announcing my holds for many, many years, and it hasn't hurt one bit. in fact, some of the senators that are most conscientious about protecting their prerogatives to review legislation before granting consent to its consideration or passage are also quite public about it. in short, there is no legitimate reason for any senator to ever have to, if they place a hold to have that hold be secret. so, how does our proposal achieve transparency and the resultant accountability? in our proposed standing order for the majority or minority leader to recognize a hold, the senator placing the hold must get a statement in the record within one session day and must give permission to their leader at the time they place the hold

to object in their name, not in the name of the leader. since the leader will automatically have permission to name the senator on whose behalf they're objecting, there will no longer be any expectation or pressure on the leader to keep the hold secret. further, if a senator objects to a unanimous consent request and does not name another senator as having the objection, then the objecting senator will be listed as having the hold. this will end entirely, once and for all, the situation where one senator objects but is able to remain very, very coy about whether it is their own objection or some unnamed senator. all objections will have to be owned up to. again, our proposal protects the rights of individual senators to

withhold their consent while ensuring transparency and public accountability. and, you know, here in the congress as well as almost anythingplace in the federal government, except maybe national security issues, the public's business always ought to be public, and the people that are involved in the public's business ought to stand behind their actions. as i have repeatedly said, the senate's business ought to be done more in the public than it is, and most of it is public. but this secret hold puts a mystery about things going on in washington that hurts the credibility of the institution. this principle of accountability and transparency, this is a principle that i think the vast majority, if not all, jurors can get behind and i think the time has come for this simple,

commonsense reform. i yield the floor and if under the u.c. it is permissible to retain the balance of our time, i'll do that. thank you. i yield the floor. mr. merkley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mering america i ask unanimous consent for katie fann to have privileges on the floor for the remain defort day. the presiding officer: officer without objection. mr. merkley: madam president, the united states senate is broken. during the course of my first two years in this body, there has been only a couple serious debates in this chamber. the first one happened just a couple weeks ago, and that was an impeachment trial of a judge. now, the magic began because the cameras were turned off, and so senators were not speaking to the camera; they were speaking

to each other. and, second, they were roird to be here on the floor -- they were required to be here on the floor, so they were actually required to listen to each other. after all the evidence had been presented, senators started to engage back and forth about their interpretations of the evidence, about the standards that would constitute grounds for conviction, and you would not have been able to tell who was republican or who was a democrat. we had a real debate, but it took years to have that first debate. then we had a debate over the start treaty, and that was a pretty good debate, too. that happened just after -- that also happened just a couple weeks ago. but for the balance of two years, virtually never a serious debate on this floor with senators hearing each other out, listening to each other, considering the pros and cons, addressing each other's amendments. that is a tremendously different

senate from the senate i first witnessed here when i came here as a young man, as an intern for senator hatfield in 1976. came and i was up here in the staff section and i would come down to meet senator hatch field on a particular tax reform bill that had a series of amendments and i would brief him an the amendment that was being debated and he would come in and talk it over with folks and vote and an hour later there would be another vote, an hour later, another vote, debate in between back and forth, enormous respect and courtesy between the members to the principle of the u.s. senate being a body of deliberation, a body of debate. but today, madam president, that respect is gone. and the most visible sign of the decrease in the mutual accord has been the abuse of the filibuster. now, the filibuster is a common term we use for a decision to

oppose the debate and oppose voting with the straight majority as envisioned in the constitution. that starts from a principle of mutual respect. that is, as long as any individual has an opinion that bears on the issue at hand, that senator should be able to express that opinion and we as a body should be able to hear it. and that out of that will become a better policy-making process. well, unfortunately, over time, that mutual respect has been wielded more and more as an instrument of obstruction. because each time that a senator objects to a simple majority vote, under the rules it creates a one-week delay and a supermajority hurdle. and so if you object 50 times a year, you've wiped out every single week of the year. this chart gives some indication

of how grossly the principle of mutual respect and debate has been corrupted and abused. in 1900-1970, there was, on average, a single use of the filibuster each year, an average of one per year over that 70-year period. oin the 1970's, that climbed to an average of 16 per dwreer in the 1980's, an average 21 per dwreer. in the 1900's, an average of 30 -- in the 1900's, an average of 36 per year. between 200 a 00 and 2010, 48 per year. in the last two years that i have served in the u.s. senate, 68 per year. an average -6r 68 per year or roughly 135, 136 in that

two-year period. now, if each one of these absorbs one minute of the senate's time, you can see thousand has been used to essentially run out the clock and obstruct the very dialogue that the senate would like to pride itself on. there is a statement about the senate, the world d h.'s greatest deliberative body. but today in the modern senate, that incredible tribute to this chamber has been turned into an exclamation of despair. where did that deliberative body go? virtually devoid due to this abuse. we went from mutual respect to essentially mutual destruction, using legislative destruction, using this filibuster. so in 2010, this last year past,

not a single appropriations bill passed. we have a huge backlog of nominations. our role of advise and consent haq has been turned into obstruct and delay in terms of nominations for the executive branch and the judiciary. now, we have a constitutional responsibility to express our opinion, but this body, by using the filibuster, has prevented this body from vicing and consenting, either approving or disapproving these nodgeses. -- these nominations. it certainly is a terrible thing to have our responsibilities as a legislature be damaged. but not only have we done that, but we have proceeded to damage the executive branch and the legislative branch. quite an intrusion on the balance of powers envisioned in our constitution. then we have the hundreds of house bills that lie collecting dust on the floor because they can't get to this chamber because of this abuse.

all of this needs to change. i first came here, down here in the 1970's. where there was a challenge in the 1975 there was a huge debate and it resulted in change the level required to overcome a fribble 67 senators to 60 senators. there were only an average ever 27 filibusters a year, not 68. we're more than triple the dysfunction. that's why we're here i ha todao find a path forward. there are so many move been so instrumental in this debate, so many members of the class of 2006 and 2008 and now members of 22010 who are engaged in this. my hat goes off to senator schumer in leading these hearings in the rules committee and trying to find that balance between every senator's right to

be heard and our collective responsibility for a majority to legislate. senator udall, who has done this enormous investigation of the constitutional process for amending the rules and so many others. the first key part of a package of reforms that a number of us, 16, i believe, now have cosponsored this resolution. the first key piece is the talking filibuster. now, the talking filibuster is essentially to make the filibuster what all americans believe it is, that is, if you believe so strongly that this chamber is in the direction that is misguided, you are willing to come and take this floor and make your case to the american people. well, let's take a look at our image of that, our -- and that is, here we are, jimmy stewart playing the role of jefferson smith, who comes to this

chamber, where i now stand and says,ly take this floor to oppose the abuses that otherwise might go forward. and he held that floor until he collapsed. and that's what the american people believe the filibuster is all about. you want to make your case before the american people. but today we don't have a talking filibuster in the united states senate. we have a silent filibuster. let's take a look at what that looks like. this is the way it works, the senator takes their phone, maybe an old phone, maybe a modern phone, they call up the cloakroom and they say, i object to a majority vote and they go off to dinner. they don't take the floor with principle and conviction to say to the american people, here's why i'm delaying the senate. here's why i'm going to hold this floor. this is not a situation we can allow to go forward and i'm going to stand here and make my case and, american citizens, please join me and help convince

the other senators in this room. that's the talking filibuster. now we have the silent filibuster. my good colleague from tennessee spoke earlier and he said, i'd like to have the talk your head off proposal. i'm glad to hear him back the talking filibuster. the jimmy stewart filibuster. and that is what this reform does. it says, when folks object to concluding debate, it's because they have something to say, and so we're going to require they come to the floor and say it. it's that simple. and when nobody has anything left to say, then we'll proceed with a majority vote. we don't change the number of senators required one bit. it's still 60. completely honors that principle that established in 195. -- 1975. well, the second main proposal is the right to amend. a number of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle have

been very concerned about the fact that issues come to this floor and you can only amend if you get unanimous consent to put an amendment forward. and largely that only works if there's a deal that's been worked out between the majority leader and minority leader. now, some of my colleagues across the aisle are offended by our inability to amend. i can assure my colleagues across the aisle, i'm wallly offended. i'd like to offer amendments to president obama's tax package. i think we could prove it. i would like to see amendments from the other side. this is an issue of concern to both sides. so this set addresses that. and says that there will be a guaranteed set of amendments that the minority leader can pick among the minority amendments and the majority can pick among the majority amendments. if they want to increase that number to a higher level, get more from the majority and more from the minority side, then that would be terrific. but at least they can't say no

amendments. no leader can block the principle that each side has the opportunity to amend. the third point is nominations. right now we have this huge backlog. this resolution makes a modest change in nominations. it says the period following cloture will reduce from 30 hours to two hours. we've already had the debate ofort individual, let's have the vote -- over the individual, let's have the vote. that's what that says. that means that you can be less -- senators will be less tempted to use the filibuster on nominations as an instrument to delay and obstruct the senate. not a complete cure, but a step forward in the right direction. our fourth is the ban on secret holds. senator grassley has spoken to that. and senator wyden is going to speak to it. senator mccaskill has joined others and i believe at one point there whereas many as 70 senators expressing in a letter their support to get rid of the secret hold.

any one who wants to hold up legislation should have to stand on this floor and present their objection to this chamber, to their colleagues, and to the american people. when folks have to take a position on this floor, whether it be through the talking filibuster or through it being publicly announced holds, then the american public can weigh in. then you're taking the business out of the back rooms and on to the floor of this chamber, then the citizens can say you're a hero for your action or you're a bum for what you're doing. our fourth is a clear path to debate. excuse me, a clear path to debate. right now a lot of the filibusters that we suffer through are on getting to debate. that is, getting on to a bill to begin with, proceeding to a bill. and so there's probably no better example of the abuse of the filibuster which was supposed to be mutual respect

for debate being used to prevent debate. and so under this proposal there would be two hours on -- of debate over whether or not to get on a new bill and we'd vote. we'd either go to the bill or we don't. folks then want to filibuster on the bill, they can do that, but it will be a talking filibuster where we are not in the back rooms. we're out here make our case. these five concepts, they're not radical concepts. they're modest steps towards saying in this incredibly partisan environment we now operate in where so many press outlets are attacking on each side all the time and so on and so forth, we have to set ourselves on the path to take ourselves out of that hyper partisan atmosphere and start to restore the senate as a place of

dialogue and debate. perhaps these are modest steps, but modest steps in the right direction and that is an extremely important way to go. so i call to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. my colleagues who have said there should be amendments. my colleagues who have said and spoken in favor on both sides of the aisle in favor of the jimmy stewart model of holding this floor and having talking filibusters. let's use the start of this two-year period to say that something is deeply wrong when we have in a two-year period 135 or 138 filibusters eating up all the floor time, preventing modest amendments, preventing modest bills, and putting us on this path to gridlock. the senate has broken -- is broken, let's fix it. thank you, madam speaker. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i have -- i have

enjoyed this extensive opportunity to -- to hear my colleagues on a very important subject. what the nature of the senate will be. i'm going to have about 10 minutes of remark to comment on senator merkley and senator udall's comments and then i'm going to yield to senator -- the senator from oregon -- the other senator from oregon, senator wyden, and for his colloquy. madam president, if -- if i could say anything that, you know, from -- from deep down within me to my colleagues who have so exercised about this, it would be this, before we change the rules, use the rules. before we change the rules, use the rules. now, we've talked about senator byrd a lot because he -- he understood the rules so well. i've often told the story of

