the merkley reform is to force an actual debate when something happens. that is a very tiny step back from -- not quite the precipice. that requires more action. >> nobody's talking about trying to get rid of the filibuster. almost nobody is talking about that. you hear the constant caveat from every democrat, they fully expect at some point in their career, they'll be in the minority. they don't want to do anything that would disenfranchise minority rights to pass legislation. they want to make it something that takes a little pain. given that, i think given their reluctance to be caricatured on this, do you get a sense who their audience is? who they need to persuade? >> these need to persuade 48 more people. they need to persuade the vice president at one point from now you until january 5th. i guess -- i think what's important is that they are trying to persuade more democrats, who are not interested in fundamental reform. maybe some republicans. that's unlikely, by including in the reforms they could vote on january 5th, making it easier for the mino

merkley: mr. president, i rise to contrast the democrat plan, plan a, and the republican plan, plan b, and what they mean for the working citizens of the united states of america. let me start by talking about the democratic plan, plan a. it's plan a because it's america's plan. now, why is it america's plan? first, it benefits every single taxpayer in america. that's the first reason. now, some of my colleagues across the aisle have liked to talk about how the democratic plan only helps those who earn under $250,000. but that's because they're not paying attention or they're deliberately distorting the tracts. because the democratic -- facts. because the democratic plan provides a tax break on the first $250,000 no matter what you make. so it helps every single american. the second is reason it's focused on citizens earning less than $250,000 is because it's the working citizens of the united states of america that have been getting the short end of the stick. the amount of money -- the average i

merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise tonight share some of my concerns about the -- the presiding officer: the senatosenate is in a quorum cal. mr. merkley: yes, i request the chair vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: mr. president, i rise tonight to share some of my concerns about the package that has been negotiated between the president and the republicans and has now been presented here on the floor of the senate. now, first, i want to indicate the size of the decision that's going to be made in the next couple of days. this deficit spending stimulus package is a $1 trillion package. now, let's turn the clock back to the debate over the stimulus we had in 2009. that stimulus was about an $800 billion, only 80% of the size of this package. that stimulus, it had direct construction jobs across america, every community, every county benefiting from increase in production. i

senator jeff merkley of oregon is in favor of the filibuster reform and he joins us tonight. senator, this filibuster has been around since 1857, why change it now? >> well, actually, ed, we're not planning to gut it, we're planning to make it do what we all think it does, that is if 41 folks say debate should continue, then the debate should continue. but you shouldn't be able to object, go home to dinner, take a vacation and never appear on the floor and explain to the american people. so if you say to be continued you need to be ready to have continuous debate on the floor, make your stand, give the american people the ability to say, hey, you're a hero or you're a bum, but not to just simply leave the senate paralyzed, unable do anything. >> so with today's politics it was really not intended to be a standard operating procedure of political tool to stop an agenda? >> no, that's right. this was all about making sure that every voice is heard before a decision is made but that courtesy has now been turned into a regular abusive practice. for example, on food safety, a bill

merkley: mr. president, i'd like to add a few dmoants those of the senator from -- comments to those of the senator from michigan. first of all, i'd like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. we are looking at icbms reduced from about 450 to about 420. in some cases those icbms being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they're carrying, but modest reductions. when we look at submarine-launched ballistic missiles, we're looking at a fleet of 14 trident submarines, we're looking at keeping all 14 of those. reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20. so, again, a modest reduction. indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one given point in time and they do not count against the numbers in this -- in this treaty. in bombers, we're looking at 18 stealth missiles currently and keeping -- stealth bombers and keeping all 18 or b-2, as they are known. we look at a modest reductions in our fleet, our aging, ancie an

merkley: well, mr. president, i appreciate that my good friend from tennessee rose to defend his caucus's letter. i certainly enjoyed working with him, and it's -- here i am talking about energy efficiency and we've had the pleasure to work together on a bill that is about deployment of electric cars, that could save enormous amounts of fuel and have many of the beneficial fesh effects thae been speaking to, and in regards to the importation of foreign oil, cutting off the flow of oil from abroad and the american money that goes out to buy t and so i certainly treasure that relationship, that working relationship. and -- but we couldn't have a different perspective. we couldn't have a broader disagreement on this issue. i've noted that the democrats have laid out a plan that provides tax cuts for all americans. but my good friend from tennessee just noted that he wants the version that has no increase on anyone. what he didn't explain -- but i will -- that the difference between the two is additional bo

