility to pursue the more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, promote the general well fay and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, first i'd like to take a moment to welcome back all of my colleagues and particularly the 13 new republican senators who we efficientlily swore -- who we officially swore in just a few minutes ago. americans looking for creative, principled leaders. aim confident this impressive class of new republicans will not disappoint. i'd also like to welcome my good friend, the majority leader. at a time when some think the two parties cannot even agree on the weather, senator rierd l. reid and i get along just fine. i look forward to working with him again throughout this congress. the biggest changes today are of

course happening across the dome and i'd like to welcome the many new republican members of congress who come to washington to change the way things are done around here n this they'll be led by very talented and determined ohioan whom i now have the great honor of referring to as "speaker boehner." i congratulate speaker baron and the new republican majority in the house and i wish them great success in achieving the kinds of reforms and policie policiese last election was all about. americans want lawmakers to cut washington spending, tackle the debt, rein in the government, and to help create the right conditions for private-sector job growth. they also want us to reform the way laws are made. they're looking to republicans to provide an alternative to the kind of law making we've seen too much of around here in the past few years. a vision that disregards the views of the public in favor of an elite few. a vision that tells people they

can look at legislation after it's passed, that washington knows best, in short, americans are looking for an entirely different approach. the new republican majority in the house has shown every sign that they've heard the public on all of this. and senate republicans join them in their efforts, conscious of the limitations and the opportunities that our minority status and the president's veto pen involve. we will press the majority to do the things the american people clearly want us to do. and we will ensis in every possible way that the voices of our constituents are heard, realizing at the same time that the best solutions are forged through consensus, not through confrontation. now fortunately the is that the was designed as a place where consensus could and would be reached. look through modern history. the social security act of 1935 was approved by all but six

members of the senate. the medicare and medicaid acts of 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. americans believe that on issues of this importance, one party shouldn't be allowed to force its will on anyone else, and thanks to the senate, it rarely has. and that's why a 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're tired of being shut out of the legislative process. they want to be heard. and the response they're now 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 than before.

instead of changing their behavior in response to the last election, thement to change the rules. -- they want to change the rules. well, i would suggest that this is precisely the kind of approach a supermajority standard is meant to prevent. it exists -- it exists to preserve the senate's role as the one place where the voices of all of the people will in the end be 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 senate in 2007, it has sought to erode the traditional rights of the minority and by extension the rights of our constituents. the nonpartisan congressional research service has looked into the way the current majority has run the senate.

its conclusions are revealing. here are just a few. the current majority has denied the minority the right to amend legislation a record 44 times, or more often than the last six majorities combined. 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 rifts of the minority to debate and amend on the floor is exon compound by its practice of regularly bypassing senate committee. all too often the majority has crows chosen to write bills behind closed doors, depriving americans of yet another opportunity to have a say? the legislative process. the current majority has set the record here as well, bypassing committees 43 times or double the previous average. nosh the goal of all of this, of

course, is to pass the most partisan legislation possible while at the same time avoiding difficult votes. and to listen to the leaders of the democratic party over the past several months, they've had some success at it. the president, the former speaker, the majority leader have all described this past congress as the most successful in memory and yet the most vocal elements of their party remain frustrated. they say the national is broken, even though the same party who are describing it as the most successful in memory. why? why, their primary complaints appear to be these clierntion the stum us will passed but it wasn't big enough. the health care passed but it didn't include the government plan. the senate extended unemployment benefits and cut payroll taxes but was blocked from raising taxes on small business owners in the process. in other words, the majority have been able to achieve most of what it wanted but because it didn't achieve everything it wanted, some aren't happy.

they're 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 is in some ways understandable. no one likes to take difficult votes. but that's nothing new. as the majority whip often says, if you don't like fighting fires, then don't become a fireman. if you don't like casting votes, don't come to the senate. some have also suggested that one's view of the filibuster appears on where one sits and it is true when i was in the majority, i opposed filibustering constitutional nominees. but i opposed doing so when i was in the minority as well. 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 had not been used, period. one can agree with that view or not, but it's one thing to

disagree with expanding the use of the filibuster into nontraditional areas, regardless of who is president and who is in the minority. it is another thing altogether to be in favor expanding it and then turn around an urge its elimination when one is in the majority tbhvment comes to preserving the right to extend debate on legislation, republicans have been entirely consistent. what's -- what's 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 the agreement of the minority. i'm going to say it bun more time. no senate majority has ever changed the rules except by following those rules; that is, with the participation and the agreement of the minority.

but it also promises to frustrate those who would approve it. first, if it's stating the obvious that anything that passes in the senate with a narrow majority of e6 0 is going nowhere, absolutely nowhere, in the newly republican house. so any short-term gain ends halfway across the dome. second, a change in the rules aimed at benefiting the democrats today could just as easily be used to benefit republicans tomorrow. doe our friends across the aisle really want to create a situation where two or four or six years from now they suddenly find themselves completely powerless to prevent republicans from overturning legislation they themselves have worked so hard to enact, particularly over the past two years? but the larger point is this: the founders crafted the senate to be different. they crafted it to be deliberate. a thoughtful place. and change the rules and the way

that's been -- in the way that's been proposed would unalterably change the senate itself. it will no longer be the place where the whole exon is heard and has the ability to have its say, place that encourages consensus and broad agreement. in short, it would make this place even less like the place americans want it to be. so it's noi hope that our friends on the other side will put aside their plans, respect the rules of the senate and more important lit voice of the people, those rules are meant to protect. then we can get about the business the people since the here to do. today is a day to renew our purpose rand our commitment to bipartisanship, not to double down on a partisan approach that has too often marred law making in washington over the past two years. it is a day to look ahead to what we can achieve together, prompted by the urgings of an electorate that has made its views vet clear. -- very clear.

and united by a love for this constitution and this nation. the problems we face are enormous. once in a generation challenges that will require vision, hard work and a comaiment to work together to reach consensus. and the senate is the place for that. at its best, it is a workshop where the nation's most difficult challenges are faced squarely and addressed with civility and good will. anand at a time when the national threatens the american dream itself, when the solvency of the social safety net is threatened, we must come together. 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 a determination to seek solutions, not partisan advantages. americans are looking for

republicans to address the problems we face, but republicans cannot solve them alone. the problems are too big, too demanding for one party. and we 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 its relevance a long time ago. but they didn't, and neither can we. the men who established this place have left us the right tools for the job, and it's my hope that in the weeks and months ahead we will use them to renew the promise that inspired them and that continues to inspire americans, even in difficult times. that promise is the american dream. it's what unites everyone in this chamber, preserving it must be our common

after the remarks earlier by senator mikulski. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: i join with the entire senate family in saluting my good friend, the distinguished senior senator from maryland becoming the longest serving female senator in the history of the united states senate. i note cal ripken, former star of the baltimore orioles, became known as the iron man for going 16 consecutive years without missing a game. perhaps senator mikulski earned the title of iron woman for going 24 consecutive years in this body without ever deviating from her role as a fierce advocate for marylanders and working people across the country. i hasten to add that the measure of a senator is not how many years he or she serves in the body, but what he or she accomplishes during those years. and that is where senator mikulski has truly distinguished hearse over the last -- herself

over the last quarter of a century. i salute her activism on the health, education, labor, and pensions formerly chaired by senator kennedy. she has been a leading champion of pell grants and for expanding access to higher education for students of modest means. and of course, as has been stated, she's been the senate's leading voice on women's health issues, fighting to ensure that women are included in clinical trials and medical research at the national institutes of health and securing access to breast and 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. at every tenure in the drafting of that historic legislation, she fought to ensure the unique health needs of women were fully recognized and accommodated. as chair of the subcommittee on retirement and aging, senator mikulski has been an outspoken

advocate for seniors focusing especially on combatting elder abuse and neglect. i know she is especially proud of authoring the spousal empowerment act which keeps seniors from going bankrupt while paying for a spouse's nursing home care. no one has been a more fierce supporter of, defender of the right of poor people to have an attorney. through the legal aid 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 funding so that people of -- who have no money aren't barred from the courthouse door. mr. president, we admire the work of barbara mikulski not as a female senator per se, but as one of 100 senators. we also recognize she was the first woman elected to the

senate whose husband or father did not serve in high office. and we salute her as the proud dean among senate woman who has gone to extraordinary length for so many years to mentor and guide newly arriving women senators of both parties. i join with my colleagues in congratulating senator mikulski as our longest-serving female senator ever and in wishing her many, many more years of accomplishment and service in the united states senate. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota is recognized. ms. klobuchar: thank you, mr. president. i rise to add my voice to those of my colleagues as we commemorate an extraordinary milestone for a remarkable woman. today senator barbara mikulski becomes the longest-serving woman united states senator. for anyone who has had the privilege of working with or working for senator mikulski, this milestone comes as no

surprise. she is a devoted public servant and a dogged advocate for her constituents. she has spent the vast majority of her life in public service as a social worker, as a member of the baltimore city council, then as a member of the house of representatives, and finally as a united states senator. with each step, mr. president, her constituency got larger, and she worked even harder to fight for the people of maryland. senator mikulski is no stranger to celebrating firsts or milestones. 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've come in the 24 years since senator mikulski was first elected. 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 then help newly arrived women senators when they get here. her wise counsel is absolutely invaluable. senator mikulski has always reached across the aisle to bring women senators together, as she puts it, women in the senate 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 will he be lily lear fair pay act. i remember senator mikulski 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 lib stick on and -- 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 passed that bill. on that issue, the cause senator mikulski championed was victorious due in larger part to her tremendous work ethic and devoted advocacy. senator mikulski, today we salute you for suiting up and squaring your shoulders for 24 years and counting. and we look 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. is

ms. stabenow: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from michigan is recognized. ms. stabenow: thank you, mr. president. i'm so pleased to be here today. i appreciate the words of the great senator from minnesota. i am very, very pleased to rise 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 longest-serving woman member of the united states senate in the history of our nation. i have a three-year-old granddaughter, lily, who will be able to read now in the history books about not only her grandmother, but the woman who holds this record: senator barbara mikulski, and all that she has done and all that she

means to each of us, particularly as a role model for my granddaughter and other young children and other young women that will be coming after all of us. she's 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 no money and no job. but her great-grandmother knew the importance of hard work, and she built a life for her family here, a new beginning. in so doing, opened the door for future generations. and i know that today, mr. president, she is 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 own 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 entire history of our great 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 the people who have built the great middle class of this country by their hard work. she grew up working in her parents' grocery store and

understands the struggles of 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 the fell's point neighborhood in baltimore, stopping a proposed highway that would have divided a neighborhood and destroyed that community. today because of senator mikulski it is a thriving residential and commercial community. she's continued from that day and every day fighting for neighborhoods and fighting for families. and standing up for the men and women who work hard every day to make a better life for themselves and their 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.

