[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 606-615]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                             THE FILIBUSTER

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to give some 
remarks that I give about every 2 years, I guess, when the Senate 
reconvenes for a new Congress. Now this is a new Congress, so once 
again I come here to point out that we need to make some changes in the 
way we operate.
  I have been in this body for 28 years. I am currently eighth in 
seniority. As soon as Senator Kerry becomes Secretary of State, I will 
be seventh in seniority. I am proud to represent the great State of 
Iowa; I am proud to be a Senator, to serve in this illustrious body. I 
have been in the majority and minority I think up to five times in the 
Senate. Before that, I served 10 years in the House. I love the Senate. 
It is a wonderful institution--it is, as envisioned by our Founders.
  The Senate at times has been frustratingly slow to encompass the 
changes necessary to the smooth functioning of our country. I mention 
in particular the long, long struggle for civil rights and how that was 
held up by a small minority--which happened to be in my party, by the 
way, at that time.
  Nonetheless, the Senate through the years has really been the Chamber 
that takes a long and hard look at legislation, where we have the right 
to amend, where we have the right to discuss and to embark upon 
discourse on legislation in a manner that allows even the smallest 
State to be represented as much as a large State. That is not true in 
the body that both the occupant of the chair and I used to serve in, 
the House. There, as you know, large States tend to dominate because we 
have most of the Members. But here, a Senator from Connecticut is just 
as important as a Senator from California or a Senator from Iowa or--
let's see, what is the least populous State? I think Wyoming or 
Alaska--is equal to a Senator from New York or Florida or Texas or 
California. This has been a great equalizing body.
  Having served here for this time, I think I have some perspective on 
this Senate. As I said, at its best, this Senate is where our great 
American experience in democratic self-government most fully manifests 
itself. It is in this body that the American people, through their 
elected officials, can come together collectively to debate, 
deliberate, and address the great issues of our time. Through our 
Nation's history, it has done so. In the nearly quarter of a century I 
have been here--well, wait, it is 28 years that I have been here, so it 
is over a quarter of a century--the rights of Americans have been 
expanded: Americans with disabilities; we have ensured health insurance 
for millions of Americans.
  In the early 1990s we voted here on the course to eliminate the 
national deficit in a generation, and we are on our way to doing that.
  It is because of my great reverence for this institution and my love 
for our country that I come to the floor today. One does not need to 
read the abysmal approval ratings of Congress to know that Americans 
are fed up and angry with this broken government. In too many critical 
areas, people see a Congress that is riven with dysfunction. Citizens 
see their legislature going from manufactured crisis to manufactured 
crisis. They see a legislature that is simply unable to respond 
effectively to the most urgent challenges of our time.
  Of course, there are a myriad of reasons for this gridlock--increased 
partisanship; a decline in civility and comity; too much power, I 
believe, in the hands of special interest groups; a polarizing instant-
news media; and, I might add, the increasing time demands on all of us 
here involved in raising large amounts of money to run for reelection. 
But make no mistake, a principal cause of dysfunction here in the 
Senate is the rampant abuse of the filibuster.
  It is long past time to make the Senate a more functional body, one 
that is better able, as I said, to respond to our Nation's challenges. 
The fact is that I am not a Johnny-come-lately to filibuster reform. In 
January of 1995--when I was in the minority, I might add--I first 
introduced legislation to reform the filibuster. We got a vote on it. 
Obviously, we did not win, but I made my points then, and I engaged in 
a very good debate with Senator Byrd at that time, in 1995. You can 
read it in

[[Page 607]]

the Record. I think it was probably January 8, if I am not mistaken, of 
1995.
  At that time, I submitted a resolution because, as I said, I saw an 
arms race in which each side would simply escalate the use of the 
filibuster and abuse procedural rules to a point where we would just 
cease to function here in the Senate. I said that at the time. I said 
that what happens is when the Democrats are in the minority, they abuse 
the filibuster against the Republicans. Then when the Republicans 
become the minority, they say: You Democrats did it to us 20 times, we 
will do it to you 30 times. Then when it switches again and the 
Democrats are in the minority, they say: Republicans did it to us 30 
times, we will do it 50 times. We will teach them a lesson.
  On and on, the arms race is escalated. I said at the time that we 
might get to a point where this body simply cannot function, and sadly 
that is what happened.
  That is why 18 years after I first submitted my proposal, I believe 
reform is never more urgent and necessary. The minority leader stated 
that reformers advocate ``a fundamental change to the way the Senate 
operates.'' To the contrary, it is the abuse of the filibuster, not the 
reforms being advocated, that has fundamentally changed the character 
of this body and our entire system of government. Again, I will point 
out now and I will point out repeatedly in my remarks that Democrats 
are not guiltless in this regard by any means, but the real power grab 
and the real abuse has come about when the Republicans have abused this 
tool--one that was used sparingly for nearly 200 years.
  What has happened is that effective control of the Senate and of 
public policy has been turned over to the minority, not to the majority 
that has been elected by the American people. In many cases, those who 
are warning of a fundamental change to the nature and culture of the 
Senate are the very ones who have already carried out a revolutionary 
change. Those of us who are seeking to reform the filibuster rules are 
not the ones who are doing a nuclear option or blowing up the Senate. 
Those who have abused the filibuster are the ones who have already 
changed the character of the Senate. What we are trying to do is 
restore some functionality to the Senate so that the Senate can operate 
with due regard for the rights of the minority. I will talk about that 
more in a moment.
  The minority leader has recently called the filibuster ``near 
sacred.'' I am sorry, he could not be more incorrect. The notion that 
60 votes are required to pass any measure or confirm any nominee is not 
in the Constitution and until recently would have been considered a 
ludicrous idea, flying in the face of any definition of government by 
democracy.
  Far from considering the filibuster ``near sacred,'' it is safe to 
say that the Founders would have considered a supermajority requirement 
sacrilegious. After all, they experimented with a supermajority 
requirement under the Articles of Confederation, and it was expressly 
rejected in the Constitution because the Framers believed it had proven 
unworkable. That is right, the Articles of Confederation basically had 
a supermajority requirement, and they found that did not work. That is 
why, as I will mention in a moment also, the Framers of the 
Constitution set out explicitly five different times that this Senate 
requires a supermajority. You would have thought that if they wanted a 
supermajority for everything, they would have said so. No, they 
specified treaties, impeachments, expelling a Member--those require a 
supermajority as expressly spelled out in the Constitution.
  The filibuster was once a tool used only in rare instances--most 
shamefully, as I said earlier, to block civil rights legislation. But 
across the entire 19th century, there were only 23 filibusters, in 100 
years. From 1917, when the Senate first adopted rules to end 
filibusters, until 1969 there were fewer than 50--during all those 
years. That is less than one filibuster a year. In his 6 years as 
majority leader, Lyndon Johnson only faced one filibuster.
  According to one study, in the 1960s just 8 percent of major bills 
were filibustered. Think about all the legislation that was passed--
civil rights, Voting Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, Older Americans 
Act, Pell grants, Higher Education Act, Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. Think of all the legislation passed in the 1960s. Just 8 
percent was filibustered. In contrast, since 2007 when Democrats 
regained control of the Senate, there have been over 380 motions to end 
filibusters--380. This does not even include the countless bills and 
nominations on which the majority has not even tried to obtain cloture 
either because of a lack of time or because we knew it would be 
fruitless.
  The fact is that for the first time in history, on almost a daily 
basis, the minority--and in many cases, just one Senator--routinely is 
able to and does use the threat of a filibuster to stop bills from even 
coming to the floor for debate and amendment. Unfortunately, moreover, 
because of outdated rules, an actual filibuster rarely occurs. Too 
often it is merely the threat of a filibuster, and that is the end of 
it; it is not debated or anything.
  Let's get beyond the outrageous idea that Democrats, in proposing 
rules reform, would be initiating a revolution. In actuality, the 
changes that are seriously under discussion right now are simply a 
modest reaction to decades of escalating warfare which has culminated 
in 6 years of unrelenting minority obstructionism.
  Because I feel so passionately that reform is so badly needed, I 
fully support the commonsense proposals from Senator Merkley and 
Senator Udall. Their proposals would simply require the minority to 
actually filibuster, actually debate. A Senator would have to come to 
the floor and explain his or her opposition or offer his or her views 
on how a bill could be improved. Under the proposed reforms, the 
Senators would actually have to make arguments, debate, and deliberate. 
Senators would have to obstruct in public and be held accountable for 
that obstructionism.
  Perhaps because this is such a commonsense reform, Republicans who 
have come to the floor have not addressed why they oppose rules that 
would require more transparency. Republicans have failed to explain to 
this body or to the public why a minority--again, the group the public 
chose not to govern here--why should they be able to kill a nominee by 
stealth? Republicans have failed to explain why they oppose more debate 
and more deliberation. Why do they oppose more debate, more 
deliberation, which is puzzling given that they profess that their 
sincere concerns are animated by the desire to foster debate and 
deliberation. But that is not what is happening. In stealth, they 
oppose a bill. They do not come to the floor, and they fail to defend 
why they do not even do that, why they will not even come to the floor 
and speak.
  Instead, Republican after Republican has come to the floor and 
denounced what they claim are Democratic efforts to eliminate the 
filibuster and to, in their words, ``fundamentally change'' this body. 
The fact is that they are attacking the wrong plan. The truth is, under 
the reforms proposed either by Senator Udall or Senator Merkley or one 
they have together or even under my proposal, the filibuster would 
still be a tool. Sixty votes would be needed to enact a measure, to 
confirm a nominee. Under their proposal, it would still require 60 
votes.
  Under my proposal as I first laid out in this body in 1995, I said: 
You know, sure, OK, on the first vote after you have the cloture motion 
filed, the first vote would require 60 votes.
  If they didn't have 60 votes, they would have to wait 3 days, file 
another cloture motion, and then they would need 57 votes. If they 
didn't get 57 votes, they would have to file another cloture motion, 
wait 3 days, and they would need 54 votes. If they didn't get that, 
they would file another cloture motion, wait 3 days, and they would 
need 51 votes.
  Under this proposal I have worked out with other groups and other 
people over the last almost 20 years, the fact is the filibuster could 
be used for what

