Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
DOWN THE NUMBER OF REQUISITE
SIDES.
VOTES YOU'RE ON A SLIPPERY
SO I WILL STOP AT THIS POINT AND
ASK THE SENATOR FROM IOWA IF HE
HAS ANY COMMENTS.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
I THANK MY FRIEND
FROM KANSAS.
I THINK HE MAKES SOME GOOD
POINTS.
I WOULD SAY TO
MY FRIEND, I THINK WE OUGHT TO
GO THROUGH PROCESSES IN OUR
COMMITTEES TO HAVE HEARINGS ON
NOMINEES TO FLESH OUT THINGS
LIKE THAT.
SO TO THAT EXTENT, THE SENATOR
FROM KANSAS IS RIGHT.
WE SHOULDN'T HAVE -- ESPECIALLY
IF THERE IS ANY CONTROVERSY AT
ALL, I SUPPOSE SOME OF THEM ARE
NONCONTROVERSIAL, BUT IF THERE
IS SOME CONTROVERSY OUT THERE, I
THINK THE COMMITTEES OUGHT TO
HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO BRING
THEM FORWARD, LET THE COMMITTEES
QUESTION THEM.
WE DID THAT IN OUR "HELP"
COMMITTEE, I SAY TO MY FRIEND
FROM KANSAS.
I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE
PERSON THAT WE HAD.
OH, A LOT OF CONTROVERSY ABOUT
ABOUT -- CRAIG BECKER I THINK
WAS HIS NAME.
CRAIG BECKER WAS GOING TO THE
NLRB.
IF THE SENATOR WILL
YIELD, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT.
I'M ON THE "HELP" COMMITTEE, AS
YOU MAY RECALL.
I WAS TRYING TO GET ONE
AMENDMENT TO SAY THAT WE WOULD
PROHIBIT THE USE OF -- OF
RATIONING TO ACHIEVE COST
CONTAINMENT, AND IT WAS INVOLVED
IN SEVERAL OF THE COMMISSION
THAT IS HAVE BEEN IN THE BILL.
I REGRET THAT THAT BILL REALLY
DIDN'T SORT OF -- SORT OF SAT
SOMEWHERE AND COLLECTED DUST.
WE NEVER GOT A SCORE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS, QUITE FRANKLY,
A BETTER BILL THAN THE ONE IN
THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.
YOU RECOGNIZED ME, AND HI AN
OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER SOME
AMENDMENTS.
AT LEAST THERE WAS SOME DEBATE,
AND I THINK IT WAS A MUCH MORE
BIPARTISAN EFFORT.
SO I GIVE THE --
IF IT WAS OUT OF OUR
COMMITTEE, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS A
BETTER BILL THAN THE FINANCE
COMMITTEE.
BUT I SAY TO MY FRIEND, AGAIN,
THAT -- MR. ROBERTS: I WILL BE
QUIET AND JUST LISTEN TO YOU.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD
SAY TO MY FRIEND, IN LISTENING
TO MY FRIEND FROM KANSAS SAY
THIS, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT --
THAT CERTAIN OF HIS AMENDMENTS
WERE ALLOWED.
YOU WERE ALLOWED TO DEBATE THEM
ADOPTED.
AND OFFER THEM, BUT THEY WEREN'T
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, AS I'VE
SAID BEFORE, THE RIGHT OF THE
MINORITY OUGHT TO BE TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS, TO HAVE THEM
CONSIDERED, TO HAVE THEM VOTED
ON, BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT
IT'S THE RIGHT OF THE MINORITY
TO WIN EVERY TIME ON THOSE
AMENDMENTS.
AND I SAY TO MY FRIEND ON THAT
FINANCIAL SERVICES BILL, I HAD
AN AMENDMENT, TOO, AND I
COULDN'T GET IT IN.
I WAS ON THE MAJORITY SIDE, AND
THEY WOULDN'T LET ME OFFER ONE
EITHER.
SO THESE ARE THINGS I THINK THAT
WHERE BOTH SIDES HAVE SOME
LEGITIMATE POINTS.
I ALSO SAY TO MY FRIEND FROM
KANSAS AND OTHERS THAT WE CAN
GET INTO THIS *** FOR TAT, WHO
STARTED IT.
YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT TO -- I
QUIT THAT.
THINK WE HAVE GOT TO KIND OF
I CAN COME BACK AND SAY WELL,
YES, IN THE LAST TWO YEARS, THE
TREE WAS FILLED 44 TIMES, BUT
THERE WERE -- IN THE LAST
SESSION, 44 TIMES THE TREE WAS
FILIBUSTERS.
FILLED, BUT THERE WERE 136
FILIBUSTERS?
WHY WOULDN'T THERE BE 44
WHY WERE THERE 136?
WE CAN GET IN THE *** FOR TAT,
WHO DID WHAT TO WHOM?
I WOULD LIKE TO JUST FORGET
ABOUT ALL THAT.
BECAUSE WE CAN GO BACK PROBABLY
TO THE 18th CENTURY OF *** FOR
TAT, WHO DID WHAT TO WHOM AT
SOME POINT IN TIME.
I JUST -- DOES MY FRIEND -- I
ASK MY FRIEND, DOES MY FRIEND
FROM KANSAS, WHO HAS BEEN HERE A
LONG TIME, SERVED TOGETHER IN
THE HOUSE.
MY FRIEND WAS CHAIRMAN OF THE
AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE IN THE
HOUSE.
LEGISLATION TOGETHER.
WE HAVE DONE A LOT OF
DOES MY FRIEND FROM KANSAS FEEL
THAT THE SENATE IS OPERATING
TODAY IN -- IN THE BEST POSSIBLE
WAY?
DOES MY FRIEND FROM KANSAS
BELIEVE THAT THERE COULD BE SOME
THINGS DONE TO MAKE THE SENATE
OPERATE A LITTLE BIT MORE OPENLY
AND FAIRLY, WITH RIGHTS FOR THE
MINORITY TO BE PROTECTED BUT
WITHOUT LETTING THE MINORITY --
AND I DON'T MEAN REPUBLICANS.
WHEN I SAY MINORITY, I MEAN
WHOEVER HAPPENS TO BE IN THE
MINORITY -- TO KEEP THE MINORITY
FROM OBSTRUCTING?
DOES MY FRIEND FEEL THERE COULD
BE SOME CHANGES MADE?
WELL, I WILL JUST
ANSWER THE QUESTION, NO, I DON'T
THINK THAT WE'RE DOING THE JOB
THAT WE COULD DO AND WE SHOULD
DO BETTER, AND I STAND READY TO
WORK WITH ALL CONCERNED TO SEE
IF WE COULD DO THAT, BUT MY TIME
IS UP AND I'M GOING TO ASK TO
BE -- I'M GOING TO CEASE HERE
AND ALLOW THE SENATOR FROM
TEXAS.
THE
RECOGNIZED.
SENATOR FROM TEXAS IS
MAY I INQUIRE HOW
MUCH MORE TIME IS LEFT ON OUR
SIDE?
THREE AND
A HALF MINUTES.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
WILL ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT WITH
THE INDULGENCE OF MY COLLEAGUES,
TEN MINUTES.
TO ALLOW ME TO SPEAK FOR UP TO
I WILL PROBABLY SPEAK FOR FIVE
MINUTES OR SO UNLESS I GET
PARTICULARLY WOUND UP WHICH
COULD TAKE TEN MINUTES.
BUT I WOULD ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TEN
MINUTES.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
I THANK THE CHAIR.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I THINK WE ARE
PLAYING WITH FIRE WHEN WE TALK
ABOUT AMENDING THE SENATE RULES.
ALL OF US HAVE BEEN HERE FOR
DIFFERENT PERIODS OF TIME.
I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR EIGHT
YEARS, WHICH ACTUALLY SOUNDS
LIKE A LONG TIME, BUT IN THE
LIFE OF THE SENATE IS NOT VERY
LONG AT ALL, IN AN INSTITUTION
THAT'S EXISTED FOR MORE THAN 200
YEARS, AND I HAVE BEEN HERE WHEN
OUR SIDE WAS IN THE MAJORITY.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAD THE
WHITE HOUSE, WE HAD BOTH HOUSES
OF CONGRESS, AND I HAVE BEEN
HERE WHEN WE HAVE HAD PRESIDENT
OBAMA IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND
DEMOCRATS CONTROL BOTH HOUSES OF
CONGRESS, AND I CAN TELL YOU
UNEQUIVOCALLY, IT'S A WHOLE LOT
MORE FUN TO BE HERE WHEN YOU'RE
IN THE MAJORITY, BUT THERE ARE
CERTAIN TEMPTATIONS THAT THE
MAJORITY HAS WHICH I THINK ARE
EXACERBATED WHEN, FOR EXAMPLE,
DURING MOST OF THE LAST TWO
YEARS WHEN ONE PARTY OR THE
OTHER HAS THE ABILITY IN THE
SENATE TO BASICALLY PASS
LEGISLATION BY ESSENTIALLY A
PARTY-LINE VOTE.
IN OTHER WORDS, AS I RECALL, ON
THAT MORNING AT 7:00 A.M. ON
CHRISTMAS EVE A YEAR AGO WHEN
THE VOTE ON THE HEALTH CARE BILL
CAME UP WHERE 60 -- ALL 60
DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR THE BILL AND
NO REPUBLICANS VOTED FOR THE
BILL, MY POINT BEING THE
TEMPTATION IS WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH
A LARGE MAJORITY, 60 OR MORE,
THERE IS A HUGE TEMPTATION ON
BOTH PARTIES, NOT JUST THE
DEMOCRATS.
REPUBLICANS, I'M SURE, WOULD BE
ALONE.
TEMPTED AS WELL TO TRY TO GO IT
AND THUS, I THINK IT -- IT
DETRACTS FROM WHAT IS ONE OF THE
GREAT STRENGTHS OF THIS
INSTITUTION, WHICH IS THAT THIS
INSTITUTION'S RULES FORCE
CONSENSUS, OR UNLESS THERE IS
HAPPEN.
NOT CONSENSUS, THEN THINGS DON'T
AND WE ARE THUS THE SAUCE
THEY'RE COOLS THE TEA FROM THE
CUP AND ALL THE VARIOUS
ANALOGIES THAT WE HAVE HEARD.
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS NOT
HOW THIS AFFECTS US AS
INDIVIDUAL SENATORS.
THIS IS NOT JUST AN ABSTRACT
DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RULES.