but she changed all of that. she got appointed to the powerful appropriations committee. the first democratic woman to do so given -- giving the women of america a voice for the first time on how we set our priorities for the investments of our country. but more importantly she learned how to build coalitions, to work with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to get things donor the people that sent her here to work for them. today, as dean of the women senators, she continues that leadership. thanks to her, the women of senate get together, both democrats and republicans, for fellowship and friendship on a regular basis. and now following in her footsteps there are women members on every single committee in the united states senate. every committee important to the operations of our country's

business. her example shows us all the important importance of hard work, determination and courage. mr. president, i congratulate my friend, senator mikulski, today on her great accomplishment. and most importantly on a distinguished record of public service on behalf of the people of maryland and our country. i thank her for all that she has done for me, personally, and for all of the other women in the 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 isresident, i ask

that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. harkin: mr. president, parliamentary inquiry. 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? the presiding officer: the time has been consumed, sir. mr. harkin: i appreciate that. now, if i'm not mistaken, from the unanimous consent requests i was deemed to have 45 minutes. the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. harkin: i appreciate the chair. first of all, mr. president, i have a resolution for myself, senator durbin, senator mikulski, and senator shaheen, which i send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: mr. president?

mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the clerk will read the resolution by title. mr. alexander: mr. president? the clerk: resolution amending the standing rules of the senate providing cloture to be invoked with 3 fifth of the majority after the debate. mr. alexander: reserving the right to debate. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: this is a longstanding proposal of his, which he's thoughtfully considered it even though i admire him, i don't admire the proposal and so what -- what we would like to do is -- is let the senator from iowa make his proposal. i'll listen and then when he's made the proposal, i will ask him to yield me a few minutes and we may have a little discussion back around forth on the merits of the proposal. so with that in mind, i object.

the presiding officer: objection having been heard. the resolution will go under the rules. mr. harkin: mr. president, thank you. and i'm sorry that my good friend from tennessee had to object, but i understand that. and now, mr. president, we are going to engage for some time now on the senate floor on a discussion on -- on the filibuster -- the filibuster. something that has been around a long time, but which in the last several years -- few years, i wouldn't say several, last 20, 30 years has gotten to the point where it has paralyzed the united states senate and really has paralyzed the country. i intend to make some remarks here for a while. i appreciate my friend from tennessee and my friend from kansas who is here. i hope that we can engage in a nice colloquy and a discussion about this in a back and forth way, and i look forward to doing that. but i did want to take some time

to at least lay out my case as i did 15 years ago -- i'm sorry, 16 years ago, on january 4, 1995, i introduced this same resolution, and i found myself in the -- with a member of the minority party in the senate at that time 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 in charge and then the democrats got in charge and then the republicans got in charge and then the democrats got in charge. so since i've been here since 1985, one, two -- five times the senate has changed hands. and i note that at the beginning of that congress in 1995 the republicans outnumbered democrats 53-47, the same majority, minority ratio that exists today, just on the other side. even though i was opposed to the then majority party's agenda, i

introduced the same basic resolution to change the senate rules regarding the filibuster. my plan would have ensured ample debate and deliberation, the stated purpose of a filibuster to have -- to have debate and deliberation, but it would have also allowed a bill or nominee to receive a yes or no vote. now, unfortunately, my proposal didn't pass. it got 19 votes. my cosponsors were senator lieberman, senator pehl, and senator robb of virginia. i introduced my bill and if you care to read that debate it's the january 4, 1995, congressional record in the senate. i saw an escalating arms race where each side ratcheted up the use of the filibuster. that's what i called it then. and, slade in the intervening -- 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 years. indeed through 1879, there were only four. from 1917 when the senate first adopted rules to end the filibuster until 1969, there were fewer than 50. less than one filibuster a year. unfortunately since then the

number has skyrocketed. so the current -- the concerns i raise today are not new. the problem has become far more serious. in 1982, my good friend and colleague, senator dale bumpers of arkansas said this about the filibuster, he said unless -- -- quote -- "unless we recognize that things are out of control and procedures have to be changed, we'll never be an effective legislative body again." 1982. during the two years of that congress there were 31 filibusters. 31 filibusters. as measured by the number of cloture votes filed. in 195, former -- 1985 former senator eagleton of missouri noted -- quote -- "the senate is now in a state of insipient anarchy. the filibuster once used in civil rights matters, has now become a routine followic in almost all -- frolic in all

matters. it now guarantees under bridled chaos. unbridled chaos. end quote. that was in 1985, my first year here. but during that congress there were 40 filibusters. again, i want to refer to this number of filibusters as a visual aid to see what happened. as we go back here to the 88, 90, 91st, on up, you can see the number of filibusters escalating from less than 10 a year, four, five up to 100 -- almost 140, 136, 139. in 1994, former republican senator charles mathias of maryland said "today filibusters are far more visible but far less frequent. the filibuster has become an epidemic, an epidemic." that's former republican senator charles mathias.

used whenever a coalition can find 41 votes to oppose legislation. listen to what he said. the distinction between voting against legislation and blocking a vote, between opposing and obstructing, has nearly disappeared. end quote. senator mathias of maryland. but again, during that congress, again, right before i first introduced the legislation to modify the filibuster, there were 80 filibusters that year. and if i might, -- if i might quote myself what i said one year after senator mathias made his statement. i said about the filibuster -- this is what i said administratr of the general services administration, certainly a relatively noncontroversial position. she was ultimately confirmed 96-0. so what was that filibuster all about? for nearly nine months, the

minority filibustered barbara keenan to the fourth circuit court of appeals. she was ultimately confirmed 99-0. what was that filibuster all about? again, to quote norm ornstein. quote -- "the senate has taken the term 'deliberative' to a new level, slowing not just contentious legislation but also bills that have overwhelming support." now, secondly, mr. president, a filibuster -- the filibuster has increasingly been used to prevent consideration of bills and nominees. rather than to serve to ensure that the representation of minority views and to foster debate and deliberation by filibustering motions to proceed, the minority has been allowed to prevent debate and prevent deliberation. the filibuster has been used to defeat bills and nominees without their ever seeing a discussion here on the floor of the senate. in other words, the senate, which was formerly renowned as the world ace greatest deliberative body has now become

the world's greatest nondeliberative body. we can't even debate important national issues. that's why i fully support the commonsense proposals to reform the filibuster, restore the senate to one where issues can be fully debated and deliberated. i support eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed. and i believe those who are filibustering a bill or nominee should be required to come to the floor, hold the floor, make their case to their colleagues and the american people. senators should not be able to hide behind a curtain of secret holds. but the reality is, however, that because of the filibuster, the minority has unchecked veto power in this body. now, mr. president, i want to make it clear. when i say the "minority" i'm not talking about republicans, i'm talking about the minority. it may be the democrats and it may be the republicans. as i said, five times it's changed since i've been here since 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 requirement to pass legislation, here's what james madison said -- quote -- "if you had a supermajority, he said" -- quote -- "it would no longer be the majority that would rule, the pour woulthe power would bed to the minority." that's james madison. unfortunately that's become true. we are the only democratic body that i know of in the world where the minority, not the majority, controls. in today's senate, american democracy is turned on its head. the minority rules; the majority is blocked. the majority has responsibility and notability -- and accountability but lacks the power to govern. the minority has power but lacks accountability and responsibility. this means that the minority can block bills that would improve the economy, create jobs, and turn around and blame the majority for not fixing the economy.

the minority could block popular legislation and then accuse the majority of being ineffective. again, i repeat, when i say the minority, 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 real reform abuse the filibuster in the future. though republicans are currently in the minority, there's no question that control of this body will change, as it periodically does. the fact is, reform is urgently needed. that's why i'm reintroducing my proposal again which would permit a decreasing majority of senators over a period of days to invoke cloture on a given matter. under my proposal, a determined minority could slow down any bill. senators would have ample time to make their arguments and attempt to persuade the public and a majority of their colleagues. this protects the rights of the minority to full and vigorous

debate and 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 a nomin nominee. as former senator henry cabbott lodge, a republican, stated many years ago -- quote -- "to vote without debating is perilous but to debate and never vote is imbecile." my plan has another advantage. the fact is, right now the minority has no incentive to compromise. not only do they know that they have the power to block legislation but they can go out and campaign on the message that the majority can't get anything done. in contrast, if the minority knows at the end of a period of time a bill or nominee is subject to majority vote, there will be more -- they'll be more willing to come to the table and negotiate seriously.

