Floor Statements

Mr. President, on Sunday, January 20, my State lost a great leader and a great friend. It is my privilege to pay tribute today to Fabian Chavez, Jr. He was blessed with a long life, 88 years old when he passed away. More important though was the impact of his years, the impact of his remarkable life. Fabian Chavez, Jr., made a difference in the lives of so many people in New Mexico.

Fabian was a formidable, and very colorful, figure in the history of New Mexico politics. His story was one of triumph and of defeat, and of an unwavering determination to serve. He will be long remembered as an advocate for justice, for the disadvantaged, and for ethical government. He was also instrumental in passing legislation to establish the University of New Mexico School of Medicine, which has done so much for improving health care in our State.

Fabian Chavez, Jr., was born on August 31, 1924. His father was a carpenter, and moved the family from Wagon Mound to Santa Fe, where Fabian was born and would live most of his 88 years. Early on, the New Mexico Capitol would dominate his life. And he would dominate it in return.

His father worked as the building superintendent at the old capitol building. As a young boy, trying to earn pocket money during the Great Depression, Fabian could be found there shining shoes. He later told his biographer that while other kids were playing marbles, he was watching legislators at work, following their every move. He observed, ``I had it all memorized years before I was even elected to my first term in the house.''

Fabian was an independent spirit. Even as a youngster, he charted his own course, sometimes perhaps to his parents' dismay. The story is told of his hitchhiking to California at age 12. He joined the Army at age 16, determined to see battle during World War II. He fought at Normandy and the Battle of the Bulge.

At the age of 25, Fabian met Coral Jeanne, the love of his life. Fabian and Coral Jeanne were married in 1954. Of his beloved wife, Fabian once said, ``I started dancing with Coral Jeanne in 1949, and we've been dancing ever since.'' She would be his unfailing support through the victories and defeats to come, until she died in his arms over a half century later.

Most of us, in public life or out, are shaped by our wins and our losses. This was certainly true in Fabian's long career. He first ran for elective office in 1948, at the age of 24, for a seat in the New Mexico House. He came in second in the primary. He was undeterred, as he would show time and again. He was elected 2 years later. He ran unsuccessfully for the New Mexico Senate in 1952, but was elected in 1956. And within a few years, at age 37, he became the youngest Senate majority leader in the history of our State. In 1968, Fabian was the Democratic candidate for Governor, and lost by less than 3,000 votes. He later served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President Jimmy Carter.

The title of David Roybal's biography of Fabian Chavez, Jr., ``Taking on Giants,'' is telling. Fabian was a reformer, and a tenacious one. He fought to change the old justice of the peace system in New Mexico, fought to establish a Judicial Standards Commission, fought powerful insurance and liquor industries, fought early on, and courageously, for civil rights. Whatever the opposition, he stayed the course. Elections would come and go. Some he would win. Some he would lose. But he stayed true to his commitment to the people of New Mexico.

My dad once said that there are two stories of our lives. One is the person you wanted to be. The other is the person you are. While none of us gets that exactly right, I would suspect that Fabian came pretty close. He held true to his principles. He fought for what he believed was right. He leaves behind a legacy of accomplishment and integrity, a legacy that his family, and our State, can take great pride in.

Jill and I extend our sincere condolences to Christine and to all the Chavez family. Fabian Chavez, Jr., was a true son of New Mexico, and he did all of us proud.

Mr. President, I ask the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, is he in the queue to speak?

Excuse me?

Yes. The Senator is in the queue because Senator Begich just spoke. That would be great. I thank the Senator very much. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act. It is important that we are doing this early in the 113th Congress and unfortunate that we have to have this debate again. The Senate passed a nearly identical bill last April--a bill with strong bipartisan support--but the House failed to bring it up for a vote, allowing the law to expire at the end of last year.

Many House Republicans opposed the Senate bill because it expanded VAWA protections to three groups: gays and lesbians, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants. I support all three of these expansions.

Today I want to again stress how crucial this measure is to Native American women. For the past 19 years, the Violence Against Women Act helped protect Native women from domestic violence, from sexual assault, and from stalking. This historic legislation has strengthened the prosecution of these crimes, and it has provided critical support to the victims.

VAWA has long been bipartisan, with broad support. Democrats, Republicans, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges, health professionals, all have supported this legislation. Why? Because it has worked. Since VAWA's passage in 1994, domestic violence has decreased by over 50 percent, and the victims of these crimes have been more willing to come forward, knowing they are not alone, knowing they will get the support they need, knowing that crimes against women will not be tolerated.

Unfortunately, not all women have received the full benefits of the Violence Against Women Act. That is why the tribal provisions now are so important. Native American Women are 2\1/2\ times more likely than other U.S. women to be victims of rape. One in three will be sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. And it is estimated that three out of every five Native women will experience domestic violence.

Those numbers are tragic. Those numbers tell a story of great human suffering, of women in desperate situations, desperate for support, and too often we have failed to provide that support. The frequency of violence against Native women is only part of the tragedy. Too often these crimes go unprosecuted and unpunished. Not only is violence inflicted but justice is denied.

Here is the problem: Tribal governments are unable to prosecute non- Indians for domestic violence crimes. They have no authority over these crimes against Native American spouses or partners within their own tribal lands.

Instead, under existing law, these crimes fall exclusively under Federal jurisdiction. But Federal prosecutors have limited resources. They may be located hours away from tribal communities. Non-Indian perpetrators often go unpunished. Yet over 50 percent of Native women are married to non-Indians, and 76 percent of the overall population living on tribal lands is non-Indian.

The result is an escalating cycle of violence. On some tribal lands, the homicide rate for Native women is up to 10 times the national average--10 times the national average. But this starts with small crimes, small acts of violence that may not rise to the attention of a Federal prosecutor.

In 2006 and 2007, U.S. attorneys prosecuted only 45 misdemeanor crimes on tribal lands. For perspective, the Salt River Reservation in Arizona--which is relatively small--reported more than 450 domestic violence cases in 2006 alone. Those numbers are appalling.

Native women should not be abandoned to a jurisdictional loophole. In effect, these women are living in a prosecution-free zone. The tribal provisions in VAWA will provide a remedy.

The bill allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Indians in a narrow set of cases that meet the following specific conditions: The crime must have occurred in Indian country; the crime must be either a domestic violence or dating violence offense or a violation of a protective order; and the non-Indian defendant must reside in Indian country, be employed in Indian country, or be the spouse or intimate partner of a member of the prosecuting tribe.