when senator baker became the republican leader -- the majority leader in 1981 he went to see senator byrd, the democratic leader and said, senator byrd i'm suddenly the majority leader, i'll never know the rules as well as you do. so i'll make a deal with you, if you won't surprise me, i won't surprise you and senator byrd said, let me think about it and the next morning he told senator baker he would -- he would do that. and the reason i mentioned those two senators is because before we get too mired down in our differences, let's think for a moment about what the goal ought to be. and the goal, to me, for the senate is the -- is the senate the way it operated during those eight years when senator byrd and senator baker were the leaders of their party. four years biwas majority leader, four -- byrd was majority leader, four years baker was majority leader. in speaking to staffers, some of

whom are still around, senator merkley goes back to senator hatfield in 1976. i first came here in 1967 as senator baker's legislative assistant. but by the time it got to 77, i came up and spent three months here with senator baker when he became the republican leader and i followed it pretty closely during -- during the next eight years. here's the way it worked, the majority leader, whether it was byrd or baker, would bring a bill to the floor. he would get the bill to the floor because the senators knew they were going to get to debate and amend the bill. the senator from oregon's talking about no debates. well, of course there's no debates because when we come down here with an amendment, the majority leader doesn't let us offer it. all those clotures he's talking about means the majority leader is cutting off my right to represent my people and offer an amendment and a debate. they're calling a filibuster a

cutoff. it wouldn't be a filibuster if the majority leader weren't cutting off my right to debate which he's done six times -- which he's done more than the last six majority leaders put together. let's get back to what the goal ought to be. so senator byrd and senator baker would say, okay, the education bill is up, the energy bill's up, everybody get their amendments in. they might get 300 amendments. then at some point the majority leader would say, i ask for unanimous consent that the amendments be cut off. well, of course they'd get that after a while because everybody had all the amendments in they could think of. so they -- they might have 300 amendments. that was not unusual. 300 amendments. you didn't go over the majority leader and say, get down on your knee and say, mr. majority leader, may i please offer an amendment. may i offer this amendment? may i offer that amendment? you just put your amendment in there and then they started voting. and then they did something else

that we don't do today, which is why i'm talking about using the rules before we change the rules. they voted. they debated. they voted. they debated. they voted. they debated. and of course 300 amendments is a lot of amendments. and so the leaders and the staff would say to the senator from north carolina or the senator from oregon, are you sure you want 25 amendments? it's wednesday night. no, 10 will be enough. then you get to thursday night. are you sure you want these five amendments? it's thursday night. we're going to be here friday. and we're going to finish this bill. we'll be here saturday if we have to be. we'll be here sunday. now, you're going to get your amendment and we're going to vote on it, but we're going to finish the bill. that's what they did. that's what they did. now, it wasn't always that case. mine, sometimes there had be a -- a legislation that would come up that one side or the other wanted to kill so they'd try to kill it just like we would today. if the democrats bring up abolish the secret ballot union

elections, we'll do what we can to kill it. if the house brings a bill over here to repeal the health care law, why, the democrats are going to do everything they can to repeal it. that's separate. but most of the time the bill came to the floor, there was bipartisan cooperation, there were amendments. now, why was there bipartisan cooperation? because they knew that unless they had it, they wouldn't move an inch. and being good senators, they wanted to do their jobs. in fact, senator baker would tell his republican chairman, don't even bring the bill to the floor unless the ranking member, the democrat, is with you so the picture would be most of the time that you'd have the democrat and the republican there and amendments and they'd be fighting amendments off and they'd get to a conclusion. that was how it usually -- usually worked and there weren't so many filibusters because the majority leader wasn't cutting off the right to debate and calling it a filibuster.

i mean, this is a word trick is what this is. so that's my concern. i -- i think most of us -- i've talked to a lot of my friends on the democratic side, a lot of republicans, i think we basically want the same thing. i think we want a senate that works better. i think it's a mere shadow of itself. i agree with senator merkley about that, but not because of filibusters. it's because the majority leader's cutting off debate and calling it a filibuster. so the majority leader and the republican leader, i commend today, because they have been talking about how -- how we can do better. and we all know that -- that changing the behavior will be more lasting than changing the rules. i'm glad senator reid and senator mcconnell are working on this and they've asked senator schumer and me to -- to work on it some more and we're going to do that. we have been. we've had several meetings. we've got another one this afternoon. we'll keep working. and we'll consider carefully these proposals or any others that come and we'll see if we

can come to some agreement on how to move ahead. but my heartfelt plea is before we change the rules, let's use the rules. going down through the suggestions, for example, the motion to proceed, that's a difficult one for many of us because if you're in the minority, the motion to proceed is your weapon to require the majority to give you amendments. secret ballots, senator wyden tells me he and senator grassley have been working on that for 15 years, secret holds, i mean. well, they have republican support and democrat support for that, maybe this is the time to deal with that. i -- i have -- i make my holds public. when i was nominated for united states education secretary by president bush i, the senator from ohio held me up for three months never saying why. i went around to see the senator from new hampshire, asking him what to do, that was senator rudman, he said when he was

nominated by president ford to the federal communications commission, the senator from new hampshire held him up. and finally rudman withdrew his name and ran against the senator and beat him. that's how he got in the senate. so there are various cures for this problem. but secret holds, and you will be talking more about that, is an area that has had a lot of work and has bipartisan support. the right to offer amendments, the problem i have with that is that's what we do. i went out to see johnny cash one time in the 1980's. i asked him a dumb question. i said johnny, how many nights are you on the road? he said oh, 200. i said why do you do that? he said that's what i do. well, if you're on the grand ol' opry, you sing. if you're in the senate, you offer amendments, you debate. that's what we do. that's what we're supposed to do, yet we haven't been allowed to do it. talking filibusters, if we talk about the postcloture period, the problem with that is the majority has not used the rules. if i hold up, if i object to

going forward with a bill, the majority, if they think i'm abusing that, they can say okay, senator alexander, get down there on the floor because we're going to be here all night and you can only get seven hours. then you have got to line up 23 other senators to take one hour each, and if you stop talking, we're going to put the question. if you do a number of things, we're going to make a dilatory motion. in other words, the majority can make it really hard for a senator who objects. and someone said one, two, three or four senators can hold this place up. they cannot hold it up, they cannot. because if you have 60 votes, you can pass anything. if you have 60 votes, you could pass anything. and senator byrd said in his last testimony before the rules committee that you can confront a filibuster by using the rules. now, the last two things we could do is, one, we could stop complaining about voting. it happens on the republican

side and the democratic side. somebody offers an amendment that's controversial and everybody runs up to the leader and says oh, we don't want to vote on that. well, we're here to vote. that's why we're here. so we should do that. and the third thing we can do -- and senator byrd suggested this his last testimony, is let's get rid of the three-day workweek. there is not enough time for all the senators to offer their amendments, and there is not enough time for the majority to confront the minority if they think the filibuster is being abused, if we have a three-day workweek, and we never vote on friday and we didn't vote on friday one time this year. so let's use the rules. let's use the rules. if you think we're holding something up improperly, confront that senator, run over him. you can do it. you've got the power to do it if you have 60 votes. and if in this new congress, there will be plenty of opportunities there. finally, i'm going to take these five suggestions and -- and work

with senator schumer and work with my friends on the other side. they are very thoughtful. senator udall spent a lot of time on this. senators wyden and grassley have spent 15 years. senator merkley used to be a speaker. he has talked to me. we have talked a number of times. i greatly respect his work in his state and the fact that he has seen the senate for a long period of time. i am taking very seriously everything that's said here. i'm just -- i'm just worried about turning the senate into the house. we have a majoritarian organization over there. they can repeal the health care law or get rid of the secret ballot and union elections. if you turn this place into that, you will just go bam, bam, and it's done. what the senate is for is to say whoa, whoa, let's -- let's see if we can get a consensus before we do anything, and when we get a consensus, we not only get a better bill usually, the country accepts it better. they like to see us cooperating.

they like to see us coming up with a tax bill or a treaty or whatever, a civil rights bill or a health care bill or financial regulation bill where we have all got something in it. they feel better about that. it's the check and the balance that's the genius of our system. so obviously we can do some things better around here, i'm committed to trying. i thank my friends for the amount of time and effort they have given. i'm going to take everything they have said very seriously and in the spirit that they have offered it, but i hope a part of our solution is that we -- we use the rules before we change the rules because this is the form to protect minority rights, this is the form to force a consensus, and we dare not lose that. we dare not lose that. i thank the president and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the bipartisan

wyden-grassley-mccaskill-collins resolution to end secret holds, which is at the desk. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mcht, reserving the right to -- madam president, reserving the right to object. as i said earlier, senator wyden and senator grassley, senator mccaskill and others have worked on this, some of them for as long as 15 years. they have made significant progress in gaining bipartisan support. i'm going to object but only for the reason that this is one of the items that we will be discussing and working on over the next few weeks, with the hope that perhaps we can get agreement over here and agreement over there. it's been mentioned by all of the speakers today, and it's a very serious proposal, but because we don't want to resolve it today, i object. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the resolution will go over under

the rule. the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: madam president, before he leaves the floor, let me thank senator alexander for the discussions that he has had with me on this issue also. senator mcconnell has spoken with me about this. i wish we were getting this done today, largely because this would give us a chance on the first day of the united states senate new session to send a message that once and for all we were deep sixing secrecy, that we were saying that public business ought to be done in public. i wish it was being done today, but i understand completely the sentiments of the senator from tennessee and the fact that he is willing to work with me is something that i appreciate. madam president, as i've indicated, there are obviously significant differences between the parties about how to reform

the rules of the united states senate. what i hope will be done, certainly the very first day that the senate comes back and is in a position to formally act, which appears to be january 24, is once and for all, we could bring democrats and republicans together around an extraordinarily important change in the senate rules that senator grassley and i have been trying to end for literally 15 years, and now particularly with the energy and the enthusiasm that senator mccaskill has brought to the cause, i think we are now on the cusp of being able to finally get this done. madam president, it's been clear that if you walk up and down the main streets of this country, people don't know what a secret hold is. probably a lot of people think

it's a hair spray. the fact of the matter is there are more versions of secret holds than there are moves in pro wrestling, but what a secret hold really is all about, it is one of the most extraordinary powers that an individual senator has here in the united states senate, and it can be exercised, madam president, without any transparency and without any accountability whatsoever. what a secret hold is all about is one united states senator can block the american people, the entire country from learning about a piece of legislation that can involve billions of dollars, scores and scores of people or a nomination with the ability to influence lives of

all americans, one united states senator can block that consideration without owning up to the fact that they are the one that is defying the public's right to know about how senate business is being blocked. madam president, that's just wrong. it's not about how republicans see it or democrats see it. it's just common sense. most people, when you tell them a united states senator can block an enormously important piece of legislation or a nomination that affects millions of people and he can do it in secret, they say i can't believe that you all have those kinds of rules. well, the fact is that is the way the senate operates, madam president, and suffice it to say it's getting worse. just a few days ago, for

example, justice roberts, chief justice roberts said that the number of vacancies on our courts is creating a judicial emergency. now, those are the words of justice roberts. at least 19 federal judges have been approved by the senate judiciary committee unanimously or near unanimously and never got a vote on the floor of the united states senate. madam president, not one united states senator has publicly taken responsibility for worsening the judicial crisis that justice roberts has been decrying over the last few days. just think about that. the chief justice of the united states during the christmas holidays said there was one thing he was concerned about, and that was the emergency in

the judicial system. justice roberts, in my view, is correct. i think we do have an emergency. we have been trying to get several judges in the state of oregon approved. senator merkley and i, but no member of the united states senate will publicly take responsibility for worsening this crisis that justice roberts is appropriately so concerned about. now, we have tried in the past, madam president, with legislation. we actually got a law passed at one time to get rid of secret holds. we have tried with pledges from the leadership of both political parties, and in every instance, the defenders of secrecy have found their way around the requirements and, in my view, the public interest. i would just make two points and then i want to allow senator

mccaskill to have a chance to address this issue, but there are two points with respect to why this effort, madam president, to end secret holds would be different. the first is that every hold here in the united states senate, after the passage of this bipartisan resolution, would have a public owner. every single hold would have a public owner. and second, there would be consequences. in the past, there have not been consequences for the individual who would object. in fact, the individual who would object would usually send someone else out to do their objecting for them, and there would be complete anone i amity amity -- anone i amity for essentially all concerned, because the person who would be objecting would in effect be saying this isn't my doing, i'm just doing it for somebody else.

