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 a

mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: ss quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. a senator: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. a senator: thank you, madam president. i ask unanimous consent to speak on the issue of senate rules. i will be joined by a few colleagues in a few minutes. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. merkley: thank you, madam president. the reason i'm rising to talk about rules is that we are at the start of a new two-year period for congress. this is the appropriate time to be considering how well the senate is working and whether we should amend the rules by which the senate functions. the last major debate over amending the rules was in 1975. the reason that there was a debate that particular year is that in 1973 and 1974 there were 44 filibusters, each eating up a

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i rise to continue the debate on this set of rule proposals, but specifically to talk about the talking filibuster. there is one scene from american movies that captures everyone's attention, and that is the scene of jimmy stewart here in the we will of the senate holding forth to make his case before his colleagues and before the american people to stop a corrupt act designed to destroy a camp for children. that's jimmy stewart in the role of jefferson smith in "mr. smith comes to washington." he wasn't making some behind-the-scenes move, some back-room deal. he was out in front of the american people, and that is why we have brought both the end of secret holds and the end of secret filibusters to the floor today. the concept of the talking filibuster is that the american people believe that when you filibuster, you are making a personal action, a courageous action, a public action at personal time and energy to stand up and say what you think needs to be said and to figh

mr. merkley, proposes number 2 to s. res. 21. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the prior order from the chair be put in place again and there be a quorum call that would begin now and the time charged equal. equally. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: quorum call: mr. reid reid: i ask consent thl of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent because of the delay here that the -- the recess not start until 1:00 rather than 12:30 today. i ask consent. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. reid: and i appreciate very much the courtesy of my two friends, the distinguished senator from new mexico, mr. udall, and my dear friend from oregon, mr. merkley, for being understanding. we had some word changes. you know, we're all tied up on words and so

mr. merkley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: just continuing the conversation here, my colleague from new mexico pointed out the challenge with authorization bills. well, we should add to that that during 2010, the senate didn't manage to pass a single appropriation bill and so its dysfunction on top of dysfunction. and that's why we're here today. i just put back up the chart of jimmy stewart here in the well because i think at the heart of this conversation is a notion that, yes, every senator should be able to hold forth, to share their ideas, to advocate for the things that they believe in, to persuade their colleagues but not to simply lodge an objection and walk away and never present their case before the american people. our good colleague from tennessee said he wanted to see the, how did he put it, something to the effect of talking your heads off form of filibuster. and he referred to jimmy stewa stewart. so there's a -- there's a sense of commonality here in our views that if you are going to vote to continue

mr. merkley: madam president, the united states senate is broken. during the course of my first two years in this body, there has been only a couple serious debates in this chamber. debates in this chamber. the first one happened just a couple of weeks ago and that was an impeachment trial of a judge. now, the magic again because the cameras were turned off, and sos senators were not speaking to c the camera. they were speaking to each othe and second they were required tr be on the floor so they were actually here to listen to each other and after all the evidence had been presented senator started to engage back and forth about their interpretations about the evidence, that the standards that would constitute grounds forro conviction and he would not have been able to tell who was republican and who was the democrats. we had a real debate that it took two years to have that first debateav. h and we had a debate over the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. that was a pretty good debate too. that t happened after another oe happened a couple of weeks ago. but for th

mr. merkley: madam president, the united states senate is broken. during the course of my first two years in this body, there has been only a couple serious debates in this chamber. the first one happened just a couple weeks ago, and that was an impeachment trial of a judge. now, the magic began because the cameras were turned off, and so senators were not speaking to the camera; they were speaking to each other. and, second, they were roird to be here on the floor -- they were required to be here on the floor, so they were actually required to listen to each other. after all the evidence had been presented, senators started to engage back and forth about their interpretations of the evidence, about the standards that would constitute grounds for conviction, and you would not have been able to tell who was republican or who was a democrat. we had a real debate, but it took years to have that first debate. then we had a debate over the start treaty, and that was a pretty good debate, too. that happened just after -- that also happened just a couple w

mr. wyden: madam president, senator udall and senator merkley have waited a great length of time in order to make their remarks. i just wanted to propound a unanimous consent request at this time. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. wyden: madam president, at this point, senator udall would be the next speaker, there would be a republican who would speak next, and i'm very hopeful that that will be senator grassley, because he and i have been partners for almost 14 years in this effort to force the united states senate to do public business in public and get rid of these secret holds. so after senator udall, there would be senator grassley. after senator grassley, there would be my friend and colleag colleague, senator merkley, who would speak. at that time, there would be a republican who would be next in the queue to speak. and so my unanimous consent request, madam president, is at that point, i would like to be able for up to 30 minutes to have the bipartisan sponsors of the effort to get rid of secret holds once and for all, including the distinguished president fro

mr. wyden: madam president, senator udall and senator merkley have waited a great length of time in order to make their remarks. i just wanted to propound a unanimous consent request at this time. the presiding officer: the senator is recognized. mr. wyden: madam president, at this point, senator udall would be the next speaker, there would be a republican who would speak next, and i'm very hopeful that that will be senator grassley, because he and i have been partners for almost 14 years in this effort to force the united states senate to do public business in public and get rid of these secret holds. so after senator udall, there would be senator grassley. after senator grassley, there would be my friend and colleag colleague, senator merkley, who would speak. at that time, there would be a republican who would be next in the queue to speak. and so my unanimous consent request, madam president, is at that point, i would like to be able for up to 30 minutes to have the bipartisan sponsors of the effort to get rid of secret holds once and for all, including the distinguished president fro