merkley: mr. president, i'd like to add a few dmoants those of the senator from -- comments to those of the senator from michigan. first of all, i'd like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. we are looking at icbms reduced from about 450 to about 420. in some cases those icbms being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they're carrying, but modest reductions. when we look at submarine-launched ballistic missiles, we're looking at a fleet of 14 trident submarines, we're looking at keeping all 14 of those. reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20. so, again, a modest reduction. indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one given point in time and they do not count against the numbers in this -- in this treaty. in bombers, we're looking at 18 stealth missiles currently and keeping -- stealth bombers and keeping all 18 or b-2, as they are known. we look at a modest reductions in our fleet, our aging, ancie an

of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff merkley, a senator from the state of oregon, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks there will be a period of morning business with senators allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. last night i filed cloture votes on two tax cuts amendments. those votes are expected to occur tomorrow. senators will be notified as to when these votes will be scheduled. i have not had the opportunity to meet with the republican leader. we'll do that and try to set up votes for as convenient a time as possible. mr. president, i hoped we would be able todom an agreement with republicans -- to come to an agreement to hold votes today on taxes for middle-class families. but the republicans wouldn't agree. democrats priorities are very clear, protecting middle-class families every way we can. tomorrow's votes will show where the republican priorities are and where

merkley: madam president, it's my privilege to rise today to join with my colleagues from new hampshire and pennsylvania and colorado in support of the new start treaty, strategic arms reduction treaty. i bring a bit of a personal perspective, a bit of an affection for this issue for this reason. when i was in graduate school, i was studying to take on issues of world economic development, issues of international poverty. i had worked in latin america. i had worked in india. i traveled through central america. i spent some time in west africa, and i thought that global policy was a very important issue that could be worth investing my career in. but as i came out of graduate school, i had an opportunity to switch tracks and work on nuclear issues as a presidential fellow for caspar wineberger in the reagan administration. this was a complete change of direction and one i didn't anticipate. but i went through that door and worked on strategic issues because the greatest threat to our planet was a successful management of nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons, an enormous threat that

the clerk: senator merkley to mr. turley, judge porteous, while he had the lifemark case under advisement, solicited a cash gift from an attorney, amato, who represented one side of the dispute. he then accepted a $2,000 gift from this attorney. you have referred to this gift as only an appearance of a conflict of interest. how can parties to a case expect fair treatment from a judge if the judge solicits and receives a gift from an attorney on one side in a case? doesn't such a solicitation during a trial constitute a complete abandonment of impartiality and a fundamental abuse of a judge's position and a betrayal of the public trust? mr. turley: senator, i -- first of all, i agree with the sentiments expressed in that question. he shouldn't have accepted the gift, that's why he accepted discipline. but it was an appearance of impropriety. that's how the court treated it and you can read the opinion by the dissenting judges and look into whether an appearance of impropriety should be an impeachable offense. there was

16 senators as follows, lieberman, boxer, wyden, bennet of colorado, casey, lautenberg, stabenow, merkley, card inn, klobuchar, dodd, carper and frank inn. mr. reid: i move to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment to h.r. 2965 with an amendment which sat the desk. the presiding officer: . the clerk will report. the clerk: the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to concur on the house amendment to the senate amendment with amendment 2965. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be a second. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk: . the clerk will report. the senator from nevada mr. reid proposes amendment 4828 to amendment 4827. mr. reid: i have a motion to refer the house message with instructions to report back forthwith with the following amendment and i ask the clerk to state that moaghts. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada mr. reid moves to -- the armed services committee with instructions to repo

the clerk: senator merkley to mr. turley, judge porteous, while he had the lifemark case under advisement, solicited a cash gift from an attorney, amato, who represented one side of the dispute. he then accepted a $2,000 gift from this attorney. you have referred to this gift as only an appearance of a conflict of interest. how can parties to a case expect fair treatment from a judge if the judge solicits and receives a gift from an attorney on one side in a case? doesn't such a solicitation during a trial constitute a complete abandonment of impartiality and a fundamental abuse of a judge's position and a betrayal of the public trust? mr. turley: senator, i -- first of all, i agree with the sentiments expressed in that question. he shouldn't have accepted the gift, that's why he accepted discipline. but it was an appearance of impropriety. that's how the court treated it and you can read the opinion by the dissenting judges and look into whether an appearance of impropriety should be an impeachable offense. there was

