Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss an alarming trend that seems to be developing on this, the first substantive legislation we are considering in this new Congress. At least three amendments have been filed--one of which has already been offered, others expected to be offered shortly--that make unnecessary and misplaced attacks on basic rights and protections for American workers.

I find it deeply disturbing that in this difficult economy, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to be chomping at the bit to bring American workers down a notch or two more. I don't think the safety of our skies has to come at the expense of fair wages, safe working conditions, and other basic workplace rights. I hope all Republicans in this Chamber don't share that radical viewpoint.

Amendment No. 14

The first amendment I will focus on today would deny transportation security officers basic collective bargaining rights. That amendment was offered by my friend, the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. Well, that is fundamentally unfair and a poor way to treat hard-working people who are on the frontlines of our effort to keep America safe.

Currently, most Federal employees--including other employees at the Department of Homeland Security, such as Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs officials, and the Coast Guard--all have a voice in the decisions that affect their safety, their families, and their future.

Other Federal security employees also have these protections--the right to collective bargaining--including Border Patrol agents, Capitol Police officers, Customs and Border inspection officers, and Federal Protective Service officers.

That is right. All these wonderful policemen we see out here day after day, who are doing a hard job protecting us, protecting all the people who work in the Capitol and all these buildings around here, all our Capitol Police officers--guess what--have the fundamental right of being organized and collectively bargaining for their hours, wages, and conditions of employment. Do we feel any less safe because of that? Of course not.

Despite working side by side with these colleagues, transportation security officers, TSOs, are denied the rights these other employees enjoy. They do not have a voice at work. They do not have statutory whistleblower protections or the right to appeal if they are subject to discrimination or unfair treatment by their supervisors.

The absence of collective bargaining rights has made TSA less effective. Our transportation security officers, TSOs, have twice the average rate of injury for Federal employees. A recent Best Places to Work survey ranked TSA 220 out of 224 Federal employers, and turnover rates are among the highest for any Federal agency. Let me repeat that. Turnover rates at TSA are among the highest for any Federal agency.

I submit that low morale and high turnover at a frontline security agency are a recipe for disaster, and Senator Wicker's amendment will only exacerbate the problem and make it worse.

I have heard some deeply disturbing rhetoric from my Republican colleagues about the effects of granting TSOs collective bargaining rights. They say collective bargaining rights keep security workers from performing their jobs effectively. Well, these insinuations are an insult to every man and woman in uniform who works under a collective bargaining agreement across this country. To suggest that unionized workers will not do what is best for our country in the event of an emergency is scandalous.

How many remember that image of 9/11--9/11--when we saw the towers come crumbling down, and we saw men and women running to escape the disaster, running away from it? Who was running into it? Our firefighters, our emergency medical teams, our police officers--all of them unionized, members of organized labor, operating under a collective bargaining agreement.

Does anyone question their loyalty, their devotion to duty--many of whom lost their lives or are severely impaired for life because they did their duty--simply because they were union members? We are saying somehow they are less, they are less than others simply because they belong to a union?

Also, on 9/11, Department of Defense employees, operating under a collective bargaining agreement, were required to report wherever they were told, regardless of their usual work assignments. No Federal union tried to hold up this process in any way to bargain or seek arbitration, and not one single grievance was filed to challenge the redeployments after the fact--not one.

Increasing employees' voices at work has the potential to improve the functioning of our security systems. Think about this: When you travel abroad, you go through screening devices. Go to London, go to Paris, go to Luxembourg, go to Rome, go to Tokyo, go to Brisbane, go to Sydney, go anywhere around the world where they have airport screeners and-- guess what--they all work under collective bargaining agreements. The unions that represent these screeners have worked hand in hand with their governments to improve security procedures and to make our skies safer.

Senator Wicker referenced a 2003 memo from the Under Secretary of Transportation for Security for the rationale for his bill. Well, currently TSA is reviewing that 2003 decision and is expected to make a determination soon about the relationship between safety and collective bargaining. I think we should defer to that agency's expertise on this issue rather than hastily approving an amendment that would limit the administration's ability to adapt.

Collective bargaining, I believe, is the best way to bring dignity, consistency, and fairness to a workplace. It will make our TSO workforce more safe and stable, enhancing the security of our skies. Restoring these essential rights is long overdue. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Wicker amendment.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Yes, I will. Mr. President, I assume the chairman of the committee yields me whatever time I want to consume, and I am reserving some time also for the chairman.

Here we go again. It is not the first time we have had an attack on Davis-Bacon. I am sure it will not be the last. Again, we have to get the facts out and not be led astray by misconceptions and by lack of really good data.

The fact is that Davis-Bacon doesn't just create good jobs, it saves government money in Federal construction costs. Again, my friend from Kentucky has said this is going to cost more money. Well, I would like to see the studies because we have had a lot of studies on this over the years, and they show that prevailing wage laws lead to reductions in the costs and responsible contractors that pay workers at least a prevailing wage, higher productivity, and fewer safety problems.

We need Davis-Bacon so that our infrastructure projects are built safely for the hundreds of millions of Americans who rely on them, because contractors that pay prevailing wages hire higher skilled and better trained workers, and they produce safer buildings, airports, bridges, roads, and tunnels. Senator Paul's amendment would undermine public safety by making it much easier for less responsible contractors to build important public infrastructure projects with shoddy construction.

Congress has rejected attacks on Davis-Bacon before, going clear back to 1931. It should do so again. In the most recent vote in the Senate, in 2007, a bipartisan vote of Democrats and Republicans voted against an amendment to strip Davis-Bacon protection from funds to repair bridges. There has always been bipartisan support in this body for Davis-Bacon. In fact, we ought to read history. Senator Davis and Representative Bacon were both Republicans. It was originally a Republican bill. I hope my colleagues will recognize the value of continuing to support fair wages in these difficult economic times.

This is the wrong time to start pulling the rug out from underneath our construction workers. Our fair wages that we have under Davis-Bacon are a key component of middle-class security for working families. Now is the wrong time to be attacking these essential protections.

Prevailing-wage laws, such as Davis-Bacon, require that workers be paid the prevailing local wages and benefits. These laws ensure that federally supported construction projects don't undermine local labor standards. By removing these protections, Senator Paul's amendment would drive down wages, creating a dangerous race to the bottom. Again, that is the wrong approach to take in this troubled economy, the wrong approach to take for worker safety, the wrong approach to take for making sure what we build with taxpayer money is built well, with well- trained, well-motivated, and well-paid workers.

We want a real recovery. These working families--construction workers who haul steel, pour concrete, build the bridges and the walls and do all these things--build the infrastructure of our country. We want to make sure they have good, family-supporting jobs, with fair wages and decent benefits. That is what Davis-Bacon is about.

I urge a defeat of the Paul amendment.

I yield the floor.

I say to my friend from Texas, I would like to have an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. President, I heard my friend from Tennessee--and he is my friend--talk about how this will be cheaper, it would be cheaper to build things. The new Senator from Kentucky referred to that too.

Sometimes cheapest is not always the least expensive. Sometimes cheapest can turn out to be the most expensive, depending upon the quality of the work, how long these projects are, and whether they are done on time.

I have a friend in Iowa who happens to be one of the largest contractors in the Midwest, if not in the entire country. He has big earth-moving equipment. He is a huge contractor. He probably does work in Tennessee, Kentucky, Texas, and everyplace else.

He told me once: I will only hire union labor. I asked him why. He said: Because they have a great apprenticeship and training program. Plus, he said: I know I get well-trained workers on my construction jobs.

He said: I don't mind Davis-Bacon because I get apprenticeship, I get training, plus I get workers I don't have to look over their shoulders all the time. I get quality work done.

He said: I didn't get big by undercutting everybody. I got big because I did good work, and I got good quality.

He is able to go head to head with nonunion contractors, and he has become the largest contractor because of the quality of his work.

That is why I say to my friend, sometimes the cheapest is not always the best in terms of the interest of the taxpayers and of this country.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

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

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin.) Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, if there is one clear message that voters sent in the last election, it is that they want Democrats and Republicans in Congress to cut out the bickering and the partisanship and to focus like a laser beam on boosting the economy, creating jobs, and reducing the deficit. So I find it absolutely astonishing that the Republicans' No. 1 priority, indeed their obsession in these opening weeks of the new Congress, is to launch bitter new partisan attacks on the new health reform law, in an attempt to repeal it in its entirety, something that would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, and add $240 billion to the deficit in the next 10 years.

It would be sufficient to oppose this reckless amendment strictly on budgetary grounds. As I said, it would add $240 billion to the deficit in the first decade. Nearly $1 trillion would be added to the deficit in the second decade, if we repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The sponsors of the repeal amendment have proposed no offsets whatsoever. So for all of the Republicans' crocodile tears over big budget deficits, their first action in the new Congress is to propose adding nearly $\1/4\ trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years, and over $1 trillion in the second 10 years.

The Congressional Budget Office is our only objective nonpartisan referee when it comes to budget projections. CBO has told us in no uncertain terms that the McConnell amendment, the repeal amendment, will add $240 billion to the deficit this decade. The Republicans' response is to attack the credibility of CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, and to claim that the hundreds of billions in budget savings, thanks to new health reform law, are based on ``gimmicks.'' That is complete nonsense. The budget savings in this new law are real. If anything, CBO has underestimated the savings that will come about, especially as a result of the robust wellness and prevention provisions in the new law, provisions that will keep Americans healthy and out of the hospital in the first place.

I would simply add that if the savings in the new law were based on gimmicks, then those gimmicks would surely show up by the second decade of the law's implementation. That is the nature of gimmicks; they eventually get exposed. But the savings in the new law actually skyrocket in the second decade to nearly $1 trillion. So to wildly assert that the savings in the new health reform law are based on gimmicks is flat wrong. It is irresponsible.

Let's be clear. The Republicans' obsession with repealing the new health reform law is not based on budgetary considerations, it is based strictly on ideology. They oppose the law's crackdown on abuse by health insurance companies, and they oppose any serious effort by the Federal Government to secure health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans who currently have none.

We all remember William Buckley's conservative motto, sort of the father of the, I would say, modern American conservative movement. William Buckley said once that: The role of conservatives is ``to thwart history, yelling `stop.' ''

In 1935 Franklin Roosevelt and the Congress passed Social Security, providing a basic retirement security for every American. Republicans fought it bitterly, and 75 years later they are still trying to undo it and privatize it. In 1965, President Johnson and the Congress passed Medicare, ensuring seniors access to decent health care. Republicans fought it bitterly, and 45 years later they are still trying to undo it and privatize it. To quote another famous Republican President: Here they go again.

By the way, notice that the Republicans are no longer even pretending to offer a realistic comprehensive alternative. They used to talk about ``repeal and replace.'' Now they are just talking about ``repeal.'' As always, the Republican approach to health reform can be summed up in five words: Pray you don't get sick.

So make no mistake, the fight to provide access to quality affordable health care for all Americans has only just begun, it looks like. The same ideologue who came up with the big lies about the death panels and pulling the plug on grandma are rolling out their latest campaign of misinformation.

The good news is that this time around the dynamics of the debate have shifted. Just as I long predicted, as people learn more about the great things in the Affordable Care Act, the benefits and protections that are now guaranteed by law, support for health care reform is growing steadily as time goes by and people learn more about what is in it.

A year ago, we were bogged down in the messy, frustrating politics of passing a bill. This time around the law is the law, and what is at stake is crystal clear: Are we going to put the health insurance companies back in the driver's seat, once again free to discriminate based on preexisting conditions, free to cancel your policy if you get sick, free to cut off payments? Are we going to revoke access to health insurance for more than 30 million Americans? Are we going to add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit by wiping out all of the savings of the Affordable Care Act? Are we going to impose higher taxes on up to 4 million small businesses that are eligible for health care tax credits thanks to this new health reform law?

I also want to rebut the extreme ideological attacks on the individual mandate in the new law. Republicans claim that this is somehow an assault on freedom. Let's look at it another way. It is certainly an assault on an individual American's freedoms when someone goes without insurance and they show up in the emergency room and they stick other Americans with their emergency room bill. How about that freedom? Shouldn't I be free, shouldn't you be free, from having to pay for someone because they did not have insurance and they show up at the emergency room, which is the most expensive form of health care, and now we have got to pay the bill? What about that freedom?

The individual mandate is just common sense, and that is why so many Republicans supported it in the past. Senator John Chafee's reform bill in the early 1990s included an individual mandate. It was supported by a number of Republicans, some of whom are still here. Republican Senator Grassley, my colleague from Iowa, Senator Hatch, Senator Lugar, all supported that individual mandate. More recently, the original Wyden-Bennett bill--that is Senator Bennett, a Republican from Utah-- included an individual mandate. It was supported by Senators Alexander, Crapo, Corker, and Grassley.

As we all know, the individual mandate was a critical piece of Republican Governor Mitch Romney's health reform in Massachusetts. As I said, it is just common sense. By eliminating free riders and putting everyone in the risk pool, we keep rates down for everyone, and it is the only way that people with preexisting conditions are not left out in the cold.

So it comes down to this, as we learned--I was watching in the last few weeks the HBO series, now on DVD--about John Adams. What the early colonists finally realized is that they could enhance their freedom, they would have more freedom, if they stuck together, if they worked together, if they joined together.

The same is true here in health reform. When everyone is covered and no one is left out, we enhance an individual's liberty. So health reform is all about freedom, freedom from the fear that if you get sick, you will not be able to afford a doctor; freedom from the fear that a major illness will lead to financial ruin. These are the practical freedoms that matter to Americans.

I cannot tell you how many people have come up to thank me and other sponsors for passing the Affordable Care Act. They tell me how it has personally affected their families in profoundly positive ways. Let me first tell you about Sarah Posekany of Cedar Falls, IA.

