[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 9 (Thursday, January 24, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S266-S270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THANKING OUR COLLEAGUES

  Mr. ISAKSON. Mr. President, as I walked to the Capitol, I had not 
intended to speak. But when I came in and started listening to Senator 
Pryor and Senator Levin, and I listened earlier today to Senator McCain 
and now Senator Alexander, it made me want to come to the floor and 
thank them for the effort they have made to hopefully make us a better 
working body in the next 2 years than we would have been otherwise 
preceding this agreement.
  When Senator Alexander made the remarks about our predecessor, 
Richard Russell, and when he came home to Georgia after a rigorous 
debate, an arduous debate, that took place on civil rights, it made me 
recognize the appreciation and respect our predecessors had for the 
result of the debating process.
  As I listened to Senator Pryor, I had a flashback to 2 weeks ago when 
a number of us attended the movie ``Lincoln.'' It was a screening of 
the movie downstairs, and Steven Spielberg was there. I thought about 
those great scenes in the movie ``Lincoln'' where the U.S. Congress 
debated slavery and whether we were going to abolish it. We came to a 
decision, we had a vote, we debated it, and the abolition of slavery 
took place, all because the Congress functioned, all because 
politicians took the issues to the floor. They challenged one another. 
They worked hard for what they thought was best for the country. I 
think tonight when we vote on the changes that will be adopted, we 
preserve the interests of the minority. We preserve the best heritage 
of this body. We put ourselves in a state where we will debate on the 
floor of the Senate and make decisions for the American people, and the 
result will be a better country and a better product by the U.S. 
Senate.
  So I thank, Senator Alexander, Senator Pryor, Senator McCain, 
wherever you might be, and Senator Carl Levin, for a job well done.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Shaheen). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise to share a few comments on the 
votes that we are about to take. In particular, I am struck by the 
enormous amount of conversation over the last few days over how we make 
this body, our beloved Senate, work more effectively in addressing the 
big issues facing America.
  I think all of us have had the experience of our constituents back 
home recognizing that the last 2 years, and many years before, were 
ones that we had a particular growing element of paralysis that we had 
a responsibility to address. Tonight the Senate is going to be speaking 
in a bipartisan fashion and saying this cannot continue in the same 
way; that we need to take steps toward having a more functional Senate.
  I don't think it will come as a surprise to anyone in this Chamber 
that I had hoped we would go a little further in addressing the silent 
filibuster that has been haunting us in these Halls. But here is the 
important thing. The important thing is that this Chamber is speaking 
tonight in a bipartisan voice, in a strong voice, saying we must take 
steps for this deliberation to work better. I think that message 
reverberates with the American people who are looking at the many 
challenges we face as a nation and who have been watching through the 
courtesy of C-SPAN and seeing that often, when they want us to be 
addressing these challenges, we are here in quorum calls.
  A substantial amount of that can change, both with the modest steps 
we are taking tonight and, hopefully, in the collaboration between the 
two parties in the spirit of having a functioning legislature.
  I want to thank a number of groups who have worked very hard to bring 
to us the importance of making change: the Communications Workers of 
America, the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Justice, the entire Fix the 
Senate Coalition, Daily Coast, Credo, the Progressive Campaign 
Committee, and the nearly half million Americans who have signed 
petitions to say: Please, Dear Senators, work hard on this. It matters. 
I think their voices were heard.
  So I extend my appreciation to the leadership on both sides who have 
been working so hard to figure out these steps forward, to try to have 
a series of tools on the motion to proceed, to figure out how we can 
get more effectively to conference committee with the House, how we can 
cut down on the number of hours that are often wasted after a cloture 
vote on a nomination. So there is significant progress in a number of 
areas.
  I certainly pledge to my majority leader and to my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to remain engaged in this conversation about the 
functioning of the Senate. I appreciate the work they have done. I 
appreciate the steps we are taking tonight. I also appreciate the 
spirit in which many folks are saying: Let's make these things work. We 
hope they work. And if they don't get us there, let's return to this 
conversation because we do have that

[[Page S267]]

underlying responsibility to the citizens of the Nation to have a 
Senate that can act. In the words of the President just outside a few 
days ago, it is time to act. He called upon the Nation and he calls 
upon us, and we make significant steps in that direction tonight.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, we are facing major changes in how the 
Senate operates and even minor changes can have big consequences.
