wanted in effect to make it illegal for any state to have a right to work law. that's what they wanted to do and they thought they could do it except -- except the legislative filibuster was in place. at that time it took 67 votes and everett dirksen toured the country and he was able to defeat a measure supported by overwhelming democratic majorities. now, why do i tell those sters, mr. president -- those stories, mr. president? it's because the foot is on the other foot right now. republicans are in charge. we hear many people say including the president get rid of the filibuster. get rid of the legislative majority. let's do it our way. we should not do that. we have never done that in the united states senate. the senate has always been different. one senator said to me a few minutes ago, that's the whole rein i came to the senate from the house so every time the majority got an idea, it wouldn't be like a freight train running through the senate.

one of the major purposes of the legislative filibuster is to protect the minority in this country. a young frenchman wandered through america in the 1830's. his name was alexis de tofo. he wrote a book democracy in america, maybe the best book on democracy in america ever. it was very perceptive. he said looking ahead he saw two potential problems for the american democracy. one he said was russia. the other, he said, was the tyranny of the majority. he said in the 1830's that one of the great problems foreour country might -- for our country might be the tyranny of the majority. and it is a bulwark to prevent the tyranny of the majority and protect democracy. it has been from the beginning

and it is today. some of our republican friends, sometimes say let's get rid of it. we might think about the fact that we republicans, we conservatives are usually the ones in the majority. we're usually the ones needing protection. since world war ii, nearly 70 years democrats have complete control of the senate, house. republicans have had it for eight years. democrats have had control for 22 years and we've had for eight years. so democracy's finest hour, the right to talk your head off, the opportunity for extended debate has benefited our, democrats could say, more than their side. so why should we be the ones to try to change it? in fact, we weren't.

in 1995, after the big republican sweep, you know we have these, one of these are in charge and then the other is charge. in 1995, a big republican speak, republicans in charge of the senate, and a democratic senator said let's get rid of the filibuster. every single republican, even while the republicans were in charge of the senate voted no. that the essence of the senate is the right to extended debate, the right to talk our heads off, america's finest hour and then we'll vote when we think we're ready to stop debate. it used to be 67 and now it's 60. for a long time there wasn't any limit on it. it just went on forever. president wilson got mad about it a century ago and the senate said we'll debate until 67 of us think we should stop. and now it was changed and it is

60. some of the most eloquent defenses came from the late senator byrd. i remember the last speech he made in the rules committee where he said that the legislative filibuster is the necessary fence against the excesses of the popular will, the excesses of the executive. it was the necessary fence, he said, and we should keep it. this fractured nation needs a consensus building institution, and requiring 60 votes to pass major legislation is the discipline that forces us to come together. i saw the senator from washington, senator murray, on the floor a little earlier. we worked on the legislation to fix no child left behind. that wasn't easy to do.

everybody's got an opinion about kindergarten through the 12th grade. we're all experts on education. yet we worked and we worked and we worked and finally we got 85 votes for that. and you know what, we made some big changes, people accepted it. it's a lasting solution, and teachers in 100,000 public schools don't have to worry about us gigging -- zigging and zagging and changing federal policy for the next several years because we talked about it and came to a conclusion and accepted it. an example -- another example is obamacare. all -- the democrats were in the majority, all the democrats voted for it and republicans were in the majority, voted against it. what happened? it is a constant state of agitation an stale matte of debate. now, madam president , it has

been different for nominations and sometimes people get confused about that. legislative filibuster is one thing and nominations are another thing. until recently they have always been decided by a majority vote. now, they could have been decided by 60 votes, but they weren't, at least ever since the 19 -- a century ago. i'm not interested at this time in assigning blame to the democrats or the republicans about what's happened with nominations. but the fact is even though -- even though a senator could have required 60 votes, there never has been a cabinet member who was required to be confirmed by more than 51 votes. there never has been a federal district judge who had to get 60 votes to be confirmed, and there never had to be a -- a supreme court justice with the exception of senator -- of justice

fortice. mr. mcconnell: i suspect my good friend from tennessee is going to make this point in a moment. but if ever there was a stressful moment for a tradition, even though it was possible to filibuster the executive calendar, it was not done. would my friend have to be it was the clarence thomas nomination for the supreme court? mr. alexander: madam president, i would agree on that. we could get into a lively dispute among us about who shot john and who scratched who's back and who's fault it all is, whether it's the democrats in 2003, who required 60 votes for circuit judges or the republicans who stopped a couple of president obama's judges are at fault. the fact is, i know for a fact that most of us believe that we

