[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 25, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Page S99]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. RES. 21

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, it has been the tradition of this 
Chamber, when there are rules proposals, to put them on the floor for 
debate and to hold that debate. Then if the body does not like that, 
either to defeat them outright or to table them or refer them to 
committee for further work.
  Indeed, under the Constitution, it is in order for us to have a 
debate now as a simple majority to amend our rules. The Constitution 
calls for a supermajority for impeachments, a supermajority for 
treaties, but it calls for a simple majority to amend our rules and to 
organize ourselves.
  Many Members of this body often talk about the Constitution, and it 
is the Constitution we are talking about right now when it calls for a 
simple majority to be able to organize.
  So that is why, in 1953, the Senate debated Senator Anderson's 
resolution, eventually defeating it by tabling it. That is why, in 1957 
and in 1959, they proceeded to put it on the floor--both sides agreeing 
that it was appropriate under the Constitution to have the debate in 
this Chamber--and then to either approve or to vote down or to table or 
to refer to committee. Then, in 1961, Anderson's rule proposal to make 
cloture three-fifths present and voting was referred to committee. So 
it was defeated again, but it was debated and referred to committee. 
Then the committee returned it to the floor for further debate. No one 
objected to us holding a debate.
  In fact, here is the irony. We are talking about fixing the broken 
Senate because debate is unable to take place, and this very 
conversation we are having right now, with proposals to be put on the 
floor, is being objected to by the other side because they are saying 
it is not appropriate. But the Constitution says it is appropriate. The 
tradition of the Senate says it is appropriate.
  So I too have a resolution to put on the floor, a proposal for 
debate. It is the talking filibuster proposal. It is important that 
Senators not be able to object to the regular order of 51 and then go 
home or go on vacation and hide from the American people, but that if 
they believe there should be additional debate, they come to this floor 
and debate. The people of America believe that is what the filibuster 
is about: making your case before the American people. Let's make it 
so.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
immediate consideration of S. Res. 21, a resolution to amend rule XIX 
and rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate to enact the talking 
filibuster; that there be 6 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. ALEXANDER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senator from Oregon is a former speaker of the house in Oregon, and he 
has been a long observer of the Senate, having come here first working 
for Senator Hatfield, and he has been effective and passionate in his 
views.
  Today, I was reviewing some remarks made by largely Democratic 
Senators, from 4 or 5 years ago, when some Republicans got the idea 
that it might be a good idea to make this a more majoritarian body, and 
Senator Schumer, Senator Reid, Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama all 
said it would be a mistake.
  So although I greatly respect the Senator from Oregon, we have a 
difference of opinion about whether it is in the best interest of the 
Senate and of the country to change the rules in this way, so I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee for 
coming to the floor. I applaud his long service.
  When I first came to the Senate, Senator Hatfield asked me to bring 
greetings to his former colleagues, and I had the chance to sit down 
with Senator Alexander to convey those greetings and to work with him 
on some projects, including the advocacy for electric vehicles. It is 
good for the American economy, good for the strategic positioning of 
America in terms of our consumption of energy, and certainly good for 
the environment.
  I wish to note that while we disagree on this, this is actually the 
way it should happen. We should come to the floor and share our 
respective views, disagree with each other, make our points. I believe, 
at this moment, we should be on a rule. We should be debating it. My 
colleague has expressed his difference of opinion in a very gracious 
and respectful manner, and that, too, should be a factor of Senate 
dialog, so I thank the Senator.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________