  Since the Senator even from the smallest State represents hundreds of 
thousands of Americans, any change to how senators are able to 
represent their constituents' views is of great importance.
  We have heard plenty of talk from the other side of the aisle about 
how the Senate's current dysfunction simply boils down to Republican 
abuse of the filibuster.
  If you are a partisan Democrat and inclined to think the worst of 
Republicans, then that explanation may hold water for you.
  On the other hand, those who are more fair minded will find 
themselves wondering if there isn't more to the story.
  A fair analysis of what is wrong with the Senate must look at the 
situation from both sides.
  From the Republican point of view, the main gripe with how the Senate 
has been operating recently is the inability of the minority party to 
offer amendments and receive a fair hearing for our ideas.
  The Senate rules provide that any Senator may offer an amendment 
regardless of party affiliation.
  The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that members of the 
minority party have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote by 
the Senate, even if those votes don't fit the agenda of the leadership 
of the majority party.
  Of course, if those amendments don't receive a majority of votes in 
the Senate, they cannot be passed.
  No one is arguing for some sort of right of a minority of senators to 
advance a minority agenda.
  However, it is not uncommon for an idea that comes from the minority 
party to attract votes from the majority party, even enough to pass.
  This can be inconvenient or even embarrassing to the leadership of 
the majority party.
  Perhaps there is a Republican amendment that would reveal a split 
within the Democratic caucus.
  Perhaps a Republican might offer an amendment that has broad public 
support and it would be hard for certain Democrats to explain to the 
people they represent why they voted against it.
  What's wrong with taking tough votes and showing the American people 
where you stand?
  Those who lecture us about majority rule can't have it both ways.
  If an amendment gets the votes of 45 Republicans and 6 Democrats, 
that is a majority, but that is exactly the scenario the majority 
leader has been trying to avoid.
  Minority amendments have routinely, systematically been blocked in 
recent years in the Senate.
  The Majority Leader has consistently used a tactic called ``filling 
the tree'' where he offers blocker amendments that block any other 
senator from offering their own amendment unless he agrees to set his 
blocker amendments aside.
  He is able to get in line first to put his blocker amendments in 
place because of a tradition that the Majority Leader has priority to 
be recognized by the presiding officer.
  This doesn't appear anywhere in the Senate rules and it arguably 
contrary to the rules.
  This so called filling the tree tactic used to be relatively rare, 
but it has become routine under this Democratic leadership.
  So what are Republicans to do if they have amendments they want to 
offer?
  We can ask the majority leader to allow us to set aside his blocker 
amendments so we can offer an amendment.
  His response has been to ask us what amendments we want to offer, and 
he will only agree to set aside his blocker amendments if he approves 
of the particular Republican amendment.
  If there are amendments that he doesn't like, he says ``No.''
  Then, with amendments blocked, he makes a motion to bring debate to a 
close, or ``cloture''.
  When cloture is invoked, it sets up a limited time before a final 
vote must take place.

[[Page S268]]

  By keeping amendments blocked while running out that clock, the 
majority leader can force a final vote on a bill without having to 
consider any amendments.
  Naturally, under these circumstances, members of the minority party 
who wish to offer amendments will vote against the motion to end debate 
and force a final vote until they have had an opportunity to have their 
amendments considered.
  However, when Republicans vote against the majority leader's motion 
to end debate, we are accused of ``launching a filibuster''.
  Many Americans may be surprised to learn that the Senate rules do not 
define what constitutes a filibuster.
  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a filibuster as ``the use of 
extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action 
especially in a legislative assembly.''
  The fact is, a filibuster can refer to any procedure perceived as 
dilatory, which is in the eye of the beholder.
  In the case I have described, if Republicans refuse to go along with 
the majority leader's attempt to deny Senators the right to offer 
amendments, is that an extreme dilatory tactic?
  I would say it is a logical response to an assault on our rights.
