the use of the filibuster by you stopped short of endorsing the one proposal out there by senator tom udall to revamp the rules of the senate. i wonder if you're planning on signing on to the proposal and when you think is the landscape for achieving the reform on january 24th. >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that 3 >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that proposal for the basics of the proposal. i think we want to protect the rights of the minority, the founding fathers envisioned in the constitution and i think it is critical to do it. what goes around, comes around, and clearly having been on the minority i understand that power. but we have to find a way to guarantee that as i said, it is being used not as a day to day tactic that has no accountability but that it is being used in a way that in cages the nation in a legitimate debate about something substantive, and as long as that takes place, i think it is a fair place to have that kind of fiscal if you will to try to find the way to get the 60 votes. today you don't have to do that, you don't even have to talk

one of the pushers of that effort is senator tom udall democrat of new mexico. one of those opposed is senator lamar alexander of tennessee a member of the senate republican leadership. senator udall, what is wrong with filibusters now that needs to be fixed? >> well, jim, i think the first place to start is what's wrong with the senate. and what worries me the most is last year we didn't do a budget. we didn't do a single appropriations bill. we did only one authorization so we're not doing the oversight of the agencies themselves. 400 bills were sent over from the house of representatives on many important subjects. we didn't deal with them at all. and all of that was the result, i believe, of kind of a constant filibuster. >> lehrer: do you agree with that? >> no, i don't agree with that, jim. here's what happens. senator reed, the majority leader, brings up the health care law. i go down and say i'd like to amend it. more than the last six majority leaders put together he says no, lamar, you can't. i object. he calls that a filibuster. i call that keeping me

. >> reporter: new mexico senator tom udall wants to change the rules that he says has brought the senaterinding halt. >> it's very hard to actually make a difference on something unless you change those rules. >> wild horses aren't going to drag me off this floor. >> reporter: this is what we think a filibuster looks like. jimmy stewart's mr. smith going to washington to stand and fight against a majority. or in the 1950s and '60s, trying to stop majorities from passing a civil rights law. >> we expect to keep talking until the bill is defeated. >> reporter: strom thurman holds the record for the longest filibuster, 24 hours plus, and he was part of the record 57-day effort-- unsuccessful-- to block the 1964 civil rights act. in the last two years, both parties began using this tactic more and more often and in the last session republicans used the filibuster against virtually every controversial bill and nomination and some that weren't controversial at all. >> filibusters were applied or threatened to almost every routine piece of legislation and vast numbers of nominees. so the proces

>> i'm going to sit with tom udall and, hopefully, mark udall will be sitting where i usually sit. but this whole thing is a good idea. i think it's been a bit overblown, but the fact is, it's a good thing to do. why not? the udalls, for example, have been close friends to me and their family for many, many years. so, let's sit together. finally, could i just mention, it might be nice to cut back a little bit on all the jumping up and down, which i think frankly distracts from any president's speech when it's interrupted every 30 seconds by people jumping up and down, because the president isn't speaking to congress, he's speaking to the american people. >> schieffer: that's interesting that you should bring that up. because one house republican, paul brown of georgia, says this whole thing is a trap. he said what president obama is trying to do is just to keep the republicans from leaping up and making noise. >> well, in all due respect, i kind of thought we were there to get a message from the president. i frankly think the cheerleading side of it has... detracts from the ability

>> tom udall, a democratic senator from new mexico, he has been the most tests but an honest. but there are several democrats working with him, including tom harkin, a democrat from iowa, just berkeley, a democrat from oregon, and a democrat from minnesota. >> any discussion on compromise? >> there is some talk of compromise. one thing republicans want is a concession from harry reid that he will stop the practice known as killing the tree. it is a procedural tactic that blocks republicans were members of the minority parliament and the majority party from offering amendments to legislation that read does not want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up in the senate gavels in? >> it was a long expected that this would happen tomorrow, the first day of the legislative session. it appears that the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. it seems like what they will do is recess the senate at some point tomorrow and then reconvened after a two-week recess. technically it will still be the first legislative day. when they do

