now that democrats have lost their supermajority in the senate, some variation of this delicate processs the only way health care bill can become law. house democrats will have to decide whether they want to trust the senate to fix them political problems -- to fix their political problems. florida and labor unions. they will be voting when they passed the senate bill to endorse the cornhuskers kickback, the louisiana purchase, the gator-aid, the closed-door deal, the special deal for the unions, which mayor may not bother the democrats, i do now know," mcconnell said." who is the problem, is it us? caller: not to get partisan, but i agree with the last caller. host: what you mean? caller: they of the party in power. there has got to be some sort of compromise. looking at republicans, taking a look at the difference in ideology, give a little bit. there was a tax rate to stimulate this economy -- i have a new business and i have never seen it before. people do not have money. host: what kind of business have you started? caller: a production company, and there are lots of small business

seat when republican scott brown pulled off a surprise victory, ending the democrats '60 vote supermajority breed of republican coming to washington. >> reporter: president obama answered calls to get more involved. on february 25, he convened a bipartisan summit and canceled a trip to twist arms and make deals. on the eve of the house vote, the president's job approval numbers were still below the 50% mark and most americans said they were fed up with congress. >> the bill is passed! >> reporter: but in the end, the house had three votes to spare and the president won on his signature issue-- a health care overhaul that eluded washington for nearly a century. sharyl attkisson, cbs news, washington. >> smith: that's the "cbs evening news." for katie couric, i'm harry smith. thanks for joining us. see you in the morning on the "early show." good night. captioning sponsored by cbs captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org >>> from the first local station with news in high definition, this is 9 news now. >>> good evening. tonight in your only local news at 67:00,istry in the maki

it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. and now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the children's health insurance program, cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and both bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass congress with nothing more than a simple majority. >> reporter: the president plans to tvel to pennsylvania and missouri next week to press his case for action. and democrats said they hope to have a final bill by the end of the month. >> lehrer: we take a look now at the situation. ceci connolly covers health reform for "the washington post." and norm ornstein is a long-time observer of congress and politics at the american enterprise institute. ceci, the republicans said this is a new sales pitch. on substance alone, was there anything really new in what the president said? >> not terribly, no. and that kprobl explanation why i've been feeling like yogi berra the last week or so. this is really deja vu all over again. we're essentially back to where president obama beg

there is no democratic legislature i'm aware of that has a supermajority requirement for the routine actions of the body. there are exceptions as senator udall pointed out in the constitution but not for the routine -- now obviously that filibuster has roots -- has partisan roots and everything to do with the changing character of the party system and recent decades. but we also have what is become a promiscuous use of holds. listen, it's been around for a long time and we know all about the need because of increased business and the use of holds for the to track system. but you know, we have had people use holds or objections to unanimous consent agreements. howard metzenbaum, jim allen, who actually parked themselves on the floor of the senate and when they thought something nefarious was going through and no one knew what was in a to demanded some transparency, and that was a very healthy thing. in any case, this has had consequences. as scott said for appropriations bills not getting past, for the demise of authorizations of the problems with nominations, with hundreds of house p

oh, we need 60 votes. 60 votes, a supermajority every time, except for the pledge of allegiance. i come back to wanting the majority rule. this is why i stand four square for filibuster reform. madam president, i'm heart and soul a reformer. sometimes a little too mouthy. some people say i'm a little too feisty, but i want to get the job done. and i'm ready to duke it out in the arena of ideas, present our best arguments, present our best cases, take a vote and see how it turns out. i hope when i offer amendments i win, but if i lose -- if i lose because i get less than 51, i feel that i have gotten a square deal, but if i have to go after 60, i feel that i'm inhibited by the tyranny of 60. i believe that the filibuster is a dated, arcane tactic that belongs to another century and another senate. i want to see the filibuster rule either ended or modified. now, there are those on our side of the aisle who say don't do that. what happens if we lose control? we might not need it. well, maybe if the majority ruled, we wouldn't lose control, but most of all, maybe the american people

