Floor Statements

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of H. Con. Res. 18 which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of H. Con. Res. 19 which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to; the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I understand that S. 649, introduced earlier today by Senator Reid, is at the desk, and I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the

Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9 a.m. on Friday, March 22, 2013; that following the prayer and the pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; and that the Senate resume consideration of S. Con. Res. 8, the budget resolution, under the previous order.

There will be six votes at 11 a.m., and the budget vote- arama is expected to begin at approximately 3 p.m.

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

I move to lay that on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 11

Mr. President, I rise today to echo what my colleague Senator Wyden said in recognition of Jim Willis, a native Oregonian and one of Oregon's greatest champions for veterans and their families.

As an airman during the Vietnam War, and as an officer for the Oregon State Police, Jim has dedicated his life to serving and protecting the citizens of the United States and the State of Oregon.

Jim saw his work as fulfilling a sacred obligation: we all have the responsibility to honor and care for our veterans. For the past decade, under Jim's leadership, the Oregon Department of Veterans' Affairs, ODVA, has stayed true to its mission and recognized and honored Oregon's veterans and their families by providing the highest quality programs, services and benefits.

Jim's dedication to providing quality programs and resources to all veterans and their families has lead ODVA--a relatively small agency-- to accomplish a lot during his service. His decision to retire comes on the heels of some major accomplishments over the last few years, including beginning construction of a new veterans' home and the completion of a community center, both to serve Oregon's elderly veterans. Jim's legacy will be the impact that these projects will have on the lives of Oregon's veterans and their families.

With his service to the American Legion National Cemetery Committee and Veterans of Foreign Wars, and his current tenure as President of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, Jim works from a national platform to promote and advocate for veterans benefits. For Jim, every day is Veterans Day.

It has been a pleasure to work with Jim, both as a member of the Oregon State Legislature and as a U.S. Senator.

Jim will be retiring to his home in Albany, where he will spend time with his family. He plans to ``continue to be concerned for my fellow veterans as long as I am able to assist in serving them in the future,'' and in that regard will continue to be active in the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars and with the committee overseeing Oregon's World War II Memorial, currently under construction on the grounds of the Oregon Capitol.

Oregon is proud of and grateful for all of the hard work and leadership displayed by Jim Willis over his long and decorated career. I am especially proud of his many achievements and I thank him for his many years of outstanding public service. We wish him a happy and healthy retirement, and thank him for his continued dedication to Oregon's veterans.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to share a few comments on the votes that we are about to take. In particular, I am struck by the enormous amount of conversation over the last few days over how we make this body, our beloved Senate, work more effectively in addressing the big issues facing America.

I think all of us have had the experience of our constituents back home recognizing that the last 2 years, and many years before, were ones that we had a particular growing element of paralysis that we had a responsibility to address. Tonight the Senate is going to be speaking in a bipartisan fashion and saying this cannot continue in the same way; that we need to take steps toward having a more functional Senate.

I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone in this Chamber that I had hoped we would go a little further in addressing the silent filibuster that has been haunting us in these Halls. But here is the important thing. The important thing is that this Chamber is speaking tonight in a bipartisan voice, in a strong voice, saying we must take steps for this deliberation to work better. I think that message reverberates with the American people who are looking at the many challenges we face as a nation and who have been watching through the courtesy of C-SPAN and seeing that often, when they want us to be addressing these challenges, we are here in quorum calls.

A substantial amount of that can change, both with the modest steps we are taking tonight and, hopefully, in the collaboration between the two parties in the spirit of having a functioning legislature.

I want to thank a number of groups who have worked very hard to bring to us the importance of making change: the Communications Workers of America, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Justice, the entire Fix the Senate Coalition, Daily Coast, Credo, the Progressive Campaign Committee, and the nearly half million Americans who have signed petitions to say: Please, Dear Senators, work hard on this. It matters. I think their voices were heard.

So I extend my appreciation to the leadership on both sides who have been working so hard to figure out these steps forward, to try to have a series of tools on the motion to proceed, to figure out how we can get more effectively to conference committee with the House, how we can cut down on the number of hours that are often wasted after a cloture vote on a nomination. So there is significant progress in a number of areas.

