A bill to temporarily extend the transaction account guarantee program, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, just following up on the comments of my colleague from Alaska, he has laid out some very important thoughts regarding the farm bill, regarding the debt ceiling, and regarding Social Security. I applaud him for coming to the floor and sharing his thoughts with our colleagues and with the American public.

These are big issues that we are wrestling with in the Senate. The farm bill is something that was passed on a bipartisan nature through the Senate. It is over in the House. It will have to come back through here. We had a proposal from the Republican leader put forward this morning that we were ready to vote on and that he objected to himself at the last second.

The debt ceiling is an important issue because it involves paying the bills on the decisions that have already been made and implemented by the U.S. Government. It is not about spending more; it is about paying the bills on the spending that has already taken place. And it should be debated and discussed and addressed because failure to have the responsibility that every family should have--to pay their bills once incurred--poses significant issues for our Nation. We saw that with the credit rating downturn. We certainly have seen that with the impact on the confidence that there was in the American system.

So it should be debated. These big issues need to be debated and decided. But this Senate often fails to ever get onto a bill to start with because there is something called a motion to proceed in which we have to raise the question: Should we address this topic? And time and time again, we have seen the minority, acting in a partisan fashion, say: No, we don't want to debate. They have used what is referred to as the silent filibuster to object and say: No, we don't want to debate that issue before the American public. We don't want to debate it with our colleagues. We don't want to wrestle with this complex topic.

Should we get onto a bill, we then see amendments treated in the same fashion, subjected to a 60-vote majority. In fact, that was the premise that the minority leader, the Republican leader, put forward in a change of heart just a few minutes ago, saying he had a proposal, that he reached agreement. But at the last second he decided it should be subject to a supermajority vote.

That is exactly what we have seen day in and day out, in increasing fashion, which has prevented this body from not only addressing the big issues across our country but even the regular issues of standard appropriations bills. We have 13 such bills that should come to this floor each year to be debated, to be decided, and to be amended, and we don't get to them. Why don't we get to them? Because the entire year is consumed by the silent filibuster strategy of the minority.

Let me give a picture of what I am talking about. This is a chart that shows the number of filibusters launched as an average per year over the preceding decades.

Now, I first came to this room when I was 19 as an intern for Senator Hatfield, and I sat up in the staff gallery and covered the Tax Reform Act of 1976. I watched this body raise amendment after amendment, debate it, decide it on a simple majority basis, and proceed to enact tax reform.

Well, in the 1900s through 1970s there was an average of one silent filibuster per year. Just one. Under the rules, this type of objection consumes a week because once the objection is made to unanimous consent to hold a majority vote, then a motion must be filed--a motion by the majority that wants to proceed. So they get 16 signatures, and that takes a little bit of time. Then once that motion has been filed--and that is called a cloture motion to close debate--then it takes 2 days to get to a vote.

The vote has to happen a day after an intervening day. So 2 days are gone. Then, if 60 Members say, yes, they want to close debate, then we have to have 30 hours of debate time before we can actually get to a final vote. So a whole week is taken up by that process.

In the 1970s, the average grew to 16 per year. That is 16 weeks wasted per year. In the 1980s, it grew to 21 per year average. Now we are getting to well over one-third of the number of weeks in the course of the Senate year. Then we go to the 1990s. We are up to 36 such silent filibusters taking up 36 weeks. We get to the decade 2000 through 2009, and an average of 48--or almost 1 per week--starting to squeeze out any ability to address the big issues facing America.

Then, since I came in 2009, we have had an average of over 60 per year, more than 1 per week. The result of this last 2 years was the most dysfunctional legislature in decades; big issues facing America, this floor, and this forum of deliberation paralyzed by the continuous use of the silent filibuster on every issue. Essentially what this silent filibuster has done is convert this to a supermajority body. Not only that, converted it to a body that spends its entire year just trying to get to the vote as to whether we can have a final vote. That is the level of dysfunction we have reached.

No wonder that public opinion of the Senate has plummeted. No wonder the frustration across this Nation has built that in silence, out of public sight, the minority has strategically thwarted the ability of this body to debate issues.

Over the course of time we see a period where this body has been run by Republicans and run by Democrats, so every minority has used this in an increasing fashion over time. This is not simply a Republican- Democratic issue or Democratic-Republican issue. This is an issue of a systematic change of culture where it was understood that the Senate was a simple majority as envisioned under the Constitution. Both Adams and Madison spoke eloquently to what a supermajority could do to destroy this body. Now their words resonate from the past because we are seeing it happen right before us today.

In this situation, doesn't it make sense for us to adjust the rules and reclaim the ability to be a body that deliberates and decides? That is what many of us are proposing be debated in January. When we start the new 2-year period we should have a major debate on the floor of the Senate about how to make this body fulfill its responsibilities to the American people. Our responsibility is not to come here and throw sand in the gears of deliberation. Our responsibility is to come here, study the issues, debate them on this floor, reach thoughtful positions, advocate for those positions, and propose that those solutions that have the strongest support go forward. That does not happen if the entire year is wasted with the silent filibuster strategy we have today.

So what can we do to address this situation? Quite a bit. Let's start with the very place that a bill begins, which is the motion to proceed. This is a motion to say let's come and debate the farm bill. Let's come and debate the Defense authorization bill. Let's come and debate a spending bill for Health and Human Services. When that motion was made in the past, it was rarely filibustered. This is a chart that

goes back to 1971. From 1971, here, through 1982, that entire decade, we had 18 cases where the motion to proceed was filibustered--18 over a decade, plus.

In fact, during the previous 40 years there had only been a dozen times the motion to proceed was filibustered. Why is that? Because there is no inherent logic in saying in order to facilitate debate I am going to block debate, because that is what it is when you have this silent filibuster putting up this 60-vote hurdle to get onto a bill to begin with. So it makes sense for a simple majority to be able to decide let's go to a bill, let's debate it.

What we see over time here is a huge change. By 2007-2008, we had 57 silent filibusters, out of public sight, to prevent bills from being debated on this floor; the next year, 31 objections, 2009-2010, that 2- year period. The next 2-year period we are in now, we are already up to 42 times.

Clearly we need to return to the culture where the filibuster about an issue so close to your heart or so important to your values or so vital to your State that you would object and say I am going to stand in the way; as a matter of principle I am going to stand in the way of a bill that does damage to my core principles or to the vital interests of my State--that might happen a couple of times in a career.

That is not what we have now. What we have now is routine obstruction on every single act, which mires us in lost time and prevents us from addressing issues facing America.

Let's return to that situation when the motion to proceed was not filibustered. Let's make it like the motion to proceed to a nomination, in which we basically say no, you cannot filibuster that. You have a responsibility to advise and consent, to get nominations to the floor. If the majority says we will come here and debate it, we will come here and debate it. That is a simple change that takes care of a lot of the growth in the obstruction that wastes the Senate's time and prevents it from acting.

A second proposal is to get rid of the silent filibuster on starting a conference committee. Let me lay out the scenario for you. The House has passed a bill. The Senate has passed the same bill in a slightly different version. The two bodies say let's meet and talk about this. Let's work out a common position we can send back. That is a conference committee. Why would anyone object to starting the conference committee to negotiate between two bills, slightly different, that have been passed by the two bodies?

One could say, is that their only opportunity to make a statement about things that might happen in the conference committee? The answer is no. Because if the conference committee comes to a proposal, then they send it back to the two bodies and at that point it is debatable and it could be filibustered. That opportunity is there. So we have three motions necessary to establish a conference committee, and because all three can be filibustered, this silent filibuster--not standing and taking any public position, this silent objection--we have virtually given up the use of the conference committee. I don't think you can find a State legislature in this Nation that has so tied its hands that it cannot even hold a conversation between a State House of Representatives and a State Senate. They cannot even hold a conversation. That is how dysfunctional we have become here.

That was never part of the argument for let's have extended debate and let's be a cooling saucer, a thoughtful body. No, that is just a rule: Let's waste the entire time of the Senate and preclude the possibilities of even having a conversation, a negotiation with the House. We should eliminate the silent filibuster on motions to get to a conference committee.

Let's talk about another area. One of my colleagues from Minnesota, Al Franken, has proposed that instead of having 60 votes to end debate, we should have 41 to extend debate. Why does that matter? First, in terms of the framing of the issue, it really is the minority saying we want more debate. By this I don't mean minority party, I mean 41 from either party coming together and saying we want more debate. In that case the vote should be 41 votes required to extend debate.

That has a practical impact. It means that somebody who is absent from this Chamber does not count automatically on the side of extending debate. It is 41 of those who are here, 41 of the 100 who are saying yes, we must go forward with more debate. That is a very reasonable proposal. It changes the framing to understand that it is the minority--not the Republican minority but the minority of 51 from both sides of the aisle comes together and says: Yes, we want more debate. They make an affirmative vote of 41. That makes sense.