She was diagnosed with Crohn's disease when she was 15 years old. During her first year of college, she ran into complications from Crohn's, which forced her to drop classes in order to heal from multiple surgeries. Because she was no longer a full-time student, her parents' private insurance company terminated her coverage, and 4 years later, she found herself--are you ready for this--$180,000 in debt, and was forced to declare bankruptcy. Sarah was able to complete one semester at Hawkeye Community College but could not afford to continue. Because of her earlier bankruptcy, every bank she applied to for student loans turned her down.

With the new health law, people like Sarah will be able to stay on their parents' health insurance until they are age 26. This is a real person. This is a real story. These are real people. So they want to repeal this? They want to tell Sarah: Sorry, we cannot help you any, and we cannot help other young people like you stay on their parent's policies until they are age 26.

We can consider the case of Eleanor Pierce, also of Cedar Falls, IA. When her job with a local company was eliminated, she lost her health insurance. She had the option of purchasing COBRA insurance, but it was completely unaffordable. So she searched for coverage on the private individual market and was almost universally denied access because of a preexisting condition of high blood pressure. The plans that would cover her came with premiums that she could not hope to afford without an income. So Eleanor, at age 26, suffering from high blood pressure, had no choice but to go without insurance and hope for the best. ``Hope for the best'' is no substitute for regular medical care. One year later, Eleanor suffered a massive heart attack. When all was said and done, she had racked up $60,000 in medical debts. So real people, real problems, and real solutions.

We need to get beyond the ideological obsession and listen to ordinary Americans, victims of the old broken sick care system. Americans have a clear message: The new law has important new benefits and protections; do not take those protections away. Nearly half of nonelderly Americans have some type of preexisting condition such as high blood pressure, arthritis, heart disease. The new law outlaws the denial of coverage based on preexisting conditions. The McConnell amendment on repeal takes that away. The largest health insurer in California used technicalities to cancel the policies of women who got breast cancer. The new law outlaws the practice of cancelling policies when people get sick. The McConnell amendment takes away that protection and restores the right of health insurers to return to that despicable practice. The new law prohibits insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits. The McConnell amendment sweeps that away. The law allows parents to keep adult children on their policies until age 26, as I spoke about with Sarah. The McConnell amendment takes that away.

I want to briefly mention the destructive impacts the McConnell amendment would have on my State of Iowa. One, it would raise taxes on more than 260,000 Iowans by taking away tax credits to help them purchase health care coverage. More than 8,300 young adults would lose their insurance coverage on their parents' health plans. Tens of thousands of Iowa seniors would face higher prescription drug prices and once again have to pay a copay for preventive services, such as colonoscopies and mammograms, which now they can get without a copay. And, of course, the 1.9 million Iowans with private coverage would once again be vulnerable to a whole range of abuses and discriminatory practices by the health insurance industry, like cutting you off if you get breast cancer or putting a lifetime cap on it or an annual cap.

In addition, I want to mention that the new health care reform law dramatically remedies the discrimination against Iowa, my State, and a number of other States in terms of Medicare reimbursement.

A little background. Under a very complicated Medicare formula, doctors in Iowa and a number of States were paid less for their services than their colleagues elsewhere for the same service. Under the formula, for example, Iowa physicians are reimbursed less than doctors in Louisiana for the same procedure.

As part of the new health care reform bill, I joined with Congressman Bruce Braley, Congressman Leonard Boswell, and Congressman Dave Loebsack on the House side to negotiate a compromise that provides an immediate $800 million to address geographic disparities for both doctors and hospitals, as well as written guarantees from Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius for further action to reform Medicare reimbursement rates. This great achievement is wiped out if the McConnell amendment passes.

In addition, thanks to the new law, midsized hospitals in Iowa--we call them the so-called tweeners. They are not big enough to have economies of scale. They are not small enough to be put into the small- hospital category.

They are sort of in between, but they are important providers of health care to so many communities in Iowa and other States around the Nation. Well, thanks to the new law, we will see greater Medicare reimbursement to these midsized hospitals in Iowa and other States. The 2-year fix will cover fiscal years 2011 and 2012. It will aid these low-volume hospitals, some of which have struggled to keep their doors open. The fix was included in the new health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act.

At the heart of the reform mission was an effort to decrease the number of uninsured and increase access--access--to affordable care. The law does just that and will ensure every Iowan access to quality health care, which these midsized community hospitals provide. Again, that goes away if the McConnell amendment prevails. We fought very hard to get that compromise to protect these tweener hospitals--wiped out by the McConnell amendment.

Finally, I want to mention the many millions of Americans who will be denied health coverage if the McConnell amendment passes. The Republicans apparently reckon that middle-class Americans who already have health insurance do not care about those who are not so fortunate. I could not disagree more strongly. I believe Americans do care about the uninsured, and they are well aware of the devastating human costs of repeal. Nearly 45,000 Americans die each year in part because they do not have health insurance.

With the landmark law, we are ensuring at long last that every member of our American family has access to quality, affordable health care as a right and not a privilege--as a right and not a privilege. I believe the American people, even those who have good private coverage understand--understand deep down--that it is not right in our society for 30 million Americans to go without health insurance coverage and the devastating effects it has on those individuals and their families when they do not have that health insurance coverage. So the American people are not going to allow the Republicans to take away this great humanitarian achievement.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the McConnell amendment. It blows a huge hole in the budget deficit. It destroys hundreds of thousands of jobs. It repeals the Patients' Bill of Rights, allowing health insurers to return to the same old abusive and discriminatory practices. It revokes health insurance coverage for tens of millions of Americans. Instead, let's listen to those voices of the American people who have cried out for so long--for so long--for health reform. Let's get rid of the ideological obsessions.

If there are things that need to be fixed, we can fix them. I have said many times that the health reform law is not the Ten Commandments, written in stone for all eternity. It is a law. We pass laws. No laws are perfect, and sometimes you have to make changes. We make changes in laws all the time. We are about to make a change in part of the health care reform law now dealing with small businesses. Fine. These things need to be adjusted and worked on as we go ahead. They should be done in a nonideological and hopefully bipartisan fashion. But to propose that we repeal everything--everything; repeal it--makes no sense.

Let's move forward to build a reformed health care system that works not only for the healthy and the wealthy but for all Americans.

Mr. President, I mentioned in my remarks about how we had changed the law for Medicare reimbursement to benefit certain Iowa hospitals, and because of that, many of the hospitals in Iowa were going to get a bump up in their payments this year. I have a chart here. I did not have time to get it put on a poster. For example, St. Luke's Hospital in Cedar Rapids will get an additional payment this year of $794,841--this year. That will be taken away by the McConnell amendment, by the way. Trinity Regional Medical Center, in Webster County, will get $434,913 additional this year, taken away by the McConnell amendment. Mercy Medical Center will get $584,883, in Iowa City, taken away by the McConnell amendment. We worked hard to get these payments to help these hospitals that are under duress and not able to serve people who are in their communities. We are able to get this additional money to help them survive. Yet the McConnell amendment would take it all away.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have an article by James Q. Lynch that was in the Cedar Rapids Gazette and also a chart showing the reimbursement to Iowa hospitals under our new Medicare rules for 2011 printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Finally, I just say, for those of us in Iowa, in a small, rural State, with a lot of midsized hospitals, with a lot of people uninsured--and quite frankly, we are not in the upper echelons of income in the United States--for us this health care law provides immediate protections, immediate benefits, and promises even more benefits as we get to 2014 and beyond. It would be a devastating blow to my constituents in Iowa to have this health care reform bill repealed. That is why I so strenuously urge all my colleagues to oppose the McConnell amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Medicare Reimbursement Changes Will Benefit Iowa Hospitals, Doctors

(By James Q. Lynch, July 1, 2010)

A proposed change in Medicare reimbursement could increase

payments to Corridor hospitals by more than $4 million next

year.

Under changes expected to be finalized later this month,

reimbursement for Medicare services would increase payments

to St. Luke's Hospital by $794,841 and to Mercy Medical

Center by $584,883. In Iowa City, the University of Iowa

Hospitals and Clinics could see an increase of $2.3 million

in 2011 and Mercy Hospital could get a $509,898 boost.

At the same time, a rule change on reimbursement to doctors

could boost their Medicare payments by 5 percent beginning

next year.

``This will mean a great deal to Iowa hospitals that have

been struggling for many years,'' according to 1st District

Rep. Bruce Braley, a Waterloo Democrat. He is part of a group

of U.S. House members who have sought to move Medicare away

from payment plans that resulted in geographic disparities

that ``punished health care providers in Iowa that provide

high-quality care and get low reimbursement rates.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Steven Brenner and Kirsten Abel of my staff be granted floor privileges for the duration of today's session.

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

Madam President, exactly 16 years ago, in January of 1995, for the first time in 8 years I found myself as a member of the minority party here in the Senate. At the beginning of that Congress, Republicans outnumbered Democrats 53 to 47; the exact same majority-to- minority ratio that exists today, just in reverse order. Yet even though I was opposed at that time to the majority party's agenda, I introduced legislation to change the Senate rules regarding the filibuster.

My plan would have ensured ample debate and deliberation, which I always hear is the stated purpose of the filibuster, but would also have allowed a bill or a nominee to eventually receive a yes-or-no vote. Again, my proposal didn't pass.

I first proposed this at a conference of our Democratic Senators that was held in 1994, because at that time I saw and I predicted--and it is in the Congressional Record that I had predicted this at that time-- there was an escalating use of the filibuster that was being used not for debate purposes, not just to slow things down, but to actually provide for a veto of pending legislation by the minority.

I predicted, at that time, if this arms race were not nipped in the bud, it would escalate because it had been escalating since the 1980s. Democrats were in power. Republicans would have X number of filibusters, and then when the Republicans were in power, the Democrats would do the same to the Republicans. Then the Republicans would come back in power and the Democrats would do the same to them and back and forth, but each time it escalated--an escalating arms race.

I predicted, at that time, if we did not do something about it, it was going to get worse. Unfortunately, my prediction became all too true. In the intervening years, because of the extraordinary use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and to address the critical problems has been severely jeopardized.

Sixteen years after I first introduced my proposal, it is even more apparent that for our government to properly function, we must reform the use of the filibuster. There are those who have criticized me and argued that Senator Harkin would not be doing this if he were in the minority. Well, again, that is not true. I repeat. In 1995, when I was a member of the minority party, I first introduced my proposal.

The truth is, in the future, whether the Chamber is controlled by Democrats or Republicans, I will continue to work to accomplish a couple things. One, to provide that if there is going to be a filibuster, that it is a real filibuster; that the filibuster is used to slow down processes, to give the minority ample time to debate and discuss and to amend, but in the end the majority rule must come to the Senate.

I thank Senator Schumer and Senator Alexander for the effort they made to negotiate a package of badly needed reforms. Of course, eliminating secret holds is long overdue. It is wrong that not only can the minority block the majority from acting, but, too often, it does it secretly and without any public accountability. So eliminating that and eliminating the confirmations of many low-level executive branch nominees I think is meaningful movement in the right direction.

While I fully support these steps, they are far from the meaningful reforms that I think are essential to make the Senate a properly functioning legislative body. Keep in mind, we are a legislative body. The filibuster was once an extraordinary tool, used in the rarest of instances. Across the entire 19th century, there were only 23 filibusters. From 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules on this until 1969, there were fewer than 50 in that whole timespan--less than one a year.

During the 104th Congress, in 1995, when I first introduced my resolution, there were 82 filibusters. But it was not until the 110th and 111th Congresses that the abuse of the filibuster would spin wildly out of control. In the 110th Congress, there were an astonishing 139 motions to end filibusters. In the 111th Congress just ended, there were 136. That is 275 filibusters in just over 4 years. It has spun out of control.

This is not just a cold statistic of 275 filibusters. It means the filibuster, instead of a rare tool to slow things down, has become an everyday weapon of obstruction, of veto. On almost a daily basis, one Senator is able to use just the threat of a filibuster to stop bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment, let alone a final vote.

In the last Congress, the filibuster was used to kill many pieces of legislation that enjoyed majority and often bipartisan support. The reality is, because of the way the filibuster is abused today, the minority--the minority--has unchecked veto power over public policy. When I say minority, I do not say Republicans, I say the minority. It could be the Democrats, it could be the Republicans.

Think about this. We are a legislative body, elected by the voters of this country every 6 years to legislate, to pass legislation with the House, to send it to the President or to defeat legislation, one way or the other, through our votes.

But it would seem to me that reason alone--reason alone--would suffice to

say that legislation should be able to be passed with a majority vote. But that is not what has happened in the Senate. The power to pass legislation has been given to the minority. Reason alone would dictate there is something inherently wrong and inherently unconstitutional about this.

As James Madison noted when rejecting a supermajority requirement to pass legislation, here is what James Madison said: ``It would no longer be the majority that would rule: the power would be transferred to the minority.''

Unfortunately, Madison's prediction has come true. We are the only democratic body in the world--and I challenge anyone, I challenge anyone, to contradict me on this with proof--we are the only democratic body in the world where the minority, not the majority, controls.

In today's Senate, democracy, of which we all claim to be such strong supporters, democracy is turned on its head. The minority rules; the majority is blocked. The majority has responsibility and accountability but lacks the power to govern. The minority has power but lacks accountability or responsibility.

This means, as we have seen recently, that the minority can block bills that would improve the economy, create jobs, and then turn around and blame the majority for not fixing the economy. The minority can block popular legislation, then accuse the majority of being ineffective.

Again, I wish to note that when I refer to the minority, I am not saying Republicans, I am saying the minority. Both parties have abused the filibuster in the past and both will, absent real reform, abuse the filibuster in the future. Although Republicans are currently in the minority, there is no question that control of this body will change again at some point, as it always does periodically.

Some have argued that filibuster reform is nothing more than a ``power grab'' by a Democratic Senator reacting to the recent elections in which his party lost seats. I have heard that said. Well, it is true it is now harder for either party to obtain the 60 votes needed to pass legislation. But I wish to make clear that the reforms I advocate are not about one party or one agenda gaining an unfair advantage, it is about the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively, and democratically.