THIS IS ABOUT WHAT'S IN THE BEST
INTERESTS OF A COUNTRY OF MORE
THAN 300 MILLION PEOPLE, AND ANY
TIME, I WOULD SUBMIT, WHERE ONE
PARTY OR THE OTHER IS NOT ONLY
TEMPTED BUT YIELDS TO THAT
TEMPTATION, TO GO IT ALONE, TO
TRY TO PUSH LEGISLATION THROUGH
WITHOUT ACHIEVING THAT
CONSENSUS, I THINK IT HURTS THE
INSTITUTION AND I THINK IT
PROVOKES A BACKLASH AS MUCH AS
WE SAW ON NOVEMBER 2, BECAUSE
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND
THAT CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE
IMPORTANT, AND WHEN THEY
DIDN'T -- WE DIDN'T HAVE CHECKS
AND BALANCES, EITHER THROUGH THE
SELF-RESTRAINT OF THE MAJORITY
OR THROUGH RECOGNIZING THE
RIGHTS OF THE MINORITY TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS, TO HAVE DEBATES, TO
CONTRIBUTE TO THE LEGISLATION,
THEN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
GOING TO FIX THAT BY CHANGING
THE BALANCE OF POWER AS THEY DID
ON NOVEMBER 2.
HERE AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO BE
MISUNDERSTOOD AS MAKING A
PARTISAN ARGUMENT.
I THINK REPUBLICANS WOULD BE
JUST AS TEMPTED AS DEMOCRATS TO
DO THE SAME THING, BUT I THINK
THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO SHOW
SELF-RESTRAINT AND WHERE IF WE
DO NOT SHOW SELF-RESTRAINT, THEN
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL CHANGE
THE BALANCE OF POWER AND
BALANCES.
ESTABLISH THOSE CHECKS AND
HERE AGAIN, I -- I THINK FOR
MOST PEOPLE WHO ARE LISTENING,
IF THERE IS ANYONE LISTENING OUT
THERE ON C-SPAN OR ELSEWHERE TO
THIS DEBATE, THIS SHOULD NOT BE
ABOUT US.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE ABOUT THE
ARCANIA OF THESE RULES.
THIS SHOULD BE ABOUT THE RIGHTS
OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GET
LEGISLATION THAT AFFECTS ALL
300-PLUS MILLION OF US, DEBATED,
AMENDED, IN A WAY TO TRY TO
ACHIEVE THAT CONSENSUS AND THUS
ACHIEVES BROAD SUPPORT BY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, BECAUSE ANY
TIME, AGAIN, WE TRY TO YIELD OR
WE DO YIELD TO THE TEMPTATION TO
GO IT ALONE, TO DO THINGS ON A
PARTISAN BASIS, I THINK IT WILL
ULTIMATELY PROVOKE THE KIND OF
BACKLASH WE'VE SEEN OVER THE
HEALTH CARE BILL, JUST TO
MENTION ONE EXAMPLE.
AND THIS IS NOT A SMALL THING.
I HAVE THE HONOR OF REPRESENTING
25 MILLION PEOPLE IN THE SENATE,
AND I -- THIS ISN'T JUST ABOUT
MY RIGHTS AS AN INDIVIDUAL
SENATOR OR EVEN THE MINORITY'S
RIGHTS.
THIS IS ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS,
THEIR RIGHT TO BE HEARD THROUGH
AN ADEQUATE TIME FOR DEBATE,
THEIR RIGHT TO HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE OR AMEND
LEGISLATION AND THEN TO HAVE A
CHANCE TO HAVE IT VOTED ON, AND
I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION
OF -- OF OUR COLLEAGUES WHEN THE
MAJORITY LEADER, DUE TO HIS
RIGHT OF PRIOR RECOGNITION, HE
COULD GET THE FLOOR, HE CAN PUT
SOMETHING ON THE SENATE CALENDAR
THAT HASN'T GONE THROUGH A
COMMITTEE MARKUP AND THAT SORT
OF DUE PROCESS AND FAIR
OPPORTUNITY FOR AMENDMENT AND
PARTICIPATION, AND THEN, AGAIN,
IF HE'S GOT 60 VOTES ON HIS SIDE
TO BE ABLE TO PUSH IT THROUGH,
THEN DENY US ANY OPPORTUNITY TO
OFFER AMENDMENTS, MUCH LESS TO
HAVE A FULL DEBATE ON THESE
IMPORTANT ISSUES, AND I THINK
OUR COUNTRY SUFFERS FROM THAT.
I THINK -- I THINK THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE SUFFER WHEN WE ARE DENIED
ON THEIR BEHALF AN OPPORTUNITY
OFFER AMENDMENTS.
TO HAVE A FULSOME DEBATE AND TO
SO I HOPE THAT -- I DON'T DOUBT
THE GOOD FAITH OF OUR COLLEAGUES
PROPOSITIONS.
WHO ARE OFFERING SOME OF THESE
THERE ARE EVEN SOME OF THEM THAT
I FIND SOMEWHAT ATTRACTIVE, THE
EXAMPLE.
IDEA OF SECRET HOLDS, FOR
I THINK IF THERE EVER WAS A TIME
FOR THAT, THAT TIME IS LONG PAST
GONE.
BUT I KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO
AGREE ON EVERYTHING, BUT WE
OUGHT TO AT LEAST HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE TO BE
HEARD AND FOR PEOPLE -- FOR
INDIVIDUAL SENATORS' RIGHTS TO
BE RESPECTED, NOT BECAUSE THEY
ARE SENATORS BUT BECAUSE THEY
REPRESENT A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND IT'S THEIR
RIGHTS THAT ARE IMPINGED WHEN
THE MAJORITY LEADER, FOR
WHATEVER REASON, DECIDES TO DENY
A SENATOR A RIGHT TO OFFER AN
AMENDMENT AND A RIGHT TO HAVE A
FULSOME DEBATE ON THE AMENDMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING
LEGISLATION PASSED BUT ALTHOUGH
THERE MAY BE, AS SENATOR REID
SAID THIS MORNING, THE 111th
CONGRESS HAS TO GO DOWN IN
HISTORY AS BEING ONE OF THE MOST
PRODUCTIVE CONGRESSES AT THE
SAME TIME HE COMPLAINED ABOUT
LEGISLATION.
REPUBLICANS FILIBUSTERING
THERE SEEMS TO BE AN INHAIRNT
CONTRADICTION THERE.
-- INHERENT CONTRADICTION THERE.
I SUGGEST THE EXPLANATION FOR
THAT IS OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE HAVE HAD SUCH A LARGE
SUPERMAJORITY, THEY HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO MUSTER THE 60 VOTES AND
GO IT ALONE.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT'S YIELDING
TO A TEMPTATION THAT EVERYONE
WOULD UNDERSTAND AND THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE NOW SINCE
CORRECTED THAT AS A RESULT OF
THE NOVEMBER 2 ELECTION.
SO I WOULD SUGGEST IN CLOSING,
MADAM PRESIDENT, TO ALL OF OUR
FRIENDS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE -- AGAIN, I RECOGNIZE THE
SINCERITY OF THOSE WHO HAVE
OFFERED THESE PROPOSALS, BUT I
WOULD SUGGEST THERE IS NOT A --
A -- THERE IS NOT A MALFUNCTION
MALFUNCTION -- OR SHOULD I SAY
THE RULES THEMSELVES ARE NOT
BROKEN, BUT THE RULES
CONTEMPLATE THAT THERE WILL
NOT -- THE RULES WILL NOT BE
ABUSED, AND I THINK THE
TEMPTATION TO ABUSIVE THOSE
RULES BY GOING IT ALONE IS
UNDERSTANDABLE BUT SOMETHING
THAT NEEDS TO BE AVOIDED, AND I
THINK THE ELECTION NOW SINCE WE
ARE MORE EVENLY DIVIDED SO
NOBODY WILL BE ABLE TO GET TO 60
VOTES UNLESS THERE IS A
BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS TO THE
EXTENT THAT 60 VOTES ARE NEEDED,
THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE
SINCE SORT OF FIXED THE PROBLEM
THAT SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES HAVE
PERCEIVED.
SO I THANK -- I THANK THE CHAIR
AND I WOULD --
A SENATOR: YIELD FOR A QUESTION.
I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
YIELD FOR A QUESTION.
I THANK MY FRIEND
FROM TEXAS.
HE AND I HAVE WORKED TOGETHER ON
SOME LEGISLATION IN THE PAST,
TOO.
HE IS A THOUGHTFUL SENATOR AND A
GOOD LEGISLATOR.
I JUST ASK MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS
THIS.
JUST IN LISTENING TO HIM, I -- I
ALMOST HAD THE FEELING THAT MY
FRIEND FROM TEXAS IS SAYING THAT
WE OUGHT TO HAVE A SUPERMAJORITY
TO PASS ANYTHING.
THAT WE SHOULD HAVE 60 VOTES IN
ORDER TO PASS ANYTHING.
I ASK MY FRIEND IS -- IS THAT
WHAT MY FRIEND REALLY MEANS OR
IMPLIES, THAT EVERYTHING SHOULD
HAVE 60 VOTES BEFORE IT CAN GO
THROUGH HERE?
IS THAT WHAT MY FRIEND IS
SUGGESTING?
WELL, I APPRECIATE
THE QUESTION FROM MY FRIEND, THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SUGGESTING,
BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A
PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS FOR AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR AMENDMENTS AND
DEBATES, AND IF WE DON'T HAVE A
PROCESS REQUIRING A THRESHOLD OF
60 VOTES, THE TEMPTATION IS
GOING TO BE AGAIN FOR THE
MAJORITY LEADER TO -- TO DENY
OPPORTUNITY FOR AMENDMENTS,
CONSTRICT THE TIME ALLOWED FOR
AN AMENDMENT BY -- OR FOR DEBATE
BY FILING CLOTURE, AND WE'RE
GOING TO SEE THINGS SHOOTING
THROUGH HERE THAT HAVE NOT HAD
AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR
DELIBERATION.
YOU KNOW, WE -- THIS INSTITUTION
HAS FAMOUSLY BEEN CALLED THE
WORLD'S GREATEST DELIBERATIVE
BODY, BUT I DARE SAY WE HAVEN'T
DEMONSTRATED THAT IN RECENT
MEMORY.
AND I -- AGAIN, I THINK AS THE
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE AND
OTHERS HAVE OBSERVED, THIS ISN'T
A PROBLEM WITH THE RULES.
THIS IS THE WAY THE RULES HAVE
ACTUALLY BEEN IMPLEMENTED, AND I
THINK WE HAVE LEARNED AN
IMPORTANT LESSON FROM THIS AND
ONE THAT I HOPE WILL -- WILL
HELP US RESPECT THE RIGHTS OF
ALL SENATORS, WHETHER THEY BE IN
THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY, TO
OFFER AMENDMENTS AND TO DEBATE
THESE AMENDMENTS.
NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE ABOUT OUR
RIGHTS BUT THEY ARE ABOUT THE
RIGHTS, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE
25 MILLION PEOPLE I REPRESENT.
THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD.
THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE ANY
SUGGESTIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS TO
LEGISLATION BE CONSIDERED.
THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.
IF MY FRIEND WOULD
YIELD FURTHER?
AGAIN, THIS SENATOR, I -- I -- I
HAVE PUT IN MY RESOLUTION THERE
IS A -- A -- A GUARANTEE THAT
THE MINORITY HAS THE RIGHT TO
OFFER AMENDMENTS.
ABSOLUTE GUARANTEE. AND AS I SAID, THAT'S
SOMETHING I HAVE LEARNED SINCE
1995, AND I THINK I'M VERY
SYMPATHETIC TO THAT ARGUMENT,
OFFERING AMENDMENTS.
THAT PEOPLE ARE CUT OFF FROM
I KNOW THAT'S HAPPENED TO ME,
EVEN IN THE MAJORITY SOMETIMES.
SO I BELIEVE THERE OUGHT TO BE
THE RIGHT FOR A MINORITY -- AND
I ALWAYS HASTEN TO ADD, WHEN I
SAY MINORITY, I'M NOT SAYING
REPUBLICANS, I'M SAYING THE
MINORITY -- IT MAY BE US PRETTY
SOON, AND GOES BACK AND FORTH,
AS MY FRIEND KNOWS -- THERE'S
GOT TO BE A RIGHT FOR THE
MINORITY TO BE ABLE TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS, TO HAVE THEIR VOICE
HEARD.
AS THE SENATOR SAYS, TO
REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF OUR
STATES ADEQUATELY.
BUT I ASK MY FRIEND AGAIN,
SHOULD -- WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
HAVE ONE OR TWO OR THREE OR FOUR
SENATORS WHO REALLY DON'T WANT
TO SEE A BILL PASSED IN ANY
FORM?
SOME BILL, JUST TAKE ANY BILL,
THAT MAYBE HAS BEEN WORKED ON BY
BOTH REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS,
HAS BROAD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT,
MAYBE TO THE TUNE OF MAYBE EVEN
70 OR SO SENATORS, BUT THERE'S
ONE OR TWO OR THREE SENATORS
THAT DON'T WANT TO IT PASS
ANYWAY, AND THEY ARE ABLE TO
GRIDLOCK THE PLACE UNDER THE --
UNDER THE RULE 22?
I KNOW THE SENATOR TALKED ABOUT
EXERCISING SELF-RESTRAINT BUT I
SAY THAT THAT'S FINE, BUT WHAT
IF YOU HAVE THAT SITUATION WHERE
YOU HAVE TWO OR THREE SENATORS
SAYING I DON'T CARE HOW MANY
PEOPLE -- HOW MANY SENATORS ARE
ON IT, I DON'T WANT IT TO MOVE
AND THEY -- THEY INVOKE THEIR
RIGHTS UNDER RULE 22?
I MEAN, HOW DO WE -- HOW DO WE
GET OVER THAT HURDLE?
MADAM PRESIDENT, I
WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND THAT
OUR -- THE PEOPLE WHO'VE COME
BEFORE US THOUGHT THE
CONSENSUS -- ACHIEVING CONSENSUS
WAS GOOD, NOT UNANIMITY.
PERHAPS RECOGNIZING IT'S
IMPOSSIBLE TO GET A HUNDRED
SENATORS TO AGREE.
SO I WOULD SAY TO MY FRIEND THAT
I SOMETIME AM AS FRUSTRATED AS
HE IS WHEN ONE OR TWO OR THREE
OR FOUR SENATORS SAY WE'RE GOING
TO FORCE THIS TO A CLOSURE VOTE
OR -- BECAUSE WE'RE JUST NOT
GOING TO AGREE.
AND I JUST THINK THAT'S
FRUSTRATING TO ALL OF US,
DEPENDING ON WHO'S -- YOU KNOW,
WHICH FOOT THE SHOE SO, BUT I
WOULD SAY THAT'S A SMALL PRICE
TO PAY, THAT FRUSTRATION, TO
INSIST ON ASSURING THE RIGHTS OF
THE MINORITY, AGAIN, NOT BECAUSE
OF AN INDIVIDUAL SENATOR,
BECAUSE WE ARE ALL THAT
IMPORTANT, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE
RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS WHO
WE REPRESENT ARE SO IMPORTANT
AND BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT WE
GET IT RIGHT.
BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY ELSE
AFTER WE GET THROUGH THAT GETS
TO VOTE ON THIS.
IT BECOMES THE LAW OF THE LAND.
AND UNLESS IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, NOT EVEN THE
STATES CAN SET IT ASIDE.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
RIGHT.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE GET IT
I'M JUST SAYING WE NEED TO TAKE
THE TIME NECESSARY AND I THINK
THAT'S WHAT THE RULES ARE
DESIGNED TO PROVIDE FOR.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND YIELD THE
FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
JUST ONE -- IF MY FRIEND WOULD
INDULGE, MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST
ONE MORE.
SO IT IS NOT THE POSITION OF MY
FRIEND FROM TEXAS THAT
EVERYTHING NEEDS 60 VOTES IN
WHICH TO MOVE IN THE SENATE, IS
THAT -- IS THAT CORRECT?
WELL,
MADAM PRESIDENT, I WOULD SAY
THERE ARE A LONG LIST OF BILLS
THAT PASS ON A REGULAR BASIS BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND, YOU KNOW,
IT'S LIKE THE -- WE'RE ALMOST
FOCUSED ON THE EXCEPTION RATHER
THAN THE RULE.
THERE ARE MANY TIMES, A LOT OF
TIMES -- I CAN'T QUANTIFY IT --
WHERE LEGISLATION WILL PASS BY
UNANIMOUS CONSENT BECAUSE IT HAS
GONE THROUGH THE COMMITTEES,
PEOPLE HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY
TO OFFER AMENDMENTS THERE, BOTH
SIDES HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CONTRIBUTE TO IT AND THEN IT
PASSES REALLY WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AGAIN, I DON'T -- I CAN'T
QUANTIFY THAT BUT THE ONES WE
SEEM TO BE FOCUSED ON ARE THE
ONES THAT SEEM TO BE MORE OR
LESS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE,
WHERE THERE ARE GENUINE
DISAGREEMENTS, WHEN THERE ARE --
IS A NEED TO HAVE A MORE
FULLSOME DEBATE AND THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR AMENDMENTS.
SO I THINK THE CURRENT RULES
SERVE THE INTERESTS OF OUR
CONSTITUENTS AND THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WELL.
I THANK THE CHAIR AND I THANK MY
COLLEAGUE.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
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
SENATOR IS RECOGNIZED.
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 COLLEAGUE
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 FROM MISSOURI, TO HAVE
UP TO 30 MINUTES FOR A COLLOQUY
ON THIS BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO
ELIMINATE SECRET HOLDS.
ARE THERE
ANY TIME LIMITS ON THE U.C.
MOTIONS FOR ANY SENATORS OTHER
THAN THE 30 MINUTES DESIGNATED
FOR THE COSPONSORS OF THE SECRET
HOLD LEGISLATION?
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
A SENATOR: MADAM PRESIDENT,
THE --
MADAM PRESIDENT, IN
ADDITION TO HIS U.C., WE HAVE
MYSELF AT 15 MINUTES, SENATOR
MERKLEY FOR 15, AND I BELIEVE
SENATOR WYDEN HAS ASKED FOR 30
AND THEN TO ACCOMMODATE THE
REPUBLICANS, OUR U.C. WOULD SAY
IF THERE IS A REPUBLICAN SEEKING
RECOGNITION, THAT WE ALTERNATE
BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES AND THEY
BE UNDER THE SAME TIME
LIMITATIONS AS LISTED ABOVE.
SO SENATOR ALEXANDER, YOU CAN
SEE I WOULD SPEAK FOR 15, THEN
YOU WOULD HAVE A BLOCK OF 15,
SENATOR MERKLEY, AND -- AND THEN
IT WOULD GO TO 30 FOR SENATOR
WYDEN.
AFTER SENATOR
MERKLEY, THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER
REPUBLICAN WHO WOULD BE IN A
POSITION TO SPEAK FOR 15 MINUTES
AND AT THAT POINT, UNDER THE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST, WE
WOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS
BIPARTISAN EFFORT TO ELIMINATE
MINUTES.
SECRET HOLDS FOR UP TO 30
IS THERE
OBJECTION?
MADAM PRESIDENT?
NO OBJECTION.
THE
SENATOR FROM IOWA.
I WONDER IF THE
SENATOR WOULD MIND A SLIGHT
MODIFICATION TO THAT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT
WE WERE KIND OF GETTING IN HERE
TODAY WAS KIND OF COLLOQUIES
WHERE WE COULD ASK A QUESTION
AND HAVE A RESPONSE IN A
REASONABLE MANNER.
I WOULD ASK TO MODIFY THE
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO SAY THAT
ANY COLLOQUIES ENTERED INTO,
THAT -- THAT QUESTIONS THAT ARE
PROPOUNDED TO A SENATOR THROUGH
THE CHAIR NOT BE DETRACTED FROM
THE TIME ALLOTTED TO THAT
SENATOR.
I'M VERY OPEN TO
THAT.
I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT
SUGGESTION.
SENATOR UDALL, SENATOR MERKLEY?
I VERY MUCH AGREE
WITH THAT AND I'VE BEEN SITTING
HERE FOLLOWING THE DEBATE AND I
THINK SENATOR ALEXANDER, AMONG
OTHERS, HAS PROPOUNDED SOME VERY
GOOD QUESTIONS.
I ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION
THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK ON TOP
FILIBUSTER.
OF HIS QUESTION OF WHAT IS A
SO I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT
PORTION OF IT.
AND SENATOR HARKIN, THANK YOU
VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
I THINK SENATOR
HARKIN HAS MADE AN EXCELLENT
SUGGESTION.
UNLESS SENATOR ALEXANDER OR
ANYONE ON THE OTHER SIDE HAS A
PROBLEM WITH THAT, LET US MODIFY
THE U.C. THAT I MADE TO
INCORPORATE SENATOR HARKIN'S
SUGGESTION.
UNLESS MY COLLEAGUES ON THE
OTHER SIDE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO
THAT.
NO OBJECTION.
IS THERE
OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I -- I SUBMIT
ON BEHALF OF MYSELF AND SENATORS
HARKIN, MERKLEY, DURBIN,
KLOBUCHAR, BROWN, BEGICH,
BLUMENTHAL, GILLIBRAND, SHAHEEN,
BOXER, TESTER, CARDIN, MIKULSKI,
WARNER, AND MANCHIN A RESOLUTION
TO AMEND RULE 8 AND RULE 22 OF
SENATE.