[[Page 608]]

it was intended--slow things down. I believe the Senate ought to be a 
place where we slow things down. It should not be a place where just a 
few Senators can kill a bill. This should be a place where the 
filibuster is used not to slow things down but is actually used to kill 
a bill.
  What I have proposed would be a period of time--actually up to about 
16 days--where someone could slow a bill down, but eventually the 
majority would be able to act. I mean, what a revolutionary idea. The 
majority should be able to prevail. Think about our own elections. I 
guess maybe it could be extended further to say it is not enough to get 
51 percent, or the majority of votes, we have to get 60; if they don't 
get that, they don't take office. What a revolutionary idea that 
somehow the majority should be able to move legislation.
  I also agree there should be the rights of the minority to debate, 
discuss, and amend legislation. Again, the majority, after ample debate 
and deliberation, should have the power to govern, to enact the agenda 
the voters voted for, and to be held accountable at the ballot box. I 
guess I fundamentally believe in democracy. Maybe that is a failing on 
my part. I fundamentally believe the majority should rule, with respect 
for rights of the minority.
  As I have noted, a revolution has already occurred in the Senate in 
recent years. Never before in the history of this Senate was it 
accepted that a 60-vote threshold was required for everything. This did 
not occur as a constitutional amendment or through any great public 
debate. Rather, this occurred because of the abuse of the filibuster. 
The minority party has assumed for itself absolute and virtually 
unchecked veto power over all legislation; over any executive branch 
nominee, no matter how insignificant the position; over all judges, no 
matter how uncontroversial.
  In other words, because of the filibuster, even when a party has been 
resoundingly repudiated at the polls, that party retains the power to 
prevent the majority from governing and carrying out the agenda the 
public elected it to implement. In this regard, over 380 filibusters is 
not some cold statistic. Each filibuster represents a minority of 
Senators--sometimes a mere handful--who are preventing the majority of 
the people's representatives from governing.
  As one example, Republicans repeatedly filibustered a motion to 
proceed to legislation that would require more disclosure of campaign 
donations. The DISCLOSE Act is what it was called. A substantial 
majority of Senators supported the bill. Polling showed that 80 percent 
of the public believed the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United 
was wrong, that we needed to know more disclosure of campaign 
contributions. Yet a small minority of Senators was able to prevent the 
bill from even being debated on the floor of the Senate, let alone 
receiving an up-or-down vote. That is just one example.
  In the last two Congresses, consider some of the measures blocked by 
the minority, measures that received majority support on a cloture 
vote: the DREAM Act, Bring Jobs Home Act, Small Business Jobs and Tax 
Relief Act, Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012, Repeal Big Oil Tax 
Subsidies Act, Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act, American 
Jobs Act of 2011, Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, 
Paycheck Fairness Act, Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring 
Act.
  Again, it is not that the bills were filibustered. The right to even 
debate these bills and vote on them was filibustered. It is one thing 
if we are on the bill and have a filibuster. No, we could not even 
debate them even though a majority of Senators voted for cloture. Not 
60 votes but a majority. So the majority was thwarted from the ability 
to even bring these up and debate them or even letting people offer 
amendments.
  It used to be that if a Senator opposed a bill, he or she would 
engage in a spirited debate, try to change people's minds, attempt to 
persuade the public, offer amendments, vote no, and then try to hold 
Members who voted yes accountable at the ballot box. Isn't that what it 
is about? In contrast, today--and to quote former Republican Senator 
Charles McC. Mathias in 1994:

       The filibuster has become an epidemic, used whenever a 
     coalition can find 41 votes to oppose legislation. The 
     distinction between voting against legislation and blocking a 
     vote, between opposing and obstructing, has nearly 
     disappeared.

  When Senator McC. Mathias spoke and described it as an epidemic, in 
that Congress there were 80 motions to end filibusters. That is a 
number which pales in comparison to today, when we have had 380 motions 
to end the filibuster. To grind this body to a halt, all the minority 
party has to do is resort to the filibuster of a motion to proceed.
  Under the critical jobs legislation, all the minority party had to do 
was block the motion to proceed and then they turn around and blame the 
majority for failing to address the jobs crisis. We had jobs bills; we 
could not get them up. We had jobs bills, but then they blamed us for 
failing to address the jobs crisis. It is no surprise that Americans 
are fed up with the broken government. As that list of blocked bills 
demonstrates, the anger is fully justified. In too many critical areas 
what people see is a dysfunctional Congress that is unable to respond 
collectively to the urgent challenges we face.
  As the Des Moines Register recently noted:

       One message candidates heard from voters this election was 
     contempt for partisan gridlock in Congress. One of the 
     biggest obstacles to congressional action is the profusion of 
     filibusters in the Senate.

  It is no surprise that editorials throughout the country have 
recognized that the use of the filibuster must be changed.
  USA Today has noted that the ``filibuster has become destructively 
routine.''
  The Roanoke Times noted that ``filibuster reform alone will not fix 
everything that is wrong with Washington, but it would remove one of 
the chief impediments to governing.''
  The Minnesota Star Tribune stated:

       Most Americans live under the impression that 
     representative democracy's basic precept is majority rule. 
     Sadly, that's no longer the case in the U.S. Senate, where 
     the minority party has so abused the filibuster that it (the 
     minority) now controls the action--or more accurately, the 
     inaction. This perverts the will of the voters and should not 
     be allowed to stand.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the copies of these 
editorials, and others from around the country, in support of 
filibuster reform be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                 [From the StarTribune, Dec. 25, 2012]

                  Filibuster in Need of Major Overhaul

                          (By Editorial Board)

       Most Americans live under the impression that 
     representative democracy's basic precept is majority rule. 
     Sadly, that's no longer the case in the U.S. Senate, where 
     the minority party has so abused the filibuster that it (the 
     minority) now controls the action--or more accurately, the 
     Inaction.
       This perverts the will of the voters and should not be 
     allowed to stand. As its first order of business next month, 
     the new Senate should reform the filibuster rules in a way 
     that restores fairness to the majority, preserves reasonable 
     rights for the minority and keeps faith with the intent of 
     the Constitution and the voting public. Democrats Jeff 
     Merkley of Oregon and Tom Harkin of Iowa have solid proposals 
     for their fellow senators to consider. What they should not 
     consider is keeping the filibuster rules the way they are.
       Let's be clear. This is not a partisan matter. The abusers 
     in this case happen to be Republicans. They have masterfully 
     mounted hundreds of filibusters in recent years to frustrate 
     the majority Democrats and, in the process, have remade their 
     leader, Mitch McConnell, into the Senate's de facto majority 
     leader. But Democrats could--and probably would--stoop to the 
     same depths the next time they're relegated to minority 
     status.
       As an idea, the filibuster has merit, and when used more 
     sparingly in the past, it has won support from this page. Not 
     rushing to judgment is a main function of the Senate, which 
     was intended as a deliberative body. Extending debate also 
     protects important rights for minority views. But the 
     minority's clear abuse of those rights has gone beyond 
     reason.
       Here's the problem. On nearly every major bill, rather than 
     accept a loss by a simple majority, the minority party 
     launches a filibuster--a procedure that pushes the bill into

