Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair grant privileges of the floor to my intern, Mark Suzuki, for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the life of John Gray, a son of the great State of Oregon, and a true pioneering spirit whose legacy will live on through his contributions to communities throughout our State.

John Gray, born in the small town of Monroe, OR, to a family of modest means, achieved personal success most can only dream of.

It was once written about John Gray that one ``might expect a man such as Gray, who has made it so big so quickly, to behave like the tycoon he is. Instead, he has the manner of a bashful lepidopterist making his first trip to the big city.''

At the time of that profile, Salishan was a new community, Sunriver had yet to open, and Skamania was but a twinkle in John Gray's eye. More than 4 decades later, the man who has forever changed the landscape of Oregon remains humble.

John Gray's longstanding commitment to preserving and protecting Oregon's natural beauty is evident in the communities he's developed, such as Sunriver, which complement their surroundings with signature elegance.

That commitment was matched by his passion for strengthening urban communities. Over the last several years, John Gray gave $2 million to Habitat for Humanity in Oregon. His cornerstone contribution of $1 million to Habitat's ``Block by Block'' initiative laid the foundation for a $10 million land-bank fund, which allowed Habitat to purchase large groups of home lots on Portland's east side. On these lots, Habitat will build entire blocks of new homes for low-income families, most of whom will be first-time homeowners.

Mr. Gray's generosity was expansive, extending beyond homeownership to a range of efforts to make Portland a better place. Twenty years ago, he established a fund at Reed College to make sure the school's students are able to enjoy ``cultural, social, and recreational programs of excellent quality'' outside the classroom. In 2011, he gave nearly half a million dollars to a private Portland-area school serving students from homeless and very low-income families to build a new classroom for its expanding roster of students. That same year, he pledged $5 million to the Knight Cancer Institute at Oregon Health & Science University to create an endowed professorship and to fund research and clinical care.

Mr. Gray's professional and civic accomplishments are widely known. As a developer, he created several of Oregon's signature communities. As a businessman, he led Omark Industries and was a director of Tektronix, Precision Castparts and First Interstate Bank. As a philanthropist, he has given millions of dollars to make Portland a place that offers opportunity for all.

But, not many people know that he is also a decorated veteran. He served with the Army's 82nd Airborne Division during World War II, rising to the

rank of Lieutenant Colonel and receiving the prestigious Bronze Star for his service.

This Friday, December 14, we will be opening an affordable housing development that will house dozens of homeless veterans. It is a fitting tribute that the development will bear John Gray's name.

Madam President, we are about to take a momentous step forward in promoting human rights abroad thanks to my good friend from Maryland. Here is a bill that promotes a robust trade relationship while at the same time using this relationship to advance a very just cause: punishing past human rights abusers and inhibiting would-be human rights abusers.

I am very glad that my friend from Maryland has drawn attention to the forward looking provisions in this bill. It is crucial that while the Secretary of State makes the initial determination as to who should be on this list of gross human rights abusers, this is not the end of the story. On the contrary, there is a continuing oversight process built into the bill, along with requirements for ongoing updates to the list of human rights abusers. In fact, the chairpersons and ranking members of appropriate congressional committees may request a written response from the Secretary of State as to whether a particular individual has met the threshold required for addition to this list. So whether a person's human rights are being violated because he or she is a dissident journalist, or a member of an ethnic minority group, or LGBT, or simply a citizen exposing wrongdoing, the perpetrators will now face real risks and real scrutiny that they did not face before.

As do I.

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, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of H.R. 6634, which was received from the House and is at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, because of an important meeting with business and government leaders in Oregon on Monday morning, I was forced to miss votes on Paul William Grimm's nomination as U.S. district judge, and for the motion to invoke cloture on S. 3254, the National Defense Authorization Act. I wish to record for the Record that had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on each vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Merkley amendment No. 3096, as modified.

I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to present this amendment in this Chamber. I appreciate that my lead cosponsor Rand Paul and nine other Senators have signed on to sponsor this amendment.

This amendment is designed to help draw down the war in Afghanistan in a timely and responsible manner. It is time to bring home our sons and daughters, our brothers and sisters, our husbands and our wives as quickly and as safely as possible and put an end to America's longest war.

We went to Afghanistan with two objectives: destroy al-Qaida training camps and hunt down those responsible for 9/11. Our capable American troops and NATO partners have accomplished those goals. Afghanistan is no longer, and has not been for years, an important hub for al-Qaida activity. Al-Qaida has robust operations in a number of nations around the world, including Yemen and Somalia, but not in Afghanistan.