likewise, the majority would want to compromise because they want to save time. there's nothing more valuable to the majority party in the senate than time. so under my proposal, on the first cloture vote, you would need 60 votes. if we didn't have 60 votes, you could have another vote in three days, you'd need 57 votes. three more days, 54 votes. three more days, 51 votes. so majority would finally act, but you would chew up almost two weeks of time. so if on the first vote, let's say 53 senators voted for cloture, well, the minority would know that in several days or maybe within a couple of week's time, 53 senators will get cloture. well, the minority then would go to the majority and say, look, we can drag this out for a couple of weeks, chew up all your time, but we've got some

things that 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 of weeks on -- on a -- on a bill, on a cloture, on filibuster, would say, okay, maybe we can make an agreement, we'll collapse the time frame, the minority gets some of the things they want, the majority's able then to have a volt. -- to have a vote. so i see my proposal as a means of encouraging compromise. right now, there is no reason to compromise for the minority. again, i repeat, i'm not talking about republicans or democrats, 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 -- my resolution since i introduced it in 1995. and i've changed it because republicans have said that, and i heard the minority leader say

earlier that they have done this because democrats in the majority, the majority this ti time, have employed procedural matters to deprive the republicans of the right to offer amendments. well, i'm very sympathetic to this argument. that's why i included in this resolution a guaranteed right to offer germane amendments to the minority filed in advance of the cloture vote so everyone would know what is coming. so, again, the minority should have the right to offer some amendments that are germane to the bill. i think one of the reasons that both -- no matter who the majority is, that are perhaps concerned about the amendments from the minority is that you have a bill dealing with housing and someone wants to offer a bill dealing with abortion, an amendment. well, there may be a time and a place for that but not on that bill on and so that's why i say it should be germane to the bill. if the minority has ideas how to improve the bill, strike something from the bill, it

ought to be germane to that bill. now, i've heard it said, and it's been -- i heard it on the radio this morning driving in, that this is something like a power grab by a democratic senator reacting to recent elections in which my party lost numerous seats. well, i want to make 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 democratically. again, i want to point out, i first offered this in 1995 when i was in the minority. so to use the 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. so reform of the filibuster, i don't see it as a democrat or a republican issue. indeed, it was the former republican majority leader, senator frist, who said when he nearly shut this body down over

the use of filibusters on a handful of judges -- quote -- he said, "this filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority." 2004. senator frist, the republican leader. the majority leader at that time. well, as i said, one of the problems here was this was done in the middle of the term. see, i think the senate ought to be able to set its rules at the beginning, on the first legislative day which we're in now and which we'll extend for some time, that the senate ought to be able 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 that 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. and i dare say, if we don't do

anything about this, if the republicans take control of the senate, as they think they will in two years, well, democrats are going to do the same thing to them. guarantee it. guarantee it. and it won't -- the republicans did, what did i say, 136 filibusters, 139? bet your bottom dollar, if we don't change the rules, the democrats will match them. you wait and see. well, a lot of people sometimes say, well, harkin, what you're advocating is that the senate would become like the house. since when, i ask 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 -- by the fact that we have unlimited debate here. when a senator gets the floor, you can't take it away from him. we operate under unanimous consent, the power of one single senator would remain. but the senate, what do we do? we do treaties, we do nominations, we sit in judgment on impeachment. the senate was not like the house. and just because we don't have a filibuster as we've known it for the last 90 -- what, 93 years, 94 years, 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 tha that -- 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 or lyndon johnson or everett dirksen 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 enact virtually any piece of legislation or confirm any nominee. in fact, the framers of the constitution were very clear about where a supermajority is required. there were only five in the original constitution -- ratification of a treaty, override of a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of a constitutional amendment and expulsion of a member. now, 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 permitting the majority to end debate and bring a measure to a vote by moving 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 would mean that a small minority could destroy the energy of government. hamilton said that government would be subject to the caprice or art physicals of an insignificant turbulent or corrupt." reform of filibuster rules meets squarely with the tradition of updating senate rules, as needed rs to foster a government that can respond to 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 -- should be more debatable than the budget? but our rules do not permit a filibuster of the budget. so we've passed rules here limiting the filibuster. since 1917 we've passed four significant reforms concerning the filibuster. the fact is, as senator tom udall has powerfully made clear, article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the constitution sphesifies -- quote -- "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings." as senator robert byrd, who was opposed to filibuster reform -- he and i had a great debate back in 1995 on this. he emsaid, "any time that 51 senators are determined to change the rule that rule can be changed." end quote. and i am reading here from what he said. he said, "the constitution in article 1, section 5, says in a

each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings. now we're at the beginning of congress. this congress," he said, "is not obliged to be by the dead or the past. ""i listened to the minority leader when he said that we haven't -- the majority has never changed rules except by following those rules. wecial the rules set -- well, the rules set down by a congress a long time ago, by a senate a long time ago said that in order to ink chase rules you need two-thirds of the vote in the senate. i submit that's unconstitutional. i submit that this congress, this senate on this first legislative day doesn't have-to-a bide by that. well, what if some senate -- what if one party got 90 senators one time and they adopted a rule shah said from here on out you needed to have 90 votes to pass anything.

they made resumes that made it impossible for the minority to become the majority. would that be constitutional? i don't think so. senator byrd said we're he not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. the first senate, senator byrd said, which met in 1789 approved 19 rules by majority vote. those rules have been changed from time to time, so the members of the senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one minute think or believe or pretend that all succeeding senates would be bound by that senate. and here is the essence of what senator byrd said. he said, "it is my belief which has been spurted by rulings of vice presidents of both parties and by votes of the senate, in essence, upholding the power and right of a majority of the senate to change the rules of the senate at the gifng a new

congress -- at the beginning of a new congress." well, i would say that byrd has not been alone in his views or tactics. the constitution option has been endorsed by three vice presidents and three times by the senate itself. so why wasn't it used? because senators then reached a compromise. they reached a compromise and, therefore, we never had the constitutional option. but that doesn't mean -- that doesn't mean that we can't use that. the constitution is very clear, and i think three votes of the senate and three former vice presidents have made clear in their rulings that at the beginning of a congress we can set the rules. well, mr. president, chief justice john marshall once said this any enduring constitution must be able to repond to the various crises of human affair affairs." i have said many times that i don't believe we can be a 21st

century superpower bound -- bound -- bound by archaic rules of the 19th century. we have to have a responsive government, responding to the challenges of our time. i'm not afraid. i say to my friends on the republican side, i am not afraid. what the minority leader said, he said that sometime the republicans might be in charge and they might want to undo what the democrats did and the democrats better be careful. well, that was in his op-ed piece in the "post" this morning. i'm not afraid. -- i'm nolt afraid of democrats. i'm not afraid of the votes of the people, that 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, we ought to have the right to debate, we ought to have the right to amend, but we should not have the right to oaltly obstruct. -- to totally obstruct. i am not afraid. people say the tea party in the house, they're going to do all this stuff. i'm so, i'm not afraivmentd 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, they think things are going to havment they don't happen. they say, a pox on both your houses. why should i be a be afraid that the republicans are going to institute legislation that i don't like? they have in the pavment and our country -- that have in the past

and our country has endiewrdz. there are times when the democrats have passed legislation the republicans don't like and our country has endiewrdz. so i just don't like this thing of fear that we have to be afraid, that somehow the majority is going to do things. we want to make sure that the rights of the minority are guaranteed to be heard, that the rights of the 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 ought to be the right of the minority to demand -- to demand that their views be implemented. that's the right of the majority. so i close by kind of where i began, mr. president. and i thank my senators -- you my friends for this indulgence. the bedrock -- the bedrock of the principle, i believe, of our constitution of our founders was

majority rule with respect for minority rights. but i say this. i've said this 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. the presiding officer: the president prosecute tennessee -- the senator from ten tefnlt lockbox licks thank the senator from iowa for his consistency over the years. mr. alexander: i thank the senator from iowa for his consistency over the years. i wonder if he has time, if he is still here, maybe i'll pose a

question to him. i see the senator from can is also here. he spent a lot of time on the rules committee, on this surkts one of our most forceful speakers on the matter. i would defer to him and then i know there are other senators, the senator from oregon, the senator from new mexico have some proposals to offer. so i'll wait for those proposals then to be offered. and there may be other senators on the republican side who come to the floor. but the few remarks that -- first i'd like to ask unanimous consent that an address that i've made yesterday at the heritage foundation entitled "the filibuster: democracy's finest show; the right to talk your head off," that that be put in the "congressional record." the presiding officer: without objection. mr. alexander: i borrowed those words from h.w.caltenboyd in "mr. smith goes to washington." i am a little amused by the suggestion that the senator from iowa made and others have made that somehow the senate has been

paralyzed for the last couple of years. most of the people i know are concerned about what the senate did, is not what it didn't do. it is hard to say you're paralyze what had you pass a $1 trillion stimulus bill, a big health care law, a financial regulation law, et cetera, et cetera. and so far as republicans or the minority, as he's been careful to say, holding things up, you know, we didn't have a budget last year. most households have to have budgets. we ought to have one. why didn't we have one? the republicans, as the senator from iowa said, under our law -- rules, it only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. during the last couple of year, the republicans had 59 or 60 votes. so 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. had nothing to do with the senate being -- quote -- "broken." the senator from iowa made this

proposal -- he is a made some modifications -- but basically this proposal in 1995. i remember those days pretty well. that's when -- that was right after the so-called gingrich revolution in 1993. republicans took control of the senate and of the house. so the senator from iowa made this proposal to diminish the effectiveness of a 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 single 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 form 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 that were said mostly in 2005 by democratic leaders. they were said -- there were some republicans who got this 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 democrats had decided to filibuster president bush's judges. i didn't like that either. but this is what was said then. senator robert byrd, "we must never, ever, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excesses of the executive branch." and what is that necessary fence? he said in his last testimony before the rules committee that necessary fence is anchored in the filibuster.