[[Page 609]]

     a limbo of theoretically endless ``debate'' unless a 
     supermajority of 60 votes can be rounded up to stop it. 
     Getting 60 senators to agree on anything is nearly 
     impossible. So the wheels of government grind to a halt. It's 
     a perfect tactic for the minority, because the public tends 
     to blame the majority for ineffectual leadership.
       But it's worse than that. To mount and maintain a 
     filibuster takes no real effort or conviction. The minority 
     party never has to stand up on the Senate floor to defend its 
     position. There is no real debate, no real deliberation on 
     the nation's important business, or on the scores of judges 
     and other federal officials whose nominations the Senate must 
     confirm.
       Not since 1970, when ``silent filibusters'' were adopted, 
     have senators had to hold the floor in the manner made famous 
     by the film ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' (1939) or the 
     endless tag-team ordeals that Strom Thurmond and other 
     southern senators employed against civil-rights legislation 
     in the 1960s.
       Even In those bygone days, senators reserved filibusters 
     for extraordinary moments. But now they are routine. In his 
     six years as majority leader, Harry Reid has faced 380 
     filibusters. Lyndon Johnson, in his six years as majority 
     leader (1955-1961), dealt with one.
       ``If you had a child acting like this, you'd worry about 
     him,'' former Vice President Walter Mondale told a University 
     of Minnesota audience last week. As a senator, Mondale led 
     efforts to reform the filibuster in 1975, but clearly his 
     changes weren't enough to halt the abuse.
       Merkley's proposal would bring back the traditional 
     ``talking filibuster.'' If more than half of senators voted 
     to end debate, but not the 60 votes required, then senators 
     would have to hold the floor with talking marathons.
       Harkin offers a ``sliding filibuster.'' If the 60-vote 
     threshold to halt a filibuster isn't met, a 57-vote threshold 
     kicks in three days later, then a 54-vote threshold three 
     days after that. Finally, after nine days, the bill could 
     pass by a simple majority.
       A third option is to get rid of the filibuster altogether. 
     A pending lawsuit from Common Cause proposes just that, 
     arguing that requiring a supermajority is unlawful except on 
     treaties and other Matters enumerated in the Constitution.
       As currently practiced, the filibuster is a cynical affront 
     to voters and to the precepts of representative democracy. It 
     does not extend debate in a meaningful way. It does not make 
     the Senates deliberative body. It does more harm than good. 
     It should be reformed at the earliest possible moment
                                  ____


              [From the Des Moines Register, Dec. 6, 2012]

                   Time Has Come To End Senate Logjam

                  (By The Register's Editorial Staff)

       One message candidates heard from voters this election was 
     contempt for partisan gridlock in Congress. One of the 
     biggest obstacles to congressional action is the profusion of 
     filibusters in the Senate.
       Now is the time to reform Senate rules to break that 
     legislative logjam.
       It's a longstanding tradition for senators to block 
     legislation by merely talking it to death, known as a 
     filibuster. Though by definition a filibuster means literally 
     obstructing Senate procedures by continuous speech by members 
     on the floor, a senator can have the same effect these days 
     by simply threatening to filibuster. That is increasingly 
     common.
       The only way to stop a filibuster, according to the 
     Senate's rules, is by a ``cloture'' vote, which requires the 
     support of three-fifths of the body, or 60 senators. The 
     upshot is a minority of senators can block the will of the 
     majority.
       In the past six years alone, 385 cloture motions have been 
     filed in the Senate calling for votes to end filibusters. 
     That is more than all of such motions filed in the 70-year 
     period after the cloture-vote rule was created, according to 
     a report by the Brennan Center for Justice. This has become 
     so common that it is assumed a 60 percent supermajority is 
     required for all votes.
       That was not the intent of the framers, however. The 
     Constitution requires a supermajority vote for a limited 
     number of issues, which means only a majority is necessary on 
     all others.
       Still, the filibuster is deeply rooted in Senate tradition. 
     The Senate cherishes the right of any senator to be fully 
     heard. Thus, the rules say no senator ``shall interrupt 
     another senator in debate without his consent.'' In other 
     words, one senator can hold the floor as long as he or she 
     has the capacity to speak.
       Originally one had to actually talk continuously to prevent 
     a bill coming to a vote, which Southerners did to great 
     effect to block civil rights laws in the 1950s. Indeed, the 
     late Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina still holds the 
     record for talking 24 hours and 18 minutes in August 1957. 
     The previous record holder was Louisiana Sen. Huey Long who 
     would read aloud recipes, instructions on how to fry oysters 
     and the occasional ``rambling discourse on the subject of 
     `potlilkker','' according to one account.
       The Senate has sought to curb the filibuster before. In 
     1917, the rules were changed to provide for a way to end a 
     filibuster if two-thirds of the body is in favor, or 67 
     votes. The threshold was lowered to three-fifths, 60 votes, 
     in 1975.
       Some argue that changing the rules would destroy the 
     Senate, but the party making that case is usually in the 
     minority and is using the filibuster to frustrate the 
     majority. Both parties are guilty of abusing the rules to 
     make it next to impossible for the Senate to perform its 
     duty, which is to act on legislation. Both parties should 
     agree on a compromise to reform the filibuster.
       The Senate should agree on a rule change that recognizes 
     the Senate's respect for hearing the views of the minority 
     and to preserve the Senate's role in slowing reckless 
     proposals from the House for more thoughtful consideration.
       But it should not preserve the status quo, which means that 
     nothing gets done in the Senate, and by extension nothing 
     gets done in Congress. That is neither the intent of the 
     Constitution or of the American people.
                                  ____


              [From the Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 2012]

                      Go Nuclear on the Filibuster

                              (Editorial)

       Harry Reid offers a plan to curb a tactic that has created 
     gridlock in Congress. It's a good start.
       Nothing exposes partisan hypocrisy quite like the 
     filibuster, that irksome parliamentary rule that allows a 
     minority of U.S. senators to block legislation, judicial 
     appointments and other business by requiring a 60-vote 
     majority to proceed to a vote. Almost invariably, the party 
     in power considers the filibuster to be an enemy of progress 
     that must be squashed, while the minority fights to preserve 
     it at all cost. That the same players often find themselves 
     arguing from opposite sides depending on whether they control 
     the Senate or are in the minority hardly seems to trouble 
     most lawmakers.
       So comes now Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) 
     with a campaign to alter the filibuster rule using the so-
     called nuclear option, which if invoked on the opening day of 
     the new legislative session would allow senators to change 
     the rules by majority vote. Republicans are appalled that he 
     would consider such a ploy, even though they floated the same 
     proposal when they held the majority in 2005. Back then, 
     reform was blocked when a Gang of 14 senators led 
     negotiations that kept the filibuster largely intact, and top 
     Senate Republicans are reportedly reaching out to their 
     Democratic counterparts in an effort to repeat that 
     ``success.'' We hope they fail.
       For the record, we were rooting for the Republicans to go 
     nuclear in 2005, and we feel the same way with Democrats in 
     control. This is not a venerable rule created by the Founding 
     Fathers to protect against the tyranny of the majority, but a 
     procedural nicety that has been altered many times throughout 
     history. In its current incarnation, it goes much too far and 
     has produced gridlock in Congress.
       Reid reportedly aims to return to the era of the ``talking 
     filibuster,'' when senators who wanted to hold up a bill had 
     to stand up and debate it ceaselessly, day and night. This 
     doesn't go quite far enough; Reid should also place limits on 
     the number of opportunities for senators to mount 
     filibusters, and put the burden on minority opponents by 
     forcing them to come up with 40 votes to sustain a 
     filibuster, rather than requiring the majority to drum up 60 
     votes to end it. Nonetheless, Reid's plan is a nice start, 
     requiring those who want to hold up legislation to do so 
     publicly and to use their oratorical skills to explain why 
     such a move is justified.
       Even many Democrats realize that someday they'll be in the 
     minority, and fret that a future Republican-dominated chamber 
     will use Reid's precedent to put even stricter limits on 
     filibusters. But that's no reason not to approve Reid's 
     proposal. If some future Senate majority wants to go 
     thermonuclear, that's a debate for another day.
                                  ____