I wish to repeat, I first introduced this in 1995 when I was in the minority. So as we say in law school, in the court of equity, I come with clean hands. The truth is, as it is situated right now with Republicans controlling the House, any final legislation will need to be bipartisan, with or without a filibuster.

Let me also say, again, that for a bill to become law, it has to be passed by the House and the Senate in the same form--in the same form. Then it must go to the President. The President can veto it and then it takes a two-thirds vote to override a veto. There are a lot of checks and balances out there. So the need for the check on legislation by the minority with the ultimate power to veto that is not needed--not needed; in fact, inimical to a democratic institution.

It was former majority leader Bill Frist who said, when he normally shut down the body over the use of filibusters to block a handful of judges, again by Democrats, ``This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority.''

Further, I wish to make it clear it is not those of us who seek reform who are engaged in a power grab. It is those who insist on hanging on to an antiquated rule who are grabbing for power. It is those who have taken an extraordinary tool, once used sparingly, to ensure ample debate and deliberation and turned it into a monstrosity, destroying the power of the majority to govern, turning over effective control of the Senate to the party that failed to elect a majority of Senators.

That is the real power grab. That is the real power grab. Moreover, despite the dire predictions of opponents of reform, filibuster reform does not mean the end of minority rights in the Senate. Senators of all parties will continue to have ample time to make arguments, attempt to persuade the public or a majority of their colleagues.

The reform proposals that are being considered fully protect the rights of the minority to full and vigorous debate and deliberation, maintaining the hallmark of the Senate.

Presently, Republicans have stated the filibusters were necessary because Democrats employed a procedural maneuver to deprive them of the right to offer amendments, the so-called filling of the tree. Well, notwithstanding the rejoinder that Republican abuse amendments, such as offering amendments totally unrelated to the pending matter--and there again this is where you get into the chicken and egg, who did it first to whom? Nonetheless, I am sympathetic to the argument that the minority ought to have the right to be able to offer amendments. That is why I have included in my resolution guaranteed rights to offer germane amendments--germane amendments, not an amendment dealing with something totally unrelated to the legislation on the floor--to offer legitimate, germane amendments which the minority feels would improve or change, to the minority's liking, whatever legislation, amendment or bill might be on the floor.

Too many people, I believe, confuse minority rights with minority winning. Having the right to debate and to deliberate and to offer amendments does not mean you have the right to get your way. Being allowed to vote on your amendment does not mean you have a right to win the vote. The minority does not deserve the right to prevail in every instance.

The minority obviously can convince some of the majority to join them. Then they become the majority on a given issue or given amendment. That used to happen all the time around here. There is nothing wrong with that. But the minority, I submit, does not deserve the right, under our Constitution, nor under any reasonable interpretation of a Democratic legislative body--they do not have the right to systematically block action by the majority and to veto, to have veto power, over what can even be considered on the floor of the Senate.

The fact is, provided that the minority is vested with ample protections, as it is in my proposal, at the end of ample debate, the majority should be allowed to act. What is so radical? What is so strange about the notion that in a legislative body, the peoples' representatives should vote up or down on legislation or a nominee?

As Senator Henry Cabot Lodge stated many years ago: ``To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.''

I think at the heart of this debate is a central question that we are not coming to grips with. Do we truly believe in democracy? Do we truly believe the issues of public policy should be decided at the ballot box and not by the manipulation of archaic procedural rules? I think the truth is, both parties appear to be afraid of majority rule, afraid of allowing a majority of Senators to work their will.

At its heart, those who hang on to this outdated rule, those who vigorously oppose the majority having the ability to govern fear the American people. They fear that the people's choices and wishes will be translated into action here in Washington.

The central question for this body is clear: Do we or do we not believe in democracy and majority rule? Elections should have consequences. After ample protections for minority rights, the majority party in the Senate, whether Democratic or Republican, duly elected by the American people, should be allowed to carry out their agenda and be allowed to govern.

Should I be opposed to reform of the filibuster because I am afraid Republicans someday will become the majority party in the Senate and proceed to enact their agenda? No. I believe in democracy for Republicans and Democrats alike. I believe in majority rule for Republicans and Democrats alike.

The distinguished minority leader said recently in regard to this proposal that Democrats ought to be concerned because a couple years from now Republicans might take over this place and would be able to undo a lot of the things we did--fear that somehow the Republicans will get the majority and be able to enact their agenda. I say to my friends, God bless them. If they win the election and become the majority party, they ought to govern. What are

the checks and balances? We don't know whether the President will be a Democrat or a Republican. We don't know what the House is going to be. There are still a lot of internal checks and balances in the committee structure.

The minority, under my proposal, can still slow things down. I read in the paper that one Senator said it ought to be the right of the minority to slow things down. I believe that. I believe that in the Senate the minority ought to have the right to slow things down. That is why my proposal provides for that. There is ample opportunity to slow things down, throw some sand in the gearbox of the majority. But in my proposal, at the end of a period of time of 8 days, the majority can govern. So one can slow it down--slow down everything, every amendment, every bill--so compromise negotiations would still go on.

I hear from my side: What if the tea party gains a majority in the Senate? We will need to filibuster to stop them. I say to my friends on this side and others, it is a sad day in America when the only way we can stop the tea party or any other extreme group is through subterfuge, through filibusters, secret holds, and parliamentary trickery. We have to have a fundamental confidence in democracy and the good sense of the American people. We have to have confidence in our ability to make our case to the American people and to prevail at the ballot box. We must not be afraid of the American people. We must not be afraid of how they cast their votes or for whom. I am not afraid of the will of the people expressed at the ballot box. That is what sent me to this Chamber. I should note, that used to be the operating principle of this body, but over the years, especially recently, it has become grossly distorted.

We all have our views on the recent election and what the American people said. Everybody has a view on that. I will say what my view is. The American people spoke loudly that they are fed up and angry with Washington, with government, and with Congress. They want change, and they want an end to the dysfunction in this city. In too many critical areas--job creation, energy, the economy--people see a Congress that is unable to respond effectively to the urgent challenges of our time.

My proposal is basically the same as I offered 16 years ago. It would amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to permit a decreasing majority of Senators over a period of 8 days to invoke cloture on a given matter. A determined minority could slow things down for 8 days. Senators would have ample time to make arguments and attempt to persuade the public and a majority of their colleagues. This protects the right of the minority to full and vigorous debate and deliberation, again maintaining the hallmark of the Senate. At the end of ample debate, however, there would be an up-or-down vote on an amendment, a bill, a nominee. My proposal would restore a basic and essential principle of representative democracy: majority rule in a legislative body.

I also think there is another advantage--that it would lead to greater compromise. Many have argued that it is the filibuster that forces compromise and collaboration. I disagree. The fact is, right now the minority has no real incentive to compromise. Why should they if they can totally block something and then go out and campaign on a message that the majority just couldn't get anything done? Again, the minority has a great deal of power but zero incentive on compromise.

I believe my proposal would encourage a more robust spirit of compromise. If the minority knows that at the end of the day, at the end of 8 days, 51 votes will be enough to bring a bill to the floor or to end debate on an amendment or a nominee, it seems they would be more willing to come to the table and compromise. And for the majority, the reason to compromise is because for the majority party in the Senate-- either one, Democratic or Republican--one of the most valuable things is time, allocation of time. The majority always wants to save time. So rather than chew up 8 days on a nominee or an amendment, the majority would like to get it done in a day or so. The minority, knowing that at the end of 8 days, 51 votes can pass something, will say: Maybe we ought to compromise now and get what we can out of it without dragging it out 8 days. Right now, there is literally zero incentive to compromise.

I also strongly encourage colleagues to support the talking filibuster proposal of Senator Merkley. They claim it is about silencing the minority. The fact is, the filibuster has nothing to do with debate and deliberation. It is used to prevent consideration. Rather than serve to ensure the representation of minority views and to foster deliberation, the minority uses the filibuster to prevent debate and deliberation. The filibuster has been used to defeat bills and nominees without their receiving a discussion on the floor. So the world's greatest deliberative body has now become the world's greatest nondeliberative body.

I think a ``yes'' vote today on a vote for reform, for change, and for a government that can effectively address our Nation's challenges is a vote to move ahead. It is a vote for progress--or we can vote for continued gridlock, continued obstruction, and broken government. This body does not function the way it is supposed to.

To be sure, the Founders put in place a system of checks and balances that makes it enormously difficult to enact legislation. It must pass both Houses of Congress. It has to go through committees first. It must pass both Houses of Congress, go to a conference committee, then it goes to the President. He can veto it. And then it can be challenged in court. All are very significant checks.

I often hear opponents of reform claim that what I am proposing would turn the Senate into the House of Representatives because at the end of 8 days, 51 votes could move something. I ask my friends: When did the Senate become defined by Senate rule XXII, which is the filibuster rule? I thought the Senate was defined in the Constitution. Rule XXII, the filibuster rule, is not the essence of the Senate. Regardless, the Senate will continue to be totally different from the House. We have two Senators from small States, two Senators from large States. We are elected every 6 years. We have sole jurisdiction over treaties, impeachments. And the Senate operates, as we know, in so many instances based on unanimous consent. That will continue. So the power of one single Senator remains to object to any unanimous consent request. Eliminating the filibuster will not change the basic nature of this body, nor the constitutional structure of the Senate.

For most of the Senate's history, there were very few filibusters--at most one or two a year. Can someone suggest that the Senate of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster, Lyndon Johnson, Everett Dirksen, that that Senate was the same as the House of Representatives? Even in my short time here--26 years--we used to have amendments on the floor that we would debate and vote, and if you got 51 votes, you won. We don't do that anymore. Under the present structure of the Senate, under the present rule XXII, the way it is being used today, every measure that passes the Senate must have 60 votes. Whatever happened to the idea of majority rule? Now one has to have 60 votes.

I have heard some say that if we have to have 60 votes, this encourages compromise to get to the 60 votes. I am all for compromise. I have brought a lot of legislation to the floor in my time here, and some has been adopted 100 to nothing. Farm bills, appropriations bills, others that I have brought to the floor, both in the majority party and in the minority party as the ranking member on a committee--and we didn't need 60 votes. If someone offered an amendment, they had the right to offer an amendment and get 51 or 52 or 53 votes and win. I have never stood at that desk, either as a committee chair or as ranking member, and insisted that a bill we had on the floor had to have 60 votes in order to pass. But that is what has happened in the Senate now.

Some say that promotes compromise. Anyone who has a bill or an amendment wants to get the most votes possible, right? They want to get more votes. That is the nature of legislation. But sometimes there is a bill or an amendment that does not lend itself to easy compromise. It may be contentious. We may have to take a hard vote. Maybe it only gets 51 votes.

Should that amendment go down to failure because it got 51 or 52 or 53 or 54 or 55 or 58 or 59 votes? Go out and explain that to the American people. Go to the next townhall meeting and say: No matter what happens, you can't pass anything with 51 votes. You have to have 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate. That gives the minority the right to veto anything. See how people react to that. When they understand it, they say: That is nuts.

We all stand for election every 6 years. If we only get 52 percent of the vote, maybe we shouldn't be here because obviously there was no consensus among the people who voted for us that we should represent them if we didn't get 60 percent of the vote. Is that what is coming, that we have to have 60 percent of the vote to even serve in the Senate? I know I am taking it to its extreme. I know no one is suggesting that. But boiled down to its essence, what we are saying is, without adopting reform of the filibuster, yes, we as a U.S. Senate believe a minority has the right to veto anything in this Senate.

I would much rather be on the side that says the minority has a right to slow things down, the minority has the right to debate, the minority has the right to amend, and the minority has a right to win those amendments with 51 votes. But a minority should not have the right to veto and stop legislation.

That is what my proposal does: adequate time for debate, adequate time for amendments, ensuring that the minority can offer an amendment, but, in the end, the majority would rule. It was never intended--never, never intended--that a supermajority of 60 votes would be needed to enact any piece of legislation, any amendment, or confirm a nominee.

Indeed, the Framers of our Constitution were very clear about where a supermajority was required. There were only five to the original Constitution: ratification of a treaty, overriding a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member.

It may come as a shock to many people, but the filibuster is not in the Constitution of the United States. In fact, historically, the first Senate, when it met, included a rule that permitted the majority to end debate and bring a measure to a vote with a majority. It was called ``invoking the previous question.'' But they had the right to do that. It was done away with by Aaron Burr, then-Vice President of the United States. We know what happened to him. But that was done away with.

So the Senate embarked upon a little over 100 years of having no rules. But, then again, the Senate did not do much. They really did not do much. However, in the 21st century, as a major superpower, with things happening with lightning speed around the world, we have to be able to react a little bit more rapidly than how we reacted in the 19th century.

Moreover, reform of filibuster rules stands squarely within a tradition of updating Senate rules as needed to foster an effective government that can respond to the challenges of the day. The Senate has adopted rules that forbid the filibuster in numerous circumstances, such as war powers and the budget. Think about that. For some reason, the Senate, at some point in time, said you cannot filibuster the budget. Imagine that. You can filibuster other things, but you cannot filibuster the budget. How about war powers? What could be more important than whether or not we go to war? It is a power granted to the Congress by the Constitution, but you cannot filibuster it. Think about that.

So we have rules that forbid the filibuster. We have passed four significant reforms of the filibuster since 1917. Today, unfortunately, it has become abundantly clear that we cannot govern a 21st-century superpower when a minority of 41 Senators can dictate action or inaction to a majority of the Senate and a majority of the American people--a majority of the American people.

We had a bill here last year; it was called the DISCLOSE Act. The House passed it twice overwhelmingly. They sent it to the Senate. Now, what did the DISCLOSE Act say? All it did is say the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, that allowed corporate money to be funneled into campaigns to defeat or support an opponent and did not have to be accounted for, did not have to be made public. Many people suspected there was foreign money coming in through various sources to influence campaigns in the United States because they did not have to report it. So the bill came through that did not overturn the Supreme Court decision. It just said: If you are going to do this, you have to disclose where you got the money.