I certainly pledge to my majority leader and to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to remain engaged in this conversation about the functioning of the Senate. I appreciate the work they have done. I appreciate the steps we are taking tonight. I also appreciate the spirit in which many folks are saying: Let's make these things work. We hope they work. And if they don't get us there, let's return to this conversation because we do have that

underlying responsibility to the citizens of the Nation to have a Senate that can act. In the words of the President just outside a few days ago, it is time to act. He called upon the Nation and he calls upon us, and we make significant steps in that direction tonight.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I am rising today to talk about the vision we have ahead for the next 2 years and how this Senate can fulfill its responsibilities under the Constitution to do its legislative responsibilities addressing the big issues facing America.

I don't think anyone is unaware that for the last 2 years this Chamber has seen simply inaction and paralysis. It has been rated as one of the worst 2-year sessions in the history of the U.S. Government.

Well, what are we going to do differently? How is it that we only address 1 out of 24 appropriations bills over the last 2 years? How is it that so many important bills never made it to the floor of the Senate, bills such as the replacement for No Child Left Behind, which was a bipartisan vision that came out of committee.

How is it that so many bills came to this floor to never see a final vote? These are bills, such as the DISCLOSE Act, which would have eliminated secrecy in campaign donations; the DREAM Act, which would have honored creating a future for those who know only America as their home; the President's jobs package, which would have helped put America back to work; and the closing of loopholes for the biggest, most wealthy oil companies. Those funds could be put to use reducing our deficit or funding critical programs for working Americans.

On issue after issue after issue, we saw inaction. What we heard yesterday at the start of this next 2 years was a call from the President for action. In his inaugural speech he said:

For now decisions are upon us, and we cannot afford delay.

We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute

spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned

debate. We must act, knowing that our work will be imperfect.

We must act, knowing that today's victories will be only

partial.

The President echoed, if you will, the thought that he brought into his first 4 years, the urgency of now. We have big issues facing America, and it is time for the executive branch and the legislative branch to work together to address those issues.

In this call for action, we must ask how much action can there be if we see more than 100 filibusters in the next 2 years? How much action can there be if on every request for a vote an objection is heard that creates a day of delay in this Senate? The contrast is enormous from the time that Lyndon B. Johnson was President of the Senate.

Lyndon B. Johnson, during 6 years of presiding over this body, saw one filibuster. Harry Reid, in his 6 years of presiding over this Senate, has seen 391 filibusters.

Let me convey that even when we have the votes to end a filibuster, the fact that it is launched creates enormous paralysis. Imagine you are debating a bill, and you continue debating through the end of the week. When you come in the following Monday to debate, and nobody has anything left to

say, then someone says: I ask unanimous consent that we have a final vote on this bill. Now, you see, we don't have a previous question on this floor, so one has to ask unanimous consent. Any of the 100 Senators can weigh in and say no.

When they weigh in and say no on that Monday, then on Tuesday a petition is put forward with 16 Senators saying: Let's have a vote on closing debate. That vote can't happen until Thursday, under the rules.

If it is successful on a Thursday, we have to have 30 hours more of debate before we can hold the final vote. That takes us into Saturday. Monday through Saturday is lost based on an objection on Monday by one Senator.

If we have 391 of these objections that waste a week of our time in the course of a 6-year period, then we basically waste every legislative week because there are not 391 weeks in a 6-year period.

It becomes pretty simple to see why we only were able to get one appropriations bill done in the last 2 years, and why so many bills never made it to the floor of the Senate for consideration even though they were essential to restoring the economic vitality of our Nation and putting people back to work. I, for one, find this absolutely unacceptable.

Over our history there have been three basic forms of filibusters. The first only worked in an age when transportation didn't work very well, and at any given moment there were a number of Members who couldn't get here to the floor of the Senate because they were traveling from their farms and the axle on their wagon broke or the train broke down or so on and so forth. Sometimes those journeys would take many weeks and things happened along the way. In that situation, a quorum of 50 percent plus 1 was sometimes in doubt, and those seeking delay could say: You know what. Let's deny a quorum.