Then let's talk about the talking filibuster. I have been referring throughout this discussion that we are facing silent filibusters. Indeed, when I considered running for the Senate I came here and talked to the majority leader about it, and after discussing the possibility of running I said: Mr. Majority Leader, while I am here there is just one thing I must say because citizens in Oregon are so frustrated about this, and he kindly said yes, go ahead, tell me what it is.

I said, it is this: If a minority is arguing for more debate, then make them debate. Make them stand on the floor and make their case, because all we see is a quorum call back home. All we see is the Senate wasting its time.

The majority leader put his head in his hands like this and he said: Let me explain the way the rules are written. He explained to me what I have been explaining to all of you, that it is not required under the rules to take the floor when you object to a simple majority. When you vote for more debate, you are not required to debate. This is a surprise. This is the opposite of what ordinary citizens, myself included, believed across America. Why was that? Where did our belief come from?

I can tell you it came from this: When this body believed in its constitutional role to make decisions and to make decisions by a majority vote as envisioned by our Founding Fathers, it considered an objection to a simple majority vote to be a huge deal, a deal in which if you were going to make that objection you would have the courage of your convictions to come to this floor even if the rules didn't require it, you would come to this floor and you would make your case before your colleagues and try to persuade them of your point of view, and you would make your case before the American public.

It is folks back home who would have a chance to weigh in on whether you were a hero for carrying the torch on an important issue or you were a bum because your arguments didn't hold water and you were objecting, keeping the U.S. Senate from addressing an important national problem.

That era where the social contract was that you would have the courage to stand before your colleagues--that era is gone. Since the rules do not require you to stand, it has become the practice to use the silent filibuster to kill bills in the dark of night with no case being made before your colleagues, no case being made before the American people.

It is also true that Hollywood has helped cement the notion that a filibuster involves standing before this body with the courage of your convictions. Here we have a scene from the movie ``Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.'' He was trying to stop a land grab where a boys camp should be. He knew what was being done was wrong and he said he is going to take the floor and he is going to stand before his colleagues and the American people and he is going to do so as long as he could stay standing because it was an important principle that was being violated with an inappropriate land grab back home.

The American public is hungry for this kind of courage, that if you believe a simple majority is not in the interests of America because of the gravity of an issue, you will stand on this floor and make your case. That is what the talking filibuster proposes. It says that at the time you have a vote on any debate, if a majority of this body says yes, we should end debate and go forward, but a supermajority of 60 is not yet there--so the vote is between 51 and 59--that says there is still a substantial minority of 41 or more who want to have more debate, then they have to debate. It is as simple as that. They cannot basically go off on vacation while there is a quorum call. Instead, at least one person has to stand on this floor and make the argument.

Wouldn't it be an incredible difference if instead of these silent, hidden filibusters paralyzing this body, Senators who chose for additional debate had to make a stand before the American public? They had to make their case and the public could weigh in on whether they were heroes or they were bums? In that case, maybe we would get those 60 votes.

Let me give an example. We had a case in which we had an act called the DISCLOSE Act on the floor of the Senate. The DISCLOSE Act simply said that for all campaign donations, the source must be disclosed. It was based on a premise that had been argued by many on both sides of the aisle over many years, and it was this: that disclosure is the sunlight that disinfects the political process. If voters know that ad being put up on the air is being done by a certain industry--even though they claim to be the Blue Skies Industry, maybe they are the Polluted Water Industry--the citizens should know. If that ad that claims to be from Americans for Healthy Lives is actually being put on by an industry that is poisoning people, citizens should have the right to know. This is the DISCLOSE Act. Not only under current practice is secrecy allowed, but foreign donations are allowed. Foreign companies are allowed to put unlimited secretive funds into the U.S. system. Who would defend that on the floor of the Senate? The answer is no one. We didn't have those who wanted more debate willing to debate it. No, they wanted to obstruct it in silence because they knew the American people would not approve of the fact that they were arguing for secrecy on unlimited sums of secret funds in American campaigns.

That was before this last election cycle when in election after election we saw super PACs funneling vast fortunes into the primaries for the Presidency, into Senate races, and into House races. They were funneling the money in, and no one knew where it came from. Now, some of the contributors to those super PACs did disclose that they contributed to the super PACs. They bragged about it. But when the money went from the super PAC to the State, their name was not attached to it. Nobody knew what funds went to which State. It was basically an attack by vast pools of dark money.

If we had the talking filibuster and folks had to rise on this floor and defend this secrecy and these foreign donations, then we would have gotten the 60th vote to close debate and we would have a better system to date.

How about pay equity for women? How about pay equity? I think we would have had the public weigh in if they could have seen it was being torpedoed by the silent, hidden filibuster. Now there are folks--and I have heard them over the past few weeks--who say: Oh, this strategy of asking people to talk is a way to suppress the views of the minority. Isn't that absurd? Doesn't it just make you smile that a requirement to make a case before colleagues can be framed as a situation where our views are being suppressed? No, quite the contrary. We are issuing them an invitation--this affects people on both sides of the aisle--to come forward and make their case publicly. Don't kill these bills with this hidden maneuver in the dark of night. If they have the courage of their convictions, they should come and make their case. If they don't, then let the process proceed. That is the talking filibuster.

I would like to applaud others who have put ideas forward that are similar. Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey had a bill that said--where I am talking about after the cloture vote, he said: Well, let's require people to talk during the 30 hours before the cloture vote in order to see if nobody wants to take the floor. Let's shorten that 30 hours. That is worthy of debate.

We have a responsibility for this body to debate in a transparent, accountable fashion and to make decisions so our public can see it. That is what the talking filibuster does.

I encourage my colleagues to come to the floor and share their thoughts. If they are against making their case before the American people, then have the courage to come to the floor and say: I don't like this idea because I don't want to have to make my case in front of my colleagues.

I invite my colleagues to come to the floor and say to the American public: I am going to vote against the talking filibuster because I don't want the public to see that I am killing bills in the dark of night.

Have the courage to come and debate the issue now and in the future because the American people are looking at us with extraordinary levels of frustration. They know there are big issues facing our Nation.

Right now we are talking about the fiscal cliff. Well, the fiscal cliff has many components. It may be broken into many different bills that come before this body. We need to get rid of the motion to proceed so we can get those bills to the floor to debate them. We need to make sure that if a group says: Let's block this bill from a final vote, they express their views accountably before the public. It is the least that should happen.

The Senate is headed out for the weekend. We will be back next week, and I ask for the American public to weigh in and to think about the fact that this hidden process is hurting our ability to address the big issues facing America. I ask my colleagues to wrestle with that.

It is my hope that folks will hold those conversations with the public back home. I have done so in every county of my State through my townhall meetings. I hold one in every county every year. I have raised this issue of whether or not, when folks vote for debate, they should be required to debate, they should be required to make their case and not to kill bills in the dark of night. Whether it is a progressive county or a conservative county, people believe in transparency and accountability, and they want to see their Senators making their case on this floor. Let's make it so.

Mr. President, yesterday I came to the floor to discuss what is known as the fiscal cliff, a mix of automatic tax hikes and defense cuts that are set to hit at the end of the year, jeopardizing our security as well as our economy. My message was pretty simple: A solution is possible.

Republicans have been reasonable, and the President needs to lead. He is the only one who can get us to a solution. If that is what he wants, we will succeed. So it was with some concern that I read this morning that the President plans to hit the road next week to drum up support for his own personal approach to the short- and long-term fiscal challenges we face. In other words, rather than sitting down with lawmakers of both parties and working out an agreement, he is back on the campaign trail, presumably with the same old talking points with which we are all quite familiar.

Look, we already know the President is a very good campaigner. We congratulate him on his reelection. What we do not know is whether he has the leadership qualities necessary to lead his party to a bipartisan agreement on big issues such as we currently face. So let me suggest that if the President wants a solution to the challenges of the moment, the people he needs to be talking to are the members of his own party so he can convince them of the need to act. We are not going to solve this problem by creating villains and drumming up outrage. We will solve the problem by doing the hard work of sitting down and figuring out a solution that involves tough choices on all sides.

That gets at another point I made yesterday. In the past, Democrats have demanded tax hikes now for spending cuts that never actually happen. Not this time. A balanced approach means real spending reductions now. And I am not saying this because it is the Republicans' position, although it is. I am not saying this because I have anything against the government, which I do not. I am saying this because it is the only approach that has any chance of working. No credible deficit reduction plan we have seen over the past few years excludes real cuts. If we want to prevent this crisis, Democrats need to be as serious about cutting spending as they are about spending. It is that simple.

By the way, this is an approach Americans overwhelmingly support. According to a recent AP poll, voters prefer spending cuts to tax hikes 62 percent to 29 percent--a more than 2-to-1 margin. Now, there is a reason for this. The American people are not stupid. They know the problem with Washington is not that it taxes too little but that it spends too much. They also know the only reason we are even talking about a looming fiscal crisis right now is because the Democrats have spent the last 4 years creating it.