                [From the Baltimore Sun, Dec. 11, 2012]

                        Ending Filibuster Abuse

       Our view: In a matter of weeks, incoming Senators can 
     strike a blow for democracy and approve badly needed reforms 
     to the chamber's dysfunctional filibuster rule.
       The announcement last week that South Carolina's Jim DeMint 
     is leaving his Senate seat to run the Heritage Foundation 
     caused some in Washington to wishfully think that perhaps the 
     move might usher in a more congenial, if not cooperative, 
     outlook in the U.S. Senate. But while Mr. DeMint set the gold 
     standard for ideological purity (denouncing his own party's 
     candidates from time to time when they failed to measure up 
     to his tea party, ultraconservative viewpoint), there are 
     still plenty in the GOP with the flexibility of a ramrod.
       The Senate's legislative logjam was well-documented long 
     before the ``fiscal cliff'' approached. Democrats may hold a 
     majority--and will even enjoy a slightly larger one next year 
     courtesy of the nation's voters--but the filibuster has 
     become so abused that it's simply become a given in the 
     chamber that passing legislation of any substance requires a 
     60-vote super-majority. That's the minimum required to invoke 
     cloture and prevent or curtail a filibuster. Even getting a 
     presidential nominee approved has become maddeningly 
     difficult, no matter how qualified

[[Page 610]]

     or uncontroversial the prospective judge or appointee may be.
                                  ____


                  [From Cleveland.com, Nov. 27, 2012]

                   Get the Senate Out of Its Own Way

                 (By the Plain Dealer Editorial Board)

       The founders clearly intended the U.S. Senate--with its 
     six-year terms, its guarantee of equal representation for 
     every state and, initially, the indirect election of its 
     membership--to be a brake on the presumably more populist 
     House of Representatives. There is no evidence the 
     Constitution's architects envisioned it as a place where 
     legislation goes to die.
       And yet that's what it has become.
       According to the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York 
     University School of Law, the Senate has passed a record-low 
     2.8 percent of bills introduced during the current 112th 
     Congress. Judicial nominations have languished on average for 
     more than six months.
       That inaction can be tied to the increased use of 
     filibusters--or even the threat of them--a tactic that, 
     operationally, means it takes a supermajority of 60 votes to 
     pass anything.
       That's not only anti-democratic--a point made in the 
     Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison--it 
     also is embarrassing. The Senate has simply stopped making 
     decisions on critical issues. Each parties uses procedural 
     tactics to frustrate the other, and as a result, the work of 
     the American people isn't getting done.
       Now some junior Democrats want to vote on changing the 
     Senate's rules when the 113th Congress opens in January, and 
     Majority Leader Harry Reid says they'll get that vote. The 
     suggested changes make sense: No more blocking motions to 
     bring a bill to the floor or convene conference committees. 
     And a requirement that senators who wish to filibuster a bill 
     once again stand and talk for hours on end to block its 
     consideration. We'd add an idea from the nonpartisan No 
     Labels group: a 90-day deadline for confirmation votes.
       Republicans who favored similar reforms when Democrats used 
     the rules to frustrate their majority during the Bush years 
     now complain that Reid would destroy the Senate's culture if 
     he rams through changes by a majority vote--and some veteran 
     Democrats, who recall being in the minority, agree. There 
     must be a way for Senate to resolve this impasse in a way 
     that respects minority views, yet allows real work to 
     proceed.
                                  ____


                  [From the Columbian, Dec. 18, 2012]

       Many changes will be required for Congress to overcome its 
     current soul-crushing and will-sapping partisan divide. But 
     even the longest journey begins with a single step, which is 
     why the Senate should enact two quick and easy reforms when 
     the 113th Congress convenes in January.
       No, this has nothing to do with the so-called ``fiscal 
     cliff,'' which is a crisis that for now is wholly owned by 
     the House of Representatives. But it is a reminder that there 
     are pressing issues in addition to the nation's financial 
     crisis. Among them is the fact that there is gridlock in the 
     Senate. Yes, the austere, august Senate, originally designed 
     as a refuge of nobility and decorum, is no more noble than 
     the sandbox fight that is the House.
       During the past six years, Republicans used the 
     parliamentary procedure known as a filibuster almost 400 
     times to waylay legislation. That is about twice as often as 
     the procedure was used during the previous six years, and it 
     included the filibustering of simple procedural motions. All 
     of this suggests the Republicans have been more interested in 
     obstructionism than productivity, and we would hope for a 
     little less paralysis and a lot more action from the next 
     Senate.
       To be sure, the filibuster is a necessary and often-
     productive method for preventing tyranny of the majority. The 
     party that is not in power must have some means to prevent 
     being bulldozed by an overzealous ruling party that wishes to 
     limit debate. But the modern filibuster isn't the filibuster 
     they taught about in your grandfather's high school Civics 
     class.
       The traditional filibuster evokes images of a courageous 
     legislator righteously standing up for his or her beliefs, 
     speaking for hours on the Senate floor and resorting to 
     reading the phone book if necessary to prevent a bill from 
     coming to a vote. Yet the modern filibuster consists of 
     little more than a notification that a filibuster is in 
     effect--and that notification can be delivered anonymously. 
     The filibuster then prevents a vote and effectively kills 
     legislation unless a cloture vote can be passed to end the 
     ``debate.'' This essentially means that 60 votes are required 
     to pass any legislation out of the Senate, providing the 
     minority party with more power than voters have willed to 
     them.
       That brings us to our proposals:
       Restore the rule requiring actual floor debate to sustain a 
     filibuster. Not only would this force senators to act on 
     their convictions rather than their partisan predilections, 
     but in a world of 24/7 media coverage it would allow voters 
     to see exactly who is holding up legislation and to consider 
     why they are doing so. If a senator wishes to read recipes in 
     order to prevent a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act, so be 
     it. But let the country watch.
       Prohibit anonymous filibusters. If a senator wishes to 
     prevent a vote on the Dream Act, fine. But he or she should 
     own it, for the whole world to see. The trick is that any 
     procedural changes governing Senate business can be passed by 
     a simple majority--if the change is made on the first day of 
     a new session. The 113th Congress will convene on Jan. 3, 
     2013, and we urge the new Senate to show that it is 
     interested in a new way of doing business--one that actually 
     welcomes debate and accountability rather than allowing 
     legislators to silently and anonymously block the people's 
     business.
       We should expect nothing less from those we send to 
     Washington.
                                  ____


                 [From the San Bernardino County Sun, 
                             Dec. 7, 2012]

                Back to the Future on Filibuster Reform

                     (By the San Jose Mercury News)