It passed the House. Polls showed it was supported by well over 80 percent of the people, a majority of Republicans and Democrats around the country. It came to the Senate twice. It got 59 votes. Why isn't it law today? Because you need 60 votes--60 votes. Go back and explain that at your town meetings. Go back and tell them: We don't have that today. We don't have that sunshine law because we need 60 votes, even though we got 59.

This is not the kind of representative democracy the Founders envisioned. It is not the kind of representative democracy that our sons and daughters have fought and died for for over 200 years. How many of our young men and women in uniform today--risking their lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, around the globe--how many of them know they are risking their lives for minority rule--for minority rule, not majority rule--minority rule? Very few, I submit. Very few.

It is time to end the paralysis, the drift, and the decline in the Senate. Yes, let's commit ourselves to debate and deliberation. There is nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with extended debate. There is nothing wrong with having compromises. There comes a time when maybe a compromise is not in the cards. But should that mean we cannot vote on it, I say to my friends? Should that mean if we cannot get 60 votes, we do not even deserve to have 51 or 52 or 53 votes? Is that what we are saying?

I have heard my friends on the other side--I think I heard; I do not know exactly who it was today--say: Well, the 60 votes promotes compromise. I am all for that. But what if we cannot get the compromise, I say? Then are we saying we cannot have a vote because we cannot get 60 votes? That is, in essence, what they are saying. It is not the bedrock of democratic principle to deny the majority to rule, to finally have a vote.

So there may be a lot of misinterpretations of the amendment I am offering: Oh, it is going to make us like the House. Nonsense. It is going to take away minority rights. Nonsense. It is going to take away the right of the minority to slow things down. Nonsense.

What my amendment does is it says, finally, at some point in time, we are going to exercise our constitutional obligation.

I will close on this: Every 6 years we have an election and we go down here and hold up our right hand and we swear an oath. We swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

I submit we are not living up to our oath of office in terms of bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when, on the other hand, we enact rules that deny the majority the right to govern-- when we deny the majority the right to govern.

So I say every Senator has a lot of power here. The power of a Senator comes not from what we can do but from what we can stop. I have often said that is kind of the dirty little secret of the Senate.

Well, I think it is time for each of us to give up a little bit of our power, to give up a little bit of our power for the good of the country, to give up a little bit of our power of being able to stop something in order that the majority--whomever that majority may be-- can carry out their agenda on behalf of the American people.

I do not fear--I do not fear--the voters. I do not fear the ballot box. What I fear is this Senate will continue to be dysfunctional, it will not be able to act, we will continue to drift, we will not be able to respond to the exigencies of our time, the American people will get more and more frustrated and disappointed in the workings of our government, and the end result will be a decline in America.

Look, I am not Pollyannaish. I know none of these proposals will succeed. It

takes 67 votes, they say, to change the rules of the Senate. I believe that is inherently unconstitutional. Can one Congress bind another? Can one Congress bind all future Congresses? Can one Senate bind all future Senates? Can one Senate in a moment of time say we need 90 votes to pass anything here because 90 Members happen to be of one party, so they enact a rule and they say we have to have 90 votes to change any rule, knowing it will probably never happen again?

As Senator Byrd said one time--I know he is being quoted a lot around here today and when it comes to these debates--we should not be bound by the dead hand of the past--the dead hand of the past.

I believe it is the inherent right of the Senate to change its rules by a majority vote at the beginning of any Congress. That is what it says in the Constitution. Each House shall make its rules. It does not say each House makes its rules and every succeeding House must abide by those rules. It does not say that.

So I think we are left with a situation where the Senate--where the Senate--cannot live up to its constitutional obligation. I think it is almost inherently impossible for the Senate to do so. Therefore, I think we must now have to look to the courts to provide some relief in this matter, just as the Supreme Court decided in Baker v. Carr that legislatures could not reapportion themselves. So, therefore, they found it unconstitutional.

I, quite frankly, think a case can be made to the courts that the Senate rules, as they are now applied with the 67-vote threshold, prevent me, a Senator from Iowa, prevent a Senator from Georgia, prevent a Senator from Oregon from fulfilling his or her constitutional obligations to their constituents, to the people who elected them, to try to get legislation passed on a majority basis.

So, like I said, I am not Pollyannaish. I know where the votes are today. I do not know--I know my proposal will not get many votes. It did not get many in 1995 either. And people say: Well, Harkin, why are you doing this? Why do you do it when you know you do not get many votes? I do it because I believe in it. I believe with all my heart and all my soul that the Senate is not operating constitutionally right now. So I feel this fight must continue.

As I said, I now come to that point in time where I believe that perhaps we must look to the courts for their decision on whether the Senate is capable of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities and obligations.

So I hope we do not have to go there. I hope we could adopt some of these reforms, such as the Merkley amendment or my proposal. Quite frankly, at the essence of it is the proposal by the Senator from New Mexico. That is the heart of it. Can a majority of the Senate change its rules at the beginning of a Senate? I believe it is constitutionally not only permissible, but I think we are obligated by the Constitution every 2 years to adopt the rules of the Senate by a majority vote and not by 67 votes.

So I close my part of the debate by appealing to the conscience of our Senators to think about majority rule, think about the rights of the minority but think about the rights of the American people to have their voices heard here by a majority vote and not by a supermajority. I believe that is our constitutional obligation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is the same resolution I offered 16 years ago. I continue to offer it. If you believe the minority ought to have the right to slow things down, that is fine. But if you believe the minority should have the right to veto anything that comes on the floor, you don't want to vote for my resolution.

What my resolution says is that basically you need 60 votes. Then, if you don't get it, 3 days later you have another vote, it would be 57 votes; 3 days later, 54 votes; after 8 days, 51 votes could move a nominee, an amendment, or a bill. So it gives the minority the right to slow things down, the right to amend, the right to debate, the right to make their voices heard, but in the end it gives the majority the right to move legislation. We are a legislative body. The majority ought to have the right to move legislation. The minority should not have the right to veto.

Right now in the Senate you have to have 60 votes to pass anything. We used to be able to bring up amendments here and get 51 or 52 votes and pass it. That no longer happens.

If you believe in democracy, trust the American people, trust the ballot box. I am not afraid. I am not afraid of the majority enacting its will as long as I have the right to debate an amendment.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Danielle Holliday and Megan Culligan of my staff be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of today's session.

Mr. President, the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act, also known as the HeLP America Act, will improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by emphasizing prevention, wellness, and health promotion in our communities, workplaces and schools.

We made a significant investment in prevention and wellness as part of the passing of the historic Affordable Care Act into law. The robust array of provisions contained in the HeLP America Act continue to build off the investments made by the Affordable Care Act and together, they will significantly transform our current sick care system into a true health care system.

Make no mistake about it; these combined efforts will continue our transformation into a genuine wellness society by keeping people from developing chronic diseases and from costly hospitalizations in the first place.

Currently, the United States spends more than $2 trillion on health care each year but historically we invest just four cents out of every dollar in prevention and public health--let me repeat that--just four cents out of every dollar is invested in prevention and public health.

This is pennies despite all the research that shows that prevention and public health can effectively reduce health care spending. This is why I fought for the Prevention and Public Health Fund that is included in the health reform law.

But transforming our Nation into a true wellness society requires a comprehensive approach to make being healthier easier for all Americans.

It just doesn't make any sense why we don't put a greater emphasis on making health promotion easier--why would we focus so little on prevention and public health when we know that these initiatives can make us healthier and reduce our annual health care spending?

Well, I am proud that the bill before the Senate continues to make significant investments in prevention and wellness. The HeLP America Act will put additional systems into place that will improve access to nutritious foods, opportunities for physical activity, and affordability of recommended preventive services.

The bill focuses on initiatives to make kids and schools healthier. In particular, it will support State efforts to provide resources to child care providers to help them meet high-quality physical activity and healthy eating standards. It also directs the Department of Education to provide guidance and technical assistance to schools to provide equal opportunities for students with disabilities for physical education and extracurricular athletics.

In addition, the bill focuses on initiatives to make healthier communities and workplaces. For example, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish guidelines in physical activity for children under the age of 5 and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program promoting and expanding efforts to create community gardens. Specific to small businesses and workplace wellness programs, there is a provision that allows employers to deduct the cost of athletic facility memberships for their employees and exempts this benefit as taxable income for employees.

The HeLP America Act also creates systems that give Americans the information they need to make informed decisions. In particular, there is a provision that requires uniform guidelines be developed for the use of nutrient labeling symbols or systems on the front of food packages. There are provisions meant to strengthen federal initiatives to improve the health literacy of consumers by making health information easier to understand and health care systems easier to navigate.

Let me be clear, this bill doesn't just tinker around the edges; it changes the very paradigm of a variety of systems to make it easier for Americans to be healthy. After many years of advocating for wellness and prevention, I am thrilled to see that these things were at the very heart of the historic Affordable Care Act passed into law. But there is still much more to be done, and the HeLP America Act is an important step in continuing our transformation into a genuine wellness society and getting health care costs under control.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the great importance of expanding the production and availability of biofuels, and the significant impact that biofuels continue to have on reducing our overall consumption of petroleum in the United States.

Our national energy situation continues to deteriorate. Because we import 60 percent of the petroleum we consume, our economy faces a constant threat from volatile petroleum prices as well as significant amounts of American wealth being transferred to foreign producers. Because more than two-thirds of our petroleum supply is consumed by our transportation sector, we can improve this situation by expanding the production and use of alternatives to petroleum-derived fuels. Domestic biofuels have been by far our most successful alternative. Biofuels already displace close to 10 percent of our gasoline supplies, and they have the potential to make significantly larger contributions in the years ahead. Expanding domestic biofuels production and use also will support economic recovery by creating jobs in the areas of feedstock production and delivery, fuels processing in bio refineries, and biofuels marketing.

The American people understand the need to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum supplies. Congress has expressed broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. We mandated more efficient vehicles by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. That bill mandates a brisk expansion of biofuels production under the Renewable Fuels Standard. However, biofuels currently are facing critical market barriers. The most common form of biofuel, ethanol, can only be used as a 10 percent blend with gasoline in most highway vehicles. To enable much larger production and use levels, we need to expand the number of flex-fuel vehicles that can use higher blends, and we need to expand the number of filling stations selling those higher blends. We also need to enable safer and more economical transport of higher volumes by supporting development of biofuel pipelines.

To these ends, I am proud today to introduce the Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011. This measure would require that at least 90 percent of new auto sales in the United States be flex fuel vehicles by 2016. It would also require major fuel distributers, those owning or branding more than 50 gasoline filling stations, to install increasing numbers of blender pumps at their retail filling stations, and it would authorize funding to support blender pump installations by smaller filling station operators. Finally, this measure would authorize guarantees for loans covering 80 percent of renewable fuel pipeline project costs.

The requirements and assistance authorized in this bill will ensure that the number of flex-fuel automobiles and the availability of alternative fuels are expanding in tandem with the production and use of biofuels in our national fuel supply over the next 8 years and beyond. This is a job-creating bill that reduces American dependence on foreign petroleum by giving Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically-produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. These steps represent critical components in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward the benefits of greater reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources.

Today, I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I urge Senators' support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act, also known as the HeLP America Act, will improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by emphasizing prevention, wellness, and health promotion in our communities, workplaces and schools.

We made a significant investment in prevention and wellness as part of the passing of the historic Affordable Care Act into law. The robust array of provisions contained in the HeLP America Act continue to build off the investments made by the Affordable Care Act and together, they will significantly transform our current sick care system into a true health care system.

Make no mistake about it; these combined efforts will continue our transformation into a genuine wellness society by keeping people from developing chronic diseases and from costly hospitalizations in the first place.

Currently, the United States spends more than $2 trillion on health care each year but historically we invest just four cents out of every dollar in prevention and public health--let me repeat that--just four cents out of every dollar is invested in prevention and public health.

This is pennies despite all the research that shows that prevention and public health can effectively reduce health care spending. This is why I fought for the Prevention and Public Health Fund that is included in the health reform law.

But transforming our Nation into a true wellness society requires a comprehensive approach to make being healthier easier for all Americans.

It just doesn't make any sense why we don't put a greater emphasis on making health promotion easier--why would we focus so little on prevention and public health when we know that these initiatives can make us healthier and reduce our annual health care spending?

Well, I am proud that the bill before the Senate continues to make significant investments in prevention and wellness. The HeLP America Act will put additional systems into place that will improve access to nutritious foods, opportunities for physical activity, and affordability of recommended preventive services.

The bill focuses on initiatives to make kids and schools healthier. In particular, it will support State efforts to provide resources to child care providers to help them meet high-quality physical activity and healthy eating standards. It also directs the Department of Education to provide guidance and technical assistance to schools to provide equal opportunities for students with disabilities for physical education and extracurricular athletics.

In addition, the bill focuses on initiatives to make healthier communities and workplaces. For example, it requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish guidelines in physical activity for children under the age of 5 and the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a grant program promoting and expanding efforts to create community gardens. Specific to small businesses and workplace wellness programs, there is a provision that allows employers to deduct the cost of athletic facility memberships for their employees and exempts this benefit as taxable income for employees.

The HeLP America Act also creates systems that give Americans the information they need to make informed decisions. In particular, there is a provision that requires uniform guidelines be developed for the use of nutrient labeling symbols or systems on the front of food packages. There are provisions meant to strengthen federal initiatives to improve the health literacy of consumers by making health information easier to understand and health care systems easier to navigate.

Let me be clear, this bill doesn't just tinker around the edges; it changes the very paradigm of a variety of systems to make it easier for Americans to be healthy. After many years of advocating for wellness and prevention, I am thrilled to see that these things were at the very heart of the historic Affordable Care Act passed into law. But there is still much more to be done, and the HeLP America Act is an important step in continuing our transformation into a genuine wellness society and getting health care costs under control.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the great importance of expanding the production and availability of biofuels, and the significant impact that biofuels continue to have on reducing our overall consumption of petroleum in the United States.