THE STANDING RULES OF THE
AND I ASK CONSENT TO PROCEED TO
THE IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION OF
THE RESOLUTION.
IS THERE
OBJECTION?
THE SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.
RESERVING THE
RIGHT TO OBJECT.
MADAM PRESIDENT, I'VE HAD A
NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS WITH THE
SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO AND THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
I RESPECT THEIR PROPOSALS AND
WILL HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT THEM
BUT I THINK SINCE THEY'VE WAITED
SUCH A LONG TIME TO MAKE THEIR
PRESENTATIONS, THAT I'LL -- I'LL
MERELY STATE MY OBJECTION NOW
AND HAVE MORE TO SAY LATER.
SO I OBJECT.
THE
OBJECTION BEING HEARD, THE
RESOLUTION WILL GO OVER UNDER
THE RULE.
AND LET ME,
MADAM PRESIDENT, JUST INQUIRE --
INQUIRE THROUGH THE
PARLIAMENTARIAN, IT'S MY
UNDERSTANDING THAT BY OBJECTING
TO THIS RESOLUTION, IMMEDIATE
CONSIDERATION, THE RESULT OF
THAT IS THE RESOLUTION WILL GO
OVER UNDER THE RULE, ALLOWING IT
TO BE AVAILABLE TO BE BROUGHT UP
AT A FUTURE TIME; IS THAT
CORRECT, IS THAT UNDERSTANDING
CORRECT?
THAT IS
CORRECT.
GREAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I RISE TODAY TO INTRODUCE THE
RESOLUTION THAT I JUST
MENTIONED, AND I'VE WORKED VERY
HARD WITH ALL OF MY COLLEAGUES,
INCLUDING MY TWO COLLEAGUES FROM
IOWA AND OREGON, SENATORS HARKIN
AND MERKLEY, TO REFORM THE RULES
BODY.
OF THIS UNIQUE AND PRESTIGIOUS
I DO SO AFTER COMING TO THE
FLOOR LAST JANUARY, JANUARY 25,
IN FACT, NOW ALMOST ONE YEAR AGO
AGO, TO ISSUE A WARNING, A
WARNING BECAUSE OF PARTISAN
RANCOR AND THE SENATE'S OWN
INCAPACITATING RULES, THIS BODY
WAS FAILING TO REPRESENT THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
THE UNPRECEDENTED ABUSE OF THE
FILIBUSTER, OF SECRET HOLDS AND
OF OTHER PROCEDURAL TACTICS
ROUTINELY PREVENTS THE SENATE
FROM GETTING ITS WORK DONE.
IT PREVENTS US FROM DOING THE
JOB THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SENT US
HERE TO DO.
SINCE THAT DAY IN JANUARY,
THINGS HAVEN'T GOTTEN BETTER.
IN FACT, I WOULD SAY THEY'VE
GOTTEN WORSE, MUCH WORSE.
HERE IN THE SENATE, OPEN AND
HONEST DEBATE HAS BEEN REPLACED
WITH SECRET BACKROOM DEALS AND
PARTISAN GRIDLOCK, UP-OR-DOWN
VOTES ON IMPORTANT ISSUES HAVE
BEEN UNREASONABLY DELAYED AND
BLOCKED ENTIRELY AT THE WHIM OF
A SINGLE SENATOR.
LAST YEAR, FOR EXAMPLE, ONE
COMMITTEE HAD ALMOST EVERY PIECE
OF LEGISLATION HELD UP BY HOLDS
FROM ONE SENATOR.
THE SENATE IS BROKEN.
IN THE CONGRESS THAT JUST ENDED,
BECAUSE OF RAMPANT AND GROWING
OBSTRUCTION, NOT A SINGLE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL WAS PASSED.
THERE WASN'T A BUDGET BILL, ONLY
ONE AUTHORIZATION BILL WAS
APPROVED, AND THAT WAS ONLY DONE
AT THE VERY LAST MINUTE.
MORE THAN 400 BILLS ON A VARIETY
OF IMPORTANT ISSUES WERE SENT
OVER FROM THE HOUSE.
NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS ACTED UPON.
KEY JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS AND
EXECUTIVE APPOINTMENTS CONTINUE
TO LANGUISH.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE FED UP
WITH IT.
DON'T BLAME THEM.
THEY ARE FED UP WITH US AND I
WE NEED TO BRING THE WORKINGS OF
THE SENATE OUT OF THE SHADOWS
AND RESTORE ITS ACCOUNTABILITY.
THAT BEGINS WITH ADDRESSING OUR
OWN DYSFUNCTION.
SPECIFICALLY, THE SOURCE OF THAT
DYSFUNCTION, THE SENATE RULES.
LAST YEAR, THE SENATE RULES
COMMITTEE TOOK A HARD LOOK AT
HOW OUR RULES HAVE BECOME SO
ABUSED AND HOW THIS CHAMBER NO
INTENDED.
LONGER FUNCTIONS AS OUR FOUNDERS
I APPLAUD CHAIRMAN SCHUMER AND
HIS EXCELLENT STAFF FOR DEVOTING
SO MUCH TIME TO THIS IMPORTANT
ISSUE, AND I KNOW THAT SENATOR
ALEXANDER AND EARLIER SENATOR
ROBERTS, WE HAVE SOME VERY GOOD
REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ON THE
COMMITTEE AND WE'VE HAD SOME
GOOD EXCHANGES.
THEY KNOW WE HAD SIX HEARINGS
AND HEARD FROM SOME OF THE MOST
RESPECTED EXPERTS IN THE FIELD.
BUT THESE HEARINGS DEMONSTRATED
THAT THE RULES ARE NOT BROKEN
FOR ONE PARTY OR FOR ONLY THE
MAJORITY.
TODAY THE DEMOCRATS LA LAMENT THE
ABUSE OF THE FILIBUSTER AND THE
REPUBLICANS COMPLAIN THAT THEY
ARE NOT ALLOWED TO OFFER
AMENDMENTS TO LEGISLATION.
FIVE YEARS AGO, THOSE ROLES WERE
REVERSED.
RATHER THAN CONTINUE ON THIS
DESTRUCTIVE PATH, WE SHOULD
ADOPT RULES THAT ALLOW A
MAJORITY TO ACT WHILE PROTECTING
THE MINORITY'S RIGHT TO BE
HEARD.
WHICHEVER PARTY IS IN THE
MAJORITY, THEY MUST BE ABLE TO
DO THE PEOPLE'S BUSINESS.
AND I THINK, SENATOR HARKIN,
THAT IS WHAT YOU SPOKE SO
PERSUASIVELY TO IN YOUR COMMENTS
ON THE FILIBUSTER IS THE
GOVERN.
MAJORITY HAS TO BE ABLE TO
AND THE WAY THE FILIBUSTER IS
BEING USED, THE MINORITY THWARTS
THWARTS -- THE MINORITY THWARTS
THE MAJORITY'S ABILITY TO
GOVERN.
AT A HEARING IN SEPTEMBER, I
TESTIFIED BEFORE THE COMMITTEE
ABOUT MY PROCEDURAL PLAN FOR
AMENDING THE SENATE RULES, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION.
UNLIKE THE SPECIFIC CHANGES TO
THE RULES PROPOSED BY OTHER
SENATORS AND EXPERTS, MY
PROPOSAL IS TO MAKE THE SENATE
OF EACH CONGRESS ACCOUNTABLE FOR
ALL OF OUR RULES.
THIS IS WHAT THE CONSTITUTION
PROVIDES FOR AND IT'S WHAT OUR
FOUNDERS INTENDED.
RULE 22 IS THE MOST OBVIOUS
EXAMPLE OF NEED FOR REFORM.
LAST AMENDMENTED IN 1975 -- LAST
AMENDED IN 1975, RULE 22
DEMONSTRATES WHAT HAPPENS WHEN
THE MEMBERS HAVE NO ABILITY TO
AMEND THE RULES THAT WERE
ADOPTED LONG AGO, RULES THAT GET
ABUSED.
IT BEARS REMEET PAO ETING --
REPEATING, OF THE 100 MEMBERS OF
THE SENATE, ONLY TWO OF US HAD
THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON THE
CLOTURE REQUIREMENT IN RULE 22.
SENATORS INOUYE AND LEAHY.
SO IF 98 OF US HAVEN'T VOTED ON
THE RULE, WHAT'S THE EFFECT IN
WELL, THE EFFECT IS THAT WE'RE
NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THE
RULE GETS ABUSED.
AND WITH A REQUIREMENT OF 67
VOTES FOR ANY RULE CHANGE,
THAT'S A WHOLE LOT OF POWER
WITHOUT RESTRAINT.
BUT WE CAN CHANGE THIS.
THE SENATE.
WE CAN RESTORE ACCOUNTABILITY TO
MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL AS
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLARS AGREE
WITH ME THAT A SIMPLE MAJORITY
OF THE SENATE CAN END DEBATE --
FIRST STEP, END DEBATE ON A
RULES CHANGE AND ADOPT ITS RULES
AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW
CONGRESS.
CRITICS OF MY POSITION ARGUE
THAT THE RULES CAN ONLY BE
CHANGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CURRENT RULES AND THAT RULE 22
REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS OF SENATORS
PRESENT AND VOTING TO AGREE TO
END DEBATE ON A CHANGE TO THE
SENATE RULES.
SINCE THIS RULE WAS FIRST
ADOPTED IN 1917, MEMBERS OF BOTH
PARTIES HAVE REJECTED THIS
ARGUMENT ON MANY OCCASIONS.
IN FACT, ADVISORY RULINGS BY
VICE PRESIDENTS NIXON, HUMPHREY
AND ROCKEFELLER SITTING AS THE
PRESIDENTS OF THE SENATE HAVE
STATED THAT A SENATE AT THE
BEGINNING OF A CONGRESS IS NOT
BOUND BY THE CLOTURE REQUIREMENT
IMPOSED BY A PREVIOUS SENATE.
THEY WENT ON TO SAY THAT EACH
NEW SENATE MAY END DEBATE ON A
PROPOSAL TO ADOPT OR AMEND
STANDING RULES BY A MAJORITY
VOTE.
AND THAT BEARS REPEATING: BY A
MAJORITY VOTE, CLOTURE AND
AMENDMENT, MAJORITY VOTE.
EVEN IN TODAY'S MORE PARTISAN
ENVIRONMENT, I HOPE MY
COLLEAGUES WILL EXTEND US THE
SAME COURTESY, AND OUR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WILL BE
PROTECTED AS WE CONTINUE TO
DEBATE THE VARIOUS RULES, REFORM
PROPOSALS AT THE BEGINNING OF
THIS CONGRESS.