mostly because of this filibuster rule, because of this supermajority nonsense. >> larry: would you likey system in america. >> no, we never have, because one of the two parties absorbs the other one, as what's going as what's going on with the tea baggers now. you know they're going to get absorbed into the republican tents. you have to look at the system. how the system works. >> what did you make of the whole leno/conan/let herbman thing? >> i made a lot of it. i liked conan a lot. i did his show in august. i didn't have anything to plug. there's month way, larry, a man can show another man affection greater than to do a show and you have nothing to plug. i did it just to say welcome to l.a. and i like you and, you know -- he is a good guy. i like him. i'm not crazy about team coco, however and what they have been saying. these are the people that are so upset that conan lost "the tonight show". i did jay's show and got all these tweets and facebook messages. why did you do jay leno's show? he sucks. he's greedy, this and that. these people need to get a grip. you have no idea how sho

> guest: the amendment allows for an exception in time of war and an exception when there is a supermajority votes, 60 percent growth in time of national emergency. so the issue there would be was that the time of war since there was no declaration of war -- i would argue there would have had to have been a declaration of war under those circumstances. had this bounce budget amendment been in the fact and with regard to the severe economic downturn of last year the congress could have by supermajority, that's one year when the budget wouldn't be in balance. but quite frankly over the last 50 years the budget has been balanced four times, those in the late 1990's when we had a republican congress and democratic presidents. and i think most americans think that should be the other way around although in the last 50 years there might have been four occasions when a national emergency or a time of war called for the budget to be out of balance and then all the other times of good economic growth the budget should have been in balance. you get to get to that point, it's going to be a matter of gr

it requires a supermajority. one legislator cannot find a supplicant. a subsequent legislature. one legislature cannot find a subsequent legislature. let's say you pass a piece of legislation and say in the future you will need 75 votes. that would be held unconstitutional. what will we have done with the filibuster role is exactly the same thing. in the senate filibuster rule, it says that you need 67 votes to change the rule. you can just go to the constitution -- at the beginning of a sentence, you have the authority to change the rules by a majority vote. there are going to be to positions out here. if you go back and read the debate in 1917 and 1959, there were always two sides. i would suggest the better if you -- better view is that you can adopt the rules. >> my question is, has vice- president biden expressed an opinion on this? when the republicans were in the majority, do you know whether vice president cheney had an opinion? >> vice president biden has not express an opinion on this. specifically, can the senate adopt rules at the beginning of the congress by a major

after scott brown was elected, the republican senator from massachusetts, the democrats lost their supermajorityorm was dead in the water. you know what, the president, the vice president, nancy pelosi, they brought it back to life. >> they did. i thnk that what you've seen is both a lot of maneuvering, a lot of political maneuvering. i think this really shows that both the president and speaker pelosi, that they really were able to do the fine tuning that was necessary. i'm sorry, i really have to jump back to the point we were making before. i find it deeply offensive the notion that now sick people who are now going to be able to get coverage after being denied that opportunity, that's not a talking point. i'm actually one of those anthem customers whose premiums went up 39%, or i'm sorry, will shortly go up 39% next month. those cost increases, that's not a talking point. the fact that 62% of americans are now facing -- 62% of bankruptcies in this country are due to health care costs. that's not a talking point either. i do think we need to separate the political maneuvering that folks like

passed the house with the majority a bipartisan majority, a bill has passed the senate with a supermajority, that's never been done before. what we're talking about is the president said is finishing the job. and the urgency, the time table is not about some congressional time clock. it's about what's happening across this country to americans. it's about the squeeze. >> it is about a time clock for congress. you set deadlines and they slipped. if it's not done by easter will the president return to it? >> i think that we have to act on behalf of the american people. i hear from folks all over this country, i talk to a dad in chicago whose son, 11-year-old, healthy, bright, coming back from a soccer tournament, born with a heart defect. he had an operation at a month old and three, this father who is self employed, runs a small consulting company is paying $30,000 a year in health insurance premiums and doesn't know what happens next. needs some control over his own health security, over his family. >> understood. my question is does this have to be accomplished by march 18th, by the easter