This bill does not extend tribal jurisdiction to general crimes of violence by non-Indians. It does not apply to crimes between two non- Indians, crimes between persons with no ties to the tribe. If they do not have any ties to the tribe, it does not apply. Nothing in this provision diminishes or alters the jurisdiction of any Federal or State court.

I know some of my colleagues question whether a tribal court can provide the same protections to defendants that are guaranteed in a Federal or State court. The bill addresses this concern. It provides comprehensive protections to all criminal defendants who are prosecuted in tribal courts, whether or not the defendant is a Native American. Defendants would essentially have the same rights in tribal court as they do in State court. These include, among many others, the right to counsel, the right to a speedy trial, the right to due process, the rights against unreasonable search and seizure, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. A tribe that does not provide these protections cannot prosecute non-Indians under this provision.

Some have also questioned whether Congress has the authority to expand tribal criminal jurisdiction to cover non-Indians. This issue was carefully considered in drafting the tribal jurisdiction provisions. The Indian Affairs and Judiciary Committees worked closely with the Department of Justice to ensure that the legislation is constitutional.

As a former Federal prosecutor and attorney general of a State with a large Native American population, I know how difficult the legal maze can be for tribal communities. One result of this maze is unchecked crime. In situations where personnel and funding run thin and distances are long, violence often goes unpunished. This legislation will create a local solution for a local problem. Tribes have proven their effectiveness in combating domestic violence committed by Native Americans.

But let me reiterate this very important point: Without an act of Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non-Indian, even if he lives on the reservation, even if he is married to a tribal member. Without this act of Congress, tribes will continue to lack authority.

This legislation will create a local solution for a local problem. Tribes have proven their effectiveness in combating domestic violence committed by Native Americans. But let me reiterate this very important point--without an act of Congress, tribes cannot prosecute a non- Indian. Even if he lives on the reservation. Even if he is married to a tribal member. Without this act of Congress, tribes will continue to lack authority.

This bill will also promote other important efforts to protect Native women from an epidemic of domestic violence, with increasing grants for tribal programs to address violence, with support for research on violence against Native women, and also by allowing Federal prosecutors to seek tougher sentences for perpetrators who

strangle or suffocate their spouses or partners.

All of these provisions are about justice. Right now, Native women do not get the justice they deserve. But these are strong women. They, rightly, demand to be heard. They have identified a desperate need and logical solutions. That is why Native women and tribal leaders across the Nation support the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act and the proposed tribal provisions.

There are many--far too many--stories of violence against Native women, and of the failure to protect them. Stories that should outrage us all. And that could end through local intervention. Local authority that will only be made possible through an act of Congress. We have the opportunity to support such an act in the tribal provisions of VAWA. With this bill we can close a dark and desperate loophole in criminal jurisdiction. Native women have waited too long already for justice. They should not have to wait any longer.

Senator Leahy had asked that I put tribal statements in the Record. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record these letters from tribal and other organizations in support of the tribal provision in S. 47, the Violence Against Women Act.

I know my colleague, the Senator from Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar, is here today--another prosecutor, another Senator who knows the importance of this law. I very much appreciate her hard work in terms of bringing justice to tribal communities and bringing justice to women across this Nation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I have reintroduced the Assuring Contracting Equity, or ACE Act, with a correction to a drafting error in order to ensure increases in contracting goals for service-disabled veteran owned small businesses and qualified HUBZone small businesses. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the issues facing entrepreneurs who do business with the Federal Government and hope that we can ensure that more Federal dollars are getting out to main street.

Mr. President, I have reintroduced the Assuring Contracting Equity, or ACE Act, with a correction to a drafting error in order to ensure increases in contracting goals for service-disabled veteran owned small businesses and qualified HUBZone small businesses. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address the issues facing entrepreneurs who do business with the Federal Government and hope that we can ensure that more Federal dollars are getting out to main street.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our efforts to change the Senate rules.

For the second time since I have been in the Senate, the constitutional option has been crucial. It has pushed this body to seriously look at changing the way we do business.

This week the majority leader and majority whip declared majority support for the constitutional option. As a result, the Republican leader has finally agreed to some Senate rule changes.

As I said more than 3 years ago when I first proposed the constitutional option, it is time for reform. There are many great traditions in this Chamber that should be protected and respected. But the paralyzing abuse of filibusters is not one of them.

Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I introduced a package of reforms that is fair, that reins in the abuse, and that protects the voice of the minority.

While I believe our reform package is a much better way to restore debate and deliberation to the Senate, I appreciate the leadership's efforts to get a bipartisan agreement. To move forward to reform the filibuster and reduce Senate gridlock.

I have carefully considered the compromise proposal that Leaders Reid and McConnell have crafted. I don't believe their proposal does enough to reform the Senate, but it does show that there is consensus, that both sides of the aisle recognize that the Senate is broken, that we must have change.

The leaders' proposal is a step in the right direction. I am most concerned that it does not eliminate the fundamental cause of Senate dysfunction--the fact that any Member can halt Senate business without even showing up on the Senate floor. We shouldn't do away with the filibuster, but we should demand greater responsibility from senators who use it.

The majority leader and the Republican leader are telling us that they will make Senators who object or threaten filibusters come to the floor and actually debate, using the existing rules. The proof of this will be over the next 2 years. We will be watching.

I believe we could have achieved more substantive reform by using the constitutional option to amend the rules with a majority vote. I know several of my colleagues think this would set a dangerous precedent. I disagree.

I know that we may serve in the minority at some point in our Senate careers. Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I have not proposed any rules changes that we are not willing to live with in the minority.

Senator Harkin made his proposal when he was in the minority. I served in the minority in the House--which is a lot worse than the minority around here. So I don't think looking at our rules and amending them by a majority vote at the beginning of a Congress is dangerous. On the contrary. It is a healthy exercise to make sure we can still function as a legislative body.

We started this effort over 3 years ago. We have made progress. But rules reform is not over. Our work is not complete. We should always seek to find ways to be a better institution. That is why I believe we should review and adopt our rules at the beginning of every Congress.

One of the resolutions today is a standing order--it applies for only this Congress. We will have an opportunity to revisit this in two years.

I want to close by saying this. Since the beginning of this process, my actions have been guided by the great respect I have for the institution of the United States Senate, my reverence for the many great men and women who have served here, and my sincere affection for my colleagues.