so the heart of this bipartisan compromise is to make sure that every hold has a public owner and there would be consequences. there may be, madam president, there may be a senator around here who becomes known as senator obstruction. senator obstruction is the one who is trying to block public business. let them explain it to the american people. so i will have more to say about it in a little bit and the possibility of other colleagues coming, but senator mccaskill has really brought the kind of energy and passion to this that has made it possible for us to, as i say, be on the cusp of finally forcing here in the senate public business to be done in public. i want to thank her for all her help, allow her to take the time. she said she thought she might speak for around 10 minutes. senator klobuchar who also has been a great and compassionate

advocate for open government will also speak, and for colleagues that have an interest, we have 30 minutes of time. senator mccaskill, with appreciation for all you have -- you have done, the time is yours. mrs. mccaskill: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: madam president, when i arrived in this chamber four years ago at this time, i had no idea what the ways of the senate were. i had an idea that this is a place where people came to debate and to have a collegial relationship with your fellow senators across the aisle, and there had been a lot of problems with ethical issues in the capitol. and so one of the first things that happened for the class of 2006 was senate bill 1. and senate bill 1 was a far-reaching ethics bill that

included things like no more free flights on corporate jets. it included new requirements in terms of gifts from lobbyists, and it also included a provision that i didn't know at the time was -- had been worked on by senator wyden and senator grassley for many, many years. that provision said that we weren't going to have secret holds anymore. so imagine how great i felt on january 18, 2007, that we had done this comprehensive ethics bill that was going to clean up our act and that we weren't going to have secret holds. well, i find it ironic that senator alexander says, well, just use the rules, just use them. well, so when i started figuring out that the game around here in the last 18 months had developed into a game of secret holds, i asked my staff, i said, hey, didn't we have something in senate bill 1 about secret

holds? not knowing really the relationship that language had to senator wyden and senator grassley. so my staff pulls out the legislation, we look at it and i go, well, right here it says they can't do it. so i began coming down to the floor and using the law. i did exactly what senator alexander recommended. i came down here and began making motion after motion which under the language of that statute would seem to indicate that all the senators support it, except for a handful, that once you made these motions, that people would have to come out of the shadows and claim their holds. well, that's when i discovered that the people who voted for this, there were a bunch of them that didn't mean it. they didn't mean it. it was window dressing. they weren't sincere about ending secret holds, because we discovered when we started trying to use that language that some of the folks who voted for it were doing the old

switcheroo. when they were called upon under the law to reveal their hold, they would just hand their hold off to someone else. and that's when i began getting frustrated with the games that were being played. and i want to thank senator wyden and senator grassley and others that have worked on this. but i'll tell you what's the most depressing thing i've heard here today, that this is something that's been worked on for 15 years. now, seriously, think about that. we have allowed people to secretly hold nominations and the people's business and there have been members trying to clean it up for 15 years. and we wonder why we're having trouble with our approval ratings. nothing is more hypocritical than all the sanctimonious stuff i'm hearing down the hall about the new era, no more business as usual, no more -- we're going to have accountability and transparency. but yet we seem to be embroiled

down on this end of the hall with not even being able to get beyond a secret hold. this shouldn't be hard. this should be easy. now, some of the other provisions that are being debated today, i understand that there is -- there's concern about the power of the minority in the united states senate. i think those concerns have been addressed in the resolution that's been presented by senator merkley and senator udall and senator harkin from iowa. but, really, if we can't get 67 votes to end secret holds and amend the rules, how seriously can we take anybody that claims they want accountability and transparency in government? i mean, this is the hall of fame of hypocrisy. this isn't just hypocrisy, it's the hall of fame. so that's why i think we've got

to get busy and get the secret hold provision done. i would like to see us get all of these reforms done. and i -- i really want to just spend a second on -- on what senator alexander's suggestion was. his suggestion was to use the rules. well, honestly, does he think the way to solve this problem is to force the majority to stay here all night with staff, spending the taxpayers' money to force someone over and over again to say "i object"? we can't make the minority talk so that means the majority, whether it's democrats or republicans, have to stay all night and call the question? they don't have to have -- i mean, we could do live quorum calls, but, really, that's what we need to do to make this place work? that's his suggestion?

to force the people who are objecting and the staff and -- and the people around here to stay here all night every night until someone breaks? that's a good idea? i think that means that somebody's probably been around here too long. it doesn't sound like a good idea. that's not a commonsense idea that we'd be promoting in main street in missouri. i think it makes more sense that if you're the minority and you want to block legislation that you own it. just own it. block it. that's what the senate's about. minority can continue to block legislation, whether the democrats or in the minority or the republicans are in the minority, they can block all the legislation they want. they just got to own it. they've just got to be willing to say, we are blocking this for the following reasons because we think it's important and let the people decide. same thing with holds. you want to hold something, hold it, but let the people decide whether or not you're being reasonable. or whether you're really -- what i was disgusted to learn is how many people were using secret holds, in fact, they brag about

it. they were using secret holds to get something else. i'm going to hold this nominee in this department because i want money for a community center in my town. if you don't give me money for a community center in my town, you can't get the deputy secretary of the interior through. i mean, i'm making up this example, but that's actually what's going on. it's like you secretly hold and ssomething so you can get them o get something else. that's the essence of the backroom dealing that people are disgusted with. own it, be proud of it, defend it, debate it but don't hide it. and that's what this is all about. i want to thank all my colleagues who have worked on this, and i just want to close with this comment. bad habits have consequences. and if we don't take this opportunity to fix what's going on in the senate -- this is not the way the senate has operated for hundreds of years -- if we

don't change this path, then we're going to be on this path forever. and if the minority now doesn't think that when the time comes that they may not be in the minority any more, if they don't think we haven't learned from them, seriously, this place is going to be dysfunctional as far as the eye can see. because they'll fill the tree and we'll just block everything and then they'll block everything and we'll fill the tree, and this is going to go on forever, until there are enough people around here that are willing to set aside the political maneuvering and do what's right for the future of deliberations in a body that we all want to be proud of. but right now, we can't be so proud of the way we operate around here. so i want to thank the senator from oregon and -- and all the senators who have worked on this, and i hope that we can -- we can pull back from the brink, because that's where we are, we're about ready to

institutionalize a way of operating around here that isn't something that any of us should be proud of. and i yield the floor. mr. wyden: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: how much time left do we have on our -- the presiding officer: 13 minutes. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. i yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: thank you very much. thank you for your leadership, senator wyden. the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: as we begin the 112th congress, i want to first congratulate my colleagues on how we ended the 111th. we had an incredibly productive end of the session, ratifying the start treaty, among other things. we worked together to solve problems. this was not always the indicates during the last congress but we ended on a high note. but as our work begins today anew, we all know there is still a great deal of work to be done, madam president th --

madam president. we have a lot of work ahead of to us make sure american workers can find jobs, to get our economy back on track, to find long-term solutions to our mounting deficit. because of the urgent business that is in front of, i am hopeful that my fellow -- front of us, i am hopeful that my fellow senators and my colleagues across the aisle will agree that it is time for some change, that it is not time for business as usual. and we have heard from so many of my colleagues that have been working on this issue, senator udall, senator merkley, senator harkin, senator wyden, senator mccaskill, and also senator grassley, with his important work on the secret hold. the elections on november 2 sent a message to every member of congress -- the american people aren't interested in partisan bickering or procedural backlogs or the gamesmanship and gridlock that prevent elected officials from doing their jobs. we weren't hired by our constituents, madam president, to hide behind outdated senate rules as an excuse for not

accomplishing things or not taking tough votes. that's just what the current senate rules are allowing us to do. now, i heard a lot from my friend from tennessee about how we want to use, we should use the current rules. well, the problem i have is that too many people have been abusing the current rules. first, as senator wyden, senator mccaskill, senator grassley so eloquently stated, we have to permanently end the practice known as secret holds, which basically allows one or two members of the senate to prevent nominations or legislation from reaching the senate floor without identifying themselves. we thought we had this done, as senator mccaskill pointed out, with the ethics bill that we passed when we first came into this chamber, but, unfortunately, once again, those rules were abused. there are some senators who are playing games with the rules. they're following the letter but not the spirit of the reforms we adopted.

look at the kind of secret holds we've seen. secret holds preventing the president from assembling the team he needs to run the executive branch. this summer, for example, secret holds were placed on two members of the marine mammal commission for months. the marine mammal commission -- held secret in a hold. while the deepwater oil horizon spill was continuing to play out in the gulf region. a second example of what we have to get done here is filibuster reform. it is a long-standing tradition in the senate that one senator can if she chooses hold the floor to explain her objections to a bill. we think of jimmy stewart's character, jefferson smith, in "mr. smith goes washington" as a shining example of how individual conscience can matter because if an individual can stay on the senate floor to the point of exhaustion in order to stymie a corrupt piece of legislation. well, that is not how the filibuster works in practice

today. today, an individual senator virtually has the power to prevent legislation from being considered by merely threatening a filibuster. at that point, the majority leader must file a cloture petition in order to move to that piece of legislation. this adds a great deal of time to an already crowded senate calendar. this is not governing. this is not how we do the people's business. this is not how we come together to find practical solutions to our common problems. our current system is a far cry from jimmy stewart. that is why a group of us have been working to get some legislation passed to change the rules going forward. when you think about the history of this senate, and i listened with great respect as my colleagues talked about the tradition of the importance of the rules of the senate, about presenting the rights of the minority. none of these proposals, none of these proposals will interfere with the rights of the minority to filibuster any piece of legislation.

but when you look at that history of the senate, it is about tradition, but as time goes forward, there have been changes to the senate rules. every few decades, there are changes to the senate rules. you look at my former colleague, vice president mondale, a great leader who made significant changes to the senate rules. mr. president, this is all about transparency and accountability and i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. wyden: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: mr. president, i don't see any other colleagues that want to speak on the bipartisan effort to end secret holds so let me just make a couple of comments here in wrapping up. the first is, senator grassley and i and others who have been at this for so long have been willing in the past to just put a statement in the "congressional record" when in

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

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

problems. judges, u.s. attorney candidates, we had both from my home state -- two judges that couldn't be considered because of a hold with our being in a position to not identify who was objecting, same with a u.s. attorney. these are the real consequences, mr. president, of secret holds, and i want to close with one last point, and that is, the big winners, it seems to me, in these secret holds are the lobbyists. the lobbyists benefit tremendously from secret holds. practically every senator has got an request from a lobbyist asking if the senator would put a secret hold on a bill that would kill it without the lobbyist's fingerprints appearing anywhere.