That is what I would like to focus on this morning--how we got into this mess in the first place--because amidst all of the talk about plans and proposals, it is easy to forget that we did not get here by accident; we got here because Washington Democrats, from the President on down, have done two things exceedingly well over the past 4 years: spent other people's money and kicked the can down the road--spend other people's money and kick the can down the road. For 4 years, Democrats spent money we did not have in the misguided hope that it would help the economy. They have borrowed trillions of dollars to keep unemployment pretty much right where it was when they started. And here is what we have 4 years later: a mountain of debt and a looming national budgetary crisis.

Republicans are happy to talk about how to solve this mess, but make no mistake, we will also talk about how we got here. The reason we are having these negotiations is because Washington Democrats have spent money without any care for the cost or the future and refuse to do anything to protect long-term spending programs, such as Medicare, a failure that is among the biggest single drivers of our debt.

All this reflects a very clear philosophy: For Washington Democrats, every dollar that has ever been secured for anything is sacred--every dollar that has ever been secured for anything is sacred--and they will defend it to the death regardless of what it means for jobs or the economy. But those days are over because you do not eliminate trillion- dollar deficits by taxing the rich--not even close. It may be an effective talking point, but as a matter of policy it is a minor deal, and the Democrats know it. So, as we move into the final stretch, it is time, as I have said, to put the talking points away and get serious about striking a deal.

The first step to recovery is to admit you have a problem. If borrowing more than 40 cents for every dollar you spend does not convince you you have a spending problem, frankly, I do not know what will. If Democrats cannot admit we have a spending problem, they need to talk to their constituents more. They need to get real. That means changing the way things have been done around here for the past few years.

Independent budget experts have been telling us for ages that our long-term budget deficits are driven by the unsustainable health care entitlements. What was the administration's response to that? Their response was to add trillions more by creating an entirely new health care entitlement program. We were promised that the President's health care law would reduce health care costs. What did it do? We are now told health care costs will rise as a share of our economy and the taxpayer's liability. By one estimate, those costs will go up by more than $\1/2\ trillion over the next 10 years.

We know the number of Americans 65 or older will increase by one- third over the next 10 years. According to the Census Bureau, there were 40 million older Americans in 2010. There will be 54 million of them a decade after that, and more than 72 million older Americans a decade after that. What are the Democrats doing to ensure the programs they rely upon will actually be there? We cannot ignore the facts. We need to prepare for the demographic changes we know are coming. Medicare is simply too important for millions of seniors to let it continue down the road to insolvency. We must preserve it for today's seniors and strengthen it for those who will retire in the years ahead.

As Congress looks for savings, we need to look at the new health care entitlements too. While Democrats and Republicans may disagree on ObamaCare, it is ridiculous to suggest that we make changes to Medicare and Medicaid while leaving $1.6 trillion in new ObamaCare spending untouched.

For 4 years Democrats have been completely unbalanced in the way they have spent paper dollars. Yet now that the crisis is upon us, they solemnly advise us that we need to be balanced in

our solution. This is how you ensure the expansion of government. This is how you end up with $16 trillion of debt, but it is not how you get out of it. It is not how you solve the problem. You solve the problem by taking tough medicine and tough votes. You solve it by doing something different than what you have been doing all along. You solve it with the help of a President who is willing to lead his party. You don't just change your rhetoric and your talking points while telling your base behind closed doors you aren't going to give any ground. You change your behavior. For Democrats in Washington, as I have said, that means getting serious for a change about cuts. The time for campaigning is over. It is time to act.

Nuclear Option

Mr. President, yesterday the majority leader and I had a rather spirited discussion about his intention to change the Senate rules outside the process provided in those rules.

When he was in the minority, my friend from Nevada objected strenuously to the very procedure he now wants to employ. He called using a simple majority maneuver to change Senate procedure the ``nuclear option'' and described it as breaking the rules to change the rules. Now that he is in the majority, he says the ends justify the means. He says we have to make the Senate more efficient and we have to violate the Senate rules to do that so he and his colleagues in the majority can implement more easily their vision for America. According to him, these minor changes won't affect anyone who has the thought of making America better.

Let me say that again. The majority leader said these minor changes won't affect anyone who has the thought of making America better. Of course, in the majority leader's world, it will be just he and his colleagues who determine what makes America better.

In short, according to my friend from Nevada, the means by which he wants to achieve his ends don't matter, only his ends matter. That is pretty convenient if you happen to be in the majority at the moment. I say again, at the moment. But convenience or efficiency, as my friend has described it, is not what the Senate has been about.

My friend the majority leader may have put it best in 2006 when he made the first of his commitments to respect the rights of the minority. This is what the majority leader said:

As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect

for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect.

The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the

rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was

established to make sure that minorities are protected.

Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities

cannot. That is what the Senate is all about.

My friend from Nevada then committed that he was going to ``treat my Republican colleagues the way I expect to be treated'' and that he would do everything he could to ``preserve the rules and traditions of the institution that I love.''

Inaccurately describing the essence and wise purpose of the Senate, the majority leader sounded a lot like our former colleague Robert C. Byrd. So I was quite surprised to hear our friend from Nevada assert that Senator Byrd would actually support the heavy-handed tactic he intends to employ.

I am not going to correct all the inaccuracies my friend made yesterday, such as saying four times that it takes 10 days to get out a bill. I don't know what version of Riddick's my friend has been reading, but if it actually took 10 days to get on a bill I might actually support some rule changes myself.

But I must disabuse my friend from Nevada about how Senator Byrd would view the heavy-handed tactic he intends to employ. Unlike the majority leader, I recall when our late colleague spoke on this topic at a Rules Committee hearing the last time the majority leader entertained ``breaking the rules to change the rules.'' Senator Byrd was unequivocally against violating Senate rules to change the rules the way the current majority leader is proposing.

Senator Byrd began by noting that ``Our Founding Fathers intended the Senate to be a continuing body that allows for open and unlimited debate and the protection of minority rights. Senators have understood that,'' he stated, ``since the Senate first convened.'' That is Senator Byrd on the history of the Senate.

Senator Byrd also noted that at the Constitutional Convention, James Madison reported that the Senate was to be ``a necessary fence'' in order to ``protect the people against their rulers,'' and ``to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.''

How did Senator Byrd view the filibuster in the role of the Senate? How did it relate to the Senate as a ``necessary fence''? Senator Byrd said, ``The right to filibuster anchors this necessary fence.''

Senator Byrd acknowledged that this right should not be abused, and that ``there are many suggestions as to what we should do'' if it is abused. He recounted procedures that currently exist under the rules--I say again, procedures that currently exist under the rules--to address it if it is.

As I suggested yesterday, Senator Byrd also indicated that simply working a full week such as most people do--I mean, most people in America have a 5-day work week--by simply working a full week we could address some of these concerns. Senator Byrd bemoaned the fact that ``the Senate often works 3-day weeks.'' In other words, if you want the Senate to be more productive, start working more. It is not rocket science here. That is what Senator Byrd was saying.

But Senator Byrd was clear about what we should never do. He said, ``We must never, ever tear down the only wall--the necessary fence-- this Nation has against the excesses of the executive branch and the result of haste and tyranny of the majority.''

Senator Byrd, as we know, was a historian. He was a skillful majority leader who understood the unique importance of the Senate and the need of a majority leader to keep his commitment. But he was also a political realist who had been around enough to understand that political majorities are fleeting, and if you break the rules to suit your political purposes of the moment, you may regret having done so when you find yourself in the minority. Senator Byrd specifically said:

I strongly caution my colleagues as some propose to alter

the rules to severely limit the ability of a minority to

conduct a filibuster. I know what it is to be majority

leader, and wake up on a Wednesday morning in November and

find yourself a minority leader.

To make sure there was no doubt as to his views on the subject, Senator Byrd concluded by unequivocally objecting to the use of the nuclear option that the Senator from Nevada is now proposing. He said:

The Rules Committee must, however, jealously guard against

efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by a simple

majority, circumventing rule XXII where a two-thirds majority

is required.

My friend the majority leader is no more correct about Senator Byrd's views on the nuclear option, on the idea of breaking the rules to change the rules, than he is about taking 10 days to get on a bill.

I will conclude by reading what are likely the last words Senator Byrd spoke on the subject of the nuclear option, and I encourage my colleagues to reflect on his wise counsel. This is what he said:

As I have said before, the Senate has been the last

fortress of minority rights and freedom of speech in the

Republic for more than two centuries. I pray that Senators

will pause and reflect before ignoring that history and

tradition in favor of the political party of the moment.

Mr. President, I certainly agree the Senate isn't working. We get a few days in between recesses, rarely work at night, and almost never do anything on Thursday. That is entirely within the purview of the majority leader.

It is true that a few years back, when my party was in the majority, we contemplated changing the rules, but cooler heads prevailed and we didn't. The fundamental issue, as my friend lays out, is that he wants to break the rules to change the rules. In other words, he and I are not negotiating on these issues. He is deciding what will be the rule in the Senate. He will break the rules in order to change the rules. That is all anybody listening to this debate needs to understand. What the majority leader is going to do is he is going

to break the rules to change the rules--one party only.