IN 2005, SENATOR HATCH, SOMEONE
WHO UNDERSTANDS CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES PERHAPS BETTER THAN ANY
OTHER MEMBER OF THIS CHAMBER,
WROTE THE FOLLOWING -- AND I
QUOTE -- "THE COMPELLING
CONCLUSION IS THAT BEFORE THE
SENATE READOPTS RULE 22 BY ABG
QUESTIONS SENSE, A -- BY
ACQUIESCENCE, A SIMPLE MAJORITY
CAN INVOKE CLOTURE AND ADOPT A
RULES CHANGE.
THIS IS THE BASE SEUS FOR
PRESIDENT'S -- BASIS FOR
PRESIDENT NIXON'S DECISION IN
1977 AS HE OUTLINED THE RULES
DERIVED FROM THE CONSTITUTION
ITSELF AND CANNOT BE RESTRICTED
BY RULES ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY
OF THE SENATE IN A PREVIOUS
CONGRESS.
SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SENATE
AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW
CONGRESS CAN INVOKE CLOTURE AND
AMEND ITS RULES BY A SIMPLE
MAJORITY S." END QUOTE.
HATCH.
THAT ENTIRE QUOTE WAS BY SENATOR
AS SENATOR ALEXANDER KNOWS, MANY
YEARS HERE AS THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE; A VERY
POWERFUL QUOTE, I THINK.
THIS IS THE BASIS FOR
INTRODUCING OUR RESOLUTION
TAOFPLTD -- TODAY.
JUST AS REFORMS HAVE DONE IN THE
1950'S, 1960'S AND 1970'S AND
WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY TO
MAKE CLEAR I'M NOT ACQUIESCING
TO RULE 22 ADOPTED BY THE SENATE
OVER 35 YEARS AGO.
THAT SENATE TRIED TO TIE THE
HANDS OF ALL FUTURE SENATES BY
LEAVING THE REQUIREMENT IN RULE
22 FOR TWO-THIRDS OF THE SENATE
TO VOTE TO END A FILIBUSTER ON A
RULES CHANGE.
BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT OUR
FOUNDERS INTENDED.
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5, OF THE
CONSTITUTION CLEARLY STATES THAT
EACH HOUSE MAY DETERMINE THE
RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A
SUPERMAJORITY TO ADOPT OUR
RULES, AND THE CONSTITUTION
MAKES IT VERY CLEAR WHEN A
SUPERMAJORITY IS REQUIRED TO
ACT.
THEREFORE, ANY RULE THAT
PREVENTS A MAJORITY IN FUTURE
SENATES FROM BEING ABLE TO
CHANGE OR AMEND RULES ADOPTED IN
THE PAST IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THE FACT THAT WE ARE BOUND BY A
SUPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT THAT
WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED 93 YEARS
AGO ALSO VIOLATES THE COMMON LAW
PRINCIPLE THAT ONE LEGISLATURE
CANNOT BIND ITS SUCCESSORS.
THIS PRINCIPLE GOES BACK
HUNDREDS OF YEARS AND HAS BEEN
NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT ON
THIS IS NOT A RADICAL CONCEPT.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION HAS A
HISTORY DATING BACK TO 1917 AND
HAS BEEN A CATALYST FOR
BIPARTISAN RULES REFORM SEVERAL
TIMES SINCE THEN.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION IS OUR
CHANCE TO FIX RULES THAT ARE
BEING ABUSED, RULES THAT HAVE
ENCOURAGED OBSTRUCTION LIKE NONE
EVER SEEN BEFORE IN THIS
CHAMBER.
AND AMENDING OUR RULES WILL NOT,
AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED, MAKE THE
HOUSE.
SENATE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE
WHILE MANY CONSERVATIVES CLAIM
THE DEMOCRATS ARE TRYING TO
ABOLISH THE FILIBUSTER, OUR
RESOLUTION MAINTAINS THE RULE
BUT ADDRESSES ITS ABUSE.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE
FILIBUSTER WAS NEVER PART OF THE
ORIGINAL SENATE.
THE FOUNDERS MADE THIS BODY
DISTINCT FROM THE HOUSE IN MANY
ONE OF THEM.
WAYS, BUT THE FILIBUSTER IS NOT
SO HERE WE ARE TODAY ON THE
FIRST DAY OF A NEW CONGRESS
OFFERING A RESOLUTION TO REFORM
THE SENATE RULES.
TODAY.
WE DON'T INTEND TO FORCE A VOTE
IN FACT, WE HOPE THAT WE CAN
RETURN FROM THE BREAK AND SPEND
SOME TIME ON THE FLOOR DEBATING
OUR RESOLUTION, CONSIDERING
AMENDMENTS TO MAKE IT BETTER,
DEBATING OUR RESOLUTIONS.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PARTISAN
EXERCISE, AND I THINK ALMOST
EVERY ONE OF US THAT HAS SPOKEN
TODAY HAS SAID THAT.
EXERCISE.
THIS SHOULD NOT BE A PARTISAN
WE KNOW BOTH SIDES HAVE ABUSED
THE RULES.
NOW IT'S TIME FOR US TO WORK
TOGETHER TO FIX THEM.
BUT WE BELIEVE THE SENATE OF THE
112th CONGRESS HAS TWO PATHS
TO CHOOSE FROM.
THERE'S THE FIRST PATH: WE DO
NOTHING AND JUST HOPE THAT THE
SPIRIT OF BIPARTISANSHIP AND
DELIBERATION RETURNS.
THE TRUTH IS WE'VE BEEN ON THIS
PATH FOR AWHILE NOW, AND I THINK
THE RESULTS ARE PRETTY CLEAR.
OR WE COULD TAKE A SECOND PATH.
WE COULD TAKE A GOOD, HARD LOOK
AT OUR RULES, HOW THEY
INCENTIVIZE OBSTRUCTIONISM, HOW
THEY INHIBIT RATHER THAN PROMOTE
DEBATE AND HOW THEY PREVENT
BIPARTISAN COOPERATION.
AND THEN WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT
COMMONSENSE REFORMS TO MEET
THESE CHALLENGES, REFORMS THAT
WILL RESTORE THE UNIQUELY
DELIBERATIVE NATURE OF THIS BODY
WHILE ALSO ALLOWING IT TO
FUNCTION MORE EFFICIENTLY.
I CONTEND THAT WE NOT ONLY
SHOULD BUT HAVE A DUTY TO CHOOSE
THE SECOND PATH.
WE OWE IT TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
AND TO THE FUTURE OF THIS
INSTITUTION WE ALL SERVE.
THE REFORM RESOLUTION THAT WE
INTRODUCE TODAY IS OUR ATTEMPT
AT THE SECOND PATH.
IT CONTAINS FIVE REFORMS THAT
SHOULD GARNER BROAD BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT IF WE CAN ACT FOR THE
GOOD OF THE COUNTRY AND NOT OF
THE GOOD OF OUR PARTIES.
THE FIRST TWO PROVISIONS IN OUR
RESOLUTION ADDRESSES THE DEBATE
ON MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN SECRET
HOLDS.
MAKING THE MOTION TO PROCEED
NONDEBATABLE HAS HAD BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT FOR DECADES AND IS OFTEN
MENTIONED AS A WAY TO END THE
ABUSE OF HOLDS.
I WAS PRIVILEGED TO BE HERE FOR
SENATOR BYRD'S FINAL RULES
COMMITTEE HEARING WHERE HE
STATED "I HAVE PROPOSED A
VARIETY OF IMPROVEMENTS" -- THIS
IS A QUOTE.
"A VARIETY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO
SENATE RULES TO ACHIEVE A MORE
SENSIBLE BALANCE, ALLOWING THE
MAJORITY TO FUNCTION WHILE STILL
PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS.
FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE SUPPORTED
ELIMINATING DEBATE ON THE MOTION
TO PROCEED TO A MATTER OR
ELIMINATING DEBATE TO A
MOTIONS."
REASONABLE TIME ON SUCH
END QUOTE, ROBERT BIRD.
IN JANUARY 1979, SENATOR BYRD,
THEN MAJORITY LEADER, TOOK TO
THE SENATE FLOOR AND SAID
UNLIMITED DEBATE ON A MOTION TO
PROCEED -- QUOTE -- "MAKES THE
MAJORITY LEADER AND THE MAJORITY
PARTY THE SUBJECT OF THE
MINORITY, SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL
AND WILL OF THE MINORITY."
END QUOTE, SENATOR BYRD.
DESPITE THE MODERATE CHANGE THAT
SENATOR BYRD PROPOSED LIMITING
DEBATE ON A MOTION TO PROCEED TO
30 MINUTES, IT DID NOT HAVE THE
NECESSARY 67 VOTES TO OVERCOME A
FILIBUSTER.
AT THE TIME SENATOR BYRD ARGUED
THAT A NEW SENATE SHOULD NOT BE
BOUND BY THAT RULE, STATING --
QUOTE -- "THE CONSTITUTION IN
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5, SAYS THAT
EACH HOUSE SHALL DETERMINE THE
RULES OF ITS PROCEEDINGS.
NOW WE'RE AT THE BEGINNING OF
CONGRESS.
THIS CONGRESS IS NOT OBLIGED TO
BE BOUND BY THE DEAD HAND OF THE
PAST.
END QUOTE.
THE
SENATOR'S TIME IS EXPIRED.
THANK YOU,
MADAM CHAIR.
MADAM KHAEURBGS I WOULD ASK FOR
ANOTHER TWO MINUTES AND ALSO
RECOGNIZING ON THE REPUBLICAN
SIDE TO WRAP UP HERE.
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, TWO MINUTES.
THANK YOU,
MADAM PRESIDENT.
EFFORTS TO REFORM THE MOTION TO
PROCEED HAVE CONTINUED SINCE,
AND IN 1984 A BIPARTISAN STUDY
GROUP ON SENATE PRACTICES AND
PROCEDURES RECOMMENDED PLACING A
TWO-HOUR LIMIT ON DEBATE OF A
MOTION TO PROCEED.
THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS IGNORED.
A JOINT COMMITTEE OF
ORGANIZATION OF THE CONGRESS IN
1993 MADE THIS SAME
RECOMMENDATION, AND MY
PREDECESSOR, SENATOR DOMENICI, A
LONGTIME REPUBLICAN HERE, WHO
SENATOR ALEXANDER KNOWS
SUPPORTED THAT.
THE THIRD PROVISION IN THE
RESOLUTION INCLUDED IS BASED ON
THE COMMENTS OF THE REPUBLICANS
AT LAST YEAR'S RULES COMMITTEE.
EACH TIME DEMOCRATS COMPLAINED
ABOUT FILIBUSTERS ON MOTION TO
PROCEEDS, REPUBLICANS RESPONDED
IT WAS THEIR OWN RECOURSE
BECAUSE THE MAJORITY LEADER
FILLS THE AMENDMENT TREE AND
PREVENTS THEM FROM OFFERING
AMENDMENTS.