American forces have also accomplished the second objective: capturing or killing those who attacked America on 9/11. So it is time to put an end to this war.

Simply put, we are currently in the midst of a nation-building strategy that is not working. It simply makes no sense to have nearly 70,000 troops on the ground in Afghanistan when the biggest terrorist threats are elsewhere.

Our President recognizes this fact and has committed to a steady course of drawing down troop levels and handing over security responsibilities to the Government of Afghanistan. In contrast, the House-passed version of this bill calls for keeping at least 68,000 troops in Afghanistan through the end of 2014.

Let me give some details about what this short amendment does. It is a sense of Congress resolution that the President should undertake all appropriate activities to accomplish his stated goal of transitioning the lead responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan by midsummer 2013.

This is the President's goal, and our team has been working to make this happen; second, as a part of accomplishing this transition of lead responsibility for security to the Government of Afghanistan, drive down United States troops to a level sufficient to meet this goal.

Third, as previously announced by the President, continue to draw down U.S. troop levels at a steady pace through the end of 2014; and, very importantly, end all regular combat operations by the U.S. troops by not later than December 31, 2014, and take all possible steps to end such operations earlier if it can be done in a manner consistent with a safe and orderly drawdown of U.S. troops.

This amendment very clearly sets out that it is not to be construed that we are recommending or supporting any limitation or prohibition on any authority of the President to modify the military strategy, tactics, and operations of the U.S. Armed Forces as such Armed Forces redeploy from Afghanistan. It also clearly notes that we are not interfering in any way with the

ability of the United States to authorize forces in Afghanistan to defend themselves whenever they may be threatened or to attack al-Qaida forces wherever such forces are located. Moreover, we are not limiting in any way the provision of financial support and equipment to the Government of Afghanistan for the training and supply of Afghan military and security forces, nor are we interfering with the gathering of intelligence.

Essentially, the amendment boils down to this: Mr. President, you have laid out a course to end this war, and we support you in this effort and encourage you to continue this effort and, if conditions allow, to accelerate the pace.

Mr. President, I appreciate the partnership of my colleague from Arizona.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I rise to speak in favor of my amendment No. 3096 to express the sense of Congress on the accelerated transition of U.S. combat and military security operations for the Government of Afghanistan.

Our President has laid out a course of action that involves putting Afghan troops in charge of the operation in Afghanistan. This amendment fully supports the schedule the President has laid out. Furthermore, it calls upon the President to explore every opportunity to see if that schedule can be accelerated; that we can, with security for our troops and appropriateness for our mission, withdraw at a faster pace.

The two main objectives in Afghanistan were to take out the al-Qaida training camps and to proceed to pursue those responsible for 9/11. We have effectively pursued those missions. Al-Qaida is now much stronger around the rest of the world. A counterterrorism strategy that is appropriate in the rest of the world is appropriate in Afghanistan and it should be pursued. But the newly adopted mission of nation building in Afghanistan has gone terribly off the track and put our troops at great risk. We need to endorse the President's strategy and end this war--the longest war the United States has ever experienced.

I ask for the support of my colleagues.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I am pleased to be here with my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Tom Udall, to talk a little about the issue of how this body, which was once considered the world's premier deliberative body, can actually discuss and decide things in this modern era--a modern era that has seen unlimited paralysis, with huge hurdles placed in the way of addressing the large issues facing America.

The last couple of days we have heard a lot of passionate terms-- terms such as power grab and suppression of minority rights, broken promises or abuse of the rules. I must say all of those allegations create a smoke screen designed to take away from thoughtful conversation about a broken system, about the dysfunction of the Senate. So let's take a step back and recognize that the goal of this discussion about rules is to simply enhance or restore the ability of this body to deliberate and decide issues.

Perhaps during the time we have the honor to serve in this body we will be able to once again claim that we are the world's greatest deliberative body. The conversation often starts with the Constitution and about the design of this body as being the cooling saucer, as President Washington was alleged to have claimed. And, indeed, the early debate over this body did say let's take a longer term for Senators--6 years rather than 2--so they are more insulated from the public debate. Let's have the indirect election of Senators. States used to have a legislative process to decide who would represent them in the Senate rather than direct election. Let's do that so there is a little more insulation for Senators to be able to thoughtfully consider issues, whereas the House might be a little rash.

But, colleagues, there is a huge difference between being a cooling saucer and a deep freeze. Indeed, we have become a deep freeze.

