there is no robert byrd here. there's no one standing up on the other side saying, "wait a minute, this is not what we're here for." the procedures that the majority leader has undertaken affect democrats as well as republica republicans. i know many of my friends across the aisle, some of them are cosponsors of some of the legislation and proposals that i've made and amendment proposals i've made. they're not allowed to offer their amendments either. we are frozen out by someone who has taken a dictatorial position, saying it's my way or the highway. we see that on foreign policy enacted now coming out of russia with vladimir putin. but that's not what the united states is about. that's not what the united states senate is about. we're a democratic institution. democratic institution means the voices of the people can be heard. the voices of the people i represent are not being heard because i can come down here and talk about my amendments but i'm not allowed the opportunity to have full debate and a vote on tho

senator robert byrd, who i've alluded to earlier, called the senate "the last bastion of minority rights." that was true during democrat majorities, when senator byrd was the majority leader. sadly, it is not the case any longer. the "wall street journal" editorial, i would commend to the attention of anyone within the sound of my voice. it concludes this: "the lessons for voters is simple: if they want anything meaningful done in the last two years of the obama administration, they will have to elect a republican senate." words of the "wall street journal," not my words, madam president. but what has become of the united states senate, under this harry reid gag rule, is unconscionable. it should be reversed, and senators of both parties should stand in resistance to the idea that we cannot offer amendments and have them debated, as they've always been debated in the united states senate. i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask unanimous

remember when he landed on the deck of the aircraft carrier and i think it was december from virginia robert byrd who just jumped all over him and he would have had a comeback. something like that. he was just kind of a curl up in the fetal position and not say anything. with ronald reagan he responded with conservatism with a smile. a book was written on the great communicator and ronald reagan had that. so some of our spokespeople need that fearlessness and a willingness to understand. ted cruz and marco rubio are the liberals worst nightmare. they are conservative hispanics and the last thing they want to see is that go to the republican party. they must destroy ted cruz at all costs no matter what. that's what he'd realize realizu will never make those people happy. they are not going to vote for you anyway. they are not. they are going to call you names no matter what. he made the comparison between abortion and slavery and "the new york times" went nuts and smiled and they went on. you need that quality. >> recently the officers watched the state of the union on the campus and we noticed th

that depends on federal money like none other and has more things named after the late senator robert byrd than you could keep track of. she's posted campaign videos of herself making support for gun rights clear. earlier her campaign carefully downplayed michelle obama's statement that it was critical that she be elected and she recently told the charleston daily mirror, quite frankly, i don't think i have a whole lot that i would be with the president on. but that hasn't helped her lose her underdog status. west virginia is one of several states, like arkansas and louisiana, where the democratic party is in danger of losing seats in socially conservative, but economically populous states where democrats have long been able to buck national trends. that same pressure is being felt further down the ballot where 19 term democratic incumbent nick rayhall will fight against republican state senator evan jenkins. first he has to get through a fairly tough primary against richard ojeda. there are seven nominations fighting for the nomination. the winner is likely to take on nick casey, who's ex

the resolution you voted for, robert byrd said was a blank check for george bub.nnedy said it was a vote for war. james carville said anyone who says that vote wasn't a vote for war is bunk. >> so you knew in 2007 this guy if problem. i have to keep him out of the spotlight involve mying campaign. why didn't you say then, you know, reverend, we're going on different paths? >> help me understand where that tv persona and the way he decided to do television, where did that come from is this is that partly, you know, your grandfather's influence? does it come from buffalos, somewhere else? where is it that come from? >> it's a few things. interestingly enough, my father never set out to be a tv permit. >> he always joked don't have jaws. i have jaw lines. he always went to law school. he combined the knowledge that learned from that because he knew how pole tigs were fwog spin things, and he went after them with a presidential sort of sense of mind. something you often see a ri melbourne do the cycle's air. he also, though, had this idea that if his grand -- if it fa

as much as majority leaders bill frist, tom daschle, trent lott, bob dole, george mitchell and robert byrd combined. that's one, two, three, four, five, six -- six previous majority leaders didn't do it as much as the current majority leader, senator reid. that is block out any amendments from the minority. now, i know that because we've talked about this so much before that most americans really aren't focused on senate procedure, and, you know, they think, well, maybe this is just one senator who is a little sore at being frozen out of the process and losing on a particular piece of legislation. burr, again, this is not about the prerogatives of an individual united states senator. this is about the people's prerogative. the people's right to partnership in the process. you know, the very legitimacy of our form of government depends upon the consent of the governed and how can the people you represent and i represent consent when they've been shut out? is this what the founding fathers had in mind when they created our great system of government? to shut our fellow citizens out of the pr

i just wonder what would have happened here had robert c. byrd been our majority leader, as he was for so long. he would not have put up for this for one minute. he would have assert this had institution's authority and this institution's responsibility, congress's responsibility, if you will, to get to the bottom of this. i served on the iran-contra committee, special committee that was set up. it's not a bad thing for us to investigate an administration that appears to be out of whack, that appears to be ignoring the basic tenets of the law and appears to be hiding information from the public. but forget the public right now. how about congress? it's hard to respect an administration that acts like this. we should all be eager to get to the bottom of the circumstances surrounding the benghazi attack. my friends on the other side ought to quit trying to protect the administration when they know that these are serious charges. these are serious things. we have an obligation to get to the bottom of it. let the chips fall where they may. there were