OUR RESOLUTION PROVIDES A SEUFRP
SOLUTION.
IT -- A SIMPLE SOLUTION.
IT GUARANTEES THE MINORITY THE
RIGHT TO OFFER THEIR AMENDMENTS.
THE FOURTH PROVISION IN THE BILL
WHICH SENATOR MERKLEY IS GOING
TO COVER EXTENSIVELY, THAT IS
THE TALKING FILIBUSTER.
WE WANT TO REPLACE A SILENT
FILIBUSTER WITH A TALKING
FILIBUSTER.
FINALLY, OUR RESOLUTION REDUCES
THE POSTCLOTURE TIME ON
NOMINATIONS FROM 30 HOURS TO 1.
POSTCLOTURE TIME IS MEANT FOR
TK-BLGT AND VOTING -- DEBATING
AND VOTING ON AMENDMENTS,
NOMINATIONS.
SOMETHING NOT POSSIBLE WITH
WITH THAT, MADAM KHAEURBGS I
WOULD SUM UP HERE AND SAY REFORM
IS BADLY NEEDED.
WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
CONSTITUTION, TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER AND FIX
THE SENATE.
WE WERE SENT TO WASHINGTON TO
TACKLE THE NATION'S PROBLEMS,
BUT WE FIND THAT THE BIGGEST
PROBLEM TO TACKLE ITSELF IS
THE -- THE BIGGEST PROBLEM TO
TACKLE IS WASHINGTON ITSELF.
AND WITH THAT, WOULD ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PUT MY FULL
COMMENTS IN THE RECORD, PUT
SEVERAL EDITORIALS ON THE
FILIBUSTER THAT HAVE APPEARED IN
"THE WASHINGTON POST," AN OP-ED
PIECE IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" BY
WALTER MONDALE.
I KNOW MY COLLEAGUE, AMY
KLOBUCHAR, IS HAOEFRPLT SENATOR
MONDALE -- IS HERE.
SENATOR MONDALE, VERY
DISTINGUISHED FORMER VICE
PRESIDENT, LEADER OF THE SENATE,
WROTE A PIECE IN "THE NEW YORK
TIMES," AND WOULD ASK THOSE
ITEMS BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD.
IS
THERE OBJECTION?
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
THE SENATOR FROM IOWA.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
MY COLLEAGUES AS WELL AS ANY OF
THE PUBLIC WATCHING THE DEBATE
TODAY KNOWS THAT THERE'S A GREAT
PARTISAN DIVIDE THUS FAR.
SENATOR WYDEN HAS ALREADY
REFERRED TO THE MOTION THAT HE
AND I ARE PUTTING BEFORE THE
SENATE, AND SENATOR WYDEN BEING
THE DEMOCRAT AND MY BEING A
REPUBLICAN, AND WE'RE JOINED
ALSO BY SENATOR McCASKILL, THE
PRESIDING OFFICER RIGHT NOW, AS
WELL AS SENATOR COLLINS IN THIS
EFFORT, IT IS THE ONLY
BIPARTISAN ISSUE BEFORE THE
SENATE THIS PARTICULAR DAY.
AND I EMPHASIZE THAT BECAUSE I
THINK THE PUBLIC OUGHT TO KNOW
THAT NOT EVERYTHING IN THE
SENATE IS PARTISAN.
SENATOR WYDEN AND I HAVE BEEN
CHIPPING AWAY AT THE INFORMAL
BACKROOM PROCESS KNOWN AS --
QUOTE, UNQUOTE -- SECRET HOLD IN
THE SENATE.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR
WELL OVER TEN YEARS.
SO IT SHOULDN'T SURPRISE ANYONE
THAT WE'RE BACK AGAIN AT THE
START OF ANOTHER CONGRESS JOINED
AS I SAID BY SENATOR McCASKILL
OF MISSOURI WHO WAS VERY HELPFUL
IN OUR PUSHING THIS ISSUE TO THE
FOREFRONT AT THE END OF THE LAST
CONGRESS.
AS I SAID, I'M ALSO PLEASED THAT
WE HAVE SENATOR COLLINS ON BOARD
AGAIN.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK
LATELY ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
FAR-REACHING REFORMS TO HOW THE
SENATE DOES BUSINESS THAT HAVE
BEEN HASTILY CONCEIVED AND
SHOULD SHIFT THE TRADITION
BALANCE, THE TRADITIONAL BALANCE
BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE
MAJORITY AND RIGHTS OF THE
MINORITY PARTIES.
NOW, IN CONTRAST, OUR RESOLUTION
BY SENATOR WYDEN AND THIS
SENATOR IS NEITHER OF THOSE TWO
THINGS.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOES NOT
SHIFT ANY BALANCE BETWEEN THE
MAJORITY AND THE MINORITY.
THIS RESOLUTION IS
WELL-THOUGHT-OUT.
BIPARTISAN REFORM EFFORT THAT
HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF TWO
COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND NUMEROUS
CAREFUL REVISIONS OVER SEVERAL
YEARS.
IN NO WAY DOES IT ALTER THE
BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN THE
MINORITY AND MAJORITY PARTIES,
NOR DOES IT CHANGE ANY RIGHTS OF
ANY INDIVIDUAL SENATOR.
THIS IS SIMPLY ABOUT
TRANSPARENCY AND WITH
TRANSPARENCY I THINK YOU GET A
GREAT DEAL OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT I
FULLY SUPPORT THE FUNDAMENTAL
RIGHT OF ANY INDIVIDUAL SENATOR
TO WITHHOLD HIS CONSENT WHEN
UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS REQUESTED.
IN THE OLD DAYS, WHEN SENATORS
CONDUCTED MUCH OF THEIR DAILY
BUSINESS FROM THEIR DESK ON THE
SENATE FLOOR AND WERE ON THE
SENATE FLOOR FOR MOST OF THE DAY
DAY, IT WAS QUITE A SIMPLE
MATTER FOR ANY SENATOR AT THAT
TIME TO STAND UP AND SAY, "I
OBJECT" WHEN NECESSARY, IF THEY
REALLY OBJECTED TO A UNANIMOUS
CONSENT REQUEST.
AND THAT WAS IT.
THAT STOPPED IT.
NOW SINCE MOST SENATORS SPEND
MOST OF THEIR TIME OFF THE
SENATE FLOOR BECAUSE OF THE
OBLIGATIONS FOR COMMITTEE
HEARINGS, THE OBLIGATIONS FOR
MEETING WITH CONSTITUENTS, AND A
LOT OF OTHER OBLIGATIONS THAT WE
HAVE, WE NOW TEND TO RELY UPON
OUR MAJORITY LEADER, IN THE CASE
OF THE DEMOCRATS, OR THE
MINORITY LEADER IN THE CASE OF
THE PREENS, TO PROTECT OUR
RIGHTS AND -- IN THE CASE OF THE
REPUBLICANS, TO PROTECT OUR
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES BY ASKING
THOSE LEADERS OR THEIR
SUBSTITUTES TO OBJECT ON OUR
BEHALF.
JUST AS ANY SENATOR HAS THE
RIGHT TO STAND UP ON THE SENATE
FLOOR AND PUBLICLY SAY "I
OBJECT," IT IS PERFECTLY THROGHT
ASK ANOTHER SENATOR TO OBJECT ON
OUR BEHALF IF HE CANNOT MAKE IT
TO THE FLOOR WHEN UNANIMOUS
CONSENT IS REQUESTED.
BY THE SAME TOKEN, SENATORS HAVE
NO INHERENT RIGHT TO HAVE OTHERS
OBJECT ON THEIR BEHALF WHILE AT
THE SAME TIME KEEPING THEIR
IDENTITY SECRET, THUS SHIELDING
THEIR LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS FROM
THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT
TRANSPARENCY, AND THAT'S
OBVIOUSLY NOT ACCOUNTABLE.
-- BEING ACCOUNTABLE.
SO, WHAT I OBJECT TO IS NOT THE
USE OF THE WORD "HOLDS" OR THE
PROCESS OF HOLDING UP SOMETHING
IN THE SENATE, BUT I OBJECT TO
WHAT IS CALLED SECRET HOLDS, SO
THE ADJECTIVE "SECRET" IS WHAT
WE'RE FIGHTING HERE.
IF A SENATE THEN HAS A
LEGITIMATE REASON TO OBJECT TO
PROCEEDINGS TO A BILL OR
NOMINEE, THEN HE OR SHE OUGHT TO
HAVE THE GUTS TO DO SO PUBLICLY.
A SENATOR MAY OBJECT BECAUSE HE
DOES NOT AGREE TO THE SUBSTANCE
OF A BILL AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT
IN GOOD CONSCIENCE GRANT CONSENT
OR BECAUSE A SENATOR HAS NOT HAD
ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW
THE MATTER AT HAND.
REGARDLESS, WE SHOULD HAVE NO
FEAR OF BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE
BY OUR CONSTITUENTS IF WE'RE
ACTING IN THEIR INTERESTS, AS
WE'RE ELECTED TO DO.
I HAVE PRACTICED PUBLICLY
ANNOUNCING MY HOLDS FOR MANY,
MANY YEARS, AND IT HASN'T HURT
ONE BIT.
IN FACT, SOME OF THE SENATORS
THAT ARE MOST CONSCIENTIOUS
ABOUT PROTECTING THEIR
PREROGATIVES TO REVIEW
LEGISLATION BEFORE GRANTING
CONSENT TO ITS CONSIDERATION OR
PASSAGE ARE ALSO QUITE PUBLIC
ABOUT IT.
IN SHORT, THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE
REASON FOR ANY SENATOR TO EVER
HAVE TO, IF THEY PLACE A HOLD TO
HAVE THAT HOLD BE SECRET.
SO, HOW DOES OUR PROPOSAL
ACHIEVE TRANSPARENCY AND THE
RESULTANT ACCOUNTABILITY?
IN OUR PROPOSED STANDING ORDER
FOR THE MAJORITY OR MINORITY
LEADER TO RECOGNIZE A HOLD, THE
SENATOR PLACING THE HOLD MUST
GET A STATEMENT IN THE RECORD
WITHIN ONE SESSION DAY AND MUST
GIVE PERMISSION TO THEIR LEADER
AT THE TIME THEY PLACE THE HOLD
TO OBJECT IN THEIR NAME, NOT IN
THE NAME OF THE LEADER.
SINCE THE LEADER WILL
AUTOMATICALLY HAVE PERMISSION TO
NAME THE SENATOR ON WHOSE BEHALF
THEY'RE OBJECTING, THERE WILL NO
LONGER BE ANY EXPECTATION OR
PRESSURE ON THE LEADER TO KEEP
THE HOLD SECRET.