Our national energy situation continues to deteriorate. Because we import 60 percent of the petroleum we consume, our economy faces a constant threat from volatile petroleum prices as well as significant amounts of American wealth being transferred to foreign producers. Because more than two-thirds of our petroleum supply is consumed by our transportation sector, we can improve this situation by expanding the production and use of alternatives to petroleum-derived fuels. Domestic biofuels have been by far our most successful alternative. Biofuels already displace close to 10 percent of our gasoline supplies, and they have the potential to make significantly larger contributions in the years ahead. Expanding domestic biofuels production and use also will support economic recovery by creating jobs in the areas of feedstock production and delivery, fuels processing in bio refineries, and biofuels marketing.

The American people understand the need to reduce our dependence on foreign petroleum supplies. Congress has expressed broad agreement on two fundamental approaches--increasing efficiency of vehicles and increasing use of alternative fuels. We mandated more efficient vehicles by passing the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. That bill mandates a brisk expansion of biofuels production under the Renewable Fuels Standard. However, biofuels currently are facing critical market barriers. The most common form of biofuel, ethanol, can only be used as a 10 percent blend with gasoline in most highway vehicles. To enable much larger production and use levels, we need to expand the number of flex-fuel vehicles that can use higher blends, and we need to expand the number of filling stations selling those higher blends. We also need to enable safer and more economical transport of higher volumes by supporting development of biofuel pipelines.

To these ends, I am proud today to introduce the Biofuels Market Expansion Act of 2011. This measure would require that at least 90 percent of new auto sales in the United States be flex fuel vehicles by 2016. It would also require major fuel distributers, those owning or branding more than 50 gasoline filling stations, to install increasing numbers of blender pumps at their retail filling stations, and it would authorize funding to support blender pump installations by smaller filling station operators. Finally, this measure would authorize guarantees for loans covering 80 percent of renewable fuel pipeline project costs.

The requirements and assistance authorized in this bill will ensure that the number of flex-fuel automobiles and the availability of alternative fuels are expanding in tandem with the production and use of biofuels in our national fuel supply over the next 8 years and beyond. This is a job-creating bill that reduces American dependence on foreign petroleum by giving Americans the option of choosing clean, domestically-produced fuels for their personal transportation needs in the future. These steps represent critical components in the transition of our energy systems away from fossil and imported fuels toward the benefits of greater reliance on sustainable domestic fuel sources.

Today, I urge my Senate colleagues to join us in taking action to boost the transition to a cleaner, more resilient, and more secure energy economy. I urge Senators' support for this bill and its rapid enactment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

If the Senator will yield for an observation.

Madam President, I wish to thank my colleagues, Senator Udall of New Mexico and Senator Merkley of Oregon, because they are great leaders on this issue. I think they have brought a breath of fresh air to the Senate in exposing what has become gridlock that has made the Senate almost dysfunctional.

I say to my friend, Senator Udall, especially in focusing on what the Constitution says and doesn't say, I believe--and I am only speaking for myself--that we are not living up to the oath we took as we stood by the well when we were sworn into the Senate. We took an oath that we would uphold and defend the Constitution and that we would bear true faith and allegiance to the same.

Well, quite frankly, the Constitution, I believe, is quite clear in the way it is written, in the verbiage that is used. If you look to what the Founders wanted in the Constitution, they were very clear that but for a few instances, which they clearly spelled out in the Constitution requiring a supermajority of votes--such as treaties, for example, and impeachments, or expelling a Member--everything else is a majority vote.

But the Senate has adopted rules in the past that I believe are, quite frankly, bordering on unconstitutional by requiring that in order to change the rules, it requires a two-thirds vote--67 votes. Well, that might be OK for one Congress, if they wanted to adopt that kind of rule, but how can one Congress bind another? I think it is quite clear from Parliaments of old and other legislative bodies, court rulings in this country, that one legislative body cannot burden a subsequent legislative body. Yet in the Senate, because of a change in the rules that happened some years ago, they say it binds every Senate thereafter.

I believe that is unconstitutional. My friend from New Mexico, Senator Udall, has pointed this out time and time again, that really we have not only a constitutional right but a constitutional obligation that, on the first convening day of the Senate of any Congress, we adopt rules, and we can adopt those rules by majority vote. If the majority wants to adopt a rule that says that for this Congress we have to abide by a certain number, that is OK, but it cannot bind another Congress.

Senator Udall has been quite eloquent on this issue. He has been very forthright and has fought very hard for what is known as the constitutional option. That is just a fancy word for saying ``live up to the Constitution.'' We took an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the same--the Constitution. Senator Udall is constantly reminding us of what that Constitution says and does not say. As the Senator has pointed out many times, the Constitution says each body shall adopt its rules. So the Senate can adopt its rules. It does not say in the Constitution that each body shall adopt its rules but it requires a two-thirds vote to change those rules. It doesn't say that. It says each body shall adopt the rules, and it does not specify that we have to have a supermajority to do so. I think it only specifies a supermajority, if I am not mistaken, in five cases. Obviously, the Framers of the Constitution were quite clear that each Congress could adopt its rules and it could adopt them by a majority vote. Now we have a situation in the Senate whereby we are throttled by rules that do not permit us to change those rules except by a two-thirds vote.

As I said many times, what if the voters of this country decided to elect 90 Senators from the same party, say, the Republican Party. Could they come in and say: We are going to adopt new rules, and from henceforth it is going to take 90 votes to change those rules, knowing that may never happen again in the history of this country that we would ever have 90 Senators from one party. Could they do that? If you accept the logic of what we are working with right now, the answer is yes, we could do that and bind every Senate from then on in perpetuity that the only way they could change the rules would be with 90 votes. We say that wouldn't happen. Well, what about 67 votes or 75 votes or 78 votes? What is so magic about 67? Where does that magic number come from? It was plucked out of thin air.

That is why I address myself to the issue Senator Udall has worked so hard on; that is, focusing on the constitutional issue.

Senator Merkley, from Oregon, has focused on rule XXII--it is called the filibuster rule--which provides basically that we do not even have to filibuster. In a filibuster, people think they come on the Senate floor, like ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' and they speak and they hold the floor and they can hold the floor until they drop or, if somebody else wants to speak, they can speak. That is what people

imagine a filibuster to be, and that is what a filibuster used to be. What a filibuster has become is a means whereby the minority can stop us from debating anything. So what has happened to the Senate, supposedly the greatest deliberative body in the world, is we have now become the greatest nondeliberative body because we do not debate because now a minority can decide what we take up and what we do not take up.

Think about it this way. Under rule XXII, as it is now being used, 41 Senators can decide what this body does. They have the veto right--the veto right over anything we bring up, that the majority wants to bring up. Again, when I say ``majority,'' I am not saying Democrats or Republicans; I am saying any majority. That is why I first brought up my proposal in 1995, when we were in the minority, because I wanted to make it clear that this was not a means whereby we were trying to grab power or anything. I said, no, this is for the smooth functioning of this place. I predicted at that time, in 1995, and the record is clear--it is in the Record--I predicted that unless we do something, the number of filibusters would escalate, it would be an arms race, and that is exactly what has happened--135 last year.

So the Senator from Oregon has said that if we are going to have a filibuster, at least people ought to come on the floor and talk. At least, if you are going to filibuster, if you are so opposed to a bill and you have a group who is opposed to it, at least stand out here and speak. They don't have to do that now. They put in quorum calls and walk off the floor, and a minority--41 Senators--decides what we take up. They can stop anything.

Think about it this way. For a bill to become law in this country, it requires that it pass the House and the Senate in the same form, and the President has to sign it. Right now, the way we are constituted and the way we operate in the Senate, 41, a minority in the Senate-- regardless of what the House wants to do, regardless of what the President wants to do, and regardless of what the voters may want--can stop it. That turns the whole concept of democracy on its head. I thought the majority rules, with rights to protect the minority. So the minority can offer amendments. I don't even mind if the minority wants to slow things down. That should be their right, to be able to do that as a minority. They should have the right to offer amendments, to change a bill as they see fit. But I do not believe a minority ought to have the right to absolutely stop and veto a bill or an amendment from coming to the Senate floor. We have a situation where the power resides with the minority.

I heard the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, said the other day that this is a power grab by the Democrats. No, no; the power grab is by the minority, whatever minority. The power grab is by the minority to insist that they have the right to veto anything here. That is the power grab. So now the power lies with the minority, but the responsibility lies with the majority. So the majority in the Senate has the responsibility to act, but we do not have the authority. The minority has the authority, the right to veto things, but they don't have the responsibility. That is why we have such a dysfunctional system. This is what the people of America are opposed to.

I will have more to say about this tomorrow as I think we will get into a longer debate on this issue. I think the people have the right to understand that if a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate pass something and the President agrees, it ought to become law. That is not the way it is. We used to have a system on the Senate floor where, if you offered an amendment and you got 51 votes, you agreed to the amendment. You can't do that anymore. You cannot get an amendment offered on the Senate floor unless you have 60 votes. That is what happened over the last 4 or 5 years. I know I myself tried to get an amendment offered on the financial regulation bill. I thought I had over 51 votes on it. I don't know if I did or not, but I was not able to offer it because there was a 60-vote threshold. I might have had 52 or 53 or 54 or 55, but I did not have 60. Now in the Senate we require a supermajority to do anything because 41 Senators--a minority--have the right to veto anything the majority wants to bring up.

As I said, I will have more to say about this, but it seems to me this stands democracy on its head and the idea of majority rule on its head. I think the majority ought to have the right. Elections ought to have consequences. If people vote for a certain party to be in power, that party, regardless of what it is, ought to have the authority to act. There ought to be rights for the minority to amend, discuss, debate, slow things down--fine. But the minority should not have the absolute power of a veto, and that is what the minority has in the Senate today.

That is the issue Senator Merkley has been going after. At least if you are going to have a filibuster, there ought to be some consequences to it, and the consequences are that you ought to have to be here and talk and not hide behind quorum calls where we sit here for days on end doing nothing because someone has objected to bringing up a bill but they do not have to be here to discuss it.

I thank my two colleagues for their great leadership on this issue. As I said, they brought a breath of fresh air here. The average person out there watching probably thinks: Bring it up for a vote. Things are not quite that simple in the Senate, as we are about to find out. So we are going to do whatever we can to bring this to the forefront, but I daresay that the way the rules are set up right now--requiring a supermajority to change those rules--makes it nearly impossible for a majority of the Senate to act.

Again, I thank my colleagues, Senators Merkley and Udall, for their leadership. I look forward to being in league with them to do whatever we can to make this place function a little bit better and a little bit more in accordance with the principles of democracy, of majority rule, and respecting the rights and wishes of the voters of this country.

I thank my colleague from Oregon for his leadership--I see he is standing there--and I thank my colleague, Senator Udall, for yielding to me.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question on that point?

The Senator is a student of the Constitution. We have all looked at it. We know what it says. I mentioned earlier about the fact that when we come in here, we take an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. That is our oath of office, to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution.

Is it the Senator's view that perhaps the way the Senate is constructed right now may in some way--I just throw this out--take away my constitutional right to adequately represent my constituents? If it takes a supermajority or if we cannot even change the rules, as the Senator has pointed out, does not this kind of take away some of the constitutional rights and obligations, obligations of a Senator, I ask the Senator?

I thank the Senator for his response on that.

Well, if my friend will yield for a response.

Yes, literally up until 4 or 5 years ago you could offer an amendment on the floor, and if you got 51 votes, you won. That happened for--well, I have been here, what, 25, 26 years I guess now, and that is the way it has always been. Sometimes there were tough amendments. Sometimes there were tough amendments by Democrats; sometimes there were tough amendments by Republicans. It did not make any difference who was in the majority or the minority.

I do not think people elected us just to have an easy time of it here and not to ever cast tough votes. Sometimes these are tough votes. But I think the Senator from New Mexico is right. We always operated under the fact that a Senator could offer an amendment. Usually you would enter a time agreement. You would say: How much time do you want? Well, you would have an hour or an hour and a half or 2 hours, something like that. You would have a reasonable time agreement, and you would have debate and then a vote. Sometimes people would move to table it, and that was fine, but at least 51 votes decided that.

Now, as the Senator pointed out, you have to have 60 votes for any amendment, a supermajority. For any single amendment you want to bring up on the Senate floor, you now have to have 60 votes. I say to my friend, it was not always like that.

That is right.

If the Senator will yield, the Senator is absolutely right. I will give another example. As the Senator knows, the Supreme Court decided a case last year that allows certain entities to contribute money to political campaigns, and they do not even have to disclose who they are or how much they give. It is a Supreme Court decision.

Well, the House passed a bill, and public opinion polls show that 80 percent of the American people were in favor of what we called the DISCLOSE Act. We did not say they could not give the money. We just said they ought to file: Who are you, and how much money are you giving, and where are you getting that money from?

It passed the House. It came to the Senate. I believe we had 57 votes for that, if I am not mistaken. I could be corrected, but I think it was over 55 votes for that. But it did not pass.

The average American out there would say: Wait a minute. I thought if you got 51 votes, you won. No, no, no. Again, we had to have 60 votes in order to pass the DISCLOSE Act. The President would have signed it into law. The House passed it. Eighty percent of the American people were for it. But because there was this 60-vote threshold, we did not get it passed.

I see the Senator from Oregon.

I stand corrected.

I thank the Senator. The Senator pointed out correctly--I was mistaken; I thought it was 57--it was 59 votes. You would think normally that bill would pass and it would go to the President for his signature. It was supported overwhelmingly by the American people, yet thwarted because we have the right--as I said earlier, the minority in the Senate has a right of veto. They can veto whatever they want to bring up. What sense does that make in a democracy?

I thank the Senator and yield the floor.

Likewise, Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee knows I have been on this issue for a long time. I have a proposal also.

Again, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 8, a resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate; that there be 4 hours for debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with no amendments in order; and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote on adoption of the resolution.

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

Mr. President, I wish to make some remarks regarding my dear friend and seatmate on the Appropriations Committee and a member of my Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

I join with the entire Senate family in saluting my good friend, the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland, on becoming the longest serving woman in the history of the Senate. This is truly a remarkable milestone.