Let's take a look at this first chart. This chart essentially shows the rise in the number of cloture motions. If you can't see the details, what you can see is the trend of this great soaring number. I think what captures attention is that during the 6 years Lyndon Johnson was majority leader in this body he had to file just one cloture motion--just one--in order to get to a final simple majority vote.

During the 6 years that Senate Majority Leader Reid has presided here we have had 386 filibusters. Realizing that each one can consume a week of the Senate's time, we quickly see the paralysis that has invaded this body.

When Members talk about the frustration of not getting to appropriations bills and how few of them we have considered and debated, we know why. It is because of the incessant, day-in-and-day- out filibusters launched by members of the minority. This must be addressed.

I first came to the Senate to observe this Chamber in 1976. I was an intern for Senator Hatfield. I sat in the staff gallery and covered the debate that summer over the Tax Reform Act of 1976. There were no cameras on the Senate floor, no e-mail, so I would run down and meet Senator Hatfield outside of the elevators and brief him on each amendment. I watched as every hour or hour and a half an amendment was brought up, it was debated in this body, and it was voted on. There was no filibuster of a motion to proceed. There was no filibuster of amendments. There was no 3-week deep freeze during the negotiation of what amendments would come up because it was understood we were here as a majority body to debate issues.

The filibuster would be a rare exception, occurring once or twice in one's career, when someone would stand and say: There is a principle so profound at stake, an interest of such concern to me personally, to the Nation, or to citizens of my own State that I am going to break and interfere with the majority decision and hold this floor and make my case before the people. But that is not what we have now. So there are various ideas being put forward on how we can restore the filibuster as something that happens in front of this Chamber, in front of the public; that there is accountability and transparency that facilitates debate. Rather than throwing accusations about abuses of power, let's just have a thoughtful debate about how to make this Chamber work.

One question is whether we should have filibusters on the motion to proceed. I have a little chart that shows what has happened. It used to be unheard of that the motion to proceed was filibustered. In the time period between about 1930 and 1970 the motion to proceed was only filibustered 12 times or roughly once every 3 to 4 years.

What we have here is 57 filibusters in 2007-2008 of just the motion to proceed. In other words, we see this growing trend of trying to paralyze the Senate from even getting to a debate on an issue. This makes no sense because whatever one is filibustering at the front end one can do at the back end. So we need to consider the possibility of saying, no, this does not enhance debate.

Filibustering to prevent the Senate from debating cannot possibly enhance debate. So we need to be thoughtful about whether we continue this change, this change that has emerged since 1970.

We need to look at the problem of motions being filibustered going to conference committee. A conference committee is a chance to negotiate with the House on a bill that has been passed by both bodies. Why should we possibly obstruct a bill from getting to conference committee? Yet we rarely have a conference committee now because of the routine threat to filibuster the motions necessary to get to conference committee. Yes, we should still be able to debate and filibuster what comes back from conference committee. Absolutely. But to prevent negotiations--again, that doesn't seem reasonable in any frame other than to paralyze this body, which is paralysis not about debate, it is about preventing debate.

I put forward the notion of the talking filibuster. That is simply to say that the American people believe that if you are going to object to a simple majority vote and say there should be more debate, then there should be more debate--more debate on this Chamber floor. So I am proposing that after cloture, when you have a majority but not a supermajority, that Members be required to actually debate. I can tell my colleagues that the public reaction to this is so strongly in the affirmative. And there are other ideas being put forward that merit thoughtful consideration.

Today the minority leader said the test should be whether you feel as though a proposal would work when you place yourself in the minority. Both Senator Udall and I have expressed that very position from the beginning of this conversation 2\1/2\ years ago, that whatever we support on this floor needs to be something we would accept in the minority, and that means it enhances debate and dialog without crushing in any way the right of the minority to be heard.

Madam President, at this moment I yield the floor for my colleague from New Mexico, who has done a spectacular job at framing that we have a responsibility to American citizens to enable this Chamber to work and that we have an opportunity at the start of every 2 years to have a thoughtful and considerate debate on how to fulfill that responsibility.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jesse Marseille, an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the day.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

I understand there is a bill at the desk. I ask for its first reading.

I now ask for its second reading, and in order to place the bill on the calendar under the provisions of rule XIV, I object to my own request.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 12 p.m. on Friday, September 21, 2012; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that the majority leader be recognized and that the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the majority controlling the first half and Republicans controlling the final half.

Unless we reach an agreement, the next rollcall vote will be after midnight tomorrow evening, but we hope we can work something out in order to complete our work.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.