supermajority of votes, like treaties, for example, and impeachments and expelling a member, but the constitution is quite clear that everything else is a majority vote. but the senate has adopted rules in the past that i believe are, quite frankly, bordering on unconstitutional, by requiring that in order to change the rules, it requires two-thirds vote, 67 votes. well, that might be okay for one congress if they wanted to adopt that kind of a rule, but how can one congress bind another? i think it's quite clear from parliaments of old and other legislative bodies and court rulings in this country that one legislative body cannot burden a subsequent legislative body.

and yet here in the senate, because of a -- a change in the rules that happened some years ago, they say it binds every senate thereafter. i believe that's unconstitutional. and my friend, my friend from new mexico, senator udall, has pointed this out time and time again, that really we have not only a constitutional right but a constitutional obligation that on the first convening day of the united states senate of any congress, that we adopt rules. and we can adopt those rules by majority vote. now, if the majority wants to adopt a rule that says that for this congress, we have to abide by a certain number, well, that's okay, but it cannot bind another congress. it cannot bind another congress. so senator udall has been quite, quite eloquent on this issue and he has been very forthright and

has fought very hard for what is known as the constitutional option. that's just a fancy word for saying live up to the constitution. we took an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the same, the constitution. senator udall's constantly reminding us of what that constitution says and doesn't say and that we have the right of every -- and because the constitution also says, as the senator has pointed out many times, the constitution says that each body shall adopt its rules. so the senate can adopt its rules. and since it does not say in the constitution that each body can adopt its rules but it requires a two-thirds vote to change those rules, it doesn't say th that. it just says each body can adopt the rules. and it does not specify that we have to have a supermajority to do so.

it only specifies a supermajority i think, if i'm not mistaken, in five cases. five cases. so obviously the framers of the constitution was quite clear, that each congress could adopt its rules and they could adopt them by a majority vote. now we have a situation in the senate whereby we are throttled by rules that do not permit us to change those rules except by a two-thirds vote. as i've said many times, what if -- what if, what if the voters of this country decided to elect 90 senators from the same party, say the republican party? well, could they come in and say, okay, we're going to adopt new rules and from henceforth, it's going to take 90 votes to change those rules, knowing that

that may never happen again in the history of this country, that we would ever have 90 senators from one matter? could they do that? well, if you accept the logic of what we're working with right now, the answer is, yes, they could do that, and bind every senate from then on in perpetuity, that the only way they could change the rules would be with 90 votes. you say that wouldn't happen. well, what about 67 votes or 75 votes or 78 votes? what's so magic about 67? where's that magic number come from? it was plucked out of thin air. now, at least -- so that's why i address myself to the -- to the issue that senator udall has worked so hard on and that is focusing on the constitutional issue. senator merkley, my friend from oregon, has focused on rule 22, which provides for -- it's called the filibuster rule. and basically under rule 22, we

don't even have to filibuster. i mean, a filibuster, people think that they come on the senate floor like "mr. smith goes to washington" and they speak and they hold the floor, and they can hold the floor until they drop or if somebody else wants to speak, they can speak. that's what people imagine a filibuster to be and that's what a filibuster used to be. but what a filibuster has beco become -- what a filibuster has become is a means whereby the minority can stop us from debating anything. so what has happened to the senate -- supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world -- we have now become the greatest nondeliberative body because we don't debate, because now a minority can decide what we take up and what we don't take up. think about it this way, mr. president.

under the rule 22, as it's now being used, 41 senators -- 41 senators can decide what this body z. they have the veto rig right, the veto right over anything we bring up, that the majority wants to bring up. and again, when i say "majority," mr. president, i'm not say democrats and republicans, i'm saying any majority. that's why i first brought up my proposal in 1995, when we were in the minority. because i wanted to make it clear that this was not a means whereby we were trying to grab power or anything. i said, no, this is -- this is for the smooth functioning of this place. i predicted at that time in 19 1995, and the record is clear -- it's in the record -- i predicted that unless we do something, the number of filibusters would escalate, it would be an arms race. and that's exactly what's happened.

135 last year. 135. so the senator from oregon has that said if we're going to have a filibuster, at least people ought to come on the floor and talk. at least if you're going to filibuster, if you're so opposed to a bill and you've got a group that are opposed to it, at least stand out here and speak. we don't have to do that now. we can just put in quorum calls and walk off the floor and a minority, 41 senators, decide what we take up. can stop anything. think about it this way. for a bill to become law in this country, it requires it to pass the house and the senate in the same form and the president has to sign it. right now, the way that we are constituted and the way we operate in the senate, 41, a minority -- a minority -- in the senate, regardless of what the house wants to do, regardless of what the president wants to do,

and regardless of what the voters may want can stop it. that turns the whole concept of democracy on its head. i thought the majority rules with rights to protect the minority so that the minority can offer amendments. i don't even mind if the minority wants to slow things down. that should be their right, to be able to do that as a minority. they should have the right to offer amendments, to change a bill as they see fit. but i do not believe a minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop and veto a bill from coming to the senate floor. or an amendment. and so we have a situation where the power resides with the minority. now, i heard the distinguished senator from kentucky, senator mcconnell, the other day got up and said this is a power grab by the democrats. a power grab.

no. no, no. the power grab is by the minority, whatever minority. the power grab is by the minority to insist that they have the right to veto anything here. that's the power grab. and so now the power lies with the minority but the responsibility lies with the majority. so the majority in the senate has the responsibility to act. we don't have the authority. the minority has the authority, the right to veto things, but they don't have the responsibility. and that's why we have such a dysfunctional system. this is what the people of america are opposed to. now, i'll have more to say about this tomorrow as i think we get into a longer debate on this, but the people have the right to understand that if a majority of the house and a majority of the senate pass something and the president agrees, it ought to

become law. that's not the way it is. we used to have a system on the senate floor where if you offered an amendment and if you get 51 votes, you passed the amendment. you can't do that anymore. you cannot get an amendment offered on the senate floor unless you've got 60 votes. that's what's -- that's what's happened over the last four or five years. i know. i myself tried to get an amendment offered on the financial regulation bill. i thought i had over 51 votes for it. i don't know if i did or not but i was not able to offer it because there was a 60-vote threshold. i might have had 52 or 53 or 54 or 55 but i didn't have 60. so now in the senate we require a supermajority to do anything because 41 senators, a minority, has the right to veto anything the majority wants to bring up. well, mr. president, as i said, i'll have more to say about this but it seems to me, this stands

democracy on its head. and the idea of ma jar rule on -- majority rule on its head. i think the majority ought to have the right. i mean, elections ought to have consequences. if people vote for a certain party to be in power, that par party, regardless of what it is, ought to have the authority to act. now, there ought to be rights for the minority to amend, discuss, debate, slow things down, fine. but the minority should not have the absolute power of a veto, and that's what the minority has in the united states senate today. so that's -- that's the issue that senator merkley has been going after and that is if you're going to -- at least if you're going to have a filibuster, there ought to be some consequences to it. and the consequences are you have to be here and talk and not hide behind quorum calls, where we sit here for days on end doing nothing. doing nothing.

because someone's objected to bringing up a bill but they don't have to be here to discuss it. and so, mr. president, i just want to thank my two colleagues for their great leadership on this. as i said, they've brought a breath of fresh air here. and to the average person out there watching, they probably think, well, bring it up for a vote. well, things aren't quite that simple in the united states senate, as we're about to find out, and so we're going to do whatever we can to bring this to the forefront. but i dare say the way the game is rigged right now, the way -- i wouldn't say -- maybe i strike those words. the game's not -- the way the rules are set up right now requiring a supermajority to change those rules makes it nearly impossible for a majority of the united states senate to act. so again, i thank my colleague,

senator merkley and senator udall, for their leadership on this. i look forward to being in league with them to do whatever we can to make this place function a little bit better and a little bit more in accordance with the principles of democracy and majority rule and respecting the rights and the wishes of the voters of this country. so again, i thank my -- my colleague from oregon for his leadership. i see he's standing there and i thank my colleague from utah, senator udall, for yielding to me. mr. president, i would yield the floor at this point. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: senator? senator harkin, i would certainly like to thank you for the many, many years that you have pursued reforming the rules of the senate. initially from the perspective of being in the minority and then minimum takenning that same effort in the majority. and i think it's -- maintaining that same effort in the majority. i think and it's important to recognize that the issues we're presenting and bringing forward is to make the senate work

better as a deliberative body for both the majority and the minority. now, if we were turning the clock back several decades, we wouldn't be here right now carrying on this colloquy. instead, there would have been unanimous consent to put a rule proposal on the floor of the senate and we would be debating that proposal. that's the way the senate worked for most of its first two centuries. in 1953, senator anderson put forward a resolution to adopt new rules at the start of congress. there was a debate on it and then eventually it was tabled. tabled by 51. well, that's what the rules said, 51 can table it, they can set it aside. he did not win his debate but he got it on to the senator of the senate and it was debated. the samening 1957. in 1959 -- the same thing in 1957. in 1959, he again did this. in 1961, he did this again. and in that case, it was debated on the floor of the senate. and everyone said let's get the