I note that Cal Ripken, the former star of Senator Mikulski's hometown Baltimore Orioles, became known as the ``Iron Man'' for going 16 consecutive years without missing a game. Now perhaps Senator Mikulski has earned the title of ``Iron Woman'' for going 24 consecutive years in this body without ever deviating from her role as a fierce advocate for Marylanders and for working people across our country.

I hasten to add that the measure of a Senator is not how many years he or she serves in the body but what he or she accomplishes during those years. That is where Senator Mikulski has truly distinguished herself over the last quarter of a century.

I especially salute her activism and leadership on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, formerly chaired, of course, by Senator Kennedy and which I am now privileged to chair. She has been a leading champion of Pell grants and for expanding access to higher education for students of modest means. Of course, as has been stated, she has been the Senate's leading voice on women's health issues, fighting to ensure women are included in clinical trials and medical research at the National Institutes of Health, and securing access to breast and cervical cancer screenings for women without health insurance.

Senator Mikulski took the lead in writing the sections of the new health reform law that focus on improving the quality of care. At every turn in the drafting of that historic legislation, she fought to ensure that the unique health needs of women were fully recognized and accommodated.

As chair of the Subcommittee on Retirement and Aging, Senator Mikulski has been an outspoken advocate for seniors, focusing especially on combating elder abuse and neglect. I know she is especially proud of authoring the Spousal Anti-Impoverishment Act, which keeps seniors from going bankrupt while paying for a spouse's nursing home care. I might also add, no one has been a more fierce supporter and defender of the right for people to have an attorney through the legal aid system in America. She has fought very hard to make sure we strengthened the National Legal Services Corporation and to make sure it receives adequate funding so people who have no money aren't barred from the courthouse door.

We admire the work of Barbara Mikulski not as a female Senator per se but as one of 100 Senators. On this day we also recognize that she was the first woman elected to the Senate whose husband or father did not serve in high office. We salute her as the proud dean among Senate women who has gone to extraordinary lengths for so many years to mentor and guide newly elected women Senators of both parties.

I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Mikulski as our longest serving female Senator and wishing her many more years of accomplishment and service in the Senate.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Under the unanimous consent agreement, there was a period of 30 minutes for tributes to Senator Mikulski. Is there any of that time remaining?

If I am not mistaken, under the unanimous consent agreement, I was deemed to have 45 minutes.

Mr. President, I have a resolution for myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Shaheen, which I send to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I am sorry my good friend from Tennessee had to object, but I understand. We are going to engage for some time now on the Senate floor in a discussion on the filibuster, something that has been around a long time but which, in the last several years, few years--I would not say ``several''--in the last 20, 30 years, has gotten to the point where it has paralyzed the Senate and has paralyzed the country.

I intend to make some remarks for a while. I appreciate my friend from Tennessee and also my friend from Kansas who is here. I hope we can engage in a nice colloquy and a discussion about this in a back- and-forth way. I look forward to doing that. I do wish to take some time to at least lay out my case, as I did 15 years ago--I am sorry, 16 years ago. On January 4, 1995, I submitted this same resolution. I was a member of the minority party in the Senate for the first time in 8 years. When I first came to the Senate, the Republicans were in charge and then the Democrats got in charge and then the Republicans got in charge and then the Democrats got in charge and then the Republicans got in charge and then the Democrats got in charge. Since I have been here, since 1985, five times the Senate has changed hands.

I note that at the beginning of that Congress in 1995, the Republicans outnumbered Democrats 53 to 47, the same majority-minority ratio that exists today, just on the other side. Even though I was opposed to the then-majority party's agenda, I submitted the

same basic resolution to change the Senate rules regarding the filibuster.

My plan would have ensured ample debate and deliberation. The stated purpose of a filibuster is to have debate and deliberation. But it would also have allowed a bill or nominee to receive a ``yes'' or ``no'' vote. Unfortunately, my proposal did not pass. It received 19 votes. My cosponsors were Senator Lieberman, Senator Pell, and Senator Robb of Virginia.

I submitted my bill--and if you care to go back and read that debate, it is the January 4, 1995, Congressional Record in the Senate. I saw an escalating arms race, where each side ratcheted up the use of the filibuster. That is what I called it then.

Sadly, in the intervening years, my prediction has been fulfilled. The sad reality is that today, because of the indiscriminate use of the filibuster, the ability of our government to legislate and to address problems is severely jeopardized. Sixteen years after I first submitted my proposal, it is even more apparent that for our government to properly function, we must reform and curb the use of the filibuster.

The filibuster was once an extraordinary tool used in the rarest of circumstances. When many people think of the filibuster, many times it brings to mind the classic film of ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.'' It is ironic that in 1939, the year Frank Capra filmed ``Mr. Smith,'' there were zero filibusters in the Senate. From 1917 across the entire 19th century--for 100 years--there were 23 filibusters in 100 years. Indeed, through 1879, there were only four. From 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules to end the filibuster, until 1969, there were fewer than 50--less than 1 filibuster a year. Unfortunately, since then, the number has skyrocketed.

The current concerns I raise are not new. The problem has become far more serious. In 1982, my good friend and colleague, Senator Dale Bumpers of Arkansas, said this about the filibuster: ``Unless we recognize that things are out of control and procedures have to be changed, we'll never be an effective legislative body again.'' That was 1982.

During the 2 years of that Congress, there were 31 filibusters as measured by the number of cloture motions filed. In 1985, former Senator Thomas Eagleton of Missouri remarked:

The Senate is now in the state of incipient anarchy. The

filibuster, once used, by and large, as an occasional

exercise in civil rights matters, has now become a routine

frolic in almost all matters. Whereas our rules were devised

to guarantee full and free debate, they now guarantee

unbridled chaos.

That was 1985, my first year here. But during that Congress there were 40 filibusters.

Again, I wish to refer to the number of filibusters as a visual aid to see what has happened.

As we go back to 88th, 89th, 90th, and on up, we can see the number of filibusters escalating from less than 10 a year--4 or 5--up to almost 140, 139. In 1994, former Republican Senator Charles Mathias of Maryland said:

Today, filibusters are far less visible but far more

frequent. The filibuster has become an epidemic,--

An epidemic. That is former Republican Senator Charles Mathias--

used whenever a coalition can find 41 votes to oppose

legislation. The distinction between voting against

legislation and blocking a vote between opposing and

obstructing has nearly disappeared.

That was Senator Mathias of Maryland.

During that Congress, again right before I first submitted legislation to modify the filibuster, there were 80 filibusters that year. If I may quote myself, 1 year after Senator Mathias made his statement about the filibuster, this is what I said in 1995:

It is used, Mr. President, as blackmail, for one Senator to

get his or her way on something they could not rightfully win

through the normal process. I am not accusing any one party

of this. It happens on both sides of the aisle.

I said that in 1995. Quoting myself from the Record:

Mr. President, I believe each Senator needs to give up a

little of our pride, a little of our prerogatives, and a

little of our power for the good of this Senate and the good

of this country. I think the voters of this country were

turned off by the constant bickering, the arguing back and

forth that goes on in this Senate Chamber, the gridlock that

ensued here, the pointing of fingers of blame. Sometimes in

the fog of debate, like the fog of war, it is hard to

determine who is responsible for slowing something down. It

is like shifting sand. People hide behind the filibuster. I

think it is time to let the voters know that we have heard

their message in the last election.

I said this in 1995.

They did not send us here to bicker and to argue and to point fingers. They want us to get things done to address the concerns facing this country. They want us to reform this place. They want this place to operate a little better, a little more openly, and a little more decisively.

I said that when the Republicans were in charge.

With all those filibusters, it was not until the 110th and 111th Congress that the true scope of the filibuster abuse would truly be realized. In the 110th Congress, there were an astonishing 139 motions to end filibusters. In the 111th, there were 136--275 filibusters in just 4 years.

The fact is, in successive Congresses, Democrats and Republicans have made the filibuster an everyday weapon of obstruction, not as a way to ensure debate and deliberation but as a way of obstruction. I say both sides have done it. I said that in 1995. I predicted an escalating arms race. I said: If we do not do something about it, it is going to get worse--and, unfortunately, it has.

On almost a daily basis, one Senator is able to use just the threat of a filibuster to stop bills from coming to the floor for debate and amendment. In the past Congress, we started seeing the minority filibuster bills they did not even object to solely in order to slow down unrelated measures they did oppose. The result is a legislative process that is simply overwhelmed, squeezing out the ability to do important, relatively noncontroversial legislation.

It is no accident that Norm Ornstein, the esteemed congressional scholar, wrote an article, titled ``Our Broken Senate,'' in which he wrote that ``the expanded use of formal rules on Capitol Hill is unprecedented and is bringing the government to its knees.''

Just the other day, I received a petition signed by nearly 300 top historians, legal scholars, and political scientists urging Senators ``to restore majority rule to the United States Senate.'' I ask unanimous consent to have this petition printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last month, our former colleagues, Gary Hart, a Democrat, and Chuck Hagel, a Republican, published an essay in Time magazine calling on us to ``restore democracy to the U.S. Senate'' by reforming the filibuster. In their words, the abuse of the filibuster ``is no way to govern a great democracy.''

I ask unanimous consent to have that essay printed in the Record.

Mr. President, editorialists from across the country have recognized the filibuster must end. The Concord Monitor of New Hampshire called on the Senate to ``Remove the Senate filibuster roadblock,'' noting, ``The filibuster rule has rendered the Senate dysfunctional and harmed the nation's ability to deal with pressing issues.''

The Los Angeles Times said `` . . . both parties should be willing to eliminate such anti-democratic practices as the filibuster. . . .''

Editorials throughout the country have called for reform of the filibuster. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these editorials.

Mr. President, 275 filibusters in 4 years is not just a cold statistic; it represents the minority blocking measures that sometimes--not all the time but sometimes--enjoy broad support among the American people. Just in the last Congress, the filibuster was used to kill many bills that enjoyed majority and often bipartisan support. Need I mention the DREAM Act? It had broad bipartisan support and big support among the American people. There was the DISCLOSE Act, which polls showed that over 80 percent of the American people supported. We had a majority vote here for it, but we didn't have a supermajority. So it is no surprise that Americans are fed up and angry with their Federal Government. In too many critical areas, people see a legislature that is simply unable to respond effectively to the most urgent challenges of our time.

Make no mistake, the problem goes beyond the sheer number of filibusters. This once-rare tactic is now used or threatened to be used on virtually every measure and nominee, even those who may enjoy near universal support. In the past Congress, for nearly 8 months, the minority filibustered confirmation of Martha Johnson as Administrator of the General Services Administration--certainly a relatively noncontroversial position. She was ultimately confirmed 96 to 0. So what was that filibuster all about? And for nearly 5 months, the minority filibustered confirmation of Barbara Keenan to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. She was ultimately confirmed 99 to 0.

What was that filibuster all about?

Again, to quote Norm Ornstein:

The Senate has taken the term ``deliberative'' to a new

level, slowing not just contentious legislation but also

bills that have overwhelming support.

Secondly, the filibuster has increasingly been used to prevent consideration of bills and nominees. Rather than to serve to ensure the representation of minority views and to foster debate and deliberation, by filibustering motions to proceed, the minority has been allowed to prevent debate and prevent deliberation. The filibuster has been used to defeat bills and nominees without their ever receiving a discussion here on the floor of the Senate. In other words, the Senate, which was formerly renowned as the world's greatest deliberative body, has now become the world's greatest nondeliberative body. We can't even debate important national issues.

That is why I fully support the commonsense proposals to reform the filibuster and restore the Senate to a body in which issues can be fully debated and deliberated. I support eliminating the filibuster on the motion to proceed, and I believe those who are filibustering a bill or a nominee should be required to come to the floor, hold the floor, and make their case to their colleagues and the American people. Senators should not be able to hide behind a curtain of secret holds. The reality is, however, because of the filibuster, the minority has unchecked veto power in this body.

Now, I want to make it clear, when I say ``the minority,'' I am not talking about the Republicans; I am talking about the minority. It may be the Democrats or it may be the Republicans. As I said, five times it has changed since I have been--since 1985. When I say ``the minority,'' I mean the minority; I don't mean a political party.

This is what James Madison noted when rejecting a supermajority requirement to pass legislation:

. . . it would no longer be the majority that would rule,

the power would be transferred to the minority.

Unfortunately, Madison's prediction has come true. We are the only Democratic body that I know of in the world where the minority, not the majority, controls. In today's Senate, American democracy is turned on its head. The minority rules; the majority is blocked. The majority has responsibility and accountability but lacks the power to govern. The minority has power but lacks accountability and responsibility. This means the minority can block bills that would improve the economy, create jobs, and turn around and blame the majority for not fixing the economy. The minority can block popular legislation and then accuse the majority of being ineffective.

I repeat, when I say ``the minority,'' I am not saying Republicans or Democrats; I am saying the minority, whoever it may happen to be. Both parties have abused the filibuster in the past, and both will, absent real reform, abuse the filibuster in the future. Although Republicans are currently in the minority, there is no question that control of this body will change, as it periodically does.

The fact is, reform is urgently needed. That is why I am reintroducing my proposal which would permit a decreasing majority of Senators over a period of days to invoke cloture on a given matter. Under my proposal, a determined minority could slow down any bill. Senators would have ample time to make their arguments and attempt to persuade the public and a majority of their colleagues. This protects the rights of the minority to full and vigorous debate and deliberation, maintaining the hallmark of the Senate. But at the end of ample debate, the majority should be allowed to act. There should be an up-or-down vote on legislation or a nominee. As former Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, a Republican, stated many years ago, ``To vote without debating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.''

My plan has another advantage. The fact is that right now, the minority has no incentive to compromise. Not only do they know they have the power to block legislation, but they can go out and campaign on the message that the majority can't get anything done. In contrast, if the minority knows that at the end of a period of time a bill or nominee will be subject to majority vote, they will be more willing to come to the table and negotiate seriously. Likewise, the majority would want to compromise because they want to save time. There is nothing more valuable to the majority party in the Senate than time.