       The Senate needs to go back to the future on filibuster 
     reform. Senators should have to stand their ground and raise 
     their voices on the Senate floor, around the clock if 
     necessary, a la Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
     Washington,'' to keep legislation from coming to a vote.
       Back in the day, a minority senator had to have strong 
     personal convictions against legislation to undertake the 
     onerous, sleep-depriving filibuster, talking and talking and 
     talking to block action. Today, a senator, or a group of 
     senators, can merely threaten a filibuster, and suddenly the 
     legislation requires a 60-vote supermajority to move forward 
     to a vote. It's outrageous. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 
     wants to change the rules, and President Obama should be 
     helping to persuade the handful of Democratic senators who 
     are on the fence.
       California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of them. She told 
     the publication The Hill that she thinks it would be a 
     mistake to use the Senate's power to change the filibuster 
     rules, but she said, ``I'll listen to arguments.''
       Senate Republicans' record should be argument enough. And 
     if the parties' control of the Senate were reversed, that 
     would be just as wrong.
       Not one filibuster was recorded in the Senate until 1841. 
     The average in the decade of the Reagan and Carter years was 
     about 20 per year. Senate Republicans used the filibuster a 
     record 112 times in 2012 and have used it 360 times since 
     2007.
       They have stopped legislation that has widespread public 
     support. GOP senators blocked a major military spending bill, 
     a badly needed veterans' jobs bill and the Dream Act, all of 
     which would have passed with a majority. They stifled the 
     Disclose Act, which would require greater transparency in 
     campaign advertising. In a particularly craven abuse of the 
     system, they have halted the nominations of nearly two dozen 
     judicial appointments, causing backlogs in courts that delay 
     justice for people and businesses across the country.
       Some Democrats fear that Republicans will win control of 
     the body in 2014, when 20 Senate Democrats will have to 
     defend their seats, and they'll want the power minority 
     Republicans have now. But then Republicans could change the 
     rules.
       In ``Mr. Smith,'' an idealistic Jimmy Stewart used the 
     filibuster in an admirable way. But it has an ugly history, 
     often as a last-ditch attempt to stop overdue change. In 
     1957, Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke for a record 24 hours and 18 
     minutes against the Civil Rights Act, which he labeled 
     unconstitutional and ``cruel and unusual punishment.''
       The Senate is supposed to debate the great issues of the 
     day, not stop them from being debated. Senators should change 
     the rules and get back to work.
                                  ____


              [From the Contra Costa Times, Dec. 3, 2012]

  Filibuster Rules Must Change and Lawmakers Need To Get Back To Work

                     (Contra Costa Times editorial)

       The Senate needs to go back to the future on filibuster 
     reform. Senators should have to stand their ground and raise 
     their voices on the Senate floor, around the clock if 
     necessary, a la Jimmy Stewart in ``Mr. Smith Goes to 
     Washington,'' to keep legislation from coming to a vote.
       Back in the day, a minority senator had to have strong 
     personal convictions against legislation to undertake the 
     onerous, sleep-depriving filibuster, talking and talking and 
     talking to block action. Today, a senator, or a group of 
     senators, can merely threaten a filibuster, and suddenly the 
     legislation requires a 60-vote supermajority to move forward 
     to a vote. It's outrageous. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid 
     wants to change the rules, and President Obama should be 
     helping to persuade the handful of Democratic senators who 
     are on the fence.
       California Sen. Dianne Feinstein is one of them. She told 
     the publication The Hill that she thinks it would be a 
     mistake to use the Senate's power to change the filibuster 
     rules, but she said, ``I'll listen to arguments.''
       Senate Republicans'' record should be argument enough. And 
     if the parties' control of the Senate were reversed, that 
     would be just as wrong.
       Not one filibuster was recorded in the Senate until 1841. 
     The average in the decade of

[[Page 611]]

     the Reagan and Carter years was about 20 per year. Senate 
     Republicans used the filibuster a record 112 times in 2012, 
     and have used it 360 times since 2007.
       They have stopped legislation that has widespread public 
     support. GOP senators blocked a major military spending bill, 
     a badly needed veterans' jobs bill and the Dream Act, all of 
     which would have passed with a majority. They stifled the 
     Disclose Act, which would require greater transparency in 
     campaign advertising. In a particularly craven abuse of the 
     system, they have halted the nominations of nearly two dozen 
     judicial appointments, causing backlogs in courts that delay 
     justice for people and businesses across the country.
       Some Democrats fear that Republicans will win control of 
     the body in 2014, when 20 Senate Democrats will have to 
     defend their seats, and they'll want the power minority 
     Republicans have now. But then Republicans could change the 
     rules.
       In ``Mr. Smith,'' an idealistic Jimmy Stewart used the 
     filibuster in an admirable way. But it has an ugly history, 
     often as a last-ditch attempt to stop overdue change. In 
     1957, Sen. Strom Thurmond spoke for a record 24 hours and 18 
     minutes against the Civil Rights Act, which he labeled 
     unconstitutional and ``cruel and unusual punishment.''
       The Senate is supposed to debate the great issues of the 
     day, not stop them from being debated. Senators should change 
     the rules and get back to work.

  Mr. HARKIN. At issue in this debate is a principle at the heart of 
our representative democracy. This is from Alexander Hamilton in 
Federalist Paper No. 22:

       The fundamental maxim of republican government . . . 
     requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.

  The Framers, to be sure, put in place important checks to temper pure 
majority rule. For example, the Bill of Rights protects fundamental 
rights and liberties. Moreover, the Framers imposed structural 
requirements. For example, to become a law, a bill must pass both 
Houses of Congress and then it is subject to the President's veto 
power, and then, of course, there are always the courts and the Supreme 
Court to rule on the constitutionality of legislation.
  The Senate itself was a check on pure majority rule. As James Madison 
said:

       The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with 
     more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than 
     the popular branch.

  Meaning the House of Representatives.
  To achieve this purpose, citizens from the smallest States have the 
same number of Senators as citizens from the largest States, which I 
commented on earlier. Further, Senators are elected every 6 years, not 
every 2 years. These provisions in the Constitution are ample to 
protect minority rights and to restrain pure majority rule.
  What is not necessary and what was never intended is an 
extraconstitutional empowerment of the minority through a de facto 
requirement that a supermajority of Senators be needed to even consider 
a bill or nominee, let alone to enact a measure or confirm an 
individual for office.
  As I said earlier, the Constitution was expressly framed and ratified 
to correct the glaring defects of the Articles of Confederation. The 
Articles of Confederation required a two-thirds supermajority to pass 
any law and a unanimous consent of all States to ratify any amendment. 
Well, we know that the experience under the Articles of Confederation 
was a dismal failure, one that crippled the national government. The 
Framers were determined to remedy those defects under our new 
Constitution.
  It is not surprising that the Founders specifically rejected the idea 
that more than a majority would be needed for most decisions. In fact, 
the Framers were crystal clear about when a supermajority is needed--
five times. It is spelled out clearly in the Constitution: ratification 
of a treaty, the override of a veto, votes of impeachment, passage of a 
constitutional amendment, and the expulsion of a Member. It is 
expressly pointed out in the Constitution.
  It should be clear, especially to those who worship at the shrine of 
``original intent,'' that if the Framers wanted a supermajority for 
moving legislation or confirming a nominee, they would have done so. 
They would have written it in there. Not only did they not do so, until 
1806 the Senate had a rule that allowed for a motion for the previous 
question. That goes back to the British Parliament. It permitted a 
majority to stop debate and bring up an immediate vote.
  It was Vice President Aaron Burr, as he was leaving the Senate and 
they were reforming the rules, who said: You know, this is never used. 
We might as well do away with it because it is never used, anyway. So 
they did away with the motion for the previous question, but the point 
being that the first Congress in the first Senate enacted that. They 
had that motion for the previous question. The Founders were very clear 
why a supermajority requirement was not included. As Hamilton 
explained, a supermajority requirement would mean that a small minority 
could ``destroy the energy of government.''
  That is what Madison said. A supermajority would mean that a small 
minority could ``destroy the energy of government.'' Government would, 
in Hamilton's words, be subject to the ``pleasure, caprice or artifices 
of an insignificant, turbulent or corrupt junta.''
  James Madison, as I said, said this:

       It would no longer be the majority that would rule, the 
     power would be transferred to the minority.