senator schumer of new york, "the checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be eevaporated." this was in response to the republicans who were trying to diminish the effectiveness of the filibuster. "the checks and balances would say if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the tievment" former senator hillary clinton, now secretary of state, "you've got majority rule. then you've got the senate over here," senator clinton said. "where people can slow things down, where they can debate, where they have something called 'the filibuster.' "you know it seems like it is a little less than efficient," said senator clinton. "well, that's right. it is," she said. "and deliberately dined to be so." senator dodd, more recently, "i'm totally opposed to the idea of changing the filibuster rules. i think that's foolish, in my view." senator byrd, "that's why we have a senate, to amend and debate freedom." senator dodd, "i can understand

the temptation to change the rules that make the senate so unique and simultaneously so terribly frustrating ivelg, but whether such temptation is motivated bay noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure, political exsubpoenaed yen circumstance i believe such changes would be unwise." senator dodd, "stlfer, to my fellow senators who have never varved day in the minority, i urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change senate rules." and just two more. senator reid, who was then the democratic leader but the minority leader. "the filibuster, nor reid said in 2005, "is far from a procedural gavel. it is part of this institution that we call the senate. for 200 years we've had the right to extend the debate. its neat a procedural gimmick. some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of senate history in the quest for absolute power. they want to do away with mr. smith as depicted in that great movie being able to come to washington.

they want to do away with the filibuster. senator reid say, they think they're wiser than our fowfers. i doubt that's true." then there was one other senator who spoke and said this the senator from illinois, senator obama, "then if the majority chooses to end the filibuster," he was speaking of republicans, "if they dhoos change the rules and put an end to the democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse." to me, the uniqueness of the senate -- let me put it this way -frplts i think the last two years have been an aberration, and i'm coming to my question of the senator from iowa. we've had no incentive for the majority to take the ideas of the minority, because the majority had these huge majorities, and nearly 60 votes

haoerbgs and a democratic president. when senator corker began to work on the financial regulation bill, there came a time in the process where the democrats said we like corker and he's got some good ideas, but we don't need his vote to pass this bill. we've got the votes. we won the election. we'll write the bill. we had no consensus. we had a democratic bill. we had a democratic health care bill. we had a democratic stimulus bill; might have had wourpb two republicans -- might have had one or two republicans vote for it. for the last two years we haven't had experience in working across party lines. 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 senator

enzi and senator harkin or it's not going anywhere because it's got to have 60 votes. what's the advantage of that? the advantage of that is the comparison of the civil rights bill in 1964 and the health care law of 2009. in 1964, after a bitter fight led by senator russell of georgia, the civil rights bill passed, overcoming a filibuster. the bill was written in the republican leader's office. it wasn't just sent over there in the middle of christmas. it was written in his office. you had president johnson, the democrat, 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 russell do, who fought that bill for his whole term here? 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. not only do we need a consensus to get a better bill; we need a

bill the country will accept. compare that to the health care law. there's a lot of good intentions that went into the health care law. i know that. senator harkin 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? neff everybody going home -- instead of everybody going home saying it is the law of the land, we support it, it caused an instant movement to repeal it. i hope that we will not do what senator harkin suggests. i think his proposal is, well, we're going to hang you, but we'll either hang you in three days instead of tonight. we'll narrow it down. that's a little worse. we know if you've got 51 votes you can pass it. if the house of representatives over here passes a bill, a republican house, to repeal the health care law, you know if we've got 51 votes over here, we'll do it too.

or if the democratic house, as they did last year, passes a bill to repeal the ballot in secret elections, if the democrats have 51 votes over here, they'll do it too. but when it requires a consensus, if bills like that come from the house to the senate, we say whoa, 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 start treaty we had almost all the democrats and some of the 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 majorato r*eu an house. the freight train could run through whatever the election is in a different kind of senate.

a different kind of senate as senator byrd eloquently said has been one where we can say you're not going to pass anything unless we do it together. that's called consensus. that's called cooperation. i think the american people would be greatly relieved. my question that i'd like to pose through the chair to senator harkin, and then i'll sit down. i know the senator from kansas and the senator from tennessee is here. just what is a filibuster? senator stkers was on the floor -- sanders was on the floor during the tax debate. he spoke for eight or nine hours. i guess a filibuster the senator from iowa is counting, let's say senator reid brings a health care bill to the floor and i say i've got an amendment to the health care bill and senator reid says sorry i'm going to cut off your amendment. i object. that's a filibuster.

if we're just talking and amending and debating, that's not a filibuster. it's not a filibuster until the majority leader cuts it off. what they're counting as filibusters is the number of times the democrats have cut us off from doing what we're supposed to do, which is amend and debate. it's like being invited to sing on the grand ole opry and then coming up there, you're not allowed to sing. the people from tennessee don't expect me to come here and sit on a log because no matter how distinguished the majority leader is he says i don't want your amendments. what is traditional in the senate is senators came in almost any time with almost any amendment on almost any bill. in the days of senator byrd and senator baker they would have 300 amendments and they would start voting. some would say it's thursday, don't we go home? and they'd say, no, we're going to vote unless you want to give up your amendments. but we didn't vote on one friday this past year. and a lot of senators on both sides of the aisle don't want to

vote on controversial issues. if we looked for consensus, if we were willing to vote on controversial issues, mr. president, and we ended the three-day workweek, if the majority thinks the minority is abusing the filibuster, they can confront it. they can say okay, senator alexander, if you're going into postcloture time, if 60 of us are ready to cut this off, we're ready to get on to vote, you've got 7 hours you can speak, then you've got to get 23 senators to take the other hour, and if you stop talking we're going to put the question. we've got motions we can make about your being dilatory. in other words, we can make life miserable for you because we can do this all night long. you do this about once or twice, as senator byrd said in his last testimony, the rules exist today to confront a filibuster. so my question to the senator from iowa that i would pose through 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 powers to cut it off. you can't amend the bill. and then 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 amend, right to debate, right to do my job. mr. harkin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i respond to my friend from tennessee, who makes cogent arguments as he always does -- and he is a good friend of mine. we've worked together on a lot of things. i hope this is the beginning of some colloquies we can have here. i do want to indulge and let other senators have their say because they were so kind to let me have my say too. but i intend to be here as long as anybody wants to engage in colloquies on the senate floor. i say to my friend from tennessee that as i listen to

him -- and i did very carefully -- there's a couple things i want to point out in terms of this idea of a filibuster and being able to amend things. my friend referred many times to the health care bill. i don't know if my friend said this but i've heard it said that we wrote it behind closed doors and all that kind of stuff. let me point out when it came to our committee, the health, education, labor, and pensions committee, we had 13 days of markup, 54 hours. we allowed any amendment to be offered. the senator is a member of that committee. we allowed any senator to offer any amendment on our committee. we adopted 161 republican amendments either through some votes, which they won, or through just adopting the amendments. then after that, after all that, all the republicans voted "no." that's fine. there's a lot of times tphoeu in the past when -- i know in the

past when i have had an amendment on the bill which i thought improved it, but overall i didn't like the bill so i voted against it. i think that's the right of the minority. but then to obstruct it and to try to obstruct it to keep it from being enacted i don't think is right. so i would say to my friend that i don't think the health care bill is a really good example. i say to my friend that, said something about -- he quoted someone, i think maybe it may have been senator reid saying do people think they're 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 -- the previous question to cut off debate. and they didn't set up a majoritarian house -- article 1,

section 5 is very clear, each house sets up its rules. if the new majority in the house wanted to, they 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 someone could take it to court to see if it was constitutional or not. but they don't have to operate under those rules, and we don't have to operate under these rules. the constitution gives us the right to change those rules. when he says why isn't -- our founding fathers never set up this system, by the way. never. there's no mention of it anywhere in the constitution, and they did not set up a majoritarian house. they set up article 1, section 5, which says each house can set up its own rules but in the constitution each hout has its -- house has its own

prerogatives. treaties are done by the senate, not by the house. they never set up any kind of a majoritarian kind of thing. i say to my friend, on a 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 minority can slow things down in order to get their views heard or in order for them to be able to offer amendments to make the bill better, in their views. that's the right of the majority. i don't think it's the right of any minority. when i say minority, when i say that, i'm not talking about republicans. i'm saying any tphofrt here. -- any minority here. i don't think it's the right of any minority here to say 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 one senator can stop things. i point out one other bill, i

say to my friend from tennessee, that i thought was a great bipartisan bill. we worked hard on it in our committee. that was the food safety bill. we reported out of our committee a year ago in november, unanimous vote. everyone voted for it, republicans and democrats on our committee. we got it out, but there were some things in the bill that senators not on our committee, and maybe one senator on our committee didn't like. so we had to work through the ensuing 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've got patience. as my friend from kansas known, i love patience where he on farm bills take time. yet we worked it all out. yet, one senator who 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. so i say one senator should be

able to have the right to offer amendments, to be heard, but not to stop everything. and i guess that's what i come down to, i say to my friend from tennessee that, there ought to be -- i think there's a reason, and a good reason for the senate to be that saucer that cools things down, the 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. he may disagree with me. i'm just saying i feel that would. i'm not trying to take away compromise. i believe in working things out. as chairman of the agriculture committee for two farm bills, we work things out. i'm sure there were things in