merkley. republican cited senator enzi, senator corker. senator wyden. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too want to welcome the senator sessions as our ranking minority member. he is someone i greatly enjoyed working with, respect very much. i do want to note for the record that i don't believe the auburn tigers have a realistic chance of keeping up with the university of oregon's fast-moving, innovative offense in the championship game at but we will say that for another discussion. i just want to welcome my good friend. >> you're correct in that i would be pleased to wear that tie you have on, for a few days perhaps. >> we have an agreement and i will reciprocate. senator conrad, thank you very much. thank you we are so glad to have you here. and i especially, because you and i share similar views, this big idea for economic growth in our country is fundamental tax reform, where you go in there and clean out this job killing, thoroughly discredited mess. and you address that i thought very well on 60 minutes discussion that you had back in december. here's my first question. it was

i'll bring specifics if i may, and maybe you can help. >> of course. >> senator merkley. >> thank you, mr. chair. i appreciated the reference to the small business lending fund. which was a proposal that i developed in response to a problem that we saw in community banks in oregon, they were noting because of the fdic requirement on leverage being firmly applied that helped the community banks were unable to lend. we don't yet know the results of the program. but it was one way to try to get funds into main street banks to assist main street businesses. and we have in addition to banks that didn't have the capitalization to make additional loans, we have banks that are not only healthy, but do have funds that are sitting on them to wait and see what happens with the economy. and so we look forward to continue to brainstorm with ways that we can get liquidity in the hands of small businesses. if they can't borrow money, they can't seize business opportunities. they are a job machine that we have to put fully to work in finding the right way to do that. that's important. i wanted to turn ba

merkley. republican cited senator enzi, senator corker. senator wyden. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too want to welcome the senator sessions as our ranking minority member. he is someone i greatly enjoyed working with, respect very much. i do want to note for the record that i don't believe the auburn tigers have a realistic chance of keeping up with the university of oregon's fast-moving, innovative offense in the championship game at but we will say that for another discussion. i just want to welcome my good friend. >> you're correct in that i would be pleased to wear that tie you have on, for a few days perhaps. >> we have an agreement and i will reciprocate. senator conrad, thank you very much. thank you we are so glad to have you here. and i especially, because you and i share similar views, this big idea for economic growth in our country is fundamental tax reform, where you go in there and clean out this job killing, thoroughly discredited mess. and you address that i thought very well on 60 minutes discussion that you had back in december. here's my first question. it was

merkley. republican cited senator enzi, senator corker. senator wyden. >> thank you, mr. chairman.oo want to welcome the senator sessions as our ranking minority member. he is someone i greatly enjoyed working with, respect very much. i do want to note for the record that i don't believe the auburn tigers have a realistic chance of keeping up with the university of oregon's fast-moving, innovative offense in the championship game at but we will say that for another discussion. i just want to welcome my good friend. >> you're correct in that i would be pleased to wear that tie you have on, for a few days perhaps. >> we have an agreement and i will reciprocate. senator conrad, thank you very much. thank you we are so glad to have you here. and i especially, because you and i share similar views, this big idea for economic growth in our country is fundamental tax reform, where you go in there and clean out this job killing, thoroughly discredited mess. and you address that i thought very well on 60 minutes discussion that you had back in december. here's my first question. it was clea

mr. president. >> the first item brought to the senate floor was proposed changes for procedural rules. democratic senators tom harkin, tom udall and jeff merkley introduced the resolution. it will also hear republican opposition to the measure. here is some of the debate.parl >> mr. president elementary and choir under the unanimous consent agreement agreed to previously. there was a period of 30 minutes for tributes to senator mikulski is there any of that time remaining?in >> the time has been consumed sir. >> i appreciate that and now find not mistaken under the unanimous consent request them i was deemed to have 45 minutes. m >> that is correct. >> i appreciate the chair. first of all that mr. president i have a resolution for myself, senator durbin, senator mikulski and senator shaheen which i said to the desk and ask for it to be be. >> withoutin objection. >> mr. president?r. >> the clerk will read the resolution by title. >> mr. president? >> resolution amending the standing rules of the senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than three this majority after additional debate. >> mr. president? is there objection? >> mr. p

merkley. republican cited senator enzi, senator corker. senator wyden. >> thank you, mr. chairman.elcome the senator sessions as our ranking minority member. he is someone i greatly enjoyed working with, respect very much. i do want to note for the record that i don't believe the auburn tigers have a realistic chance of keeping up with the university of oregon's fast-moving, innovative offense in the championship game at but we will say that for another discussion. i just want to welcome my good friend. >> you're correct in that i would be pleased to wear that tie you have on, for a few days perhaps. >> we have an agreement and i will reciprocate. senator conrad, thank you very much. thank you we are so glad to have you here. and i especially, because you and i share similar views, this big idea for economic growth in our country is fundamental tax reform, where you go in there and clean out this job killing, thoroughly discredited mess. and you address that i thought very well on 60 minutes discussion that you had back in december. here's my first question. it was clear at the end

mr. alexander: madam president, i've earlier congratulated senator udall and i -- i have earlier congratulated senator udall and wyden and merkley and -- and senator harkin for stimulating a good, full discussion about two objectives, one, how do we make the senate the best possible place to deal with serious issues that come before our country because we have plenty of them right now starktsing wit -- starting withr national debt and the high unemployment rates. they've done a good job of that. they have led us to adopt two important steps. one having to do with secret holds, another having to do with -- with taking time away that might otherwise be better used by reading from the -- by having the clerk read an amendment. it's also produced a couple of other things, one is a -- the broader support we've had in a number of years on dealing with the persistent problem of the difficulty a president has in staffing the government. senator reid and senator mcconnell, when they were whips, tried deal with this. we had three bipartisan breakfasts on this working with the white house two years ago. senator lieberman and senator collins

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 a