That remains true today. I want to thank my colleagues for their consideration of our proposals, for their willingness to listen, and for their friendship.

And I want to make clear to all those who have supported this effort--our work will continue. Our cause endures. History has made clear that substantial reform is more often than not the work of many Congresses, not just one.

I commit to doing all I can to ensure that the Senate is not a graveyard for good ideas, that it is once again the world's greatest deliberative body, and that we have a government that truly responds to the real needs of the American people.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about our efforts to change the Senate rules. As we began the 113th Congress on January 3, Senators Merkley, Harkin, and I submitted a resolution to reform the Standing Rules of the Senate. Thirteen of my colleagues have signed on to cosponsor our resolution.

When we submitted the resolution, we agreed with the majority leader that it would be best to have the debate about reforming our rules after the inauguration. I appreciate his willingness to work with us on this important issue. Although we postponed the debate, we preserved the right of a simple majority of this body to amend the rules in accordance with article 1, section 5 of the Constitution.

Senate Resolution 4, our proposal to reform the rules, is simple, it is limited, and it is fair. Again, we are not ending the filibuster. We preserved the rights of the minority. Here is what we are proposing: an end to the widespread abuse of silent filibusters. Instead, Senators would be required to go to the floor and actually tell the American people why they oppose a bill or nominee in order to maintain a filibuster. Debate on motions to proceed to a bill or to send a bill to conference would be limited to 2 hours. Postcloture debate on a nominee, other than a Justice of the Supreme Court, would be limited to 2 hours rather than the current limit of 30 hours.

These are sensible changes. These are reforms we are willing to live with if

we are in the minority, and yet we are warned these simple reforms will transform the very character of the Senate and leave the minority without a voice. These arguments are covers for continued abuse of the rules.

The reforms we propose are modest--some would say too modest--but they would discourage the excessive use of filibusters. The minority still has the right to filibuster, but not the right of one Senator to do so by simply picking up the phone, by simply making an announcement and then going out to dinner or, more likely, out to a fundraiser. I have listened carefully to the arguments by the other side against these changes. Let me say, again, we are not talking about taking away the rights of the minority, we are not talking about abolishing the right of debate or to filibuster, but there must be change. The abuse of the filibuster and other procedural rules has prevented the Senate from doing its job. We are no longer the world's greatest deliberative body. In fact, we barely deliberate at all. This does not honor this institution, and it does not serve the American people.

For most of our history the filibuster was used very sparingly, but in recent years what was rare has become routine; the exception has become the norm. Everything is filibustered, every procedural step of the way, with paralyzing effect. The Senate was meant to cool the process, not send it into a deep freeze.

Since the Democratic majority came into the upper Chamber in 2007, the Senates of the 110th, 111th, and 112th Congresses have the three highest totals of filibusters ever recorded. Lyndon Johnson faced one filibuster during his 6 years as Senate majority leader. In the same span of time Harry Reid has faced over 390. Lyndon Johnson, 1, Harry Reid, 390. Legislation is blocked at every turn. The result is not surprising. The Senate of the 112th Congress passed a record low 2.8 percent of bills introduced. That is a 66-percent decrease from the last Republican majority in 2005-2006, and a 90-percent decrease from the high in 1955-1956. By every measure, the 112th Congress was the most unproductive Congress in our history.

My Republican colleagues have come to the floor and made many impassioned statements in opposition to amending our rules at the beginning of this Congress. They say the rules can only be changed with a two-thirds supermajority, as the current filibuster rule requires. They argue that any attempt to amend the rules by a simple majority is breaking the rules to change the rules. This is simply not true. The supermajority requirement to change Senate rules is in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution. Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution states:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,

punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the

Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

When the Framers required a supermajority, they explicitly said so, as they did for expelling a Member. On all other matters, such as determining the Chamber's rules, a majority requirement is clearly implied. There have been three rulings by Vice Presidents, sitting as President of the Senate--where the Presiding Officer is sitting today-- who have ruled on the meaning of article 1, section 5.

In 1957, Vice President Nixon ruled that:

The right of a current majority of the Senate at the

beginning of a new Congress to adopt its own rules, stemming

as it does from the Constitution itself, cannot be restricted

or limited by rules adopted by a majority of a previous

Congress.

Vice President Rockefeller and Vice President Humphrey made similar rulings at the beginning of later Congresses.

The Constitution is clear, and there is also a longstanding common law principle--upheld in the Supreme Court--that one legislature cannot bind its successors. Many of my Republican colleagues have made the same argument. For example, in 2003 Senator John Cornyn wrote in a Law Review article:

Just as one Congress cannot enact a law that a subsequent

Congress could not amend by majority vote, one Senate cannot

enact a rule that a subsequent Senate could not amend by

majority vote. Such power, after all, would violate the

general common law principle that one parliament cannot bind

another.

So amending our rules at the beginning of a Congress is not breaking the rules to change the rules, it is reaffirming that the U.S. Constitution is superior to the Senate rules. When there is a conflict between them, we follow the Constitution.

Some of my colleagues may believe that using the Constitution in this way would be harmful to the Senate. But there is an alternative. We do not have to reform the rules with only a majority vote. Each time the filibuster rule has been amended in the past, a bipartisan majority of Senators was prepared to use the constitutional option. But with a majority vote on the reforms looming, enough Members agreed on a compromise and they passed the changes with two-thirds in favor.

We could do that again. I know many of my Republican colleagues agree with me. The Senate is not working. As I visit with my Republican colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they tell me they are unhappy with the way things are. I said 2 years ago I would push for the same reforms at the beginning of the next Congress regardless of which party was in the majority.

At the time, many people believed the Democrats would lose their majority. So let me be clear: If Leader McConnell had become the new majority leader in this Congress, I would have asked him to work with me on these same reforms.

I will say again, the proposed changes will reform the abuse of the filibuster. They will not trample the legitimate rights of the minority party. I am willing to live with all the changes we are proposing, whether I am in the majority or the minority.

The other side has suggested a change in the rules is an affront to the American people. But the real affront would be to allow the abuse of the filibuster to continue.

We have to change the way we do business. We have to govern. It is time for us to pay attention to jobs and the economy and what matters to American families--what they talk about around the kitchen table. That was the message that was sent us from this election, and we would do very well to listen to it.

Under the abuse of the current rules, all it takes to filibuster is one Senator picking up the phone. That is it--does not even have to go to the floor and defend it--just a phone call by one Senator: no muss, no fuss, no inconvenience, except for the American public, except for a nation that expects and needs a government that works, a government that actually works together and finds common ground.