tom udall will then most likely make a motion to change the rules. they will be ruled on by the chair. it was like this hole showdown will be delayed by another two weeks because of some wrangling among senate democrats on exactly what the changes should be. although even the postponement is not official yet. it is something being negotiated in discuss right now. >> alexander bolton of the hill, we thank you for joining us. >> thank you for having me. good afternoon everybody. my honor today to introduce our key note speaker, senator lamar alexander from tennessee. it occurred to me that we could have titled today's event, why can't the senate be more like the house, because that is what we are going to talk about, both senator alexander and the panel that will follow. there is a pposal that will come before the senate the next few days or weeks that could change one senate rule, fundamentally change the nature of that body. in a way that was probably never intended by our fouers. debate that goes to the essence of what the founders envisiod when the

i am visiting with my friends tom and mark udall. oks at me and he says, "dad really wants to talk to you. he has a very important point to make to you." two days later, i get ahold of him and call him. he said, "i give you five points but i forgot to give you the sixth one. the part of my agenda that i did not accomplish, and it would have done it if i had a couple of more months, is bringing the forest service over to the department of the interior. you ought to be able to get that done." [applause] undersecretary sherman, we are all having conversations. finally, the last of our conversations that i had with stewart was a few months ago and it had to do with me calling him to ask him for assistance. i had a conversation with tom again about the great outdoor initiative. many of you were here on april 16th when president obama came to the interior and we announced our efforts for the 21st century conservation agenda. tom had said to mean that it was possible perhaps working toward the summit that perhaps stewart would be able and av

tom. mr. udalltom. mr. udall tom -- tom udall for the attention so many had on this issue. senator merkley spoke on the topic that this may seem obscure to many constituents. this is historic progress that will make the senate function better. that's the mission of these outstanding senators. madam president, if i might, i'd like to ask unanimous consent that senator merkley can be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment that i'm offering today. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and, madam president, i will close on this note, i urge my colleagues to vote for this simple commonsense reform of the senate rules. madam president, i yield the floor. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i rise to support the wyden-grassley-mccaskill public holds proposal. i apologize to my two colleagues from oregon and missouri that i was not on the floor at the proper time. it's all my fault. i'm pleased to see this day come to where the senate will finally have the opportunity for an up or down vote on our freestanding senat

where is this coming from seven >> well, tom udall, a democratic senator from new mexico. he's the leader. he's been the most outspoken on this. but there are several democrats working with him including tom harkin, a democrat from iowa, jeff merkley, a democrat from oregon. and amy klobuchar, a democrat from minnesota. >> is there any discussion of compromise on the rules? >> there's some talk of compromise. one thing that republicans want is a concession from majority leader harry reid that he'll stop the practice known as filling the tree. it's a procedural tactic that blocks republicans or members of the minority party and the majority party, too, from offering amendments to legislation that reid doesn't want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up when the senate gavels? . >> it was long expected it would happen the first day of legislation. it appears, though, the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. so it seems like what they're going to do is -- they're going to recess the senate at some point tomorrow and t

both hearings were requested actually by a member of therule rules committee, tom udall, the senator t from new mexico and it is why we embarked on the hearings and i very much appreciate his suggestion that we do that. h at the hearings, democrats brought up that the majority was no longer able to m move forward to consider bills by filibusters on motions to proceed. republicans argued that they were too often blocked from offering amendments by the maj majority filling the tree. both sides have legitimate complaints. what couldn't be disputed that was in many ways the senate was broken. it had become harder and harder for the body to consider debate and decidefo legislation and nominations that it is supposed to take care of. is true what senator mcconnell said that we had a very productive session, but that didn't gain the fact that there were 74 filibusters that many decided weren't decided and that the senate seemed too many to not be functioning in the way it used to wear debate was stifled by both the majority and the minority. and so when we resolve things. when i first came