rule out there, let's hold the debate. eventually they referred it to the rules committee. finally near the end of the cycle, it was moved out of the rules committee, back to the floor, they held another debate on senator anderson's proposal and that debate then resulted in a -- it was tabled. the resolution was tabled so it didn't pass. to have the debate isn't a guarantee you're going to win the debate but it is to engage in the deliberation, the exchange of ideas that enable us to capture the challenges we see, the challenges with our country. and, in this case, the challenges with make the senate function and make things work better. and this goes on. in 1963, so here we had five times in the course of 12 years a rule proposal was put on the floor, it was debated. it was defeated but it was put on the floor under the framework that 51 members could adoment rules under the constitution. the constitutional power that

you've been speaking to so eloquently for congress to organize themselves, for the u.s. house of representatives to organize themselves and for the u.s. senate to organize itself. so i wanted to go over a little bit of that history to say the very fact that we are not at this moment debating a rule proposal is a reflection of the dysfunction of the senate. so the debate on the rules to fix the senate itself reflects the dysfunction of the senate. so i want to thank you for having engaged in so many years of efforts to bring this issue forward and the challenge of fixing the senate, it's been engaged by so many names that i was familiar growing up with, folks like senator mcgovernor and senator mondale, senator church and senator pearson, and they all brought their effort to make that body work better and we did have a major reform in 1975 but as the chart i put up earlier shoarkd the congestion

an the paralysis from the abuse of the privilege of hearing yourself purr, making yourself heard before your colleagues, has now compromised the ability for us to fill our constitutional responsibilities and we need to fight hard to try to fix the broken u.s. snavment. mr. harkin: mr. president, would the senator yield for a question on that point? mr. merkley: i would be delighted to do so. mr. harkin: the senator is a student of the constitution. we've all looked at it. we noa novello what it says. -- we know what it says. and i mentioned he willier about the fact that when we come in here, we take an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. that's our oath of office, to bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution. is it the senator's view that perhaps the way the senate is

constructed right now may in some way -- i just throw this out -- may in some way take away my constitutional right to adequately represent my constituents? i mean, if it takes a supermajority or if we can't even change the rules, as the senator has pointed out, does not this kind of -- does this not take away some of the constitutional rights and obligations -- obligations drve a united states senator, i ask my friend? mr. merkley: certain little a it will you that senator burr, who stood on this floor and said the senate cannot be bound by the dead hand of the past ... you can imagine that any particularly bizarre rule that might have been passed by our predecessors that damaged our ability to fill our constitutional responsibilities would be inappropriate, and we would need to change it and the constitution empowers us to danger it with a simple majority. so when the point comes that the

national is not functioning in the fashion that it was constitutionally intended to function in -- that is, a simple majority to pass legislation -- then we certainly have to wrestle with whether we're doing our responsibility if we don't fight to make the senate work better. we have an obligation to this chamber, and we have an obligation to our responsibilities under the constitution. mr. harkin: i thank the senator for his response on that. mr. udall: senator merkley, madam president -- mr. president -- the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: and i know, mr. president, the presiding officer, he has also been a part of this rules reform effort, and we very, very much appreciate that. it was mentioned here about senator byrd dndz and i think within of the most interesting stories about senator byrd, senator harass can i and senator health care reformly, in 1979 when he came to the floor, he was talking about shall -- and

we've use this before -- the dead hantsdz of the past, not be ruled by the dead hand of the past. what was he real lee talking about? he was talking about the idea that one senate could establish in a set of rules and bind future senates and he gave a passionate speech, and we're in the situation that he talked about right now. he said, "now we are at the beginning of congress. this congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. take rule 32," which is -- it is a different-numbered rule today. but, for example, the second paragraph thereof which says that the rules of this senate shall continue from congress to congress until changed in accordance with these rules. that rule was written in 1959 -- 1959 -- by the 86th congress. the 96th congress is not bound by the dead hand of the 86th

congress. the first senate -- and now he talks a little bit about history here, which is very important -- "the first senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote." the first senate. "those rules have been changed from time to time and that portion of the senate rule 32 that i just quoted was instituted in 1959. so the members of the senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think or believe or pretend that all succeeding senates would be bound by that senate. the senate of the 86th congress could not pretend to believe that all future? thes would be bound by the rules that it had written. it would just -- it would be just as reasonable to say that one congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to be passed by two-thirds vote. any member of this body knows

that the next -- any member of this body in knows that the next congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote to repeal it by a majority vote. just no doubt about it. i'm not going to argue the case any further today except to shay at that it is my belief, which has been supported by rulings of three vice presidents, of both parties, and by votes of the senate, in essence upholdinholde power and the right of a majority of the senate to change the rules of the senate at the beginning of a new congress." and that's really the essence of where we are right today is that we are able, if we have a majority, to move forward with adopting our rules that are going to function for this session of congress. and that's why we're in such a battle here to try to get those proposals onto the floor.

we want to get senate resolution 10, we want to get the talking filibuster proposal, we want to get those put onto the floor so we can have debate, we can have a vote, and our understanding is that there's going to be objection from the other side, and as senator harkin said earlier, we function here by unanimous consent. and they parntsly are not going to give us that consent. i know -- and they apparently are not going to give us that consent. i know that senator harkin -- changing the subject here a little bit here. but senator harkin and america pri mentioned earlier the whole issue of why we want the senate to function better, that we have pressinpressing national probled chasms i think one of the senators that said it best made a comeants back in 1971. this is senator hart, senator phil hart of michigan. it resonates decades later.

"the apparent inability of the senate to take action on our domestic ills when the needs are so painfully clear is the basic coughs unrest and -- basic cause of unrest. the change is obligatory if institutions like the senate are to have the capacity to respond to we will to the complex array of overlapping domestic and international issues. long ago thomas jefferson said, 'as new discoveries are made and new truths discovered, and manner and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the time. institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times'." senator merkley, that's why we're here. we have rules that were adopted long ago that aren't working today. and you and i have talked

several times about how you wouldn't -- if you want your government to spend money wisely, you want it to be efficient, why do we not give them a budget until halfway through the fiscal year? it makes absolutely no sense. that's the situation we're in right now. we hold hearings. we bring the agency in. we think we're going to have an appropriations bill on the floor and by the way this year we didn't have a -- last year we didn't have a single appropriations bill on the floor. so think think they're going to get one budget. then last october 1, we start the fiscal year, we start into it, we've done a couple of continuing resolutions and a continuing resolution just gives them month-by-month funding, and now the next continuing resolution doesn't expire until march, and so who would tell any agency -- nonprofit, government agency -- that we're going to give you a budget, but we're not

going to quite tell you what it is and maybe go month to month and then about halfway through the year we're going to give you the rest of the budget? that's just not the way to take care of the people's money. it's not the way to be efficient. it's not the way to make sure that the people's money is very we will spent. so i -- i -- i think it's important that we do that work, the work of appropriations bills -- and as the senators that are on the floor right now, senator harkin is an appropriator. when you bring an appropriations bill to the floor and you have all 100 senators take a look at the appropriations bill, take a look at the -- at what's working in that department and what isn't, and how we move down the road with that particular set of policy initiatives and programs, that is something that the

agency pays tremendous attention to. those amendments that are put in the arguments that are made. and we're neglecting all of that now. last year we didn't do a single aproceedingses bill. my understanding, the house -- and i know we were very frustrated when i was over in the house -- we'd say, we will, why are we even passing the appropriations bills? the senate doesn't do them. and we're just going to end up at the end of the year doing one of these continuing resolutions or an omnibus bill. for the first time in almost i don't know how long, the house gave up doing appropriations bills. so here one of our core functions as a legislative body -- what we call the power of the purse, tremendously important -- that power of the purse has been emas could you lated, it's been warped beyond recognition to the point where i think we're

dysfunction acialg the agencies are dysfunctional and we've got to get it all back. look at -- and i know our chairman of the judiciary committee has outlined a number of times and i find it appalling that we do not have the judicial people in place to do the job for the country. and, you know, right now the federal courts are looking at fraud on wall street. they're looking at all sorts of major cases that have to do with financial reform and insider trading and awful those -- and all of those kinds of things. we will, guess what? if you don't have judges to hear those cases, then all of that justice is going to be delayed. there's an old saying in the law, justice delayed is justice denied. and today we have 94 judicial vacancies, and the judicial

conference of the united states has weighed in with the united states senate, the united states house and said, these are judicial emergencies. 94 vacancies, 44 of them they considered emergencies. they need somebody in their immediately and right still because of this constant filibuster we're in -- it is a filibuster without real debate but it wastes a lot of time -- it prevents our ability to put those judicial nominations on the floor and to get an up-or-down vote. the same thing is true, i think, of the executive branch. senator merkley, i know you sought article in "the washington post" which was at the end of -- i know you saw the article in "the washington post," which was at the end of the obama president sivment he only had 5% of his people in place, of the top people to run the government. it isn't all our fault.