  Republicans can't be expected to vote for the majority leader's 
motion to end consideration of a bill before we have had a chance to 
offer any amendments.
  That brings us to the so called ``talking filibuster'' proposal that 
has been mentioned so much on the Senate floor.
  Some have proposed that Senators be required to talk non-stop on the 
Senate floor or a final vote can be forced, even if there have been no 
amendments allowed.
  In other words, when the majority leader has amendments blocked, if 
Republicans want to defend their basic right to offer amendments, they 
would have to go to the floor and debate non-stop.
  That doesn't make any sense.
  What does non-stop debate have to do with giving up your right to 
offer amendments?
  Here is where advocates of the so called ``talking filibuster'' 
confuse the issue.
  As I mentioned, a filibuster can refer to any tactic perceived as 
dilatory, but when most Americans think of the filibuster, they think 
of Jimmy Stewart in the classic film Mr. Smith goes to Washington 
standing and talking without stopping for an extended period of time to 
delay proceedings and make a point. It just makes sense that if you 
want to engage in this type of filibuster, you should have to actually 
speak.
  Some Senators would have us believe that somewhere along the line the 
filibuster was mysteriously transformed so Senators no longer had to 
talk on the floor of the Senate, but that is not the case.
  The filibuster itself hasn't changed, just what we call a filibuster.
  When Democrats complain about Republican filibusters, they aren't 
talking about Mr. Smith Goes to Washington filibusters.
  They are talking about Republicans refusing to vote for the majority 
leader's motion to end consideration of bills without the opportunity 
for amendments.
  Again, the rules and traditions of the Senate dictate that Senators 
have a right to offer amendment.
  What justification can there be for forcing Senators to speak for 
hours on the floor or lose the right to offer amendments?
  That would just encourage the majority leader to block amendments 
even more and use this new tool to jam legislation through the Senate 
without considering alternative views. Such a situation would only make 
the underlying problem worse.
  This isn't just Republicans saying this.
  Listen to what the New York Times said: ``The use of filibusters has 
risen since the 1970s, especially when Republicans have been in the 
Senate minority. But the most recent spike of Republican filibusters 
has coincided with the Democrats' unprecedented moves to limit 
amendments on the Senate floor.''
  The current majority has moved to cut off debate and amendments on a 
measure other than the motion to proceed over 100 times.
  This doesn't even tell the whole story because much of the time, the 
Senate Majority Leader doesn't have to actually use his amendment 
blocking tactic.
  He simply informs Republicans that he will block amendments, or 
refuses to commit to allow Republican amendments before making the 
motion to consider a bill.
  Republicans can hardly be expected to vote in favor of taking up a 
bill under these conditions.
  I should point out that it isn't just members of the minority party 
who have been affected by the blocking of amendments.
  There have been far fewer opportunities for Democrat Senators to 
offer amendments in recent years than used to be the case.
  Not all Democrats will agree with every aspect of a bill brought 
before the Senate by their own leadership.
  Rank and file Democrats might also have ideas to improve a bill that 
had not yet been considered before being taken up by the Senate.
  Those who claim to want to fix the dysfunction of the Senate but who 
focus only on the alleged dilatory tactics by the minority party and 
ignore the heavy handed tactics by the current majority party are at 
best only addressing half the problem.
  Moreover, to the extent any change to the Senate rules strengthens 
the ability of the majority to steamroll the minority, partisanship 
will only get worse.
  The rules of the Senate, which protect the rights of the minority, 
force the majority to work with the minority if they want to get things 
done.
  As a result, the Senate has historically been a more bipartisan place 
than the House.
  That is a positive feature of the Senate that we should not discard 
lightly.
  The role the Senate was intended to play by our Founding Fathers is 
clear.
  I have described before how the Senate, with its longer staggered 
terms and other features, was specifically structured to act as a check 
on the passions of temporary majorities as represented in the House of 
Representatives.
  I won't go into detail on that subject again because it is already in 
the Congressional Record, but I quoted James Madison, the Father of the 
Constitution, at length.
  I have heard some select quotes from the Federalist Papers also used 
by some on the other side to argue that the Framers of the Constitution 
actually favored a more strictly majoritarian system.