Well, that was an effective tool only through that period. Then, as that changed, folks said: You know, we have the respect here of hearing everyone out. Therefore, if I can get to the floor of the Senate, I may delay this Senate as long as I am able to speak.

Well, it is through this effort that we have a number of famous filibusters, folks such as Strom Thurmond holding forth for 24 hours. We have, however, seen that a person can only delay the Senate for 24 hours. Then someone else can seek the floor, and you may proceed. So that was a fairly modest strategy.

In both the case of the denying quorum and in the case of speaking as long as you could, you had to spend time and energy. You had to organize, and it was visible before this body. It was visible before the reporters gathered in the balcony. Therefore, the American people, long before there was a television camera here, could see what you were doing, and the public could provide feedback on that.

But now we come to the modern era, from 1970 forward, in which it has become popular to start using the objection as an instrument of party warfare, the objection to a final vote. If we turn back before 1970, we had an overlap between the parties of perhaps 30 Members. So if you had used this objection, you would have a good sense that you would be able to get cloture. Furthermore, there was a social contract that you only interrupted the workings of this body on an issue of deep principle. You only blockaded the operations of the Senate on an issue of profound concern to your State, not as a routine instrument of party politics.

But that has changed over the last 43 years, since 1970 forward, and now the minority party can say: Let's show that the majority can't even get an agenda onto the floor of the Senate, and then let's complain about them not acting. This is not a philosophy that serves America. It is not a philosophy that was embraced through the extent of our history. You came here with the responsibility to contribute in committee, to contribute on the Senate floor, to try to make bills better, and to try to get issues addressed. You were not trying to paralyze this body so issues don't get addressed that may be contained on that side. That, quite frankly, is an unacceptable theme that has started to haunt this Hall, and we need to do something about it.

Indeed, if we look at the modern era where the parties have become so divided, we no longer see that overlap of 30 Senators. Therefore, any minority group, be it the Democrats, be it the Republicans, has the ability to bring this Chamber to a halt. But is it right to do so? If we cannot persuade our colleagues it is wrong to do so, then we need to change the rules of the Senate. We need to insist if someone is going to throw a shoe into the gears, if someone is going to blockade the ability of the Senate to deliberate and decide, then that Senator needs to take responsibility here on the floor of the Senate.

Yes, we should get rid of the filibuster on the motion to proceed. Filibustering on whether to get to a bill does not enhance deliberation on the bill itself. We should make that decision in a crisp fashion and get on to the work, not waste weeks trying to decide if we are going to do the work of the people.

Second, we should get rid of the filibuster on going to a conference committee. Both Chambers have decided. They have voted in favor of the bill. It has been passed in different forms. Nothing should impede getting to conference and having a negotiation. Indeed, out of those negotiations, even if starting with one Chamber having a dramatic view different from the other, there is a coming together that takes steps forward that both Chambers can agree to. So nothing should impede that negotiation from going forward. We recognize a bill can still be filibustered when it comes back from committee, so why impede getting to the conference committee in the first place?

We should greatly reduce the number of hours after we have gotten cloture on debate. On nominations, by the time we vote on closing debate, our Members know how they are going to vote on that nominee. So we could have a final 2 hours but not a final 30 hours. Thirty hours is another wasted set of days we can ill afford. And certainly it makes sense to say, whenever possible, we should cut down that 30 hours on bills after we have reached cloture. We can do it by unanimous consent, and we often do that now. We can do it by requiring Senators to proceed to a vote if they do not stand and talk, but that is postcloture.

Here is the thing: When 41 Senators say they want additional debate, they want to delay the decisionmaking process here in the Senate, they should be willing to stand and make their case before their colleagues and the American people. It takes time and energy if you go that direction. It doesn't become a freebie where one Senator spends no time, no energy, and can go off to dinner or on vacation while paralyzing the Senate. You should have to spend the time and energy to be here to make your case.