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

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

is it doesn't pass the smell test to keep arguing that senate business ought to be done in secret. the american people don't buy that anymore. they think this ought to be an open institution, a place wherever senator is held accountable. this time is going to be different. there are going to be owners, public owners, of any hold. there are going to be consequences for any senator who tries to block a bill or a nomination in secret. it's going to be an important vote when we come back, mr. president, a very important vote, and finally one that will require that public business here in the united states senate be done in public. mr. president, with that, i'd yield the floor. mrs. murray: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from washington. mrs. murray: thank you, mr. president.

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

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

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

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

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

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

honor senator mikulski. for more than 24 trail blazing years, senator mikulski has been one of the senate's fearest advocates for women, families, and for the people of maryland who have now elected her to the senate for five consecutive terms. before she arrived in washington in 1977, as the representative for the 3rd district of maryland, senator mikulski already had a distinguished career in public service working in baltimore as a social worker, then a community being a of itist and as a city council member. when she was first sworn in as a woman of the house of representatives, as a member of the house, she was one of just 18 female members whvment she intertd senate ten years later as the first democratic woman senator elected in her own right, she was one of just taboo tbhim this upper chamber. but while those numbers have intimidated most, they only

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

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

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

i congratulate her on this tremendous accomplishment and i join my colleagues in looking forward to many more years of her distinguished service. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. more about the filibuster now from heritage foundation. we will hear from tennessee senator lamar alexander. this is 35 minutes. >> good afternoon. thank you for joining us here at heritage foundation. founda this is our first announcement our011. we remind our internet viewers

that question can be submitted throughout a program simply addressing us that speaker@heritage.org by e-mail. we will of course post the.o program within 24 hours on their website as well. the last courtesy check, make sure that cell phones have been turned off for those recording today. hosting our discussion as well as introducing our special guest, mr. frank. he serves as vice president for government relations. mike. >> thank you and good afternoon everybody. my honor today to introduce our key note speaker, senator lamar alexander from tennessee. it occurred to me that we could have titled today's event, why can't the senate be more like the house, because that is what we are going to talk about, both senator alexander and the panel that will follow. there is a proposal that will

come before the senate the next few days or weeks that could change one senate rule, fundamentally change the nature of that body. in a way that was probably never intended by our founders. debate that goes to the essence of what the founders envisioned when they created a chamber designed to create the interests of the states, especially smaller states that didn't have the proportional representation in the house. there is a lot at stake. may not be cow incidental. i counted 49 sners in the incoming senate who previously served in the house and especially the top three, democratic leadership, all of whom are former house members and yearn for the days being in the lower body. so they are trying to do things to the filibuster rule that would turn the senate into a body like the house. our speaker, senator lamar

alexander of tennessee. he serves on committees overseeing education, clean air, highways, science, appropriations and not unimportantly for a senator from tennessee, tennessee valley authority. he was elected both governor and senator. he has been u.s. education secretary, president of the university of tennessee and professor at harvard school of government. and he served on president reagan's commission on american outdoors. in private life, he helped find the largest provider of work site day care. he is a classical pianist and author of seven books. please welcome senator lamar alexander. [applause] >> thank you, mike.

and ladies and gentlemen and to heritage foundation, thank you very much for sponsoring this forum and for inviting this distinguished group of panelists. i'm one of the former number of governors and i don't have the desire to turn the senate into the house but that is what we are talking about today. i saw the title and i changed it a little bit. i borrowed a line, which you will see in a few minutes. i have a short video to show you what some prominent americans have said about the idea of changing the senate filibuster rule. but this is what a radio announcer during the world war inch i era had to say about the filibuster. he said it's democracy's finest show, the right to talk your head off. that's the subject of what i

would like to talk about for a few minutes this afternoon. voters who turned out in november are going to be disappointed when they learn the first thing that some democrats want to do is to cut off the right of people they elected in november to make their voices heard on the floor of the united states senate. now, in the november election, voters showed that they very well remember the passage of the health care law on christmas eve 2009. the night sessions, voting in the midst of a snowstorm, backroom deals, little time to read, amend or debate the bill. it was how it was done as much as what was done that angered the american people. minority voices were silenced. those who didn't like it were told, we won the election, we write the bill, we don't need your votes. the majority's attitude was just that and one person said you can read it after we pass it.

of course, the result was the law that the majority of americans now believe is a historic mistake and the passage of the bill launched the beginning of an instant effort to repeal and replace the bill. voters remembered all of this on november 6, but only six weeks later, some democratic senators seem to have completely forgotten it. on december 18, every returning democratic senator sent a letter asking the majority leader to take republican abuses to our rules to -- democratic abuses to our rules to an end. some have threatened to change the rules so it would be easier to do with every piece of legislation. ram it through with a partisan vote with little debate, little amendment, little committee consideration and without listening to minority voices. the brazenness of this proposed action is that democrats are

proposing to use the very tactics that in the past almost every democratic leader has denounced, including president obama and vice president biden when they were senators, who said such a thing would be a nuclear option, a naked power grab and destructive of the senate as a protector of minority rights. the democratic proposal would allow the senate to change its rules with only 51 veets ending the historical practice of allowing any senator at any time to offer any amendment until 60 senators decided it's time to end the debate. as investors business daily wrote, quote, the senate majority leader has a plan to deal with the republican electoral success. when you lose the game, the newspaper said, you simply change the rules. when you only have 53 votes, you lower the bar to 51. this is called election null fix, unquote.

now there is no doubt that the senate has been reduced to a shadow of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body. a place which, as senator arlen specter said in his fair well address, has been distinctive because of the ability of any senator to offer any amendment at any time, unquote. but the demyself of the senate is not because republicans seek to filibuster. the real obstructionists have been the democratic majority, which for an unprecedented number of times used their majority advantage to limit debate, not to allow amendments and to bypass normal committee consideration of legislation. to be specific. according to the congressional research service, number one, the majority leader has used his power to cut off all amendments and debate 44 times, more than the last six majority leaders combined. number two, the majority leader

has moved to shut down debate the same day, measures are considered, nearly three times more on average than the last six majority leaders. and number three, the majority leader has set the record for bypassing the committee process, bringing a measure directly to the floor by passing committees 43 times during the last two congresses. let's be clear what we mean when we say the word filibuster. let's say the majority leader brings up the health care bill, which is his right to do. i go down to the floor, senator from tennessee, to offer an amendment and to speak on the health care bill. the majority leader says, no, senator alexander, and he cuts off my amendment. i object. majority leader calls what i tried to do a filibuster. that's what he defines as a filibuster. i call what he did, cutting off my right to speak and to amend,

which is what i was elected to do. so the problem is not a record number of filibusters, the problem is a record number of attempts to cut off amendments and debate so the minority voices across america cannot be heard on the floor of the senate. so the real party of no is the majority party that's been saying no to debate, no to voting on amendments that minority members believe improve legislation and express the voices of the people they represent. in fact, the reason the majority leader can claim there have been so many filibusters is because he is counting the number of times he has moved to cut off debate. instead of this power grab as the new congress arrives tomorrow, the goal should be to restore the senate to its historic role where the voices of the people can be heard rather than silenced, where ideas can be offered as

amendments, rather than supressed and those amendments can be voted and debated upon rather than cut off. to accomplish this, the senate needs to change its behavior, not change its rules. the majority-minority leaders have been in discussion on steps that might help to accomplish this. i have been part of those discussions, some of them. i would like to discuss this afternoon why it is essential in my opinion to our country that cooler heads prevail tomorrow when the senate convenes. one good example the democrats might follow is the one established by republicans to gained control of both senate and house of representatives in 1995. that was the so-called gingrich revolution of 1994. on the first day of the new republican majority, democratic senator harkin of iowa, proposed a rule change diluting the filibuster. every single republican senator

voted against the change, even though supporting it clearly would have provided at least a temporary advantage for the republican agenda. here is why the republicans who were in the majority then and democrats who are in the majority today should reject a similar rules change. first, the proposal diminishes the rights of the minority. in his classic book "democracy in america," it was written that one of the two greatest fears for our democracy was the quote tyranny of the majority, unquote. the possibility that a runaway majority might trample minority voices. diluting the right to debate and voting on amendments deprives the nation of a valuable forum for achieving consensus on difficult issues. the founders knew what they were doing when they created two very different houses of congress. senators have six-year terms.

one-third of us are elected every two years. the senate operates largely by unanimous consent. there is an opportunity unparalleled in any other legislative body in the world to debate and amend until a consensus finally is reached. this procedure takes longer, but it usually produces a better result. and a result that the country is more likely to accept. for example, after the civil rights act of 1964 was enacted by a bipartisan majority over a filibuster led by senator richard russell of georgia, senator russell then went home to georgia and said that although he had fought the legislation with everything he had, quote, as long as it is there, it must be obeyed, unquote. compare that to the instant repeal movement that has been the result of jamming the health care law through in a partisan

vote. third, such a brazen power grab by democrats this year will surely guarantee a similar action by republicans in two years if we gain control of the senate, as many observers think is likely. we have seen this happen with senate consideration of judges. democrats begin the practice of filibustering president bush's judges even though the nominees were well qualified. democrats are unhappy because many republicans regard that as a precedent and have threatend to do the same to president obama's nominees. those who want to create a freight train running through the senate today as it does in the house might think about whether they will want that freight train running through the senate in two years when the freight train might be the tea party express. finally it's hard to see what partisan advantage democrats hope to gain from destroying the

senate as a forum for consensus and protection of minority rights since any legislation they jam through this year or next year without bipartisan support will undoubtedly die in the republican controlled house during the next two years. the reform the senate needs is a change in behavior, not a change in rules. i have talked with many senators on both sides of the aisle and i believe most of us want the same thing, a senate where most bills are considered by committee. come to the floor as a result of bipartisan cooperation, are debated and amended and then voted upon. not so long ago, this was the standard operating procedure. i have seen the senate off and on for more than 40 years, from the days in 1967 when i first came to washington as howard baker's legislative assistant. in those days, there was only one legislative assistant in each senate office. i came back for a while to help