  Federalist Paper No. 58. When James Madison--sort of the author of 
our Constitution--said, no, you cannot have a supermajority; if you do 
that, then the minority would rule, the power would be transferred to 
the minority--unfortunately, Madison's warning has come true. In the 
Senate today--the United States Senate--the minority, not the majority, 
controls. In today's Senate, American democracy is turned on its head. 
The minority rules, the majority is blocked. The majority has 
responsibility and accountability, but the majority lacks the power to 
govern. The minority has the power but lacks accountability and 
responsibility. This means the minority can block bills and prevent 
confirmation of officials and then turn around and blame the majority 
for not solving the Nation's problems. The minority can block popular 
legislation and then accuse the majority of being ineffective.
  I firmly believe we need to restore the tradition of majority rule to 
the Senate. Elections, I believe, should have consequences. That is why 
I developed my plan, as I said, almost 20 years ago to amend the 
standing rules to permit a decreasing majority of Senators over a 
period of days to invoke cloture on a given matter. I believe it is 
clear in the history of the Senate and of the Framers of the 
Constitution.
  There is the story, of course, that has been told many times. It may 
be a popular story, I don't know. Thomas Jefferson, of course, was not 
here for the drafting of the Constitution. He was in France. He came 
back home and looked at the Constitution. He was having breakfast with 
George Washington. As the story goes, Jefferson was upset about the 
Senate. He looked upon it as another House of Lords. So he asked 
Washington why he allowed such a thing to happen, that the Senate would 
be created. Washington supposedly said to him: Why did you pour your 
tea into the saucer? Jefferson said: To cool it down. Washington 
purportedly said: Just so. That is why we created the Senate, to cool 
things down, to slow down legislation, apart from that popular body 
over there, so there could be a more sober second look at things. What 
Washington did not say, as far as I know, was that the Senate was 
created to be a trash can where legislation could be killed and 
stopped. The idea was to slow things down, to deliberate.
  Senator George Hoar noted in 1897 the Framers designed the Senate to 
be a deliberative forum in which a ``sober second thought of the people 
might find expression.'' That is what the Senate is supposed to be 
about. But at the end of ample debate and with the right of the 
minority to be able to offer amendments and have them voted on, the 
majority should be allowed to act with an up-or-down vote on 
legislation or on a nominee. In this way, we could restore this body to 
one where government can actually function and where we can actually 
legislate.

[[Page 612]]

  I think this plan also has another advantage. Recently, the minority 
leader defended the abuse of the filibuster on the grounds that it 
forces the majority to compromise and to ``resolve the great issues of 
the moment in the middle.'' I strongly disagree with the minority 
leader. Right now, the fact is, because of the abuse of the filibuster, 
the minority has no incentive to compromise. Why should they? They can 
stop it. They have the power to block legislation without even coming 
to the floor to explain themselves. In such a world, as we have seen 
over the past few years, why would the minority come to the table to 
cut a deal? I showed my colleagues the list of all the legislation they 
have blocked the last couple years. There wasn't any overture from the 
minority to compromise. They just said: We are going to kill it; the 
majority is not going to be able to bring it up.
  The DREAM Act, for example. What are those other bills on the chart? 
The DREAM Act, and the other ones listed we wanted to bring up. Here is 
the list again. The DREAM Act. Did the Republicans say we want to 
compromise? No, they just killed it. The Bring Jobs Home Act, just kill 
it. The Paycheck Fairness Act, just kill it. Creating American Jobs and 
Ending Offshoring Act, just kill it. There was no real attempt to 
compromise because they didn't have to compromise.
  In contrast, under my proposal, where we would have 60 votes at the 
beginning and if we didn't have 60 votes, we would file another cloture 
motion and wait 3 days, then we would have another vote. Then we would 
need 57 votes. Then, if we didn't get 57, we could file another cloture 
motion and then we would wait 3 days and need 54 votes. If we didn't 
get that, we would wait 3 more days, file another cloture motion and 
only need 51 votes.
  This would be a period of about 16 days, plus 30 hours of debate, 
that would be allowed under my proposal. Here is why that would be a 
true compromise. The minority wants the right to offer amendments to be 
heard on a bill. I understand that. They should have that right. The 
most important thing to the majority leader--whether Republican or 
Democrat, whoever the majority leader may be--the most important thing 
for the majority leader is time on the floor. So someone files a bill, 
it is filibustered by the minority, they have a cloture vote, and let's 
say there are only 53 votes for it. The minority knows that at some 
point, this bill is going to come to the floor. We will get a vote on 
it. The majority leader knows that will happen, but it is going to chew 
up a couple weeks' time. The most important thing to the majority 
leader is time, so the majority leader would like to collapse that 
time. The minority leader would like to have the right to offer 
amendments, and therein is the compromise. The minority leader comes 
and says: If we can offer these amendments, we will collapse the time; 
if not, we will chew up a couple weeks' time. That provokes compromise. 
But when one side knows that with 41 votes they can absolutely trash 
can something, why should they compromise if they have the 41 votes?
  Again, I wish to emphasize another fact about my proposal. The 
Republicans have said the filibuster is necessary because Democrats 
increasingly employ procedural maneuvers to deprive them of their right 
to offer amendments. I want my colleagues to know I am sympathetic to 
that argument. That is why in the last Congress I included in my 
resolution the guaranteed right to offer germane amendments; the 
inherent right of the minority to offer those amendments.
  Unfortunately, of course, every Republican voted against my proposal, 
and that is because Republicans currently want the best of both worlds: 
the right to offer nongermane amendments and the right to obstruct, and 
that doesn't make sense.
  Again, no one should be fooled. The fact is the radicals who now hold 
sway in the Republican Party are not concerned with making the 
government or the Senate function better. That is because the current 
use of the filibuster has nothing to do with ensuring minority rights 
to debate and deliberate or the right to amend; otherwise, they could 
support either one of these proposals, either mine or Senator Merkley's 
or Senator Udall's. Nor have I ever heard one Republican come to the 
floor and unequivocally state that if the majority leader stopped 
filling the amendment tree, they would routinely vote for cloture, even 
if they opposed the underlying bill. I have not heard one of them say 
that because the current use of the filibuster has nothing to do with 
minority rights. It has everything to do with obstruction, hijacking 
democracy, and a pure power grab designed to nullify elections in which 
the public has rejected the minority's ideas and placed them in the 
minority so the majority could act.
  The minority leader, I must say, has been frank about this approach 
to governing. In a speech about the balanced budget amendment, he said 
the following. Listen to this. This is our minority leader:

       The time has come for a balanced budget amendment that 
     forces Washington to balance its books. The Constitution must 
     be amended to keep the government in check. We have tried 
     persuasion. We have tried negotiations. We have tried 
     elections. Nothing has worked.

  Think about that. In other words, when elections--when democracy 
doesn't work, what does the minority leader want? The ability to 
undermine the majority from acting in the Senate. Imagine that. We have 
tried elections and the elections didn't go their way. They have tried 
elections. So if they can't do that, then they have to do something 
else. It seems to me the ballot box ought to be determinative of what 
kind of government we have.
  Republicans have repeatedly filibustered motions to proceed. How can 
they offer amendments if we can't even bring it up? They filibuster 
judicial nominees. Of course, nominations can't be amended; again, 
belying the argument that many Republicans use because of filling the 
tree. There is no tree when it comes to nominations.
  I want to now emphasize something. I have been saying all along the 
Republicans and how they have been using the filibuster. I want to say 
unequivocally the Democrats don't come to this with clean hands, I can 
tell my colleagues. It has been both sides. It depends on who is in the 
majority and who is in the minority. That is all it depends on. As I 
said earlier when I first brought this up in the 1990s, I warned then 
of an escalating arms race. I have been in the Senate long enough to 
have five different changes in the Senate between majority and 
minority, and every single time the number of filibusters goes up--
every time. Democrats say to Republicans: You filibustered 30 times 
last Congress. We are now in power; we will filibuster you 60 times. 
The Democrats get kicked out and the Republicans come back and they 
say: They did it 60 times and we will do it 100 times, on and on and 
on.
  It is akin to an arms race. So any time I use the word ``Republican'' 
generically, we can just substitute minority. I don't care what 
minority, Democrats or Republicans. It doesn't make any difference. The 
minority in the Senate should not have the absolute power to trash can 
something. It should have the power to slow things down, to debate, to 
amend, to deliberate, but eventually the majority--the people whom the 
people at the ballot box in this country have put in charge to govern--
should at some point be allowed to govern. If I am in the minority, all 
I want is the right to be able to debate, have my views heard, offer 
amendments.
  I might also say this: The right of the minority is not to win. The 
minority doesn't have the right to win, but it sure has the right to 
offer amendments and to be heard and to be able to try to sway people. 
I have been in the Senate when we have had amendments and, amazingly 
enough, we get some Republicans and some Democrats and it passes, even 
though some Democrats and some Republicans oppose it. That very rarely 
happens any longer.
  Again, I have been talking mostly about Republicans generically, and 
that is because they are in the minority now. I said the same thing 
about Democrats when the Democrats were