we have supermajorities in the house and senate.'s no reason whwe wouldn't have the votes necessary to pass reconciliation when it happens. >> thiis to ss reconciliation is going to pass. it's becoming the law. and in november, people will argue, as part of the off-year elections, about it. and down the road, they'll keep and dowe roill cf1 e if this bill, as i perceive it, were the only thing that was going to pa change, if i wethete, or the house. but clearly, we have to take the first step. tried for 100 years. couldn't do it. couldn't do it. without a first step for that 1,000-mile journey, you're never going to ma it. o change th- we're ruined. >> the only time i've ever seen the congress tur tai and reverse a bill th just passed, you know what it was? >> you're exactly right. >> we passed it in the fall. went home. got an earful. >> but you remember that bill, don't you? it said that older people needed to pay if wan catastrophic health insurance, if they had the money. and most of the older people who didn't, wouldn't have to

it clearly spells out when a supermajority vote is required.nd in stating that each house may determine it rule, a supermajority vote requirement is noticeably absent. there is also a long standing common law principle upheld in the supreme court that one legislature cannot bind it successors. liberals and conservatives alike have cited this principle to argue the senate can change it rules by a majority vote. professor steven call business si, a co-founder of the federalist society, stated in congressional testimony that to the extent that the senate rule, 22, purports to require a two-thirds majority to invoke choture on -- cloture on a rules change, rule 22 is unconstitutional. it is an ancient principle of anglo-american constitutional law that one regularture cannot -- legislature cannot bind a succeeding legislature, end quote. armed with the constitution and common law on his side, senator anderson went to the floor in january 1953 and moved that the senate immediately consider the adoption of its rules. his motion was tabled, but he int

isn't the house of representatives controlled by the democratic party with a supermajority? you mean they couldn't survive the idea of knocking out the sweetheart deals, send it back to the house and come back here? that's going to somehow fundamentally undermine this bill? that argument is absurd on its face. absurd on its face. i think the only answer is that the other side of the aisle has decided to proceed on this bill in a most arrogant process. from the beginning of the core of this bill being put together in a hidden room, behind a hidden room, behind a hidden door on the speaker's side -- on the majority leader's office suite, brought to this floor on a saturday afternoon. the tree was filled up, and we were told we had to vote on it on christmas eve. no amendments were allowed. then it was taken over to the house, and the speaker worked out the deals in the back rooms of her offices, behind hidden doors without any public input, without c-span there as it was represented it would be. what happened? it passed the house without any amendments being allowed. now for t

senate, you still have almost a supermajority with 59 votes. so what's the problem? quit calling republicans obstructionist. you have the white house, you have the senate, you have the house of representatives. no more sham wow summits, madam speaker. let's get back to work. vote no on this bill. this is a scam. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their comments and debate to the chair. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today we have an opportunity to start the process of putting people back to work. and i would remind and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this piece of legislation. a piece that some my colleagues have disagreed with will put people back to work. i'd remind you that there were nine republicans on the other side who joined as co-sponsors in the piece of legislation. so it was bipartisan in the senate side. and the hiring act does four key things. let me remind my coll

we passed it with an exhaustive, open process, and the senate passed health care reform with a supermajority. we passed it with 60 votes. now, all that remains to be done to complete health care reform is an up-or-down vote on this final bill. this last step in health care reform deserves to have a simple majority vote. that's all that needs to be done to finish the job of reforming health care reform. and let me return to what this bill would do. this bill would help to make health care more affordable for people who don't have it and improve upon the senate bill which the president signed this morning. we do it for people like car men men -- carmen and her daughter marilee from paulson, montana. carmen had insurance, but she still had problems with coverage and costs. before march, 2008, carmen had insurance with a $5,000 deductible. she found herself avoiding care because of the high deductible. she and her daughter marilee waited until they knew that they needed help before they went to a doctor. certainly with a deductible that high, 5,000 bucks. at one point, carmen's daughter contract