senator baker set up his leadership office in 1977, and i watched the way that senator baker and senator byrd led the senate from 1977 to 1985. when the democrats were in the majority for the first four years and the republicans were in the majority the second four years. then, most pieces of legislation that came to the floor started in committee. then, that legislation was open for amendment. there might be 300 amendments filed. and after a while, the majority leader would ask for unanimous consent agreement to cut off the amendments. he always got it, because he let let anyone offer any amendments they wanted to offer. the voting would continue. the leaders would work to persuade senators to limit amendments so there wouldn't be 300-amendment votes. that didn't always work. so the leaders kept the senate

in session, during the evening, kept in session during friday, sometimes even into the weekends. senators got their amendments considered and the legislation was fully vetted, debated and finally passed or voted down. now senator byrd knew the rules. i recall that when republicans won the majority in 1981, senator baker went to see senator byrd and said this, bob, i know that you know the rules better than i do, so i'll make a deal with you. you don't surprise me and i won't surprise you. senator byrd said, let me think about it. and the next day senator byrd said yes, and the two of them managed the senate effectively together for eight years. what would it take to restore to today's senate to the era of senator baker and senator byrd? well, we have the answer from the master of the senate rules himself, senator byrd, who in

his last appearance before the senate rules committee on may 19, 2010 said, quote, forceful confrontation to a threat of a filibuster is undoubtedly the and ti dote to that malady. senate majority leader reid announced that the senate would stay in session around the clock and take all the procedural steps necessary to bring financial reform legislation to the senate as preparations were made and a deal was struck within hours and the threat of filibuster was withdrawn. senator byrd said i also know that current senate rules provide the means to break a filibuster, unquote. in those remarks, his last ones, as i said, senator byrd went on to argue strenuously that our founding fathers intended the senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the

protection of minority rights. senators, senator byrd said, have understood this since the senate first convened. then senator byrd went on, quote, in his notes to the constitutional convention on june 26, 1787, james madison recorded that the ends to be served by the senate were, first, to protect the people against their rulers. second, to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they might be led. they themselves as well as the numerous body of representatives will err from fickleness and passion. a necessary fence against this danger would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens whose limited number and firmness might seasonably interpose against i am pet youous counsel. that's the end of that quote. that fence, was the united

states senate, the right to filibuster anchors the necessary fence but not a right intended to be abused and then senator byrd concluded, there are many suggestions about what we should do. i know what we must not do. we must never ever, ever, ever tear down the only wall, the necessary fence this nation has against the excess of the executive branch and the result and haste and tirn any of the -- tyranny of the majority. that was senator byrd in his last appearance before the rules committee. what would it take to restore the years of byrd and baker so bills are first considered in committee and when more amendments were considered, debated and voted upon? first, we have to recognize there has to be bipartisan cooperation and consensus on important issues. the days of we won the election, we jammed the bill through are going to have to be over.

senator baker would not bring a bill to the floor when republicans were in the majority unless it had the support of the ranking democratic committee member. number two, recognize that senators are going to have to vote. to say that may sound ridiculous to an outsider but every senate insider knows that a major reason why the majority cuts off amendments and debate is because democratic members don't want to vote on controversial issues. that's like volunteering to be on the grand ole opry and claiming you don't want to sing. if you don't want to vote, don't run for the united states senate. and the third thing that would restore the period of the 1980's, according to senator byrd would be the end of three-day work week. the senate convenes on most mondays for a bed check vote at 5:30.

the senate during 2010, did not vote on one single friday. let me repeat that. the united states senate, in the year 2010, did not vote on one single friday. it is not possible for the minority to have the opportunity to offer debate and vote on amendments or for the majority to forcefully confront a filibuster if every senator knows there will never be a vote on friday. now, there are some other steps that can be taken to help the senate function better without impairing minority rights. one bipartisan suggestion has been to end the practice of secret holds. it seems reasonable to suggest or to expect a senator who intends to hold up a bill or nomination to allow his colleagues and the world to know who he or she is, so that the merits of the hold can be

evaluated and debated. second, there is a crying need to make it easier for any president, republican or democrat, to staff his or her government with key officials within a reasonable period of time. one reason for the current delay is the president's own fault, taking a long time to vet his nominees. second reason is shared responsibility, the maze of conflicting forms and f.b.i. investigations and audits and ethics requirements and financial disclosures required both by the senate and the white house. i spoke on the senate floor on this tying my speech "innocent until nominated. third obstacle and one we should do something about is the excessive number of executive branch appointments requiring senate confirmation. there have been bipartisan efforts to reduce these obstacles with the support of the majority and minority

leaders and perhaps we might achieve some success. if all of these efforts succeed, there will be delayed nominations, bills that are killed before they come to the floor and amendments that never see the light of day. this is nothing new. i can well remember when a senator from ohio put a secret hold on my nomination when president bush nominated me to be the secretary of education. he held up my nomination for three months, never really saying why. i was very perplexed about this, so i went to see senator warren ruddman of new hampshire. i asked hm what to do about the hold and he said nothing and then he told me his story. president ford appointed warren ruddman to be a member of the federal communications commission in the 1970's. the democratic senator from new hampshire filibustered ruddman's

appointment until he asked the president to withdraw his name. is that the end of the story, i asked warren ruddman? he said no, i ran against the so and so and i beat him and that's how i got to be in the senate. during his time here, senator metzenbaum would hold up every one. senator allen of alabama did the same. and in the 1960's, senator williams, whispering john, he was on the floor regularly objecting to federal spending. that is when i first came here more than 40 years ago. now, i have done my best to make the argument that the senate and the country will be served best if cooler heads prevail and democrats don't make their power grab tomorrow and try to make

the senate more like the house of representatives. to permit them to do with any legislation what they did with the health care law, i have said that to do so will destroy minority rights, destroy the essential forum for consensus that the senate now price for difficult issues and surely guarantee that republicans will try to do the same thing to democrats in two years. more than that, it's hard to see how democrats can gain any partisan advantage from this destruction of the senate and invitation for retribution any bill they force through the senate in the next two years in a purely partisan way will surely be stopped by the republican-controlled house of representatives, but on this subject, i am not the most persuasive voice. i'm not the most persuasive

voice against tomorrow's proposed action. other voices are. and i have collected some of those voices, mostly democratic leaders, who have wisely argued against changing the institution of the senate in a way that would deprive minority voices in america of their right to be heard rather than tell you about those voices, i would like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by showing you a short video about what some of them have said. >> half of official of washington is here. here to talk your head off. >> we must never ever, ever, ever turn down the only wall the

necessary fence that this nation has against excesses of the executive branch. >> the checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated. the checks and balances which say if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time. >> you got majority rule and got the senate over here where people can float things down, where they can debate and have something called the filibuster, it seems like it's a little less than efficient. well, that's right, it is and deliberately designed to be so. >> totally oppose to changing the filibuster rules. that's foolish. >> that's why we have a senate, to amend and debate freely. >> the whole idea of the senate is not to have majority rule but to force consensus and force a

group of senators on either side have to respect each other's votes and protect votes on important issues. >> i can understand the temptation to change the rules to make the senate so unique and at the same time so terribly frustrating, but whether such temptation is motivated by noble desire to speed up the legislative process or by pure political ex pedensy, i believe some changes would be unwise. >> the senate is the only place in government where the rights of a minority are so protected a minority can be right and minority views can certainly improve legislation. >> american people know that it's not just the voices of the senator from kansas or senator from iowa that are supressed when the majority leader cuts off the right to debate and right to amend. it's the voices we hear from across this country who want to be heard on the senate floor. >> you just can't have good

governance unless you have good ideas brought forward. >> to my fellow senators who haven't served in the minority, i urge you to pause in your enthusiasm to change the senate rules. >> it's part of the fabric of this institution we call the senate for 200 years we have the right to extend the debate and not some procedural gimmick. some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years for the quest of 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 come do away with the filibuster. >> if the majority chooses tond the filibuster and choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.

[applause] >> thank you, senator. the senator will have to leave quickly so i will ask one quick question. you alluded to it in your remarks, but if this rule were to be adopted and the senate were to change, the only place where there would be open debate is in committees. do you have any thoughts -- would the committee process in the senate change as well because that might be where the need to offer amendments and debate and vote would then default to? >> well, that's a very good insight, but the problem with that is, over the last two congresses, as i mentioned in my remarks, senator reid has set a

record for bringing bills to the floor directly and not going through committee. i mean take the health care bill over a year ago. sure there were a lot of committee hearings, but when it got down to writing the bill, what did they do? they went off in a room by themselves, they being the democrats. and this was in december, the snow was coming down and then they brought it out more than 2,000 pages. we were told you could find out what's in it after we pass it. so the problem with relying on committees for this is that one of the problems of the last few years has not just been cutting off debate or amendments on the floor, it's been bringing bills directly to the floor without going through committee. you take the 9/11 bill that came up in the lame duck session. everybody wanted to help the 9/11 heroes but show up with a $7 billion proposal that hasn't been carefully considered to see where the money is going, is it

going to people who really need help, that's what the committees are for. when i say we need to get back to the era of the 1980's of senator baker and senator byrd, i don't just mean allowing any senator to offer any amendment, but let the committees work a bill over. and i mentioned just in passing that senator baker, when he was the majority leader, had a habit, i'm not sure he did this in every case, he would tell his republican committee chairmen, don't bring a bill to the floor unless you have the ranking member's support. you bring a bill to the floor and you could expect that you are likely to achieve some sort of consensus and you get better result and better september tans. i think it's very important to emphasize the fact that there are several reasons for consensus, for cooperation, one

is you get a better result. but the second is people accept it. people are more likely to accept it. in the 1960's, lyndon johnson had big majorities in the democratic congress, but where did he have the civil rights bill written? in the republican leader's office. and why did he do that? one reason was to be able to surmount a filibuster, but the other reason was that president johnson knew that was a volatile piece of legislation. he did it piece by piece from the 1950's on. and he knew that if he had a bill that he and the republican leader passed, written in the republican leader's office that people across the country, many of whom didn't like the bill, would say well, if senator dirk sen is also for it, maybe it's

ok and maybe i'll accept it and you have that image of senator russell who led the opposition to the bill instead of launching aemen >> and said, i've done all i can to fight the bill, but it's the law of the land, and now we need to obey it. >> thank you, senator. [applause] >> house republicans have scheduled a vote for next week to try to repeal the health care law enacted last march by president obama. this morning the house rules committee will hold a hearing on guidelines for floor debate on the repeal legislation. watch live coverage here on c-span2 at 10 a.m. eastern. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is it great that we're not, that overall news organizations probably aren't doing as much foreign news and doing more domestic news?

the public bears some responsibility here too. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, abc news senior foreign affairs correspondent martha raddatz looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan at 8 on c-span's "q q&a." finish. [applause] >> next, new york's new governor, andrew cuomo, gives his first state of the state address. the former new york attorney general was sworn in as new york's 56th governor on new year's day. this is 50 minutes. >> thank you, senator. just look around this room. like the new year, this is a time of change and renewal and is both an honor and a privilege to introduce the podium for its very first state of the state message, governor andrew cuomo. [applause]