should keep the legislative filibuster. how do i know that? because senator collins, who is presiding at the moment, and senator coons, who will speak following my remarks, offered into the record april 7, 2017, a letter from 29 republicans and 32 democrats which said we're mindful of the unique role the senate plays in the legislative process. we're steadfastly committed to ensuring this great american institution continues to serve as the world's greatest deliberative body. therefore, we are asking you to join us in opposing any efforts of existing rights and prerogatives of senators to engage in full, robust senate debate as we consider legislation before this body in the future. madam president, that's 61 senators on record about the legislative filibuster. so one reason -- one reason the

legislative filibuster is going to stay is because there are not the votes to change it. but, as i come to a conclusion, let me offer a better reason not to change it and a reason why we should change it if we consider it in the right way. we have rules in this body. in order to change a standing rule of the senate it takes at least 60 votes to get cloture. it has been proposed, and both sides have before used what we call the nuclear option, which is a parl men tairn -- parl men tear qan maneuver that allowed the senate to change the rule without getting 60 votes. well, madam president, this is a country that prizes the rule of law. i've heard president trump say

that. i've heard president obama say that. i've heard most of us say that. and i would ask if we don't follow our own rules, why would we expect the american people to follow the rules that we write? we are the main rule-writing organization in the united states of america. we ought to follow our own rules. when we didn't and used the so-called nuclear option in 2013, a democratic senator who is greatly respected, senator levin, said that a senate -- in which a majority can always change the rules is a senate without any rules. a senate in which the majority can always change the rules without following the rules is like a football game where the home team can say, if you gain nine yards, that's a first down or if you make a three-point shot and they need, they count

it for four. that's not the rule of law. so, madam president, i -- i make these remarks, and i hope the senator from delaware's still here. i make these remarks just to remind the country and remind the members of the senate that 61 of us have already signed a letter saying the legislative filibuster, the right to extend a debate, the opportunity to talk your head off in defense of what you want, the -- the -- the ability of this body to function as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority, and in this fractured country an institution that can produce a consensus that is lasting is valuable to this body. we ought not trifle with it,

whether in the minority or majority, we ought to make it clear. if we do decide to talk about it and change it, we have rules. it takes 60 votes to change a standing rule. i want to put a stop to this talk about breaking the rules to change the rules of the senate. i will not vote to turn the senate into a rule-breaking institution, and i hope if that opportunity ever arises, that my colleagues will vote the same way as 61 of them did in letter that senator collins and senator coons had signed earlier. madam president, i yield the floor. mr. coons: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from delaware is recognized. mr. coons: madam president, the remarks just concluded by my friend and colleague from tennessee help make it clear why so many of us do not look forward to his departure at the

end of the upcoming congress to the better veils of retirement. we are so grateful for the balance and measured leadership of the senator from tennessee. he reminds us of the best of our history of what it is that the senate has stood for and the role that we play in our constitutional order. i will briefly thank him for his remarks and thank the presiding officer for her hard work to make sure this letter was presented to the leaders of both caucuses with 61 signatures. we, frankly, could have gotten more. but in the press of that work of april 7, 2017, we thought it important to get on the record signatures individual senators saying we are committed to not change the rules of the senate on the senate filibuster rules regarding legislation. i'm committed to never voting to change the legislative filibuster and i'll simply conclude by saying to my friend -- my colleague from tennessee, that i think there is important work for us to do

here, to strengthen our goal. a number of the retiring members gave floor speeches in recent days where they talked about the ways in which this body, we do not listen to each other enough, we do not debate each other enough, we do not work across the aisle enough. and if we are to play the role for which our founders intended of us, we must do more, not less of that. the agreement that will allow us to negotiate toward a resolution about the impending shut down, the fiscal standoff between the white house, house, and the senate is exactly the kind of example i'd like to point to where members listened to each other and worked together to scich test votes and move to the resolution. this body has a critical role to play. as my friend, the senator from tennessee pointed out, we are amount a moment in our history where many question the