Not only is that important in stripping away frivolous filibusters, it also means the American people get to weigh in. I am absolutely convinced if we were to go back to the debate on the DISCLOSE Act, which stripped away secrecy in campaign donations, and we had 59 votes to close debate--we needed a sixtieth--if those who voted for additional debate, and who fled this Chamber fearful of making their case before the American people, had been required to stand and defend secrecy and foreign donations in our campaign system, the American people would not have said they were heroes but they were bums. They would have weighed in and said to their own Senators: Join the effort to close debate, because to stand in the way of a final vote over secrecy in campaign donations does great damage to our democracy. Maybe the pressure and common sense of the citizens would have helped address the bitter partisanship that guides this body.

At a minimum, the citizens of this Nation have the right to know what is happening to legislation here on floor. The idea it is being paralyzed by the secret filibuster is unacceptable, so we should include the talking filibuster in any package we bring to modify the rules of the Senate.

I see my colleague from New Mexico has come to the floor, and he spoke earlier. He has put forward the vision that we must, at the start of every 2 years, evaluate how the Senate is working, and if it has problems we need to pass changes in the rules to address those problems.

This is not some remote concept of inside baseball. This is about American citizens having a legislature that can

address the big issues facing our Nation. So I praise him for his leadership in putting this forward, which has led to this day. And it is the second time. We were here 2 years ago making this case, making this argument that we owe it to our citizens to improve the workings of the Senate, and we are here again today.

There is a saying about the Senate, that the Senate is the world's greatest deliberative body. If only it were so. It has been, at various points in its history, a thoughtful Chamber, a deliberative Chamber. But not today. It is driven by deep partisan differences, those being converted into strategies of paralysis, that prevent deliberation. We must change that. It is our responsibility as Senators to change that. The American people expect it. Let's make it so.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

To my colleague from New Mexico, I would say they most adamantly get it. In fact, I had 13 townhall meetings 2 weeks ago, in conservative parts of the State, in more liberal parts of the State. And in every setting--every setting from conservative to liberal--folks said: Please, please continue this effort to address the filibuster and the paralysis, and the simple notion behind the talking filibuster.

If a Senator is voting for more debate--that is to delay the workings of the Senate--then he or she should be making their case on the floor so the citizens get to see what is going on and they get to decide whether they support it or oppose it. That idea resonates with people. It is the way folks think the Senate works, and they often think the rules that required it in the past have been changed so it does not happen now. So it is a chance I have to explain to them that what has changed is the social contract; that when people objected to the Senate proceeding with its business in the past, they wanted to make their views known on the Senate floor. They wanted to take responsibility because they realized it was a very high privilege to be able to delay the Senate and they had a responsibility to do so only for deeply principled or large issues and to make their case known.

So I do see overwhelming support. I feel as though the American people are so far ahead of maybe our own Chamber in understanding how broken we are and how much it needs to be fixed.

I think my colleague from New Mexico is absolutely right in pointing out there were periods when the Senate really worked to face the big issues of America. And it wasn't that there weren't profound differences. There were fierce differences, emotional differences, deep differences, but folks came to this floor, they conversed, they laid out their arguments and, ultimately, they made decisions about which way to go. They didn't bring the attitude: Well, let's paralyze this Chamber from doing anything. Had they done that, there would never have been the set of changes that addressed significant issues in either of those periods.

My colleague is right that a part of the reason I feel so strongly about restoring the functioning of this Senate is that when I came here as an intern at age 19 for Senator Hatfield, I had the very good fortune to be assigned to the Tax Reform Act of 1976, and then I had the even better fortune that it came up on the floor of the Senate. So during the many days it came before the body, I sat up in the staff gallery and watched as amendment after amendment was raised and debated and voted on. And since in those days there was no camera or e-mail, the member of the Senate team who was responsible for it would run down from the staff gallery, intercept their Senator, and tell them what the issue was, what was said about it, what the folks back home thought about it, what the set of motions was that had been dealt with on it, and so it was a legislature at work. And rarely, rarely, did the thought that anything would not be decided by 51 pass the minds of Senators.

Again, that objection for 51 was reserved for very special, very rare occasions. It might happen once or twice in your career.