Maybe some of my colleagues believe the Senate is working as it should, that everything is fine. We do not take that view. It is not working and it needs change. The American people of all persuasions want a government that actually gets something done. The challenges are too great, the stakes are too high for a government of gridlock to continue.

The New York Times yesterday and several of the local newspapers in my home State have editorialized about moving forward with reform and how important that is. I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from the New York Times and an editorial from the New Mexican be printed in the Record.

Three of my Senate colleagues who have just been elected are in the Chamber. I think one of the best things about this new class of Senators who have come into the Senate is they have studied this issue, they understand this issue, they have been out there with the American people and listened to them. The American people are demanding change.

So it is a real pleasure to see in the chair the Senator from Hawaii, who is the Presiding Officer, and on the floor the Senator from North Dakota and also the Senator from Maine. I know shortly we will be going into our caucus and having a very lively debate about which way to move forward, how we do reform.

I am convinced we are going to reform these rules. I hope we do it working with our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. But if they will not come with us, we are in a position where we are in the majority, and we have to make this institution work for the American people.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy with my friend, the Senator from Oregon.

Madam President, once again let me say at the beginning it is a real pleasure to see my old attorney general colleague, now the Senator from North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp, in the chair presiding over the Senate, and also to see the Senator from Maine, Angus King, here--our new Senators. I think Senator Merkley would agree with this, that our new Senators bring an energy to this that we don't necessarily have. We are 4 years from our last campaign. We ran in 2008. I love hearing their stories and what they have heard and how they have visited with people in townhall meetings.

The American people get this. I don't think there is any doubt that they really get this. I know my colleague has done a number of townhalls on this issue. I just hope, as we have the chance to discuss this, both in our caucus and on the floor and with other Senators, that we can capture the energy of the Senators who have arrived here and have been out with the people in their States, with their constituents, and what they bring to this.

But I wanted to ask the Senator because, among many of our Senators, he does regular townhall meetings--and I have also done a number in my career--is this kind of rules change something that is so arcane that people don't understand it? Are they saying: Why are you bothering with procedure or do people get it? Do they get it in Oregon when you are in a meeting?

The Senator made some nice comments about me--he was probably a little too generous--and I wanted to also thank him for all the work he has done on this issue. He has been a passionate voice for change, and he and I have both reached out to our friends across the aisle and tried to get things done.

I always bring this back to the question of why are we doing this. We are doing this so government can tackle the issues the American people care about. And I think there are two times in history--I am sure there are many others--where for me the Senate was in its glory days. We should always remember we have that potential. We see little bits of light every now and then here, such as with the passage of a transportation bill or a farm bill out of the Senate where bipartisanship exists and we come together, but I wish to talk very briefly about two time periods that I consider to be the glory days of the Senate.

One was before the Civil War. In the 40 years before the Civil War, the Senate was grappling with how do we hold the Union together. There was tremendous discussion, and Senators such as Daniel Webster and John Calhoun and others would work with each other and have heated debate, but for that 40 years before the Civil War, they held the country together. It was the Senate that fashioned those compromises that allowed the country to stay out of the Civil War. They didn't completely prevent it, but most people, looking at history, say those were some of the glory days of the Senate.

The second period was in the 1960s and 1970s, with Senators such as Muskie and Stafford and Chafee--giants in this body--who stepped forward on civil rights, stepped forward on environmental issues, stepped forward on the pressing issues of the time. So the Senate, once again in that time period, passed laws.

I remember; I was a kid here in Washington, and my father was Secretary of the Interior, when the wilderness law, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Environmental Protection Agency was set up. Those were big laws--big, bold laws--that were dealing with our problems. So once again, they are glory days of the Senate.

I think we have that potential. As I see the new Senators coming in, the folks who were elected with us, and the Senators who arrived in the last 5 or 10 years, I think we have the ability to respond in a big, bold way to the crises that face us.

I know Senator Merkley came here as a young man with Senator Hatfield, I believe, and he saw a different Senate. Maybe he could talk about that. We don't want to stay; I know we are going to a caucus and we have our generous chair here--our presiding officer--so we don't want to keep her up here too long.

Anyway, I yield to the Senator.

Mr. President, just a few weeks ago Americans gathered all across the Nation to commemorate Veterans Day. It is a day that we set aside to remember, and express our gratitude to, the men and women who have served in our Armed Forces. It is a day to honor the heroes among us, and those who, sadly, have left us.

Today I wish to pay tribute to an American hero, Army SGT Clinton K. Ruiz. Sergeant Ruiz died on October 25 while on patrol in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan, from injuries sustained from small arms fire. He was just 22 years old. He leaves behind a wife, Kira, and a baby son, Caleb.

As we face the tragedy of this brave young soldier's death, it is important too that we remember his life. Sergeant Ruiz's journey on this Earth ended far too soon, but his memory among those whose lives he touched, and in a nation's gratitude, will endure.

Clinton Ruiz was born on March 14, 1990. He graduated from Murrieta Valley High School in Murrieta, CA, and enlisted with the Army in 2009. He was assigned to A Company, 9th Military Information Support Battalion, 8th Military Information Support Group. Sergeant Ruiz was deployed to Afghanistan in September.

In the decade that our military has been fighting in Afghanistan, thousands of our fellow citizens have volunteered to serve. These courageous men and women risk their own safety to protect the safety of others. They leave their homes and their loved ones to defend the freedoms that we hold dear. Over 2,000 of these heroes have paid the ultimate price, for our freedoms, in Afghanistan.

Words cannot lessen the sorrow of the loved ones who grieve for Sergeant Ruiz now. Words cannot fully express the gratitude our Nation owes this valiant soldier. We can only remember, indeed we must never forget, the sacrifice that SGT Clinton Ruiz made in service to our country.

President Kennedy said that ``stories of past courage . . . can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But, they cannot supply courage itself. For this, each man must look into his own soul.'' Sergeant Clinton Ruiz had such courage. In the face of great danger, at great risk to himself, he went where his country sent him. He was awarded the Bronze Star and the Purple Heart. He kept the promise he had made to serve. Our Nation is forever in his debt.

Sergeant Ruiz loved his family. He loved his country. He made the ultimate sacrifice defending it. To Sergeant Ruiz's family, I offer my deepest sympathies. We honor Sergeant Ruiz's courage. We remember his sacrifice. And we mourn your loss.