We ought to be negotiating rule changes. Rule changes ought to be proposed by the majority leader and the minority leader together that would surpass the 67-vote threshold, if it is designed to protect the Senate from the whims of new majorities. There is always a temptation when a party is in the majority to want to change the rules to benefit themselves at the expense of others. It is particularly absurd to do it right now because anything Senate Democrats would gain out of that would go nowhere in the House. So there is no practical purpose served by this. All it does is put on record that Senate Democrats are willing to break the rules to change the rules. That is the fundamental issue. Rules changes ought to be negotiated by the two leaders, as they have been down through the years, and then proposed together.

As I have indicated on several occasions--and I will say again--I think the frustrations the majority leader has had could have been easily solved by putting some of his young Members in the Chair and breaking down some--one person--trying to make it difficult to get on to a bill. All this could have been fixed. Rather than complaining about it, just do something about it. That is what I would have done, if I had been in his shoes. He has chosen not to do that.

Rather than point fingers and continue to campaign--look, the campaign is over. You guys had a pretty good day. You are in the majority. But you can't seem to turn the campaign off. You just keep running it forever. So here we are with this explosive nuclear option being thrown into the Chamber at a time when we ought to be turning the election off and trying to come together to solve the biggest problem, which I talked about first, which is the fiscal cliff and the Nation's seemingly hopeless debt and deficit situation. That is what we ought to be doing. Instead, my friends on the other side just can't keep from continuing to celebrate the election. You won. Now, why don't we govern. The way to govern is to try to bring this body together.

The Senate has been built over the years on collegiality. We have always had some personalities on both sides who made it a challenge for whoever the majority leader was. I can remember back when we were in the majority and Howard Metzenbaum from Ohio would sit out here on the floor and read every bill. He was a royal pain in the you know what to whoever the majority leader was at the time. The Senate survived all that. We didn't engage in a rules change dictated by whoever was in the majority at the moment.

This is exactly the wrong way to start off on a new year and to end an old year with a ton of problems that we have to deal with. Here we are, as a result of this suggestion that we employ the nuclear option, arguing about arcane rules changes when we ought to be sitting down together and trying to solve the Nation's huge deficit and debt problems.

But the fundamental issue is this: Is the majority going to break the rules to change the rules? That is the issue before the Senate. Are we going to break the rules to change the rules--employ the nuclear option, fundamentally change the body, not have a negotiation between the two leaders about what adjustments might be appropriate to make the Senate work better. Oh, no, we are going to do it on our own.

I think it is a huge mistake not only for the Senate, but it will impact obviously our short-term ability to come together and to work on the big problems the country sent us to solve.

Would the majority leader yield on that point?

Did the Senate majority at that time, made up of Republicans, choose to go forward and do that? We did not do it. We did not use the nuclear option. There was a lot of discussion about it which related to judicial appointments, but in the end the majority chose not to do it.

We keep quoting Senator Byrd back and forth, but I think it is appropriate to look at what he said in 2010. He said:

I believe that efforts to change or reinterpret the rules

in order to facilitate expeditious action by a simple

majority are grossly misguided. The Senate is the only place

in government where the rights of the numerical minority are

so protected.

I said in my prepared statement earlier what Senator Byrd said before the Rules Committee:

The [Rules] Committee must, however, jealously guard

against efforts to change or reinterpret the Senate rules by

a simple majority, circumventing rule XXII where a two-thirds

majority is required.

I keep coming back to this because it has to do with the way any rule change is implemented. That is the point. The majority leader has suggested, and I think it is appropriate, that we talk

about rule changes together. But that is not what he is suggesting he is going to do. He says he is going to break the rules to change the rules and employ the nuclear option.

That is not a negotiation with the minority over rules changes. What we ought to be doing is talking to each other about what adjustments in the rules we could advocate together, and not one party with a majority today--that might be in the minority 2 years from now--breaking the rules to change the rules for some kind of misguided short-term advantage. That is the problem.

So I would be happy to talk to the majority leader about these issues, but I vigorously oppose--and I know Senator Byrd would vigorously oppose--breaking the rules to change the rules. He was very clear about that in 2010. I know he would object to it.

I hope somehow this nuclear option can be avoided. It seems to me to be an absolutely unnecessary distraction away from much larger issues confronting the future of our Nation.

Mr. President, some things never change in the Senate. For more than 200 years, our practice of extended debate has been the single most defining characteristic of the Senate. For more than 200 years, extended debate has annoyed the majority and empowered the minority.

What has changed, however, is that the majority today threatens not only to change Senate rules and practice in order to cripple this tradition and consolidate power but to use unprecedented tactics to do it. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come together and preserve the fundamental integrity of this body, even if we may disagree about some of the political issues.

I wish to explain to my colleagues why neither the ends nor the means that the majority has been discussing are legitimate. First, there is no debate crisis on the Senate floor, none whatsoever.

In fact, it is easier to end debate today than during most of American history. For more than a century since we had no cloture rule at all, ending debate required unanimous consent. A single Senator could filibuster merely by objecting. From 1917 to 1975, ending debate required a supermajority of two-thirds, higher than the three-fifths required today. As I said a minute ago, extended debate has always annoyed the majority.

Today is no different. Yet we hear the majority claiming there have been hundreds of filibusters, that the rules are being abused, that obstruction is at

an alltime high. The American people likely do not know the particulars of our debate rules and practices but Senators making such claims certainly should.

The majority pumps up the filibuster numbers by claiming that every cloture motion is evidence of a filibuster. They know that is not true. As the Congressional Research Service says:

The Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as

a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the

absence of any apparent filibuster. . . . In many instances,

cloture motions may be filed not to overcome filibusters in

progress, but to preempt ones that are only anticipated.

That is what is going on today. The majority leader often files a cloture motion as soon as a motion or a bill becomes pending. He does that to prevent debate from starting, not to end debate that is underway. In the last three Congresses under this majority, a much higher percentage of cloture motions got withdrawn without any cloture vote at all than under the last three Congresses under a Republican majority.

The majority leader appears to think that debate itself is simply dilatory. While extended debate has long been annoying to the majority, this majority leader apparently believes any debate is annoying.

Neither filing a cloture motion nor taking a cloture vote is evidence of a filibuster. A filibuster occurs when an attempt to end debate, such as a cloture vote, fails. That is why some on the other side of the aisle want to address what they claim is a filibuster problem by changing the cloture rule.

Let's use some common sense and stop misleading our fellow citizens about how this body operates. A filibuster is a debate that cannot be stopped. During this 112th Congress a much smaller percentage of cloture votes have failed than in the past. That is right. Cloture votes today are more successful in preventing filibusters than in the past.

The same is true about motions to proceed, which is the particular focus of those who are now threatening to weaken debate by forcing a rules change. In the 112th Congress, 32 percent of cloture votes on motions to proceed have failed, compared to an average of 54 percent during the previous dozen congresses. Put simply, the current Senate majority has used cloture to prevent filibusters on motions to proceed more effectively than in the past.

By the way, during the last several Congresses when the Democrats were in the minority, the current majority leader and majority whip voted to filibuster motions to proceed dozens of times. As I said, extended debate has always annoyed the majority and empowered the minority.

Once again, it is easier to end debate today than during most of American history. The majority has done so more effectively in the current Congress than in the past, both in general and on motions to proceed. There simply is no crisis, no unprecedented abuse that requires some sort of fundamental change in the rules and traditions of this body.

Rather than blowing up the Senate, I suggest that the majority actually try working with the minority. That is something we have not seen under the current majority leader's tenure. Since the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007, the majority leader has not only routinely filed cloture motions to prevent debate, but he has severely limited the minority's ability to offer amendments. Since the majority leader is at the front of the line in this body, he uses that preference to offer amendments so the minority cannot. He did that here just a few minutes ago.

The current majority leader has used this tactic more than 60 times, more than any previous majority leader of either party. In fact, he has done so more than all previous majority leaders combined. It is one thing to require a majority to pass an amendment, but the effect or, rather, the intent of this tactic is to require Senators in the minority to obtain the majority leader's permission to even offer amendments in the first place.

Isn't that ironic? The majority leader uses the rules to his legislative advantage but wants to strip from the minority the ability to do the same. The Senate is not supposed to work that way and did not when Democrats were in the minority. Back in April 2005, when he was the minority whip, our distinguished current majority leader defended the minority's ability to offer even nongermane amendments because doing so prompted Senate consideration of subjects that the majority may have ignored.

That was then; this is now. Today it does not require three-fifths to block an amendment. The majority leader can and has done the same thing all by himself. This kind of silencing of minority views does not even happen in the House of Representatives, which operates by majority rule across the board. In the House, the majority party, either Republican or Democratic, often limits amendments, sometimes barring them entirely.