I do feel that the conversation we have before us is so important that I thought I would put up this chart. As my colleague can see, this just dramatizes it. It is a picture of Lyndon B. Johnson showing his one filibuster in 6 years, one time that he needed to get a cloture motion to try to shut down debate; otherwise, there was a courtesy that people said what they had to say and then stood aside and took votes. And here we have Harry Reid in his 6 years--it says ``387 and counting.'' It hit 391 before we completed his sixth year. So there is an enormous difference.

The work we are engaged in right now of trying to find a way to have every voice heard and then to be able to proceed to be accountable and transparent before the public is so important.

As the Senator and I have engaged in this conversation, sometimes we have heard criticism from across the aisle saying: You are trying to silence the voice of the minority. Does the Senator see anything in the proposals that we have been advocating that in any way silences the voice of the minority?

Madam President, I would like to follow up on the last point Senator Udall of New Mexico made about our Founders.

I have in my hand three of the Federalist Papers, Federalist Papers 22, 75, and 58. These are by Madison and Hamilton, and they explore this issue of the supermajority. It was a very conscious decision that a supermajority was not put into the Constitution for decisions of these Chambers. And the reason why--and they explained it more eloquently--is essentially that if you take the path that the minority thinks is the right path rather than the path the majority thinks is the right path, then over time you make a series of worse decisions. The minority might be right on occasion, but most of the time the viewpoint brought by those representing the greatest number of States in this case or the greatest number of citizens on the House side is the path that makes sense. And they warned about the supermajority as an instrument that would bring paralysis. It is almost as if they could look forward 200 years to this moment and say: Don't do that because you will end up with paralysis.

This is from Federalist Paper No. 22 by Alexander Hamilton. He wrote this in 1787, and he notes in commenting about the issue of a simple majority that ``there is commonly a necessity for action. The public business must, in some way or other, go forward. If a pertinacious minority can control the opinion of a majority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority, in order that something may be done, must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater, and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hence, tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.''

Let me read that last set of words about what Hamilton said would happen if you had a supermajority requirement in the Senate: ``tedious delays; continual negotiation and intrigue; contemptible compromises of the public good.'' I think anyone watching the proceedings of the Senate for the last 2 years would say that Hamilton was right on the mark in that regard. And, of course, he was not alone. There was not a single Federalist Paper written arguing that there should be a supermajority in the Senate or the House because of the experience that had been had previous to forming the strategy embodied in the Constitution.

Let's turn to James Madison. In Federalist 58, James Madison said:

It has been said that more than a majority ought to have

been required for a quorum . . .

He goes on to discuss it in various views, and he said:

Lastly, it would facilitate and foster the baneful practice

of secessions; a practice which has shown itself even in

States where a majority only is required; a practice

subversive--

And here is the key language--

a practice subversive of all the principles of order and

regular government; a practice which leads more directly to

public convulsions, and the ruin of popular governments, than

any other which has yet been displayed among us.

He also made the point that we would end up with equitable sacrifices to the general weal--or general good.

So as we turn to our conversations in our respective caucuses and to the dialog here on the floor of the Senate, I ask my colleagues to search your hearts about our responsibility to the citizens of the United States of America to address the big issues facing America, which means that we don't paralyze this body in secret. If my colleagues have points to make, then make them as was done during the periods of great debate on the floor of the Senate: Make them on the floor of the Senate, engage in that debate, and when no more is to be said, when all 100 Senators say: We have had our full input, then let's make a decision.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the dysfunction of the Senate, the rules of this governing body, and what we need to do to change them in order to take on the big challenges we face as a Nation.

These last 2 years have created an unprecedented sense among the American people that Congress isn't measuring up to the needs of our time.

This is especially troubling when we are up against tremendous challenges: the most profound jobs crisis in a generation; skyrocketing income inequality; and a tax system that unfairly rewards the wealthy and well-connected over working Americans who are struggling to make ends meet.

But unfortunately, we can't tackle this jobs crisis or the problem of inequality until this body, our revered Senate, restores the ability to debate, deliberate and decide on strategies to take our Nation forward.

I believe that reforming the filibuster is one of the most critical steps we can take to repair the Senate and rebuild confidence in Congress's ability to govern.