>> tom udall, a democratic senator from new mexico, he's the leader. he's been most outspoken on this. but there are several democrats working with him, including tom harkin, a democrat from iowa, a democrat from oregon, and a democrat from minnesota. >> is there any discussion of compromise on the rules? >> there's some talk of compromise. one thing that republicans want is a concession from the majority leader harry reid that he'll stop the practice known as filling the tree. it's a procedural tactic that blocks republicans or members of the minority party and the majority party, too, from offering amendments to legislation that reid doesn't want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up when the senate gavels in? >> well, this, you know, it was long expected that this would happen tomorrow, the first day of the legislative session. it appears, though, that the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. so it seems like what they're going to do is recess the senate at some point tomorrow and then rec

senator tom udall of colorado has proposed that the filibuster in the senate be modified. now, the filibuster is an interesting creature that exists only in the united states senate. the filibuster is a peculiar animal that could only thrive in a small institution like the senate. a filibuster in the house of representatives would lead to utter chaos. you cannot have 435 people being able to slow down or even stop the legislative process. that would not work in the house. if there are people that are you it does not work in the senate either. basically, the history of the filibuster is fascinating because when it really comes down to -- i think almost any of you who have been in an organization that uses robert's rules of order know about the previous question -- when something must come to a vote. from the early 19th century until around the time of the first world war, there was no way at all to stop debate in the united states senate and come to 8 vote unless it was by unanimous consent. interestingly enough, much of what the senate does today is by unanimous consent. i

, to which end another person, people have not heard of that they're about to hear of is senator tom udalla freshman from new mexico who will lead the attempt to change the senate rules to make a filibuster less effective to make the senate work quicker. now, those of us who believe that quickness in government is not a good thing object to that but it will be the first big fight of this congress. >> explain that a little bit more, because there are obviously in op-ed page as cross the country we see today and saw yesterday attempts to argue that the filibuster needs a reform. that it shouldn't be a 60-vote benchmark every time senators want to do something. >> it used to be 67. they lowered it to 60 and theoretically making it easier to end debate, they made phil philly bu phillybust e phillybusters much more common for a lot of different reasons. the argument is this, the house, all 435 members of the house are elected every year. the senate only a third are. the house is not a continuing body. the senate is always said we're a continuing body and therefore our rules continue from one to

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. president reserving the righ

>> caller: well, tom udall, he's the leader. he's been most outspoken on this. there are several democrats work, him, including tom harkin, democrat from iowa, jeff merkley, democrat in oregon, and amy klobuchar, democrat from minnesota. >> there any talk of compromise? >> caller: there's talk of compromise. one thing they want a concession from harry reid he'll stop filling the tree. it's a procedural tactics that block republicans or members of the majority party from offering administration that reid doesn't want to hold votes on. >> how will this be brought up when the senate gavels in? >> caller: well, this was -- it was long expected to happen tomorrow. it appears the senate democrats have some disagreements over what should be in the new rules package. so it seems like what they are going to do is they are going to recess the senate at some point tomorrow and then reconvene after two week recession. technically it will still be the first legislative day. when they do that, tom udall most likely to make a motion for the senate to consider changes to the rul

provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader or his designee. mr. reid: following leader remarks the senate will begin en bloc consideration of several resolutions to change senate rules. there will be up to eight hours of debate. prior to a series of stacked roll call votes in relation to the resolutions. the senate will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for a caucus. it is my understanding democrats and republicans will be holding meetings today during that hour. if all time is used the series of votes will begin around 8:00 p.m. tonight. however, we expect time to be yielded back so votes can begin earlier. senators will be notified if and when time is yielded back and when the votes are expected to begin. mr. president, s. 192 is at the desk and due for second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the title of the bill.