But at times the minority is entitled, before final passage, to a motion to recommit, which means a chance to propose a different version of the bill. This motion is not merely symbolic. Not infrequently that motion carries. In contrast, when the Senate majority leader fills the amendment tree, as he just did, he precludes anything such as the House's motion to recommit.

When the minority's rights are trampled like this, what is it to do? Acquiesce or respond in self-defense? Frankly, it should be no surprise that a minority blocked from influencing legislation through amendments would demand extended debate by opposing cloture. But look what happens. The majority obstructs the minority's right to participate in the development of legislation and then attacks the minority for opposing the passage of that same legislation.

Again, that is not the way the Senate is supposed to operate. It is not just the minority who suffers from this strategy. More to the point, the American people suffer. They sent us to be real Senators, individuals who represent them and their concerns. They expect us actually to legislate, which means to amend as well as debate legislation, not simply to vote on whatever the majority puts in front of us.

Our constituents want us to force attention to public issues, even when the majority would prefer to avoid them. This is the caliber of representation our constituents both demand and deserve. The rules and practices of the Senate have been designed to facilitate just this kind of representation. It is these same rules that the majority now seeks to change because they find them inconvenient.

There is a conceit expressed in Washington that what happens in Congress is beyond the comprehension of interest of most Americans. But that is not so. When our voice is stifled, full representation for our constituents is denied. When we are gagged, the people are gagged. Nothing can be easier to grasp or to provoke greater public indignation.

So my first point is that debate is not the problem. If there is a crisis, it is the majority's gambit of preventing amendments and then filing hundreds of cloture motions to prevent debate. My second point is that the unprecedented tactic threatened by the majority to limit debate even more will only further undermine the integrity of this body.

Some of those pushing in that direction have never served in the minority. But all Senators should be alarmed by this prospect. The majority has talked about changing Senate rules to eliminate the opportunity to filibuster motions to proceed. This opportunity has been available to Senators since at least 1949, and as I have mentioned, the majority leader himself repeatedly seized that opportunity when he was in the minority.

I do not believe the cloture rules need to be changed. I do believe, however, that if the Senate is to consider a change, it should follow the process laid out in our rules.

That process exists for a reason. It is the process we have used to change rules in the past, and there is no reason other than a raw power grab to do it any other way.

Senate rules specify that ending debate on a rules change needs approval by two-thirds of Senators present and voting, and there is a very good reason this is so. This cloture hurdle on rules changes exists to ensure that such amendments are not made without bipartisan cooperation. If anything should require broad consensus, it should be the rules by which this institution itself operates.

That is how, for example, we changed the rules in 2007 concerning the content of conference reports and the use of earmarks or how we established a way to provide for public disclosure of holds. All of these changes, some of which require amending the rules, occurred during the tenure of the present majority leader. None was muscled through by majority fiat or forced on an unwilling minority. Bipartisanship was possible because these changes were good for the Senate.

But now we have learned that the majority may begin the next Congress by disregarding our rules and attempting to change those they find inconvenient by a simple partisan majority. They threaten, as they did before the start of the current Congress, to use the so-called nuclear option to force new rules by single-party will. The substantive changes they have proposed would be degrading enough to the Senate. The method they propose to impose them would be catastrophic.

I urge my colleagues, from freshmen to the most senior Members, to take some guidance from our predecessors, such as Senator Mike Mansfield, who served in the minority and later became majority leader. In 1975, when Senators similarly proposed using this same nuclear option similarly to change the cloture rule by simple majority, he said this tactic would ``destroy the very uniqueness of this body . . . and . . . diminish the Senate as an institution of this government.'' He said it would ``alter the concept of the Senate so drastically that I cannot under any circumstances find any justification for it.''

Senator Reid expressed a similar view in 2003 when he was the minority whip, arguing that rules changes should be considered through regular order, through the process our rules provide. Senator Reid reaffirmed that view in 2005 when he was minority leader, saying that the so-called nuclear option would amount to breaking the rules to change the rules.

Senator Reid further observed:

One of the good things about this institution we have found

. . . is that the filibuster, which has been in existence

since the beginning, from the days of George Washington--we

have changed the rules as it relates to it a little bit but

never by breaking the rules.

In other words, if the majority wants to grab even more power, if blocking amendments is not enough for them, if debate is too annoying for them, if they want to rig the rules to further sideline the minority, then they should use the process we have here in place in the Senate. They should make their case and present their arguments, and if they are compelling enough to attract a wide consensus, then the rules of this body can be changed. That is the way we have changed rules in the past. Senator Reid expressed this view when he was in the minority.

Former Senator Chris Dodd, a good friend to many of us still in this Chamber and someone who, I would surmise, would be sympathetic to the current majority's views on policy, did so while in the majority. He stated in his farewell address his opposition to changing the Senate rules in the way the majority leader presently proposes.

My friend Senator Dodd had this to say:

I have heard some people suggest that the Senate, as we

know it, simply can't function on such a highly charged

political environment, that we should change the Senate rules

to make it more efficient, more responsive to the public

mood, more like the House of Representatives . . . I

appreciate the frustration many have with the slow pace of

the legislative process . . . Thus, I can understand the

temptation to change the rules that make the Senate so

unique--and simultaneously, so frustrating.''

Senator Dodd continued:

But whether such a temptation is motivated by a noble

desire to speed up the legislative process, or by pure

political expedience, I believe such changes would be unwise.

In conclusion, Senator Dodd said:

We 100 Senators are but temporary stewards of a unique

American institution, founded upon universal principles. The

Senate was designed to be different, not simply for the sake

of variety, but because the framers believed that the Senate

could and should be the venue in which statesmen would lift

America up to meet its unique challenges.

Those who know both Senator Dodd and me know that we didn't agree on much during our years together in the Senate. However, on this point, I have to say that Senator Dodd couldn't have been more right. We did agree on a number of things, but it took bipartisan agreement to be able to accomplish that.

Rules changes such as the ones proposed by the majority would alter the very nature of the Senate and undermine its unique purpose. For more than two centuries, the procedural rights of individual Senators, both in the majority and in the minority, have been a hallmark of this body. Those rights and the rules and practices developed to protect them have earned us the reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body. Among those rights are the minority's right to offer amendments and debate. The majority has already put the former under attack, and now the majority leader threatens to undermine the latter. Quite simply, the majority would weaken this institution in a partisan quest for power. Do these steps serve the Constitution? Do they maintain checks and balances? Do they foster bipartisanship? Do they benefit the American people? The answer to all of these questions is resoundingly negative.

I urge my good friend the majority leader and my friends and colleagues on the other side to exercise serious self-restraint over whether and how Senate rules changes proceed. Those who are unhappy with the rules are free to propose amendments. As we have done in the past, those proposals should be referred to the Rules Committee and considered in the regular course of business. If the proposals have merit, support for them will cross party lines.

Bipartisan solutions are urgently needed to resolve the Nation's problems. I speak as a Senator with a long record of working with Democrats to achieve bipartisan consensus and answers. But invoking the nuclear option will unnecessarily start a new Congress on a divisive and discordant tone. It will generate a poisonous climate guaranteed to impair our capacity to cooperate. No majority can expect the minority to stand on the side lines while its rights are destroyed and its place in this body is diminished. Any minority of either party would defend its place and defend the integrity of this body. We will do so now if the majority pursues this reckless and entirely unnecessary course.

I urge the majority to respect the traditions of the Senate and to follow our rules. I urge the majority to avoid rather than generate those crises.

I have to say that we do not want to be like the House. This is a place where legislation has to be cooled, according to Washington. This is a place where we have to do more reflection. This is a place where there are rights in the minority that are time-honored rights, for good reasons. Yes, we don't always get our will or our way here. That is tough for some of us sometimes. But, on the other hand, rather than throw these rules out or to modify them in ways that really diminish them and to use a nuclear option, it is less than honorable, in my opinion.

But the fact is that I have been through a lot of this, and I have to say there is a reason these rules are in existence, and you don't just throw them out the door for political advantage. The fact is that this body was never intended to be one where you could just sluice things through any way you want to and where the majority could get its will no matter what happens. This is a body where literally we have to deliberate. This is a body where we need to bring about a bipartisan consensus. Now, that is hard sometimes, it is painful sometimes, it is irritating as can be sometimes, but it is the right thing to do.

I really don't believe the majority leader is going to push this. I think he is a better man than that. And I don't believe most Senators in the majority would put up with that because they are better men and women than that.

I have to say, on our side, we would like to see full debate. We get a little tired of the majority leader calling up the bill, filing cloture immediately, and then filling the amendment tree so no amendments can be brought up unless he approves them. That is not the Senate's way. I am not saying you can never fill the amendment tree, but that should only be used at the end of the debate when it has gone on too long and it has to be brought to a close. It should not be used at the beginning of

the debate. This is a body where we allow nongermane amendments. It is a body where we have rights. It is what makes it the greatest deliberative body in the world. It is a body where rules make a difference.