>> thank you! thank you! thank you very much. thank you. [applause]u. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. well, good afternoon, new york! oh, it is a better afternoon new than that. 2200 people are here today to talk about their government in this a way they never haveerno before. good afternoon, new york! [cheers and applause] okay.a first, letve me begin by acknowledging a truly extraordinary public servant. heok was a great mayor of b rochester, he's going to be a, he is going to be -- that's rochester. [laughter] he is going to be a phenomenal lieutenant governor, lieutenant governor bob duffy.o be [applause]

>> to my colleague and congratulations to the reelected controller, thomas denapoli. [applause] to our brand new right-out-of-the-box attorney general eric schneiderman. [applause] to majority leader dean skellos, thank you very much, dean. [applause] assembly speakers sheldon silver -- [applause] senate minority leader john sampson. [applause]

assembly minority leader brian cole. [applause] to the judges of our great court of appeals, it's an honor to be with you. chief judge. [applause] and a special thank you to thebe young people behind me. these are high school studentshn who represent new york's 62 counties. they areth the future, and the state that we are talking about preparing today is the state that we will leave them. we hope we do a good job, and we thank them for being with us. thank you.that [applause]

>> my friends, i believe this state is at a crossroads, and i believe there are two very different paths that this state may go down. certain factors are pushing us down one path, the national tha economic pressure. the costs of state government that we're currently ec pending, the dysfunction that the statemc government has been man fasting -- manifesting.t and the fact that the peopleex have lost trust in our government. they would dictate this state follow one course, but there's an alternative.in when you look at the assets of the state, when you look at thea legacy of the state, when you look at the tenacity of our people, and when you look at the quality of our people, you have the very real sense that we can turn this crisis into an opportunity. what is the state of the state?n this is a time of crisis for our state, a time when we must transform our government to once

again become the progressivee capital of the nation and to seize the moment of opportunity that is before us. [applause] what we do today, january 5th, 2011, will determine the course of this state for decades to come. for new york it is time to change, my friends, and that's what today is all about. this convening itself is a metaphor for change., this convening itself says thatt change is possible inial pany -- in albany. and i say, amen, because we need change in albany.

this is the first time since governor al smith that the state of the state is not being given in the capitol.rnor it's the first time that the legislative leaders were asked to participate in the celebration.ativ it's the first time that technology is actually going to be used in the presentation, and it's the first time the most important participants haveatio actually been invited to participate, the people of thehe state of new york.ave [applause] and we say, welcome, new yorkers, to being here today because this is your government, and no one is better suited to be here to hear this messageing than you. thank you all for coming. [applause]g.

the state of the state begins with an honest analysis of the crisis that we face. in government, as in life, you can never solve a problem if you refuse to acknowledge it. the economic recession has taken an especially hard hit on the. state of new york. 2009 we had a 26-year high iny unemployment. roughly 800,000 new yorkers are now unemployed, hundreds of thousands more are underemployed. we have the worst business tax climate in the nation. period. our taxes are 66% higher than the national average.pe upstate is truly an economic crisis.at in real gdp from 2001 to 2006, upstate new york grew about 1.7%

per year while the average in the nation was 2.7%. the costs of pensions are exploding. 1.3 billion in 1998-1999, projected for 2013; 6.2 billion. a 476% increase, and it's only getting worse. the state of new york spends too much money. it is that blunt, and it is that simple. our spending has far exceeded the rate of inflation. from 1994 to 2009, inflation was about 2.7% per year. medicaid went up over 5% peron year, and education went up over 6% per year. we just can't afford those rates of increase.

state spending actually outpaced income growth. state spending increased juststt under 6%, personal income growtu was only 3.8%. and most damaging, our expenses in this state far exceed revenue. we've been focusing on this year and the deficit this year which is a very large deficit, about $10 billion, and that is a problem, and it is a major problem. what's worse is it's not just about this year.rob next year the problem goes to $14 billion. the year after the deficit goes to $17 billion. this is not a one-year problem, my friends.er, this is a fundamental economic realignment for the state of new york. you look at the chart, you look at the arrows, this is an unsustainable rate of growth,tae

and it has been for a long time. not only do we spend too much, but we get too little in return. we spent more money on education than any state in the nation, and we're number 34 in terms of results. we spend more money on medicaid than any state in the nation, and we're number 21 in results. we spend about $1.6 billion per year in economic development, and we're number 50 in terms of results. we're spending more, andment government is growing more.n we now i have over 600 executive branch agencies, and it's not just state government.ve the proliferation of of localbr government inan special districs all across the state, now over p 10,500 driving that property tar rate up all across the state. and the large government we have is all too often responsive to the special interests over the g people of the state of new yorks

the proof is in the puddle, and new yorkers are voting with their feet. two million new yorkers have left the state over the past decade. what does this say? it says we need radical reform, we need a new approach, we need a new perspective, and we need it now! [applause] we must use this moment to transform our government. we currently have a government of dysfunction, gridlock andtran corruption. we have to transform it to a government owef performance, integrity and pride.disf [applause] it is time that we speak to these issues and actually get results for the people of the state and stop offering

rhetorical solutions. [applause] and i am going to present the budget in several weeks, but this, this year's budget discussion is not just about abu budget exercise. that's what those numbers are saying. this is a fundamental realignment for this state. you can't make up these kinds or savings over this long a period of time through a budget cutting or trimming exercise. we're going to have to reinventm government, we're or going to have to reorganize the agenciesn we're going to have to redesign our approach because the old way wasn't working anyway, let's bei honest. [applause] we need literally a transformation plan for a new new york. and we have four principles that will guide our new government.d

number one, we want a governmen that pays for performance. no more blank checks. [applause] number two, we want a government that actually gets results in realtime. number three, we want a government that puts the people first and not the specialin interests first. [applause] n and number four, we want a government that is in our town for integrity where new yorkers can be proud of their government once again. [applause] we're going to start by transforming new york's economy because what made new york the empire state was not a large government complex, it was acaus vibrant private sector that was creating great jobs in the state of new york. that's what made us the empire state once, and that's what's going to make us the empire state again.n [applause]

when you look at the beautiful a state seal at the heart of the seal in the middle of the shield are two ships on the hudson river. those two ships were put theree when the seal was designed to symbolize intracoastal andigne international commerce, that at the heart of this state is business. and we have to relearn the lesson our founders knew, and wo have to put up a sign that says new york is open for business. we yet it. [applause] and this is going to be a business-friendly state. [applause] we're going to establish economic regional councils, ten economic regional councils all across the state. they're going to be chaired by lieutenant governor bob duffy. [applause]aire the point -- these will be public/private sector partnerships, the focus of which is to create jobs, jobs, jobs il

those regions.blic it starts with the premise thatd there is no top-down template th create jobs. youdifferent regions -- you have different regions in this state with different assets and abilities, and these plans are going to have to come from the bottom up, and let's empower the local communities to plan their future and help themselves. [applause] higher education will be the key economic driver. we look to partner with our great sunni system, especially across upstate new york, in making this a reality. it they will be, they will provide -- they will provide both intergovernmental andl be intragovernmental coordinationod and be one-stop shops. the state government, county government, local government will all be on one board, and all the state agencies will be on that one board. if you need to get something done in that region, it's a

one-stop shop, and the government will actually cooperate with each other rather than conflict with each other. [applause] these councils will have two main functions. first, they will coordinate all the existing economic development money that goes int that region primarily throughthe esdc, but second, they will beos able to come up with jobth development plans and then compete against the other councils to compete for up to $200 million in funding.ther competition works, let them come up with their best plans. compete against the other l regions, and we will fund the w most creative plans. [applause] next, we are going to have to confront the tax situation in our state.

the property taxes in new york are killing new yorkers. thirteen of the 16 highest-taxee counties are in new york when assessed by home value. 16 in absolute dollars westchester county, the highest property taxes in the united states of america. nassau county, the second, highest property taxes in the united states of america.d it hasst to end, it has to end this year. [applause] the we have to -- we have to hold the line on taxes for now and reduce taxes in the future. new york has no future as theow tax capital of the nation.he our young people will not stay, our businesses will not come. te [applause] this has to change. [applause] put it simply, the people of

this state simply cannot afford to pay anymore taxes period. i now would like to introduce you to ms. geraldine sullivan. ms. geraldine sullivan is a resident of monroe county. she is 81 years young. [applause]ty she has, she's been retired after 28 years at bausch and bomb be. geraldine lives alone on social security and owns her own home. her home value, property value i has gone down, and her taxes have gone up. p geraldine could no longer afford to make ends meet. what did geraldine do? so at 81 years old she went back to work as a lunch monitor at

the local high school just to be able to stay in her home and just to be able to stay in the state of new york. geraldine, we understand yourst problems. help is on the way. we will pass a property tax cap, geraldine, once and for all.s [applause] wil and we -- >> and geraldine, we applaud your strength and your 13eur9 -- spirit and your tenacity. let's give geraldine a big new york round of applause. [cheers and. applause] we must transform our state government.

the last time the state government was reorganized was 1927 under governor al smith. 1938, a reform was passed, the constitutional amendment that ud said there could only be 20 executive departments.s twenty. what has happened since then? well, we couldn't create any more departments, but the law didn't say anything about creating councils, advisorydepa panels, working groups, facilities, offices, task forces, institutes, and committees. [laughter]nels so what do we now have? the department of health, only one department in compliance with the law. however, there are 87 other organizations that have been added to the department of health. 46 councils, six committees, 17 boards, six institutes, two tasd forces, five facilities. it's time to organize thend 1

government, make it professional. [applause] make it efficient, make it effective. to undergo a comprehensive review, let's eliminate, transfer and consolidate the funds. i propose setting up sage, at's spending in government efficiency commission. iter would be styled like a berr commission where the commission would come up with a reorganization o report that is submitted to the legislature, and the legislatures has 30 days to reject it, otherwise it's passed. the charge to the commission would be operational improvements, metrics and targets, a reorganization planol due in six months, and it would consist of private sector experts who could come in ande n advise us on how to do it and incorporate members of the legislature. we need to transform our budget. we have to start with an and emergency financial plan toinco stabilize our finances. we need to hold the line, and ws need to institute a wage please in the -- freeze in the state oo

newld york. we need to hold the line on taxes, we need a state spending cap, and we need to close thiste $10 billion gap without any borrowing.ee [applause] we need to transform the budget process that we use in the state. the legislature is very or familiar with the budget process.s th and we need to transform this process from partisan political theater which is what it is today to productive debate and compromise. right now the budget process is like ships passing in the night. [laughter] hold on a second. [laughter] bring those ships back, i think i recognize someone. [laughter] is that -- zoom in on that man t on that battleship.