  One common quote is from Federalist 58, which discusses how only a 
simple majority is required for a quorum in the House of 
Representatives. Madison explains that this is to prevent a situation 
where a minority of Members can halt action by walking out, as happened 
with Democrat State legislators during the redistricting fight in 2003 
and more recently in Wisconsin during the debate about collective 
bargaining for public employees.
  In context, I see nothing that would contradict the expressed 
concerns elsewhere in the Federalist Papers about tyranny of the 
majority.
  I have also heard a reference to Federalist 75, which ironically 
discusses the supermajority requirement in the Constitution for 
ratifying treaties.
  The discussion is about whether the supermajority ought to be two-
thirds of Senators present or two-thirds voting, not whether there 
ought to be a supermajority requirement.
  We can never know what the Framers would have thought of the cloture 
rule as it currently exists.
  However, we know that the Senate was specifically intended to prevent 
the majority from steamrolling the minority.
  The fact is, our Constitution is a compromise between a purely 
majoritarian system where the rights of the minority are threatened by 
what Madison called the ``superior force of an interested and 
overbearing majority'' and the system under the Articles of 
Confederation where nothing could be done unless it was practically 
unanimous.
  Our goal should be to return to the tradition of the Senate as a 
deliberative body where all Senators have an opportunity to put forward 
proposals, and the Senate can work its collective will.

[[Page S269]]

  Any reform of the Senate rules must balance the interests of the 
majority with the rights of the minority, not tip the balance toward 
one or the other.
  If we fail to strike that balance, partisanship will only get worse.
  That is easier said than done.
  I know several Senators put forward proposals that they think are 
fair and will fix the Senate.
  However, it takes more than assurances that you are willing to live 
under the rules you are prepared to impose should you find yourself in 
the minority.
  You can't say that for sure until you are in that position.
  Any serious attempt at a fair approach to the Senate's problems must 
involve engaging members of the other party and addressing their 
legitimate concerns.
  That means that any reform of the Senate rules must restore a full 
and open amendment process where individual senators of any party can 
offer amendments.
  Does the deal before us meet that test?
  I am not sure.
  The deal the two leaders have struck does include a guarantee of two 
amendments for the minority party, presumably picked by the minority 
leader.
  That at least acknowledges the legitimate concerns on my side of the 
aisle about the blocking of amendments.
  Two amendments is better than none, which is what we have had in 
practice.
  It is also better than a unilateral rules changes imposed by the 
majority on an unwilling minority.
  However, I have described how the right to offer amendments is a 
fundamental right of individual Senators representing their respective 
States.
  There are 45 Republicans in the Senate, not 2.
  It is also true that rank and file Democrats have plenty of proposals 
they have a right to put forward.
  They shouldn't have to ask their leader's permission to do so any 
more than Republicans should.
  Perhaps knowing that he will have to deal with two Republican 
amendments, the majority leader will decide to allow more bills to be 
considered under an open amendment process the way they should be. I 
hope so.
  However, it is also possible that the majority leader will decide 
that there is no reason to ever go back to the traditional open 
amendment process now that we have this new process that only 
guarantees two amendments.
  Two amendments could become the new ceiling rather than the floor.
  If that is the case, we will have made the Senate more partisan and 
more dysfunctional.
  It remains to be seen these changes will work in practice and I will 
be watching closely.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, during my 38 years in the Senate, I have 
served with Democratic majorities and Republican majorities, during 
Republican administrations and Democratic ones. Whether in the majority 
or the minority, whether the chairman or ranking member of a committee, 
I have always stood for the protection of the rights of the minority. 
Even when the minority has voted differently than I have or opposed 
what I have supported, I have defended their rights and held to my 
belief that the best traditions of the Senate would win out and that 
the 100 of us who stand in the shoes of over 300 million Americans 
would do the right thing.
  Yet over the last 4 years, Senate Republicans have come dangerously 
close to changing something central to the character of the Senate and 
threatening its ability to do its work for the American people.