. >> reporter: the southwest soul mates, arizona's john mccain and new mexico's tom udall.t go to south dakota republican john thune and kirstin gillibrand. it's taken on a prom feel as we saw with senators hutchison and conrad. on "this week with christiane amanpour." 6 >> kay, i'm available. >> have you picked a date? >> i just asked kay. >> all right. well, we'll see you two sitting together. >> reporter: senior white house officials tell abc news that while president obama will push for new spending in areas such as education and innovation, he'll do so within the context of an overall reduction in total spending for the entire budget. jake tapper, abc news, the white house. >>> interesting tidbit. you know how the presidents like to have real folks in the stands watching the speech? it was a tradition started in 1982 by president reagan. this year president obama will have folks there involved in the tucson tragedy. that intern daniel hernandez as well as the family of the 9-year-old girl killed in the tragedy. >> we also know who the republican response is going to be

. >> reporter: the southwest soul mates, john mccain and tom udall. and cutest couple, john thune and new york democrat kirsten gillibrand. it's taking on a prom feel with senators hutchison and conrad as we saw on "this week" with christian chri christiane amanpour. >> reporter: the white house hopes this bipartisan feel will be aided by the presence in the first lady's box of several of the heroes of the tucson tragedy, including intern daniel hernandez, george. also several of the physicians. they asked gabrielle gifford's husband, mark kelly, but he is unlikely to attend. >> not everyone is going along with date night. mitch mcconnell says he's going to sit where he always sits. and we'll have full coverage of the president's speech tomorrow night. and i'll be anchoring with diane sawyer tomorrow night. starting right here on abc. you can test your knowledge on state of the union quiz. >> oh, boy. >> are you ready, robin? >> i'm ready. where do we go? >> abcnews.com/gma. >> thanks, george. in the meantime, we have an arrest made sunday in the kidn

. >> between kerry and tom udall and joe lieberman. two democrats and an independent. >> all mixed up there, which made for quite a different feeling in the chamber, right? >> oh, yes, it did. it really did. it was a much different feeling. some of the things a lot of us have resented over the years, this constant jumping up and down. it interrupts the theme of the president's speech. i think it was helpful to the president's speech last night that it was less than usual and certainly not as partisan as it used to be. it used to be a cheerless -- it still is. it's been reduced, the cheerleading kind of thing. >> do you think this is going to stick? >> i hope so. i think there's a different atmosphere here. with every tragedy comes something good. and obviously, the tragedy of tucson and gabrielle giffords has brought about a certain change in the atmosphere. >> so, let's get to the policies. >> sure. >> you jumped up when the president said he would veto any bill that had earmarks in it. >> i was so pleased. and hopefully we'll work on

president, i submit resolution 24 on behalf of myself and senator tom udall, proposing a standing order of the senate, and i ask unanimous consent of the senate that the senate proceed to immediate consideration of the resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: mr. president? for purposes of having the resolution go over under the rule, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. and the resolution will go over under the rule. mr. merkley: thank you, mr. president. i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to s. con. res. 3. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. con. res. 3, concurrent resolution honoring the service and sacrifice of staff sergeant salvatore yenta and so forth. the presiding officer: without

mark udall. tom is the guy who is working to fix the filibusters and mark udall his cousin is the man who suggested this... that everybody sit with another member of his or her party. there is secretary sebelius. secretary donovan. helping me all evening are shields and gerson that's sind i caned columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. there we just saw the supreme court. a quick shot of the supreme court. i haven't had a chance to count them. have either of you, michael or mark, there are supposed to be six present. ahead of time they said there would be six. the three who are not here are justice alito, justice scalia and justice thomas. but i see justice roberts, chief justice roberts is here. everybody who was watching the last time. it wasn't at the state of the union. it was at the joint session of congress where president obama addressed a joint session of congress for health care reform. he made a comment, the president did, about the supreme court decision on c

merkley: i submitted a resolution on behalf of myself and senator tom udall to amend rule 19 and rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate. i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of the resolution. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. merkley: mr. president, for purposes of having the resolution go over, under the rule, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. the measure will go over under the rule. 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 rea