i think they were slow in sending some things up. but it is a pretty appalling number when you think to yourself the job of a president is to put his people in place in the agencies so his policies can be carried out. and what has happened is that has been delayed and slowed down, and i harass ken bark -- and i hearken back. when i was a youngster in washington growing up, i was about 1 years old when my father became secretary of the interior. and here you have only half the people in place in the federal government. we will, my dad as secretary of interior, i remember him telling me when i would travel home, he said, tom, i had my whole team in plashings virtually whole team in place in two weeks. so he had his top people, he was ready to carry out policy, ready to move forward with the president's policies at the department of interior. and i remember, we had holes, we

had a variety of things going in the department of interior. we had a very talented woman from new mexico who was going to become the solicitor. she moved her family, young family, her husband. they came to washington. they had a three-month hold put on. nobody could ever figure out why, but she was finally allowed to become the solicitor at the interior department. all these things, from holds to the filibuster without any real debate have slowed down the government in a significant way and really prevented us from doing the important oversight job that we need to do. senator merkley, i know that you have other comments that you might like to make, and so i yield to you at this point. mr. merkley: thank you, senator udall. it is quite a contrast that you're drawing between an era in

which tpwhao-week period -- in a two-week period the bulk of the team was in place ready to do the work they were elected to do. the u.s. president had their secretaries and the secretaries had their teams in place and they were ready to go forward and to make sure they were working hard on the agenda that they had laid out during the election cycle. as my colleague from ohio said, senator harkin, elections have consequences. that is the vision of our republic. that is a vision in which we elect a president, and the president says here's my agenda, and then he puts together a team to get it done. it is not in the spirit of our constitution. it is certainly not in the spirit of our democratic souls to take -- and after the people have elected a president, try to

damage and inflict pain and obstruction possible that president. that's essentially saying that you do not accept the judgment of the united states citizens about electing the president of the united states. well, this process has to change. we have to find a way that folks can come to this floor. is isn't that this chamber will approve every single nomination. it's that it will hold a debate and have a vote. and if there is no controversy surrounding someone, then that will probably be reduced to a unanimous consent, and some will be waived through to not take up the time of the floor in this chamber. there's more than 1,000 executive branch positions that have to be confirmed under statutes. that too should be changed. there's far too many positions that are basically set up so they come to this chamber.

so that is certainly a subject of conversation. but for those that are under the law, need to come for our add srao*eus and consent -- for our advice and consent, we need to exercise that responsibility in a manner consistent with advise and consent but not with attempting to damage of the president of the united states and his team. now, i was looking at a speech here by one of my colleagues from tennessee, lamar alexander, and he notes that he titles it the filibuster: democracy's finest show. the right to talk your head off. that quote that he put at the top of his paper when he gave a speech before the heritage foundation is taken directly -- i'll just hold up the picture here. that quote is taken directly from the film "mr. smith goes to washington."

in other words, the premise that my colleague put in his paper is that there needs to be the right of the people elected by the citizens to have their voices heard on the floor of the u.s. senate. that's what the talking filibuster is about. it is about the people of the united states being able to see their senators when they're saying there needs to be additional debate to actually debate. so i want to note that there is a tremendous amount of bipartisan support for this notion that senators should not hide from the american people, that they should not be engaging in secret holds. but instead if they're going to place a hold on a piece of legislation to do it publicly and have accountability thr-fplt's tremendous -- there's tremendous support for the notion that when we proceed to vote that we want additional debate that we're actually going

to debate so that we utilize the time of the senate to weigh the pros and cons, to hear all of our colleagues. not that folks say we want additional debate and go off to dinner. not that senators say we want additional debate and go off on vacation. if they ask for additional debate, then we should have additional debate on the floor, weighing out the pros and cons, arguing the merits, considering amendments. in short, a talking filibuster. so i have a unanimous consent request that i gave notice of half an hour ago. we are standing by right now waiting for one of our colleagues from the other side to come, extending a courtesy to come and object to this unanimous consent request. so i'm saying this out loud and looking across the aisle and saying we've been waiting half an hour. i think it's time for one of our colleagues who wishes to object to get here on the floor and, just as we've been talking about, make their case visibly

in front of the citizens of the united states of america, why they wish to object to having a full debate on the talking filibuster. i know my colleague is waiting to offer a unanimous consent amendment to have resolution number 10, and have it considered before this chamber. and so i think we've pretty well laid out the reasons why we think this debate is important. but we can't get to that debate without putting forward a unanimous consent and having it concurred in or to be blocked in that by an objection. so i'll see if my colleague from new mexico wishes to make any more comments. and if not, i'll present my unanimous consent resolution and we'll wait our colleagues to come and either endorse it or object. mr. udall: mr. president?

the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, mr. president. i am also waiting. i think, senator merkley, you're waiting to put in your, asking unanimous consent to put in your talking filibuster proposal, which is one that is -- goes to the heart of the problem we have today. one of the things that i've learned the last two years in the senate is that when 41 senators vote for more debate, that's basically what is happening, is when senators vote for debate, more debate, 41 of them, then we don't get more debate. a lot of times we're in quorum calls. a lot of times if we have a live quorum, we pull 51 senators over to the floor to try to get through that. there are a series of dilatory motions. and it's very, very difficult in

a modern senate to keep 51 senators here surrounding the floor. in the old days they used to put out cots and stay through the night so that senators would be able to sleep someplace to keep that live quorum going. but in a modern senate with everything going on, it's a tremendously unfair advantage for one side to have one senator and the other side have to have 51 in order to try to conduct any business. and that's the situation we're in today. and that's what the talking filibuster goes to. it goes to deal with that situation. and how does it deal with it? if you -- if 41 senators request more debate, if they say to the other 59 senators, we want more debate, we very simply say, just as senator alexander said -- and

he was, i think, quoting jimmy stewart in the right to talk your head off from "mr. smith goes to washington," well, then come down and debate. we're going to have a debate period where nothing else is brought up but debate. and the job of the chair, as our presiding officer knows, will be in that period to ask the question: are any other senators, are any other senators on the floor that wish to debate? at that particular point the american people can look down and be able to make an observation, well, is this debate educating the public? is it moving things forward? or is it just a filibuster to waste time? i would note there's a very interesting, a waste-time filibuster, one of the old-time senators out of california made

the comment about the filibuster wasting time. he was asked -- this is former senate republican whip thomas keakle of california. he asked the question here on the floor of the senate. he said what is a filibuster? my definition would be -- this is senator keak le's definition. my definition is it is irrelevant speech making in the senate designed solely and simply to consume time and thus to prevent a vote from being taken on pending legislation. he's pretty condemning of that kind of filibuster. but that's a judgment. we don't want to take people's right to debate away. we just want to make sure there is a fair and honest debate here on the floor. that's, senator merkley, what i would compliment you on is that you have drafted a proposal, worked long and hard on it.

what it ends up doing is at the end of the debate, when the 41 senators call for debate, you go into that period of extended debate, they talk and they talk; at some point when the chair asks are any or senators on the floor that wish to debate, and there's silence, then you roll over into what's called postcloture and 30 hours. senator merkley. mr. merkley: if there is something critical to my state, the state of or0, that the talking filibuster enables me to find other senators who share my views. perhaps they have similar issues in their state. for example, the citizens of oregon don't want oil companies drilling off our coast. we have a tremendous business in salmon, in ground fish, rockfish. we have a river economy. it depends on the migration of those salmon upstream. we have a crab industry.

we have a tourist industry, most spectacular coastline to be found anywhere in the world, the coast of oregon. the last thing we want is an accident that puts oil all over our beaches and destroys multiple aspects of our economy. if there was a bill here on the floor that said we're going to drill for oil off the coast of oregon, and if i felt that was a mistake, a huge mistake, then i could organize with other senators and be here day and night to block that misguided legislation. and in that sense we're not changing the number. it still takes 60 members to close debate. we protect the voice of the minority. we say that two members could continue a debate day and night. for that matter, one could. but eventually one's going to collapse on the floor like jimmy stewart did. i think it is important to note,

because the talking filibuster is about taking away frivolous obstructions that paralyze the senate and prevent it from doing its responsibilities on advise and consent and doing regular bills from the house, being able to get authorization bills done, appropriations bill done and so on and so forth. there may be those out there who say we oppose the talking filibuster because it takes away the power of the minority to block legislation. actually the talking filibuster doesn't do anything of the kind. it says when you block legislation, you have to do it in front of the american people. you have to stand here on the floor and you have to make your case. mr. udall: mr. president, that's the essence of it. as you know, what we have now is

senators leaving. we actually had the case where a senator wanted the cloture vote to take place but then left and went home. pretty disgraceful situation. i heard that our good friend, senator alexander, is going to join us here in a little bit. you, i know, were quoting from a speech. he recently gave a speech at the heritage foundation on january 4, 2011. one of the things that he said in there that i think all three of us have echoed -- senator harkin and senator merkley. senator alexander said there is no doubt that the senate has been reduced to a shadow of itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, a place in which, as senator arlen specter said in his farewell address, has been distinctive because of the ability of any senator to