the farm bill that the senator from kansas didn't like and there were things in there that i didn't like even though i was chairman. but you work these things out, you compromise and you get things done. 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 need to change -- i don't know if i adequately responded to my friend from tennessee, but these were just my thoughts at the end and i'm looking forward to other comments from senators and engaging in other kolees and i -- colloquies and i promise i won't take so long. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kansas. mr. roberts: mr. president, i understand that we're in a parliamentary situation where there is a colloquy and i don't know whether the senator -- senator alexander is yielding the time to me --

mr. alexander: we don't have a colloquy, we have a sort of informal understanding and i believe the senator from kansas has the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from kansas does have the floor. mr. roberts: mr. president, thank you. and thank you to my colleagues for their pertinent and very necessary remarks, as we -- as we go forward with this. as a matter of fact, the senator from iowa said that -- that in the past that he had entered into a -- a colloquy with his colleagues on our side of the aisle in the past where they even wandered over into each other's pasture. so i'm going to put down the microphone for a moment. i'll speak from right here in

this gesture of bipartisanship to jump the fences of partisanship and these tactics that we are debating on how we can improve the senate. i know we've heard a lot of talk about robert c. byrd, a very beloved individual and i know the acting presiding officer is very close to the former senator. but at any rate it was the last time that bob byrd spoke publicly either on the senate or in committee when he rose to the occasion and a very -- in a very passionate way and the chairman, of course, chuck schumer, the senator from new york, with great deference recognized senator. we were all on the edge of our chairs, as i recall that, and the senator from tennessee has

already gone over what senator byrd said at that time and previously to that 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 i had been in the house 16 years and thought i knew something and he recognized that fact and -- but he talked to us in all -- and all of the freshmen at this particular time, or the new members. the keeper of the institutional flame was the tag i put on senator byrd and my wife, frankie, and i became very close friends of the searchl senator. he was very fond of frankie and sort of put up with me. but at any rate -- and he recounted that story that you attributed to jefferson and to washington, but i think it was really more attributable to robert c. byrd because he would tell every incoming house that the role of the house, the people's house and that perhaps

what happened when they put the coffeepot on in regards to legislation, that that coffee was so hot that it would boil over and that it was the senate's duty to act as the saucer, if you will, as the folks did back in west virginia and earlier days or kansas or iowa or tennessee or texas, that they would pour the coffee out of the saucer and let it cool or so you could eat it or the legislation would past and you'd said to me just a little while ago that the problem was that you didn't think it was really necessary to throw the coffeepot out the window. so you ended up with no legislation. well, the problem is that sometimes on our side, maybe we want coffee, maybe we want tea. maybe we want to start over. and i think the senator from tennessee basically hit the nail on the head here with three. my goodness, if we're going to talk about getting things done or not getting things done, but when there are three massive

things that have happened in regards to legislation -- when say massive, they are so comprehensive, so overwhelming that we're now just learning what they're about. the financial regulatory reform, the health care act and the stimulus. now, the health care act -- i just have a personal feeling about that in that i have 11 amendments all on rationing, all, by the way, worried about the confirmation that didn't happen in regards to dr. donald c. berwick, who is the head of c.m.s., the head of medicare and medicaid services and we plan to ask a lot of questions about the doctor and the statements he made in the past, obviously that confirmation did not happen and he was a recess appointment. that's something i think we ought to deal with as well. but i had 11 amendments all on rationing. there it was 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 them en bloc.

i had about a minute or two to explain each amendment. they were voted down automatically, it was on a party line vote. and by the time we got to 12:30 or 1:00 on my amendments, there were a lot of people that, you know, you simply hand over your vote to somebody else and they will vote you in regards to the fact that you're absence, they had a lot of proxies, so there weren't too many in the room. but i noticed that senator schumer was in the room, so i stuck one of his bills that didn't make it, along with my two -- or my additional bill, and it was defeated on a party line vote. and then i said, well, how over earth do we get this problem of rationing in my mind. it didn't happen and i let senator schumer know that we had 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. i'm not as upset about that as some people are because i think that we can really get to the proper kind of debate. i finally had only one other recourse that was to go to the reconciliation process, which i know you know that that was not going to be successful, but we had three -- i had three votes and -- all were defeated and that's when everybody was milling about. by the way, robert c. byrd, would not permit that at all. he would call for regular order and that would happen. there i'm stuck in regards to my

main concerns about the health care bill were not allowed as far as i was concerned on the floor of the senate. and that has happened a lot. i'm not goin going to go into te quotes by senator byrd that has already been done by senator alexander, but i would like to quote senator dodd and his valedictroy speech, the history of this young democracy should not be written solely in the hand of the majority, this is not just about the filibuster, what will determine whether this institution works or not is whertdz each of the 100 senators can -- whether each of the 100 senators can work together. how can we do that? here's a classic example, right before christmas, we were going right up to the end, and there were several bills that the majority wanted to pass without allowing the minority and the american people to debate or amend them. so the tree was filled, and

that's the legislative language to say, i'm sorry, but we're going to cut off debate 98 times in the 110th congress that that happened. they -- the moment the question was raised on the floor before a debate was even allowed to take place so on one hand you can talk about filibusters, the other hand is filling the tree or not allowing members to offer amendments. the senator from tennessee offered the classic example. let's go back here just a few days ago when we were right before christmas and the dream act was a house bill that i know that the senate leadership here wanted to pass it. never had a legislative hearing in the house. never had a markup in the house. it's very -- various senate versions have never had a hearing. a senate version of the dream act had not had a markup since 2003, and some the dream act act

a controversial measure with very passionate -- i believe on both sides of the aisle -- and within the parties as well -- had not had an amendment offered to it in either the house of congress -- in either houses of congress either of the committees or on the floor. now, some may believe that the dream act is perfect or certainly is the best bill possible and would not need any amendments to improve it. but obviously our constituents don't feel that way and it's a very controversial bill. but instead of addressing their concerns, the majority shut down debate and amendments and in the process shut down the rights of americans to be heard as a result the minority refused to end debate and obviously there was a filibuster. so it would be interesting to know the 275 times that bills have been filibustered what was being filibustered.

and in this particular case i think we did it the wrong way. but how about this, and this gets to my question, contrast this with the approach taken on the 9/11 bill, which the majority sought to pass just a few days later. the goal of providing help to the victims of 9/11 is one that members of both parties shared, but senate republicans noted that that particular version of the bill that the senate democrats supported was problematic in regards to how much money we were spending and certainly could need improvement. so we insisted on having our concerns addressed. most of them were addressed with a revised bill on which i did provide input. that bill passed the senate by unanimous consent and even the proponents of the original legislation would admit that the final bill is a better one and now enjoys broader support due to the minority's input. so what i think the majority needs to do is involve the

minority like it did on the 9/11 bill, not shut us out, not shut us down like it did on the dream act and other acts. and that would really present the case -- and the question i have to you, if that happened -- if you wouldn't fill the tree, i think possibly 75%, 80% of the filibusters would probably go away there are some that would like to filibuster anything, i know. but it gets back to what you said on why we're here. it's important to pass legislation. it's important, i know, to do that. but it's equally important to prevent bad legislation from passing or if you have an alternative that you would like to offer and at least have that, you know, that ability. in the last two years that process has simply broken down. why not -- why can't we work together, because that's what senator dodd said. he'd said whether each of the 100 senators could work together. that's what the question is about filibusters. we can stop this business of

secret hodes. it seems to -- holds. it seems to me we could have a timely pace on nominations. it seems to me we could end the recess appointments where people who should be confirmed have to go through the confirmation process instead of parachuting somebody in who is very controversial and now we have over 100,000 regulations pouring out of the department of health and human services, our entire health care providers throughout the nation, iowa, tennessee, kansas, wherever are wondering, what on earth is happening? when i go home, i don't get the question of why a bill didn't pass or not, i get the question of, what on earth are you guys doing back there passing all the legislation with all of the regulatory stuff that i have to put up with and et cetera, et cetera. as a matter of fact when they pose that question, i say i'm not a you guy, i'm an us guy. so then we have a debate. but usually it's the debate that should have taken place on the floor of the senate but we were not able to do so.