So under my proposal, on the first cloture vote, you would need 60 votes.

If you don't get 60 votes, you would have another vote in 3 days and you would need 57 votes; in 3 more days, 54 votes; 3 more days, 51 votes. So the majority would finally act, but you would chew up almost 2 weeks of time. So on the first vote, let's say 53 Senators voted for cloture. Well, the minority would know that in several days or maybe in a couple weeks' time, 53 Senators will get cloture. The minority then would go to the majority and say: Look, we can drag this out for a couple of weeks, chew up all your time, but we have some things we would like to have considered. The majority--and I say there is nothing more important to the majority than time here--not wanting to spend a couple weeks on a bill, on a cloture or a filibuster, would say: OK, maybe we can make an agreement. We will collapse the timeframe, the minority gets some of the things they want, and the majority is able then to have a vote. So I see my proposal as a means of encouraging compromise. Right now, there is no reason to compromise for the minority.

Again, I am not talking about Republicans or Democrats; I say ``the minority'' because they know they can absolutely block it.

I have changed my resolution since I introduced it in 1995, and I have changed it because Republicans have said and I heard the minority leader say earlier that they have done this because Democrats in the majority--the majority this time--have employed procedural matters to deprive the Republicans of the right to offer amendments. Well, I am very sympathetic to this argument. That is why I included in this resolution a guaranteed right to offer germane amendments to the minority, filed in advance of the cloture vote so everyone would know what was coming. Again, the minority should have the right to offer some amendments that are germane to the bill. No matter who the majority is, both parties are concerned about amendments from the minority. Perhaps you have a bill dealing with housing and someone wants to offer an amendment dealing with abortion. Well, there may be a time and place for that but not on that bill. So that is why I say it should be germane to the bill. If the minority has ideas to improve the bill, strike something from the bill, that would be germane to that bill.

I have heard it said--and I heard it on the radio this morning driving in--that this is something like a power grab by a Democratic Senator reacting to recent elections in which my party lost numerous seats. Well, I want to make clear that the reforms I advocate are not about one party or one agenda gaining an unfair advantage; it is about the Senate as an institution operating more fairly, effectively, and democratically. Again, I wish to point out that I first offered this in 1995 when I was in the minority. So to use the legal term, I come here with clean hands. The truth is, with Republicans controlling the House, any final legislation will need to be bipartisan with or without the filibuster.

So I don't see reform of the filibuster as a Democratic or Republican issue. Indeed, it was former Republican majority leader Senator Frist who, when he nearly shut this body down over the use of filibusters on a handful of judges, said:

This filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny

by the minority.

That was in 2004, Senator Frist, the Republican majority leader at that time.

Well, as I said, one of the problems here was this was done in the middle of a term. See, I think the Senate ought to be able to set its rules at the beginning, on the first legislative day, which we are in now and which will extend for some time. The Senate ought to be able to set its rules at the beginning of a Congress. You can't go changing the rules every month, but you should be able to set the rules at the beginning of a Congress so that you know for 2 years what the rules are that you are operating under.

So it is time for the arms race to end. That is what this is--it is an arms race. I daresay that if we don't do anything about this, if the Republicans take control of the Senate, as they think they will in 2 years, well, Democrats are going to do the same thing to them. Guarantee it. Guarantee it. The Republicans did--what did I say?--136 filibusters--139? Bet your bottom dollar, if we don't change the rules, Democrats will match them. You wait and see.

Well, a lot of people sometimes say: Well, Harkin, what you are advocating is the Senate would become like the House. I ask my friends and any Senator on either side of the aisle, since when did the Senate become defined by rule XXII, which is the filibuster? Why does that define the Senate? I thought the Senate was defined by the fact that you get two Senators from every State--two Senators from North Dakota, two Senators from California, two Senators from New York, two Senators from Iowa. I thought the Senate was defined by the fact that we have unlimited debate. When a Senator gets the floor, you can't take it away from him. We operate under unanimous consent. The power of one single Senator would remain. But in the Senate, what do we do? We do treaties, we do nominations, we sit in judgment on impeachments. The Senate is not like the House. And just because we don't have the filibuster as we have known it for the last 94 years does not mean the Senate becomes like the House. Eliminating the filibuster will not change the basic nature of the Senate. So I say to those who say the Senate would be like the House if we did away with this filibuster, would they also suggest that the Senate of Henry Clay or Daniel Webster or Lyndon Johnson or Everett Dirksen was the same as the House of Representatives? I don't think so.

The fact is, what was never intended was that a supermajority of 60 votes would be needed to enact virtually any piece of legislation or for any nominee. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution were very clear about where a supermajority is required. There were only five in the original Constitution: ratification of a treaty, override of a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of a constitutional amendment, and expulsion of a Member. If they wanted to have supermajorities, they would have said so. But it is not in the Constitution. The filibuster is not in the Constitution.

The first Senate expressly included a rule permitting the majority to end debate and bring a measure to a vote by moving the previous question. I repeat: The first Senate--the first Senate--had a rule that permitted the majority to end debate. Alexander Hamilton explained that a supermajority requirement would mean a small minority could ``destroy the energy of government.''

Hamilton said that the government would be subject to the ``caprice or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta.'' Those are Hamilton's words.

Moreover, reform of filibuster rules stands squarely within the tradition of updating Senate rules as needed to foster an effective government that can respond to the challenges of the day. The Senate has adopted rules that forbid the filibuster in certain cases, such as the War Powers Act and the budget. Imagine that. What should be more debatable than the budget? But our rules do not permit a filibuster of the budget. So we passed rules here limiting the filibuster.

Since 1917, we have passed four significant reforms concerning the filibuster. The fact is, as Senator Tom Udall has powerfully made clear, article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution specifies that ``each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.''

As Senator Robert Byrd, who was opposed to filibuster reform--he and I had a great debate back in 1995 on this--as he emphasized, and he said this--Senator Byrd: ``At any time that 51 Senators are determined to change the rule . . . that rule can be changed.''

I am reading here from what Senator Byrd said. He said at that time:

The Constitution in article I, section 5 says that each

House shall determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we

are at the beginning of Congress. This Congress is not

obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past.

``The dead hand.''

I listened to the minority leader when he said we have--the majority has never changed rules except by following those rules. The rules set down by a Congress a long time ago, by a Senate a long time ago, said that in order to change the rules, you need a two-thirds vote of the Senate. I submit that is unconstitutional. I submit that this Congress, this Senate, on this first legislative day, does not have to abide

by that. What if, in some Senate, one party got 90 Senators one time, and they adopted a rule that said that from here on out, you have to have 90 votes in order to change the rules, here are the rules, and they set up rules that pretty much made it impossible for the minority to ever become the majority? Would that be constitutional? I don't think so.

Senator Byrd said we are not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past. The first Senate, Senator Byrd said, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time. So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think or believe or pretend that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate.

Here is the essence of what Senator Byrd said:

It is my belief--which has been supported by rulings of

Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of the Senate--

in essence upholding the power and right of a majority of the

Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of

a new Congress.

I would say Senator Byrd has not been alone in his views or tactics. The constitutional option has been endorsed by three Vice Presidents and three times by the Senate itself. Why was it not used? Because Senators then reached a compromise, and therefore we never had the constitutional option. But that does not mean we cannot use that. The Constitution is very clear. I think three votes of the Senate and three former Vice Presidents have made clear in their rulings that at the beginning of a Congress, we can set the rules.

Chief Justice John Marshall once said:

Any enduring Constitution must be able to respond to the

various crises of human affairs.

I said many times that I don't believe we can be a 21st-century superpower bound by archaic rules of the 19th century. We have to have a responsive government, responding to the challenges of our time.

I am not afraid. I say to my friends on the Republican side, I am not afraid. What the minority leader said--he said that at some time the Republicans might be in charge, and they might want to undo what the Democrats did, and the Democrats better be careful. That was in his op- ed piece in the Post this morning. I am not afraid of democracy. I am not afraid of the votes of the people. If the people vote to put certain conservatives in power, then they ought to have the right to govern. They ought to have the right to respond to the people of this country. The minority--I would be in the minority at that time--I think the minority ought to have the right to be heard, we ought to have the right to debate, we ought to have the right to amend, but we should not have the right to totally obstruct. I am not afraid.

People say that the tea party in the House--they are going to do all this stuff. I am sorry, I am not afraid. The people voted. There ought to be things that happen because people vote a certain way. No wonder so many people are frustrated. They vote, they think things are going to happen, they don't happen, and they say: A pox on both your Houses.

So, yes, I don't know why we should be so afraid of each other. Why should I be afraid that the Republicans are going to institute legislation I don't like? They have in the past, and our country has endured. I would say there are times when the Democrats have passed legislation Republicans did not like and our country has endured. So I just do not like this fear, that we have to be afraid that somehow the majority is going to do things.

What we want to make sure of is that the rights of the minority are guaranteed--the right to be heard, the right of the minority to offer amendments. But I don't think it ought to be the right of the minority to obstruct, and I don't think it ought to be the right of the minority to demand that their views be implemented. That is the right of the majority.

I close where I began, and I thank my friends for this indulgence. I believe the bedrock of the principle of our Constitution, our Founders, was majority rule with respect for minority rights. But I say this, and I have said it many times. It is kind of the dirty little secret of the Senate. And here is the dirty little secret: The power of an individual Senator comes not by what he can do but by what he can stop. That is the dirty little secret of the Senate. One Senator can stop something, can block it. I say that each Senator--each of us needs to give up a little of our privilege, give up a little of our power, give up a little of our prerogatives for the greater good of this country.

I yield the floor.

I will respond to my friend from Tennessee who makes cogent arguments, as he always does. He is a good friend of mine, and we have worked together on a lot of things. I hope this is the beginning of some colloquies we can have here. I do want to indulge and let other Senators have their say because they were so kind to let me have my say too. But I intend to be here as long as anybody wants to say anything or to engage in some colloquies here on the Senate floor.

I say to my friend from Tennessee, that as I listened to him, and I did very carefully, there are a couple of things I want to point out in terms of this idea of a filibuster and being able to amend things. My friend referred many times to the health care bill. I do not know if my friend said this, but I have heard it said that we wrote it behind closed doors and all of that kind of stuff.

Let me point out that when it came to our committee, the HELP Committee, we had 13 days of markup, 54 hours. We allowed any amendment to be offered. The Senator is a member of that committee. We allowed any Senator on our committee to offer any amendment. We adopted 161 Republican amendments, either through some votes, which they won, or through just adopting the amendments. Then after that, after all of that, all Republicans voted no. That is fine. There are a lot of times I know in the past when I have had an amendment on a bill which I thought improved it, but overall I did not like the bill, and I voted against it. I think that is the right of the minority. But then to obstruct it and to try to obstruct it to keep it from even being enacted I do not think is right. So I would say to my friend that I do not think the health care bill is a good example.

I say to my friend, he quoted someone, I think maybe it may have been Senator Reid, saying, do people think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers. Please show me where our Founding Fathers ever set up a system where the Senate could have unlimited debate? They never did that. It is not in the Constitution.

As I pointed out, the first Senate actually had the motion, the previous question, to cut off debate. And they did not set up a majoritarian House. Article I section 5, I say to my friend from Tennessee, article I, section 5 is very clear. Each House sets up its rules. If the new majority in the House wanted to, they could set up rules to be like the Senate. They could do that. They could set up rules however they wanted, as long as they were constitutional. I suppose someone could take it to court to see if it was constitutional. But they do not have to operate under those rules. We do not have to operate under these rules. The Constitution gives us the right to change those rules.

Our Founding Fathers never set up this system, by the way, never. There is no mention of it anywhere in the Constitution. They did not set up a majoritarian House, they set up article I, section 5, which said each House can set up its own rules. But then in the Constitution, they outlined certain prerogatives. The Senate has certain prerogatives, the House has certain prerogatives, such as, for example, all bills of revenue have to originate in the House, not in the Senate. Treaties are done by the Senate, not by the House. But they never set up any kind of majoritarian type of thing.

I say to my friend, on the filibuster, I think there is a reason for a filibuster. I think there ought to be filibusters. I think there ought to be times when the minority can slow down things in order to get their views heard, or in order for them to be able to offer amendments, to make the bill better, in their views. That is the right of the minority.

I do not think it is the right of any minority--I say minority. When I say that, I am not talking about Republicans. I am saying any minority here. I do not think it is the right of any minority here to say, if I do not get my way, I am going stop everything. That is kind of what I see happening around here. If I do not get my way, one Senator can stop things.

I point out one other bill, I say to my friend from Tennessee, that I thought was a great bipartisan bill. We worked hard on it in our committee. The Senator from Tennessee was instrumental. That was the food safety bill. We reported it out of our committee a year ago in November, unanimous vote. Everyone voted for it, Republicans and Democrats on our committee. We got it out. But there were some things in the bill that Senators not on our committee, and maybe one Senator on our committee, did not like. So we had to work through the ensuing months to get everybody onboard and to work it out, which is fine. I have no problems with that. That is the legislative process. I have patience. As my friend from Kansas knows, I have a lot of patience working on farm bills. They take time.

But we worked it all out. And yet one Senator, one Senator who really disagreed with it, was able to hold it up from coming on the floor. We finally got it on the floor, but it took almost a year. One Senator was able to do that.

So I say, one Senator should be able to have the right to offer amendments, to be heard, but not to stop everything. I guess that is what I come down to, I say to my friend from Tennessee, that there ought to be a--I think there is a reason and a good reason for the Senate to be that saucer that cools things down, the story about Jefferson and Washington. But it should be at some point in time where the majority has not only the authority but the power to act after a due consideration and a due period of time.