[[Page 613]]

in the minority. This is not a minority right. It is nothing less than 
a form of tyranny by the minority. Who said that? That was Senator 
Frist, the Republican leader, again, in November of 2004, when he was 
in the majority and we were in the minority: ``This filibuster is 
nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority.'' He was 
right. It just depends on who is in the minority and who is in the 
majority.
  That is why we have to make a change. It could be Democrats, it could 
be Republicans, it could be--even a bipartisan coalition, if it is a 
minority, a small minority.
  As I said, I don't think there is anything radical about what I have 
introduced. As I noted, the filibuster was not in the Constitution. It 
was rejected by the Founders. There is nothing sacred about requiring 
60 votes to end debate. The Senate has adopted rules and laws that 
prevent the filibuster in numerous circumstances. Get that. This Senate 
has adopted rules that forbid the filibuster in certain cases. The 
budget cannot be filibustered, war powers cannot be filibustered, 
international trade acts--imagine that. International trade acts cannot 
be filibustered. Congressional Review Act, disapproval of regulations, 
cannot be filibustered. So if the filibuster is so sacred, why have we 
carved out exceptions for international trade acts?
  Moreover, article I, section 5, clause 2 of the Constitution, the 
rules of proceedings clause, specifies: ``Each House may determine the 
rules of its proceedings.'' Again, my resolution, far from being 
unprecedented, stands squarely within the tradition of updating Senate 
rules as appropriate to fostering more effective and functioning 
legislation. For example, beginning in 1917, the Senate passed four 
significant amendments to its standing rules, the latest in 1975, to 
narrow, to shape the filibuster. In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd made 
clear that the Constitution allows a majority of the Senate to change 
its rules. He said:

     [t]he Constitution, in Article I, section 5, specifies that 
     each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. Now we 
     are at the beginning of a Congress.

  Senator Byrd said:

       This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand 
     of the past . . . It is my belief--which has been supported 
     by rulings of Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of 
     the Senate in essence upholding the power and right of a 
     majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at 
     the beginning of a new Congress.

  Senator Byrd: ``This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead 
hand of the past.'' He said that. `` . . . power and right of a 
majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the 
beginning of a new Congress.''
  Again, this was also the opinion of the Republican Party. As I 
mentioned, in 2005 the Republican policy committee, chaired by our 
former colleague Senator Kyl, stated:

       The Senate has always had, and repeatedly has exercised, 
     the constitutional power to change the Senate's procedures 
     through a majority vote.

  That is a statement from the Republican policy committee in 2005.
  Those who say this is some kind of nuclear option, blow up the 
Senate, all these terms about nuclear options--no, it is not a nuclear 
option. As Senator Byrd said and as Senator Kyl said, ``The Senate has 
always had, and repeatedly has exercised, the constitutional power to 
change the Senate's procedures through a majority vote.''
  There are those now--I must admit, some in my own party on this side 
of the aisle in the Senate--who say that in order to change the rules, 
we have to have a two-thirds vote. Now, why is that? Well, because some 
Senate in the past set down the rules. They said that in order to 
change these rules, you need a two-thirds vote. Are we bound by that 
dead hand of the past? Not at all. Not at all. Each new Congress--each 
time the Senate convenes after a new Congress forms--can by majority 
vote change its own rules. It is not a nuclear option at all.
  To be very clear, I opposed the Frist motion at that time in 2005, 
and I made it clear why--because they were attempting to change the 
rules in the middle of a Congress.
  While I believe the Congress has the power--I'm sorry, it was the 
Republican policy committee. It is at the beginning of a Congress.
  Senator Byrd said:

       It is my belief--which has been supported by rulings of 
     Vice Presidents of both parties and by votes of the Senate in 
     essence upholding the power and right of the majority of the 
     Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of 
     a new Congress.

  I mean, you can't go changing rules every other week. How do you know 
what is going to happen? But at the beginning of a Congress every 2 
years, the Senate has the right by a majority vote to set down the 
rules, and you operate by those rules for 2 years. What Senator Frist 
was trying to do was change it in the middle of the game. Well, if you 
go down that pathway, my goodness, the majority could change the rules 
next week and the week after, do it one time one week and one time the 
next. How would you ever know what the rules of the road were? The only 
reason I opposed the Frist motion at that time was because it was 
changing it in the middle of a Congress.
  Here is a letter from numerous constitutional scholars, including 
Charles Fried, Solicitor General under President Reagan, and Michael 
McConnell, a former Federal judge nominated by President George W. 
Bush. These scholars make clear that at the beginning of a new 
Congress, a majority of the Senate can change its rules. Here is the 
letter, and it reads in part:

       Some, however, have sought to elevate the debate to 
     constitutional dimensions by suggesting that it is 
     institutionally improper for a new Senate to alter the 
     Senate's rules by majority vote because the internal 
     procedures adopted by prior Senates have required a two-third 
     majority to allow a vote on a motion to alter the rules.
       With respect, such a concern confuses the power to change 
     the Senate rules during a session with the unquestioned 
     constitutional power of each incoming Senate to fix its own 
     rules unencumbered by the decisions of past Senates. The 
     standing two-thirds requirement for altering the Senate's 
     rules is a sensible effort at preventing changes to the rules 
     in the midst of a game. It cannot, however, prevent the 
     Senate, at the beginning of a new game, from adopting rules 
     deemed necessary to permit the just, efficient and orderly 
     operations of the 113th Senate. . . .

  This letter from Charles Fried, Solicitor General under President 
Reagan, and Michael McConnell, a former Federal judge nominated by 
President George W. Bush, states:

       We agree with the overwhelming consensus of the academic 
     community that no preexisting internal procedural rule can 
     limit the constitutional authority of each new Senate to 
     determine by majority vote its own rules of procedure.
       We agree with the overwhelming consensus of the academic 
     community that no preexisting internal procedural rule can 
     limit the constitutional authority of each new Senate to 
     determine by majority vote its own rules of procedure.

  That is very profound. So it is not just me as a Democrat. Here are 
two Republicans, very prominent Republicans, saying the same thing.
  The last significant rules change, I might point out, was in 1975, 
when the number of votes necessary for cloture was set at 60. There is 
only one Senator today--Senator Leahy--who was in the Senate in 1975 to 
vote on that current version of rule XXII. No one else was here then. 
We have had how many different Senates since that time, and yet that 
dead hand of the past continues to rule.
  Mr. President, I would like to emphasize that I firmly agree that 
amending the standing rules is necessary. Informal agreements are 
insufficient to return the Senate to functionality. We had this last 
time--sort of a handshake agreement to make the Senate a better 
institution through fewer filibusters, procedural delays, et cetera. 
Looking back over the last 2 years, I don't think anyone would agree 
that this gentleman's agreement was very effective.
  The minority leader recently stated that the reforms being advocated 
by me and others are being done with the ``purpose of consolidating 
power and further marginalizing the minority voice.'' Nothing--
nothing--could be further from the truth. I want to be clear that the 
reforms I advocate are not about one party or one agenda gaining an 
unfair advantage. It is about the Senate as an institution operating 
more fairly, effectively, and democratically. Those of us who went to 
law school all remember that if you

[[Page 614]]