Mr. President, just a few weeks ago our Nation commemorated Veterans Day. It is above all a day of remembrance and gratitude. A time to remember the courage and sacrifice of the brave men and women who have served our Nation in the Armed Forces. It is a day when we pay tribute to the heroes among us. And to those who are no longer with us.

Today I wish to honor one of those heroes. On Tuesday, October 30, our Nation lost a great American, Navajo Code Talker George Smith. Mr. Smith was born on June 15, 1922, in Mariano Lake, NM, and was Salt People Clan, born for Black Streak Wood People Clan. In 1943, he enlisted with the Marines. He was trained as a Navajo Code Talker and achieved the rank of corporal while serving in the Pacific. Corporal Smith fought in battles in Saipan, Tinian, Ryukyu Islands. He also served in Okinawa, Hawaii, and Japan. His brother, Albert Smith, also trained as a Code Talker, and served with him.

The Marines who constituted the Navajo Code Talkers were small in number, but monumental in significance. Their skills were crucial to American victory in the Pacific during World War II. They turned their language into an unbreakable code. In battle after battle, in the thick of ferocious combat, they used that code as a powerful weapon in securing Allied victory. Our Nation will never forget what George Smith, and his brother, Albert Smith, and all of their fellow Code Talkers accomplished.

Their service is all the more poignant in that they fought for freedom in a world that did not always accord freedom to them. When America entered World War II, the U.S. government had only recognized Native Americans as citizens for 17 years. In some places, tribal members still did not have the right to vote. 45,000 of the 350,000 Native Americans in the U.S. at that time served in the war. This tradition of military service by Native Americans continues to this day. Native Americans have the highest rate of service of any ethnic group.

Mr. Smith was awarded the Congressional Silver Medal. After the war, Code Talker Smith returned home and dedicated himself to his family and community. He worked at Fort Wingate in disposing of old ammunition, and then as a mechanic at Fort Wingate Trading Post. Eventually, he went to Fort Defiance, where he served as a shop foreman. He later worked as a heavy equipment mechanic in Shiprock.

Code Talker George Smith was blessed with a long life. When he passed away last month, he was 90 years old. He will be missed by his family, his friends, and his community, and he will always be remembered by a grateful nation. I extend my deepest sympathies to his family. We are forever in his debt. I hope that those who mourn him now will find comfort in all that he accomplished. His life made a difference. His invaluable service during World War II saved lives. Our Nation is free because of heroes like Code Talker George Smith.

Mr. President, in the annals of our Nation's military history, the story of the defenders of Bataan will long live in our collective memory. One of those great defenders, Mr. Virgil Wallace, recently passed away at the age of 99. Mr. Wallace survived the 4 month battle, the infamous Bataan Death March, and 3 years of horrendous captivity. He was the State of New Mexico's oldest Bataan veteran.

Our Nation is forever in debt to the extraordinary courage and sacrifice that Mr. Wallace and the ``Battling Bastards of Bataan'' demonstrated in the early days of World War II. Their heroic resistance helped slow the Japanese advance, allowing crucial time for the Allied forces to reorganize and eventually reverse Japan's progress. They played a crucial role in our Nation's history. I am proud to have sponsored legislation to award these valiant soldiers the Congressional Gold Medal.

The Japanese attack on the Philippines in December, 1941, just hours after the attack on Pearl Harbor, led to 4 months of intense combat. Outnumbered, outgunned, Mr. Wallace and his fellow soldiers put up a desperate fight. For 4 months, they struggled, they valiantly fought, against impossible odds, and without hope of resupply, until they finally surrendered.

Their suffering was only just beginning. The brutal Bataan Death March was followed by terrible conditions in Japanese prisons and work camps. Starvation. Torture. Forced work. And, for so many of these brave men, death. By the time they were rescued, toward the end of the war, half of New Mexico's 1,800 soldiers serving in Bataan had died. Another 300 would die from complications related to their captivity within a year of returning to the U.S. Mr. Wallace was held captive for more than 3 horrific years.

Virgil Wallace was awarded the Bronze Star and numerous other commendations for his heroic service. After the war, he returned to New Mexico, where he worked for the Department of Transportation and later Carrie Tingley Hospital in Truth or Consequences.

Our Nation will long remember this courageous soldier, a man who gave so much in service to his country. Mr. Wallace is one of the last of a legendary band of brothers, who represented the very best of who we are. In the dark days of the beginning of World War II, they showed America's fighting spirit and inspired a nation.

I extend my deepest sympathies to Mr. Wallace's family and friends. I hope that you will find comfort in your memories of his long, and distinguished, life. We honor his valor and his example, and we mourn your loss.

Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question I will ask through the Chair?

The Senator from Alabama--I think we overlapped as attorneys general, and we are good friends--raised this whole issue, and he used the phrase, which has been frequently used on the Republican side, that--and we are getting to this place where we have the opportunity to change the rules. The phrase he keeps using is ``break the rules to change the rules.''

This goes to my question: Is the Senator aware that under the Constitution, and specifically article I, section 5, it says that the Senate may determine the rules of its proceedings?

As far as I know--and we have a letter we are going to have printed in the Record later--almost all constitutional scholars in this country as well as three Vice Presidents sitting up there where Senator Cardin is sitting, presiding, have ruled that at the beginning of a Congress, on the first legislative day, the Senate is allowed to change the rules. And the Constitution trumps the Senate rules in that respect in that very early period.

So my question to the Senator from Alabama: Does not the Constitution trump the Senate rules?

May I answer the question?

Mr. President, I ask through the Chair, will the Senator yield for an additional question?

The Senator from Alabama, my good friend and former attorney general colleague, asked the question--when he was answering the last question I asked--has this constitutional procedure for determining Senate rules at the beginning of a Senate ever been used? Yes, in fact, it has been used, and it has been used a number of times.

I would point the Senator from Alabama to 1975. In 1975, we had the situation where a number of Democratic Senators were pushing for a change in the rules. The filibuster threshold at that point was 67 votes, unlike 60 today. Actually, that was the time period when they moved that threshold from 67 to 60.

What happened was 51 Senators took to the floor and three times voted down the attempt to move away from changing the rules.

Now, I would also note that three Vice Presidents--sitting up where Senator Cardin, the Presiding Officer, is right now--have ruled that at the beginning of a Congress--at the beginning of a Congress--you are allowed, the Senate, 51 Senators, to step forward and say: We would like new rules.