  As a caucus, instead of trying to work with us on efforts to help the 
American people at a time of economic challenges, Senate Republicans 
have engaged in an across-the-board procedural barricade. On issue 
after issue, from the DISCLOSE Act to efforts to curb massive subsidies 
for big oil companies, from the American Jobs Act to the Paycheck 
Fairness Act, from legislation to help small businesses to providing 
support for our veterans, Senate Republicans have relied on the 
unprecedented use of the filibuster to thwart the majority from making 
progress. They have long since crossed the line from use of the Senate 
rules to abuse of the rules, exploiting them to undermine our ability 
to solve national problems.
  Filibusters that were once used rarely have now become a common 
occurrence, with Senate Republicans raising procedural barriers to even 
considering legislation or voting on the kinds of noncontroversial 
nominations the Senate once confirmed regularly and quickly by 
unanimous consent. The leader has been required to file cloture just to 
ensure that the Senate makes any progress at all to address our 
national and economic security, and a supermajority of the Senate is 
now needed even to force a vote on mundane issues.
  That is not how the Senate should work or has worked. The Senate is 
built on a tradition of comity, with rules that only function based on 
the kind of consent commonly and traditionally given. The rules are not 
built to aid and abet Senators using across-the-board filibusters and 
obstruction at every turn. The Senate does not function if an entire 
caucus takes every opportunity to use obscure procedural loopholes to 
stand in the way of a vote because they might disagree with the result. 
Without serious steps to curtail these abuses, the approach taken the 
last four years by Senate Republicans risks turning the rules of the 
Senate into a farce and calls into question the ability of the Senate 
to perform its constitutional functions.
  In an earlier period of Senate history, when the filibuster was 
widely regarded as having become too great an obstacle for long-overdue 
reforms--for which there was a wide and general national consensus--I 
had the honor of playing a small part as a freshman senator during 
Senator Walter Mondale's heroic and successful efforts to lower the 
cloture bar from 67 votes to 60 votes. Then, as now, reform came 
through arduous, bipartisan negotiation.
  I am hopeful that the agreement reached today by the majority leader 
and the Republican leader represents that kind of serious step toward 
restoring the tradition of the Senate and its ability to work for the 
American people. I am hopeful that the Republican Senators who join 
today with Senate Democrats follow through on the commitment they are 
making to curtail the abuse of Senate rules and practices that have 
marked the last four years.
  The progress we are making today is a credit to Senator Merkley, 
Senator Udall, Senator Harkin, and others whose efforts to reform the 
Senate rules are justified by the abuses we have seen. The diligence 
and energy of these reformers provided the impetus for the agreement 
reached today by the majority leader and the Republican leader. In my 
view the agreement does not go far enough to address abuses, and I wish 
it included more of the commonsense proposals put forward by the 
reformers to make the Senate run more efficiently. As I did at the 
beginning of the last Congress, I support their proposals to put the 
burden of maintaining a filibuster on those seeking to obstruct the 
Senate, rather than on those seeking to overcome the obstruction. 
However, I am willing to accept today's agreement as a meaningful 
compromise with concessions by both sides that will have the support of 
senators from both parties, rather than the support of only one party. 
I will support it because it can be adopted by a supermajority vote 
instead of the kind of extended and damaging floor fight over the rules 
that would undermine any progress we hope to make. With so many urgent 
issues to tackle for the American people, we cannot risk giving 
opponents of progress another excuse for inaction.
  I am encouraged by the verbal agreement between the majority leader 
and the Republican leader to change the practices of how the Senate 
handles filibusters. Under this agreement, the bill managers and 
leadership would call on Senators who are threatening a filibuster to 
come to the floor, which will properly put the burden of a filibuster 
on those seeking to obstruct, rather than those seeking to make 
progress. The leaders will also press that postcloture debate time be 
used for debate and will bring votes to produce a quorum to avoid 
delay. These commonsense steps will help build on today's rules changes 
to help curtail the abuses we have seen and restore the Senate's 
ability to work for the American people.