so i guess the question i have for the distinguished senator from iowa, and i appreciate his reference to our work in previous farm bills, we were able to work it out. sometimes it gave -- it was very contentious and sometimes a farm bill would come to the floor and it would take a week and a half and then we'd have an appropriation bill and the appropriators would think they could rewrite the farm bill and take another week and a half. but we did it. we worked through it. nobody just filled the tree and said, i'm sorry, you can't have that amendment. i'm making a speech instead of asking a question. i podle for that -- apologize for that. i'm in agreet on secret holds, i do think we should go through the regular confirmation process. but i do feel as the senator from tennessee has put out, once you get on the business of ending the filibuster or going down the number of requisite votes you're on a slippery sides. so i will stop at this point and

ask the senator from iowa if he has any comments. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i thank my friend from kansas. i think he makes some good points. i would say to my friend, i think we ought to go through processes in our committees to have hearings on nominees to flesh out things like that. so to that extent, the senator from kansas is right. we shouldn't have -- especially if there is any controversy at all, i suppose some of them are noncontroversial, but if there is some controversy out there, i think the committees ought to have the responsibility to bring them forward, let the committees question them. we did that in our "help" committee, i say to my friend from kansas. i'm trying to remember the person that we had. oh, a lot of controversy about about -- craig becker i think was his name. craig becker was going to the

nlrb. mr. roberts: if the senator will yield, you're exactly right. i'm on the "help" committee, as you may recall. i was trying to get one amendment to say that we would prohibit the use of -- of rationing to achieve cost containment, and it was involved in several of the commission that is have been in the bill. i regret that that bill really didn't sort of -- sort of sat somewhere and collected dust. we never got a score. i thought it was, quite frankly, a better bill than the one in the finance committee. you recognized me, and hi an opportunity to offer some amendments. at least there was some debate, and i think it was a much more bipartisan effort. so i give the -- mr. harkin: if it was out of our committee, obviously it was a better bill than the finance committee. but i say to my friend, again, that -- mr. roberts: i will be

quiet and just listen to you. mr. harkin: you know, i would say to my friend, in listening to my friend from kansas say this, it occurred to me that -- that certain of his amendments were allowed. you were allowed to debate them and offer them, but they weren't adopted. it seems to me that, as i've said before, the right of the minority ought to be to offer amendments, to have them considered, to have them voted on, but it does not mean that it's the right of the minority to win every time on those amendments. and i say to my friend on that financial services bill, i had an amendment, too, and i couldn't get it in. i was on the majority side, and they wouldn't let me offer one either. so these are things i think that where both sides have some legitimate points. i also say to my friend from kansas and others that we can get into this tit for tat, who started it. you know, we have got to -- i

think we have got to kind of quit that. i can come back and say well, yes, in the last two years, the tree was filled 44 times, but there were -- in the last session, 44 times the tree was filled, but there were 136 filibusters. why wouldn't there be 44 filibusters? why were there 136? we can get in the tit for tat, who did what to whom? i would like to just forget about all that. because we can go back probably to the 18th century of tit for tat, who did what to whom at some point in time. i just -- does my friend -- i ask my friend, does my friend from kansas, who has been here a long time, served together in the house. my friend was chairman of the agriculture committee in the house. we have done a lot of legislation together. does my friend from kansas feel that the senate is operating today in -- in the best possible way? does my friend from kansas believe that there could be some things done to make the senate operate a little bit more openly

and fairly, with rights for the minority to be protected but without letting the minority -- and i don't mean republicans. when i say minority, i mean whoever happens to be in the minority -- to keep the minority from obstructing? does my friend feel there could be some changes made? mr. roberts: well, i will just answer the question, no, i don't think that we're doing the job that we could do and we should do better, and i stand ready to work with all concerned to see if we could do that, but my time is up and i'm going to ask to be -- i'm going to cease here and allow the senator from texas. the presiding officer: the senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: may i inquire how much more time is left on our side? the presiding officer: three and a half minutes. mr. cornyn: madam president, i will ask unanimous consent with the indulgence of my colleagues, to allow me to speak for up to ten minutes. i will probably speak for five minutes or so unless i get particularly wound up which could take ten minutes. but i would ask unanimous consent for an additional ten

minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: i thank the chair. madam president, i think we are playing with fire when we talk about amending the senate rules. all of us have been here for different periods of time. i have been here for eight years, which actually sounds like a long time, but in the life of the senate is not very long at all, in an institution that's existed for more than 200 years, and i have been here when our side was in the majority. as a matter of fact, we had the white house, we had both houses of congress, and i have been here when we have had president obama in the white house and democrats control both houses of congress, and i can tell you unequivocally, it's a whole lot more fun to be here when you're in the majority, but there are certain temptations that the majority has which i think are

exacerbated when, for example, during most of the last two years when one party or the other has the ability in the senate to basically pass legislation by essentially a party-line vote. in other words, as i recall, on that morning at 7:00 a.m. on christmas eve a year ago when the vote on the health care bill came up where 60 -- all 60 democrats voted for the bill and no republicans voted for the bill, my point being the temptation is when you have such a large majority, 60 or more, there is a huge temptation on both parties, not just the democrats. republicans, i'm sure, would be tempted as well to try to go it alone. and thus, i think it -- it detracts from what is one of the great strengths of this institution, which is that this institution's rules force

consensus, or unless there is not consensus, then things don't happen. and we are thus the sauce they're cools the tea from the cup and all the various analogies that we have heard. but the important thing is not how this affects us as individual senators. this is not just an abstract discussion about the rules. this is about what's in the best interests of a country of more than 300 million people, and any time, i would submit, where one party or the other is not only tempted but yields to that temptation, to go it alone, to try to push legislation through without achieving that consensus, i think it hurts the institution and i think it provokes a backlash as much as we saw on november 2, because the american people understand that checks and balances are important, and when they didn't -- we didn't have checks and balances, either through the

self-restraint of the majority or through recognizing the rights of the minority to offer amendments, to have debates, to contribute to the legislation, then the american people are going to fix that by changing the balance of power as they did on november 2. here again, i don't want to be misunderstood as making a partisan argument. i think republicans would be just as tempted as democrats to do the same thing, but i think that's where we have to show self-restraint and where if we do not show self-restraint, then the american people will change the balance of power and establish those checks and balances. here again, i -- i think for most people who are listening, if there is anyone listening out there on c-span or elsewhere to this debate, this should not be about us. this should not be about the arcania of these rules. this 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 achieve that consensus and thus achieves broad support by the american people, because any time, again, we try to yield or we do yield to the temptation to go it alone, to do things on a partisan basis, i think it will ultimately provoke the kind of backlash we've seen over the health care bill, just to mention one example. and this is not a small thing. i have the honor of representing 25 million people in the senate, and i -- this isn't just about my rights as an individual senator or even the minority's rights. this is about their rights, their right to be heard through an adequate time for debate, their right to have an opportunity to change or amend legislation and then to have a chance to have it voted on, and i understand the frustration of -- of our colleagues when the

majority leader, due to his right of prior recognition, he could get the floor, he can put something on the senate calendar that hasn't gone through a committee markup and that sort of due process and fair opportunity for amendment and participation, and then, again, if he's got 60 votes on his side to be able to push it through, then deny us any opportunity to offer amendments, much less to have a full debate on these important issues, and i think our country suffers from that. i think -- i think the american people suffer when we are denied on their behalf an opportunity to have a fulsome debate and to offer amendments. so i hope that -- i don't doubt the good faith of our colleagues who are offering some of these propositions. there are even some of them that i find somewhat attractive, the idea of secret holds, for example. i think if there ever was a time

for that, that time is long past gone. but i know we're not going to agree on everything, but we ought to at least have an opportunity for everyone to be heard and for people -- for individual senators' rights to be respected, not because they are senators but because they represent a large segment of the american people, and it's their rights that are impinged when the majority leader, for whatever reason, decides to deny a senator a right to offer an amendment and a right to have a fulsome debate on the amendment in the interest of getting legislation passed but although there may be, as senator reid said this morning, the 111th congress has to go down in history as being one of the most productive congresses at the same time he complained about republicans filibustering legislation. there seems to be an inhairnt contradiction there. -- inherent contradiction there.

i suggest the explanation for that is our friends on the other side have had such a large supermajority, they have been able to muster the 60 votes and go it alone. again, i think that's yielding to a temptation that everyone would understand and the american people have now since corrected that as a result of the november 2 election. so i would suggest in closing, madam president, to all of our friends on both sides of the aisle -- again, i recognize the sincerity of those who have offered these proposals, but i would suggest there is not a -- a -- there is not a malfunction malfunction -- or should i say the rules themselves are not broken, but the rules contemplate that there will not -- the rules will not be abused, and i think the temptation to abusive those rules by going it alone is understandable but something that needs to be avoided, and i think the election now since we are more evenly divided so nobody will be able to get to 60 votes unless there is a

bipartisan consensus to the extent that 60 votes are needed, that the american people have since sort of fixed the problem that some of our colleagues have perceived. so i thank -- i thank the chair and i would -- a senator: yield for a question. mr. cornyn: i would be happy to yield for a question. mr. harkin: i thank my friend from texas. he and i have worked together on some legislation in the past, too. he is a thoughtful senator and a good legislator. i just ask my friend from texas this. just in listening to him, i -- i almost had the feeling that my friend from texas is saying that we ought to have a supermajority to pass anything. that we should have 60 votes in order to pass anything. i ask my friend is -- is that what my friend really means or implies, that everything should have 60 votes before it can go through here? is that what my friend is suggesting? mr. cornyn: well, i appreciate the question from my friend, the senator from iowa. that's not what i'm suggesting, but i do think we need to have a process which allows for an

opportunity for amendments and debates, and if we don't have a process requiring a threshold of 60 votes, the temptation is going to be again for the majority leader to -- to deny opportunity for amendments, constrict the time allowed for an amendment by -- or for debate by filing cloture, and we're going to see things shooting through here that have not had an adequate opportunity for deliberation. you know, we -- this institution has famously been called the world's greatest deliberative body, but i dare say we haven't demonstrated that in recent memory. and i -- again, i think as the senator from tennessee and others have observed, this isn't a problem with the rules. this is the way the rules have actually been implemented, and i think we have learned an important lesson from this and one that i hope will -- will help us respect the rights of all senators, whether they be in the majority or minority, to offer amendments and to debate

these amendments. not because they are about our rights but they are about the rights, for example, of the 25 million people i represent. they have the right to be heard. they have a right to have any suggestions or improvements to legislation be considered. that's all i'm saying. mr. harkin: if my friend would yield further? again, this senator, i -- i -- i have put in my resolution there is a -- a -- a guarantee that the minority has the right to offer amendments. absolute guarantee. and as i sas something i have learned since 1995, and i think i'm very sympathetic to that argument, that people are cut off from offering amendments. i know that's happened to me, even in the majority sometimes. so i believe there ought to be the right for a minority -- and i always hasten to add, when i say minority, i'm not saying republicans, i'm saying the minority -- it may be us pretty soon, and goes back and forth, as my friend knows -- there's