When I first came to the Senate, it was 1976. What I saw then could hardly have been farther from the Senate of today. Routine use of the ``filibuster''--or to put it differently, a routine use of an objection to a simple majority vote--has turned the U.S. Senate into a supermajority body.

In short, the U.S. Senate, which once claimed to be ``the world's greatest deliberative body,'' has possibly become ``the world's least deliberative body.'' The institution of the Senate will not function again until we end the abuse of the filibuster. We must put an end to the silent, secret filibuster that is paralyzing the Senate.

The use of this objection has expanded dramatically in recent decades. What was once used only to block legislation that conflicted with deep, personal principles is now used as a routine political strategy for deliberate paralysis. In the 6 years Lyndon Baines Johnson was majority leader, he dealt with one filibuster. Leader Reid during his 6 years as majority leader: 391.

One casualty of the partisan filibuster is executive branch and judicial nominations. The Senate's power to advise and consent, as provided in the Constitution, was never intended to enable the legislators to inflict deep harm on the other branches of government. Yet that is exactly what has happened. Nearly one out of every eleven judgeships is vacant--triple the rate of 8 years ago. Our court systems are severely strained, with 27 vacancies rated as ``judicial emergencies'' at the end of 2012.

This is deeply damaging, for several reasons. It prevents the legislature from responding to the Nation's pressing problems and severely hampers the executive and judicial branches, which rely on the Senate to confirm their leaders. Because the Senate is unable

to fulfill, on a timely basis, its constitutional responsibility to ``advise and consent'' to nominations, judgeships and executive branch management positions simply go unfilled.

Now, you may wonder, if this system is so dysfunctional, why did our Founding Fathers ever design the Senate like this? The answer is that they didn't. The Founders envisioned the Senate and House passing legislation and confirming nominations by a simple majority, reserving supermajority for special purposes such as constitutional amendments and overriding a veto.

Alexander Hamilton, in fact, foresaw the current state of affairs in the Federalist Papers, observing that a supermajority requirement would have the ``tendency to embarrass the operations of government,'' and would create ``tedious delays, continual negotiation and intrigue, [and] contemptible compromises of the public good.''

As a result of the Senate's silent filibuster, the Senate failed to pass almost all of the appropriations bills in the last Congress. The number of bills the Senate passes has hit new lows, with fewer than 3 percent of bills introduced in the last Senate ever passing.

That is why yesterday, with my partner, Senator Tom Udall, I introduced a resolution that will enhance debate and limit obstruction.

Core to these reforms is the ``talking filibuster.'' A Senator can still object but she or he must be continuously on the floor maintaining a debate on the subject. This still allows Senators to block a simple majority vote on a bill of profound consequence, but they have to spend a lot of time and energy to do so.

This reform would have two major consequences. By requiring time and energy to filibuster, it would strip away filibusters on noncontroversial issues that are currently used just to obstruct and delay, allowing the Senate to debate and decide issues. Second, it puts the filibuster on display before the American people, increasing transparency and accountability. If you filibuster, you must make your case before your colleagues and the public, so they know who is obstructing and what your arguments are, and allow the people to judge if you are a hero or a bum.

Senate dysfunction is compromising the Senate's ability to respond to major issues facing our Nation. I want to thank Leader Reid for reserving the right to not adopt the rules of the previous Congress, so we can have this important debate on the rules of this body when we come back from the State work period.

Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question?

I appreciate my colleague coming to the floor and starting to talk about rules. As I was listening back in my office to the Senator's presentation, and he may have enhanced it while I was walking over here, but the Senator was noting, essentially, what sounds like a very one-sided piece of the puzzle; that is, that the majority leader or the floor manager is in a position of negotiating or restraining what amendments the minority does. However, the Senator might be unaware that it is actually two-sided in that it is traditional for the floor leader on the Senator's side or the minority leader, the Republican leader, to also veto the Democratic amendments. Of course, I have had untold dozens of my amendments vetoed from being presented.

So you have this negotiation that is taking place between the leaders on the two sides over what they will admit. That hits both sides equally, basically, because your amendments may be ruled out; my amendments may be ruled out. Your leader may actually not like your amendment, and may say to you: Well, the other side will never agree to your amendment. Actually, it may be your own leader killing it. That may happen on my side too; my leader saying: Oh, no, the other side will never negotiate over your amendment. They will never agree to it. Maybe it is on my own side.