Even though they are to our disadvantage now, I will argue exactly the same if anybody on our side, when we get in the majority, decides to change these rules this way. So I hope we all think it through because there will be all-out war from this day on, from the day on that we use the nuclear option to change perhaps the most important rule in the Senate.

The filibuster rule is a time-honored right by the minority. It is one of the only protections the minority has--or should I say one of the few protections the minority has--and it should not be thrown away frivolously.

I say to my colleagues on the other side, you may not believe it, but someday you are going to be in the minority, and you don't want to see these rules thrown out any more than we do. If we ignore this, ``Katy, bar the door.'' We will have obstructed and hurt the greatest deliberative body in the world and the system that has allowed us to be the greatest deliberative body in the world.

I yield the floor.

Would the Senator yield for a colloquy?

There was no intention in my mind to disparage the majority leader. I disparage what the majority leader is doing.

Well, I want to clear it up because he is a friend.

But these rules are friends, too, and I feel really deeply about this. I hope the Senator and other Democrats feel deeply about it too, because you might wind up in the minority someday when some people on our side might want to do what is being done here today. There is a reason for these rules.

I appreciate that.

Mr. President, I now move to proceed to Calendar No. 419, S. 3254, the Defense authorization bill.

Mr. President, we are going to recess, as we normally do on Tuesdays, from 12:30 to 2:15 to allow for our weekly caucus meetings.

We are going to begin consideration of the disabilities treaty this afternoon whether with a vote or with permission. It is a simple majority vote to move to this most important piece of legislation.

Measure Placed on the Calendar--S. 3637

Mr. President, I am told that S. 3637 is due for its second reading and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I would object to any further proceedings with respect to this bill at this time.

Mr. President, this is one of the must-do pieces of legislation we have to do before this calendar year ends.

Finding Common Ground

Mr. President, too often it is a challenge to find common ground here in Washington. But as we negotiate a path back from the fiscal cliff, we should also recognize when Democrats and Republicans agree. We agree taxes should not go up for anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Now, 97 percent of small businesses and 98 percent of middle-class families would benefit from that.

With common ground in sight, we should be able to act today to avert the fiscal cliff for millions of families and businesses. Even if we disagree on whether to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans, we should agree to hold the middle class harmless and do it today, do it now. A single vote in the House of Representatives would get the job done now. Unfortunately, there is one obstacle standing between Congress and compromise: Grover Norquist. For years Norquist has bullied lawmakers willing to put their oath of office or their promise to serve constituents ahead of their pledge to this antitax zealot. His brand of ideological extremism has been bad for Congress and even worse for the country. So I was pleased to see Republicans in Congress distance themselves from Norquist this week. I appreciate that very much. So do the American people. I am sure their constituents do. Several Republican lawmakers have said revenue should be on

the table during the fiscal cliff negotiations. How common sense is that? Absolutely. It is so clear to everyone except Grover Norquist. It is time now for the Republicans to turn this happy talk into action.

President Obama and Senate Democrats ran on a promise to end the Bush tax breaks for the wealthy. President Obama did not hide that in the last year of his campaign. Every place he went, that is what he talked about. Americans, when they voted, raised their voices and supported our pledge. Congress must act in accordance with the will of the American people.

An agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff must give economic certainty to middle-class families and must protect important tax deductions for families and businesses still struggling to recover from this great recession. It must take a balanced approach to reduce spending. But it must also ask the richest of the rich to pay a little bit extra to reduce the huge deficit we have.

Any balanced agreement will require difficult concessions from both sides--I said both sides. Clinging to the kind of ideological purity Grover Norquist peddles, saying he will never bend or compromise, is easy. Cooperating with those with whom you disagree is hard. Doing what is right for the country despite personal cost is hard. Legislating is hard. As we approach the fiscal cliff, Democrats are ready to make those tough choices. I hope my Republican friends, especially those who claim they put no pledge before their pledge to serve their constituents, can say the same.

Recognition of the Minority Leader

To paraphrase Shakespeare, which I don't do too often, I think the Republican leader protests far too much. Now he has gone back to quoting Senator Byrd.

The situation we had when the Republicans were trying to change the rules regarding judges was totally different than what has happened on the floor the last few years. You see, what Democrats were proposing to do, help repair the Senate, is pretty much what Senator McConnell said was necessary in 2005.

For example, Senator McConnell has said that the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictate. Let me quote. In remarks on the

Senate floor in May of 2005, Senator McConnell said:

Despite the incredulous protestations of our Democratic

colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as

circumstances dictate. The first Senate adopted its rules by

majority vote, rules, I might add, which specifically

provided a means to end debate instantly by simple majority

vote. That was the first Senate way back at the beginning of

our country. That was Senate Rule 8, the ability to move the

previous question and end debate.

Let me repeat some of the things he said:

Despite the incredulous protestations of our Democratic

colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as

circumstances dictate.

The same day, Senator McConnell also reported that the Senate has ``often reformed Senate procedure by a simple majority vote.''

When Republicans were in the majority, Senator McConnell said this:

This is not the first time a minority of senators has upset

a Senate tradition or practice, and the current Senate

majority intends to do what the majority in the Senate has

often done--use its constitutional authority under article I,

section 5, to reform Senate procedure by a simple majority

vote.

On March 27, 2005, Senator McConnell told Fox News that the Senate can change the rules with 51 votes. McConnell said:

Well, obviously you would need 51 votes to do it. I'm

confident that we would have 51 votes if the majority leader

decides to do it. I believe it should be done if we cannot

get accommodations from the Democrats.

So what has changed in the last few years since those statements were made? Well, for one thing under Leader McConnell Republican Senators have mounted filibusters so much more on a regular basis.

We talked here yesterday about the motions to proceed. I had a meeting this morning with one Senator who has been in the Senate for 30 years. He said, Why are you only changing the rules this much?

Look how simple the rule changes are that we are making, motions to proceed. Let us talk about that. I have a piece of legislation on the floor, as we have on a number of occasions. That has to sit for a couple of days. Once that happens and they won't let us on the bill, they won't let us on anything, I have to file cloture. Let us say I may do that on a Wednesday after a bill lays there for a couple of days, so we can have a Friday cloture vote.

But, Mr. President, having been here not very long, you know that is not the end of it. We have got cloture when we really haven't because there is 30 hours of idle time to do zero, nothing. Then after the 30 hours, you are on the bill, and to get off the bill you have to go through the same process again.

I talked to three Republican Senators yesterday and they said, Explain that to me. I said, Well, for the approximately 9 or 10 days that we waste on getting on a bill, we could, if you guys let us on a bill, we could be offering amendments for 4 or 5 days instead of waiting for 30 hours to expire and all of that.

Also, we have this crazy idea that if you are going to have a filibuster, you have to stand and say something, not hide in your office someplace or go to a wedding that you are having in your State. Then we also are doing the incredulous thing of saying if we want to go to conference on a bill, rather than having three filibusters necessary to overcome with cloture, we would do it once.

Those are the simple changes we are making, and Senator McConnell was right when he said that despite the incredulous protestations of our Democratic colleagues, the Senate has repeatedly adjusted its rules as circumstances dictated. We are making simple changes. We are not changing the Constitution, we are not getting rid of the filibuster. We are making three simple rules changes. As my friend the Democratic Senator from New Mexico, who is retiring, my friend who has been here 30 years, said Why is that all you are doing?

Under Leader McConnell, Republicans have mounted filibusters on things that don't matter. The motion to proceed, he said, well, that allows us to get--I am paraphrasing--that allows us to get set and have an idea what will happen on the bill itself.

That is nonsense. It is only as the leader indicated at the beginning of this Congress, his No. 1 goal is to defeat President Obama. We have been able to get nothing done because of that. The American people are sick of it.

In the 109th Congress, from 2005 to 2006, when the Republicans were in the majority, there were very few filibusters. In the next Congress, when the roles were reversed, Republicans, they have done--I give this example, which is so understandable to everybody. Lyndon Johnson, majority leader for 6 years--I will have 6 years at the end of this year--had one cloture motion. Me? I think we are up to about 386 now. In this Congress we have had 110 filibusters and we have weeks to go. It is even in the New York Times. They say: Oh, he has filled the legislative tree. The New York Times reported I did that 19 times--out of 110 filibusters. Had they let us get on a bill, there wouldn't be any need to fill the tree. We could have spent that time having amendments.

Republicans have increased the number of filibusters so out of proportion to any changes that have been in the Senate it is hard to comprehend. The Senate is not working as it should. Everyone in America--and that is kind of an exaggeration, I acknowledge that--maybe not everyone, but as I travel around the country trying to help my candidates get elected and raise money, people say: What are you going to do to change the filibuster? This is awful. What is going on?

That is what they say. They expect Washington, the Senate, to work like ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' not idle time with quorum calls and waiting for 30 hours to expire on meaningless 30-hour postcloture time. We are not getting rid of that with regular filibusters, but we are getting rid of it on a motion to proceed.