the use of the filibuster by you stopped short of endorsing the one proposal out there by senator tom udall to revamp the rules of the senate. i wonder if you're planning on signing on to the proposal and when you think is the landscape for achieving the reform on january 24th. >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that 3 >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that proposal for the basics of the proposal. i think we want to protect the rights of the minority, the founding fathers envisioned in the constitution and i think it is critical to do it. what goes around, comes around, and clearly having been on the minority i understand that power. but we have to find a way to guarantee that as i said, it is being used not as a day to day tactic that has no accountability but that it is being used in a way that in cages the nation in a legitimate debate about something substantive, and as long as that takes place, i think it is a fair place to have that kind of fiscal if you will to try to find the way to get the 60 votes. today you don't have to do that, you don't even have to talk

use of the filibuster, but you stopped short of endorsing the one proposal out there by senator tom udall to revamp the rules of this. i wonder if you're planning on signing him with a proposal and what do you think of the landscape for achieving rules reform on january 20? >> both is going to be very strong. i do support that proposal, i think, or the basics of the proposal. i think we want to protect the rights of minority, the founding fathers envisioned that in the constitution. i think it's critical to do it. and what goes around comes around. and clearly having been in the minority i understand that. but we have to find a way to guarantee that come as i said, it is being used not as a day-to-day tactic that has no accountability, but that is being used in a way that engages the nation in a legitimate debate about something substantive. as long as that takes place i think that's a fair place to that kind of a struggle to try to find a way to get to go 60 votes. today you don't have to do that. you don't even have to talk. you can just announce you will be opposed to something and it

the use of the filibuster by you stopped short of endorsing the one proposal out there by senator tom udall to revamp the rules of the senate. i wonder if you're planning on signing on to the proposal and when you think is the landscape for achieving the reform on january 24th. >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that 3 >> it's quick to be very strong. i do support that proposal for the basics of the proposal. i think we want to protect the rights of the minority, the founding fathers envisioned in the constitution and i think it is critical to do it. what goes around, comes around, and clearly having been on the minority i understand that power. but we have to find a way to guarantee that as i said, it is being used not as a day to day tactic that has no accountability but that it is being used in a way that in cages the nation in a legitimate debate about something substantive, and as long as that takes place, i think it is a fair place to have that kind of fiscal if you will to try to find the way to get the 60 votes. today you don't have to do that, you don't even have to talk

there are even moves by senator tom udall of colorado to have both parties sit together instead of sitting apart. these are small gestures, but ultimately it's about how the debate moves forward. we'll have big debates about the role of government in our lives, government spending, and health care and the like. it's a question of do people really want to make that turn. >> and of course, david, sarah palin has been right in the middle of this conversation. even linked by some of her critics to the shooting because of her rhetoric. there was, of course, no evidence of that at all. now getting some criticism for that facebook statement she put out on the same day of the memorial. what is the long-term impact, david, on her political brand? >> you know, it's so difficult to gauge that, because we don't know where she's headed politically, other than being a really big political star, willie. everybody talks in terms of a potential run for the presidency for her. we just don't know if that's where she's headed. we just know at the moment she has huge political impact. i think the criticism of

the fact is, as senator tom udall has powerfully made clear, article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the constitution sphesifies -- quote -- "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings." as senator robert byrd, who was opposed to filibuster reform -- he and i had a great debate back in 1995 on this. he emsaid, "any time that 51 senators are determined to change the rule that rule can be changed." end quote. and i am reading here from what he said. he said, "the constitution in article 1, section 5, says in a each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings. now we're at the beginning of congress. this congress," he said, "is not obliged to be by the dead or the past. ""i listened to the minority leader when he said that we haven't -- the majority has never changed rules except by following those rules. wecial the rules set -- well, the rules set down by a congress a long time ago, by a senate a long time ago said that in order to ink chase rules you need two-thirds of the vote in the senate. i submit that's unconstitutional. i submit that this congress, this senate on this first leg