offer any amendment at any time. senator harkin, i know you have spoken passionately about the idea of offering amendments, how our democracy has deteriorated here in the senate because it takes now 60 votes. every amendment. it didn't always used to be like that, did it. senator harkin, did it? you've been here a while, what was the senate 10, 15 years ago? could you get an amendment through with a majority vote? mr. harkin: if my friend would yield for a response, i would just say, yes. up until literally four or five years ago, you could offer an amendment on the floor and if you had 51 votes, you won. and that happened for, well, i've been here, what, 25, 26 years, i guess now. and -- and that's the way it's always been. now, -- and sometimes there were tough amendments. sometimes they were tough amendments by a democrat,

sometimes they were tu amendments by a -- were tough amendments by a republican. i don't think the people just elected us to have an easy time of it here. sometimes these are tough votes. but i think the senator from new mexico is right. i mean, we always operate under the fact that a senator could offer an amendment. usually you'd enter a time agreement. you'd say, how much time do you want? you'd have an hour or two, have a reasonable time agreement and you'd have a debate and you'd have a vote. sometimes there would be a tabling. people would move to table it. that was fine. but at least 51 votes decided that and now, as the senator pointed out, you've got to have 60 votes for any amendment, supermajority for any single amendment that you want to bring up on the senate floor you now have to have 60 votes on. my friend, it wasn't always like that. mr. udall: senator harkin, one

of the things that happened to us right at the end of the -- the congress was we had a vote on a piece of legislation called the dream act. and i believe the majority had 55 votes. mr. harkin: that's right. mr. udall: for the dream act. now, here's a piece of legislation where we're talking about immigrant children through no fault of their own, probably brought in as tiny babies and grew up in the united states and have reached the age of adult hood and they have a ceiling on them. they can't go to college. they can't -- they don't have social security numbs. and -- numbers. and so we were basically trying to give them a team that they could go -- a dream that they could go out and be americans. they could join the military. after they did their military service, get in line for citizenship. they could go to college, do well, and get in line for citizenship. and in any other country, if you

had the two legislative bodies, the house passed it by a majority, we passed it by a big majority, 55 votes, you'd have a law and the president would be signing it and it would be law today. and that's what happened to this filibuster rule. and -- and a lot of the steps we're taking don't necessarily get right to the heart of that. but i -- i think the people understand that the part of it. i -- when i've gone home people say, what happened? what's going on? 55 senators voted for the dream act and it didn't get to become law. senator harkin? mr. harkin: if the senator would yield, he's absolutely right. i'll give the senator another example. as you know, the supreme court decided a case last year that -- that allows certain entities to contribute money to political campaigns and they don't have to disclose who they are or how much they give. a supreme court decision. well, the house passed a bill

and the public opinion poll shows that 80% of the american people were in favor of what we call the disclose act. we didn't say they couldn't give the money. we just said they ought to file, who are you? and how much money are you giving and where are you getting that money from? it passed the house. came to the senate, i believe we had 57 votes, if i'm not mistaken for that. i could be corrected. but it was over 55 votes for that, but it didn't pass. now, the average american out there would say, wait a minute, i thought if you got 51 votes, you won. no, no, no. you had to have 60 votes to pass the disclose act. the president would have signed it into law, the house passed it, 84% of the american people were for it. because there was this 60-vote threshold, we didn't get it passed. i see the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: senator harkin, i

think that is a -- i believe we had 55 votes twice. one vote short of the 60 to get to the disclose act. and so we couldn't get on to the bill. so here is a bill -- or here is a supreme court decision that allows unlimited -- unlimited, secret, foreign donations. now, i'll tell you as a red-blooded american, the idea of foreign companies secretly influencing american elections is outrageous. and we should have had a debate on that bill. but instead we had a -- a 41 senators who said they wanted further debate and then they weren't willing to stand up on the floor and make their case before the american people. and why did they want to hide from the american people? because the american people do not support secret foreign donations influencing american elections, that's why.

now, under the talking filibuster folks couldn't have filed an objection and left this chamber and hid. they would have had to make their case. and the american people could have weighed in and said, you're a hero or you're a bum. in this case i think that certainly most americans, i believe, would have weighed in and said get to that bill, get to a debate on it and get it done. because it's the american tradition for americans to make their decisions about who they elect, not foreign corporations to secretly spend money on american campaigns. mr. harkin: well, i thank the senator. you pointed out correctly. i thought it was 57. you said 59 votes. you would think normally that bill would pass, go to the president for signature, supported overwhelmingly by the american people.

thwarted because we had the right -- as i said earlier, the minority hags the right to -- has the right to veto. they can veto whatever they want to bring up. what sense does that make in a democracy? i yield the floor. i thank the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: thank you, senator harkin. and we see our good friend, senator. mr. alexander: senator alex -- r arecollection ander from -- alexander from tennessee has arrived. senator merkley had a chart and had the history of what had happened as far as rules debate and, you know, there are a lot of rules debate, 50, 60, 70's, and always, always the two leaders would allow a rules proposal to be on the floor -- be on the floor and be debated and be -- be disposed of. and we now have a situation

today where we can't get our rules proposals on to the floor. senator merkley is here with a talking filibuster proposal. i believe he's been talking with you. you've been a very -- senator alexander, you've been very open with us in saying, let's have discussions and your theme has really been like you you say in your speech at the heritage, the senate needs to change its behavior, not change its rules. that's been your -- your function, but you're also working on rules changes with senator schumer and we very much appreciate that. but i know senator harkin has a proposal, senator merkley has a proposal. i have senate resolution 10, you were here on the first day of the senate on jan 5th -- january 5th when we put in here with my two friends senate resolution 10 and we're trying to get it to the floor and that's what i'm going to ask right now with my unanimous consent request. and we very much appreciate you being here. mr. president, i ask unanimous

consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of senate resolution 10, a resolution to improve the debate and consideration of legislative matters an nominations in the -- and nominations in the senate. that there be six hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or designees with no amendments in order and that upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i want to congratulate the senate from new mexico. he has been persistent and diligent and enormously well-intentioned in this effort throughout the rules committee hearings and throughout the floor debate in seeking to help the senate function better, and at the same time presenting the senate as a forum for deliberation and protection of minority rights. we have a difference of opinion

about whether that's best done by allowing changes of rules by 51 votes or by 67, which is the way the senate rules currently prescribe. his pro processual can -- proposal can -- to change the rules certainly can be considered on the senate floor in the regular order and we'd be happy to work with him to do that as long as it was by 67 votes. so because of that difference of opinion, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: likewise, the senator from tennessee, knows that i have been on this for a long time and i have a proposal also. and, again, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 8, a resolution ea amending the p standing rules of the senate to require cloture to be invoked after a debate. that there be four hours for debate equally and divided and controlled between the two

leaders or designees with no amendments in order, and upon the use or yielding back of time the senate vote on the adoption of the resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: reserving the right to object. the senate from iowa at least since the early 1990's has been forcefully arguing for his position. we have the same difference of opinion fundamentally that i mentioned in connection with senator udall's amendment. glad for these rules changes and amendments to come to the floor, but only if they're approved or rejected with the requirement of 67 votes. so for that reason, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, it has been the tradition of this chamber with our rules proposals to put them on the floor for debate and to hold that debate and then if the body does not like that either to defeat them

outright or to table them or to refer them to committee for further work. and, indeed, under the constitution, it is in order for us to have a debate now, as a simple majority, to amend our rules. now, the constitution calls for a supermajority for impeachments, a supermajority for treaties. but it calls for a simple majority to amend our rules an organize ourselves -- and organize ourselves. and so many members of this body often talk about the constitution and it is the constitution that we're talking about right now. what it calls for a simple majority to be able to organize. so that is why in 1953 the senate debated senator anderson's resolution, eventually defeating it by tabling it. that is why in 1957 and in 1959

they proceeded to put on the floor, both sides agreeing that it was appropriate under the constitution to have the debate in this chamber and then to either approve or to vote down or to table or to refer to committee and then in 1961, anderson's rule proposal to make cloture three-fifths president and voting was referred to committee. it was defeated again. but it was debated and referred to committee. and then the committee returned it to the floor for further debate. no one objected to us holding a debate. in fact, here is the irony, we're talking about fixing the broken senate because debate is unable to take place and this very conversation we are having right now with proposals to be put on the floor is being objected to by the other side because they're saying that it's not appropriate. but the constitution says it's appropriate. the tradition of the senate says it's appropriate. and so i too have a resolution

to put on the floor a proposal for debate. it is the talking filibuster proposal. and it is important that senators not be able to object to regular order of 51 and then go home or go on vacation and hide from the american people. but if they believe there should be additional debate, that they come to this floor and debate. the people of america believe that that's what the filibuster's about, making your case before the american people, let's make it so. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of senate resolution 21, a resolution to amend rule 19 and rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, to enact the talking filibuster, that there be six hours for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with no amendments in order and that upon the use or yielding back of time, senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution.