The Senate isn't working. Apart from Senator McConnell and his troops, basically everybody in America agrees the Senate is not working.

In the Senate, as in any human institution, there will always be plenty of blame to go around, but let's call it like it is. Two long- time Senate watchers, Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein--one representing a progressive think tank, the other a conservative think tank--wrote this:

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for

more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this

dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both

parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we

have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the

problem lies with the Republican Party.

I didn't make that up. They wrote it; two of the foremost Congress watchers this country has ever had. That is what they wrote. Objective outside observers are calling it like it is. The current Republican minority is abusing the Senate rules. So, in response, to quote Senator McConnell:

The current Senate majority intends to do what the majority

in the Senate has often done--use its constitutional

authority under article I, Section 5, to reform Senate

procedure.

We plan to do so to help repair the Senate. I am sorry there are those who are criticizing me that we are not doing more, but we are doing this. We get rid of the motion to proceed and have people come and present their faces--as Senator Durbin said in a more explicit way, put their rear ends here in the Senate--rather than someplace outside Capitol Hill.

This is the right thing to do. We need to repair the Senate. It is not working, and at the start of the next Congress we intend to do our utmost to take some modest steps to make it work better.

Mr. President, the Republican leader is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts, and we seem to have a revision of facts that simply are not accurate. I served with Senator Metzenbaum. He understood the rules. We always worked through them. There was not a big deal with that. He slowed things down a little bit, but that is what Senators do.

Also, remember who said that a simple majority would do it? Mitch McConnell. I am not breaking the rules to change the rules. Here again is what Senator McConnell said:

The first Senate adopted its rules by majority vote, rules,

I might add, which specifically provided a means to end

debate instantly by simple majority vote. That was the first

Senate way back at the beginning of our country.

That is true. I would also say----

Sure.

I respond to my friend, the point is that rules have been changed by simple majority for a long time. That is what Senator McConnell said in 2005 and that is accurate.

I would also say this, and I say this as respectfully as I can about the deceased Senator Byrd. I think people will recall, those who served in the Senate when Senator Byrd was around, that I was referred to as his pet. OK. He took very good care of me. We had a relationship that was very unique. I cared a great deal about this man. But don't misquote him.

Leader Byrd made clear he was willing to force a majority vote if he needed to. Here is what Senator Robert Byrd said:

The time has come to changes the rules. I want to change

them in an orderly fashion. I want a time agreement. But

barring that, if I have to be forced into a corner to try for

a majority vote, I will do it because I am going to do my

duty as I see my duty, whether I win or lose.

I can see that man with his white hair, standing straight and tall, saying that. That is a direct quote from Robert Byrd. I am in the same position he was. The Republicans have made the Senate dysfunctional, and I have asked my caucus to support me for some simple changes-- simple changes. I went over them. The vexatious motion to proceed that was never abused until this Congress by these Republicans we are going to change, and that is the way it should be.

Talk about all the time we are wasting not talking about the fiscal cliff is poppycock. The Republican leader is the one who is coming to the floor engaging in these conversations, not me. There are going to be no rules changes until the next Congress. This isn't taking away from the fiscal cliff arguments at all that either side might have.

I would also say this. Before coming here, I was a trial lawyer, and I am proud of the fact that I was. I tried lots of cases. I had many jury trials--over 100. But I also settled hundreds and hundreds of cases. One never felt comfortable going to trial because what we always wanted to do was to settle the case before that. Even in the cases we were forced to go to trial, with rare exception, the other side--either plaintiff or defendant, whichever side you weren't on--would come to say, why don't we try to work something out, and here is my idea.

But here we have a unique deal. I have a Republican leader saying why doesn't he negotiate with us. Our proposal is there, which is to simply change the motion to proceed, have a talking filibuster, and do something about the way we go to conference. If the Republican leader doesn't like that and has some other suggestion about how rules should be changed, I will be happy to talk to him. If he thinks things are hunky-dory right now, he is in a distinct minority, as are the Republicans in the Senate.

Mr. President, Senator Byrd served in the House of Representatives and the Senate for almost 60 years. He gave lots of speeches. I have quoted what he said. I will quote again part of what he said.

The Constitution in Article I, Section 5 says that, Each

House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.

Now we are at the beginning of the Congress. This Congress

is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.

So this debate is not going to be solved by the deceased. It is going to be solved by us. We are in the Senate today and the Senate has not been working. No matter how many times the Republican leader says he likes how things are today, it doesn't make it so that the majority of the Senate likes how it is today. The facts are the facts. We can't make them up. The Senate is not working, and we need to do something to fix it.

I close, then, as I began. I would be happy to work with Leader McConnell about rules changes. I have made clear what we seek. I await his suggestions. As I repeat again what I said earlier, a man who has served with distinction in the Senate, Jeff Bingaman--quite a legal scholar, having been attorney general before he came here--asked: Why are we asking for such modest changes? So if the Republican leader has some ideas as to what he thinks should be done, I will come to his office. We can do it privately or publicly. I am happy to work with him. As I indicated, that is how I used to do things when I tried cases. This is the same, just that we have a bigger jury.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it is no great secret that the Congress has a very low favorable rating. Many people shake their heads and they wonder why this institution is so dysfunctional. There are a lot of reasons for that, but I suggest one of the reasons has to do with a lot of hypocrisy that we see in both bodies of Congress. I will give one example.

As all of us know, during the recent Presidential campaign, Republicans attacked Democrats over and over for voting to cut Medicare as part of the Affordable Care Act. They ran a significant part of their campaign on saying: Democrats have cut Medicare. We Republicans are here to protect Medicare.

In fact, this is exactly what Mitt Romney said on August 15, 2012.

My campaign has made it very clear: the President's cuts of

$716 billion to Medicare, those cuts are going to be restored

if I become President and Paul Ryan becomes Vice President.

The reality is that what we did under the Affordable Care Act resulted in zero cuts to benefits. We tried to make the system more efficient. But be that as it may, the Republicans posed as great champions of Medicare against those terrible Democrats who wanted to cut it. Meanwhile, Democrats went to town, taking on the Ryan budget which did make devastating cuts to Medicare and, in fact, wanted to voucherize that program. So we have Republicans beating Democrats for ostensibly--not accurately--trying to cut Medicare, Democrats attacking Republicans for, in fact--accurately--wanting to cut Medicare, and where are we today?

If we read the newspapers we hear and we know as a fact that Mr. Boehner, the Republican Speaker, has proposed devastating cuts in Medicare--a month after the election where the Republicans said they were going to defend Medicare. They want to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67. Frankly, I am concerned there may be some Democrats--not a whole lot, I hope none, but some Democrats--who may end up going along with that disastrous proposal. That is hypocrisy. Everybody during the campaign is saying the other guy wants to cut Medicare. The day after the campaign, our Republican friends are talking about devastating cuts and maybe some Democrats are prepared to support that.

Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would be an unmitigated disaster. It would cut Medicare benefits by $162 billion over the next decade and would deny Medicare to over 5 million Americans who are 65 or 66 years old.

The American people, when asked how do you feel: We are looking at deficit reduction. Do you think it is a good idea to raise the Medicare age? The American people overwhelmingly say, no, that is a dumb idea, don't do it.

According to a November 28, 2012, ABC News Washington Post poll, 67 percent of the American people are opposed to raising the Medicare eligibility age, including 71 percent of Democrats and, I suggest to my Republican friends, 68 percent of Republicans, 62 percent of Independents.

While there may be division in the Senate or House, there is no division among the American people. They think it is a dumb idea and the American people are right. They are right for very obvious reasons.

Think about some woman who is 66 years of age, not feeling well. She goes into the doctor's office and she is diagnosed with a serious health care problem. There is no Medicare there for her. What does she do? She goes over to a private insurance company. What do you think the private insurance company is going to charge this person who is already ill? An outrageous rate she cannot afford. What happens to this senior, that person who is 65 or 66? Do they die? Do they go bankrupt? Do they go to their kids who do not have the money to help them stay alive? It is a disastrous idea.

Raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 would leave at least 435,000 seniors uninsured every year. Imagine being 66 and not having health insurance. Easy for folks around here in the Congress to laugh. Easy for wealthy people to laugh about it. It isn't so funny when you are living on $15,000 or $20,000 a year and have no health insurance. It would increase costs to businesses by $4.5 billion. It would, of course, increase out-of-pocket costs for seniors; the estimate is about $3.7 billion.

For the individual senior, the estimate is that for two-thirds of seniors age 65 to 66, they would pay an average of $2,200 more for health care. They are trying to live on $20,000, $25,000, $30,000 a year. Suddenly they are hit, on average--could be more, could be less-- $2,200 a year. On it goes.

It would increase premiums by about 3 percent for those enrolled in the

health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act because many 65- and 66-year-olds would be enrolled in the exchanges instead of Medicare. It would save the Federal Government $5.7 billion in 2014, but it would cost seniors, businesses and State and local governments $11.4 billion--double that, double what the Federal Government would save.