can't come up, another way to think about it, i can't come up with sort of a theoretical basis for supermajority threshold. what's the basis for it? how do we get to the magic number of 60? well, one answer is it's arbitrary. that's not very rewarding theoretically. the other answer is that's the outcome of political bargaining in 1975. that's not very rewarding philosophically or theoretically either. but we do have a history of majority rule, both classically, right? and i don't think you say that you think about the rules that were necessarily seeking efficiency, but there's some of the value there that is being sought by trying to find a way of amending rules that would leave as soon as a legislature to be able to cast up or down votes. >> you know, one point i want to add to that, and it kind of goes back to the comments i was making, is that i do believe that the founders wanted the senate to be almost like intra- institutional check and balance. they wanted it to be a different type of institution in the way that it operated. one of the things that we have seen over the years is not only

a supermajority requirement is devastating for any political system.is something that we need to change right away. the atmosphere of extreme political polarization, the partisanship that we have seen for a number of years is highly problematic. a few weeks ago, cnn had a national public opinion survey and it said that 86% of americans felt that the federal government was broken and that the system was not working. if we could spend a lot of time dissecting the problem, i am sure that everybody has plenty of ideas of what the exact nature of the problem is. i would like to take a minute or two just to talk about what we can do about this. people are angry. they are upset. they felt frustrated. what i want to do is talk about a few concrete things that i think that people should talk about doing that would help improve our system and make congress more functional and help restore public confidence in government. if we do not get those things right, this other stuff will not matter. for example, filibuster reform has to be at the top of the list. when pe

can't come up, another way to think about it, i can't come up with sort of a theoretical basis for supermajoritythreshold. what's the basis for it? how do we get to the magic number of 60? well, one answer is it's arbitrary. that's not very rewarding theoretically. the other answer is that's the outcome of political bargaining in 1975. that's not very rewarding philosophically or theoretically either. but we do have a history of majority rule, both classically, right? and i don't think you say that you think about the rules that were necessarily seeking efficiency, but there's some of the value there that is being sought by trying to find a way of amending rules that would leave as soon as a legislature to be able to cast up or down votes. >> you know, one point i want to add to that, and it kind of goes back to the comments i was making, is that i do believe that the founders wanted the senate to be almost like intra- institutional check and balance. they wanted it to be a different type of institution in the way that it operated. one of the things that we have seen over the years is not only a

other senators is when one decides to stop the entire process whileñrçiÑiçóñrÑiÑ majority or supermajorityhe spectrum. >> [inaudible] as far as the wednesday thing goes, will we have a definitive answer on whether or not democrats will consider reconciliation? >> it does not make sense for me to give you the president's announcement wednesday on monday except to say -- what i said earlier is that what he discusses will point toward not just a policy, but a process moving forward. >> [inaudible] >> i think you have a good idea of how we will proceed. >> he mentioned a number of items that passed under reconciliation. but republicans say there was bipartisan support for that. this is strictly a partisan deal. what is your response to that? >> my response would be a continued to move the goal posts. when judd gregg says of the have 51 votes for an idea, it passes. what did he mean? i think he meant reconciliation was fine for what i want to be reconciled and it didn't mean it if i didn't want it, therefore pay attention to not what i said in the past but what i say in the future in hopes of y

a supermajority requirement is devastating for any political system. that is something that we need to change right away. the atmosphere of extreme political polarization, the partisanship that we have seen for a number of years is highly problematic. a few weeks ago, cnn had a national public opinion survey and it said that 86% of americans felt that the federal government was broken and that the system was not working. if we could spend a lot of time dissecting the problem, i am sure that everybody has plenty of ideas of what the exact nature of the problem is. i would like to take a minute or two just to talk@@@@br >> i want to talk about a few concrete things that people should think about doing that would help improve our system, make congress more functional and help restore public confidence in government. for example, filibuster reform has to be at the top of the list. when people talk about congress being broken and what we can do about it, if i were the czar and could impose any one thing, the one thing i would choose is reform the filibuster

