[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 2 (Friday, January 4, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S21-S22]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DYSFUNCTION OF THE SENATE

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about the 
dysfunction of the Senate, the rules of this governing body, and what 
we need to do to change them in order to take on the big challenges we 
face as a Nation.
  These last 2 years have created an unprecedented sense among the 
American people that Congress isn't measuring up to the needs of our 
time.
  This is especially troubling when we are up against tremendous 
challenges: the most profound jobs crisis in a generation; skyrocketing 
income inequality; and a tax system that unfairly rewards the wealthy 
and well-connected over working Americans who are struggling to make 
ends meet.
  But unfortunately, we can't tackle this jobs crisis or the problem of 
inequality until this body, our revered Senate, restores the ability to 
debate, deliberate and decide on strategies to take our Nation forward.
  I believe that reforming the filibuster is one of the most critical 
steps we can take to repair the Senate and rebuild confidence in 
Congress's ability to govern.
  When I first came to the Senate, it was 1976. What I saw then could 
hardly have been farther from the Senate of today. Routine use of the 
``filibuster''--or to put it differently, a routine use of an objection 
to a simple majority vote--has turned the U.S. Senate into a 
supermajority body.
  In short, the U.S. Senate, which once claimed to be ``the world's 
greatest deliberative body,'' has possibly become ``the world's least 
deliberative body.'' The institution of the Senate will not function 
again until we end the abuse of the filibuster. We must put an end to 
the silent, secret filibuster that is paralyzing the Senate.
  The use of this objection has expanded dramatically in recent 
decades. What was once used only to block legislation that conflicted 
with deep, personal principles is now used as a routine political 
strategy for deliberate paralysis. In the 6 years Lyndon Baines Johnson 
was majority leader, he dealt with one filibuster. Leader Reid during 
his 6 years as majority leader: 391.
  One casualty of the partisan filibuster is executive branch and 
judicial nominations. The Senate's power to advise and consent, as 
provided in the Constitution, was never intended to enable the 
legislators to inflict deep harm on the other branches of government. 
Yet that is exactly what has happened. Nearly one out of every eleven 
judgeships is vacant--triple the rate of 8 years ago. Our court systems 
are severely strained, with 27 vacancies rated as ``judicial 
emergencies'' at the end of 2012.
  This is deeply damaging, for several reasons. It prevents the 
legislature from responding to the Nation's pressing problems and 
severely hampers the executive and judicial branches, which rely on the 
Senate to confirm their leaders. Because the Senate is unable

[[Page S22]]

to fulfill, on a timely basis, its constitutional responsibility to 
``advise and consent'' to nominations, judgeships and executive branch 
management positions simply go unfilled.
  Now, you may wonder, if this system is so dysfunctional, why did our 
Founding Fathers ever design the Senate like this? The answer is that 
they didn't. The Founders envisioned the Senate and House passing 
legislation and confirming nominations by a simple majority, reserving 
supermajority for special purposes such as constitutional amendments 
and overriding a veto.
  Alexander Hamilton, in fact, foresaw the current state of affairs in 
the Federalist Papers, observing that a supermajority requirement would 
have the ``tendency to embarrass the operations of government,'' and 
would create ``tedious delays, continual negotiation and intrigue, 
[and] contemptible compromises of the public good.''
  As a result of the Senate's silent filibuster, the Senate failed to 
pass almost all of the appropriations bills in the last Congress. The 
number of bills the Senate passes has hit new lows, with fewer than 3 
percent of bills introduced in the last Senate ever passing.
  That is why yesterday, with my partner, Senator Tom Udall, I 
introduced a resolution that will enhance debate and limit obstruction.
  Core to these reforms is the ``talking filibuster.'' A Senator can 
still object but she or he must be continuously on the floor 
maintaining a debate on the subject. This still allows Senators to 
block a simple majority vote on a bill of profound consequence, but 
they have to spend a lot of time and energy to do so.
  This reform would have two major consequences. By requiring time and 
energy to filibuster, it would strip away filibusters on 
noncontroversial issues that are currently used just to obstruct and 
delay, allowing the Senate to debate and decide issues. Second, it puts 
the filibuster on display before the American people, increasing 
transparency and accountability. If you filibuster, you must make your 
case before your colleagues and the public, so they know who is 
obstructing and what your arguments are, and allow the people to judge 
if you are a hero or a bum.
  Senate dysfunction is compromising the Senate's ability to respond to 
major issues facing our Nation. I want to thank Leader Reid for 
reserving the right to not adopt the rules of the previous Congress, so 
we can have this important debate on the rules of this body when we 
come back from the State work period.

                          ____________________