What is being advocated on this side is putting rules in place and following the rules for a 2-year period of time.

For a 2-year period of time. And we are not----

The rule that was changed, when we lowered-- --

An accommodation was reached and----

And when the accommodation was reached, then the rule was changed.

Now, the constitutional principle was made, and it has been acknowledged by three Vice Presidents, it has been used a number of times in the past. The reason we are doing this, as the Senator from Alabama knows, is that the amount of secret, silent filibusters that have occurred here has been extraordinary. LBJ had one. Harry Reid has had close to 400.

I thank my colleague very much, and let me say to my colleague from Oregon, who has been a real leader on this, he has been diligent, he has studied this, he cares about it, and he has been a great partner. The packages that were voted on the last time we helped put those together--and there were two very significant votes, as Senator Merkley realizes. We came very close. We had 44 votes for a package that would make 4 or 5 changes and then his package on the talking filibuster, which was included in both packages, received 46 votes. That showed that if we had the opportunity at the beginning of a Congress to change the rules under the Constitution, we were very close to the 51 votes.

I just want to comment on what my colleague from Rhode Island said earlier--Senator Whitehouse--and repeat that because we have been counting the votes over the last couple months. We have been trying to determine if the votes are there in order to be able to change the rules, and we know at the beginning of a Congress that we need 51 votes.

I also want to respond to several things that were going on here earlier on the floor. Several Senators made statements, and several of those statements were from the other side. I believe they should be responded to because we are in this crucial phase in terms of adopting the rules.

The first issue that comes up is this issue of breaking the rules to change the rules. This has been what has been repeated numerous times in the last couple months with our Republican friends and colleagues coming to the floor. They use the phrase ``break the rules to change the rules.''

In fact, when we use the Constitution, there is no conflict with the Senate rules because three Vice Presidents have ruled from the chair, where Senator Cardin is now sitting, that at the beginning of a Congress, on that first legislative day, we can change the rules, and we do it pursuant to the Constitution.

The Constitution, at article I, section 5, says the Senate can determine the rules of its proceedings. Every constitutional scholar I know of who has looked at this realizes that is the window--that first legislative day--in order to deal with the rules. So when, in fact, we legislate on that day in a rules context, we are not breaking the rules; we are creating the rules for the coming Congress--in this case, the 113th Congress. We are creating the rules that will govern.

Do I think we should use the Constitution to change the rules every couple weeks after we put rules in place? Of course not. That is not fair to do. We would never be advocating for adopting rules and then changing them every couple weeks or every couple months. In that situation, there is a high threshold to change the rules, as it says in the Senate rules.

But I want to engage in this colloquy with my colleague from Oregon, first of all, on this issue of the constitutional option and in terms of utilizing the constitutional option at the beginning of a Congress; putting the rules in place and then following the rules throughout the Congress. I ask my colleague: Isn't that the way we are intending to move?

Then, secondly, the heart of the matter--and this is where Mr. Merkley, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, has been instrumental in terms of helping us deal with the dysfunctional filibuster system we have right now--we have a secret filibuster. We have a silent filibuster--in fact, we have way too many filibusters. Just to give a little comparison, when LBJ--Lyndon Baines Johnson--was majority leader for 6 years in the 1950s, he had one cloture motion filed--one filibuster. Harry Reid, whose office is just a few feet from here, as the President pro tempore knows, comes to the floor and he has had close to 400 filibusters in his 6 short years. So they have gotten completely out of hand.

One of the things I want to talk to my good colleague, the Senator from Oregon, about, in addition to this constitutional option--the small window we have tomorrow on the first legislative day--is also how do we remedy this situation in the Senate? Everyone acknowledges the Senate has become dysfunctional; that we are not doing the work of the American people. We hear our Republican colleagues say they do not like the way it is working. So I ask: What is the best way to get to the heart of that? Is it the talking filibuster? Is it trying to change the rules on the motion to proceed? How do we get at the heart of what the problem is?

I yield for my colleague.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oregon, because he has elucidated here the real issue that we face as a Senate.

The Senator from Maryland, who is presiding, knows well. He has worked on the rules, and I hope he will join me here for a minute to talk about the rules situation we are in and where we are headed.

There are several issues that are before us: How do we move into a more deliberative body? How do we move to the point where we get on to legislation, that we have amendments, we let everyone be heard, we let the minority be heard, and also at the end of the day be able to get to a majority vote? That is the way the Senate used to proceed, and now we have one Senator holding up the whole show.

Frequently you will have a Senator who will block hundreds of bills with these secret, silent filibusters. We shouldn't be allowed to have that kind of situation with any Senator, and we need to give up that little bit of power to make the institution itself a better institution. This institution is a great institution. It has a lot of very capable people in it. But it is not responding to what the American people want us to do. That is why we address the rules at the beginning of every Congress and why we should address the rules at the beginning of every Congress.

I ask unanimous consent to allow my friend, the Senator from Maryland, and I to engage in a colloquy.

The Senator from Maryland hit on a couple of incredibly important points here, and I hope he has a minute or two to further engage in a colloquy.

First of all, we shouldn't be saying all the credit goes to me or to the Senator from Oregon. Senator Cardin, the Senator from Maryland, participated very actively 2 years ago in the key group of Senators who were trying to understand what the rules were all about, why the Senate wasn't functioning, and how do we get to the point of drafting a package and working out a package to make it happen. I congratulate him for that.

I want to also congratulate the Senators who have worked on this from about 2006 on. Those Senators have come in and they have seen the Senate not be the way it should, not maintaining those traditions of debate and discussion, and then finally, at the end of the day, acting on those important problems.

The Senator from Maryland knows that history. I appreciate exactly what he said. It should be bipartisan. As he knows, what frequently happens around here is that when you get close to having 51 votes-- which we have today, we have 51 votes, and the majority leader has 51 votes to be able to walk down here and say: These are the rules we want, and to do it. When the reality sets in on the Senate that we have 51 votes, then people start thinking, how do we want to put this together?

A bipartisan tradition is important. We have--the Senators from Oregon, Maryland, myself--we have all invited our Republican friends and colleagues forward, saying: Engage with us to get back to the point where this Senate can operate in a bipartisan way with respect to the rules and with respect to the substantive legislation.

What I want to ask the Senator from Maryland has to do with the President's team. We only have one President at a time. We have Barack Obama in as President. He was reelected. He still has people from this Congress--a large number of judges, of nominees--who are held up for months and months. Does the Senator from Maryland believe that the nomination process is broken, that we need to move forward, to find a way so we can get up-or-down votes on some of these nominations, whether they be judicial, whether they be people who are going to serve in these Cabinet agencies?