yes, it is! senate majority leader dean skellos. [laughter] and, look -- [laughter] it's commander sheldon silver! [laughter] oh, and there i am! [laughter] and here are the special interest groups within --i am [laughter] [applause] you i notice, dean, how all the missiles from the special interest groups went into my battleship. [laughter] i would humbly suggest as the new governor that maybe, just maybe we try doing it a different way this year. what do you say? [cheers and applause]

we immediate to try a different a-- need to try a different approach. and think of it this way: there are basically three flash pointt when it comes to the budget. the education funding mandate and state and local medicaids. let's start with the medicaid program.l the state of wisconsin actuallyd used an interesting model. the governor had announcedstat across-the-board cut on the medicaid program. the industry said that they couldn't live with the cuts, and what wisconsin did was,. basically, brought everyone in.d it was a hybrid-alternative dispute resolution meets bindina arbitration process. and it actually worked fairly well in wisconsin.ess. the industry came in, they worked with the government, they accepted the budget target and then redesigned the program tord meet those targets. remember, this is not going toet be a budget-cutting or trimming

exercise. we need to redesign the medicaid program. i can also tell you this: as thg attorney general, i audited the medicaid program for four years. even without this budget problem the medicaid program needs a desperate overhaul. it has, it is dysfunctional on many, many levels. so this process has to be done anyway. our suggestion is to take a crisis management approach and put together a medicaid redesign team. the medicaid redesign team willa start on january 7th, it will commit to reinventing in time for the april 1st deadline, it o will assume the governor's budget target for the medicaid cut. and the exercise will be to find alternative ways to reach that f cut. if we institute a cut in thenati normal budget process, it's basically through reimbursement, reducing the reimbursement rate. let's see if we can't actually

find efficiencies in the progral so we actually provide a betterm service for less money. [applause] the committee will inb collude legislative executive and the stakeholders dennis rivera froma seiu, mike dowling, ken as key,a dan cisco, members of these legislature have agreed to participate in this process. we also have jason helgerson who's the former medicaid directer who did this in wisconsin, who's responsible foe designing the exercise. we have seduced him to come join us in the state of new york. which was not a difficult sell,g obviously. [laughter]e and jim introne who is a great veteran of state government andb has done extraordinary work in health care we've and asked to e

back. they're with us today, let's welcome jason and jim. [applause] thank you very much. welcome aboard and welcome back, jim. we'll use the same approach when it comes to mandate relief. putting together a group that will start january 7th and will commit to have actions by thepra april 1 deadline, and we'll propose eliminating any 7 unnecessary state mandates.he again, we'll include all our partners, legislative andnece executive stakeholders, labor groups, and that group will be run by larry schwartz who's now senior adviser to me, but manys of you worked with him when he was secretary to governor paterson. he's done extraordinary work, and he'll be excellent headinga

up group. thank you very much, larry schwartz. [applause]u ve when it comes to education funding, as i mentioned earlier, we're number one in spending, we're number 34 in terms of results. that has to change.educ the current education funding oe goes out by formula grants meaning there are no performance incentives in the grant process. a school district gets their numerical formula, and that's what they're going to get whether they do a good job, a bad job, it doesn't matter. they get the same level of t funding every year. the federal government isd actually more innovative in this area.t th they're doing it now in the area of education where they run competitions. and, for example, when they funh a state government, the statecai government wants to qualify for the federal money, they have top win the competition. we know in new york how effective those competitions were in making the statey government actually move and pass a piece of legislation

authorizing charter schools so we could qualify for the race ta the topnd money.f competition works.oriz when i was in the federal government ten years ago, weto t moved from block grants tol competitive grants. ye everything was performance grants. because when you just give people cash with no results, you take the incentives out of the system. our suggestion is when it comes to education, have two competitive funds that reward performance. one is a school performance fund which would have a $250 million competition fund for districts that increase performance in the classroom. for example, improving grades of historically underperforming children. if there is a school district that does stellar work, let them compete, let them be rewarded, and let them be emulated. [applause]

we would have a second competition for administrative efficiency, a $250 million competition for districts that can find administrative savings through efficiencies, shared services, etc. run those two competitions and actually incentivize performancd and change the behavior through the funding mechanism. [applause] for those of you who are skeptical about performance and the ability to turn around a school, let me introduce briane rosenbloom. brian is now the principal of the chelsea technical career high school in manhattan. brian has been there for two years, and he's already made aow difference. in that time student attendancel has gone from 73% to 85%, and listen to this, the pass rate o. the regents went from 31% to

89%. [cheers and applause] that performance is what we want to incentivize, that performance is what we want to model, and that performance is what we want to applaud. congratulations, principal. thank you for being with us m today.od i [applause] i would also propose a consolidation bonus. we've been talking about consolidating local governments for a long period of time, and can we're seeing some progress. i think if we added financial incentives to the governments that actually consolidate, you would see an acceleration in te consolidation process and have a bonus fund for local governmenty that consolidate, merge or share services with 50% of the bonus

money going to direct property taxpayer relief for the people of that government. [applause] my friend, we have to transform the ethical environment, and we have to clean up albany. [applause] we all have seen the headlines, headline after headline, month after month, year after yearll with no change. every time there's another headr line, there's another cut on the body politic and a little more trust has bled out. and this has gone on and on and on. i'm familiar with the situation because many of the cases that were in the headlines i was involved in. sometimes even in albany there is black and white issue.

and this issue is black and white.alba there is no gray. w the people of this state have lost trust in state government.n this government has lost credibility with the people of the state. itis is time to pass ethics reform, and it is time to pass ethics reform now.stat [applause] we will propose a clean-up albany plan with real reform. this is not going to be aanup situation where the people of this state will have suffered for years and lost trust and now we're going to give them ais s watered-down or half-baked ethics reform bill. they're going to have real ethics reform. we're going to end pay to play, we're going to have full disclosure of outside income, we're going to have an independent monitor, we're going to listen to ed koch's warnings,

mayor ed koch who's been going all over the state -- and we applaud him for it talking about independent redistricting. congratulations, mr. mayor. [applause] and we need public financing of campaigns. [applause] we must also at the same time once again become the progressive capital of the nation. yes, we must deal with these my call realities, and they are difficult, and they will be time-consuming. but at the same time we also have to continue to achievear social progress that made this m state famous. [applause]o when it -- you should applaud. [applause] i spent four years fighting wall street corruption, and i saw thousands and thousands of

consumers victimized by the wall street corruption. and can the question was where was washington, where was washington, where was washington? wheree was the whole alphabet soup of federal regulators? where are they? it was a good question. there was another question, where was albany? what was our -- where was our banking department, where was our consumer protection agency?b and, yes, i believe washington was primarily responsible, but i also believe new york could hav done a better job, frankly. i believe our organization -- [applause] i believe our current organization is not effective because it is not organized thee way wall streetli works anymore. these divisions of insurance and banking and consumer protection don't exist in the marketplace. and much of the activity is

falling between the cracks of our regulatory entities. we can have a win/win. wech can consolidate them into a department of financial regulation that better protectse the consumer, and thede consolidation will save theer taxpayer money by reducing the cost of three separate organizations.nsol [applause] we've been talking about green jobs, and i believe new york has a great future in this year jobs -- green jobs. we propose a clash 100 million competitive grant program that will go to local private sector partnerships cha come up with the best plans to create green jobs, reduce pollution and further environmental justice. p relate the private marketplace come in, let them work with the local governments and the local community groups to come up with the best plans.h the let's reward performance, let's

incentivize performance, let wi competition run and let us fund the best. that's the green jobs proposal. [applause we believe in economic opportunity for all new yorkers, the minority in women-owned business enterprise endeavor is a good one.ers, it has a current goal of 10% of state business. i want to double that goal toa o 20% of state business. [applause] for those of us who are old enough to remember willowbrook, it brings back very bad memories. when we think about our current juvenile justice facilities, i believe there are echoes of what we dealt with in willowbrook. you have juvenile justice

facilities today where we have youngwi people who are incarcerated in these state programs who are receiving helpn assistance program treatment that has already been proven tol be ineffective. recidivism rate in the 90 per seven time. percentile. the cost to the taxpayer ise exorbitant. for one child, over $200,000 per year. the reason we continue to keep these children in these programs that aren't serving them but are bilking the taxpayers is because we don't want to lose the state, jobs that we would lose if we closed the facility. job i understand. i understand. i understand the importance of keeping jobs.

i understand the importance ofi keeping jobs especially in upstate new york.job i also understand that that doel not justify thely burden on the taxpayer and the violation of civil rights of the young person who is in a program that they don't need, where they're notiol being treated hundreds of miles from their homes just to save state jobs. [applause] and incarceration program is not an employment program. people need jobs, let's get people jobs. [applause] don't put other people in prison to give some people jobs!pe don't put other people in juvenile justice facilities to give some people jobs! [cheers and applause] that's not what this state is all about, and that has to end this session. [cheers and applause] we believe in justice for all,

then let's pass marriage equality this year once the and for all. [applause] we're going to propose a program called the urban green markets program. it will be a win/win. we're going to set up green markets in urban areas all across the state to get good food to inner city communities, and these markets will be a host for the new york agricultural products. last point, we must seize this moment of opportunity. new york is not alone in this situation. as a matter of fact, there are eight states with fiscal conditions that are worse than new york.

this is going to be a time ofco national transition. this is really an economic recalibration for states all across the nation.s and that's what's reallymic happening as the economy is retrenched, states now have to recalibrate.ppen there have been other times in our history where there have to been transition periods. the agricultural transition, the industrial transition, high-tech transitions.en in all those transitions, new york led the way, and new york came out first. why? because we were fast, and we were more facile, we were more sophisticated, and we won in th? transition. we can win in the transition again.er a [applause] and we can make -- we can make january 5th, 2011, the day that we seize the opportunity, and

the state of new york strikes back. [laughter] [applause] i want to leave you -- [applause] i want to leave you with one personal point, if i may as the new governor. the -- to my colleagues in the legislature, one point in my life i went and joined the clinton administration. i was a lifelong new yorker, and bill clinton took office, and i had the opportunity to join federal government, and i did. and it was a good experience. i needed it. i was one of those people who thought the new yorker cartoonnc was the depiction that the west coast was really new jersey, you know? i was a real -- [laughter] i was a real new yorker. so i went down at the beginning of the clinton administration, assistant secretary of department of housing and urban

development, then i became a member of president bill clinton's cabinet, and it was a fascinating experience, and i got to work literally in every state in the nation. many times when you're in the g president'sot cabinet, your main utility is the president can'tmy make an event, they scramble for a surrogate, and be they send someone from the cabinet to be a surrogate. that was actually very toughramb duty, by the way. can you imagine strog go outsu to -- having to go out to kansas to substitute for president bill clinton and get before a group that was expecting to see the president of the united states, bill clinton, and instead they get the hud secking tear, andrew cucomo. [laughter]cret but it was, it was a learning experience for me. and can literally every state --

and i would be talking aboutrien every topic. and almost invariably somehowd they would figure out that i was from new york. i'm not really sure how -- [laughter] because i never told them.as [laughter] but they would figure it out, figure out i was from new york, and at the end of the event they would come up to me and almostth without exception whatever the topic, they would say, what are you doing about this in new york? it could be health care, it could be immigration, it could be taxation. whatwhat do do you do in new yo? and their eyes would be openit wide. what do you do about this in ne? york? why? o because we are new york. and because our history, our legacy was we took these difficult problems, and we solved them first. our and the rest of the nationwas learned from us. the other state governments looked to new york, and theyhe

learned from us. i was running hud, the housing economic development. most of the federal programs were modeled on state programs. why? because in the new yorkmost government was the best. we were the most sophisticated,o the most complex, the problems developed here first, we ree solved them here first. we had the most caliber in our government. we were just the best, and we were the model for the nation. r that's the history and the legacy of new york. this has been an aberration, this recent past, the dysfunction of albany. the gridlock offal wanny.een the corruption of albany. this is not the true story of the new york state legislature.f it's not who we are, it's not what we do, it's not why we're here. [applause]

the new york state legislature is the best legislature historically in the nation, the most talented people -- [applause] that's who we are. that is who we are, and that's who we can be again.at's when i hear your leaders or speaking about cooperation and a positive vision and change ands doing things differently, i am so excited. because the people of this statn desperately, desperately need it. they need the government to work in a way they haven't needed the government to work in 20 years.d they've seen the ugly, they've seen the gridlock, they've seen the corruption. th let them see how beautiful the government can be when it cooperates and it's enlightened. and it's functioning and it's performing and it's putting then people above the specialat

interests! [applause] let this legislature be the legislature that stands up and says, yes, we're democrats, but we're new yorkers first. yes, we're republicans, butatur we're new yorkers first be. yes, we're from down state, but we're new yorkers first. yes, we're from upstate, butepub we're or new yorkers first, and that matters most, and we're here as new yorkers not asrst. democrats, not as republicans, not as independents, we're here as new yorkers to serve the h people of the people of the state of new york and help this state through this crisis! [cheers and applause] let this 234th legislature stand up and write a new i page in the history books of new york state government! let this 234th legislature solve these problems at a time of crisis and bring this state to a

place that it's never been! we're not just going to build back, we're going to build backd bigger, stronger than ever before! [cheers and applause] that's what we're going to do together! thank you and god bless you! [cheers and applause] [cheers and applause] >> i thank you all for coming. the state of the state is adjourned. god bless you all, thank you. [applause]