the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. alexander: mr. president, reserving the right to object. the senator from oregon is a former speaker of -- of -- of his house in oregon. he's been a long observer of the united states senate, having come here first working for senator hatfield and has been effective and passionate in his views. i was reviewing today some remarks made by largely democratic senators four or five years ago when some republicans got the idea it might be a good idea to -- to reduce the -- to make this a more majoritarian body and senator schumer, senator reid, senator clinton, senator obama all said it would be a mistake. so while i greatly respect the senator from oregon, we have a difference of opinion about whether it's in the best interests of the senate and of the country to change the rules in this way, so i object.

the presiding officer: okay is heard. mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: i thank my colleague from tennessee for coming to the floor and applaud his long service. when i first came to the u.s. senate, senator hatfield asked me to bring greetings to his former colleagues, and hi a chance to sit down with senator alexander and convey those greetings and to work with him on some projects including the -- the advocacy for electric vehicles. good for the american economy, good for the strategic positioning of america in terms of its consumption of energy and certainly good for the environment. and i just want to note that while we disagree on this, this is actually the way it should happen, that we should come to the floor and share our respective views, disagree with each other, make our points. i believe that at this moment we

should be on a rule, we should be debating it. my colleague has expressed his difference of opinion in a very gracious and respectful manner, and that, too, should be a factor of senate dialogue, so i thank him. thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator oregon is recognized. mr. merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i submit resolution 24 on behalf of myself and senator tom udall, proposing a standing order of the senate, and i ask unanimous consent of the senate that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of the resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: mr. president?

for purposes of having the resolution go over under the rule, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. and the resolution will go over under the rule. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. con. res. 3. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 3, concurrent resolution honoring the service and sacrifice of staff sergeant salvatore yenta

and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. reid: i ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements related to this matter appear in the record in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: i ask consent that s. res. 14, resolution honoring the victims and heroes of the shooting on january 8, 2011, in tucson, arizona, submitted by senators mccain and kyl remain at the desk. that the senate proceed to its consideration at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow morning, wednesday, january, 26, there be 3 1/2 hours of debate between the majority leader or the republican leader or designees. upon the use or yielding back of that time, the senate vote on adoption of the resolution, no motions to be in order, further that if the resolution is adopted, the the preamble be agreed to, the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table and there be no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: there -- is there objection? the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask that the presiding office of the senate be authorized to join with the like committee on part of the house to escort the president of the united states to the house chamber for the joint session to be held tonight at 9:00 p.m. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told there are two bills at the desk for their first reading. i ask that you consider them en bloc. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the titles of the bill en bloc for the first time. the clerk: s. 162, a bill to cut $500 billion in spending in fiscal year 2011. s. 163, a bill to require that the government prioritize all obligations on the debt held by the public in the event that the debt limit is reached. mr. reid: mr. president?

i object to my own request en bloc. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bills will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i understand there is a bill at the desk and i ask for its first reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: h.r. 2, an act to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care-related provisions. in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. mr. mcconnell: i now ask for a second reading and i order to place the calendar on the bill under rule 14, i object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the bill will be read for the second time on the next legislative day. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate recess until 8:30 p.m. tonight and proceed as a body at that time to the hall of the house of representatives at 8:40 p.m. for the joint session of congress provided under the provisions of

h. con. res. 10. that the senate recess until 9:30 tomorrow morning, january 26. the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. and following any leader remarks, the senate proceed to a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with the time then -- with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. the senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each during that time, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the second half. finally, mr. president, that following morning business, the senate proceed to the consideration of s. con. res. 14, a resolution honoring the victims of the tragedy in tucson, arizona, as provided under the previous order. finally, i ask that upon disposition of the resolution, the senate resume morning business, with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president,

senators should therefore expect a roll call vote at approximately 2:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon on adoption of the tucson resolution. i would also say, mr. president, that we have had a lot of good work today. we haven't been on the floor a lot doing what appears to be a lot of substantive stuff, but what we have been able to accomplish in the halls of this building and the various senate office buildings has been extremely important, and i appreciate everyone's cooperation. senator mcconnell and i have had occasions to speak and we know how difficult it has been for everybody involved, and we think the result is going to be very, very good for the senate. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that we recess under the previous order. the presiding officer: the the presiding officer: the

we begin with senator reid. he's about eight minutes. >> i look forward to hearing the president's speech tonight, which is going to be our vision for rebuilding america, creating

jobs for today and for tomorrow. we are focused on this. to create the jobs of today, will have to do whatever we can to get rid of as many tax loopholes, for example, those that ship jobs overseas and give tax benefits for doing so. we're going to continue to do everything we can to continue building jobs at the new clean energy technology that's available, to create the jobs of tomorrow will make education a priority so we can better compete with india and china. and we basically are asking to have the republicans join with us. after tonight's state of the union speech, republicans will put the spotlight on their party's ideas and plans to end social security and medicare and basically reenact the bush economic plan, which didn't work

too well. the truth is republicans roadmap leads us to job loss. we'll make our country less safe and raise taxes on middle-class and will break her promise to seniors. democrats recognize that we need to control spending and make government as efficient as possible. we can never balance the budget. we can never balance the budget while 15 million americans are unemployed. for those who think government is always bad, look what we got a report on yesterday as a result of the work that we've done in the department of justice card down on people who have been cheating the system and basically cheating all people. we were able to recover some $4 billion from companies trying to scam seniors principally. so as we prepare to the president's speech, hope republicans will place their vertical grandstanding with solutions that actually help create jobs and address

challenges facing our country. [inaudible] >> i remember you standing in this phase -- [inaudible] >> i'm standing in the same place i was. i think this is an issue that any president would like to have. it takes power away from the legislative branch of government and i think it's the wrong thing to do. i don't think it's it. it's a lot of pretty tough, but it is only giving the president more power. he's got enough power already. >> the permanent chairman to be ratified, is that likely to happen if we support them? >> we do that every year anyway. [inaudible] >> i understand some members like more process overhaul and a more formal vote on the

chairman. >> well, we have a wide-ranging discussion today about committees generally and discussion about whether we should change the process for some time. it's not a real concerning issue in the caucus. we've spent a little time on that. >> what about some of the other rules and provisions that senators develop in berkeley are putting forward quite >> we did spend a little bit of time on that. >> i think we have a way to proceed forward. we've been able to result in their advocacy to get the republicans he tentatively agreed to a number of changes. i'm not at liberty to discuss those at this time, but i hope we can move this down the road in the next 24, 48 hours. we were making a lot of progress. >> to be the house republicans went on record putting

appropriated spending down to the 2008 levels. he's got a big vote coming up. how are you going to respond in the senate to do that? will you call for a freeze like the president? what do you intend to do quite >> will of course come as they understand the president's freeze, that is something in the ballpark of reality. what the republicans have proposed is really not in the framework of anything being realistic. even the secretary of defense has called for a cut in spending for defense. they have not done that. and if you look at what they're talking about, it really is very illogical, health care saves the country and over the next -- how many years would it be -- 18 years. almost $2 trillion. they want to wipe that out. we have health care now creating thousands of jobs around

america, thousands of jobs. and as you know, 80% of the american people are glad we did nothing with health care. a small percentage want the bill changed, repealed. and so, i think that the budget that they're talking about is privatizing social security. we've been through that today. they're going right back to the bushes again privatizing social security. so i fear comfortable where we are. i feel comfortable with what the president wants to do. he recognizes the need to do something about spending and i think we'll hear a lot in this about ways of addressing the death of this country. i want to just editorialize a little bit. we were able to do that. you know, this idea of doing something about the debt, we did it in the last half of the clinton administration we took

down the debt sunset to quickly for the first time in generations. so they are not in the come i repeat, round of reality. [inaudible] >> the question asks about 1099. 1099 has one of those areas that we know we need to address. and we're going to do that. there are a number of other proposals out there to do it. some are paid for, some are paid for. if something were going to get accomplished. one must question. >> always proceed not from this filibuster changes in bold changes in how many votes will take the change rules? to direct that out? >> were not changing the rules. we're working through that. that's an answer to a previous question. we don't have the pathway at how to get through this. there's some significant procedural issues that we have

to get around. i've had a number of meetings with senator mcconnell. the two leaders of the rules committee, shimmer and alexander are working through some of this we've made great progress. i repeat the next 24, 48 hours we cannot away of completing this work. we're going to the steering committee meeting tomorrow to take care of the democratic side of the committee edition since attractions that we've had. so i think we're doing pretty well. thanks, everybody.