I believe, I say to my friend in all sincerity, that will promote more compromise than the present system. You may disagree, but I feel that would. I am not trying to take away compromise. I believe in compromise. I believe in working things out. As chairman of the Agriculture Committee for two farm bills, we worked things out. I am sure there were things in the farm bill that the Senator from Kansas did not like, and there were things in there that I did not like, even though I was chairman. But you work these things out. You compromise and you get things done. So I believe in that spirit of compromise. But I think what we have here now--and that escalating arms race--is doing away with that spirit of compromise and working things out and moving things. That is why I think we have to change the rules.

I do not know if I adequately responded to my friend from Tennessee, but these were my thoughts at the end. I am looking forward to other comments from other Senators and engaging in our colloquies. I promise I will not take so long.

Madam President, I thank my friend from Kansas. I think he makes some good points.

I would say to my friend, I think we ought to go through processes in our committees to have hearings on nominees to flush out things such as that. So to that extent, the Senator from Kansas is right. We should not have, especially if there is any controversy at all--I suppose some of them are noncontroversial--but if there is some controversy out there, yes, I think the committees ought to have the responsibility to bring them forward. Let the committees question them. We did that in our HELP Committee, I say to my friend from Kansas. I am trying to remember the person we had--oh, a lot of controversy about Craig Becker, I think, who was going to the NLRB.

If it was out of our committee, obviously it was a better bill than coming out of the Finance Committee. But I say to my friend, again, that----

I thought there were some things we should talk about. I say to my friend, in listening to my friend from Kansas say this, it occurred to me that certain of his amendments were allowed. The Senator was allowed to debate them and offer them, but they were not adopted. It seems to me, as I have said before, the right of the minority ought to be to offer amendments, to have them considered, to have them voted on, but it does not mean it is the right of the minority to win every time on those amendments.

I say to my friend, on that financial services bill, I had an amendment too and I could not get it in. I was on the majority side, and they would not let me offer one either. So both sides have some legitimate points.

I also say to my friend from Kansas, and others, we can get into this tit for tat, who started it. I think we have to kind of quit that. I could come back and say: Well, yes, in the last 2 years, the tree was filled 44 times. In this last session, 44 times the tree was filled, but there were 136 filibusters. Why wouldn't there be 44 filibusters? Why were there 136? We can get into that tit for tat, who did what to whom. I wish to forget about all that. We could go back, probably, to the 18th century--tit for tat, who did what to whom at some point in time.

I ask my friend from Kansas, who has been here a long time--we served together in the House; my friend was chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the House. We have done a lot of legislation together-- does my friend from Kansas feel the Senate is operating today in the best possible way? Does my friend from Kansas believe there could be some things done to make the Senate operate a little bit more openly and fairly with rights for the minority to be protected but without letting the minority--and I do not mean Republicans when I say ``minority,'' I mean whoever happens to be in the minority--to keep the minority from obstructing things? Does my friend feel there could be some changes made?

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

I thank my friend from Texas. Again, he and I have worked together on some legislation in the past too. He is a thoughtful Senator and a good legislator.

I ask my friend from Texas this: In listening to him, I almost have the feeling that my friend from Texas is saying we ought to have a supermajority to pass anything, that we should have 60 votes in order to pass anything.

I ask my friend, is that what my friend really means or implies, that everything should have 60 votes before it can go through here? Is that what my friend is suggesting?

Madam President, if my friend will yield further, again, in my resolution there is a guarantee that the minority has the right to offer amendments--absolute guarantee. As I said, that is something I have urged since 1995. I am very sympathetic to the argument that people are cut out from offering amendments. I know because that has happened to me by the majority at times. So I believe there ought to be rights for the minority. I always hasten to add when I say ``minority'' I am not saying Republicans, I am saying the minority. It may be us pretty soon. It goes back and forth, as my friends knows. There ought to be the right for the minority to offer amendments and to have their voice heard and to, as the Senator says, represent the people of our States adequately.

But I ask my friend again, what happens when we have one or two or three or four Senators who don't want to see a bill passed in any form--some bill, just take any bill--that maybe has been worked on by both Republicans and Democrats, has broad bipartisan support maybe to the tune of even 70 or so Senators, but there is one or two or three Senators who don't want it to pass anyway, and they are able to gridlock the place under rule XXII. I know the Senator talked about exercising self-restraint, and I say that is fine. But what if we had that situation where we have two or three Senators saying: I don't care how many Senators are on it I don't want it to move. And

they invoke their rights under rule XXII. How do we get over that hurdle?

Madam President, if the Senator would indulge me for one more moment, so it is not the position of my friend from Texas that everything needs 60 votes in which to move in the Senate; is that correct?

Madam President, I wonder if the Senator would mind a slight modification to that. One of the things I thought we were kind of getting into today were colloquies wherein we could ask a question and have a response in a reasonable manner. I would ask to modify the unanimous consent request to say that any colloquies entered into-- questions propounded to a Senator through the Chair--not be detracted from the time allotted to that Senator.

Mr. President, I hope the Senator from New Mexico will stay on the floor. I wish to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from New Mexico on the topic on which he just spoke.

I say to my friend from New Mexico, the Senator from Tennessee, as I understand, had propounded the question, what is a filibuster? The Senator from New Mexico has been very eloquent in responding to that, talking about the filibuster. But I think the better question is, what has a filibuster become, because as the Senator pointed out and as Senator Merkley pointed out, this whole image of someone standing on the floor and speaking until they drop such as Senator D'Amato or Senator Thurman back in the old days on the civil rights bills or even Senator Sanders a few weeks ago, that is not really a filibuster any longer. So what has a filibuster become?

Let me go back again a little bit in history. In the 19th century, in the 1800s, the filibuster was used, if I am not mistaken, about 20 times during that whole 100 years. But it was used under a different set of circumstances. In the 1800s, a Senator or a Congressman was elected in November, but the session of Congress lasted until March. The Senators or Congressmen elected in November actually did not take their seats here until a year and a month later, in December of the following year. So sometimes, in this ``lameduck'' session that ended in March, people in the majority party--especially if they had lost the election--would try to ram through a lot of stuff. The minority party would speak until the session ended in March so that nothing would get done, and then they would pick it up in December when the new Senate and House would meet. So it was a means of stopping onerous legislation for a short period of time.

That was in the 19th century. We have a different situation now. So the filibuster is not used to speak now and to slow up one piece of legislation or to stop one piece of legislation; it is used to slow down everything. One case in point: We had before my committee last year a nominee by the name of Patricia Smith to be Solicitor General of the Department of Labor. We had our hearings, I say to my friend from Kansas who is not here right now. We had our hearings in committee. She answered questions, answered written questions. We reported her out of committee. We came here to the floor. We had to file cloture on Patricia Smith to be Solicitor of Labor, so we filed cloture. We got the 60 votes. But as we know, under postcloture you get 30 hours. Well, the minority forced us to use the 30 hours. Senator Enzi, our ranking member, came and spoke for 15 minutes and left, and I sat here for 30 hours and no one spoke. So for 29 hours and 45 minutes we sat here doing nothing, unable to do anything, on a nominee who had over 60 votes. At that time, the record will show, I kept asking: Why are we here?

Why are we using 30 hours of the Senate's time, when nobody is even speaking and we already have the 60 votes for Patricia Smith? That is an example of what the filibuster has become. It has become a tool in order to slow everything down.

For example, nominees. We had nominees who got through here on a 99- to-0 vote after being held up for 6 months. Well, what if, I ask, we have to file cloture on every nominee and then every nominee has a vote on cloture and then you have 30 more hours. If you did that on every nominee, I believe the majority leader said we would be here from January through August doing nothing every day of the week except nominations. How would we ever get anything else done?

The question is, What has the filibuster become? It has become a means whereby a few--this, I guess, would be the question I might propound to my friend from New Mexico or at least suggest that he might respond. Has not the filibuster or the threat of a filibuster become a tool by which one or two or three or four Senators can absolutely slow down or stop things from coming to the Senate? Has not the filibuster become a tool by which one Senator who publicly announces that his goal is total gridlock of the Senate--total gridlock--has not the filibuster then become the tool by which one Senator can impose gridlock on the Senate? Is that not what the filibuster has become?

I thank my friend from New Mexico. I also thank him for his great leadership on the constitutional option. I am a cosponsor of his resolution, which he sent to the desk earlier today. He is right on target. The dead hand of the past cannot bind us. Every Congress, on the first legislative day--as Senator Byrd said himself in the past-- has the authority, with 51 Senators, to set our rules--not two-thirds, just 51. We are on that first legislative day today.

I understand the leader will put us into recess so we will stay in the first legislative day when we come back. So we will be on this issue when we come back on January 25.

I wonder if I might explore a little bit with my friends who are here--and the Senator from Oregon has been a great leader in this effort. As a former speaker of the legislature in Oregon, he has lent a great deal of expertise to our thinking and in evolving how we modify our rules to make this place function a little better. I thank Senator Merkley for his leadership. A lot of what was in the measure that Senator Udall sent to the desk earlier today is what Senator Merkley has devised. These are things we need to do.

I ask again to bring this up here for maybe a brief discussion, if I might. This is something Senator Cornyn and I got into a little bit earlier. He went on at length about building consensus; that we want to build consensus and have bills over here with a consensus. Well, I agree with that. You try to get as much consensus as possible. Obviously, if you can get 100 Senators, that is nice--or 80 or 70. It is always nice to get as many as possible. I ask my friends, isn't it sometimes true that legislation comes up that can be contentious, and you can open it--I think it ought to be opened in the committee process for amendments. I pointed to the health care bill that we had in our HELP Committee, and the occupant of the chair was so vitally involved with that. We had 54 hours and 13 days of open markup and open session. No Senator was denied the opportunity to offer any amendment on that bill--Republicans or Democrats. Senator Dodd was chairing at the time. We adopted 161 Republican amendments. Imagine that, over 13 days, 161 Republican amendments. As I said, nobody was cut off.

Yet at end of that, when we finally brought it up for a vote, not one Republican voted for it, even though they had a big hand in shaping it. So whenever I hear comments that ``we didn't have a hand in shaping the health care bill,'' I don't understand that. I know in the Finance Committee Senator Baucus bent over backward to make sure Senators on both sides could offer amendments and be a part of the process. I say, if they don't want to vote for it in the end, fine; that is their right and privilege. People can vote their conscience and on behalf of their constituents. But we weren't able to get a consensus on it.

So if you have a bill on which you can't get a consensus, does that mean we should stop? As I asked the Senator from Texas, does that mean every bill has to have 60 votes? Is that what we have become--no bill will pass here unless it has 60 votes or more? The Senator from Texas pointed out, correctly, that some bills pass here by unanimous consent. Fine. That is 100 votes. So do they mean we have to have a minimum of 60 to 100 votes in order for anything to pass? What happened to majority rules? What happened to the idea that you only need 51 percent? Isn't that sort of the basis of a democratic government?

Again, I ask my friends about this idea of consensus. Yes, we all want to get that. We all want as many Senators as possible on legislation, and we try hard to do that. But if that is not possible, does that mean that 53 or 54 or 55 or 56 Senators cannot then vote to pass a piece of legislation or an amendment?

I ask my friends, what about this idea of consensus? Have we come to where we have to have a supermajority? Is that the situation we are in now?

Mr. President, hopefully, I say to my friend from New Mexico, when we come back on the 25th we will engage in more of this discussion.

I should yield the floor. I wanted to raise that question about consensus because it sounds so good, and we all love consensus. Of course we do. But sometimes we cannot get it. Does that mean then that the majority cannot act if they do not get consensus of over 60? Does that mean the majority simply cannot act?

Mr. President, I leave the question hanging and yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon for his leadership. I want to rephrase my question that I left hanging when I yielded the floor the last time. I see our great friend from New York is here to speak. I will not take more than a minute or two. I want to rephrase the question.

I asked the question: What has the filibuster become? And I further asked a question about consensus. If you do not get a consensus--that is, over 60 people--to agree on something, should then the majority not have the right to act? I want to rephrase that question and put it this way: If consensus--meaning over 60 Senators--if over 60 Senators cannot agree on something, then should the minority have the absolute total veto power over what the majority is proposing? That is the essence of it. If you cannot get a consensus, should the minority have the total, absolute power to determine the outcome?

That is what has happened in the Senate. That is what has become of this filibuster. The end result has become the fact that 41 Senators-- if you do not have 60 Senators or more--41 Senators decide what we do, what we vote on, what comes before this body. How does that square with the principle of democratic government and majority rule?

I leave that out there: Should we have and continue to have, if we cannot reach a consensus, should we continue to have veto power by the minority?

I also see the Senator from Colorado here to speak.

I also want to publicly thank the Senator from New York who I see is about ready to speak, the chairman of our Rules Committee. Senator Schumer has spent so many hours and so many days this past year on this issue of reforming the Senate rules. He was kind enough to let me testify before his committee and kind enough to actually let me sit with his committee to listen to others.

Senator Schumer has been in harness on this issue trying to get us to the point where we can have meaningful changes in the rules so that this place can function a little bit better and a little bit more democratically--with a small ``d,'' not democratically in terms of political affiliation.

I know in the next few weeks Senator Schumer is going to be very much involved as one on our leadership team, along with Senator Reid and others, seeing what we can do to work things out so we can have a meaningful change in the rules.

Again, I am all for getting rid of secret holds, but that seems to be kind of a no-brainer. That would probably get close to 100 votes. But if that is all we are going to do, that is not a very meaningful change in the rules.

I submit that what Senator Udall, Senator Merkley, and others have introduced, or I submitted myself going on for 15 years now, that is meaningful change in the rules. I know Senator Schumer is going to be very much involved in that discussion. I applaud him for his efforts and leadership. We will be back on January 25 to take up this cause again. I know I speak for my friend from Oregon that he is going to be here on the 25th, and my friend from New Mexico and everyone else. We are going to be here because we cannot let this go. We cannot permit the Senate to be so dysfunctional that we cannot respond to the urgent needs of America and our place in the world today. We cannot continue to go downhill as a country and cannot continue to let the Senate be a dumping ground and nothing ever gets done.

These rules need to be changed. We will be back on the 25th to do so. I thank my friend from Colorado for his indulgence.