FURTHER, IF A SENATOR OBJECTS TO
A UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST AND
DOES NOT NAME ANOTHER SENATOR AS
HAVING THE OBJECTION, THEN THE
OBJECTING SENATOR WILL BE LISTED
AS HAVING THE HOLD.
THIS WILL END ENTIRELY, ONCE AND
FOR ALL, THE SITUATION WHERE ONE
SENATOR OBJECTS BUT IS ABLE TO
REMAIN VERY, VERY COY ABOUT
WHETHER IT IS THEIR OWN
OBJECTION OR SOME UNNAMED
SENATOR.
ALL OBJECTIONS WILL HAVE TO BE
OWNED UP TO.
AGAIN, OUR PROPOSAL PROTECTS THE
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUAL SENATORS TO
WITHHOLD THEIR CONSENT WHILE
ENSURING TRANSPARENCY AND PUBLIC
ACCOUNTABILITY.
AND, YOU KNOW, HERE IN THE
CONGRESS AS WELL AS ALMOST
ANYTHINGPLACE IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, EXCEPT MAYBE
NATIONAL SECURITY ISSUES, THE
PUBLIC'S BUSINESS ALWAYS OUGHT
TO BE PUBLIC, AND THE PEOPLE
THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THE
PUBLIC'S BUSINESS OUGHT TO STAND
BEHIND THEIR ACTIONS.
AS I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID, THE
SENATE'S BUSINESS OUGHT TO BE
DONE MORE IN THE PUBLIC THAN IT
IS, AND MOST OF IT IS PUBLIC.
BUT THIS SECRET HOLD PUTS A
MYSTERY ABOUT THINGS GOING ON IN
WASHINGTON THAT HURTS THE
CREDIBILITY OF THE INSTITUTION.
THIS PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY
AND TRANSPARENCY, THIS IS A
PRINCIPLE THAT I THINK THE VAST
MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL, JURORS CAN
GET BEHIND AND I THINK THE TIME
HAS COME FOR THIS SIMPLE,
COMMONSENSE REFORM.
I YIELD THE FLOOR AND IF UNDER
THE U.C. IT IS PERMISSIBLE TO
RETAIN THE BALANCE OF OUR TIME,
I'LL DO THAT.
THANK YOU.
I YIELD THE FLOOR.
MADAM PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM OREGON.
MERING AMERICA I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT FOR KATIE FANN TO HAVE
PRIVILEGES ON THE FLOOR FOR THE
OFFICER
REMAIN DEFORT DAY.
WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MADAM PRESIDENT,
BROKEN.
THE UNITED STATES SENATE IS
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
OTHER.
REQUIRED TO LISTEN TO EACH
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
DEMOCRAT.
WAS REPUBLICAN OR WHO WAS A
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
WEEKS AGO.
BUT FOR THE BALANCE OF TWO
YEARS, VIRTUALLY NEVER A SERIOUS
DEBATE ON THIS FLOOR WITH
SENATORS HEARING EACH OTHER OUT,
LISTENING TO EACH OTHER,
CONSIDERING THE PROS AND CONS,
ADDRESSING EACH OTHER'S
AMENDMENTS.
THAT IS A TREMENDOUSLY DIFFERENT
SENATE FROM THE SENATE I FIRST
WITNESSED HERE WHEN I CAME HERE
AS A YOUNG MAN, AS AN INTERN FOR
SENATOR HATFIELD IN 1976.
CAME AND I WAS UP HERE IN THE
STAFF SECTION AND I WOULD COME
DOWN TO MEET SENATOR HATCH FIELD
ON A PARTICULAR TAX REFORM BILL
THAT HAD A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS
AND I WOULD BRIEF HIM AN THE
AMENDMENT THAT WAS BEING DEBATED
AND HE WOULD COME IN AND TALK IT
OVER WITH FOLKS AND VOTE AND AN
HOUR LATER THERE WOULD BE
ANOTHER VOTE, AN HOUR LATER,
ANOTHER VOTE, DEBATE IN BETWEEN
BACK AND FORTH, ENORMOUS RESPECT
AND COURTESY BETWEEN THE MEMBERS
TO THE PRINCIPLE OF THE U.S.
SENATE BEING A BODY OF
DELIBERATION, A BODY OF DEBATE.
BUT TODAY, MADAM PRESIDENT, THAT
RESPECT IS GONE.
AND THE MOST VISIBLE SIGN OF THE
DECREASE IN THE MUTUAL ACCORD
HAS BEEN THE ABUSE OF THE
FILIBUSTER.
NOW, THE FILIBUSTER IS A COMMON
TERM WE USE FOR A DECISION TO
OPPOSE THE DEBATE AND OPPOSE
VOTING WITH THE STRAIGHT
MAJORITY AS ENVISIONED IN THE
CONSTITUTION.
THAT STARTS FROM A PRINCIPLE OF
MUTUAL RESPECT.
THAT IS, AS LONG AS ANY
INDIVIDUAL HAS AN OPINION THAT
BEARS ON THE ISSUE AT HAND, THAT
SENATOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO
EXPRESS THAT OPINION AND WE AS A
BODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HEAR IT.
AND THAT OUT OF THAT WILL BECOME
A BETTER POLICY-MAKING PROCESS.
WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, OVER TIME,
THAT MUTUAL RESPECT HAS BEEN
WIELDED MORE AND MORE AS AN
INSTRUMENT OF OBSTRUCTION.
BECAUSE EACH TIME THAT A SENATOR
OBJECTS TO A SIMPLE MAJORITY
VOTE, UNDER THE RULES IT CREATES
A ONE-WEEK DELAY AND A
SUPERMAJORITY HURDLE.
AND SO IF YOU OBJECT 50 TIMES A
YEAR, YOU'VE WIPED OUT EVERY
SINGLE WEEK OF THE YEAR.
THIS CHART GIVES SOME INDICATION
OF HOW GROSSLY THE PRINCIPLE OF
MUTUAL RESPECT AND DEBATE HAS
BEEN CORRUPTED AND ABUSED.
IN 1900-1970, THERE WAS, ON
AVERAGE, A SINGLE USE OF THE
FILIBUSTER EACH YEAR, AN AVERAGE
OF ONE PER YEAR OVER THAT
70-YEAR PERIOD.
OFIN THE 1970'S, THAT CLIMBED TO
AN AVERAGE OF 16 PER DWREER IN
DWREER.
THE 1980'S, AN AVERAGE 21 PER
IN THE 1900'S, AN AVERAGE OF 30
-- IN THE 1900'S, AN AVERAGE OF
36 PER YEAR.
BETWEEN 200 A 00 AND 2010, 48
PER YEAR.
IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT I
HAVE SERVED IN THE U.S. SENATE,
68 PER YEAR.
AN AVERAGE -6R 68 PER YEAR OR
ROUGHLY 135, 136 IN THAT
TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
NOW, IF EACH ONE OF THESE
ABSORBS ONE MINUTE OF THE
SENATE'S TIME, YOU CAN SEE
THOUSAND HAS BEEN USED TO
ESSENTIALLY RUN OUT THE CLOCK
AND OBSTRUCT THE VERY DIALOGUE
PRIDE ITSELF ON.
THAT THE SENATE WOULD LIKE TO
THERE IS A STATEMENT ABOUT THE
SENATE, THE WORLD D H.'S
GREATEST DELIBERATIVE BODY.
BUT TODAY IN THE MODERN SENATE,
THAT INCREDIBLE TRIBUTE TO THIS
CHAMBER HAS BEEN TURNED INTO AN
EXCLAMATION OF DESPAIR.
WHERE DID THAT DELIBERATIVE BODY
GO?
ABUSE.
VIRTUALLY DEVOID DUE TO THIS
WE WENT FROM MUTUAL RESPECT TO
ESSENTIALLY MUTUAL DESTRUCTION,
USING LEGISLATIVE DESTRUCTION,
USING THIS FILIBUSTER.
SO IN 2010, THIS LAST YEAR PAST,
NOT A SINGLE APPROPRIATIONS BILL
PASSED.
NOMINATIONS.
WE HAVE A HUGE BACKLOG OF
OUR ROLE OF ADVISE AND CONSENT
HAQ HAS BEEN TURNED INTO
OBSTRUCT AND DELAY IN TERMS OF
NOMINATIONS FOR THE EXECUTIVE
BRANCH AND THE JUDICIARY.
NOW, WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITY TO EXPRESS OUR
OPINION, BUT THIS BODY, BY USING
THE FILIBUSTER, HAS PREVENTED
THIS BODY FROM VICING AND
CONSENTING, EITHER APPROVING OR
DISAPPROVING THESE NODGESES.
-- THESE NOMINATIONS.
IT CERTAINLY IS A TERRIBLE THING
TO HAVE OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS
A LEGISLATURE BE DAMAGED.
BUT NOT ONLY HAVE WE DONE THAT,
BUT WE HAVE PROCEEDED TO DAMAGE
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND THE
LEGISLATIVE BRANCH.
QUITE AN INTRUSION ON THE
BALANCE OF POWERS ENVISIONED IN
OUR CONSTITUTION.
THEN WE HAVE THE HUNDREDS OF
HOUSE BILLS THAT LIE COLLECTING
DUST ON THE FLOOR BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T GET TO THIS CHAMBER
BECAUSE OF THIS ABUSE.
ALL OF THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
I FIRST CAME HERE, DOWN HERE IN
THE 1970'S.
WHERE THERE WAS A CHALLENGE IN
THE 1975 THERE WAS A HUGE DEBATE
AND IT RESULTED IN CHANGE THE
LEVEL REQUIRED TO OVERCOME A
FRIBBLE 67 SENATORS TO 60
SENATORS.
THERE WERE ONLY AN AVERAGE EVER
27 FILIBUSTERS A YEAR, NOT 68.
DYSFUNCTION.
WE'RE MORE THAN TRIPLE THE
THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE I HAD TODAY TO
FIND A PATH FORWARD.
THERE ARE SO MANY MOVE BEEN SO
INSTRUMENTAL IN THIS DEBATE, SO
MANY MEMBERS OF THE CLASS OF
2006 AND 2008 AND NOW MEMBERS OF
22010 WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THIS.
MY HAT GOES OFF TO SENATOR
SCHUMER IN LEADING THESE
HEARINGS IN THE RULES COMMITTEE
AND TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE
BETWEEN EVERY SENATOR'S RIGHT TO
BE HEARD AND OUR COLLECTIVE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR A MAJORITY TO
LEGISLATE.
SENATOR UDALL, WHO HAS DONE THIS
ENORMOUS INVESTIGATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS FOR
AMENDING THE RULES AND SO MANY
OTHERS.