>> do you solemnly swear to support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

>> president obama walking along the white house colonnade earlier today in the president getting ready now for a state of the union address. the white house says he'll call for a five-year freeze on all discretionary government and income except for national security. our live coverage of the address begins at eight eastern on c-span and 8:30 eastern on c-span 2. >> i hope so anyway. [inaudible] >> maybe we can arrange that. >> a number of senators debated a resolution today that would

change senate rules on considering legislation. it would change on filibusters are conducted and require a senators seem to be made public if they put a hold on a bill. would also change the rules for offering amendments. we'll show as much of the debate as we can until the senate goess back in for the state of the. union address.th >> thank you, madam president. the reason i'm rising to talkped about rules is we are at the for start of a new two-year period o for congress. and this is the appropriate tims to be considering how well the senate is working and whether we should amend the rules by which theat senate function. major now come in the last major debate over many new rules 1975. within 1975. the reason that there is a in debate that particular year isnd that in 1973, 1974, congress ha4 receded. there were 44 filibusters, each

eating up about a week of the ao senate's time. there was a tremendous amount on frustration over the dysfunction of the u.s. senate. so at the start of the congress that began in 1975, there was af enormous amount of debate.n all kinds of emotions.g spreadsheet, tracking them those pages. in the end, what this body, the u.s. senate decided to do was te change the rule that requires 6e senators to terminate debate and have a final vote on the bill and replace it with the decisio0 to have 60 senators required too end debate and have a final vote on a bill. this is so-called cloture no we a motion. now, we are in a period

immediately preceded by the 2009, 2010 congress. h in 2009 and 2010, we didn't have 44 filibusters. we had 135 filibusters.en in other words, the senate has been three times as as it dysfunctional as it wasajor preceding the last major debate in this chamber overrules. for since each filibuster delays the work of the senate for approximately a week under the 5 rules, if you have 135 objections in a two-year period, that would be 135 weeks of delay and a 104 week period. ousl obviously, many things are not going to get done with that type of obstruction. and indeed, during 2010, thiso s chamber was unable to pass a single appropriations bill of

ns traditionally taken under consideration, debated on this . alert and sent forward. and why is that important?tions because in the appropriation bills, we make decisions aboutrs what the most pressing problems in america are and how we're going to allocate resources to address this pressingin problemo but we didn't fail to do this ii one or two areas. we failed to do it in author ths team. furthermore, this body did not t year of 2010. this body did not receive toadve advise and consent all denominations that came before t it. in fact, the left over 100 nominations pending. now, m this merit a little bit further discussion. because under the constitution, it is senate. chamber, this esteemed chamber, the to

liaison on "becoming chaz" onke the president's nominations to fill key exyecutive rangehamber decisions. and it is this chamber that ways than other presidents recommendations to fillia judic, decision, to assign judges. and if we never get to the h't debate on the floor of theonstio senate, we have a fulfill their constitutional a responsibilityo advise and consent. w in fact, we've awarded the executive branch and we've damaged the judicial branch. baf and certainly under balance ofnd powers, was never envisioned the vice consent function of the senate would be as to damage the other branches of government. responsibility. furthermore, with left over 400, house bills lying on the floor, collecting dust, unconsideredves insane in the u.s. house of representatives is the u.s. b senate is very good house bill goes to die. new

it is appropriate that as we start a new two-year period wed ask ourselves how should we address this dysfunction? there was a time in which the senate was called the greatest e deliberative body in the world. unfortunately today there's very little deliberation in the u.s. senate. no appropriations bills, nominations and process, hundreds of house bills untouched, a budget and completed. the main corporate ms is the of filibuster. a filibuster which is kind of oc street language, a few well, for an objection to the regular order of holding majority vote and triggering a battle week delay in the senate and also triggers a supermajority of 60. it's gotten to the point where

this body has set up a that w constitutionally envisioned function as the majority party, a body would need 51 votes is functionally becoming a sup supermajority body. now the framers of the constitution were very clear in the area of the supermajority required for particular purposes. a to approve treaties or aa supermajority that is impeach, but not too passed legislation. that wasn't the vision.ay i so today i rise to say, we can d do better in the u.s. senate and that we outwit under our constitutional responsibilitiesf to do better.osal and there are a series of proposals that have been filed.c one of my colleagues has arrived, senator udall, who has been a key leader, enormous the instrumental in this effort to reform sthe senate. so in a few minutes, i'm going s to ask for unanimous consent foe

one of these rule changes to the beacon dirt on the floor.acrosse i'll do that when my colleague from across the aisle has arrived.di and i'll go further in discussing how we need to change the senate. before i go any further. kol senator udall, if rds for a colloquy, so i thought it might just stop at this moment and see if he wanted to jump in and share some general thoughts before we get into the specifics of the various resolutions that the we might ask unanimous consent on to have considered.setor >> madam president. anaximander from new mexico. >> thank you. thank you, madambe president. we let me first of all at theard beginning think two of my colleagues that have worked incredibly hard with name on the senator merkley for morgan and s senator tom harkin from iowa.an

i think senator harkin will be joining us at some point- here. and i also want to thank theoney chair, one of the very early leaders on the constitutional rules was senator jeanne shaheen from new hampshire. i -- and she's in the chair today anc tknow she cares about theow sellout and i know that she f wants to see this moveor forwaro and what we're trying to do, what were trying to do today is father would've been history history in the senate.poin in te a feather -- at various points in the senate you spend respecte for each other, the ability to get things on the floor, to get debate. and with the rules it's prettyot extraordinary when you look at the history. when you look at the history of the senate votes, one of the the

things that's very clear in the movements in the 50s and 60s both leaders would allow proposals onto the floor, i love these proposals onto the floor to to be voted upon. edinary and we have the extraordinaryay- situation today, extraordinary n situation -- and we'll see when our colleagues show up, but our friends on the other side of the aisle are basically saying we don't wantul your rules reformsn the floor today.verybody we're not going to allow that to happen. as everybody knows of theo unanimous can vent to do this. and were not going to get consent today, but we want to wa layoutt for people what it isnge that could happen if we were able to get some pain on the floor.r and it's my belief, senator m merkley, that the proposals thad we make, the proposal that you

and i are on and the presidingso officer,n senator shaheen and 2p that weit filed on january the 10th.sa it's a reasonablel. proposal. it's a commonsense proposal andn the five proposals that are hentained in here have substantial bipartisan support - in the past. and i'm going to be asking unanimous consent to put senate rest can onto the floor so that we can have ca debate on it, so that we can move forward. extraordinary is that we're not going to get the consent. o our research indicates and ist know senator merkley and his staff worked really hard. they had a chart that was threen pages long. and in the 50s and 60s and 70s, these proposals from the 1, floor.se there were debated on the floore

and then sometimes there was a motion to table, sometimes an ue or down vote. vote, but we're having difficulty gettingn this reasonable commonsense proposal on the floor.. 10 senate rest can which says 26 day and first of all, it deals r with a serious problem. i verify parts of this. the first one is debates on motions to proceed. a it may sound a little crazy to people out there, but when we s try to get something onto the ws floor, it doesn't just happen not exactly. actually what has to happen is both sides don't agree is the fs leader, the majority leader files m with code a motion to proceed.mo because we can end up on the motion to proceed because going on for a week you have to file a

cloture, which means to file cutting off debate on the motior toip proceed and then with all e right thing time and everything that. week, you can get at the end of the ct week. and iff you don't get the 60 sqe votes to cut off debate on the motion to proceed, you're back to square one and you wasted a a week. and that is what we believe is y itlatory tactic. it doesn't let us get to thepler point, which is the peoples business. please, senator merkley. >> just want to clarify what you just said, that a supermajority of the senate after perhaps a of week of debate is required just to get to the point that she might be able to start debate on a bill. the senate waits weeks and weeks debating whether to debate, rather than doing the people's business. that's a problem. the h