stability of our commitment to rule of law. nobody will play a more important role in reassuring our markets, our communities, our society, and the world that democracy, the deliberative respectful resolution of disputes, not through violence, but through debate and through votes by the elected representatives of our people is the best system for the governance of societies on earth. no better proof of that can be given than by this body conducting itself in the sort of disciplined, reasonable appropriate way that the rules of the senate a -- allow. madam president, i will suggest that your signature enforces that you and many others here on a bipartisan basis will not vote to take the rash step of changing the rules of the senate to turn us into the house and to remove the last bulwark, as my friend and colleague said, that ensures that we have the right to talk our head off whenever we might so choose. thank you, madam president. and i yield to my friend and

colleague, the senator from alabama. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. jones. mr. jones: if you want to do an addendum, you have my permission to add my name to that letter because it is that important, and i appreciate so much your comments because, you know, madam president, i've been here almost a year now. and what i have seen is that it is often so easy in our polarized political climate that we have that when issues that we have faced like today come up, people go to their corners. it is the line in the sand and everybody wants to talk to -- at each other and not to each other. and so i appreciate very much leader mcconnell, leader schumer, the work with my

colleagues, senator flake, senator corker in trying to make sure a motion to proceed is simply a motion to proceed to talk, to have those dialogues so we can go about the business of government as we leave here for the holidays at some point. i believe what has happened this afternoon is an important step, especially an important step going into the next congress to tell folks that are coming in and that those of us that are coming back, that we want to make sure we were put here to get something done, not just retreat to our corners. so madam president, i want to thank everyone that was involved late this afternoon to try to make sure this agreement was reached. i am anxious for these -- our leaders to proceed so that we can go about the business of running this united states and that we can go into these hole gays -- into these holidays with the assurance that we'll come back to do things for the american people. thank you, madam president.

i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. i'm going to -- when i conclude my comments, i'm going to ask consent that i can allow senator van hollen to speak, and i will speak after him for the purposes of a unanimous consent request. madam president, there is no such thing as a good shut down, and i certainly was encouraged

to hear the progress we made, i guess about a half an hour ago, when the majority leader and the democratic leader talked about discussions that are taking place. we hope that later this evening we will have an agreement that can pass the senate and the house and be signed by the president. but i want to make this clear. any government shut down is unacceptable. it costs the taxpayers money, it inconveniences the public, and it's certainly not fair to our federal workforce. this particular shut down would affect 800,000 of our employees, our federal workforce. about half would be asked to work but would not get a paycheck. about half would be furloughed without compensation. now, madam president, i am very proud, and senator van hollen is very proud of the federal

workforce that work in maryland. but my colleagues should recognize that 85% of the federal employees live and work outside of the d.c. area and so this affects people working in each of our states. over 40% of the federal workforce are veterans who have served our country in uniform and are now serving their country as public servants in the federal workforce. let me tell you what they are in for and the reason why we're going to be asking for a unanimous consent request. without legislation being enacted, the individuals who are going to be required to work will have to work without getting paid and then when government restarts, they can get a paycheck for the work that they've done. those who are on furlough would never receive any funds, even though it was not their fault or responsibility that they couldn't work. and those who have leave time

would lose that leave time as a result of the government shut down. so the legislation that we're going to ask consent in a few minutes would make it clear to these federal workers that as soon as we can after a shut down -- again, i hope there's not a shut down -- but if we have a shut down, as soon as the shut down ends, the next available time our federal workforce would receive their compensation so they know at least they are going to get their salary when the government reopens, that anxiety is removed. right now they don't know if they will be able to get their compensation when the government shut down ends, and they recognize we will do the fair way with their live time so they don't lose their leave time. we've done this -- we've opened government in the past, when we've had shutdowns, as part of the reopening process, we've included this type of legislation, but we don't know how long the shut down will be if we have a shut down, which i hope we don't have, but it will

be, i think in all of our interest we tell our federal workforce, that if there is a shut down, we hope there won't be, but they will be paid at the time the government reopens. we've been able to clear it on both sides, but first i would like to yield my time to my colleague from maryland. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. van hollen: thank you, madam president. i want to thank my colleague, senator cardin, for his leadership on this issue and many others and start by agreeing with him that first and foremost we should avoid a government shut down. and that's exactly what this body did. we passed an agreement. woe none of us loved it but we recognized it was a better

alternative than shutting down the government. that, of course, went over to the house and we know what happened to it there. so i hope we will continue to work together to avoid a government shut down. but the proposal that senator cardin and i are putting forward is very simple. federal employees should not be punished by the shut down. they have nothing to do with the dysfunction that would cause a government shut down, and they should not be the ones who have to bear the burden and the penalty of something totally beyond their control, a government shut down. and that's what this is about. as senator cardin indicated, often after shutdowns are over, the congress and the white house do the ring thing and we provide retroactive compensation to federal employees, but it's not guaranteed. it always could be changed. it might not happen.