on the agenda, senator tom udall likely to offer a filibuster change resolution to talk about changing the filibuster rules. senator harkin may offer his own. senator mccaskill talking about talking aboutholes in the senate. -- will be talking about the secret holes in the senate. guest: last year we did a boca out that even of all the democrats won, he -- last year we did a vote count that even if all the democrats won, it still would not make a difference. a lot of democrats in the upper chamber a long time but think of a filibuster threshold of 60 is fine. democrats say it does not matter whether we are in majority or minority, the senate needs devotion better and therefore we need to lower the threshold of -- the 60-vote threshold is not in the constitution. it has been changed before and it should be changed again. . holds -- on cigarette holds, -- secret holds, but i think that has a good chance to be adopted. but on filibuster reforms, they did not have that. host: "washington journal" will be on the air until moon today. then at noon, on c-span 1, gavel-to-gavel coverage of the

the fact is, as senator tom udall has powerfully made clear, article 1, section 5, clause 2 of the constitution sphesifies -- quote -- "each house may determine the rules of its proceedings." as senator robert byrd, who was opposed to filibuster reform -- he and i had a great debate back in 1995 on this. he emsaid, "any time that 51 senators are determined to change the rule that rule can be changed." end quote. and i am reading here from what he said. he said, "the constitution in article 1, section 5, says in a each house shall determine the rules of its proceedings. now we're at the beginning of congress. this congress," he said, "is not obliged to be by the dead or the past. ""i listened to the minority leader when he said that we haven't -- the majority has never changed rules except by following those rules. wecial the rules set -- well, the rules set down by a congress a long time ago, by a senate a long time ago said that in order to ink chase rules you need two-thirds of the vote in the senate. i submit that's unconstitutional. i submit that this congress, this senate on this first leg

mark udall. tom is the guy who is working to fix the filibusters and mark udall his cousin is the man who suggested this... that everybody sit with another member of his or her party. there is secretary sebelius. secretary donovan. helping me all evening are shields and gerson that's sind i caned columnist mark shields and "washington post" columnist michael gerson. there we just saw the supreme court. a quick shot of the supreme court. i haven't had a chance to count them. have either of you, michael or mark, there are supposed to be six present. ahead of time they said there would be six. the three who are not here are justice alito, justice scalia and justice thomas. but i see justice roberts, chief justice roberts is here. everybody who was watching the last time. it wasn't at the state of the union. it was at the joint session of congress where president obama addressed a joint session of congress for health care reform. he made a comment, the president did, about the supreme court decision on c

and so, there have been a number of people in the congress and the senate, senator tom harkin, mark udallong them who are going to contend today that the senate is not a continuing body and that that is a terrible fiction that works for and outrage on democracy. and if it's not a continuing body and the senate is called upon, then to pass its rules, then the boat on the rule, it's expected that only a majority is necessary. and if they adopt new rules and adapt to rule without the cloture rule of 67, then today we could see the demise of the filibuster. >> any bets on not? >> well, it's hard to know. senator biden, before he was vice president, being from delaware. i don't want to offend my friend from the small state, but it can be looked upon as the tyranny of small states. people from small states tend to favor the filibuster because it gives them enormous amounts of power in the senate. that means that very few senators can embark action. on the other hand, i do know and i have been part of some discussion with others. i'm not a principle in this, but i'd been party to some of the dis

tom harkin from iowa. we're in a colloquy situation. mr. harkin: would you yield for an observation? mr. udall: you bet. the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. harkin: i want to thank my friends, my colleagues, senator udall and senator merkley, for their great relationship on this issue. they have brought a breath of fresh air to the senate in exposing, i think, what has become a gridlock, which has made the senate almost dysfunctional. and so my friends, senator udall especially, in focusing on what the constitution really says and doesn't say and the fact that i believe -- i am only speaking for myself, i believe that we are not, madam president, living up to the oath that we stood down here by the well and took when we were sworn into the united states senate. we took an oath that we would uphold and defend the constitution and that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. well, quite frankly, the constitution, i believe, is quite clear in the way it's written, in the verbiage that's used, and if we look to what the founders wanted in the constitution, i think it was very clea