Would the Senator yield?

I think my colleague from Mississippi----

Excuse me, I am sorry, Alabama. If the Senator listened to my floor presentation, he would know I already agree with much of what he said.

And, indeed, I feel we need to have a process where amendments are considered. In a situation where neither side is vetoing the amendments of the other, I wanted to make sure that we completed the picture for the public that not only is the Democratic floor manager vetoing Republican amendments, but the Republican floor manager is vetoing Democratic amendments. It is because of this that the two end up in negotiation.

So I wanted it to be clear it is bipartisan.

If my colleague from Rhode Island would be willing to yield for a question, I do have a question for him.

We heard a few moments ago from our colleague from Alabama that the problem of the Senate being able to process bills is completely as a result of the inability to offer amendments. There are certain things that don't seem to quite square with that.

For one, is my recollection correct that we have had quite a few filibusters on judges where no amendments are relevant?

Is the same true of efforts to get to a conference committee after we have already passed a bill and all the amendments have been previously considered?

Is the same true on both conference reports and final passage? Neither of those involve amendments, but have there been extensive filibuster efforts to keep this body from ever being able to complete one piece of business and move on to the next?

I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for his very lucid commentary.

We do have a responsibility to enable this body to debate and decide issues in order to address the big issues facing America. It certainly is not the case that we have been fulfilling that responsibility. This is why the popularity of the Senate and the House has dropped to incredibly low levels, because people see there are big challenges in America--big challenges about investment and infrastructure, big challenges about the management of our military policy and our military provisioning, big challenges in regard to the environment, in regard to health, and certainly big challenges in regard to education. So no matter how long the list gets, we just get more and more and more paralyzed and unable to address anything in this body.

Tomorrow is the first day of the next legislative session and my colleague from New Mexico has arrived and I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 4 p.m., with all other provisions remaining in effect.

So my colleague from New Mexico has made this powerful case about our responsibility and about the opportunity provided under the Constitution, and I have been immersed in trying to wrestle with the components of how we actually seize that opportunity in terms of the substance, the material we put together to make this body work better. But the important thing is that tomorrow this begins.

In that regard, I yield to my colleague from New Mexico, who has been, again, at the forefront of calling for us not to bypass this opportunity to have this body engage in the debate and figure out how we can change the way we work so we can do the people's work as is expected.

I thank my colleague from New Mexico. I am going to be very brief, because in 2 minutes I am taking the chair so my colleague from Maryland can continue with his schedule.

Indeed, the silent secret filibuster that is occurring in the Senate today is deadly. What it means is that after there has been a vote of 41 who say we want more debate, there is no more debate because no one is required to debate. Instead, they don't want to appear in front of the American people and make their case, and that is outrageous. If you are voting for more debate and you are going to take up the time of this institution, time it could be using to address many of the challenges that face America, then you should have the courage of your convictions to make your case on this floor before your colleagues, before your constituents, before the American public, and engage in that dialogue. If you don't feel you want to spend the time and energy to do that, then you

should stand aside and we should proceed with a simple majority vote and address the issue at hand.

I do think we need to address that silent filibuster, that secret filibuster. The American people deserve to know why it is we are not getting their work done. And if they can see that it is being blocked by a group that is publicly making their case, they can either agree with them and say, That person is a hero, they are standing up to some core principle and we salute their efforts, or they can say they are a bum, because all they are trying to do is paralyze the Senate, they are not making any valuable points. And that feedback I think will help us resolve some of those filibusters.

In some cases folks have said, Well, isn't that going to eat up more of the Senate's time? And I respond, No, it is not. Because we are talking about what is now silent and hidden but paralyzing us being done in public, where there is actually a dialogue about the issue at hand and the public can participate. It is not the only thing that should be done, but it certainly is a key part of the formulation.

With that, in an hour or so I would be happy to rejoin the conversation.

I yield the floor for my colleague from New Mexico.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the period for

morning business for debate only be extended until 6 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.