it's different than the past process not requiring supermajorities and not requiring the sorts of mechanismsaimed at fostering consensus but may have in fact actually helped contribute to some of the deadlock in iraqi politics we have seen for a long time so those are the three points, simple points but this is i think an important opportunity and we hope iraqi leader's i think the voters will see we hope the leader sees this to advance iraq democracy. there are very worrisome signs i think about just what human rights, the rights of minorities, things that are not addressed in the elections that need to be addressed in long-term work inside the iraqi government and third the uncertainty i think mike will talk about that we addressed the open list system i think introduces potential for great uncertainty and surprises on sunday but the big supplies comes in the weeks and months in the negotiations over forming a government. three points on u.s. policy and my first will be a minority position in this room i think shared by many americans and around the world on the balance for u.s. policy i t

we require a two-thirds supermajority to waive the rules.if there's some kind of international that we have to designate spending, we can do it if there's a consensus here. president obama, as i said, highlighted the need for this amendment when he cosponsored the identical language in 2008. he rightly stated -- and i quote -- "we can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of congress's seniority rather than the merit of the project." despite his support and election, the problem hasn't gotten any better. citizens against government waste in their 2009 "pig" book, pointed out -- and i quote -- "that while the number of specific projects declined by 12% from 11,610 in fiscal year 2008 to 10,160 in fiscal year 2009, the total tax dollars spent to fund them increased by 14% from $17.2 billion to $19.6 billion. a lot of my colleagues will say, you're making a big deal out of nothing. really, $20 billion or $30 billion is such a small part of our budget that you shouldn't make an issue of it. but this is like saying

it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. and now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the children's health insurance program, that was used for cobra health coverage for the unemployed, and, by the way, for both bush tax cuts --- all of which had to pass congress with nothing more than a simple majority. i, therefore, ask leaders in both houses of congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. from now until then, i will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. [applause] and i urge every american who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well --- every family, every business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician's assistant. make your voice heard. this has been a long and wrenching debate. it has stoked great passions among the american people and their representatives. and that's because health care is a difficult issue. it is a complicated issue. if it was easy, it would have been solved long ag

to get this done because i will not be a part of waiving points of order, helping them get to a supermajority to clean up something, even if it needs to be done. this process needs to be stopped, and the next -- i'd say the next 10-14 days are going to tell the tale. the american people do not want this bill, and it's up to the house of representatives and to us saying what we can over on the senate side to see if we're going to listen to the people and stop this bill, go back to the drawing board and try something that works. a senator: i would just note that that is the case. why is it that the speaker is saying we have to pass the bill to see what's in it? mr. brownback: they are going to hold it back until they break enough arms to get a majority vote and then pop it out, and then it will be an hour's debate on a sixth of the economy being changed. we saw that same procedure here when majority leader reid was crafting this bill behind closed doors and nobody knew what -- knew what was in the bill, and then pop it out when you've got the deal, when you have made enough deals, broken enough

we passed it with an exhaustive, open process, and the senate passed health care reform with a supermajority passed it with 60 votes. now, all that remains to be done to complete health care reform is an up-or-down vote on this final bill. this last step in health care reform deserves to have a simple majority vote. that's all that needs to be done to finish the job of reforming health care reform. and let me return to what this bill would do. this bill would help to make health care more affordable for people who don't have it and improve upon the senate bill which the president signed this morning. we do it for people like car men men -- carmen and her daughter marilee from paulson, montana. carmen had insurance, but she still had problems with coverage and costs. before march, 2008, carmen had insurance with a $5,000 deductible. she found herself avoiding care because of the high deductible. she and her daughter marilee waited until they knew that they needed help before they went to a doctor. certainly with a deductible that high, 5,000 bucks. at one point, carmen's daughter contracted a