I hope all those folks who, before the election--Republicans and Democrats--were running around the country and in their own States saying: We are for the middle class; we are going to protect Medicare-- I hope they go back and read their preelection speeches and stick to what they said before the election.

That is one of the issues out there in terms of the so-called fiscal cliff or deficit reduction. Let me talk about another insidious one, in terms of raising the age of 65 to 67 on Medicare. That is a disaster, but it is pretty clear, everybody understands what it is about. There is now an underhanded way, an insidious way that some people are talking about doing deficit reduction, the so-called chained CPI, which nobody outside Washington, DC, has a clue as to what it is about.

What it would do is change the formulation in terms of how we determined COLAs for seniors, disabled vets, and others. The bottom line is, in my view and the view of many economists, we underestimate the inflationary cost of what seniors are spending because a lot of their spending goes into prescription drugs, health care, and that has gone up faster than general inflation. What the chained CPI says is: Oh, no. What we have now is too generous and we have to cut back. We have to make the COLA skimpier.

This is exactly what a chained CPI would do for people on Social Security. What it says is that somebody who was age 65 would see their benefits cut by $560 a year when they turn 75 and $1,000 a year when they turn 85. Again, I know we have CEOs from Wall Street who have huge salaries, who receive huge bonuses, who have the best care available in the world, they have great retirement programs--these guys who were bailed out by the working families of America when their greed nearly destroyed the financial system of the world--they are now coming to Capitol Hill and they are saying we have to cut Social Security and we have to cut Medicare and we have to cut Medicaid.

For those guys, when we talk about $560 a year for somebody who is 75, that is not a lot of money and $1 thousand when you are 85--what is a thousand bucks? Let me tell you, $1,000 is a lot of money when you are trying to survive on $18,000 or $20,000 a year. We must not allow that to take place.

There is something many people do not know; that is, the chained CPI would go beyond cutting benefits for seniors on Social Security. It would take a real devastating whack at disabled veterans. What about that? I want my Republican friends or any Democrats who support that to come to the floor of the Senate and tell the American people that when we send young men and women over to Afghanistan and Iraq and they got their arms blown off, they got their legs blown off, and we are now going to balance the budget on their backs by cutting benefits for disabled veterans--come to the floor of the Senate and tell the American people they support a chained CPI which would do exactly that.

We have some folks here saying, yes, people are making billions of dollars, we don't want to cut their taxes. But, yes, we will cut benefits for disabled vets who lost their arms and legs in Afghanistan. That is an obscenity and I hope very much we do not go in that direction.

When we talk about deficit reduction, we have to deal with it. It is a serious problem. There is a lot of discussion about the need to deal with $4 trillion over a 10-year period, and I support that. Let's talk about a way we can go forward without balancing the budget on the backs of the elderly, disabled vets, working families.

First of all, we have to understand and acknowledge that in the deficit reduction debates of 2010 and 2011, the Republicans won, basically, those negotiations. We have to be honest about that. Republicans acknowledge that. Some Democrats do. Republicans are tougher than Democrats, Democrats cave, Republicans stand tall.

We have to understand, despite the fact we have a growing inequality in this country, rich getting richer, middle class shrinking, after all the discussions about deficit reduction, the wealthiest people in this country have yet to pay one nickel more in taxes. But because the Democrats are not quite as tough as the Republicans, what has happened is that we have cut, in those two negotiations, $1.1 trillion in spending already. So if we are talking about a $4 trillion bill, understand that we have already cut $1.1 trillion, which leaves $2.9 trillion to be dealt with. I think the President is right, and I simply hope this time he sticks to his guns and does what he says.

What I am suggesting is that there are ways to do deficit reduction that are fair. The first point, in terms of $4 trillion over a 10-year period, we have already cut over $1 trillion in terms of spending--$1.1 trillion. No. 2, I think the President is right in suggesting we have to ask for significant revenue from the wealthiest people in this country--the top 2 percent--without asking for any tax increases for the bottom 98 percent. That would add $1.6 trillion in revenue, bringing us somewhere around $2.7 trillion, so we have a $1.3 trillion problem. Over a 10-year period, that is not a difficult problem to solve.

Let me throw out a few ideas, and I am sure other people have equally good ideas.

Before we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we might want to address the reality that this country is losing about $100 billion every single year from corporations and wealthy people who are stashing their money in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and other tax havens, and $100 billion is a heck of a lot of money.

At a time when gas and oil prices have soared recently, when we know major oil companies have in recent years paid nothing, in some cases-- despite being enormously profitable--in Federal taxes, we can and must end tax breaks and subsidies for oil, gas, and coal companies.

This country is now spending almost as much as the rest of the world combined in terms of defense. Our friends and allies in Europe provide health care for all their people. In many of these countries, college education is free. We are spending twice as much as part of our GDP as they spend on defense. I think it is time to take a hard look at defense spending, and I think we can make cuts there which will still leave us with the kind of military we need to defend ourselves.

Instead of raising the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67, instead of cutting benefits, we can make Medicare and Medicaid more efficient. I believe we can save at least $200 billion over a 10-year period by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse and lowering prescription drug costs for seniors. For example, the Medicare Part D prescription drug program prohibited Medicare from negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices. The VA negotiates, and other government agencies negotiate. Medicare should be able to do that.

Fortunately, the war in Iraq is over. We are about to wind down in Afghanistan, and there are savings there.

So before I give the mic over to my colleague from Vermont, I wish to conclude by saying, yes, we go forward on deficit reduction, but there are ways to do it. At a time of growing wealth and income inequality in America, we can move forward and make significant reductions in our national debt, in our deficit, without doing it on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post on the subject of increasing the age for Medicare eligibility be printed in the Record.

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2012]

Raising Medicare Age Could Leave Hundreds of Thousands Uninsured

(By Greg Sargent)

It looks increasingly possible that lawmakers will reach a

fiscal cliff deal that includes a hike in the Medicare

eligibility age--a concession to those on the right who seem

determined to see very deep entitlement cuts, even if they

take benefits away from vulnerable seniors. One argument for

raising the eligibility age is that seniors who lose benefits

can get insurance through Medicaid or the Obamacare

exchanges.

But a new report to be released later today undercuts that

argument--and finds that up to half a million seniors could

lose insurance if the eligibility age is raised.

The report, by the Center for American Progress, points out

a key fact that's been mostly missing from the debate: The

hope of getting seniors who lose Medicare insured through

Obamacare could be seriously compromised by the Supreme Court

decision allowing states to opt out of the Medicaid

expansion. This would inflate the number of seniors who could

be left without insurance, because many would fall into the

category of lower-income senior that would be expected to

gain access to Medicaid through its expansion. (Jonathan Cohn

has written about this extensively.)

Here's how CAP reached its conclusion. The nonpartisan

Congressional Budget Office recently concluded that a rise in

the eligibility age could mean as many as 270,000 seniors are

left uninsured in 2021. But that's assuming Obamacare is

fully implemented in all states. The CAP report points out

that 10 states have publicly declared they will opt out of

the Medicaid expansion, and more are undecided.

The CAP study then totaled up how many seniors below the

poverty line live in states that may opt out of the Medicaid

expansion, using 2011 data. The total: Over 164,000. This

table shows how many of these seniors live in each of these

states:

Add these to the aforementioned 270,000 seniors, and you

get a total of approximately 435,000 seniors who could be

left without insurance annually by 2021. And this is a

conservative estimate--it's based on 2011 data, and the

population of seniors will grow significantly over the next

decade.

Now, it's very possible that many of these states will

ultimately drop their bluster and implement the Medicare

expansion. But Republican state lawmakers are also stalling

in setting up the exchanges and resisting the law in other

ways. With Obamacare implementation up in the air, it may be

too risky to raise the eligibility age and hope Obamacare can

pick up the slack.

``With opponents of the health care law still working to

block it at every turn, many more seniors would become

uninsured because they would have nowhere else to turn,''

CAP's president, Neera Tanden, tells me. ``As a result this

misguided proposal would undermine the promise of affordable

health care for all.''

On top of this, the report finds, raising the eligibility

age could also undermine a key goal of Obamacare by inflating

medical costs and health care spending, for a range of

reasons: Cost shifting, tampering with the health and age

levels in insurance pools, and an increased reliance on

private insurance, which isn't as good as Medicare at

controlling costs.

In my view, the speculation that Dems will ultimately agree

to raising the eligibility age has been a bit overheated--

it's not clear this is definitely on the table. But it's

certainly possible. After all, some on the right seem

determined not to accept any entitlement reform as ``real''

unless vulnerable beneficiaries are harmed, and Obama and

many Dems prefer a deal to going over the cliff. So anyone

who doesn't want to see this happen should be making noise

about it right about now. And there are a range of

alternative ways to cut Medicare spending without harming

beneficiaries.

I'll bring you a link to the report when it's available.

I yield the floor.