>> the senate gaveled in for the opening of the 112th congress yesterday. >> c-span2, one of c-span's public affairs offerings. weekends, book the. 48 hours of the latest nonfiction authors and books. connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube, and sign up for sedge alert -- schedule alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> following their official swearing in this on the senate floor, senators held a ceremonial swearing in with vice president joe biden. that took place in the old senate chamber at the u.s. capitol. it's an hour and 40 minutes.

[inaudible conversations] >> how you all doing? happy new year. >> happy new year. >> come on, chuck, you can't change your mind now. you cannot change your mind now. your family's the envy -- you've got your family, you win a primary. where do you want, mrs. grassley? republican i, right here? i've got to know where i am. >> okay? now, the family get around us -- >> well, yeah. the second click. we're going to do the informal/formal thing again? [laughter] okay. please raise your right hand. in the old senate chambers. do you solemnly swear to support

and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that you take this oath, this obligation freely without any mental reservation for purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you're about to enter so help you god? >> i do. >> congratulations, and can i know why you kid it. i know. bring in -- [inaudible conversations] >> here's our legacy right here. >> i'll tell you what, you've got a beautiful legacy. how are you, good to see you? man, look at all these beautiful girls. >> [inaudible conversations]

>> how old are you? oh, you are or -- old. make sure we can see everybody here. come all the way around. >> yeah, come on. all right, here we go. >> now, wait a minute -- i can't hear. now, you didn't know you were the 6-7 grandson, did you? all right. see up top there? can you see us all? this okay. >> okay. oh, way up there. [laughter] >> couple more. and one more. over here. >> okay, over here, guys. >> okay. >> that's all right.

[laughter] [inaudible conversations] [laughter] >> all of you women under the age of 30, no dates until you're 30. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> you'll only have to wait six more years, right? congratulations. >> thank you very much. >> what's your name? how old are you? is this your the -- is this your sister? guess what? my sister takes care of me too, she still takes care of me. [inaudible conversations] where did you get those eyes?

i think i know where you got 'em. you need to send a thank you note. >> [inaudible] >> good for you, man. good for you. keep it up, man. >> nice to meet you. >> don't slow up, okay? i'm not sure i'm going to do this one. i'm not sure i'm going to do this one. patrick, haven't you learned how to -- and a picture at the same time? >> trust me. if we ever could figure it out -- >> you're going to stand on this mark. there you go. all right? i'm standing here. [laughter] >> okay. >> you ready? [laughter] please raise your right hand, senator. do you solemnly swear 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're about to enter, so help you god? >> i do so help me god. >> congratulations, man. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> come on, get this beautiful family in here. >> come on, fiona. >> who's that good looking guy? >> this is patrick. >> hey, patrick, how are you? it's great to see you again. hey, baby, how old are you? how old are you, 17? [laughter] what is your name? >> fiona. >> fiona? how old are you? you are so good. >> i'm 3. >> you're 3 years old? >> how are you, man? how you doing? the. >> come on over here and help me out. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]

>> if i could ask you just one favor -- [inaudible conversations] [laughter] [inaudible conversations] >> good to see you. father, it's an honor. it's an honor. [laughter] how are you? >> i am good. >> welcome. great to see you.

kano, right on that spot right there. >> right here. >> no, i'm sorry, on that one right there, and the real boss stands in the middle. >> how am i going to get my son -- >> well, we're going to do that, and ask then we're going to do it again. danny, you're senate pro tem pore, you've got power. do you solemnly swear to support the constitution of the united states against all enemies foreign and domestic, that you take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you're about to enter, so help you god? the best united states senator i've ever known, that's you, buddy. that's you. you are the best. how about the family coming on up? >> look at that.

kenny and jessica. good to see you. you've got to let the press see this beautiful child. [laughter] my dad would say, this child's got good blood. stand over here. stand wherever you want to do it. stand next to dad maybe. all right? okay. we looking up top? you got it. okay o. thank you, everybody. daniel, i'm working on that. i'll have an answer for you today. [laughter] thanks again, danny. that's the real deal. [inaudible conversations] >> i want the tell you something, i never doubted that

for a minute. >> i am bringing more. this is my sister, chris. >> hey, chris, how are you? good to see you. >> everybody, come on up. >> we've met before, yes. >> this is my niece, kim. >> hi, kim, how are you? >> this is valerie. >> hey, valerie. >> this is francesca. >> francesca, how are you, baby? how are you, big guy? >> i'm 5. >> oh, you're 5? i thought you were 5. and you're 17? oh. of. >> 7. >> i knew there was a 7 in there. >> how are you, man? >> hey, baby, how are you? >> nicky -- >> what's your -- nicky? how old are you? just remember, no dates until you're 30. [inaudible conversations] >> and this is drew. >> hey, drew. how are you, man? what a nice looking man. great handshake. hi, how are you, what's your name? >> robert. >> hi, robert. >> hi, maria, how are you? >> i'm just fine, thank you.

>> welcome. you know, do one of your sisters want to hold that bible? we're going to do a reenactment. we're going to swear you in again, is that okay? can. >> can you hold this up? >> senator, would you raise your right hand, please? do you solemnly swear 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, and you will well and faithfully discharge duties of the office on which you're about to enter so help you god? >> i will. >> i don't doubt it for a second. [laughter] hey, let me tell you something, i told this to danny inouye, y'all got good blood. [laughter] you, i tell you what, you got -- >> my sisters -- >> i know. i've met them before.

[inaudible conversations] [laughter] tell 'em i'm okay, will ya? >> julia, are we doing -- come on, let's come up. what are we doing? could you come up? i don't know what we're doing. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, we're doing -- who am i blocking here? >> what are we doing, shannon? come on up. >> stay right there, 12345r9. >> you stand with me. [inaudible conversations] >> can you see everybody? am i blocking anybody? >> okay. >> hang on one second. come on over here.

[inaudible conversations] >> okay? okay. that's it. [inaudible conversations] >> i'd take your grandma and your aunt, i'd take her before about any ten people i could name. [laughter] congratulations. good to see you. thank you, man. >> thank you, sir. >> thanks, old buddy. >> paddy, pad paddy. man, congratulations. [inaudible conversations] >> there you are. i've got to be on my mark there, you know what i mean? you just hang on, she's going to

raise her right hand. senator, 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 mental evasion so help you god? >> i do. thank you so much. >> you married a -- [inaudible conversations] hey, how are you? good to see you guys. handsome boy, how are you doing? it's a big place, huh? good to see you, man, how are you? come on. make sure they can see that beautiful child, okay? okay. we're going to look over there, and then we're going to look up top.

[inaudible conversations] >> future president. >> totally. without a doubt. [laughter] >> better take the picture now so you can say you knew him. [laughter] >> before he can say -- thank you very much. >> thanks for the job you do. [inaudible conversations] >> we're going to have you on that mark, you right in the middle -- [inaudible conversations] we're going to do it again, okay? same routine. senator, please raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of the unite against all enemies, foreign and

domestic and that you take this obligation freely without any mental rezlation or purpose of evasion and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which you are about to enter so help you god? congratulations. >> thank you. >> [inaudible conversations] >> not at all. >> hey, dad, come on in here. how are ya? >> i'm well. i hope you are. it's an honor to meet you. >> it's an honor to meet you. hey, william, good to see you. >> tyler. >> hi, tyler. >> dad, you get right in the middle here. you get right in the middle. >> dad, that went so easy. that must be because of you.

>> good part of the reason. [laughter] >> great to see you guys. [inaudible conversations] how are you? it's been a long time. hey, johnny. do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and and domestic, that you will bear true i 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 you're about to enter so help you god? >> i do. >> never any doubt about that. never. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you. oh, it's my pleasure. is that -- [inaudible conversations]

chuck. how are ya, buddy? [inaudible conversations] >> senator, would you, please are, raise your right hand? do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that you bear true pait 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 upon which you are about to enter, so help me god? >> i do. >> congratulations. [laughter] >> this is my daughter.

>> that's our daughter. >> mr. vice president, how are you? [inaudible conversations] >> how old are you? >> my nephew. >> you're turning 11? just remember, no dates until you're 30. good the see you, buddy. [inaudible conversations] >> my brother, bob. >> how are you doing? it's good to see you again. hi, pam, how are you? well, come on, we're going to do a picture. emma, you get right in the middle here. mac, why don't you get over here, okay? does that work, everybody? we're looking at that camera first. >> okay, good. >> as unacos tommed as he's made you, you've got to look at the press. >> the who? [laughter] >> thanks, joe. >> just remember, no dates until

30. see ya. [laughter] i know. hi, jane, how are you? you're beautiful. >> i'm great. >> we did this first -- [inaudible conversations] >> you hold the bible and put your left hand on it and raise your right hand. senator, please, raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the constitution of the unite 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 upon which you're about to enter so help you good? >> i do. >> congratulations. i'm glad you're back. [inaudible conversations] yes, let's bring the whole crew in. >> great. >> how you doing, buddy? hi, how are you? remember, no dates until you're 30. [laughter] [inaudible conversations] why don't you get in next to me. one sister or and three brothers in my family, and my dad used to say, look, you're a one-gal man. [laughter] it's the only job you have. that's it. because i promise, after that, she'll take care of you. >> there you go. >> think i'm joking, i'm not

joking. >> really? >> beautiful child. i can't understand why. it's great to see you guys. welcome back. look forward to working with you. >> a privilege. >> no, seriously, i like the tie. [laughter] great to see you. thanks. >> all right. >> nice to meet you. congratulations. >> good to meet you. >> good to meet you. [inaudible conversations] >> how are you? >> great to see you. how are you? we're going to stand you right in the middle, man, okay? [inaudible conversations]