>> senator merkley, you hit it on the head. that is the problem.consiste and we have had that been consistently hear in the twoy years that you and i have been m here in my understanding it happened in many of years beforr that. in fact, senator byrd -- senatos byrd was very,et very upset abog the way the motion to proceed was being used. floor, in 1979, came down to the floor. he was the majority leader and he did oevery and he could toths change the motion to proceed and try to make sure that it was moe used more rationally and more reasonably o. when our proposal is, senator merkley and the other senators 're ta on thislk now we're talking twoo hours of debate on the motion to proceed.er rei so rather than wasting a week, e if majority leader reid comes down it says were going to proceed to a piece of legislation about jobs and he puts it on the floor, the sign '

over there getsre an our and our site gets an hour and then runrs the piece of legislation, ready to have amendments filed, ready' for debateve to take place. we've saved what we believe would be a week of time. the second proposal, that's dealing with the first on the motion to-- proceed.simple, buti the second is very, very simplen but it going to move the senate along any germanic way. and that this section to eliminating civet holds.n it would take an approach that i know we have several senators who have worked for years and years on secret holes.artisan when i talk about bipartisan,e f senator grassley, senator wyden from your great state of oregon, senator claire mccaskill from tl missouri more recently, butue they've all been working on theo issue of secret holes. and so, we very simply do this a in one little section. we say no senator may object ont

behalf of another senator without disclosing the name of that senator. mer becca's rage at the heart, senator merkley of the secretoug holes. >> you're telling me that it's become a common type is here inf the floor of the senate for anl individual senator who wants too post something to not have the courage to stand here and tellal the world the position, butse instead to secretly object to a particular issue being raised.ar public canor believe that senate conviction to come here and sayi i'm going to hold up this piece of legislation because they disagree with it and i'm going to fight it in any way i can.thr but the public can weigh in on whether or not they agree with them or don't agree. will be transparent and accountable to the u.s.we'ven a citizens. >> senator merkley, one of the things that happened than we've seen a lot of this, is where we know thart some senator is objet

being, for example, aepartment,, nomination. a high nomination in the department, executiveis -- department.an i and yet,t does it eagerly, so we don't know here on the senate pl floor the press doesn't have an idea that people don't know. and then the same senator goes to the department and negotiates policy, national policy about ar particular issue that concerns the whole nation, all of oureal state and tries to get anthat it agreement of a backroom deal and in agreement. that isn't the way v we should a doing business and that's why this very simple proposal, no senator may object on behalf of. another senator without disclosing the name of theervedr senator. senator merkley. >> at which notice to observe senator wyden and senator grassr siague, senator mccaskill have r worked hard on a much more sen detailed version that we have au senateti resolution 10, but the

basic notion is the same. if you're going to place a whole, you're going to do so i a public and accountable faction. then i would greatly improve. t i've been the position of getting help for the klamath basin oregon because they have the worst drought they've had it since they started recording t rainfall. and it took me quite a lengthy. to find out -- it eventually did find out, but it took me a period of asking a lot of bere i questions to 40 found out who ih a whole before heav could ask tn to release the hold so we would have a chance of moving that dre assistant for the drought impacted portion of my state. with this change, senators holding up assistance to have to climates or any other provision would have to come toor the flor and make clear where they standm >>er senator merkley, what endsn happening is that as transparenm and if u.s. is the senator fromh oregon on the climate-based want to do something, you can go to

that senator, whoever it is that they have got an issue for my to state. can we were together to thes south? s right now the problem we have ii that some senator is putting onv the secret hold and we don't know whoe t it is that we don't have the ability to clear the way. heis is a good solid proposal. public. it's often secret to fellownatos senators that really complicate our effort to dialogue withor fellow senators and to explain why we're pushing something are pursuing something andet get yor partnership to it. >> that's me. that's right. now i'm going to move on to the s. 10, third section of the senate risr 10, which is the right to offer amendments. as senator merkley knows veryar, well in our presiding officer, one of the big issues around here, and this isin getting in s little bit into the weeds, butn- one of the big issues that could help this function better is ifd

we just agree the weather were in the majority or the minority, we want both sides to have the opportunity to debate and to offer amendments.many of and so we are trying to protect that right. many of us are thinking in terms of these rules. we're saying we want them to bee and so the provision on right to author amendments as on senate t legislation. he talks about them being you majority and minority amendments. it doesn't talk about parties because we may well -- a lot of pundits are saying we're going to be in the minority in two years. and i think it's only fair in the unite td states senate thatd have that kind of a relationship.mr. me senator merkrkley. t >> like to note it is importantm for example, we recently had a r bill on the floor ofec the senar which was a major bill regarding

the compromise struck by president obama with republicans alleagues to spend almost ast trillion dollars.take i have an amendment that i want to present here that would've taken some of the money b and nv know that erwas being spent in a fashion, which created very fewn jobs and spend it in a fashionf that would create a lot of jobst and i had another proposal to take money that wasn't being put to good use and proceed to fill in and support the solvency of social security and medicare. that people can argue about to whether these are good ideas or not, but if i had been able to offer one or both of those amendments, i think it would improve the debate and dialogue here and perhaps have resulted in a better piece of legislatiok >> senator provision and i think you're very right on section three, but section four is the issue of wou extended debate. to and i would like to have youue,

talk about that issue.mo because that is the issue that you worked the most closely on.r you have raised the issue of what we have going right now is what we call a silent debate.ib. it's a senate filibuster. filtea want to filibuster an object, but then they go home or they go on vacation or something like hv pat.afted a and so you have drafted a of thi provision. you were the architect of that sovision in s. res. 10. could you go through that and just talk about the section on n extended debate, what it does and why it's important to what we are dealing with here today?n >> you bet. this provision by the talking filibusters is rather than having a situation where aork senator objects to a majority n we delay the work of the senate for a week, but e nobody is here explaining their position to the american publica

instead we would switch to a provision that says if 41 senators want to continue debate on a bill, we will get continue debate on the bill. we will have debate on a bill,cl noy,t silence. currently we have the hidden ort the silenthe filibuster. we would create the public for n the talking filibuster. and to give you the sense of numbers on this, these blue bare represent filibusters during the last two years. , during the first six months, 33, 34 and six months. i think that the 136 total filibusters and a two-yearation period. this is why we didn't have any appropriation bills. this is why we didn't have a reds o budget. this is why we didn't do with hundreds of house bills. this is why we didn't getdvise d nominations done and advice

consent on them. now is that the senate has always operated? last few absolutely not. and last two decades, there's been a huge change in how the senate has functioned.so l so let's take a look.is is ave this is averagera per year. in 1900 to 1970s.d, , the average was one filibustee per year right here. in 1970s, the average was 16 filibusters per t year. 21 filibusters per year average. 1990, dirty filibusters per year average.2,s, 2000, 2010, 40 filibusters per and year. and in 2009, 2010, the session is an average of 68 for 186ou total. so you can see from this chart the growing dysfunction because there was a social contract that

existed in which he was aner to individual senator didn't exercise your power to object te a majority vote unless he thought it was an issue of huge consequence. and maybe you do that once twice, not routinely week afterl week.s b so thateen social contract has e eliminated. so the filibuster, which was really the honoring of every senator to be heard, that we tol were going to hold a vote until every senator had had their say so we can be fully informed, the full dialogue. it's that reciprocal reset that is being routinely dissedpecteda respected and abused on the floor of the u.s. senate. alan r. had come in many of us s have an image of the filibustero that comes from mr. smith goes and here's jimmy stewart playine the tour jefferson smith. actio and it comes to defend a corrupr

action regarding a camp for children. and he talks through the night and there's many sources assaulting him. but jimmy stewart will stay onhi she senate for until the american people what he's fighting for and why. filibus and this is a talkingte filibuster. you don't object them go away in them that the senate suspended. you don't vote foder additional debates do not have that debater you can't do this for a new holr the floor enjoy with other partners to hold the fort in holding up the senate and to fo. carry on the debate and have thb additional debate you had voted the talking filibuster is almost that simple. replaces the senate filibuster with a talking filibuster. all, the result is two critical things. first of all, transparency andai accountability with the americau public. the public can see what you are saying on the floor of the a senate and can say you were a

hero. but it' they can agree with you. they can disagree, but it's visible, not hidden.senator the second thing is that eache senator has to spend time and energy carrying on a filibuster. this will strip away all of these filibusters done for no other reason than to prevent thy senate for being able to carry out its responsibilities.mr. ud >> senator merkley, let me alsog say one thing about the talkingt filibuster that has been announced for bipartisanship.ere as we know, both of us were here on the floor with senator arlen address.o i believe the presiding officer was also here. and senator specter served in the minority for two years and then was in the majority for almost two years. p

and both times he came forward with a proposal he was calling the same thing, talking side. filibuster, whether she was on the minority side or majority to side. d so i think once again i just want to demonstrate that each of these provisions in here hasbeli bipartisan support. and i believe this debate -- we don't didn't this debate is is about partisanship. nkon't thi we don't think it's about power grabs. we don't think it's about those kinds of things. it's about is to have elucidated. it's about making the senate work better. it's about -- when we say the senate worked better, we're tali talking about works better for the americanng people.id i think if we did the oversight of government, when it comes toa appropriations bills, budget,etg getting the budget out on time, getting appropriations bills done on time, that does a lot to make sure the public's money is

welll spent. and that is something i hear about a lot.com.d but with regard to a paragraph,e i have a statement that i wanted to put in the record that shows very genetically by theal optio constitutional option is not a paragraph. s and i would ask unanimous consent to put that statement id the record at this point and also a republican policy committee paper that's kind ofnl the constitutional option from a the power to make procedural rules by a majority votehose ine april 25, 2005.use i i ask unanimous consent to put both of those in the record because i think they show this t isn't about a power grab. it's about is trying to work to make sure that the senate is going to t work better for theoo american people. >> without objection. >> i would also ask unanimous consent from my law clerk, tims

for those remainder of this the- debate. >> without objection. >> now, the fifth provision of senate this time in a senator merkley knows, we are down heree today to try to get senate restg 10 rules changes onto the floore and we're going to be asking unanimous consent, but the fifth provision is called post-cloture debate on nominations. and what are we talking about their? well, when we have a nomination executive nomination, those the rule 30 hours of cut o post-cloture debate. so when you decide to cut off debate, when you get to the point if they were going to cut af debate, that 30 hours isfor normally used for amendments and