got to be a right for the minority to be able to offer amendments, to have their voice heard. as the senator says, to represent the people of our states adequately. but i ask my friend again, should -- what happens when you have one or two or three or four senators who really don't want to see a bill passed in any form? some bill, just take any bill, that maybe has been worked on by both republicans and democrats, has broad bipartisan support, maybe to the tune of maybe even 70 or so senators, but there's one or two or three senators that don't want to it pass anyway, and they are able to gridlock the place under the -- under the rule 22? i know the senator talked about exercising self-restraint but i say that that's fine, but what if you have that situation where you have two or three senators saying i don't care how many people -- how many senators are

on it, i don't want it to move and they -- they invoke their rights under rule 22? i mean, how do we -- how do we get over that hurdle? mr. cornyn: madam president, i would say to my friend that our -- the people who've come before us thought the consensus -- achieving consensus was good, not unanimity. perhaps recognizing it's impossible to get a hundred senators to agree. so i would say to my friend that i sometime am as frustrated as he is when one or two or three or four senators say we're going to force this to a closure vote or -- because we're just not going to agree. and i just think that's frustrating to all of us, depending on who's -- you know, which foot the shoe so, but i would say that's a small price to pay, that frustration, to insist on assuring the rights of the minority, again, not because of an individual senator, because we are all that

important, it's because of the rights of our constituents who we represent are so important and because it's important we get it right. because there's nobody else after we get through that gets to vote on this. it becomes the law of the land. and unless it's unconstitution unconstitutional, not even the supreme court of the united states can set it aside. so it's very important we get it right. i'm just saying we need to take the time necessary and i think that's what the rules are designed to provide for. i thank the chair and yield the floor. mr. harkin: madam president, just one -- if my friend would indulge, madam president, just one more. so it is not the position of my friend from texas that everything needs 60 votes in which to move in the senate, is that -- is that correct? mr. cornyn: well, madam president, i would say there are a long list of bills that pass on a regular basis by unanimous consent and, you know, it's like the -- we're almost focused on the exception rather than the rule. there are many times, a lot of

times -- i can't quantify it -- where legislation will pass by unanimous consent because it has gone through the committees, people have had an opportunity to offer amendments there, both sides have had an opportunity to contribute to it and then it passes really without objection. again, i don't -- i can't quantify that but the ones we seem to be focused on are the ones that seem to be more or less the exception to the rule, where there are genuine disagreements, when there are -- is a need to have a more fullsome debate and the opportunity for amendments. so i think the current rules serve the interests of our constituents and the american people well. i thank the chair and i thank my colleague. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, senator udall and senator merkley have waited a great length of time in order to make their remarks. i just wanted to propound a unanimous consent request at this time. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. wyden: madam president, at this point, senator udall would

be the next speaker, there would be a republican who would speak next, and i'm very hopeful that that will be senator grassley, because he and i have been partners for almost 14 years in this effort to force the united states senate to do public business in public and get rid of these secret holds. so after senator udall, there would be senator grassley. after senator grassley, there would be my friend and colleag colleague, senator merkley, who would speak. at that time, there would be a republican who would be next in the queue to speak. and so my unanimous consent request, madam 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 holds once and for all,

including the distinguished president from missouri, to have up to 30 minutes for a colloquy on this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds. the presiding officer: are there any time limits on the u.c. motions for any senators other than the 30 minutes designated for the cosponsors of the secret hold legislation? a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. a senator: madam president, the -- mr. udall: madam president, in addition to his u.c., we have myself at 15 minutes, senator merkley for 15, and i believe senator wyden has asked for 30 and then to accommodate the republicans, our u.c. would say if there is a republican seeking recognition, that we alternate between the two sides and they be under the same time limitations as listed above. so senator alexander, you can see i would speak for 15, then you would have a block of 15, senator merkley, and -- and then

it would go to 30 for senator wyden. mr. wyden: after senator merkley, there would be another republican who would be in a position to speak for 15 minutes and at that point, under the unanimous consent request, we would be able to discuss this bipartisan effort to eliminate secret holds for up to 30 minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: no objection. mr. harkin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i wonder if the senator would mind a slight modification to that. one of the things that i thought we were kind of getting in here today was kind of colloquies where we could ask a question and have a response in a reasonable manner. i would ask to modify the unanimous consent to say that any colloquies entered into, that -- that questions that are propounded to a senator through the chair not be detracted from the time allotted to that senator. mr. wyden: i'm very open to that. i think it's an excellent

suggestion. senator udall, senator merkley? mr. udall: i very much agree with that and i've been sitting here following the debate and i think senator alexander, among others, has propounded some very good questions. i actually have another question that i was going to ask on top of his question of what is a filibuster. so i'm looking forward to that portion of it. and senator harkin, thank you very much for that. mr. wyden: i think senator harkin has made an excellent suggestion. unless senator alexander or anyone on the other side has a problem with that, let us modify the u.c. that i made to incorporate senator harkin's suggestion. unless my colleagues on the other side have an objection to that. mr. alexander: no objection. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. madam president, i -- i submit on behalf of myself and senators harkin, merkley, durbin, klobuchar, brown, begich,

blumenthal, gillibrand, shaheen, boxer, tester, cardin, mikulski, warner, and manchin a resolution to amend rule 8 and rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate. and i ask consent to proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: reserving the right to object. madam president, i've had a number of discussions with the senator from new mexico and the senator from oregon. i respect their proposals and will have more to say about them but i think since they've waited such a long time to make their presentations, that i'll -- i'll merely state my objection now and have more to say later. so i object. the presiding officer: the objection being heard, the resolution will go over under the rule.

mr. udall: and let me, madam president, just inquire -- inquire through the parliamentarian, it's my understanding that by objecting to this resolution, immediate consideration, the result of that is the resolution will go over under the rule, allowing it to be available to be brought up at a future time; is that correct, is that understanding correct? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. udall: great. thank you very much. i rise today to introduce the resolution that i just mentioned, and i've worked very hard with all of my colleagues, including my two colleagues from iowa and oregon, senators harkin and merkley, to reform the rules of this unique and prestigious body. i do so after coming to the floor last january, january 25, in fact, now almost one year a ago, to issue a warning, a warning because of partisan

rancor and the senate's own incapacitating rules, this body was failing to represent the best interests of the american people. the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster, of secret holds and of other procedural tactics routinely prevents the senate from getting its work done. it prevents us from doing the job the american people sent us here to do. since that day in january, things haven't gotten better. in fact, i would say they've gotten worse, much worse. here in the senate, open and honest debate has been replaced with secret backroom deals and partisan gridlock, up-or-down votes on important issues have been unreasonably delayed and blocked entirely at the whim of a single senator. last year, for example, one

committee had almost every piece of legislation held up by holds from one senator. the senate is broken. in the congress that just ended, because of rampant and growing obstruction, not a single appropriations bill was passed. there wasn't a budget bill, only one authorization bill was approved, and that was only done at the very last minute. more than 400 bills on a variety of important issues were sent over from the house. not a single one was acted upon. key judicial nominations and executive appointments continue to languish. the american people are fed up with it. they are fed up with us and i don't blame them. we need to bring the workings of the senate out of the shadows and restore its accountability.

that begins with addressing our own dysfunction. specifically, the source of that dysfunction, the senate rules. last year, the senate rules committee took a hard look at how our rules have become so abused and how this chamber no longer functions as our founders intended. i applaud chairman schumer and his excellent staff for devoting so much time to this important issue, and i know that senator alexander and earlier senator roberts, we have some very good republican colleagues on the committee and we've had some good exchanges. they know we had six hearings and heard from some of the most respected experts in the field. but these hearings demonstrated that the rules are not broken for one party or for only the majority. today the democrats l lament the

abuse of the filibuster and the republicans complain that they are not allowed to offer amendments to legislation. five years ago, those roles were reversed. rather than continue on this destructive path, we should adopt rules that allow a majority to act while protecting the minority's right to be heard. whichever party is in the majority, they must be able to do the people's business. and i think, senator harkin, that is what you spoke so persuasively to in your comments on the filibuster is the majority has to be able to govern. and the way the filibuster is being used, the minority thwar thwarts -- the minority thwarts the majority's ability to govern. at a hearing in september, i testified before the committee about my procedural plan for amending the senate rules, the constitutional option. unlike the specific changes to the rules proposed by other senators and experts, my

proposal is to make the senate of each congress accountable for all of our rules. this is what the constitution provides for and it's what our founders intended. rule 22 is the most obvious example of need for reform. last amendmented in 1975 -- last amended in 1975, rule 22 demonstrates what happens when the members have no ability to amend the rules that were adopted long ago, rules that get abused. it bears remeet pao*eting -- repeating, of the 100 members of the senate, only two of us had the opportunity to vote on the cloture requirement in rule 22. senators inouye and leahy. so if 98 of us haven't voted on the rule, what's the effect in well, the effect is that we're not held accountable when the

rule gets abused. and with a requirement of 67 votes for any rule change, that's a whole lot of power without restraint. but we can change this. we can restore accountability to the senate. many of my colleagues as well as constitutional scholars agree with me that a simple majority of the senate can end debate -- first step, end debate on a rules change and adopt its rules at the beginning of a new congress. critics of my position argue that the rules can only be changed in accordance with the current rules and that rule 22 requires two-thirds of senators present and voting to agree to end debate on a change to the senate rules. since this rule was first adopted in 1917, members of both parties have rejected this argument on many occasions. in fact, advisory rulings by

vice presidents nixon, humphrey and rockefeller sitting as the presidents of the senate have stated that a senate at the beginning of a congress is not bound by the cloture requirement imposed by a previous senate. they went on to say that each new senate may end debate on a proposal to adopt or amend standing rules by a majority vote. and that bears repeating: by a majority vote, cloture and amendment, majority vote. even in today's more partisan environment, i hope my colleagues will extend us the same courtesy, and our constitutional rights will be protected as we continue to debate the various rules, reform proposals at the beginning of this congress. in 2005, senator hatch, someone

who understands constitutional issues perhaps better than any other member of this chamber, wrote the following -- and i quote -- "the compelling conclusion is that before the senate readopts rule 22 by abg questions sense, a -- by acquiescence, a simple majority can invoke cloture and adopt a rules change. this is the base seus for president's -- basis for president nixon's decision in 1977 as he outlined the rules derived from the constitution itself and cannot be restricted by rules adopted by a majority of the senate in a previous congress. so it is clear that the senate at the beginning of a new congress can invoke cloture and amend its rules by a simple majority s." end quote.