[[Page S270]]

  I also believe the Standing Order that is part of today's agreement 
will give the majority leader new tools for overcoming the wholesale 
Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominations. As 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have been especially concerned 
about the damage being done by Republican obstruction to the Senate's 
unique responsibility for ensuring that the judicial branch has the 
judges it needs to do its job. Over the last 4 years, Senate 
Republicans have abandoned this constitutional responsibility, using 
unprecedented filibusters to delay and obstruct President Obama from 
appointing to the Federal bench even judicial nominations that have 
bipartisan support. As a result of this brand of Republican 
obstruction, we begin President Obama's second term with the Judiciary 
nearly 20 percent below where it needs to be in terms of judges, and a 
prescription for overburdened courts and a Federal justice system that 
does not serve the interests of the American people.
  Senate Republicans have already forced the majority leader to file 
cloture on 30 of President Obama's judicial nominations, almost all of 
which were noncontroversial and were ultimately confirmed 
overwhelmingly. Yet the Senate rules give the minority the ability to 
demand 30 hours of floor time even after a supermajority of the Senate 
has voted to end the filibuster of a judicial nomination. This extended 
debate time is meant to give the Senate a chance to consider amendments 
that are germane to a bill so it serves no purpose for judicial 
nominations. Rather, it has been used by Senate Republicans as a threat 
to obstruct the Senate for days just to get to a vote on each of these 
noncontroversial nominations. Such an approach has made it easier for a 
silent minority of Senate Republicans to make the costs too high for 
the majority leader to push for votes on nominees and has led directly 
to the unnecessary and damaging backlog of judicial nominations we have 
seen for years on the Senate calendar.
  The agreement reached today has a good chance of curtailing this type 
of abuse of the rules in this Congress by reducing this extended debate 
time after the end of a filibuster on district court nominations from 
30 hours to two hours. I believe this change will increase the ability 
of the majority leader to push for votes on district court nominations, 
where the threat by Senate Republicans of extended debate time has been 
particularly damaging.
  Federal district court judges hear cases from litigants across the 
country and handle the vast majority of the caseload of the Federal 
courts. Nominations to fill these critical positions, whether made by a 
Democratic or Republican President, have always been considered with 
deference to the home State Senators who know the nominees and their 
States best and have been confirmed promptly with that support. Never 
before in the 38 years I have been in the Senate have I seen anything 
like what has happened in the last 4 years, when we have seen district 
court nominees blocked for months and opposed for no good reason. 
Senate Republicans have politicized even these traditionally non-
partisan positions, needlessly stalling them for months with no 
explanation.
  Until 2009, Senators deferred to the President and to home State 
Senators on district court nominees. During the 8 years that George W. 
Bush served as President, only five of his district court nominees 
received any opposition on the floor. In just 4 years, Senate 
Republicans have voted against 39 of President Obama's district court 
nominees, and the majority leader has been forced to file cloture on 20 
of them, with many more left to linger month after month without a vote 
on the Senate calendar due to the threat by Republicans to require half 
a legislative week or more just to confirm one of them. As a result, it 
has taken the Senate more than three times as long to vote on President 
Obama's district court nominees as it did to vote on President Bush's.
  The agreement reached today will blunt the ability of Senate 
Republicans to block important legislation and district court 
nominations without accountability merely by the threat of burning so 
much Senate time. I wish that the proposal also applied to Federal 
circuit court or Supreme Court nominations, where the extended 
postcloture debate time also serves no purpose. But the progress I 
believe we will make as a result of this bipartisan compromise is a 
good first step towards helping us reduce the extended backlog of 
judicial nominations created by Republican obstruction and should 
result in more judges serving the American people.
  There is no question that the reforms sought by many Democratic 
Senators are justified by the extended and unprecedented abuse of the 
Senate rules and practices by Senate Republicans that began when 
President Obama took office. However, I hope that by reaching this 
bipartisan agreement we build a foundation for restoring the Senate's 
ability to fulfill its constitutional duties and do its work for the 
American people. Now the burden is on Senate Republicans to work with 
us rather than hide behind an abuse of the rules to block progress.
  The American people want Congress to be able to solve national 
problems like disaster relief, comprehensive immigration reform, and 
the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. They want us to 
work together on commonsense solutions to reduce gun violence and to 
ensure that all Americans have access to a working Federal court 
system. I hope that today's bipartisan compromise holds the promise of 
getting more done to help the American people. I look forward to 
working with those on both sides of the aisle in the coming months.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________