come into the court of equity, you have to come in with clean hands. I 
hope that I have clean hands since I first offered this when I was in 
the minority. I was in the minority.
  Again, I would point out that it belies belief that sometime in the 
future, Democrats won't be in the minority again. It is going to 
happen, and it should. No one party should rule here for long periods 
of time. We need to have that kind of change. But what we need is the 
ability of whoever is in the majority to be able to govern. That is 
what the people elected them to do.
  Well, the truth is that we do not function here. We do not function 
in the way we are supposed to under the Constitution--something both 
Democrats and Republicans should care about. What was never envisioned 
and what should not be allowed to continue is a system where bills are 
prevented from being debated or the idea that a small minority can 
block legislation or nominees without even coming to the floor to 
explain themselves.
  Finally, there is one other red herring that keeps coming up, and 
that is that somehow the reform I am proposing or any reform will 
somehow make the Senate like the House. I have heard that from Members 
from the other side of the aisle--oh, we will just become like the 
House of Representatives.
  I have to ask the question, since when did the Senate become defined 
by rule XXII, the cloture rule? Why does that define the Senate? It 
seems to me the Senate was designed in the Constitution where we have 
two Senators from every State, small and large; where we are reelected 
every 6 years, not every 2; where the Senate has certain functions on 
treaties and on nominations that the House of Representatives doesn't 
have; and where the Constitution is very clear; there are five times 
where the Senate must have a supermajority to act.
  Again, I would point out that the Senate will, by its very nature--
even under my proposed reform or even that of Mr. Udall or Mr. 
Merkley--still operate based on unanimous consent, and each Senator 
will continue to understand that maintaining good relationships with 
all Senators, working hard to become experts in issues, and drafting 
legislation and amendments will remain the essence of what it means to 
be a Senator, not the ability to filibuster.
  To those who say we have become more like the House, I say that is 
not going to happen. Well, it could. Sure it could. Some future Senate 
could wipe out all the rules--wipe out all the rules. Now, they 
couldn't do away with the constitutional aspect. They couldn't make us 
elected every 2 years, for example, but take away the function of the 
Senate in terms of treaties, impeachments, and things like that, sure. 
Any future Congress can change the rules.
  I think that because of the nature of the Senate, the way it is 
established, because of the way it is set in the Constitution--two from 
every State, not popularly elected every 2 years--that means Senators 
will have to work with one another. They will have to exhibit that kind 
of comity--c-o-m-i-t-y, not comedy--of recognizing that each Senator 
should have the right to amend, to debate, to discuss the question, to 
offer amendments.
  Again, we were told that somehow the filibuster--this idea that the 
filibuster somehow defines the Senate, again, until 1970 there was 
approximately one filibuster per Congress. Did anyone ever suggest then 
that because there was not the rapid use of a filibuster, the Senate 
was no different from the House? Was the Senate of Clay, Wagner, 
Vandenberg, Johnson, and Taft just another House of Representatives? 
Were the giants in the Senate who came before us--the Daniel Websters, 
the Henry Clays, the Robert Tafts, the Hubert Humphreys--were they any 
less a Senator because they were not defined by a de facto 60-vote 
supermajority requirement?
  I believe the Senate should embrace George Washington's vision of 
this body, if that story is true about him and Jefferson and the saucer 
and the tea. The Senate was set up to slow things down to ensure proper 
debate and deliberation. That is what the Founders intended. That is 
what we have advocated and I advocate. We will not become the House. As 
one author has noted, however, the increasing use of the filibuster has 
converted the Senate from the saucer George Washington intended into a 
deep freeze and a dead weight.
  At the heart of this debate is a central question: Do we believe in 
democracy?
  Republicans and, sadly, many of my colleagues in my own caucus 
repeatedly warn about advancing these reforms because Democrats will 
find themselves in the minority one day and we may want to stop 
something. Well, I am sorry, I don't fear democracy. If the people of 
this country at the ballot box put the Republicans in charge of the 
Senate, the Republicans ought to have the right to govern. We should 
have the right to be able to offer amendments and debate and 
deliberate, but we should not have the right to absolutely obstruct 
what the majority is doing. Issues of public policy should be decided 
at the ballot box, not by the manipulation of archaic procedural rules.
  The truth is that neither party should be afraid of majority rule, 
afraid of allowing a majority of the people's representatives to work 
its will. After ample protections for minority rights, the majority in 
the Senate, whether Democratic, Republican, or a bipartisan coalition, 
duly elected by the American people, should be allowed to carry out its 
agenda, to govern, and to be held accountable at the ballot box.
  I wish to conclude by noting that it is often said--and it is true--
that the power of a Senator comes not by what we can do but by what we 
can stop. That is true. The Senate is a body in which one individual 
Senator has an enormous amount of power to stop things. No one wants to 
give up that power. But I believe it is time for us Senators to take a 
look at ourselves. For the good of the Senate and, more importantly, 
for the good of the country, we need to give up that power--not all of 
it but a little bit of it. I am willing to give it up.
  All Senators should have fundamental confidence in democracy and the 
good sense of the American people. We must have confidence in our 
ability to make our case to the people and to prevail at the ballot 
box. We must not be afraid of democracy. I am not afraid of it. I, 
quite frankly, believe my ideas, my support of certain measures, is 
more widely supported by the American people than my friends on the 
other side of the aisle. They believe just the opposite. That is good. 
That is the way we should operate here in grinding out legislation and 
then at the ballot box every 2 years.
  Healthy debate is about the direction of the country and which way we 
should go. We should have the confidence--the Republicans should have 
their own confidence and we should have our own confidence--in our 
ability to make our case to the people and to prevail at the ballot 
box. I say: Don't be afraid. Don't be afraid of the American people and 
their inherent ability to make wise and just decisions. Things may go 
awry one time or another time, but in the great history of our country, 
the American people--as Winston Churchill once said: After we try 
everything else, we always do the right thing--the American people make 
the right decisions. Sometimes I may not agree with it, but then it is 
my business to go out and try to convince my constituents and others 
they made the wrong choice; that we should be going in a different 
direction.
  That is the essence of democracy, not the power of me, a Senator from 
Iowa, being able to stop what the majority wants to do; not me, just 
with a handful of other people saying: I don't care what they want to 
do; we can stop it, put it in the trash can.
  All I want is the right to debate, to discuss, to be able to offer 
amendments that are germane to the legislation. So, again, I am not 
afraid of living with these reforms, both as a member of the majority 
party and as a member of the minority party, which I am sure we will 
once again become at some point in the future.

[[Page 615]]

  So, Mr. President, as I have over the last, I guess it makes 17 years 
now, I come to the floor knowing that my proposal will not win. Well, 
it hasn't thus far. And that is all right. A lot of times people say: 
Why do you offer it? You know you are going to lose.
  I offer it because I believe so deeply in this, and I believe 
sometimes you just have to stand for what you believe in, and you have 
to make your case as forcefully, as intelligently as possible. I hope I 
have done that both in my words and in my statement and in the past 
debates I have had on this Senate floor that occur about every 2 years 
when the Senate convenes.
  I don't carry this beyond the first day of legislative business. I 
don't think we should. If we set the rules down on the first day, after 
that I don't think we should be changing the rules in the middle of the 
game. But we are still in the first legislative day, and I think now is 
the time to do this.
  Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I know our distinguished 
minority and majority leaders have been working hard on some reforms on 
the filibuster. I am not privy to all of that. I don't know exactly all 
the details of it, although it was discussed in our policy caucus 
today. But I will say this about it--at least what I understand to be 
the essence of the reforms that our majority leader has worked so hard 
on--it is better than what we have right now. From what I understand--
and I don't know all the details--it is a step in the right direction.
  I want to make it clear that I might vote for it--as soon as I find 
out exactly what it all is. I might vote for it because it is probably 
better than what we have right now. But I just want to be clear that my 
vote for that does not signify that I prefer that over doing away with 
this absolute 60-vote threshold because under the reformed rules that I 
understand are being promulgated by the majority and minority leaders, 
we still have a 60-vote threshold on anything except for the motion to 
proceed.
  So on any amendment, any bill, we still have 60 votes. So a small 
group, a handful, can still put bills and amendments and everything 
else in the trash can. I just fundamentally disagree with that. So if I 
do vote for that--like I say, I probably will--it is because it looks 
like it might be better than what we have now.
  I know it is tough. I do not denigrate for one minute the effort and 
the work of the majority leader and the minority leader in trying to 
reach these agreements. These are tough things. I just think we have to 
be more forthright in constantly--every 2 years--going after this idea 
that somehow this dead hand of the past that says we need a two-thirds 
vote to change the rules and that somehow that controls us--it 
shouldn't; it doesn't control us--that somehow we have to adhere to 
this 60-vote threshold forever. That shouldn't control us.
  Every 2 years, according to the Constitution, according to Senator 
Byrd, according to constitutional scholars of both parties, we have the 
constitutional right at the beginning of a Congress to change our rules 
with a majority vote. That is what we ought to be about doing.
  So, Mr. President, I look forward to seeing the proposed rules reform 
the majority leader and minority leader have been working on. Again, I 
know it is tough to work these things out, but I think this body has to 
move ahead and do away with that dead hand of the past and provide for 
rules changes that allow us to function, that allow the majority to 
act, with the right of the minority to debate, to slow things down and 
to amend--but not the right to win. I have never said the minority has 
to have the right to win. But the minority ought to have the right to 
make their voices and their votes heard in this body.
  That is what my proposal would do. Again, as I said, I don't expect 
it to win, but I want people to be able to express themselves if they 
believe we should move in that direction, and I offer it in that vein. 
I know there are those who believe somehow that we have to abide by 
that two-thirds vote, by this dead hand of the past. I just don't 
believe so.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. King). The Senator from Maryland.

                          ____________________