of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable jeff merkley, a senator from the state of oregon, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: following leader remarks, if any, the senate will proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the new start treaty. the treaty is open to amendments. senators are encouraged to come to the floor to offer and debate their amendments, or to make statements regarding this most important piece of legislation. i'd like to begin today on having votes on the amendments amendments -- amendment that has been filed. as a reminder, last night, i filed cloture with respect to the house messages on the "dream" act and the don't ask, don't tell repeal. the first cloture vote will occur tomorrow morning fairly early. if cloture is not invoked on the "dream" act, the senate would proceed immediately to a cloture vote on the don't ask, don't tell repeal. senators will be notified when any vot

the clerk: senator merkley to mr. turley, judge porteous, while he had the lifemark case under advisement, solicited a cash gift from an attorney, amato, who represented one side of the dispute. he then accepted a $2,000 gift from this attorney. you have referred to this gift as only an appearance of a conflict of interest. how can parties to a case expect fair treatment from a judge if the judge solicits and receives a gift from an attorney on one side in a case? doesn't such a solicitation during a trial constitute a complete abandonment of impartiality and a fundamental abuse of a judge's position and a betrayal of the public trust? mr. turley: senator, i -- first of all, i agree with the sentiments expressed in that question. he shouldn't have accepted the gift, that's why he accepted discipline. but it was an appearance of impropriety. that's how the court treated it and you can read the opinion by the dissenting judges and look into whether an appearance of impropriety should be an impeachable offense. there was

merkley: mr. president, i'd like to add a few dmoants those of the senator from -- comments to those of the senator from michigan. first of all, i'd like to observe that this treaty encompasses fairly modest reductions in our strategic force. we are looking at icbms reduced from about 450 to about 420. in some cases those icbms being reduced in terms of the number of warheads they're carrying, but modest reductions. when we look at . . we're looking at keeping all 14 of those. reducing the number of silos on each submarine from about 24 to 20. so, again, a modest reduction. indeed, two of those subs will be in drydock at any one given point in time and they do not count against theumbers in this -- in this treaty. in bombers, we're looking at 18 stealth missiles currently and keeping -- stealth bombers and keeping all 18 or b-2, as they are known. we look at a modest reductions in our fleet, our aging, ancie ancient, antique fleet of b-52's, modest reductions there. so the -- in its entirety, what

we can work something out so we can do about the issues that senator merkley and senator beit have raised as a result of this ongoing and growing problem. so will begin in the order is introduced to you. mr. edwards, thank you for being with us. >> thank you for the opportunist testified today. enter edwards and executive vice president credit portfolio management at fannie mae. this includes foreclosure prevention and servicing oversight, which we spent a lot of time on today. anyway is focused on resolving the mortgage crisis facing our country. every day people come to work with clear check is. keep mortgage funds flowing, do everything possible to help families avoid foreclosure, lobbying responsible stewards of taxpayer money. the good news is these goals are aligned. keeping these people in their homes saves taxpayer monies and is working with people to exit the home without the pain of foreclosure be a short sale or deed in lieu of foreclosure. since the start of 2009 cannot we have helped more than 600,000 struggling fannie mae family to avoid foreclosure. this number includes 160

merkley: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business for up to ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. merkley: thank you. madam president, i rise this evening to talk about a program that's of great importance to our citizens across america who are struggling to access legal services. there is a program that is called the interest on lawyer trust accounts, interest on lawyer trust accounts, or iolta. and this is a very interesting arrangement that i wasn't familiar with until i came to the u.s. senate. but essentially iolta, this interest on lawyer trust accounts, works like this. when lawyers need to put money into a trust account so they're putting it in on behalf of a -- of a client or on behalf of an estate, it is not allow under the law for the client to earn interest. however, there is an arrangement that has been made over the years in which agree to pay interest on their accounts since they are accessing that -- those deposits, those funds,