that entire quote was by senator hatch. as senator alexander knows, many years here as the chairman of the judiciary committee; a very powerful quote, i think. this is the basis for introducing our resolution taofpltd -- today. just as reforms have done in the 1950's, 1960's and 1970's and which is why i'm here today to make clear i'm not acquiescing to rule 22 adopted by the senate over 35 years ago. that senate tried to tie the hands of all future senates by leaving the requirement in rule 22 for two-thirds of the senate to vote to end a filibuster on a rules change. but this is not what our founders intended. article 1, section 5, of the

constitution clearly states that each house may determine the rules of its proceedings. there is no requirement for a supermajority to adopt our rules, and the constitution makes it very clear when a supermajority is required to act. therefore, any rule that prevents a majority in future senates from being able to change or amend rules adopted in the past is unconstitutional. the fact that we are bound by a supermajority requirement that was first established 93 years ago also violates the common law principle that one legislature cannot bind its successors. this principle goes back hundreds of years and has been upheld by the supreme court on numerous occasions. this is not a radical concept. the constitutional option has a history dating back to 1917 and

has been a catalyst for bipartisan rules reform several times since then. the constitutional option is our chance to fix rules that are being abused, rules that have encouraged obstruction like none ever seen before in this chamber. and amending our rules will not, as some have contended, make the senate no different than the house. while many conservatives claim the democrats are trying to abolish the filibuster, our resolution maintains the rule but addresses its abuse. but more importantly, the filibuster was never part of the original senate. the founders made this body distinct from the house in many ways, but the filibuster is not one of them. so here we are today on the first day of a new congress offering a resolution to reform the senate rules. we don't intend to force a vote today. in fact, we hope that we can

return from the break and spend some time on the floor debating our resolution, considering amendments to make it better, debating our resolutions. this should not be a partisan exercise, and i think almost every one of us that has spoken today has said that. this should not be a partisan exercise. we know both sides have abused the rules. now it's time for us to work together to fix them. but we believe the senate of the 112th congress has two paths to choose from. there's the first path: we do nothing and just hope that the spirit of bipartisanship and deliberation returns. the truth is we've been on this path for awhile now, and i think the results are pretty clear. or we could take a second path. we could take a good, hard look at our rules, how they incentivize obstructionism, how

they inhibit rather than promote debate and how they prevent bipartisan cooperation. and then we should implement commonsense reforms to meet these challenges, reforms that will restore the uniquely deliberative nature of this body while also allowing it to function more efficiently. i contend that we not only should but have a duty to choose the second path. we owe it to the american people and to the future of this institution we all serve. the reform resolution that we introduce today is our attempt at the second path. it contains five reforms that should garner broad bipartisan support if we can act for the good of the country and not of the good of our parties. the first two provisions in our resolution addresses the debate on motions to proceed in secret holds.

making the motion to proceed nondebatable has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds. i was privileged to be here for senator byrd's final rules committee hearing where he stated "i have proposed a variety of improvements" -- this is a quote. "a variety of improvements to senate rules to achieve a more sensible balance, allowing the majority to function while still protecting minority rights. for example, i have supported eliminating debate on the motion to proceed to a matter or eliminating debate to a reasonable time on such motions." end quote, robert bird. in january 1979, senator byrd, then majority leader, took to the senate floor and said unlimited debate on a motion to proceed -- quote -- "makes the majority leader and the majority

party the subject of the minority, subject to the control and will of the minority." end quote, senator byrd. despite the moderate change that senator byrd proposed limiting debate on a motion to proceed to 30 minutes, it did not have the necessary 67 votes to overcome a filibuster. at the time senator byrd argued that a new senate should not be bound by that rule, stating -- quote -- "the constitution in article 1, section 5, says that each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings. now we're at the beginning of congress. this congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. end quote. the presiding officer: the senator's time is expired. mr. udall: thank you, madam chair. madam khaeurbgs i would ask for another two minutes and also recognizing on the republican side to wrap up here.

the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, two minutes. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. efforts to reform the motion to proceed have continued since, and in 1984 a bipartisan study group on senate practices and procedures recommended placing a two-hour limit on debate of a motion to proceed. that recommendation was ignored. a joint committee of organization of the congress in 1993 made this same recommendation, and my predecessor, senator domenici, a longtime republican here, who senator alexander knows supported that. the third provision in the resolution included is based on the comments of the republicans at last year's rules committee. each time democrats complained about filibusters on motion to proceeds, republicans responded it was their own recourse because the majority leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering

amendments. our resolution provides a seufrp solution. it -- a simple solution. it guarantees the minority the right to offer their amendments. the fourth provision in the bill which senator merkley is going to cover extensively, that is the talking filibuster. we want to replace a silent filibuster with a talking filibuster. finally, our resolution reduces the postcloture time on nominations from 30 hours to 1. postcloture time is meant for tk-blgt and voting -- debating and voting on amendments, something not possible with nominations. with that, madam khaeurbgs i would sum up here and say reform is badly needed. we have a responsibility to the constitution, to the american people to come together and fix the senate. we were sent to washington to tackle the nation's problems, but we find that the biggest problem to tackle itself is

the -- the biggest problem to tackle is washington itself. and with that, would ask unanimous consent to put my full comments in the record, put several editorials on the filibuster that have appeared in "the washington post," an op-ed piece in "the new york times" by walter mondale. i know my colleague, amy klobuchar, is haoefrplt senator mondale -- is here. senator mondale, very distinguished former vice president, leader of the senate, wrote a piece in "the new york times," and would ask those items be included in the record. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: madam president, my colleagues as well as any of the public watching the debate today knows that there's a great partisan divide thus far. senator wyden has already

referred to the motion that he and i are putting before the senate, and senator wyden being the democrat and my being a republican, and we're joined also by senator mccaskill, the presiding officer right now, as well as senator collins in this effort, it is the only bipartisan issue before the senate this particular day. and i emphasize that because i think the public ought to know that not everything in the senate is partisan. senator wyden and i have been chipping away at the informal backroom process known as -- quote, unquote -- secret hold in the senate. we've been working on this for well over ten years. so it shouldn't surprise anyone that we're back again at the start of another congress joined as i said by senator mccaskill of missouri who was very helpful in our pushing this issue to the

forefront at the end of the last congress. as i said, i'm also pleased that we have senator collins on board again. there's been a lot of talk lately about the possibility of far-reaching reforms to how the senate does business that have been hastily conceived and should shift the tradition balance, the traditional balance between the rights of the majority and rights of the minority parties. now, in contrast, our resolution by senator wyden and this senator is neither of those two things. in other words, it does not shift any balance between the majority and the minority. this resolution is well-thought-out. bipartisan reform effort that has been the subject of two committee hearings and numerous careful revisions over several years. in no way does it alter the balance of power between the

minority and majority parties, nor does it change any rights of any individual senator. this is simply about transparency and with transparency i think you get a great deal of accountability. i want to be very clear that i fully support the fundamental right of any individual senator to withhold his consent when unanimous consent is requested. in the old days, when senators conducted much of their daily business from their desk on the senate floor and were on the senate floor for most of the d day, it was quite a simple matter for any senator at that time to stand up and say, "i object" when necessary, if they really objected to a unanimous consent request. and that was it. that stopped it. now since most senators spend most of their time off the

senate floor because of the obligations for committee hearings, the obligations for meeting with constituents, and a lot of other obligations that we have, we now tend to rely upon our majority leader, in the case of the democrats, or the minority leader in the case of the preens, to protect our rights and -- in the case of the republicans, to protect our rights and privileges by asking those leaders or their substitutes to object on our behalf. just as any senator has the right to stand up on the senate floor and publicly say "i object," it is perfectly throght ask another senator to object on our behalf if he cannot make it to the floor when unanimous consent is requested. by the same token, senators have no inherent right to have others object on their behalf while at the same time keeping their identity secret, thus shielding

their legislative actions from the public, because that's not transparency, and that's obviously not accountable. -- being accountable. so, what i object to is not the use of the word "holds" or the process of holding up something in the senate, but i object to what is called secret holds, so the adjective "secret" is what we're fighting here. if a senate then has a legitimate reason to object to proceedings to a bill or nominee, then he or she ought to have the guts to do so publicly. a senator may object because he does not agree to the substance of a bill and, therefore, cannot in good conscience grant consent or because a senator has not had adequate opportunity to review the matter at hand. regardless, we should have no fear of being held accountable

by our constituents if we're acting in their interests, as we're elected to do.