and so what we're trying do is make sure that as federal employees watch the spectacle up here on capitol hill and they are thinking about joining their families for christmas or other things over the holidays, that they don't have to have the uncertainty about if there's a government shut down whether or not they are going to get a paycheck to pay all the bills that will stack up over that period of time. let's provide a confidence and certainty up front that federal employees don't have to pay the penalty for dysfunction in washington. that's what this bill does. i do want to stress, madam president, that if we go into a shut down, federal employees, both those who are still working during the shut down as well as those who are furloughed go without paychecks. they've got bills to pay. they've got mortgages, they've got rent.

they've got all sorts of costs that will pile up. so no matter what they will bear a burden from dysfunction and a government shut down, along with many other people who will see a dysfunction with federal government operations. they will bear an unfair burden. but what we're doing today -- and i also want to thank our republican colleagues for agreeing with this unanimous consent. what we're doing today is saying to people out there, hardworking federal employees, rest assured that after that difficult period goes by, if there is a shut down, you will be assured you will have the certainty that you're going to be able to get your pay and make those payments to make sure that you don't fall farther behind. it's the least we can do at this moment. let's hope we don't have to use this provision that we're passing in the senate today, but

it's an important insurance policy, an important security blanket as the hours tick by and we're not sure whether or not we'll have agreement by midnight this evening. so, madam president, i want to thank our colleagues and i want to yield back to the senior senator from maryland for the purposes of making the motion. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland is recognized. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. i want to thank senator van hollen on this issue and so many issues that affect our federal workforce. he's been a huge champion. i want to underscore two points that he made. one, the majority of our workforce depend on their paycheck in order to meet their monthly and weekly needs. so if they do not get their paycheck on time, they run a real risk of being in default of meeting their family needs, whether it's a mortgage payment, food, utility bills.

they are at risk. even though they'll get the paycheck later, i just want to underscore the inconvenience and the danger. a recent poll by afge, indicate that 845% of their -- 85% of their members were impacted during a government shut down. this is a large percentage of the federal workforce. another thing i want to emphasize is the fact that we don't want to see a shut down. i would like to see appropriation bills done and not a continuing resolution. we did get some of the appropriations bills done on time. that's october 1 for the fiscal year. unfortunately 19 of the 15 federal departments and dozens of agencies do not have an appropriation bill passed by october 1 and are in danger of running out of funds at midnight tonight. that's why it's important that at least we pass a continuing resolution in order to keep those agencies functioning.

it includes the department of commerce, nasa, national park service, the forest service, department of transportation, h.u.d., i.r.s. staff and i can mention many, many others. so the purpose of the unanimous consent request that i will be making is to tell our federal workforce we're going to continue to fight to keep government functioning. we hope we can get it done in the next five hours, but for any reason we miss that deadline and we have a government shutdown, that by this action we are telling you that when we have appropriations restored, you will be compensated during this period of time. and with that, madam president, i would ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 290, s. 2274. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 290, s. 2274, a bill to provide for

the compensation of federal employees affected by lapses in appropriations. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to consideration of the measure. mr. cardin: i further ask the bill be considered read a third time and passed an the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none, it is agreed. mr. cardin: thank you, madam president. i would yield the floor and -- a senator: madam president, if i could just -- the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. a senator: thank my colleague from maryland and the body and urge the house of representatives to take this up immediately. this has now passed the united states senate. mr. van hollen: they now have an opportunity to pass this over in the house. i would urge them to do it this evening or as soon as possible so we can provide that certainty and confidence to hardworking

federal employees. again, we want to avoid a shutdown but we need to provide an insurance policy in the event that it doesn't -- that it does shut down. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of h. con. res. 148 which was received from the house. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 148 directing the secretary of the senate to make a correction in the enrollment of the bill s. 3628. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. mcconnell: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: quorum call:

quorum call:

senator from montana. mr. daines: i ask the quorum call be vitiatedle. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. daines: madam president, i ask that the senate be in a period of morning business with