pass it with an exhaustive open process and the senate passed health care reform because-- with a supermajority. we pass it was 60 votes. now, all that remains to be done to complete health care reform is an up-or-down vote on this final bill. this last step in health care reform deserves a simple majority vote. that is all that needs to be done to finish the job of reforming health care reform. and then let me return to what this bill will do. this bill would help to make health care more affordable for people who don't have it. and improve upon the senate bill , that the president signed this morning. we do it for people like carmen and her daughter marilee from polson, montana. carmen had insurance, but she still had problems with coverage and costs. before march 2000 a carmen had insurance with a 5000-dollar deductible. she found her self avoiding care because of the high deduct bowl. she and her daughter marilee waited until they knew that they needed help before they went to a doctor. certainly with a deductible that high, 5000 bucks. at one point carmen's daughter contracted a urinary tr

it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes, and now we deserve the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform. it was cast on the children's health insurance program. it was used for cobra, health coverage for the unemployed, and for both bush tax cuts, all of which had to pass congress was nothing more than a simple majority. i therefore ask leaders in both houses of congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. from now until then, i will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. [applause] i urge every american who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well, every family, and business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician's assistant. make your voice heard. this has been a long and wrenching debate. it has stoked great passions among the american people and their representatives. that is because health care is a difficult issue. it is a complicated issue. if it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. as all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an

to clear limited improvements to the health reform bill which already passed the senate and a supermajority in a similar form in the house. but not exactly the same. reconciliation is part of the normal legislative process, mr. speaker, and it's been used 22 times over the last 30 years. 16 times by republican-led senate. nearly 2/3 of the time, republican presidents have signed reconciliation bills. not all the time. democrats have used it too. but certain times, reconciliation was used, for example, was to enact a law, a health reform bill called coberasm everybody know what is cobra is. cobra is what allows you to maintain your health insurance after you lose your job. this is a law that lets employees just keep their employer's health insurance after they left their job and this bill was passed through reconciliation in 1985 and passed into law under ronald reagan. in fact, the r in cobra actually stands for reconciliation. isn't that something? schip, bipartisan state children's health insurance program passed with reconciliation in 1997. medicare changes done through reconciliation in

captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes. and now it deserves the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform, that was cast on the children's health insurance program, that was used for cobra health coverage for the unemployed and, by the way, for both bush tax cuts. all of which had to pass congress with nothing more than a simple majority. i therefore ask the leaders in both houses of congress to finish their work and scheduled a vote in the next few weeks. host: that was the president yesterday challenging members of the house and senate to bring his health-care package to a final upper down vote by a simple majority in the next couple of weeks. our phone lines are open for your reactions to this final push on health care. as the president asks for a final health care vote. a good thursday morning to you. i guess you should buckle your seat belts for lots of health care advertisements over the next couple of weeks. in washington, let us take a look at some of the reporting about the challenge

as a consequence of the election, the democrats' 60-vote supermajority in the senate was no more. the snunart was not seated for several weeks -- the new senator was not seated for several weeks and there was time to come together with a conference committee and get it done or push through that amalgamated bill, but for whatever reason they didn't do that. it looked for a while like things might languish indefinitely. we all know the story, the last 10 days, the president engaged, the white house engaged, the speaker's office engaged, they were going to get this bill through the house. that was the quickest way. you toe noah, a line is the shortest distance between two point, the shortest distance to getting health care reform pass was to pass the bill through the house. it was something no one wanted to do. no one wanted to vote for that bill. it had awful things in it. most of us don't know the awful things in it, because it was the senate bill. we passed house bills. we knew the house bill. but -- we heard the minority leader say it last night from this floor, most on the democ

the bill has already passed the senate with a supermajority. it's time for every member of this congress to stand up and be counted to have a final up or down vote. it's time to stand up for millions of americans. i know where i stand. it's time for an up or down vote on health care now. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. that's exactly what i want to do, i want to address some of the things and misstatements that have been made. i am also tired of the partisan bickering. i came in thinking that the democrats who said we want to work together, we're serious. we have been locked out of every single discussion except when the president came to preach to us. and he misrepresented, not intentionally, not lying, you know, perhaps some may have gave him the information, but this bill that we're going to vote on starts with a lie. it says this is