The Senator from Maryland has really hit it on the head. You do not have to go any further than today's Executive Calendar. We all have them on our desks. You pick up the Executive Calendar and, talking about approving these nominees and judicial nominees, executive nominees, here I see on page 4 that we have people who have come out--this is for the judiciary--have come out of committee March 29, and they have not gotten a vote. Here is another one from April, reported by the committee--April 26, May 17, May 17, June 7, June 21. These are nominations where people have stepped forward. They want to be public servants. The President has nominated them. They have been through the committee process, and they are just waiting.

As the Senator from Maryland said, what ends up happening is that good people are discouraged from taking these jobs. My grandfather used to say that if you do not have good people in government, the scoundrels will take over. We are discouraging good people from getting into government. You need good people in public service, and we are discouraging them by setting up a process where, as the Senator from Ohio told me--he had a judge recently, and he told the gentleman: This is a long process, it is laborious, it is tedious, and it will probably take you a year if you are willing to go through this. When the judge finally agreed, it took 2 years from the time the President put him forward until he was actually on the bench.

I ask the Senator from Maryland, does he think people are going to put themselves out there, and doesn't this discourage good people from getting into public service? Don't we want the very best and the brightest on our benches and in the executive branch working for the American people?

I thank the Senator from Maryland. He is passionate about this, and he has explained it very well. I ask any Senator to look at this Executive Calendar today. We are doing exactly what my grandfather advised against when he said that if the good people do not go into public service, the scoundrels will take over. You get second-class government. You don't get good people. We are discouraging good people from going into the government with the procedures we put them through, with the length of time of this delay. This is not what we should be doing in the Senate.

I yield.

The Senator from Maryland has hit it on the head. Look at what we are talking about on a motion to proceed. I think it would surprise the American people to know that if the majority leader comes to the floor, now we have--this is not to make it partisan in any way--55 Democratic votes. The majority leader says: I see we have a serious housing problem. We want to put a housing bill onto the floor of the Senate.

I don't think people realize that the majority leader, if he doesn't have any agreement at all, then has to file a motion to proceed to that bill. If all the delay and roadblocks and obfuscation are put in front of him, it takes him 8 days to get to the bill if he can get 60 votes. If he does not, he probably wastes a whole week trying to get to the bill, and he doesn't get 60 votes, and then we fold it down and say: What is the next issue we should move on to?

As the Senator from Maryland knows, we have to be able to put bills onto the floor and give them the time they deserve. We are wasting all this time up front that we could have a bill on the floor, we could have amendments, we could have debate, we could have all of those things going on that we know are the way the Senate should work.

I yield.

To the Senator from Maryland, I have one more question if he has time. First I want to respond as to the motion to proceed and what he has just talked about. This means we cannot get on legislation, as he laid out, for a large number of days. Sometimes we burn a week and several more days before we are able to get on to the bill.

The Senator by the name of Senator Pete Domenici, whom everybody knows very well, served for 36 years in the Senate and was my predecessor. He served on bipartisan study groups to look at the rules. We have had many study groups such as that. They have always concluded that the motion to proceed should be short and significant, and we should get on to the bill.

Senator Cardin has worked very hard to do the same with a bipartisan group to say: How can we make it work better? How do we make this institution work better? The reality is we get on to the bill, allow amendments, allow debate, and allow discussion. That is the way to move. On a number of occasions this has been bipartisan. I hope we can join together.

My question goes to a different part of the rules. As the Senator from Maryland knows--and we both served in the House together--today we have a Democratic Senate and a Republican House. The way to resolve differences between the two is to go to conference. That is the best way to bring the expertise of both bodies and the people in the bodies who know the substance of the legislation and bring them together if there are differences. If they both pass a bill, they get together, resolve those differences and then the respective Houses pass them and they go on to the President.

We now have in our rules for the Senate three debatable, filibusterable motions to go to conference. We look at them and we say: Well, they are basically about going to conference. Let's shrink down the proposals we are hearing. Why are we putting a filibuster in place to get into conference to try to resolve disputes?

I know the Senator has looked at this issue. My question is: If the Senate is able to pass a bill on housing--to use the housing example-- and they are very different bills, but if we have smart people from the Senate and the House who are on the Housing Committee getting together--as the Senator from Maryland knows--we can resolve those differences. We can find the common ground and move forward.

I ask the Senator: Aren't our rules a little bit antiquated in terms of having three motions to go to conference and allow a filibuster on every one of those rules?

The Senator from Maryland has been here a little bit longer in the Senate than I have. Could the Senator talk about how many conferences we have done? The Senator has served in the Maryland Assembly in the legislature. The Senator saw conferences all the time. I remember in my early days in the House, we had conferences all the time. My sense is the majority leader, in looking at this path to get to conference, has said, well, that takes too much time.

I thank very much the Senator from Maryland for his commitment to pursue these bipartisan rules changes to make sure the rules get changed. I know I reminded him about my predecessor, Senator Domenici. Senator Domenici would fight hard, and whenever he tried to look for bipartisan solutions, coming down to the motion to proceed, Democrats and Republicans said we have to get off this motion to proceed and we have to get on the bill. So I thank the Senator from Maryland.

I thank the Senator from Maryland for his sincere effort to pursue bipartisan rules reform because I think, if we all work together, we can make the Senate a much better place.

I am reminded, when we have these discussions about the great traditions of the Senate, of two periods of time when the Senate truly stepped to the plate. We had crucial national issues facing us then and they were issues of war and peace. They were issues of terrible environmental destruction. The fact is the Senate, in its best traditions, stepped forward and acted and moved forward. One of those great traditions of the Senate acting occurred in the 40 years before the Civil War. People may not know it, but it was the Senate and the legislation that was passed through the Senate and signed by the President that for 40 years held the Union together. They held the country together, and they didn't let the country get into Civil War. It was people such as Webster and Calhoun and all the Senators at the time focusing on what the issues were. Whether it was the Missouri Compromise or some other issue that had to do with slavery, they found the common ground, and they held the Union together and they did it for 40 years.

That, my friends, is in the best traditions of the Senate, thinking and figuring out where the common ground is. We can't do that. We can't carry out that tradition unless we can get bills on the floor and we can amend them and have debate and then eventually get to a majority. Of course, we want the minority to be able to be heard, offer amendments, but the crucial fact is, at the end of the day, unless there is such a strong minority in terms of its activity, we get to a majority vote.