THE FIRST KEY PART OF A PACKAGE
OF REFORMS THAT A NUMBER OF US,
16, I BELIEVE, NOW HAVE
COSPONSORED THIS RESOLUTION.
TALKING FILIBUSTER.
THE FIRST KEY PIECE IS THE
NOW, THE TALKING FILIBUSTER IS
ESSENTIALLY TO MAKE THE
FILIBUSTER WHAT ALL AMERICANS
BELIEVE IT IS, THAT IS, IF YOU
BELIEVE SO STRONGLY THAT THIS
CHAMBER IS IN THE DIRECTION THAT
IS MISGUIDED, YOU ARE WILLING TO
COME AND TAKE THIS FLOOR AND
MAKE YOUR CASE TO THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE.
WELL, LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT OUR
IMAGE OF THAT, OUR -- AND THAT
IS, HERE WE ARE, JIMMY STEWART
PLAYING THE ROLE OF JEFFERSON
SMITH, WHO COMES TO THIS
CHAMBER, WHERE I NOW STAND AND
SAYS,LY TAKE THIS FLOOR TO
OPPOSE THE ABUSES THAT OTHERWISE
MIGHT GO FORWARD.
AND HE HELD THAT FLOOR UNTIL HE
COLLAPSED.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE AMERICAN
ALL ABOUT.
PEOPLE BELIEVE THE FILIBUSTER IS
YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR CASE
BEFORE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
BUT TODAY WE DON'T HAVE A
TALKING FILIBUSTER IN THE UNITED
STATES SENATE.
WE HAVE A SILENT FILIBUSTER.
LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THAT
LOOKS LIKE.
THIS IS THE WAY IT WORKS, THE
SENATOR TAKES THEIR PHONE, MAYBE
AN OLD PHONE, MAYBE A MODERN
PHONE, THEY CALL UP THE
CLOAKROOM AND THEY SAY, I OBJECT
TO A MAJORITY VOTE AND THEY GO
OFF TO DINNER.
THEY DON'T TAKE THE FLOOR WITH
PRINCIPLE AND CONVICTION TO SAY
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, HERE'S
WHY I'M DELAYING THE SENATE.
HERE'S WHY I'M GOING TO HOLD
THIS FLOOR.
THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WE CAN
ALLOW TO GO FORWARD AND I'M
GOING TO STAND HERE AND MAKE MY
CASE AND, AMERICAN CITIZENS,
PLEASE JOIN ME AND HELP CONVINCE
THE OTHER SENATORS IN THIS ROOM.
THAT'S THE TALKING FILIBUSTER.
FILIBUSTER.
NOW WE HAVE THE SILENT
MY GOOD COLLEAGUE FROM TENNESSEE
SPOKE EARLIER AND HE SAID, I'D
LIKE TO HAVE THE TALK YOUR HEAD
OFF PROPOSAL.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR HIM BACK THE
TALKING FILIBUSTER.
THE JIMMY STEWART FILIBUSTER.
AND THAT IS WHAT THIS REFORM
DOES.
IT SAYS, WHEN FOLKS OBJECT TO
CONCLUDING DEBATE, IT'S BECAUSE
THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, AND
SO WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THEY
COME TO THE FLOOR AND SAY IT.
IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
AND WHEN NOBODY HAS ANYTHING
LEFT TO SAY, THEN WE'LL PROCEED
WITH A MAJORITY VOTE.
WE DON'T CHANGE THE NUMBER OF
SENATORS REQUIRED ONE BIT.
IT'S STILL 60.
COMPLETELY HONORS THAT PRINCIPLE
THAT ESTABLISHED IN 195.
-- 1975.
WELL, THE SECOND MAIN PROPOSAL
IS THE RIGHT TO AMEND.
A NUMBER OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE HAVE
BEEN VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE
FACT THAT ISSUES COME TO THIS
FLOOR AND YOU CAN ONLY AMEND IF
YOU GET UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO PUT
AN AMENDMENT FORWARD.
AND LARGELY THAT ONLY WORKS IF
THERE'S A DEAL THAT'S BEEN
WORKED OUT BETWEEN THE MAJORITY
LEADER AND MINORITY LEADER.
NOW, SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES
ACROSS THE AISLE ARE OFFENDED BY
OUR INABILITY TO AMEND.
I CAN ASSURE MY COLLEAGUES
ACROSS THE AISLE, I'M WALLLY
OFFENDED.
I'D LIKE TO OFFER AMENDMENTS TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S TAX PACKAGE.
I THINK WE COULD PROVE IT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AMENDMENTS
FROM THE OTHER SIDE.
THIS IS AN ISSUE OF CONCERN TO
BOTH SIDES.
SO THIS SET ADDRESSES THAT.
AND SAYS THAT THERE WILL BE A
GUARANTEED SET OF AMENDMENTS
THAT THE MINORITY LEADER CAN
PICK AMONG THE MINORITY
AMENDMENTS AND THE MAJORITY CAN
AMENDMENTS.
PICK AMONG THE MAJORITY
IF THEY WANT TO INCREASE THAT
NUMBER TO A HIGHER LEVEL, GET
MORE FROM THE MAJORITY AND MORE
FROM THE MINORITY SIDE, THEN
THAT WOULD BE TERRIFIC.
AMENDMENTS.
BUT AT LEAST THEY CAN'T SAY NO
NO LEADER CAN BLOCK THE
OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND.
PRINCIPLE THAT EACH SIDE HAS THE
THE THIRD POINT IS NOMINATIONS.
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE THIS HUGE
BACKLOG.
THIS RESOLUTION MAKES A MODEST
CHANGE IN NOMINATIONS.
IT SAYS THE PERIOD FOLLOWING
CLOTURE WILL REDUCE FROM 30
HOURS TO TWO HOURS.
WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE DEBATE
OFORT INDIVIDUAL, LET'S HAVE THE
VOTE -- OVER THE INDIVIDUAL,
LET'S HAVE THE VOTE.
THAT'S WHAT THAT SAYS.
THAT MEANS THAT YOU CAN BE
LESS -- SENATORS WILL BE LESS
TEMPTED TO USE THE FILIBUSTER ON
NOMINATIONS AS AN INSTRUMENT TO
DELAY AND OBSTRUCT THE SENATE.
NOT A COMPLETE CURE, BUT A STEP
FORWARD IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
HOLDS.
OUR FOURTH IS THE BAN ON SECRET
SENATOR GRASSLEY HAS SPOKEN TO
THAT.
AND SENATOR WYDEN IS GOING TO
SPEAK TO IT.
SENATOR McCASKILL HAS JOINED
OTHERS AND I BELIEVE AT ONE
POINT THERE WHEREAS MANY AS 70
SENATORS EXPRESSING IN A LETTER
THEIR SUPPORT TO GET RID OF THE
SECRET HOLD.
ANY ONE WHO WANTS TO HOLD UP
LEGISLATION SHOULD HAVE TO STAND
ON THIS FLOOR AND PRESENT THEIR
OBJECTION TO THIS CHAMBER, TO
THEIR COLLEAGUES, AND TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
WHEN FOLKS HAVE TO TAKE A
POSITION ON THIS FLOOR, WHETHER
IT BE THROUGH THE TALKING
FILIBUSTER OR THROUGH IT BEING
PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED HOLDS, THEN
THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN WEIGH
IN.
THEN YOU'RE TAKING THE BUSINESS
OUT OF THE BACK ROOMS AND ON TO
THE FLOOR OF THIS CHAMBER, THEN
THE CITIZENS CAN SAY YOU'RE A
HERO FOR YOUR ACTION OR YOU'RE A
BUM FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
DEBATE.
OUR FOURTH IS A CLEAR PATH TO
DEBATE.
EXCUSE ME, A CLEAR PATH TO
RIGHT NOW A LOT OF THE
FILIBUSTERS THAT WE SUFFER
THROUGH ARE ON GETTING TO
DEBATE.
THAT IS, GETTING ON TO A BILL TO
BEGIN WITH, PROCEEDING TO A
BILL.
AND SO THERE'S PROBABLY NO
BETTER EXAMPLE OF THE ABUSE OF
THE FILIBUSTER WHICH WAS
SUPPOSED TO BE MUTUAL RESPECT
FOR DEBATE BEING USED TO PREVENT
DEBATE.
AND SO UNDER THIS PROPOSAL THERE
WOULD BE TWO HOURS ON -- OF
DEBATE OVER WHETHER OR NOT TO
GET ON A NEW BILL AND WE'D VOTE.
WE'D EITHER GO TO THE BILL OR WE
DON'T.
FOLKS THEN WANT TO FILIBUSTER ON
THE BILL, THEY CAN DO THAT, BUT
IT WILL BE A TALKING FILIBUSTER
ROOMS.
WHERE WE ARE NOT IN THE BACK
WE'RE OUT HERE MAKE OUR CASE.
THESE FIVE CONCEPTS, THEY'RE NOT
RADICAL CONCEPTS.
THEY'RE MODEST STEPS TOWARDS
SAYING IN THIS INCREDIBLY
PARTISAN ENVIRONMENT WE NOW
OPERATE IN WHERE SO MANY PRESS
OUTLETS ARE ATTACKING ON EACH
SIDE ALL THE TIME AND SO ON AND
SO FORTH, WE HAVE TO SET
OURSELVES ON THE PATH TO TAKE
OURSELVES OUT OF THAT HYPER
PARTISAN ATMOSPHERE AND START TO
RESTORE THE SENATE AS A PLACE OF
DIALOGUE AND DEBATE.
PERHAPS THESE ARE MODEST STEPS,
BUT MODEST STEPS IN THE RIGHT
DIRECTION AND THAT IS AN
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT WAY TO GO.
SO I CALL TO MY COLLEAGUES ON
BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE.
MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE SAID
THERE SHOULD BE AMENDMENTS.
MY COLLEAGUES WHO HAVE SAID AND
SPOKEN IN FAVOR ON BOTH SIDES OF
THE AISLE IN FAVOR OF THE JIMMY
STEWART MODEL OF HOLDING THIS
FILIBUSTERS.
FLOOR AND HAVING TALKING
LET'S USE THE START OF THIS
TWO-YEAR PERIOD TO SAY THAT
SOMETHING IS DEEPLY WRONG WHEN
WE HAVE IN A TWO-YEAR PERIOD 135
OR 138 FILIBUSTERS EATING UP ALL
THE FLOOR TIME, PREVENTING
MODEST AMENDMENTS, PREVENTING
MODEST BILLS, AND PUTTING US ON
THIS PATH TO GRIDLOCK.
THE SENATE HAS BROKEN -- IS
BROKEN, LET'S FIX IT.
THANK YOU, MADAM SPEAKER.
THE
SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE.
I HAVE -- I HAVE
ENJOYED THIS EXTENSIVE
OPPORTUNITY TO -- TO HEAR MY