senate, you still have almost a supermajority with 59 votes. so what's the problem? quit calling republicans obstructionist. you have the white house, you have the senate, you have the house of representatives. no more sham wow summits, madam speaker. let's get back to work. vote no on this bill. this is a scam. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their comments and debate to the chair. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today we have an opportunity to start the process of putting people back to work. and i would remind and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this piece of legislation. a piece that some my colleagues have disagreed with will put people back to work. i'd remind you that there were nine republicans on the other side who joined as co-sponsors in the piece of legislation. so it was bipartisan in the senate side. and the hiring act does four key things. let me remind my coll

nominations were approved by the committees either by voice vote or unanimous vote or by significant supermajorities. these are just being delayed when we know the final outcome will be approval. as a result, americans are being denied their judges on the courts. they're being denied administrators who can help enforce their rights. you've heard circumstances about our courts about how we've had to take to a cloture vote -- which means floor time for a nomination of judge keenan who received 99 votes and no one in opposition. we have two vacancies in the fourth circuit of the united states right now. these appointments have been approved overwhelmingly by the judiciary committee. albert diaz and james wynn by votes of 19-0 and 18-1 by the judiciary committee. they have the support of senator burr and senator hagan and have not been brought to the floor for a vote. that's 20% vacancy denying the people of my region their full representation on the appellate courts. mr. president, we're very proud of legislation we passed to help the disabled, a.d.a. law, to guarantee gender pay equity with the lilly

senate, you still have almost a supermajority with 59 votes. so what's the problem? calling republicans obstructionist. you have the white house, you have the senate, you have the house of representatives. no more sham wow summits, madam speaker. let's get back to work. vote no on this bill. this is a scam. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to direct their comments and debate to the chair. the gentleman from north carolina is recognized. mr. etheridge: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, today we have an opportunity to start the process of putting people back to work. and i would remind and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this piece of legislation. a piece that some my colleagues have disagreed with will put people back to work. i'd remind you that there were nine republicans on the other side who joined as co-sponsors in the piece of legislation. so it was bipartisan in the senate side. and the hiring act does four key things. let me remind my colleague

there is no democratic legislature i'm aware of that has a supermajority requirement for the routine actions of the body. there are exceptions as senator udall pointed out in the constitution. but the filibuster has partisan roots and it has everything to do with the changing character of the party system in recent decades. but we also have what is become a promiscuous use of polls. -- use of holes. we know all about the need because of increased business and the use of polls before the to track system, but -- the use of holds or objections to unanimous consent agreements. some actually parked themselves on the floor of the senate and when they thought something nefarious was going through and no one knew what was and that's, they demanded some transparency and that was a very healthy thing. in any case, this has had consequences. four appropriation bills not getting past, for the demise of authorization, for the problems with nominations, with hundreds of house passed measures being queued up in the senate, the case for the filibuster is it turns out and lead to a reasonable biparti

it's different than the past process not requiring supermajorities and not requiring the sorts of mechanisms aimed at fostering consensus but may have in fact actually helped contribute to some of the deadlock in iraqi politics we have seen for a long time so those are the three points, simple points but this is i think an important opportunity and we hope iraqi leader's i think the voters will see we hope the leader sees this to advance iraq democracy. there are very worrisome signs i think about just what human rights, the rights of minorities, things that are not addressed in the elections that need to be addressed in long-term work inside the iraqi government and third the uncertainty i think mike will talk about that we addressed the open list system i think introduces potential for great uncertainty and surprises on sunday but the big supplies comes in the weeks and months in the negotiations over forming a government. three points on u.s. policy and my first will be a minority position in this room i think shared by many americans and around the world on the balance for u.s. policy i