The other period of time where the Senate was in its glory days was in the 1960s and 1970s and we had huge national problems in terms of civil rights. We had lynchings going on, we had discrimination going on, including housing discrimination, discrimination in public accommodations, and there was a big push to try to get rid of that in our society. It was the Senate that stepped forward and crafted civil rights legislation that allowed us to move forward.

Many people will remember in the 1970s, the glory days of the Senate, when we had environmental destruction, rivers catching on fire. The Wilderness Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, all those pieces of legislation were crafted in the Senate by people such as Senator Ed Muskie and Senator Stafford and others. They were Democrats and Republicans working with each other, but it was because we could get the legislation on the floor and work on it and amend it and move it forward and allow the deliberative process to work.

I submit the Senate has been at these two periods--and I am sure scholars and our Senate Historian and others can point out other periods--but these two periods struck me: the period of the 40 years before the Civil War when the Senate, in its deliberative way, held the Union together for 40 years and in the 1960s and 1970s when we addressed civil rights, environmental legislation, and many of the other big national issues we were facing.

So here we are as a country with the need for having a national energy policy, for dealing with issues such as climate change, protecting middle-class families, and trying to make sure we have job growth and economic development; doing everything we can to bring down the cost of health care but making sure our citizens have high-quality health care.

We face tremendous issues, and the Senate, in many cases, has been unable to act. We have been unable to act because the rules are being abused. This filibuster is not out in the open. It is secret, it is silent, and we have the opportunity to act on the first legislative day.

So on that first legislative day, I will offer a motion. It is a very simple motion my predecessor, Clinton Anderson, offered. He offered it for the 25 years he was in the Senate. On the first legislative day he would offer a motion. He would move to adopt the rules of the Congress--for him, whatever it was. So this motion dealing with tomorrow: move to adopt the rules for the 113th Congress and then we focus on it. We focus on what those rules should be.

I know our Republican friends realize, I know they understand the dysfunction and hopefully they will find a way to join with us to make the Senate a better place.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until 5 p.m., with all other provisions remaining in effect.

I will finish by thanking my friend, a very close colleague on this particular issue, the Senator from Oregon. I know he has worked diligently on framing the talking filibuster, trying to bring it open, and make it the public process that will work for the whole Senate. He has been a key player in all the other rules reform, especially those two packages we put forward in the last Congress. I thank the Senator from Oregon and I thank the Senator from Maryland.

I now see on the floor the Senator from Illinois, who also has been here for a significant period of time. He has watched the rules operate, and I think he believes there has been a lot of abuse and we need to get down to the business of reforming these rules in a way that is going to work for the minority, because we know we will be in the minority sometime and work for the majority, so we can do the work of the American people.

I yield for the Senator from Illinois.

Madam President, I rise today to express my longstanding concerns about the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. We are being asked to extend the sunset provisions in the Act until 2017. Without adoption of the amendments to include additional privacy protections and oversight requirements, I cannot support an extension.

We all appreciate the dedicated work of the intelligence community. They have a big job in keeping us safe. But we also have to protect the constitutional rights of American citizens. That goes to the heart of who we are. Of what our country stands for. These aims are not contradictory. We can do both. And we must do both.

The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 gave broad powers to the intelligence community. Too broad, for some of us. I was one of the minority votes in the House against FISA. It allows a very wide net to search phone calls and emails of foreigners outside of the United States.

We knew then, and we know now, that net would also scoop up the private communications of American citizens. The challenge was clear. Go after the bad guys. But do not violate the privacy of the American people. So the Act contained specific limitations.

Now, 4 years later, we are asking a basic question. Have those limitations worked? And the answer is--we really do not know.

This uncertainty is not for lack of trying. We have tried to get answers. Numerous times. But the information is still lacking. Intelligence officials have said they are unable to tell us how many U.S. communications have been collected under FISA authority. Not an actual number. Not an exact number. Not even an estimate.

Plain and simple--we need more information. How else can we evaluate this policy? The American public has a right to know. And needs to know. How many Americans are affected by FISA? Are existing privacy protections working? Are they too weak? Do they need to be strengthened? These are vital questions. They need to be answered. And so far they have not been.

That is why the amendments that have been offered are so important. These amendments are intended to strengthen privacy protections of American citizens and to improve congressional oversight. These amendments will improve FISA. And they deserve bipartisan support.

I want to emphasize my support for Senator Wyden's amendment that we will vote on this morning. The amendment would require the Director of National Intelligence to report to Congress on the impact of FISA. And provide specific information. In particular, how many U.S. communications have been collected under the Act? Have there been deliberate attempts to search the phone calls or emails of individual Americans? Without obtaining a warrant or emergency authorization?

The Director's report would be available to the public. And the President could withhold public disclosure of any information necessary to national security. This amendment will not compromise national security. But it will help protect the rights of American citizens.

As Senator Wyden stated on the floor yesterday, several of us sent letters to Director Clapper requesting this information, but have not received an adequate response. The Wyden amendment would ensure that Congress has the information we need to make an informed decision about whether to extend future sunset provisions.

The war on terrorism that began after the 9/11 attacks has continued for over 10 years. During that time, Congress has passed laws, including the PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act, which gave sweeping new authorities to law enforcement and the intelligence community.

I know we must protect the Nation from future attacks. But there must

also be a balance--we cannot give up our constitutional protections in the name of security. I voted against the PATRIOT Act and FISA Amendments Act because I believed they were not balanced--they unduly infringed on the guaranteed rights of our citizens.

As I said, we all value the work of our intelligence community. Their efforts are vital to our Nation's security. But, I believe these amendments are crucial. We can protect our citizens without trampling their constitutional rights.

Unfortunately, none of the amendments we voted on yesterday were adopted. But the main argument I heard against them was not on the substance of the amendments. It was that we do not have time to amend the bill and send it back to the House. The Chair and Vice-chair argued that we must pass the House bill without amendment and get it to the President before the provisions expire.

This is not how the ``world's greatest deliberative body'' should function. It is one more example of why we need to reform our rules so that we are not constantly mired in procedural gridlock. Rather than an 11th hour passage of the House bill, we should have had a real opportunity to debate and amend the Senate bill that came out of committee over 5 months ago.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Udall of Colorado.) Without objection, it is so ordered.