to work through the amendmen process. a -ll,me when you have a nominatn come you're not demanding aeithr nomination. you're trying to either movepers forward, up or down vote on the nomination. s have 30 is either voted up or down.ou os it makes no sense to have .30 hours.e the other commonsense proposal we have been here is too short not cloture time to two hours, the post-cloture time to two hours from 30 hours because i don't know, senator merkley county are also familiar with this provision alsoth it. is >> well, you think which you set or does we would save 24 hourshs on each nomination. and if the senate goes around the clock, that's a bit within e day. if are doing a 10 hour day, thet that's almost three days. three days of senate time there really is put to no purpose right now since at the time youy have 60-vote cloture county

vardy got 60 members saying they are ready to vote.o let's go forward. and so, letting people wrap over a couple hours and received their key points for the numbers make sense.e, that' that's why the two hours or e, but there. but two hours in three days. >> .-- that's correct. so, what we're doing here today, senator merkley, i know you've introduced asa freestanding proposal on the talking filibuster. also signed ontofi that. we've senate rest 10, which is fine at january the fifth that has these five solid provisions rules.heseng the and i think if you look at these in history, if you look at these in history, they've had broad ts bipartisan support. i would at this point recognized that our colleague in this rules debate in our partner and hard

worker and more senior andn t experienced on these rules matters has joined us with h senator tom harkin from iowa. brenna collet we situation and so i would -- >> yield for an observation?g the next senator from iowa. col >> i want to thank my friends,, my colleagues, senator udall and senator merkley for their great leadership on this issue.fr they have brought a breath ofene fresh air to the senate in exposing i think what has becom, a gridlock, which has made the senate almost dysfunctional. and so, my friend, senator udall the c especially focusing on what the constitution really says andon doesn't say in the fact that i believe that i'm just forup to e myself, i believe that we are tw not, madam president, living up toedo the oath that we stay dowk

here by the well and took one tk were sworn into the united states senate. we took an oath that we would uphold and defend thee constitution and that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.nstitutii b quite frankly the constitution i believe is quite clear in thet's way it's written, and thethe verbiage that's used and if we constitu look to what the founders wanted in the constitution. it's very clear. the but for -- but for a fewconn instances, clearly spot on the su constitution, requiring a super majority vote slaked treaties and impeachments and expelling r member of the constitution is quite clear that everything else is a majority vote. but the senate has adopted rules in the past but i believe are quite frankly bordering

unconstitutional by requiring that in order to change the rules, it requires two thirdsot. vote, 67 votes. to ado well, that might be okay for of when congress if they want to adopt that kind of a rule. but how can one congress bind another? i think it's quite clear from parliaments of old and otherourt legislative bodies, courtlegisle rulings in this country, that one legislative body cannoty. burden a subsequent legislative body. and yet here in the senate, because of a change in the ruley that have been some years ago, they say at times every senatead thereafter. i believe that sometimes too shallow. and my friend my friend from nes mexico, senator udall has pointed this out time and time e again, that really we have conuo

modeled a constitutional right, but a constitutional obligation but on the first convenient date of the united states senate of any congress, that we adopt b rules. and we can adapt those rules by majority vote. ad now if the majority wants to adopt the rule, it says for this congress we have to abide by anb certain number, with that's okay, but it cannot find another congress. so senator udall has been on quite -- quite element on this s issue and he has been very c forthright and thought very hard for what is known as the constitutional option. that is just a fancy word forcoi saying, live up to the kinds to to shame.n but we took an oath to a commandeer true faith andonstitt allegiance to the same, the constitution. and senator udall is console h reminding us about the constitution says and doesn't

say that we have the right -- because the constitution alsoath says is the senator has pointed out many times, the constitution its rules. hae senate can adopt its rules.t and since it does not say in the adt its constitution that each body can adopt its rules, but it requires a two thirds vote to change tha those rules, it doesn't sayes. that. it says each body can adopt thea rules it does not specify we to have to have a supermajority to donl so. it only specifies the in fe supermajority, if i'm not mistaken, in five cases.bviously five cases. each coness so obviously, the framers of the constitutional are quite clear that each congress could adopt these rules and they can adopt them by a majority vote. now we have a situation in the senate whereby we are dropped by

rules that do not permit us to change those rules except by a two thirds vote. as i've said many times, what is -- what is the voters of this country decided to allot 90 senators from the same party to the republican party? and well, could they come in and say okay, we're going to adopt new rules and from henceforth it's going to take 90 votes to changs those rules, knowing that may never happen again in the history of this country. would never have 90 senators and one party. you did they do that? with well, if you accept the logic about working with rate outcome of the answer is yes, they coule do that. and bind every senate and with 0 gratuity. the only way they could change the rules to be with 90 votes. vos or

well, what about 67 votes or 75m votes?fr what is so magic abomout 67? worries that magic number come n from? it was talked out of thin air. - now, at least -- that's whyas address myself to the issue that on and that is focusing constitutional issues. h senator merkley, a friend from oregon is focused on rule 22,r r which provide for what is called the filibuster rule. 22 and basically under rule 22, we don't even have to filibuster. i mean, filibuster people thinkg they come in the stoenate floord and they speak in the hole or before.y and they can hold the floor until they drop or somebody else wants to speak, they canat spea. that's what people imagine a filibuster to be a monthly becom

filibuster used to be. cody filibuster has become, with the filibuster has become is a means whereby the minority candg stop us from debating anything.e so what has happened to thethe d senate, supposedly the greatest delivered his body in the worldd we have now become the greatest non-deliberative body because we don't debate because now a a minority can decide what we take up in what we don't take aent. period think about it this way, mr. president. unders rule 22, as is now being1 used, 41 senators -- 41 senators can decide what this body does. they have the veto right, the veto right over anything youhe the majority want again, when i say majority, mr. president, i'm not beingmaji

democrats or republicans. i'm saying any majority. that's why first brought up by proposal in 1995 when we were in the minority. because i wanted to make itb means whereby we are trying to grab power. this is for the smooth 95nctioning of this place.19 i predicted at that time in 1995 filibust ander is in the record.ate i predict unless we do it something, the number of filibusters would escalate, would be an arms race and that's exactly what's happened. 135 last year.or from 135.regon so the senator from oregon says that for another filibusterfrom the people i took him on the and a b talk. g a at least if you're going to at a filibuster, if you're sost oppod to abilities that a group opposed to it, at least in that hearing speak. we don't have to do that now. they put in quorum calls andnori

walk off the floor. and a minority, 41 senators decide where we take a 10 stop anything. think about it this way. were built to become law in this country, it requires the house and f the senate in the same fo. that the president has to sign it.constited an right now, the way that we are 1 constituted in the way we operate in the senate, 41, a minority in the senate,o, regardless of what the house wants to do, regardless of whatn the president wants to do it regardless of what the voters that may want can stop it.oncept of it turns the whole concept of democracy on its head. i thought the majority rules with rights to protect minority. so the minority can offer amendments. thing i don't even mind if the minority wants to slow thingths

down.d havehe right that should be their right, to be able to do that as a change minority. they should have the right to offeree amendments, tobut i do n changeability see fit. but i do not believe a minority ought to have the right tog to absolutely stop and veto a bill n from coming to the senate floor. or an amendment. and so, we have a situation, where the power resides with the minority.mcconnl, the now, i heard the senator from kentucky, senator mcconneller get up and say this is a powerno grab by the democrats, a power grab. no, no, no. t the power grab is by theminori o minority, whatever minority. the power grab us by the minority to insist they have th. right to do anything here. so now the power lies with the minority about the responsibility lies with the

majority. the majority in the senate has t responsibility to act. we don't have the authority.thht the minority, has the authority, the right to veto, but we don't and that's why we have such a dysfunctionalos system. to this is what the people oforro america are opposed to. i'm going to say about this bu tomorrow as i think we gett into ajlonger debate on this, but i m think the people have the right sena to understand that if the majority of the house the pass majority of senate pass something, the president agrees about to become law. that's not the way it is. please have a system on the if senate floor which offered passt amendment. if you got 51 votes to pass the amendment. can't do that anymore. the you cannot get an amendment offered on the senate floor thas unless you've got 60 votes.our r that's what's happened over the last four or five years. i know.egulatio

i myself tried to get amendment offered on financial regulationr bill. i thought i had over 51 votes. i don't know if i did or not,as but i was not able a to offer because there was a 60-vote or threshold. i might've had 52 or 53 or 54 o. 55, but i didn't have 60. so now, in the senate, we a require a supermajority to do anythingha because 41 senators n minority has the right to veto. anything the majority wants toeo bring up. t it seems well mr. president as i said, i'll have more to say about a 10. i think the majority ought to have the right -- i mean,pleoter collections onto otherit consequences.gh if people t vote for a certain party to be in power, that party can regardless of what it is, to have the authority to act. amen,